LaValle: Too soon for gay marriage
But LaValle says he will make push for equal rights
8 comments below
He may have helped vote down New York's gay marriage bill last week, but state Sen. Kenneth LaValle vowed to lead the effort to secure civil unions.
"There's been a lot of progress on the part of society," with regard to the acceptance of same-sex relationships, Mr. LaValle (R-Port Jefferson) told Times/Review Newspapers last Friday. But he added that it's his duty to reflect the feelings of the people he represents and "it's definitely a divided constituency."
Of Long Island's nine state senators, only former Brookhaven Town Supervisor Brian Foley (D-Blue Point) and Craig Johnson (D-Port Washington) voted to approve the bill. No Republicans in the Senate crossed party lines to support the legislation, as 38 senators voted against the bill. (See Editorial)
"I have said that there should be a transitioning and that the next step should be civil union," Mr. LaValle said.
Regina Calcaterra, Mr. LaValle's Democratic opponent for the Senate seat in 2010, chastised the senator for failing to explain his vote on the Senate floor and taking 48 hours to make a statement. His explanation is no better than the 1896 Plessy v Ferguson decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court permitted "separate but equal" racial segregation in places of public accommodation, Ms. Calcaterra said.
"Separate but equal does not provide equality," she said. "Marriage equality is about families, and the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community has been creating families for years without the protections afforded under marriage." (See Julie Lane's column)
Gov. David Paterson had been a major supporter of the bill, even calling a special session earlier this year for senators to act on it. That session was derailed due to a power struggle caused by two Democrats who announced they would begin caucusing with the GOP.
Sen. LaValle said it was a tough decision for him because there are passionate people on both sides of the issue.
"What I have heard from a lot of people is that we are just not ready for it," he said, acknowledging that to approve a same-sex marriage bill would be "too much, too soon" for much of society. "It could happen someday in the future, but just not right now."
Last Wednesday's rejection was the second major defeat in recent weeks for gay-marriage advocates in the nation. In November, voters in Maine rejected a proposal to allow same-sex marriage.
Gay couples are legally permitted to marry in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont, and a New Hampshire law takes effect in January. A vote on gay marriage in New Jersey is scheduled for today.
New York does recognize same-sex marriages validly entered into in other states.
Mr. Alessi said that while he was glad the Senate voted on the issue after avoiding it for so long, he was disappointed with the outcome and viewed it as a setback for equal rights.
"If homosexuality is just as natural as being a left-handed person, it's not a choice," Mr. Alessi said. "It's what someone is and to block someone from what is an equal right for something that there is no choice over, like the color of your skin, then you have an equal rights issue. It's very disappointing in this day and age that equal rights are continuing to be violated."
Mr. LaValle said there are people in society who are never going to accept same-sex marriage.
"They believe there's a religious underpinning to it," he said. "But for a lot of other people, they are simply uneasy about it."
Asked what would have been the pitfalls of an approved same-sex marriage bill, the senator said only, "People just have different views."
North Fork Women for Women Fund board president Sandra Benedetto called Mr. LaValle's vote "unfortunate and short-sighted." It often takes legislation to lead the way to changing peoples' attitudes, she said.
"It's unfortunate that when it comes to peoples' civil rights and equality in marriage, it's a matter of whether people are comfortable or not," Ms. Benedetto said.
gparpan@northshoresun.com peggy@northshoresun.com
The Suffolk Times is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The Suffolk Times does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not The Suffolk Times. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Service and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
8 comments found
Senator LaValle : 6/1/2010
Senator LaValle, I'm a 22 year old proud gay man that has resided in your district my entire life. My family, friends, co-workers, classmates all could not have been more accepting and supportive of not only my orientation, but also my right to be an equal member of this community. Your opponent is absolutely right, "Separate is NOT equal," and I will be doing everything in my power to make Ms. Calcaterra, the more fit, intelligent, in-touch and progressive candidate, the next State Senator for the East End.
Senator LaValle, all the assembly members in your district, including Republican Fred Theile voted yes. Our Congressman Tim Bishop has been a strong supporter of the LGBT community for years. A majority of East Enders (55-60%) depending which polls one looks at) support full marriage rights. Given this, as well as New York States traditional respect for diversity and tolerance, puts YOU at odds with
Senator LaValle, you're a 32 year entrenched incumbent obviously planning to retire in the near future. Yet again, you took the easy comfortable way out on this issue. Your legacy will forever be marked by standing on the wrong side of history at this crucial moment. Local, spineless officials like YOU are the reason so many of us younger East-Enders are leaving the district in such large amounts.
You let myself and all the other members of Senate District 1's LGBT community down today Senator, and we shall not forget this. We're ready for marriage, and so is a majority of your constituents. Shame shame SHAME on you.
Senator LaValle : 12/11/2009
I'm sure many of the senator's constituents feel that interracial marriages, like that of our President's parents, is something they are uncomfortable with. I'm sure many his constituents who are veterans and served during the intergration of the armed forces were uncomfortable about that. Senator, lead or follow. Separate is not equal. You are on the wrong side of this issue, and time will be your judge. Perhaps you need to get to know some gay folks, and get a firsthand knowledge of how this vote for discrimination affects real people. Accept responsibility for your decision, your vote and don't scapegoat your constituency. Man up, as it is said.
Senator Lavalle : 12/11/2009
So Senator Lavalle thinks taxpaying gays Americans don't deserve equal treatment and rights as guaranteed under the US Constitution. How "generous" of him to offer civil unions. Why doesn't he change HIS marriage into a civil union if it's the same? Why does he and all the other BIGOTS hate America? If they don't like our nation's foundind document that gaurantees equal treatment to ALL Americans, why doesn't he and his ilk move to a theocracy like Iran? Why do they hate America?
Same Sex Marriage : 12/11/2009
"Fom the beginning of time it was understood as a sacred union between a man and a woman and every culture since the beginning has understood that."
With all due respect I disagree and would suggest you do some research, starting with the book "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality" by John Boswell. It's been some years since I read the book but I recall that Boswell argues that the early church indeed had a liturgy for the union, or "marriage" between men. Marriage as state institution most certainly does not date to the beginning, as you believe, but rather evolved as an institution for the passing of material items. The Biblical concept was more the idea of betrothal, and government has no business being in the marriage business for anyone, straight or gay. Let the religious institutions sanction marriage however they see fit, but if government wants to sanction and bestow legal advantages to straight marriages, it has a moral imperative to do the same to same sex marriages. In 50 or 100 years when all marriages are commonly accepted, they will look back at this fight and wonder how there could ever have been any controversey, much how we look at the fight over slavery now and wonder how anyone could have justified owning slaves, or how anyone could have ever wanted to deny women the vote.
: 12/11/2009
Thank you Sen Lavalle for not making a mockery of an institution ordained by God (not an invention of mankind). From the beginning of time it was understood as a sacred union between a man and a woman and every culture since the beginning has understood that.
: 12/11/2009
Thank you Senator LaValle.
Give me a date : 12/10/2009
We always here this - it's too soon. Just wait awhile longer. People aren't ready.
Well, give me a date. Tell me when you will finally be "ready." Let me let go of this awful, gut wrenching feeling every time rights are taken away from my community. Every time the lies and money flow in and bigotry wins the day.
Just tell me when, and I will let it all go and wait for the day.
It's time NY. : 12/10/2009
Shame on NY, but kudos to CT where we just celebrated the one year anniversary of our marriage equality law.
And congrats to all the couples coming to CT to wed from all across the country, many of whom have been together for 20, 30 and 40 years!
Onward to equality,
Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
Washington, Connecticut, USA
