Over the course of the last few years working as a reporter for the Shawangunk Journal, I've had the privilege of meeting you on numerous occasions at different functions and ribbon cuttings. It's been a pleasure: you're certainly a nice guy, and you seem to care deeply for your constituents. At one event after another, people speak your name with the kind of praise that perfectly illustrates their appreciation for the work you do and the funding you provide for our area. The Ellenville Regional Hospital is a perfect example of your commitment at work. Without the funding you've fought for in the state senate, it's likely that the hospital would've gone under a long time ago, and would not be serving the community so well.

Furthermore, every time you speak at one of these events, I can always depend on you to speak about the 'MVP's who are assembled — usually a title you reserve for the residents and elected officials who keep our community humming along and who make these events possible.

But despite all the positive interactions I've had with you, I'm going to have to call a foul. Or put you in the penalty box. Or throw a flag on the field. Pick whichever sports metaphor you like; it doesn't really matter. Your vote to keep same-sex marriage illegal is the kind of boneheaded play that's going to surely wind up on the blooper reel.

Before I begin, here's what you had to say about the December 2 vote, written in a statement posted on your website:

"The issue of gay marriage was important for some people. It has now been voted on. The fact that the Democrats have held three votes on gay marriage this year, but have refused to vote even once on property tax reform, or tax relief for small business, speaks volumes about their priorities, and shows they do not understand the issues which the vast majority of New Yorkers care most about.

"We need lower taxes with better jobs, and a balanced budget. Those things, should have been and should be the priority if we are to save the State's fiscal health."

Interestingly, you don't actually defend your vote at all. Rather, you simply cast aspersions at your colleagues across the aisle, the type of sniping tactic I didn't think you were so petty to engage in. But here's an idea: let's think about the ways in which a vote of 'yes' that you could have cast would have actually benefited efforts to "save the State's fiscal health," a reality that you have completely ignored while you simply play party politics.

It's no secret that New York State is broke. So what explanation could you possibly have to deny the state the money that would be generated from marriage licenses, bought by couples who were finally able to marry? It's likely that in this first year of legalization, the couples who have been waiting for years to make their unions official would rush to tie the knot as soon as they could. According to a 2006 study by Gary J. Gates, published by the UCLA School of Law, New York City has the highest population of gay and lesbian people in the United States, counted at over 270,000 at the time of the study, and almost undoubtedly having risen since then. The study also notes that there are over 560,000 such citizens living in the New York/Northern New Jersey/Long Island region. Any couple living in New Jersey wouldn't hesitate to drive across the border to get married here. What possible rationale could exist to keep these people from literally handing fistfuls of money over to the state, just to marry?

Let's say that half of the 270,000 New York City couples decided to get marriage licenses: at $40 a license per couple, and 135,000 couples, that would equal $2.7 million. While not a huge amount, that's the kind of money that could go a long way if parceled out to different communities feeling the financial crunch.

Furthermore, if same-sex couples living in New Jersey or other states decided to settle in New York, which would've been one of the largest states in the country to legalize same-sex marriage, wouldn't that expand the tax base, thereby lowering taxes for everyone else? We need to do everything we can to make our state attractive to those who don't live here. Last year's Wall Street meltdown and the state senate's shenanigans in Albany from this summer (where senators locked each other out of the senate chambers — you remember, don't you?) aren't doing much to burnish our image across the country. But making New York State a place where people would want to actually live is just the kind of thing that would attract new residents. And having new residents means spreading the tax burden across a greater number of people, which would lower taxes, wouldn't it? I'm not an economist, but that seems like pretty simple math to me.

And let's not forget about the money that would be spent to actually celebrate these weddings. When I spoke with you in January at the grand re-opening of the Honor's Haven Resort here in Ellenville, you were adamant about bringing tourism dollars back to the state.

"We know that a dollar invested in tourism rewards the community anywhere from three to five dollars in economic benefits," you said. "It's a good investment. I will fight for those dollars, as I always have." Sadly, however, it seems the fight's gone out of you.

Can you think of a quicker way to increase tourism to the beautiful Catskill region than suddenly allowing half a million people the right to get married and spend thousands of dollars on lavish weddings and parties? Wouldn't this suddenly employ the millions of people who work in the state's service industry, and even create more jobs as demand skyrocketed? From caterers to photographers, the wedding industry would be booming during a time when people have been cutting back on expenses more than ever. And frankly, since you represent people who live and work in the Catskill region, by voting 'no', you've effectively told this would-be tourism haven that you'd rather they didn't have those dollars right now. I'm not sure denying your constituents the chance for employment and business was the best way to look after "the State's fiscal health."

Now let's look at things from another angle. Many opponents of same-sex marriage say that because marriage has traditionally been between those of opposite sexes, it should remain so. A "defense of marriage" is often what such a viewpoint is called. But what's being defended? As a child of divorce, and a member of a generation that has seen divorce rates skyrocket, I'm not really sure what these marriage-defenders are trying to do. The institution of marriage has become so inconsequential to those who are allowed to marry — strictly heterosexuals — that the prospect of defending it has become a farce. The fact that marriage is reserved only for a group of people who can't figure out how to make marriage work is proof that New York State is mainly interested in rewarding the irresponsible.

That's like only giving drivers licenses to people who crash their cars half the time, while making a whole group of people who've been trying to drive for years stick to the municipal bus.

And here's another money-making idea for the state: what about same-sex divorce? Attorneys and moving companies would suddenly have an entirely new set of clients they could rely on to create business and employment. No matter from what angle you look at this issue from, legalizing same-sex marriage equals dollars for New Yorkers and its residents. During the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, are we really in any kind of position to deny the money of a group of people who actually want to spend it?

But in the end, despite all the financial benefits legalizing same-sex marriage can bring, here's really only one argument that really matters, and it has nothing to do with money: same-sex marriage should be legal because it's right. We're a nation founded on the ideals of liberty and justice for all — not just for some. As an American citizen, I learned in school all about Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka, the Supreme Court case that ruled that "separate but equal" is unconstitutional and is nothing more than a fantasy. But for some reason, you have decided that there is a segment of the population against whom it's still acceptable to discriminate.

I suppose I should take my own advice, and accept you as you are, prejudiced though you have revealed yourself to be. But rather, I will instead learn by the example you have set; the next time your name appears on a ballot, you can rest assured that you will not be receiving my vote, nor the votes of my peers. Rather than accept things as they are, I'd rather work to deny you the right to continue denying the rights of others.

As I said above, I've enjoyed getting to know you over the last few years, and I know that I'll see you again in the coming months. And last year, as you ran for your state senate seat unopposed, I cast my vote for you, secure in the knowledge that the man I'd met and shaken hands with would represent me in the most respectable manner. Now, however, I'm hopeful that next November someone will step into the ring and knock you out.

Sincerely,

Brian Rubin
Reporter, Shawangunk Journal

Dear Mr. Rubin,

Like President Obama, I believe that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. You obviously disagree with not only me, but with the voters of 30 other States which have, according to the November 5, 2008 New York Times, banned gay marriage.

This is not the first time, nor probably the last, your paper's editorial page and I will disagree. For example, your newspaper endorsed the MTA tax — which raised property taxes on hard working New Yorkers. I voted against that and said it was wrong to tax the Hudson Valley for a transit system we generally do not use. Your paper supports higher taxes in this economic meltdown — I oppose them. Gay marriage, apparently, is another area you and I differ.

You can cite all the statistics you want to about gay marriage. We all know that statistics can be made to reflect whatever a person is trying to argue. Gay marriage, however, is not about numbers or selective statistics.

I voted the way I did on gay marriage because the vast majority of calls to my office on the issue were against gay marriage. Of the calls for gay marriage, many were not from my Senate District. I am supportive of civil unions and supportive of hate crimes laws to punish those whose conduct is motivated by racist, sexist, or other bias. I am supportive of health insurance rights for domestic partners and other legal rights relating to hospitalization and disability benefits for domestic partners. I believe that is what the majority of my constituents want.

I do believe that the Democrats in control of State government, by voting three times this year on gay marriage, while refusing to vote even once on small business tax relief, or even once for an end to school property taxes, shows those individuals in charge of government have misplaced priorities. Add to that the fact that Democrats have taxed SUNY tuition, raised electricity taxes, and made life generally more expensive in New York, and I believe New Yorkers want change from those tax-and-spend policies.

If you walk down Canal Street in Ellenville or Sullivan Street in Wurtsboro and ask the first 100 people you see what their concerns are, I promise you gay marriage would not be near the top for the overwhelming majority.

I challenge you and any of the other people who support gay marriage as follows: Put the issue on the ballot and let all New Yorkers vote on it. Democracy is ultimately about voting. If gay marriage is so important, then let the Democratic-controlled Legislature pass legislation to allow questions like this to be put before the voters of the State. Similar referendums have happened elsewhere — Maine, California, Florida, and Arizona to name a few. The referendums have failed in those states. However, let the people decide — it's the purest form of democracy.

While we vote on the issue of gay marriage, however, let's also vote on what the vast majority of the people in our community care most about — property tax relief and small-business tax and regulatory relief, so we can create the jobs New Yorkers need.

Sincerely,

JOHN J. BONACIC
State Senator