I guess socially liberal New York is too blase to worry about the incoming high-profile first couple with no plans to get married, and given the embarrassment caused by the Patersons' marital revelations in March 2008, right after the Spitzer prostitution case, one can understand reporters not wanting to go there. For all I know, there may be Catholic annulment issues dating back to the Cuomo-Kennedy breakup, which (as the tabloids made clear) was not immediately caused by the husband. But given the documented decline of marriage and its negative consequences, is it really such a good idea for Andrew Cuomo and Sandra Lee to give the impression it doesn't matter?
FYI-the link to the alleged "documented decline of marriage and its negative consequences" doesn't work.
Posted by: Brian | December 31, 2010 at 12:00 PM
Though I wanted to add that since you seem concerned about the decline in popularity of marriage because its alleged negative consequences, then I would encourage you to take an explicit stand in favor of allowing committed gay couples to participate equally in that institution... at the very least in civil form.
Posted by: Brian | December 31, 2010 at 12:01 PM
What Brian said.
Posted by: Johannah | December 31, 2010 at 12:21 PM
Thanks. Link is fixed.
Posted by: Bob Conner | December 31, 2010 at 03:57 PM
Since you guys insist on dragging this in, it seems like Cuomo and Lee support marriage more for gays than for themselves. "The personal is political," as the feminists say.
Posted by: Bob Conner | December 31, 2010 at 04:39 PM
Well you were talking about the importance of marriage so it seemed pertinent.
I think it's fairer to say what Cuomo supports is choice. He supports that gays should have the right to choose marriage and that he should have the right not to.
Posted by: Brian | January 03, 2011 at 12:16 PM
Incidentally, surveying people’s opinions on the institution hardly constitutes ‘[documented] negative consequences.’ That said, only 29% in said poll claimed that the growing variety of family types is a ‘bad thing,’ 57% don’t think gays and lesbians having children is a ‘bad thing’ and 2/3 of Americans are ‘optimistic’ about ‘the institution of marriage and the family.’
Posted by: Brian | January 03, 2011 at 12:22 PM
Yes, Cuomo and Lee have the right not to get married. But when she is holding the Bible at his swearing-in, and they are a very public, wealthy and powerful couple, maybe the focus should be more on their responsibilities.
Posted by: Bob Conner | January 03, 2011 at 03:03 PM
You're really reaching on this one.
Considering the crappy confidence voters have of State Politics, whether an elected official is or is not married is probably the farthest thing from our minds.
You're also missing the point that the conclusions drew from the Pew Research. Americans are increasingly comfortable w/ alternative social kin groups. This is nothing new if you've taking any socialogy course.
Furthermore, how does another person choosing to wait & get married (or not even get married at all, especially after coming off a recent divorce) remotely effects your marriage?
Posted by: Matthew | January 03, 2011 at 04:01 PM
Lee quoted in today's New York Post:
" "I think when it's important to the kids, we'll do it. Right now, we have much more important things to do," she said.
So far, not making it official hasn't been a problem, she said.
"We don't even think about it, and nobody says anything," Lee said. "
So you, Matt, and many others support her position, but I am somebody saying something.
Posted by: Bob Conner | January 03, 2011 at 04:46 PM
C'mon Bob - if your readers want to hear you come out in favor of gay marriage, I'd like to join them in urging you to do that. It is way overdue, and will happen eventually, so why fight it? The more people who are in committed marriages, the better for marriage as an institution. Or, we could follow the example of the Scandinavian nations and just sort of forget about marriage altogether. Rah, Rah!
Posted by: David Brickman | January 05, 2011 at 02:44 PM
Matt, of course he’s reaching. In the last two gubernatorial elections, the GOP followed his advice ran someone who shared his very conservative positions on social issues and in both cases, they got slaughtered. This followed three elections when they ran a social moderate and won. This just happens to be the straw he’s grasping.
Posted by: Brian | January 05, 2011 at 06:50 PM
In fact, the previous Republican governor before Pataki (Nelson Rockefeller... elected three times) was famously socially liberal.
Posted by: Brian | January 05, 2011 at 06:51 PM