Smoking Ban May Now Include Your Apartment
Access-A-Ride Nailed by Local News
Giuliani Livid Over Bringing 9/11 Trials to NYC
House Cat Terrorizes Family In Dramatic Hostage Situation
Oreo The Dog Is Dead, Blame Game Is Not
Mayor Bloomberg's latest dilemma is whether or not to allow gay marriage in the city, prompted by New Paltz's decision to offer gay marriage. City Council Speaker Gifford Miller, who is trying to win the Democratic ticket to run against the Mayor in 2005, started the offense, saying, "It is past time that Mayor Bloomberg give the civil rights - the basic fundamental civil right of marriage - to same-sex couples." Gothamist totally supports gay marriage, but can understand it when the mayor's press secretary says, "The city clerk is following New York State law, which does not permit gay marriages." It's a state issue at this point, and while it'd be great if he could go out on a limb and further define his views, it seems that Mayor Bloomberg's "Republican" base, strained relations with Governor Pataki and overall approval issues related to other issues (taxes, education) might be more of a focus at present. Considering the mayor's other socially progressive stances (aside from not wanting people to smoke or party loudly), Gothamist suspects he is all for gay marriage.
Attorney General Eliot Spitzerrefused to stop the gay marriages in New Paltz, saying, "I have no problem with gay marriage. I think the law has moved to a point where people are comfortable that [marriage] can be extended to people of the same sex." Spitzer had been asked by Governor Pataki to stop the marriages. So the real debate will be in Albany, leaving it to Governor Pataki to struggle with what to do; according to the Daily News, Pataki "defied calls from his Conservative Party allies to push for a state Defense of Marriage Act, which would shield New York from having to recognize other states' gay marriages." However, Governor Pataki, with other political aspirations in mind, may fold to appeal to a conservative base.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I am a grrrrl...my "partner" (hot girlfriend of 9 freaking years) and I are going to be married in San Francisco in April.
Over the past almost decade we have endured numerous straight family weddings whilst sitting at the "misfits" table.
We are going to elope and have the happy day without being forced to do the electric slide with my aunts.
There is going to be a big protest at City Hall, Thursday Morning, March 4, from 8:00 AM until 9:30 a.m. Folks are going to be demanding that Mayor Bloomberg get on the queer marriage train.
I'll be there with mimosas and a boa on.
who cares
Hey Simon,
I am a hetero woman and guess what? I CARE!!!
CONGRATULATIONS TO MUMBLES AND HER PARTNER OF
9 YEARS!! HOURRAH ET BRAVO!!
Now , pass me a mimosa!
Yeah... make that two check marks for straight people who care tremendously. I really don't need govt. telling me who is less than, equal to or more "approved for marriage" than I and so on. If I desperately need to inject prejudice into my life I have stupid coworkers to hate.
Mumbles, Mumbles, Mumbles. You and your fiance are going about this all wrong.
You need to send out invitations and force your extended family to come to your wedding in SF. At their own expense. With registries at Barneys and Williams Sonoma.
Make them sit through three hours of photos on the courthouse steps. Make them sit through the six-hour dinner. Make them watch as you and your lady have the first dance (preferably something complicated, say, a tango). Make them sit through a slide presentation of the previous nine years of your relationship. Make them give speeches and toasts through strained smiles! Take off that garter! Throw that bouquet! Wake their asses up for a post-nuptual breakfast!
This is your due, girl!!!
And Simon, darling, I'm a straight woman and I care.
Good for you mumbles. Another straight girl here supporting your union - you've been with your gfriend twice as long as I've been with my bfriend and people have been hassling us to get married for the past two years. Odd how once the sexes are the same, that is so different.
And a "good for you" to Spitzer too. Spitz 2005?
It's nice that there's all this PR about protests, but has anyone actually showed up at the clerk's office to try and get married? People like to use Bloomberg as a punching bag (I was at bars all weekend where it was too crowded to get in the door and I went home not smelling like an ashtray; so much for nightlife going belly up) because he isn't as bellicose as Guliani.
Asking him to bless civil disobedience is middle-class, white-kid college protest (I remember how excited people got when they were one of the pre-planned arrestees at rallies). Just fucking show up to see what happens. If the clerk refuses, that's worth hearing about. If the clerk doesn't, that's even better, and, whoops, maybe Bloomberg isn't so bad after all. If I didn't think marriage was bullshit to begin with, I might go and test this myself.
even if you think it's valid for Bloomberg not to engage in civil disobedience or if you think it's ok for Bloomberg to assume that ordering the clerk to issue marriage licenses to same gender couples is illegal before the AG issues his legal opinion on it, it IS wrong for him to continue to deny the registered domestic partners of city employees the same benefits as the partners of married city employees. Count three more votes, wait- make that 11, after taking a quick poll in my office- of straights who care.
Hey, thanks for the replies...and Miss Representation, for the record, gay people have been showing up to the NY city clerk's office asking for marriage licenses for 10 years in a row, around Valentine's day. Every year they get shown the door.
And to those who don't think marriage is a big deal...we're friggin' fighting for our lives regarding the right to marry...for the right to visit my girlfriend in the hospital if she is in a car wreck (hospital: our policy is "family" only.), for the right to stay in our apartment if one of us dies ("predecease" is such an icky word)...yeah all 1,049 protections that regular married people get that queers don't...
I've got some friends straight and gay who refuse to think about marriage in any context...their parents divorces (multiple!) turned them off to the institution. Live and let live.
Now, I'm off to get our Wedding Loot Registry together.
Mumbles-
consider some kind of reception when you return from SF - freaked out relatives are the best part of a gay wedding - watching my republican family clash with queer friends was the best part of my c-ceremony - just wish I could drag them all to sf with me next week for my appt. at city hall with my partner!
honey brings up one of the biggest reasons to gay marriage should be legalized - ensuring that partners get benefits. What is the latest with Mayor B not lettings people's partners register? It makes me wonder, re: federal employees, like the AIDS czar...would he get to register his partner?
I'm all for it. Knock your selves out. Marriage is just a tax shelter is all I'm saying, and you deserve it just as much as anyone else, it shouldnt matter who or what youre having sex with for the rest of your life. I guess I'm just waaaaayyyyyyyyy ahead of my time, because I think its so stupid to make such a big deal about sexuality.
Simon-
I'll spare you the boring lecture of all the benefits (aside from taxes) that comes with marriage, as there are more than 1000, but in short - I spent $2500 this year in healthcare for my partner that I wouldn't have if married.
I'll weigh in as a straight man who cares, and is confused by the schizoid nature of our culture (I believe Frank Rich addressed this in yesterday's Times as well)
What a contradictory country we live in...on the one hand, pop culture is celebrating gay style through such "products" as "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" and "Hairspray".
On the other, our nation's leader has decided to---in the words of one activist---"codify hatred into the Constitution".
Marriage is love.
I thought Prohibition taught us that it was close to impossible to legislate morality.
On a separate but related note, can anyone comment on Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Persons and the work that they do?
mumbles: good to know. But under-reported (btw, it was just announced that New Paltz just charged their clerk) from what I read. I know the mayor was more vocal in SF, but the NM story seemed to be that the clerk went ahead without a wink and a nod.
And when I said I thought marriage was bullshit, that's not to gloss over differences between marriage and civil unions as if they are insignifcant. I think civil unions should be used to redefine what it means for two people to make a commitment to each other. Marriage, as a social enterprise, has too much baggage for my taste. Spouses and children as property, condified abuse and inequity. Why would anyone fight for that? It's like trying to bring back indentured servitude was a model of employment relations.
I would like nothing more than full marriage rights to all citizens, but I think you have to ask the question: is this the right time? We are under a Republican rule in the federal government, and Pataki still runs the State house. The marriage issue is already all-the-news -- is this the right time politically to push it? I have had this argument with many, and many of them seem to disagree with my reservations that the issue is right, the time isn't. But I do think that beyond the fact that the Mayor has no authority to supercede New York State law, I do fear a backlash. Equality will hopefully happen, and patience in this case is a frustratingly pragmatic, but correct, decision.
sexy indian pictures west indian girl
Alec Baldwin asks for his voice to be removed from an "unfair" documentary about Arnold Schwarzenegger...