Mike Bloomberg’s missing a real opportunity. On Friday, a New York State judge ruled that the state constitution, which places a much heavier emphasis on equal protection and civil rights than the United States Constitution, should be read as to allow same-sex marriage. Licenses for such same sex marriages could have been issued as early as tomorrow, if Mayor Bloomberg hadn’t announced that the city intends to appeal the decision to the state’s Court of Appeals. Bloomberg, who made a point of announcing his personal support for gay marriage, said he wanted to make sure that the decision was supported by the state’s highest court as soon as possible.
In fact, he is trying to have it both ways. He is trying to be pro-gay marriage for New York’s generally liberal general election voters, and anti-gay marriage for voters in the Republican primary, where he faces a real challenge from an actual Republican, former City Council Minority Leader Thomas Ognibene.
This is a shame, because Bloomberg could have done something so much bigger. This is February, which means not only are we on the heels of Bush’s State of the Union address, in which he reiterated his support of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, but we are just one week away from Valentine’s Day. I can’t think of a more grand, romantic gesture than the defense of equal rights and progress in the face of bigotry and reaction. Bloomberg should have opened City Hall’s steps to all couples, gay and straight, who want to get married on Valentine’s Day. It would be a potent symbol to the rest of the country that, while Bush won, his victory was narrow and regional and that, in New York at least, we’re not going to roll over for his agenda.
It also would have scored a lot of votes in the general election for Mike Bloomberg. But, he needs to win his primary before he can take his campaign to all of the city’s voters. The Republican party in New York City is tiny. There are more independents than Republicans and Democrats outnumber the Republicans by five to one. The tinyness is what appealed to Bloomberg in 2001. A socially liberal Democrat, with a huge personal fortune and media empire, he bought the Republican ballot line in 2001. Now he faces a real rebellion from this tiny collection of Archie Bunkers. Expect to see Bloomberg take two sides on a lot of issues in between now and September.
Ironically, if the Liberal party still had a ballot line, I think there would have been same-sex weddings on Valentine’s Day. It’s important to note that by the time of its demise the Liberal party was neither liberal nor a party, but a corrupt patronage mill with a name that appealed to enough voters as to allow the only two Republican mayors that New York elected in the last half of the 20th century to eke out wins. If Bloomberg could count on being on the Liberal ballot line in November, like Rudy Giuliani and John Lindsay before him, then even if he lost the Republican primary, he could still compete in the general election and maybe win (like Lindsay did in 1969).
Of course, one would expect someone who bought his way in to high office in order to do something good and leave his mark, to stake out the right position on same-sex marriage anyway, because it is the noble thing to do.