Comments

  1. Zlick says

    I’ve been to some of these marriage licence turn-downs, and that’s the brilliant strategy that has been missing. Kudos! (And I hope they have a wonderful life together!)

  2. gr8guyca says

    The main substance of this is about 58 seconds long. Which means that it could be turned into a 60 second commercial. How about running it a few times in a few key markets? It’s a better statement than most of the pro-marriage ads so far.

    btw, if this was staged in any way, then don’t use it.

  3. Hunter says

    I completely agree…make it into a commercial and use it across the country.
    This is the best way to show the unfairness and absurdity of denying us equal rights!!

  4. Dave says

    It’s great that cameras were rolling, but they really needed to have mainstream media present to drive the point home more effectively.

    Otherwise, this was powerful and effective civil disobedience. Kudos!

  5. Mike says

    Per comment above: There really was no civil disobedience here. The whole point, in fact, is that she was being obedient to the law.

    I agree — it’s brilliant, and one of the most amazing videos I’ve seen re marriage equality. (And only 1 minute 12 seconds!)

    It’s love how the male is younger, wearing shades, very very casual — and Kitty Lambert can get married to *that* person on the spot!!!!!

    I’m going to pass the vid onto a bunch of people right now….

  6. patrick says

    Sorry to be the party pooper, but when I step back and think, here’s my conclusion: I’m as outraged as anyone over being denied the right to marry, but I don’t support acts like this. I suspect they are more likely to merely fuel the fires of those vocal opponents of gay marriage. This is giving them a reason to say, “gay people really just want to ridicule our marriage laws; they don’t really want fair access to them.” In fact, the smart conservatives will come back and say, “Hey, thanks for the heads, up. So, we’ll institute a waiting period for straight marriage, or some other objective standard to determine the couple is serious, and then everyone is happy! They’ll say “the abuse of current laws (whether by Britney Spears or the above couple)is no reason to grant gays marriage rights.” I’m in favor of focusing on the happy and successful gay marriages that exist today in many states, and the many committed longtime partners out there. Acts like the above will only anger the conservative base and give them reason to paint us as insincere, flighty and disrespectful of marriage.

  7. Gianpiero says

    Geez, and now that stranger has the right to make legal decisions regarding Kitty’s health and may have some claim to the stuff she shares with Cheryl. I sure hope Cheryl is protecting herself legally. Kitty has just put them, as a couple, into a real legal mess. Happy Valentine’s Day.

  8. says

    This is a heartbreaking illustration of the problem but I think it assumes that our opponents would be appalled by two straight strangers marrying each other when, in fact, there’s little basis that I can see to make this assumption. For our opponents, the loving nurturing aspect of a marriage is a “nice to have,” not a requirement. The salient issue for them is marriage as a contract between a man and a woman; nothing more.

  9. says

    Patrick, you’re right and wrong at the same time.

    Of course this stunt will anger conservatives. Why? Because it points out the obvious silliness of the current system, their status quo.

    Sorry. But I just don’t think ignoring how stupid the system is will make it any better. Is there a long history of that?

  10. KittyLambert says

    I want to thank you all for your comments. I am the president of a Grassroots org called OUTspoken For Equality, here in Buffalo. This is a very small piece of what was actually filmed.
    We did this to make the point (part one, in fact, of a plan) that there is something sacred about that $40 piece of paper. But it is NOT something religious. I wish they had chosen the part where I turned to the the more than 14 other people that were there and talked about WHAT this paper could give our FAMILIES and about the protections and security we, as both couples and as families, are gravely needing.
    Gianpiero,The young man, Ed Manz, and I did not and will not marry. I am a lesbian. He has equipment I find offensive, but HE seems to be a very lovely young man.
    It is JUST a $40 piece of paper until it is signed by an officant and both myself and Ed, then FILED with the State of New York Registrar of Marriages. And that really is the point. WE GOT IT FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND IT GETS KEPT BY THE GVMT AND ENFORCED BY THE GVMT…. My Senators view of religion has NO place in the vote.
    Alan, truly, Straights do not see this as a “contract between a man and a woman”. No offense, but I have been having the “let me educate you” discussion with them for 5 years now… they have NO IDEA what that piece of paper gives them.
    Until we continue to speak out and stay out, and stop thinking we can depend on someone, somewhere, to get this passed for us, we will continue to get turned away.
    “NO! BECAUSE I SAID SO!” doesn’t even work on our grandkids… why have we as Gay Americans been willing to accept it?
    On February 23rd,2010 (a Tuesday) we will decend on the NY State Senate in Albany New York to tell them we are not going away and we are not happy with the way they voted… but we can get really happy about helping THEM go away and elect individuals who are willing to consider the safety and protection of our families, of our children as of equal importance to theirs.
    Bill, Do the work. Or as my dad would say…
    “Piss or get off the pot” but parking in front of a computer screen just gets you fat and frustrated. YOU have the power to change the world.
    I am just an old grandma who wants to make sure that as an American, I get the same as everyone else…. not more, not less, not different, not special. The same.
    I won’t go away any time soon…I hope you will all join me. You too, Bill

  11. Rob says

    HRC ad perhaps? @ patrick: I think you miss the message. It’s not mocking marriage; it’s mocking the current law that allows her to marry someone she meets at the marriage license desk and not the woman she has been committed to for many years.

  12. James says

    Getting a marriage license, isn’t quite the same thing as “getting married” … or is there more to the video?? In any case, I find it extremely moving and effective. It should be used.

  13. Dave says

    @James: That’s the point. The GLBT advocates (because there are a LOT of straight allies out there!) are fighting for the right for the paper. Opponents are willfully encouraging the errant belief that the ceremony is as important at the paper. It is not – at least from the perspective of legal rights and responsibilities.

  14. spongekill says

    Good way to illustrate the lack of rationality behind marriage laws, but I don’t care for how she put this lowly clerk on the spot with that tearful plea. That’s some Michael Moore crap, it accomplishes nothing and only serves to indulge their ego.

    They should have saved the speech for a politician, and when the politician didn’t respond positively, head to the clerk’s office with this random dude to get married.

  15. james says

    gay militants are idiots. obviously this was a setup with someone she knew.

    people aren’t worried about gay marriage for religious reasons.
    gay men are perverts and would rape kids as well as confuse them.
    gay women are gender confused and would screw kids up.

Leave A Reply