Barack Obama | Catholic Church | Christine Quinn | Cyndi Lauper | Gay Marriage | Lady Gaga | New York | News

New York Marriage Equality News Roundup


The New York Times has published a great lengthy piece on how New York eventually made it to marriage equality.

People celebrated all over New York City last night, including at the Stonewall Inn.

The White House responds: “The president has long believed that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights and legal protections as straight couples. That’s why he has called for repeal of the so-called ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ and determined that his administration would no longer defend the constitutionality of DOMA in the courts. The states should determine for themselves how best to uphold the rights of their own citizens. The process in New York worked just as it should.”

After last night's vote, New York state doubled the number of Americans living in a state with marriage equality.

Dn The New York Post buries the news on its cover. The New York Times and And Daily News do not.

NOM continues its hate by pledging $2 million in what it has announced as an attempt to reverse marriage equality in New York.

Watch: Openly gay State Senator Tom Duane's speech for marriage equality, delivered just before the vote last night.

Christine Quinn reacts: "When I was a little girl I dreamed I would one day get married, I never imagined that it would take tonight’s Senate action to make that dream come true. Tonight’s historic Senate vote is a great moment for all New Yorkers.  New York State’s recognition of marriage equality for same sex couples is an extraordinary step towards full equality for LGBT people.  Tonith’s sweet victory in Albany will be felt all across America. At long last, the change we have fought for will be seen in the lives of families throughout our great state, including my own."

NYT: "How Gay Marriage Will Change Couples’ Financial Lives."

Esb The Empire State Building was prepared for the good news.

Lady Gaga tweeted after the vote: "I can't stop crying. We did it kids."

Cyndi Lauper: I have never be prouder to be a lifelong New Yorker than I am today with the passage of marriage equality."

National impact: Fred Sainz of the Human Rights campaign says New York's law "sends the message that marriage equality across the country is a question of 'when,' not 'if.'"

The New York State Catholic Conference: "We strongly uphold the Catholic Church’s clear teaching that we always treat our homosexual brothers and sisters with respect, dignity and love. But we just as strongly affirm that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman in a lifelong, loving union that is open to children, ordered for the good of those children and the spouses themselves. This definition cannot change, though we realize that our beliefs about the nature of marriage will continue to be ridiculed, and that some will even now attempt to enact government sanctions against churches and religious organizations that preach these timeless truths."

Watch a a few truly inspiring and emotional videos of the celebrations, AFTER THE JUMP.


Feed This post's comment feed


  1. I am glad this passed, but, at the risk of sounding like King Crab, how many of those celebrating right now do you think will actually take advantage of the law, get married, and take the commitment seriously?

    I just have to wonder sometimes why we spend so much more time, effort, and energy on securing rights and passing laws than we do on dealing with our own social dysfunction as a community. I mean, most gay men don't even manage to maintain a relationship for more than 2-3 years, much less the decades required to raise a family properly, so it is hard for me to see how changing marriage laws will ever even effect more than 5% of us.

    This all just seems to me to be much more about getting straight people to approve of us than it is about anything else.

    Just a thought.....

    Posted by: Rick | Jun 25, 2011 12:39:40 PM

  2. the state must investigate where all this money nom spends to stop civil rights. if it turns out the church is involved they should be taxed for being a political organization.
    the attorney general has force open nom's and the catholic leagues finances

    Posted by: walter | Jun 25, 2011 12:42:31 PM

  3. Such joy in my heart this morning, I fear it will burst! Now come on, the rest of you reticent states, quit your lollygagging & get with the program!

    Posted by: leroy Laflamme | Jun 25, 2011 12:43:49 PM

  4. It doesn't matter how many will take advantage of the right; what matters is that every one of them can if they want.

    So rumors spread to California that there was a big celebration at The Eagle New York last night, and that the police raided it and closed the place down for the night. I hoped to find some news on this here. Is it only a rumor?

    Posted by: Marco | Jun 25, 2011 12:48:06 PM

  5. @Rick, I think you've forgotten about the other 50% of people who will be affected by this law.

    (Hint: they're women)

    Posted by: NaughtyLola | Jun 25, 2011 12:50:02 PM

  6. @Marco The Eagle? You mean the old leather bar on the West Side Highway? That place closed years ago. Maybe there is a new one with the same name, but I don't know about it if there is....

    Posted by: Rick | Jun 25, 2011 12:51:19 PM

  7. @Rick Why does it matter how many ppl will take advantage of their new right to get married?
    It is first and foremost a step towards equality. Straight ppl have the choice to get married but not all of them do. Same goes for the LGBT's now.
    Being treated equally in front of the law and being able to get certain benefits if married is huge!
    I don't think now is the time to get all philosophical. I'd suggest you grab a cold beer (or a bottle of champagne if available) and start joining the celebration!!!

    Posted by: Mike | Jun 25, 2011 12:52:21 PM

  8. @Naughty Lola I didn't forget about lesbians and I used to think they were more likely to form long-term committed relationships than gay men were......until I started asking some of them about it and found out that they are only slightly more likely to form such relationships than gay men are...and are only slightly less promiscuous than we are.

    And watching "The L Word" for 6 years certainly confirmed all that. Practically all the characters slept around and none of them managed to have a successful long-term relationship--even Bette and Tina cheated on each other and eventually broke up......

    No, they are as bad as we are, I am afraid....

    Posted by: Rick | Jun 25, 2011 12:56:51 PM

  9. The Eagle is on W.28th St and is alive and well.

    Posted by: RW | Jun 25, 2011 1:03:03 PM

  10. You don't get it RICK. This happened because people KNEW they could never get married and so they created their own rules.

    NOW that their straight friends will call them out on this, as well as asking 'so where is this going?', they can't moan and whine that 'but we have no rights, our rules are different'.

    This is what you pay for being equal in society. People want you to step up, just like they did for women and black people.

    Posted by: Rowan | Jun 25, 2011 1:03:50 PM

  11. This is such a great moment - It's wonderful to know that the NY government has now recognized my humanity. I feel like there's a brighter future ahead, and this is a very affirming, validating moment.

    Posted by: Alan | Jun 25, 2011 1:03:50 PM

  12. I am so happy to have heard this last night while out celebrating Twin Cities Pride with friends, just to be reminded that MN is in the fight of its life to defeat the MN Constitutional Amendment to ban marriage equality for its gay and lesbian citizens.
    To the commenter about why the fuss about something that not everyone will utilize? Because it is right. This is something that we should not have to fight for.
    If Marriage is such a sacred union between a man and a woman that is supposed to be lifelong and benefits the children, why does the Church allow for annulments of marriages. Why do they then allow someone to get remarried to someone else? If it was such a sacred institution, then you should only get one marriage. If it ends for any reason other than the death of one of the participants, then that is the only shot you get. Atleast in the eyes of the church, for the church and government are two separate entities and one should not tell the other how to operate.

    Posted by: Xochial Crash | Jun 25, 2011 1:04:13 PM

  13. Let's don't forget another great friend and ally, Miss Cyndi Lauper who worked tirelessly to promote equality

    Posted by: Josh | Jun 25, 2011 1:04:53 PM

  14. @Rowan I don't buy that at all, Rowan. Are you seriously suggesting that now that marriage is legal in New York, you are suddenly going to see an outbreak of decades-long monogamy and child-raising among gay people? That does not seem to have happened in any other jurisdiction that has had legalized same-sex marriage for a while (Canada, for example) and I can't imagine it having that effect in the US, either.

    As for the comments of the rest of you, I "get" the whole equality thing and the main reason I am for marriage equality is that the institution of heterosexual marriage has lost its "sacredness" over the last few decades and become a throwaway arrangement for many, including some of those who hypocritically oppose same-sex marriage despite having been divorced several times themselves. Restricting marriage to one man and one woman had therefore become nothing more than an attempt to keep heterosexuality, itself, sacred, rather than the institution of marriage so.

    I personally do not believe that men, straight or gay, were ever intended by nature to be sexually monogamous in the first place--and indeed, we are biologically programmed not to I would see marriage more as a practical means of raising children than as a reflection of romantic love and devotion to one person....but that goes against the grain of this culture......

    I just find it ironic that marriage has become such a focus at a time when the institution itself has become so weak and almost meaningless.......

    Posted by: Rick | Jun 25, 2011 1:18:05 PM


    what pending court challenges could there be?

    Posted by: Gary | Jun 25, 2011 1:23:54 PM

  16. @Rick Maybe it only matters to 5%, maybe it doesn't... but I'm in one of the 18000 pre-Prop-8 married couples in California and this day is huge for me. I bet it is for at least the other 35999, too. Despite already having what I wish all Californians could enjoy, I see every step in this direction, even in another state, as a win for everyone. I feel *safer* today than I did yesterday, and not because of some ugly TSA, Threat Level, religious, or border fence security theater, but because more people stood up to affirm that I'm a human being deserving of equal treatment under the law than did not, and this is *new thing*.

    Time will pass, most people will get over it when nothing changes, and momentum will continue to build.

    Besides, is it such a horrible thing if a side effect of gay married couples is that the larger culture starts to see gays more positively? Heck, maybe they'd even start to like us. Wouldn't *that* be a bind!

    Posted by: Mouse | Jun 25, 2011 1:33:26 PM

  17. Rick take the stick out of your ass. I've been with my partner for 18 years and know plenty of gay men in a similar situation. And like straight marriages, the monogamy status of each of those marriages is no one's business outside of the two involved. It's not about conformity, it's about having the same rights as everyone else.

    Posted by: the milkman | Jun 25, 2011 1:33:33 PM

  18. @Rick: Why are you so sure that marriage=sexual monogamy? Isn't it possible that the commitment that marriage represents could mean something more than exclusive access to the genitals of another person? I realize that's one way of viewing it and it's the way that Christians in particular have been obsessed with viewing it, but what I would like to suggest is that marriage could mean something more and something deeper. How about staying at another person's side for the proverbial better *and* worse? I think there is value in that. Just because so many people fail to grasp the value doesn't lessen it. Marriage is what a couple makes of it. If they make it about something flimsy and (perhaps) unnatural like monogamy, well, that's their right. If they make it about something different, it's also their right.

    Posted by: RyanInSacto | Jun 25, 2011 1:33:44 PM

  19. dear Rick, aka Uncle Tom, you don't sound like a crab, you sound like someone who defines themselves based on how different they think they are from others.

    It has nothing to do with Straight People Approving of anything. It has everything to do with simple human Equality.

    Alcohol is legal, yet I choose not to drink. I choose not to, yet I enjoy the freedom to MAKE THAT CHOICE FOR MYSELF.

    you don't get it, because you don't want to "get it", your entire sense of identity comes from letting everyone know "how different you are from other gay people."

    It's kinda pathetic.

    as usual from you.

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Jun 25, 2011 1:38:24 PM

  20. regardless of the nature of monogamy or if it exists aside, there is a socially formed institution of a two-person dyad in this culture that is supported by many laws and policies in both the private and public sector. We are slowly gaining access to these by legislation such as this and a slow breaking down of DOMA.

    Because queer culture has changed rather rapidly over the past 100 years in this country compared with non-queer culture, there is an increase in heterogeneity of the group which includes some people that choose to replicate a lifestyle that parallels what heterosexuals have been doing for years, only with members of the same sex. One could argue about what goals constitute "making it" for queer culture and the positives or negatives of replicating a heterosexual model, but the main point is people of the same sex wanted to enter into those types of relationships and were being blocked due to straight up bigotry.

    Opponents of gay marriage raise questions about the queering of relationships and it is true that this will beget more deviations from the old standard, however they tend to articulate it extremely poorly (People are going to be marrying toasters next!!)

    Posted by: MadM@ | Jun 25, 2011 1:46:33 PM

  21. Rick. I think you forget that infidelity and noncommittment exists in the straight community too. If you're using "the L word" as an example, check out any straight based show. "Real World", "Jersey Shore," etc. Their full of trashey, non committed staight people f-ing anything with boobs. Don't place your stereotypes on the gay community. I have longed to be married since I met my wonderful partner. To each his or her own path. Some people choose and love monogamy, some don't. At least now that is a choice for some.

    Posted by: Brad | Jun 25, 2011 1:53:40 PM

  22. Their -> they're
    Can't believe I did that. I hate that

    Posted by: Brad | Jun 25, 2011 1:56:41 PM

  23. Thankfully this stayed out of the courts--much cleaner that way and little chance of a sudden reversal.

    Posted by: anon | Jun 25, 2011 2:09:04 PM

  24. The NOMbies and the Papists make one hell of a team. Their respective LGBT hate seems to feed on the other's similar hate. Bigoted losers to the end. I hope they waste millions and millions of dollars should they try to reverse the course of New York's SSM law.

    In the meantime, I'm sure God is in Heaven smiling down on his soon-free-to-marry gay and lesbian children. Oh Happy Day!

    Posted by: HadenoughBS | Jun 25, 2011 2:18:32 PM

  25. @ Rick. Gay guys only have relationships that last a few years? My partner and I have been together for 15 years and know several other gay male couples with even longer relationships. I think your conclusion is not supported by evidence. And even if it is accurate, so what? The right to marry will be priceless and life-changing for gay couples who are eligible. Now to over throw DOMA.

    Posted by: Brian from Tucson | Jun 25, 2011 2:30:21 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Neil Patrick Harris And David Burtka Engaged« «