
New York Governor David Paterson and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom tag-teamed a $5,000-per-person fundraiser Thursday night in Manhattan to defeat California’s marriage ban, Proposition 8. Figures for the total dollars raised were not immediately available.
“I just feel in some ways badly,” Gov. Paterson told the intimate gathering of roughly 60 people, “with all the problems that we have right now and our economy reeling at this time, that we have to spend time dealing with this issue -- it actually offends me.”
But Paterson, who became the first governor to say he would recognize California’s same-sex marriages following the state’s Supreme Court ruling, added a good bit of levity to the evening. Recounting the fact that Richard and Mildred Loving -- the plaintiffs in Loving v. Virginia -- were originally arrested for violating the Marriage Integrity Act, Paterson quipped, “I thought 'marriage integrity' spoke to how you behaved after you got married.”
Paterson drew an analogy between gay marriages and common-law marriages from other states -- unions New York has recognized for years. “We recognize the rights that people derive from other states, it’s really that simple,” said the New York governor, who has supported marriage equality for gays and lesbians since 1995. “It’s this little unknown part of the Constitution called the Full Faith and Credit Clause -- it’s so big in the Constitution even I can read it,” he added to applause and cheers. Paterson is legally blind.
While attendees welcomed Paterson’s dry wit, Newsom played the more solemn role of the two, starting with a heartfelt thanks to the governor for his personal support during a time when Mayor Newsom had become a political hot potato.
“In 2004, there wasn’t a politician outside of San Francisco who wanted anything to do with the politicians in San Francisco,” Newsom said, recalling the fallout from his decision to issue same-sex marriage licenses. “It was a big to deal to me, and I mean it sincerely, when then-Lt. Gov. David Paterson showed up to an event in New York and not only showed up, he was willing to take a picture with me -- it was an issue, trust me -- and gave remarkable comments that gave me a sense of optimism about the Democratic Party as much as it did about the issue of equality.”
These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.
If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above.
All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.
See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.
Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.