This blog has been updated to clarify that incumbent City Council member Dana Miller did not get the designation of the 24th District. He’s the only incumbent Council member to fall short.
Incumbent Mayor Tom Richards won the endorsement of the city’s 24th Legislative District committee this afternoon on the march to the Democratic primary in September. He defeated challenger Lovely Warren, who is president of City Council, 35 to 9. The 24th LD is centered in the area around Highland Park.
The biggest news to come out of the meeting, however, is that Warren seems to have changed her opinion on same-sex marriage. Asked about the issue at a different meeting of Democratic insiders a week ago, Warren said bluntly that same-sex marriage is the law in New York State and that she would follow the law.
Today, however, when asked if the federal Defense of Marriage Act should be repealed, Warren said yes and “I don’t believe government should tell people who to love.” Warren said a conversation with a young man helped convince her that the country had largely “moved on” from the issue, and she compared marriage equality to interracial marriage.
Richards has consistently supported marriage equality.
The 24th LD also designated candidates for five open seats on City Council. The top vote-getters were: incumbents Matt Haag, Carolee Conklin, Loretta Scott, Jackie Ortiz, and newcomer Tom Hasman. Incumbent Council member Dana Miller, who is Council’s vice president, did not get the designation.
This article appears in Mar 27 – Apr 2, 2013.
There is no good reason to deny that we must keep evolving until an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, monogamy or polyamory, race, or religion is free to marry any and all consenting adults. The limited same-gender freedom to marry is a great and historic step, but is NOT full marriage equality, because equality “just for some” is not equality. Let’s stand up for EVERY ADULT’S right to marry the person(s) they love. Get on the right side of history!
You’re proposing a free-for-all. Virtually every law on the books would have to be redone to accomodate the possibility of extremely complicated relations (10 people all married to each other with kids, some in that group married to others in other groups…) We’re talking about infeasible on a mathematical level here. Too complicated to justify, especially considering that most of the West just doesn’t want it.
I wonderif the “young man” she spoked to was also her pollster. What an embarrassingly obvious political flipflop. Richards supported gay marriage BEFORE it was law not after it became politically convenient (like after Warren got called out for her lack of support). Phony as a 3 dollar bill.
Good news ylem !!!! In 1878 the Supreme Court ruled that the 1862 congressional prohibition of polygamy was constitutional (Reynolds v. United States, 98 US 145). So you’re needlessly worrying about those “10 people all married to each other with kids, some in that group married to others in other groups”. Perhaps your time would be better spent pondering the moral, legal and religious implications of humans marrying mermaids or space aliens.
Thanks for the wikipedia research and report. I’m aware of the legality. I was pointing out that group marriage is significantly more complicated to legislate than gay marriage, and can’t really be pushed under the same banner. My example was deliberately extreme but possible.
Her first response would seem to be the more authentic one. I would respect her more if she was more clear about her reservations, even if I disagreed with them, rather than saying what she thought people wanted to hear.