Eviscerating Rubén Díaz on Gay Marriage
If I were New York State Senator Rubén Díaz Sr., I would not have given that interview to the New York Times yesterday about gay marriage. Of course, Díaz may not care about being morally or intellectually consistent. He may care only about appeasement -- of his constituents with a vacuum of moral leadership, and of his conscience with sloppy rationalizations of his own bigotry against those he claims he "loves." But the interview shows his opposition to marriage equality in New York state to be just plain stupid, and history must hold him to account.
Díaz is a staunch opponent of marriage rights for gay people, and as a Democratic state senator in a party with a razor-thin majority, his resistance gives him great power on this issue. He also has two gay brothers, a gay granddaughter and a gay chief counsel, whom he insists he loves and respects. "So how could I be a homophobe?" he says. Can he be serious? Do people really think they can seek to deny people the same rights as they enjoy, and that saying they love the people whose rights they're trying to block makes it all okay?
People are entitled to their beliefs. They are even entitled to use their beliefs as a basis for their vote to deny others the same rights as they enjoy. But if we're going to bother to have a public discussion about the merits of a proposed law, one thing people are not entitled to is a free pass when their position on said law is utterly devoid of moral or intellectual consistency.
Díaz never offers an argument against gay marriage. "The people of the nation don't want gay marriage," he told the Times. But then he argues the issue should not even come to a vote. If the people don't want equality, why shouldn't their representatives be able to express that will democratically, after debate, in the senate chamber? More to the point, why should the rights of a minority be granted only at the whim of a majority vote? Was it right in an earlier era to deny blacks and women equal rights just because the majority of the nation wished to do so?
Díaz said the vote should not come to the floor because the legislature has "more important issues to attend to." Right now I'm watching a live feed of the Senate chamber. And what are those more important issues? The senators, called together in an "extraordinary session" by Gov. David Paterson, spent the first hour grandstanding about the troops in preparation for Veterans Day tomorrow. And the last hour has consisted of a still shot of a stained glass image of scales, eagles and flowery swirls with a sign saying "The Senate Stands at Ease" while creepy flute music plays somberly in the background.
In addition to the majority tyranny argument, Díaz offers his Pentecostal religion as the reason for his effort to deny gay couples the right to marry. "My religion doesn't allow me to dance," he says, "but that does not mean I don't go to the party. My religion doesn't allow me to drink. But that doesn't mean I can't hang around with my friends. My religion is against gay marriage. It means, I don't agree with what you do. But let's go out. Let's go to the movies. Let's be friends."
Okay, where to start? It's fine, Senator Díaz, for you not to dance, but are you leading the effort to make dancing for others illegal? It's fine for you not to drink, but where is your fierce leadership on reviving that super popular and effective age of Prohibition? It's fine for you not to get gay-married, but why insist on denying others the rights you enjoy? And where is your outrage about all the Jews and Muslims and atheists who are legally allowed to get married even though, according to your religion, they're all going straight to hell? And where is your righteous effort to outlaw Jews' right to observe the Sabbath on the "wrong" day, or to keep Kosher? Might that seem a bit anti-Semitic? And maybe a bit absurd?
So, about this notion that you can ban others' rights because your religion "doesn't agree" with what they do: Have you ever given a moment of thought to how stupid this sounds? Millions and millions of people get married every year in this world. You have no idea what they all do and I bet you don't really care, so long as they're straight. But one thing you can be sure most of them do at one point or another is violate the tenets of their own (and your) religion. To be morally and intellectually consistent, don't you need to give a litmus test to all of them, about "what they do," to determine if you support their right to marry? Or just the gays?
Díaz is proud that he visits Christopher Lynn, his openly gay chief counsel, when he's in the hospital. Too bad his opposition to Lynn's right to marry could mean his partner's healthcare isn't even covered by insurance. "He is a true believer in Christian values," says Lynn by way of defense, "in treating people the way you want to be treated." What on earth is he talking about? Chris, Díaz got married, but doesn't want to let you do the same! Where are you unclear about this? The correct answer to Díaz's invitation to go to the movies even though he leads the charge against your rights is not to defend your boss as a true Christian and enjoy your double dates; it's to say, "go to hell, and find yourself a new chief counsel while you're there."
Many of my loyal readers know my approach as generally conciliatory. I have often cautioned against calling all opponents of gay rights stupid or bigoted. Indeed, most gay people have friends or family who are against granting them equal rights, and it's no easier to suddenly reject them all than it is for them to reject us. But we are fast reaching a tipping point in this dialogue when anyone who cares to pay attention can see that the old arguments against basic equality simply don't hold water (and the results in Maine don't change this -- the overall trend is going our way). Trying to prop them up in the face of this evidence is, at best, dishonest and at worst, well, stupid and bigoted.
The late Sonny Bono once told Barney Frank on the floor of Congress that he knew it was wrong to oppose gay equality, but that Bono just wasn't ready yet emotionally to grant them. This was a rare expression of honesty in the fraught debate over gay rights, but it is what we should demand of anyone who continues to stand in the way of what's right. So far Ruben Díaz fails the test.
Aaron Belkin: Obama Is Timid Because Progressives Are Timid
What can we expect from a President who presides over a relatively conservative public, whose party is fractured by a fundamental contradiction, and whose legislative agenda is held hostage by Ben Nelson?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Once again we have people claiming that gay people have the same right to marry as long as the marry someone of the opposite sex. Here is what the Iowa supreme court had to say about that so called right. "It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbians from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all."
Furthermore answer this question if the person you were going to marry told you they were gay or lesbian, would you still marry them? If not then you know how ridicules your argument is.
Well, there might be lots of people who want to marry someone of the other sex who said they were gay, and lots of times the gay person wants to marry them back, for whatever reason, maybe they love each other as people and want to commit to each other and even have children together, like Will and Grace getting married or something, even if they have an open marriage with their own lovers for their erotic fulfillment. I bet it happens quite often. Shouldn't they have the right to marry each other? Shouldn't they have a right even to have children together? So saying they have "no right at all" is obviously overstating it, though I recognize that the right to marry someone of the other sex is useless to people that do not want or desire it.
If "Will and Grace" want to breed, they already have the right to do so. If "Jack and Will" wanted to breed, and the treament were available, they have the right to do so. But, where is the proof to back up your "bet" that gay men marry their "f*g hag" quite often?
That's my argument when describing how allowing genetic modification to produce better children, or allowing substituting better screened gametes from a sperm or egg vendor, makes the right to use your own genes useless to people that want the children they raise to be as healthy and capable as possible, which is basically everyone. We all are pretty much slaves to the principle of procreative beneficence, which morally motivates parents to give the children they create the best child they can, even to the point of not using your own genes, which is denigrated as a right as much as using donor gametes is extolled as a virtue. We are also pretty much slaves to the desire to have biological children with the person we love, to the point where people devote years of their lives and spend all their money attempting to do that with IVF, so there isn't much choice to use your own genes when you have to use modified genes in order to accomplish that.
You haven't been arguing against genetic engineering, you've been arguing against the existing right of gay people to breed. You keep saying that gay people using their gametes to breed together somehow (you never give proof of anything you babble) render useless the right of other people to use their own gametes. You still don't realize you don't make sense in your argument, it's all over the place.
'Eviscerating' is such a strange word to use. Sort of creepy.
I am betting that the author has never actually gutted a large animal.
It's a lot of work and pretty messy. You start by severing the colon and tieing it off,
to prevent fecal contamination, just in case you wanted to know.
There’s an obvious problem in relying on the majority to guarantee the rights of a minority. On the other hand, it’s also problematic in a democracy to try to impose change from above. Here is my take on strategy:
http://daisybrain.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/seme-sex-marriage-the-maine-event/
I use to live in Ruben Diaz's district, which is one the most liberal districts in the Bronx. He's done nothing for the district except make inflammatory remarks about the GLBT community. And consider his past as former ex-con, he is no position to judge anyone.
"History must hold him to account." I hope the voters do.
He's right that he doesn't have to offer his own reason for being against same-sex marriage, he can just be going on a feeling that it shouldn't be done for various reasons, perhaps as many reasons as there are "people who don't want it". The New York Times is trying to present it as a religious reason, but I think he realizes there is more to it that just that.
In particular, whether he realizes this danger or not, equal marriage rights for same-sex couples would put everyone's natural procreation rights in danger, by equating the right to use our own unmodified genes to procreate with the right to use modified or substitute genes. That immediately has the effect of disrespecting the right to use your own genes, just by forcing people to consider using better substitute genes available from sperm and egg sellers. And down the road, it could lead to people being prohibited from using their unmodified genes to procreate naturally with their spouse, because we will have said that there is nothing special about that right, it is equal to the right to use modified or substitute genes, and the right to procreate is fulfilled equally either way.
Very flawed argument. How exactly does procreation correlate to legal/civil marriage...? How does that equate any legal status of it...? Your latter paragraph was pure rhetoric.
What?!?!?!
His (And your) religious views are irrelevant to the legislative process. There is no place for them at the table.
There is either equal protections for everyone, or there is not. No where in the Constitution, or any amendment does it proclaim "Unless you are gay"....
Get religion out of politics! It is what the Founders wanted and planned for!
To deny the rights of a minority group because your religion does not approve is a dangerous road! When does it end, and which minority group does it end with?
All marriages should be allowed to conceive using the couple's own genes, combining them together to create offspring of the couple. By "allowed" I mean, "should not be publicly prohibited from conceiving children together". Same-sex couples should be publicly prohibited from conceiving together using their own genes, because that would be unethical and wasteful and bad public policy to allow. It would open the door to all forms of genetic engineering, harming human rights which are based on everyone being created equal, as children of a man and a woman. All methods of conception should be prohibited except for fertilizing a woman's unmodified egg with a man's unmodified sperm.
Civil Unions defined as "marriage minus conception rights" is a much better goal that would actually help all the thousands of couples that either have no legal unions due to fears of them being stepping stones to marriage, or else have no federal recognition for their marriages. By giving up conception rights and the word marriage, conceding that people have one extra special right with someone of the opposite sex that they don't with someone of their own sex, and that that right is an essential right of marriage, would advance the lives of thousands of families. Insisting on equal conception rights not only delays needed protection for thousands of couples, but forces the world to research and develop and fund and allow genetic modification, causing great harms and resentments around the world.
Hi, JohnHoward:
You opine that, "All marriages should be allowed to conceive using the couple's own genes, combining them together to create offspring of the couple."
What is your legal rationale supporting such a position?
That's a fundamental basic human right to procreate with your spouse, using your own and your spouse's own genes.
Do you disagree? Do you think that it's OK to prohibit any married couples from procreating with their own genes? (Now, I'm not saying that we have to let married prisoners out to procreate, they lose their freedom to go visit their spouse while they are in jail, but if he escapes or gets out somehow, he wouldn't be committing an extra crime if he had sex with his wife. Nor am I saying we have to permit every form of reproductive technology that a marriage might decide they need to use to procreate with their own genes. We can prohibit the use of bad or unsafe methods without prohibiting the couple from procreating using other methods, because publicly they continue to have the right, even if privately they are unable to do it by any legal means. Same-sex couples should not have the right to try by any means, because publicly it would require genetic modification.
The "notion that you can ban others' rights because your religion "doesn't agree" with what they do" being "stupid" is beside the point; it's unconstitutional. That document is very clear about prohibiting the codification of religious doctrine into law.
As far as any of the other objections to legal recognition of same-sex unions, I've heard them all, not one is the least bit rational, and each can be blown to smithereens in about 10 seconds.
There is no Constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Homosexuals are treated right now exactly as heterosexuals are: you can marry someone of the opposite sex, if you can find someone who will agree to marry you. That is equal treatment under the law.
Even if marriage equality were not a recognized right, that doesn't preclude it frombeing an unrecognized right. The 9th Amendment explicitly states that not all rights have been enumerated on. At one time the was no constitutional right to privacy, now there is. At one time it was held that the Citizenship Clause applied to neither blacks, nor Idians, yet it does now. Bigotry doesn't remain law for ever, justice does eventually prevail.
Pay attention. I didn't say there was a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage, I said it was unconstitutional to write religious doctrine into law.
And equal treatment? Not quite. Heterosexuals can marry whom they choose. I can't. My partner and I would like to marry in our state, but because one of us isn't of the opposite sex, we can't. That's gender discrimination.
I'd say "nice try," but it wasn't.
That would work both ways. Heterosexuals would gain the right to marry someone of the same sex also ;)
If you dont want to be married to the same sex then dont marry someone of the same sex.
But you cant deny that right to other Americans.
You might want to have a look at xdevildawg4u's response to TruthJusticeForAll's exact same comment. (about 5 comments down) I'm looking forward to your reply.
I love how people like you think best solution is for gay people to force themselves to marry someone of the opposite sex, which entails the following: Breaking up with the person that they actually do love, have feelings for, and are attracted to. Have a sham marriage that has nothing to do with love, feelings, attraction, commitment, etc. Deceive their spouse by pretending to be straight, thereby destroying their life too. How about kicking out a couple of kids before the marriage falls apart? That would be great! Why ANYONE would agree to doing something so stupid and destructive is beyond my comprehension. But at least those annoying gays won't be happy, right?
That's like justifying anti-interracial marriage laws by saying everyone has the right to marry, just as long as it's to someone of their own race. Is that equal treatment under the law? If it's not, then your "point" is invalid.
Not only has Ruben Díaz "failed the test", he's completely flunked out of the school. From what I've read online, one of his gay brothers died, and the other isn't even openly-gay. I think it's sad that Ruben is using them as props to prove that he isn't homophobic. Just because you know gay people does not make you pro-gay. Ruben is proof of this.
Based on the Lax and Phillips chart that shows the tipping point for acceptance of gay marriage, New York is past the 50% threshold. Mr. Díaz is actually in the minority on this issue. See page 51:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jrl2124/Lax_Phillips_Gay_Policy_Responsiveness_2009.pdf
What I find the most disheartening is the fact the Christopher Lynn, his openly gay chief counsel, actually works for a man that is trying to keep him a second-class citizen. That is incredibly repugnant. Obviously, Mr. Lynn has no respect for himself or LGBT citizens. I honestly don't know how he can look at himself in the mirror.
At least he didn't say "Some of my best friends are gay."
Gay marriage was legalized in NYC but Bloomberg overturn the decision. why does Quinn, the self-appointed voice of the LGBT support Bloomberg? Because Quinn cares about money and not the people. Quinn is a sell-out
Bloomberg didn't. He appealed to a higher court in an attempt to legalize it statewide. Bloomberg is for marriage equality.
You should really read the brief the Bloomberg administration submitted. It was bizarre. So bad that I thought they made it so horrid so as to shock the justices into legalizing gay marriage. If that was the intent, it backfired royally.
I disagree with Mr. Frank that people have a right to vote on another's civil rights at the ballot. We've a substantial population brainwashed by large institutions into embracing hate and bigotry: why should a ballot be used to deny others their Constitutional and Human Rights?
Agreed!
Civil rights should never be left to a majority vote.
If they all were, women would not be allowed to vote, and blacks would still be 3/5ths of a person.
Also several of these votes came AFTER these rights were granted, essentially removing rights from citizens.
Where is the ACLU in all of this?
It's time NY. In the meantime please come to Conencticut to wed.
Cheers, Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
Washington, Connecticut, USA.
All summer long couples came to CT to wed from all across the country.
Congrats to all!
well I'll tell you, what I told my family and friends....IF any of them, ANY of them Vote against me or my gay sister...Im through with them - they are dead to me...blood or no blood....and I'm as serious as a Heart attack!
Yeah, that's even if you get a vote. Díaz and others seem determined to even prevent an up or down vote for better or for worse.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
