New York legislature says "I do" to same-sex marriage (big photo gallery)

Discuss

91 Responses to “New York legislature says "I do" to same-sex marriage (big photo gallery)”

  1. ultranaut says:

    yes homo

  2. Anonymous says:

    Thank whatever diety you pray to (or reason if you don’t) that NY came to it’s senses and finally allowed the gay population equal rights. Yeah, I could crack jokes about how they’ll finally get to be as miserable as us hetero married SOB’s, or how it doesn’t threaten my own marriage etc… (and to some degree both comments would be true). The simple fact though is I imagine that this will have little to no immediate effect on my life whatsoever.
    I don’t imagine that there’s going to be a rain of hellfire and brimstone, and the residents of NY aren’t going to be turned into pillars of salt. Actually, I imagine that the institution of marriage will actually be strengthened by allowing a group of people so long denied this basic right to engage in it. I think that most gay couples are not as likely to get married out of social pressure, and may actually be MORE committed to the ideals than your average hetero couple.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Yes, of course this is good news. But the little infant human race is still crawling. Our transhuman successors will say, “How barbaric and stupid, those early ones.” And btw, my Captcha to submit this comment was Man, fryypan!!

  4. gman says:

    A few thoughts on this:
    1) Why wasn’t it 62-0 in favor? In twenty years, those 29 representatives are going to look a lot like the guys who voted against the Civil Rights Act.
    2) My prediction: July 24th, 9:15 AM – First gay marriage in the state of New York. July 24th, 12:31 PM – First gay divorce in the state of New York.
    3) Party time in old New York tonight. You deserve it, boys and girls.

    • Tensegrity says:

      >Why In twenty years, those 29 representatives are going to look a lot like the guys who voted against the Civil Rights Act.

      You’re right, but let’s not forget that there are still people in 2011 who oppose the Civil Rights Act.

      Anyway, it is a great occasion!

    • knappa says:

      Well, for #1: If it was 62-0 now, it could have been passed 32-30 a long time ago.

  5. racerabbit says:

    [ahem] Eeeeeeeeeeeee!

    This pleases me no end.

  6. AsteriskCGY says:

    I find it funny that I first caught this story on Yahoo and the most promoted comment was against gay marraige. As well as the top dozen. And then debated with my friend about finding conservative comments on the liberal internet. Which turned to the fallacy of religious = republican.

  7. siliconsunset says:

    This, and only this, makes me proud of New York; good job on finally giving in to common sense.

  8. Jake0748 says:

    You mean some actual legislative body here in the good ol’ US, did the right thing for once? Bravo! See, it’s not that hard.

    Nice photo set Xeni. I don’t know how ANYONE could look at those pictures of happy, relieved, smiling, hopeful faces and not feel good. Maybe there is some hope for humanity after all.

    … nah. :P

  9. anharmyenone says:

    I predict the backlash will come in the form of a resurgence in the Covenant Marriage movement.

  10. archigos says:

    n mr mprtnt nws, Wscnsn pprvd lf-svng rght-t-crry lgsltn whl Nw Yrk wstd thr tm n ths. Why d w py ths dts gn?

    • dw_funk says:

      Allow me to be the first to tell you that you can’t troll this victory away. This may be asinine culture war junk to some of you, but for us? This is another victory in a revolution, a war we’ve been fighting for decades.

      So please, by all means, stay inside. We’ll be partying in the streets, celebrating the long arc of justice in motion.

    • dw_funk says:

      on the other hand, I appreciate that you may have been trying to be sarcastic.

    • CLAVDIVS says:

      cool story bro

  11. Cowicide says:

    +1 American Evolution

  12. cloud93 says:

    First of all let me say this bit of news was the best I’ve heard since Donald Trump chickening out on running for president. IT’s amazing, and I am so happy for New York, and that they seem to have a governor willing to broach politically dangerous topics and get things done. That said, I think you guys need to be more tolerant of what zyodei is saying. I don’t think he’s being anti gay rights, anti gay marriage, nothing like that. I think he is right in saying that the involvement of the state in a religious thing, and the involvement of religion in legal matters, is outdated and a bad idea. LET ME REITERATE that I am fervently pro-gay rights, or I should just say, human rights, because there shouldn’t have to be that distinction. But I think zyodei that your argument is being staged in the wrong forum. I agree with you that there should be a separation between marriage in the eyes of the state and marriage in the eyes of the church, because they are an should be separate entities. But the issue, or rather nonissue here is that this was a huge victory for human rights. End of story, congrats New York!

  13. Anonymous says:

    Yay for civil rights!

    Also, the guy in the last picture with the awesome hat?
    His facial expression is priceless.

  14. Sagodjur says:

    I appreciate that the sanctity of marriage has been reinforced by this move. Only with spreading rights to others do we ensure those rights for ourselves.

  15. Anonymous says:

    So how about the way bread-and-butter issues like employment nondiscrimination, anti-bullying, community access to healthcare, parents kicking out LGBT children, schools doing the same, libraries barring LGBT literature, society treating trans folks as “natural prostitutes” and the legal system targeting trans folks as an easy conviction, and all the other cases of systemic violence.

    Have fun with your feel-good symbolic politics. But it’s shoved aside other matters for the community.

    • Anonymous says:

      Do you really think it has been shoved aside? I’m pretty sure that most of the people who were working like crazy for equal marriage rights still stand for equal rights in general. I don’t think that anyone said the work was over. This is one victory, and it means a lot to a lot of people. Please don’t belittle what has happened here. The folks out there who are working to end discrimination and promote equal rights might want to celebrate for a minute, but we all have a lot more work to do. And we’re making more progress every day through awareness outreach, more media exposure, and a great positive initiative. We are in a very exciting social period in the US right now, and I think progress is winning.

  16. Jenonymous says:

    I am so happy and proud. I called my brother and future brother-in-law (both overseas currently) to give them the good news, and we are all SO happy about this!

    The only thing that may be similarly happy-making for me (think the moon to the sun of joy this gave me) would be seeing that awful, inarticulate, hypocritical bigot Reuben Diaz thrown out on his ass.

    And thank you BB for the link to the Rainbow Empire State Building…perfect. Makes me proud to be a native New Yorker and an American for a change.

  17. Anonymous says:

    See California, THAT’S how it’s done.

  18. Tzctboin says:

    Well done guys and gals.

    How anybody can be against people being so happy is something that should forever shame those opossing the pursuit of happiness of their fellow citizens.

  19. wadjet says:

    How beautiful to see those happy faces! The world is a better place today.

  20. Bottle Imp says:

    Can someone with a better knowledge of NY politics tell me, is this something that a shift in the elected seats could easily undo? Should I be getting some money to potentially endangered yes voters to help keep this thing alive after the next set of elections?

  21. awjtawjt says:

    Yay! Equality is so hard-won. We have to keep working!!! We are not there yet!

  22. Anonymous says:

    Interesting that Cuomo introduced this himself — good for him! And congrats to all New Yorkers!

  23. tmdpny says:

    Can someone please explain to me why those post is tagged as ‘Happy Mutants’?

    • IamInnocent says:

      Because it is a happy mutation of our societies ?

    • Amsterdaam says:

      BoingBoing readers and awesome people in general are referred to here as “Happy Mutants”. It’s not a derogatory remark.

      In other news, YAY NEW YORK! Congrats to all! It’s nice to see some liberties granted for once!

  24. travtastic says:

    Only goddamn 44 more states to go!

  25. Anonymous says:

    I’ve never been prouder to be a New Yorker. This day goes down in history as the first Republican controlled state senate to approve same-sex marriage equality. How doya like them apples?

  26. tessuraea says:

    Another step toward equality. I’m so, so happy. I teared up at the images in front of the Stonewall. Another piece of our history…

    Also: the reason marriage equality is worth the fight is that it does matter to lots of people, who want to get married. It’s a problematic institution. I don’t really want to be married. But lots of queer people do. If we want equal rights, we don’t just fight for what the radicals among us want. End of story.

    And every place where my girlfriend and I could get married, with all the rights and responsibilities conferred by that status under the law, is a place a tiny bit closer to equality. For now, whatever I feel about marriage as an institution, as a campaign it’s working. And I want my equality, dammit! I want it under law and in the minds of everyone. I want the people who think it’s okay to fire my girlfriend for being “too gay” or refuse to show us apartments because we’re together (both recent events) to be seen as the ridiculously intolerant bigots they are. And even if this doesn’t concern you – if you’re straight, you have no queer friends at all, and you don’t care about equal access to institutions like marriage – look at the faces in these pictures!

    Every step toward equality is worth celebrating. If you think they’re the wrong steps, by all means go take what you think are the right ones. Armchair activism is ridiculous at best. This isn’t an intellectual exercise; it’s our lives! Talk about what you think we should do all you like, I suppose – but don’t try to tell us what we want or need or deserve.

    And… New York! We won New York!

  27. Ugly Canuck says:

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again:

    Americans usually get things right, eventually.

    • Cowicide says:

      Americans usually get things right, eventually.

      “Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing…after they have exhausted all other possibilities.”

      — Winston Churchill

      • ZippySpincycle says:

        You know, I’ve seen that line attributed a few times to Churchill, and while it certainly sounds like the sort of thing he would say, I still can’t find a definitive source–Wikiquotes relegates it to “unsourced” in its Talk page, for what it’s worth. Since it also floats around the web in a number of different versions, none with a clear source, I’m inclined to think it’s not really something he said. Doesn’t make it any less accurate as a description of America, though.

        • Cowicide says:

          Yah, I have no idea. I’ve just seen it in various iterations and liked the quote. For all I know, Hitler said it.

  28. zyodei says:

    A contrarian opinion.

    Why do gays so want in on the utterly rotten institution of marriage, anyway?

    Of course, I understand the practical reasons. Visitation rights in hospital, child raising issues, automatic wills, benefits, etc.

    But almost all of those, in a sane will, could be clearly determined by a simple contract, not some sort of ‘marriage license.’

    What is marriage? As I see it, it has three components.

    The first is common law marriage. Living together, sharing a house, raising a family, etc. For the most part (except the last point), this is something homosexuals generally have, and should fight tooth and nail for.

    The second is religious marriage. It was introduced around 400 years ago in order to corral and control the common people; to fold their existing habits and lifestyles into the purview of the church and religious dogmatic mindfuck. Some liberal churches will let gays marry, and it’s commendable, but…fuck all that, who wants to be a part of it?

    The third is state marriage. This is a very recent development – and one that sprang from American racism and a nazi-esque eugenics movement that was very popular earlier in the 20th century. The original purpose of marriage laws was to prevent blacks, chinese, mexicans, etc from marrying our innocent young white lasses; the second reason was eugenics, to deny marriage licenses to ‘unfit’ couples and thus improve the genetic lot of the human race.

    So, why the hell do we need marriage licenses in the first place?

    Why go begging at the feet of your master, asking for a basic human right? Why do you want the state to consecrate your love?

    It’s like trying to show your nice painting to the crowd of brain eating zombies at your door. They don’t give a shit.

    Are these the great civil rights struggles of our time? For same sex couples to receive state sanction for their marriage? For gay men to be able to pick up an M-16 and murder some innocent saps in the imperial wars? Let a couple million young black men out of the court-prison meatgrinder, THEN we’ll talk about civil rights.

    Of course gay people should have ALL rights that white people have. They should be able to visit their children in the hospital, companies should give same sex partners full benefits (although that’s not a state matter), there should be automatic inheritance and property titles, etc. etc. I don’t deny that gay couples do get a raw deal in the current system.

    But the solution to all of these is to demand them precisly, point by point, on an equal protection basis. At the same time call for an abolition of the institution of state marriage, that has been so discriminatory and damaging to gay couples over the years.

    • Brainspore says:

      …call for an abolition of the institution of state marriage, that has been so discriminatory and damaging to gay couples over the years.

      Here are the two simplest reasons that plan would be an incredibly stupid approach for gay couples who want to get married:

      1) It wouldn’t work. The vast majority of Americans, gay and straight, have exactly zero interest in abolishing legally recognized unions and a call to do so would only fuel the fanatics who keep trying to convince us that the evil homosexuals are trying to “destroy traditional marriage.”

      2) We’re talking about PEOPLE WHO WANT TO GET MARRIED here. Why would they work to abolish the very right they yearn to enjoy? It would be like interracial couples in the 50s trying to gain equality by outlawing marriage between white people.

      New Yorkers who support same-sex marriage knew exactly what they wanted, fought for it and won. If anyone should be working to abolish state marriage it should be people like you who actually have a problem with it. So where’s your PAC? Where’s your AbolishStateMarriage.org web site? Why aren’t you hosting anti-marriage meetings at your home and organizing marches on Washington instead of sniping at people who worked to win rights you don’t value?

    • CastanhasDoPara says:

      While I am a veteran of the contrarian legion and typically despise the institution of marriage as it is more or less a property arrangement (usually with women as the property) that serves no other purpose than codifying certain ‘normal’ interactions of mature adults in the endeavour of acceptable cohabitation and slapping an over-rated gaudy ceremony on top of everything to allow seemingly narcissistic, congratulation-seeking twits to be seen by their friends, family and the whole of ‘normal’ society as legitimate (or not ‘living in sin’, one of those hokey religious holdovers that many idiots still cling to today.) That being said, I still feel that IF people wish to engage in a marriage, civil-union or other form of pair-bonding ritual then that is their choice. I may roll my eyes and wish for a time when such an arcane and silly ritual is not needed to legitimize the love between two people but even still I look at this as a positive step along the right path. More or less for civil-union aspects of the ordeal such as visiting rights, benefits and other social constructs but also for the inherent nose-thumbing to the religious whack-a-dos such as pat robertson and his ilk. Seriously, to hell with a bunch of those jerks.

    • unit_1421 says:

      The marriage movement is being driven by a loud minority in the homosexual/bisexual population who are too scared and lazy to build a new set of institutions and definitions of “family.” I’ve never needed either the Church or the State to approve my relationships and no sniveling hospital jerk-off has ever kept me from seeing whomever I want to see. If you want to see real courage, look to Norway where they’re working to abolish marriage and replace it with domestic partnership contracts that can be entered into by multiple people regardless of gender.

      I’d rather see New York homos and bis working for the right to get a cocktail and blowjob from your partner in a bar legally, not sucking up to religious assholes who would happily shove us all into a gas chamber the first chance they get.

      • TenInchesTaller says:

        I’m glad that you know what that Loud Minority *really* wants better than they do. You should really let them know how they really feel.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      Put your money where your mouth is and get a divorce. I personally promise to blog it on BB if you submit some proof.

    • travtastic says:

      This is uncomfortably close to a libertarian rant on an article about people fighting for their basic rights.

      Personally, I’ve never had any interest in marriage, although I do cohabitate just fine. That has nothing to do with this. Your feelings on marriage have nothing to do with this.

      People want their rights, and they’re not being allowed them. They’re fighting to get them, and winning. You of all people should be lapping this up.

      • zyodei says:

        The question is, what are ‘basic human rights?’

        State Marriage, as it is conceived of today, grants a whole panopoly of so-called rights- more than 1,000. Many of these include the ‘right’ to federal services, or the ‘right’ to receive preferential treatment from private groups such as employers.

        Certainly, as long as straight couples are entitled to these bogus rights, gay couples should be too – it’s a simple matter of equal protection under the law.

        However, as I see it, this parity should be achieved not by extending the provision of these bogus rights to gay couples, but by paring them down for the protected class of individuals known as ‘married couples’; and at the same time increasing recognition of fundamental human rights for every person on the planet.

        In short, if marriage grants any additional privileges above and beyond what each person could lawfully grant to the other in a properly worded contract, I am suspicious of it.

        As much as I support gay couples’ struggles for recognition and fair treatment under the law (and I strongly do), this whole effort has the effect of increasing the legitimacy of state marriage, and it is *that* that I am leery of.

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          However, as I see it, this parity should be achieved not by extending the provision of these bogus rights to gay couples, but by paring them down for the protected class of individuals known as ‘married couples

          Have you filed for divorce yet? Because until you stop enjoying the political, legal and financial privileges of marriage while encouraging denying them to others, you’re a hypocrite.

          So have you filed for divorce yet?

          • Anonymous says:

            Ah, if only it were so simple. I have absolutely no interest in marriage whatsoever, and I never have; I have always considered the idea of containing something as free and unpredictable into a cold contract to be ..horrid.

            However, falling deeply in love with a British resident overseas, what was I to do? Realistically, it really came down to get married or..never see each other again.

            It’s a crap choice.

            Frankly, it’s also TOTAL crap that a gay couple, in the same situation, doesn’t have the same option that we did. It’s grossly discriminatory.

            But to me, this is one more indication that one’s marital status – a basically personal, religious thing, weighed down with centuries of implied meaning – should simply be not be a factor in the legal process in any way.

            So, thank you for your kind offer, but as this strange looking piece of paper keeps my beloved at my side for the time being, I will have to decline ;)

            And please note that, in this thread, I NEVER said I didn’t support gay marriage. Quite the opposite, I repeatedly said that as long as straight people can marry, gay people ought to be able to. What I don’t like is the institutionalization of marriage in law in the first place…

        • travtastic says:

          Well, the rest of us wholly plan on living together in communities and nations. You know, civilization.

          This is no longer uncomfortably close to a libertarian rant, it’s agitatingly a libertarian rant. I think I can speak for my LGBT brothers and sisters when I say that we want what we want, and what we want is not extremists telling us how to run our lives.

          Am I talking about you, or the people who don’t support gay rights? Does it bother you that that’s not really clear, that I would have to explain which of you I mean?

          • zyodei says:

            Calling what I write a ‘libertarian rant’ is probably the easiest way to ignore the meat of my argument entirely.

            One more time: This whole conflict stems from state involvement in marriage, something totally unnecessary for ‘communities or civilization’ to exist. State involvement inevitably creates a zero sum ‘win-lose’ dynamic; where on the one hand homosexuals feel discriminated against (correctly), and on the other hand religious types feel that the government is meddling with their sacred institutions (also correctly).

            The solution is to recognize that marriage is fundamentally a religious institution, and by the first amendment to remove government from it entirely.

            Then, create a separate model called ‘civil union,’ that ALL couples, gay or straight, would be eligible for.

            For the record, I have often posted on Conservative web sites and argued for the necessity of gay marriage as a basic equal protection issue.

            But, because I respect the intelligence of BoingBoing readers more, it is here that I like to come to debate the bigger picture.

          • jere7my says:

            Calling what I write a ‘libertarian rant’ is probably the easiest way to ignore the meat of my argument entirely.

            Not at all. The easiest way is just to ignore it entirely. That’s mostly what I’ve been doing.

            That said, it is incredibly easy to ignore libertarian rants, because they all sound like this to me: “Blah blah contracts, blah blah Rand Paul, blah blah fundamental misunderstanding of human nature.”

          • zyodei says:

            Sorry. Let me rephrase that. “Dismissing what I write as a ‘libertarian rant,’ and ignoring it, is the easiest way to avoid considering the validity of what I write and discussing it intelligently.”

            In that spirit, I would like to thank castanhas, antinous, Anon#55, and Brainspore for their thoughtful replies that do make me reconsider my position. I apologize if I don’t find time to reply to you, but..it’s a discussion worth having.

            And to unit_1421…that’s exactly what the fuck i’m talking about. Thank you! That Norway story is very interesting, I will have to read up on it…

            If you want to win a war, the most important element is choosing your battles wisely.

          • travtastic says:

            If you want to win a war, the most important element is choosing your battles wisely.

            That being the case, perhaps you should try to avoid carpet-bombing every post in sight with Ron Paul talking points, huh?

            There’s actually a very good reason I ignored your argument, and that’s because you’ve brought it up somewhere around over 9,000 times before. It stays just about the same, with minor variations to get that critical tangential relation to the topic at hand. I think the very most you can reasonably expect out of anyone here anymore is politeness.

          • zyodei says:

            And you have replied with some sort of pithy, 1 or 2 line comment 9,000 times. If you don’t have anything to say, let your keyboard rest.

            Sadly, the position I am stating is not that of Ron Paul; I might be wrong, but I believe he simply wants it to be decided on a state level, which is a far cry from removing government from the equation entirely.

          • travtastic says:

            You act like your months, if not years worth of older comments don’t exist.

            I have tried debating you on this before. You’re more than welcome to go back and look. If the boingboing UI isn’t good enough, navigate yourself to google and use ‘site:boingboing.net’ before a search string.

            Seriously, dude. You can do better than being a one-trick pony.

            Do you want to talk about it now? What was the subject anyway, how marriage is a way for The State to shackle the individual? A remnant of a Fascist attempt at eugenics?

          • zyodei says:

            Apparently you are debating me about something I wrote three months ago. The question here is about marriage. To my knowledge, it is not something we have ever discussed before.

            In reply to your second point,

            Yes, I participate in an institution I don’t agree with, because I want to live my life freely and protect myself from state violence.

            Without this, my wife would not be able to be here with me legally. Which would mean that, if she stayed beyond a regular tourist Visa, she would live in perpetual fear of being physically taken away by INS agents, ie men with guns.

            So yes, I WILL take part in institutions I don’t agree with, if it will protect me from state (or other type of) violence.

            I don’t see how joining the military or working in a meat processing plant would fall into this category.

            Here’s a better example: I consider paying taxes to be morally abhorrent and literally a material support of terrorism.

            And yet, I still pay taxes, because not doing so would open myself up to, yes, men with guns coming to my house with the intention of committing some sort of aggression against me.

            And I NEVER said that gay couples shouldn’t pursue this. I have, if you are capable of reading, stated at least five times in this thread that I support gay couples having the same marriage rights as straights. I merely questioned whether this is where the battle line should be drawn.

            It seems bizarre to me to think that being allowed to take part in an antiquated judeo-christian ritual is the ultimate expression of one’s individuality.

            @brainspore 82: Frankly, I consider clearly laying out the terms of the issue to be an important and productive first step. But, as much as I think the institution of state marriage is flawed, there are innumerable bigger fish to fry and more important issues in the world, which I do direct my energy to.

          • tessuraea says:

            Heh, so your point is that people shouldn’t want the same rights you have and use because there are more important things to want and we should want those first.

            Luckily, we don’t have to listen to your opinion of our opinions. You go on thinking whatever it is you’re thinking, and I’ll go on living my life. The one where I lack access to the institution you make use of because it benefits you, even though you don’t like it. Cheers.

          • travtastic says:

            Apparently you are debating me about something I wrote three months ago.

            You’re missing the point. That being that it’s always some variation on how The Big Bad State is trying to destroy our freedoms. And not just this one, which actually is. No, it’s the entire concept of The Federal State, state regulation, etc. etc., ad nauseum. Almost literally nauseum. Frankly, I’m surprised that we haven’t started talking about The Free Market yet.

            But, as much as I think the institution of state marriage is flawed, there are innumerable bigger fish to fry and more important issues in the world, which I do direct my energy to.

            Here’s the problem that everyone here seems to have with your argument about what LGBTs should be doing: there are always bigger fish to fry. Always.

            In general, this is just one of the lamest possible arguments imaginable. Want health care? We’ve got wars to fight! It’s a recession! Want to end the wars? Not until we win! Want bridges that don’t collapse? Not while the unions are breaking the bank!

            Specifically, here, you’re virtually saying that you care more about your abstract concepts, than you do about real people, who want their rights right now. They don’t care about the Great Marriage Swindle. They want to marry their partners. And after they do, they’re still not going to care.

          • travtastic says:

            Now, I’m going to go ahead and walk away. This isn’t going anywhere.

            If you’re interested in the historical context of the argument zooming over your head, pick up a copy of Martin Luther King’s ‘Why We Can’t Wait‘. At the very least, you should be able to find the text of his ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail’, which is what the book is built around.

            ————-
            He wrote, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly… Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider…”.
            ————-

            [Amazon]

            [Wikipedia Entry]

          • travtastic says:

            I actually managed to forget the important quote:

            “This ‘Wait’ has almost always meant ‘Never.’” King declared that they had waited for these God given rights long enough and that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

          • Brainspore says:

            Frankly, I consider clearly laying out the terms of the issue to be an important and productive first step. But, as much as I think the institution of state marriage is flawed, there are innumerable bigger fish to fry and more important issues in the world, which I do direct my energy to.

            Activists: “Hooray! We won the issue we were fighting for!”

            Grumpypants: “Good for you, but instead of fighting for issue A it would be better if you fought for issue B.”

            Activists: “But we don’t support issue B. You’re the one who wants issue B. Why aren’t YOU fighting for that?”

            Grumpypants: “Because I’ve got more important things to do!”

          • EvilSpirit says:

            It’s been a while since I’ve seen nonsense demolished so entertainingly.

          • Anonymous says:

            The solution is to recognize that marriage is fundamentally a religious institution, and by the first amendment to remove government from it entirely.

            Which religion, the worship of Marduk or Ra? Because it predates all the ones that exist now, even Hinduism. It amazes me how many people decide marriage is a church thing simply because the church claimed it.

          • travtastic says:

            Calling what I write a ‘libertarian rant’ is probably the easiest way to ignore the meat of my argument entirely.

            No. Everyone reads your rants, that has the patience. Everyone understands them, who reads them. You’re effectively preaching to a wall.

          • Anonymous says:

            2nd travtastics sentiments. Further to the point, this particular article and posting on BoingBoing is a CELEBRATORY statement. Engaging the issue of marriage vs civil unions vs overthrow and replacement of traditional mores with radical alternatives is FAR besides the point and belaboring irrelevant considerations at this point.

            So take your quasi radical positions to some student union that still cares and STFU already. As another posted comment indicated, make your website, hang your shingle, pronounce your views and opinions. See who’s company you enjoy better, your voice or the crickets.

    • Anonymous says:

      But the solution to all of these is to demand them precisly, point by point, on an equal protection basis.

      Why win one fight when you could be in the middle of a hundred different battles? Congratulations to the gays of New York, who by doing precisely what zyodei thinks they shouldn’t have, should now have all these legal rights.

      • zyodei says:

        Because it’s a matter of winning the battle and losing the war.

        Focusing your efforts on winning one narrow slice of rights, in an environment where the basic rights of ALL Americans are being slowly whittled away day by day…

        I don’t know, don’t get me wrong..this law is certainly a good thing.

        But this whole approach misses the bigger picture: why should ANY person have to beg the government for the right to visit their loved ones in the hospital etc.?

    • jere7my says:

      Yeah, don’t you hate it when people value different things from you? Keep talking — all those blissfully happy people in New York currently lounging in bed together with big smiles on their faces and empty champagne glasses on the nightstand will come around.

      (Marriage is awesome. Neener.)

  29. Eseck says:

    Did anyone else notice that the guy in the background of the second picture looks strangely a lot like Ted Haggard? He should be an impersonator for the lulz.

  30. Dayglo says:

    Rachel Maddow on gay marriage passage In New York: ‘President Obama Is Against What Just Happened.’ Sad but true.

  31. Antinous / Moderator says:

    zyodei,

    I’m still waiting to hear about why you’re still enjoying the societal benefits of an institution that you find so heinous.

    • zyodei says:

      I submitted it as an anonymous comment accidentally. Maybe it didn’t go through?

      The reason is because I am not a martyr. I might think that drug laws are abhorrent and wish that all people would be let out of prison for victimless crimes; but I’m not going to go wave a bag of dope around in the lobby of the police station in solidarity. It wouldn’t do any good.

      So, my wife is British and I am American. As you can see, I like politics – but I am not about to put political principles above the call of my heart!

      If we were not married, we could not be together in the same geographic place. Period. Nor could we raise our child together. That is the only benefit we derive from the arrangement, the fact that it allows us to stay together.

      Frankly, it is DEPLORABLE that gay couples who meet abroad like we did cannot take advantage of this same situation. The state never has a right to prevent two people from being together.

      To me, this speaks to why the inherently religious institution of marriage should not play any part in matters of law or politics, such as immigration or adoption laws. I think that any person should be able to sponsor another to immigrate, not only their spouse; I have similar thoughts about adoption.

      Again, I don’t have any problem with gays receiving the same marriage rights as straights. I simply want to see those rights decoupled from marriage entirely.

      • travtastic says:

        So you freely admit to utilizing an abhorrent, backwards State Marriage system for your own benefit? To get approval from The State to grant your wife citizenship, under the authority of the Federal Government?

        And you won’t step out from this institution, because you’re not a ‘martyr’; but fully expect the LGBT community to ‘martyr’ themselves in your cause?

        As a peace activist, would it be okay for me to volunteer for military service? You know, for the benefits and all? Would it be okay for me to work at a meat-processing factory, because they have great insurance coverage?

  32. Timmers says:

    Amazing news, but please remember that the Defense of Marriage Act is still in force, denying gay couples the rights, protections and benefits at the federal level that are available to straights. This includes tax and federal benefits, immigration equality for binational couples, and everything else. We can’t file jointly with the IRS, for example. We don’t exist at a federal level.

    The good news is that with so many more marriages about to happen, the pressure will increase to repeal such an odious law.

    We are still not equal!

  33. Anonymous says:

    how beautiful happy people are.

    .~.

  34. Anonymous says:

    On a technical note, the NY State Assembly still has to pass the O’Donnell amendment that won the last votes for the Marriage Equality Bill to pass in the Senate. It should easily have the votes to do so, of course, having passed the original bill 80-63.

    The inseverability clause in the O’Donnell Amendment is pretty dodgy, too, though courts have set a precedent of feeling free to ignore those from what I understand.

  35. princessalex says:

    I’m so happy I could pee! :D

  36. jphilby says:

    New York, leading where California fears to tread. AWRIGHT!!!!

  37. Brainspore says:

    Again, I don’t have any problem with gays receiving the same marriage rights as straights. I simply want to see those rights decoupled from marriage entirely.

    Not enough to actually take any steps toward that goal, mind you… just enough to complain that other people aren’t.

  38. Mister44 says:

    Well, that’s cool. I liked the ESB photo.

  39. Manny says:

    I’m crying. OMG OMG OMG.

    My rational brain is telling me that it was more radical and difficult for DC and that CA has more people, but NY can’t be dismissed for being small or crazy-granola. It will be sweet to see the “only same-sex marriage from the legislature is legitimate” people hit the courts. This will make it easier for Obama to publicly evolve back to his personal beliefs. Yada yada.

    But mostly I’m at “OMG” and crying.

  40. GuidoDavid says:

    As a gay man not affected by this legislation, since I do not live there, living in a country where I doubt I will ever be able to marry another man, and somebody who despises state meddling in human relationships: WOO FUCKING HOO!

    I’d love that tomorrow all social ills disappeared and people would be free to associate as they wish, that we had a post-scarcity society and I’d be free to live along my loved one without shitloads of paperwork. But that’s not going to happen. Social progress is maddeningly slow, not straightforward and difficult, but people do what they can. I do not know if we ever will get where I want to be, but at least I am happy that gay couples have more rights. What are they supposed to do? To be second class citizens until we achieve Utopia?

    And yes, I am gay, there, I said it.

    • Brainspore says:

      As a gay man not affected by this legislation, since I do not live there, living in a country where I doubt I will ever be able to marry another man, and somebody who despises state meddling in human relationships: WOO FUCKING HOO!

      I had to re-read your post just to make sure that last exclamation wasn’t sarcastic, like when people say “boo-fucking-hoo.”

      Anyway, WOO HOO indeed!

      • GuidoDavid says:

        I meant: I am happy for them, even if I cannot have what they have and I do think there should other ways to get those rights. But I am not going to piss on their parade, and I am glad that slowly we are being more and more accepted, understood.

  41. Homospiritual Hippie Girl says:

    Let’s hear it for New York! Love it! Lady Liberty never looked so beautiful as she does tonight :0)

  42. ZippySpincycle says:

    Excellent news! Good for gay couples, and it gives Pat Robertson something to blame the next natural disaster on, no matter where it happens.

  43. Anonymous says:

    Up here in Canada, we can look south with a little more pride. Good job guys.

  44. Pusher says:

    Wait. You’re saying that my Republican state senator (Saland) did the right thing, AND I get Dan Savage as Pride Grand Marshall on Sunday? I’m starting to believe it actually does get better.

  45. Talia says:

    Texas congressman Joel Burns, of that profound confessional video of some months ago, was at the Stonewall Inn tonight, celebrating with everybody. He posted a pic to twitter:

    http://yfrog.com/hsp4uwuj

  46. ToMajorTom says:

    In light of this horrific news, my wife and I have decided that our REAL marriage has been irreparably degraded and have decided to divorce.

    (Obviously, I’m joking. Yay for good sense in NY!)

  47. Victor Drath says:

    Hey good for them!

    And I was gonna say something about ol Pat Robertson but someone beat me to it. Oh well…

    PAT ROBERTSON’S PENIS JUST SHRANK! :D

Leave a Reply