Same-Sex Marriage Bill REJECTED in New York State Senate
Video: Times Square Obama Afghanistan Protest Arrests
Catholic League Pissed at PETA
New Photo Brings Flying Overweight Debate Back
State Sen. Savino Gets Noticed For Impassioned Gay Marriage Speech
Photograph of supporters of the gay marriage legislation by Robert Mecea/AP
Yesterday afternoon, at 45th and 6th Avenue in Midtown, there was a big rally, full of gay marriage proponents urging the State Senate to pass the gay marriage bill, holding signs like "Marriage Equality Now." Governor David Paterson made a last-minute appearance, rousing the crowd, "My name is David Paterson, and I came here today seeking justice. Let New York lead the country in making the dreams and wishes come true for people who want to get married." But at Third Avenue and 40th, there was an opposing rally, organized by the New York Hispanic Clergy Organization, led State Senator Ruben Diaz Sr. (D-Bronx)—signs included "1 man + 1 woman = God's will" and chants were along the lines of "New York is not Sodom and Gomorrah!"
The NY Times reports that Diaz told the crowd (which was apparently larger than the pro-gay marriage gathering), "We’re here to say to the governor: Mr. Governor, look at the people that are here, these are the people who say we don’t believe in marriage between a man and a man and a woman and a woman." And another speaker, the Rev. Miguel A. Rivera, prayed for the governor, who he called "physically blind" as well as "spiritually blind." According to Gay City News, a Jewish speaker called Assembly Leader Sheldon Silver "an embarrassment as a Jew."
All the same, Paterson urged the State Senate to pass the bill, "More and more, I think people understand that this is an eventuality. But when you think of all of the the people who would like to be married and can't be and the frustration they feel, there's no time like the present." Other speakers at the pro-gay marriage event included Mayor Bloomberg, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, actors Cynthia Nixon, Audra McDonald and Cheyenne Jackson. Here's a video (via PolitickerNY):
A few blocks away, the National Hispanic Christian Leadership's Rev. Daniel Delgado told NY1, "This is not an anti-gay rally, this is not about the Church being homophobic, this is about the Church saying 'Do not violate my religious freedoms."
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
A few blocks away, the National Hispanic Christian Leadership's Rev. Daniel Delgado told NY1, "This is not an anti-gay rally, this is not about the Church being homophobic, this is about the Church saying 'Do not violate my religious freedoms."
Please explain how other people getting married violates your religious freedoms. You're the one violating people's freedoms, asswipe.
there is fear, some of which is legitimate, that clergy and others currently with the power to marry will have that taken away if they are not willing to perform same-sex marriages. it all depends on the way the laws are written.
that being said, i am in favor of gay marriage - and of not forcing any clergy to perform gay weddings.
It's not really legitimate, imo. While anecdotes are not data, I haven't heard of one equality supporter who has a problem with religious exemptions.
If this was the real stumbling block, gay marriage would have been passed years ago.
Well, now I know of one supporter who has a problem with the exemption.. so there goes that argument.
i'm not saying it's the biggest stumbling block, but that it is a concern of members of the clergy - even those who are otherwise in favor of (secular) gay marriage. other states have done well to provide religious exemptions, and if you want to take the argument away from groups that organize against gay marriage based on their religious beliefs, then this aspect of the laws should be more publicly discussed.
it won't shut them up, but it will help in getting other people not to listen to them.
>> that being said, i am in favor of gay marriage - and of not forcing any clergy to perform gay weddings. >>
I am pro-forcing clergy to marry gay couples. They have to marry people of different colors. As far as Christianity goes, there is like one tiny passage in the Bible about homosexuality and it's not even very clear. Why does everyone obsess about blowing this so far out of proportion?
"I am pro-forcing clergy to marry gay couples"
i am undecided as to which side of these moralistic debates are more intolerant of opposing viewpoints, the religious-right or the lefty-libs. can someone please help me out with that?
Hotstepper,
Sure, I can clear that up for you. I'm a straight, married lefty-lib. I don't believe that any church should be required to marry gay couples - it is against many religions. There are a lot of crazy things in the Christian bible (including the defense of slavery) and I believe the bible is against gay marriage.
That said, in the USA we have the seperation of church and state. "It's against my religion for others to have legal rights," isn't a very strong argument. I believe gays should have the right to marry.
With marriage comes a number of legal benefits (over 1400 benefits). You can read about them here:
http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/f/MarriageBenefit.htm
If your religion says that gay marriage is wrong then, fine, don't get married to a member of the same sex.
Most lefty-libs are of the live and let live variety, btw.
I've heard the "but the state will force us to marry queers!" arguement and its total crap. Marriage is a contact recognized by the state and can be done without any religious intervention. Nor can the state force any church to change its policies on membership or the services it offers. I don't believe the catholic church marries anyone who is not catholic or doesn't agree to bring up their children as catholic. Why would they suddenly be required to marry a gay couple?
more info here
Exactly, Iagomorth. That entire argument is just a smokescreen to make people think their religious rights will somehow be compromised.
Religious groups have the right to extend or deny their services to whomever they choose. Churches/synagogues/etc. can, and do, refuse to marry heterosexual couples, and refuse to recognize existing marriages which do not meet their requirements. It happens all the time. Extending equal civil marriage to everyone wouldn't change that at all.
The CRA forced white, bigots to serve black people food on their own private property. So why is it inconceivable to believe that a mandate forcing clergy to marry gays will someday come, too?
Because it's not the same situation at all, and there's no precedent for it. Religious sacraments and ceremonies are not regulated by law, they never have been, and as per the Bill of Rights, they cannot be. For instance, federal EOA laws prohibit gender discrimination in hiring--but NO religious group has ever been forced by the government to allow women to be clergy.
All of these people screaming that their clergy will be FORCED to marry gays: is your church forced to marry divorced heterosexuals? How about atheists or members of other religions? How about people who have been excommunicated or removed from your religion? No? Has there ever been a successful lawsuit on any of those points? Of course not. So your priest, rabbi or minister won't have to marry gays either, if they do not wish to do so.
There's no comparison between a religious institution and a restaurant.
Religious officials have never been required to perform services for people who do not fit their criteria. I can't walk into a synagogue with a ham and cheese sandwich and demand that I be included in the prayer service as soon as I finish my lunch.
There absolutely is, though. If you believe in freedom and liberty, as you probably claim as someone who I assume is pro-gay marriage*, you must also believe in allowing churches, synagogues and restaurants to include or exclude whomever they want.
*I'm ambivalent on gay marriage. It's a private issue.
the stupidity of people like this summarized in comic form:
http://www.atheist-community.org/atheisteve/?id=19
Religious freedom to be a bigot. Save the bigot freedom!
Of course no one will take away the rights for religion to marry only who they choose to, as the State cannot intervene in the practice of religion. It's not even a "religious exception" - the State simply does not and cannot have the authority to force any religious institution to marry (or not marry) anyone that would go against that religion (when miscegenation was outlawed, the States did force religious institutions to marry blacks and whites because that practice was not barred by the religion). And as a gay man, why the hell would I want to be married by a bigot, when (if we had gay marriage) I could go to any City Hall, County Clerk or judge in the state?
I wonder why AIDS is such a killer.
When was this?
I love how Latinos and Blacks are always so ornery when it comes to civil rights and yet they always seem to come out in force against gay marriage. For more, look at Prop 8 voting tallies by race. So much for victim™ solidarity.
Bernie,
What makes you think that all of us are homophobic?
Yes, there are a lot of asshole pastors - who happen to be Black or Latino - who are homophobic jerks.
But there are White clergy who are the same way.
Remember Prop 8?
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (aka the Mormons) pumped $ 25 million into that election, and the White Mormon and Samoan Mormon vote in California is what caused the homophobes to win that election.
I know it's so much more fun to jump onto the negrophobic bandwagon - but facts are facts.
The biggest enemy of gay rights are the White Christian fundamentalists.
The solution is to get government out of the marriage business. Two consenting adults don't need the government's approval to form a relationship. Some call gay unions marriage, others don't. Neither side is going to convince the other, so let's not spend our tax dollars fighting over it.
i don't know if i've said this before on here, but this is my ideal solution to the fight - make union or partner the legal terminology, not marriage. if only...
i've heard this argument before, and i applaud its simplicity and elegance. sadly, those two qualities have no place in rabid, culture-clash politics.
Polite New Yorker,
Gays aren't just asking for the word "marriage" they are also asking for the LEGAL BENEFITS that come with marriage. Here is a list of the benefits:
http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/f/MarriageBenefit.htm
Pshaw. Create a new gay-friendly religion and problem solved. It's been done before for other reasons....Anglicans, Lutherans, Scientologists....
why are comments monitored? shame on gothamist.
Bloomberg really wants to be mayor, He is hypocrite. He was the one that appealed the marriage ruling in 2005.
I think Bloomberg's stance was that the State needs to determine whether gay marriage is legal or not—if the State does and passes the bill, he'll support gay marriage in the city.
Bloomberg claimed it was his duty to appeal and denied gay couples marriages in 2005.
''the San Francisco mayor said on Bloomberg. "If you don't believe in it, don't act on it. But don't say you believe something and then do everything to stifle that belief."
"But at Third Avenue and 40th, there was an opposing rally, organized by the New York Hispanic Clergy Organization"
Weren't these the guys from the Auto de fe.
NYC has always been hospitable to strangers. We love their tourism and tax dollars. Inhospitability to strangers was why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed - not for homosexuality, so I don't get their point? Oh right, right-wingers don't really understand their Bible. I keep forgetting that.