Gay Marriage | New York | News

Bloomberg: Ready to Testify for Same-Sex Marriage in New York

Bloomberg The New York Daily News reports that Bloomberg did some cheerleading at last night's annual dinner of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center: "We see that the tide is turning, that support is mounting. Make no mistake, the time will come ... and we will pass this bill."

He talked to the paper before his speech: "I don't know whether it's more likely or not. If they consider a bill, I think they should pass it, and I would be happy to testify for it."

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. What utter BULLSHIT! Bloomberg was ORDERED by Manhattan Judge Doris Ling-Cohan to give same sex couples civil marriage and Bloomberg responded by having the decision appealed. This turd is also the single largest individual donor to the Republican party and we all know how helpful they've been to "the gays".

    As Tom Duane put it in a letter to the New York Times in 2005 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9407E7D6163AF933A25751C0A9639C8B63

    To the Editor:

    Re ''The Mayor and Gay Marriage'' (editorial, Feb. 8):

    Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg recently decided to appeal the decision by Judge Doris Ling-Cohan that allows same-sex couples the right of civil marriage.

    The mayor's main legal argument is that under state law marriage is solely between a man and a woman. Judge Ling-Cohan deserves credit for stating the obvious: the equal protection clause of the New York State Constitution is crystal clear -- that every citizen is entitled to the same rights under our law, including the right to civil marriage.

    Mayor Bloomberg now sheepishly claims to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community that he is appealing the decision to ''help'' us by creating an expedited route to the state's highest court. He states that he does not want gay couples hurt by getting married now only to find the marriages voided by a higher court later.

    The gay community doesn't need a pat on the head from the mayor, nor do we need him to spare us pain: we face discrimination on a daily basis. What we need from the mayor is moral and political courage. Had he chosen not to appeal this decision, he would have sent a powerful message that denying civil rights to any group is unacceptable under our system of law. Instead he sends a message that, under political pressure, no citizen is safe from discrimination.

    Thomas K. Duane
    State Senator
    29th Senate District
    New York, Feb. 8, 2005

    Posted by: JohnInManhattan | Mar 26, 2009 9:33:11 AM


  2. I agree with the comment above - there is something funny about this.

    REPUBLICANS are desperate to get their party recognized for anything. Let us be careful whom we welcome.

    Bottom line: REP's suck!

    Posted by: Glenn Rivera | Mar 26, 2009 9:47:06 AM


  3. Bloomberg truly sucks. He does not care about New York or any of its citizens, and as the poster described in-depth above, this is bullshit. He is a self-serving hypcorite asshole, and I will NOT be voting him. Fuck his ILLEGAL 3rd term! "Gee, I think it's TOTALLY fair that I outspend all of my candidates by $70 million! It's DEMOCRACY!" Ugh.

    Posted by: Ugh | Mar 26, 2009 10:06:42 AM


  4. Shut the fuck up, Bloomberg! Don't you have another election to buy or something?

    Whoever votes for this dick's third term is encouraging absolute power, good mayoring or no.

    Posted by: freddy | Mar 26, 2009 10:15:25 AM


  5. Even if one's interests are self-serving, if they work on the side of good, we should support them in that. Am I Bloomberg's biggest fan? Hell no. I lived right across the street from the crane crash last May and was rather disturbed by the flippancy in his tone. "Well, accidents happen. Construction is dangerous. People are always going to die."

    Still, if he sees that it's in his best interest to work on behalf of the LGBT community--even if his motives aren't sincere--we shouldn't say, "Fuck you! We don't want your help."

    Mr. Bloomberg can come across callous, insensitive, and "shady." Still, if he's willing to testify on our behalf, why not let him (this term)?

    Also, the political climate in 2005 was NOT the same as it is today in 2009. Four years bring change, and if he wants a chance to be on the right side of history, let's allow him that opportunity. History will judge him as it pleases anyway. Whatever his motives, I don't think our community is in a position to turn down support.

    It's so easy to be cynical right now. In fact, cynicism is the easy route, but it doesn't help our cause.

    In the words of Fannie Hurst (one of our community's early advocates): "It takes a clever man to turn cynic and a wise man to be clever enough not to."

    Posted by: Jason Ray | Mar 26, 2009 11:03:28 AM


  6. Jason Ray, I could agree with what your saying, because in politics you DO inevitably have to take the bad with the good...but he doesn't actually DO any of the things he says. He just pays lip service like every other politician. He didn't do anything to prevent the widely-forseen Wall Street crash, he has done nothing to help out the MTA or boot Elliot Sander's ass out of there, and from what I can see his interests in a 3rd term seem mostly based in his desire to help out his cronies financially. With his billions of dollars, he has no incentive to help out the average worker, and it SHOWS in his performance.

    Posted by: Ugh | Mar 26, 2009 11:29:06 AM


  7. Um, JASON RAY, Bloomberg is lying.

    This sick fuck has been promoting and condoning the arrests of gay men in NYC:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/nyregion/15arrests.html

    not in 2005, but today in 2009!

    "Also, the political climate in 2005 was NOT the same as it is today in 2009. Four years bring change, and if he wants a chance to be on the right side of history, let's allow him that opportunity."

    Good luck with that.

    Posted by: JohnInManhattan | Mar 26, 2009 12:09:28 PM


  8. The piece by Tom Duane was from 2005. Clearly, you're aware that that piece (the one you posted) was the very one I was citing. Marriage rights is not the issue at hand you just posted. Also, I wouldn't call his hand in it all "promoting and condoning." That's a stretch, JOHNINMANHATTAN.

    Furthermore, the issue you're posting now is one that's a touchy subject within our own community as well. (For the record, it's not for me. I don't care about public sex, and I think prostitution should be legalized.)

    Posted by: Jason Ray | Mar 26, 2009 12:38:30 PM


  9. They need to make the term limits in NYC more iron-clad.

    Posted by: anon | Mar 26, 2009 1:11:09 PM


  10. If I remember correctly Bloomberg didn't give gay/lesbian couples in NYC civil marriage b/c he said it was a state issue. He didn't want to go the Gavin Newsom route. Also he said a civil marraige could lead to fraud, as straight people wouldn't care about getting civil union with each other, but they wouldn't get married.

    The only legal power the city would have was to force medical insurance for both partners in a City civil union, it probably wouldn't have been recognized by then governor Pataki.

    Although the fraud argument was weak at best civil unions only by NYC would have been very weak, especially b/c most corporation and other small businesses give insurance to partners of gays and lesbians anyway. Gay marriage by the State would be much stronger and would be done by Albany where the power for altering the State's marriage code lies.

    Posted by: anonymous | Mar 26, 2009 2:51:14 PM


  11. All this outrage about a mayor, when I'm willing to bet every one of you voted for Obama...who is against equal rights for gays.

    Oh, but he has a "D" after his name, not an "R", so his hypocrisy and discrimination is totally cool.

    Wake the fuck up, suckers.

    Posted by: paul c | Mar 26, 2009 5:36:06 PM


  12. Actually Paul, none of my outrage has to do with the gay marriage issue, and ALL of it has to do with the fact that Bloomberg is simply a lying fuck and a shitty mayor. But I guess since that doesn't really jibe with your bitchy, condescending theory you'll probably accuse me of lying or something equally stupid, since you are always right, and all other Towleroad commenters always hold the identical, opposite, and incorrect opinion.

    (And for fuck's sake, why does everybody bring Obama into everything political? He has nothing to do with Bloomberg or NY state. Get the fuck over whatever strange obsession it is you have with him. He's president. Deal.)

    And, uh, Bloomberg's had every letter under the sun behind his name. He belongs to no one's party but his own. He is entirely self-interested, and nothing more. Not exactly the kind of leadership we need right now. Burn the fucker, whether he supports gay marriage or not.

    Posted by: Ugh | Mar 26, 2009 9:25:17 PM


  13. Bloomberg cares nothing about the people of this city. Anyone who thinks he'll do better, be warned. He cares only for himself and his cronies. Would be nice to GRAB HIM BY HIS FUCKING ANKLES AND SHAKE EVERY LAST RED CENT from his pockets that he managed to con people about his city and show him for the lowest charlatan that every was born!!!!

    Posted by: Bkappalled | Mar 30, 2009 4:06:07 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «New Trailer for Ang Lee's Taking Woodstock« «