OFF TOPIC: This Is What Your Brain Looks Like On Evidence...

12:56 Jun 26, 2011 36

I know this is waaay off-topic for a culture blog, but long-time Public Address readers know that I'm a big fan of same-sex marriage and epically ambiguous about the separate but equal-ish (more or less) status quo for same-sex couples created by the Civil Union Act 2004.

So, it should come as no surprise that the passage of a same-sex marriage bill through the New York State Senate by a 33-29 vote (and with the support of four members of the GOP majority) makes me a very happy camper indeed.

But the speech made by one of those Republicans, Mark J. Grisanti -- a married, devout Catholic from a very conservative district up-state who campaigned against same-sex marriage -- made me tear up.

I shouldn't be so moved by hearing a politician saying that 1) evidence changed his mind, 2) he was just wrong and 3) would accept the consequences of doing the right thing. (And the usual suspects on the far-right have already declared war on the GOP legislators who voted for the bill.) But there you go, and here we are.

I'll leave you to compare and contrast with with this tag-team fudge 'n' waffle (ugh) Broadsides column from Nikki Kaye and Jacinda Adern in the Herald last week. It's not really good enough to say you'd vote for some hypothetical bill you know will never happen; but when a right-wing Republican is schooling the MP for Auckland Central (and her Labour challenger) in what political courage, and respect for gay and lesbian families, looks like? Ponsonby, we have a problem.

Until then, here's The Fifth Dimension's cover of Laura Nyro's Wedding Bell Blues on Top of the Pops. And, no, before you ask - you're probably not on drugs.

36 responses to this post

First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last

Jeffrey Simpson, 13:52 Jun 26, 2011

I was moved by the way he admitted that initially he had opposed same-sex marriage for the simple reason he was raised Catholic and that was the done thing. He had never questioned or thought about it.

Christchurch • Since Mar 2010 • 3 posts Report
andin, 14:46 Jun 26, 2011

From the NOM blurb
““The New York Republican Party is dysfunctional. ”
Yep irony leaps out at one. What they call dys is a long overdue new normal, it has been for a while now I’d say. The glacial pace of social change as it seems each person has to decide, OK I can cope and change my mind. Lucky he was educated, and able to determine facts from bullshit.
Perhaps he could recommend a reading list for some of his fellow countrymen.
And I’ll leave it there.

ETA Laura Nyro songs and 5th Dimension ....choice.

raglan • Since Mar 2007 • 1891 posts Report
Rex Widerstrom, 17:24 Jun 26, 2011

Tearing up here, too... though more out of frustration. Which is not to deny the simple power and honesty of Senator Grisanti's speech. But this is the second such example I've stumbled upon in the debate in a single State legislature in the US. The other was GoP Senator Roy McDonald who said:
Am I comfortable with my vote? It's changed. I was raised in a conservative household. Would my parents be OK with my vote? Yes. The only thing they would require of me is do the right thing. Do what you think is appropriate. That's it.
And more pointedly, in a series of statements (some via reporters' tweets) that choked me up because I've yearned to hear this form of words used by a NZ legislator:
You get to the point where you evolve in your life where everything isn't black and white, good and bad, and you try to do the right thing.
You might not like that. You might be very cynical about that. Well, f--- it, I don't care what you think. I'm trying to do the right thing.
I think I'm doing the right thing, it's the appropriate thing, and if the public respects that, I'm grateful. If they don't... then I move on...
I'm tired of blowhard radio people, blowhard television people, blowhard newspapers. They can take the job & shove it."
Is it that hard to lift your nose from the trough (or, in the example cited in the post, the pants-wetting thrill of being "politics' glamour girls" or whatever the hell schtick the media is running) and just do the right thing?
If you're elected in NZ the answer, it seems, is "Yes".

Perth, Western Australia • Since Nov 2006 • 157 posts Report
Russell Brown, 17:45 Jun 26, 2011

Craig, we agreed to differ on civil unions: they seemed a useful increment to me, a way of demonstrating that the world would not not be ended by some measure of relationship equality. Something achievable then and there. I do think their impact has been overwhelmingly positive. We do have a new normal now.
But my immediate thought on hearing of the New York vote was that it was time for us here to just finish the job. It’s past time for marriage equality.

Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report
Kumara Republic, 18:05 Jun 26, 2011

Senator Grisanti is a rare bird in this day and age of culture war piggery. It also indicates the two-party duopoly in the US no longer fits today's political realities.

The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5446 posts Report
R A Hurley, 18:24 Jun 26, 2011

"I have read studies about civil unions which show they do not work. It causes chaos."
WTF!? Peer-reviewed journal articles or it didn’t happen…

Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 63 posts Report
Craig Ranapia, in reply to Russell Brown, 19:09 Jun 26, 2011

But my immediate thought on hearing of the New York vote was that it was time for us here to just finish the job. It’s past time for marriage equality.
Quite - and what really pissed me off about that Herald column is that Nikki and Jacinda are decent people. They know there's no reasonable or rational argument against real marriage equality but still keep trying to have a bob each way. And I'm cynical enough to think it's about political cowardice. As I've said on this topic before: You can't win the fight if you're not even going to get off your knees. And, dare I say it, could it be possible that politicians are actually underestimating the great unwashed electorate?

North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report
Chris Waugh, 20:56 Jun 26, 2011

I can't help but think the best way would be to take the French/Chinese system of the only legally recognised union being the civil ceremony and marry it (yes, fully intended) with the NZ situation. Make it so that all legally registered unions are civil unions and open to all couples composed of consenting adults, and marriage is legally defined as a cultural/religious ceremony with no legal status.

Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 2401 posts Report
Lea Barker, 03:45 Jun 27, 2011

You have a good idea there, Chris. Perhaps it is only a matter of time before same-sex marriages will be legal. In France, a January 2011 TNS-Sofres poll found support was 74% among those under 35 years. (From Wikipedia) That generational weighting towards support is found in many countries, including the United States. (May 2011 Gallup poll)

Oakland, CA • Since Nov 2006 • 45 posts Report
Lea Barker, 04:27 Jun 27, 2011

Just found this article on Salon about how the US is an "outlier" with respect to the age qualifications the Constitution sets in order to run for federal office--25 to qualify for membership in the House of Representatives, 30 to run for the Senate, and 35 to become President.
Perhaps I'm being too hopeful about the age thing!

Oakland, CA • Since Nov 2006 • 45 posts Report
Craig Ranapia, in reply to Lea Barker, 07:35 Jun 27, 2011

You have a good idea there, Chris. Perhaps it is only a matter of time before same-sex marriages will be legal.
Well, yes – up to a point. But you know something, it’s never going to happen until someone shows a grain of Fran Wilde’s ovarian fortitude and says “the time is now ”. I’ve (kind of politely) suggested to Nikki and Jacinda on Twitter that after the election there’s nothing preventing one (or both - don't care who) putting a marriage equality bill in the members’ bill ballot. I’m even pretty sure Idiot/Savant has one he prepared earlier. :)

North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report
andin, in reply to Craig Ranapia, 08:09 Jun 27, 2011

And, dare I say it, could it be possible that politicians are actually underestimating the great unwashed electorate?
Nah, although it would be nice to think people are getting smarter, more worldy even.
All they've done is overestimate their nous and political acumen.

raglan • Since Mar 2007 • 1891 posts Report
Kyle Matthews, 11:53 Jun 27, 2011

Well, yes – up to a point. But you know something, it’s never going to happen until someone shows a grain of Fran Wilde’s ovarian fortitude and says “the time is now ”.
Politically, do we think it matters who does it? Should it be a straight, married, National Party female? It seems unfortunate, but it feels likely that the personal life of the person who puts it forward may impact upon whether it passes, and how nasty it gets getting through.

Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report
Idiot Savant, in reply to Craig Ranapia, 12:57 Jun 27, 2011

I’m even pretty sure Idiot/Savant has one he prepared earlier. :)
I do indeed:
http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2009/05/for-when-time-finally-comes.html
So, Nikki, Jacinda, how about it? Either of you got a spine?

Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report
Idiot Savant, in reply to Kyle Matthews, 13:04 Jun 27, 2011

Politically, do we think it matters who does it? Should it be a straight, married, National Party female? It seems unfortunate, but it feels likely that the personal life of the person who puts it forward may impact upon whether it passes, and how nasty it gets getting through.
It will get nasty regardless. The bigots will put up their godly howl again, just as they did over Homosexual Law Reform, Civil Unions, and child beating. But it has to be done, and the sooner the better.
As for tactics, a National Party sponsor will likely result in more votes than a Labour one, in that National MPs won't just be able to vote against it because it wasn't put up by them (whereas Labour will naturally support it, with a few notable exceptions, few of whose minds would be changed by loyalty to a fellow MP). It may also be easier to get a National MP to actually put it up; Labour I think requires member's bills to be approved by caucus (which is both sensible and a cowards veto).

Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report
Don Christie, 14:07 Jun 27, 2011

I agree, this is very good news, and a great speech. Good on Mayor Bloomberg for paying his fellow Republicans to do some researchiness.

Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1645 posts Report
Andre Alessi, 14:22 Jun 27, 2011

It's a shame the Catholic Church in New Zealand (often a proponent of real social justice in so many areas) hasn't chosen to stand up to Head Office on this topic.

Devonport, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 864 posts Report
Craig Ranapia, in reply to Kyle Matthews, 21:28 Jun 27, 2011

Politically, do we think it matters who does it? Should it be a straight, married, National Party female?
YMMV, but I'm not insensible to the fact that the straight, married women (one National, one Labour) who had their names on the Homosexual Law Reform and Human Rights Amendment Bills have been pretty good friends to teh gayz. But in the case of the New York Marriage Equality Bill, it was pretty hard to run the "oh, there the homosexuals and their agenda" when you had straight people on the front line.

North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report
Russell Brown, 21:58 Jun 27, 2011

Just in case anyone's feeling too flushed with hope, Bob McCoskrie has Key and Goff for his election-year forum:
http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/forum
One of the guest speakers is Jim Wallace of the Australian Christian Lobby. Ugh.

Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report
Craig Ranapia, in reply to Russell Brown, 09:05 Jun 28, 2011

I’ll see your Ugh and raise you an Eww… Methinks it’s time for Messers Key and Goff to start hearing from some families (and registered electors) that Bob most definitely does not speak for – and I think we’re both in that distinguished company. :)

North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report
BenWilson, 10:04 Jun 28, 2011

I shouldn't be so moved by hearing a politician saying that 1) evidence changed his mind, 2) he was just wrong and 3) would accept the consequences of doing the right thing.
Except that it so seldom happens, and even more seldom for something so important. What I liked was the genuine ring it had to it, that he was not waxing lyrical for gay rights, but rather more clearly in turmoil, choosing to back his own mind and research, and his fondest principles against an internal prejudice that had clearly been lifelong. That's really hard work, and admirable when you see it done, in some ways more admirable than people who never had to struggle for such an insight. It's extremely powerful, that kind of honesty.

Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report
Emma Hart, in reply to Russell Brown, 11:56 Jun 28, 2011

We do have a new normal now.
Facebook occasionally shows me little windows into the minds of people in demographics I just don't normally run across. What I've noticed lately? People in their late teens/early twenties who are sure we already have same-sex marriage.
Polling. I want some fucking polling on this.
Politically, do we think it matters who does it? Should it be a straight, married, National Party female?
Whoever it is - or to encourage someone to have the courage to front it - we should back them. Loudly and in a cross-party fashion. Because I'm thinking that, from very soon, we don't have to sit on our hands and wait for a party, a politician, or a TV station to decide this should be an issue. We can try to get control of the conversation. We should try to get a multi-blog accord.

Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4651 posts Report
Idiot Savant, in reply to Emma Hart, 13:09 Jun 28, 2011

Polling. I want some fucking polling on this.
You could ask some pollsters, get a rough cost, and if its not unreasonably large, run a public pledge drive to fund it.

Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report
BenWilson, in reply to Idiot Savant, 13:18 Jun 28, 2011

Heh. Or ring up a few hundred people randomly and just ask the question. Polling isn't rocket science.

Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report
recordari, in reply to Emma Hart, 14:04 Jun 28, 2011

What I've noticed lately? People in their late teens/early twenties who are sure we already have same-sex marriage.
And older. That and/or that Civil Union is better and more equitable in terms of what it offers. Hard to understand the finer points of all this based on what is in the 'normal' commentary, as was discussed here previously in some detail I recall. Was it in the Staying Civil post? I looked but couldn't find the reference I was looking for where the main differences were highlighted.
On the poll, you could always run your own Facebook Poll I guess.
<pleasedon't>

AUCKLAND • Since Dec 2009 • 2607 posts Report