Marriage In New York: The Story (Updated, Updte II)

Good piece at NYT on how marriage in New York state actually happened. There are lessons here for everyone, I think, starting with the gay groups who lost the Prop 8 fight in California:

Mr. Cuomo was diplomatic but candid with gay-rights advocates in early March when he summoned them to the Capitol’s Red Room, a ceremonial chamber with stained-glass windows and wood-paneled walls.

The advocates had contributed to the defeat of same-sex marriage in 2009, he told them, with their rampant infighting and disorganization. He had seen it firsthand, as attorney general, when organizers had given him wildly divergent advice about which senators to lobby and when, sometimes in bewildering back-to-back telephone calls. “You can either focus on the goal, or we can spend a lot of time competing and destroying ourselves,” the governor said.

This time around, the lobbying had to be done the Cuomo way: with meticulous, top-down coordination. “I will be personally involved,” he said.

The gay-rights advocates agreed, or at least acquiesced. Five groups pushing for same-sex marriage merged into a single coalition, hired a prominent consultant with ties to Mr. Cuomo’s office, Jennifer Cunningham, and gave themselves a new name: New Yorkers United for Marriage.

I'm reminded of the beginnings of Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, when HRC et al. were criticizing AFER for launching the case, and then turned around and asked to participate. Saying "no" was one of the smartest things Boies and Olson did, and they did it for the right reason: HRC and the rest of the Gay Inc., legal team would probably have lost the fight for them.

Speaking of HRC, the lesson they could learn from this is how to reach a goal. You don't do it by going to a meeting with a presidential advisor and listening. Not when the president and his advisors don't give a rat's ass about your goals, you don't. You get them on board, or you don't talk to them. GetEqual did it without the president, if you'll remember.

And as for the president: this is what "fierce advocacy" looks like. But it's not just a lesson on same-sex marriage. It's a lesson on getting anything done.

Update II:

Maureen Dowd seems to agree with me:

But for the president, “the fierce urgency of now” applies only to getting checks from the gay community, not getting up to speed with all the Americans who think it’s time for gay marriage.

As with “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” Obama is not leading the public, he’s following. And worse, the young, hip black president who was swept in on a gust of change, audacity and hope is lagging behind a couple of old, white conservatives — Dick Cheney and Ted Olson.

As a community organizer, Obama developed impressive empathetic gifts. But now he is misusing them. It’s not enough to understand how everybody in the room thinks. You have to decide which ones in the room are right, and stand with them. A leader is not a mediator or an umpire or a convener or a facilitator.

Sometimes, as Chris Christie put it, “the president has got to show up.”

Update: An interesting post from Bmaz at Emptywheel on how the New York event relates to Perry, ith some predictions:

As you may recall, the issue of standing was punted by the 9th down to the California Supreme Court, where the matter is currently pending.

Between last night’s marvelous happening in New York, the clear cut and admirable new policy by the Obama Administration, and the ever enlightened movement of society, I think the writing is on the wall for the California Supreme Court, and I think they will indeed find that the D-Is have the requisite standing, the 9th will roll with that and away we go to the United States Supreme Court. I truly believe the New York passage will leave such a marker that will carry all this through, and that is a beautiful thing.

As I am going out on a limb here, let me go one step further out. The Supremes will seal the deal. If you read Lawrence v. Texas, penned by Anthony Kennedy, and are a Kennedy watcher, it is extremely hard to see how he will not maintain consistency with his Lawrence decision and vote for marriage equality. I think that was the case from the start, and the action of New York, and, yes the Obama Administration, makes it almost certain. Justices do not want to look like asses in history, the way things are going, the margin may be even more favorable than 5-4 if we get to that point. Wouldn’t that be beautiful?

I'm not sure I have that much faith in the Supreme Court, not after their most recent decisions, but since there are no major corporations being sued, it could happen.