Marriage Now! Rally in Sheridan Sq.
Rally at Sheridan Square, at Christopher Street in New York City, at the site of Stonewall Inn.
Okay, so, I’m really glad I went - the theme was, we’re very sad about the decision the fuckers in the New York State Court of Appeals made, and damn, yes, it’s a set back, but we will KEEP ON FIGHTING!!!!!
Probably not dial-up friendly.
One man spoke of his experience in the 50’s and 60’s, the “dark days”, and gestured to the very site we stood at, the beginning of the modern gay rights movement.
There was a lot of “What do we want?” “Marriage!” “When do we want it?” “NOW!” I yelled along with everyone. I usually don’t do that sort of thing. It was very inspiring. Do you know the Long Island Teamsters support gay rights? I do now.
The plaintiffs.
There were a LOT of legislatures who came to speak. One thing I remember is being told that history is on our side. And, we were reminded that most of the resistance comes from the older generation, and that most people under 35 have the response of, “What’s the question?” BUT WE DON’T WANT TO WAIT THAT LONG!!!!
Christine Quinn, Speaker of the NYC Council, first woman elected speaker, out and proud.
And, just because yes, I am this shallow, this guy. They may have won a victory this time, but they have crazies like Jerry Falwell and we have this:
If you go to New York Times web site, and look at the picture of the rally there, if you look all the way to the back of the crowd, the red cap in the middle of the shot is my friend Matt. I'm too short - you can't see me. Course, you can't really see him either!
The following is a handout we were given at the rally, explaining the specifics of the decision. Brace yourself, this is some major bullshit. Essentially, marriage is denied because gay people have stable relationships, and they don’t need the stabilizing force of marriage the way heteros do. Read it and weep.
ON GAY MARRIAGE: TWO "RATIONAL" REASONS WHY IT'S OK TO DISCRIMINATE
COURT: UNSTABLE STRAIGHT COUPLES ARE A DANGER TO CHILDREN
Gay couples who have children are too stable to need marriage.
"First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships." ... "Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not."
"The Legislature could also find that such [heterosexual] relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement - in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits -- to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.
"[Homosexual] couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more."
COURT: UNSTABLE STRAIGHT COUPLES ARE STILL BETTER THAN TWO MOMMIES OR TWO DADDIES
"The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like."
"[S]ocial science literature reporting studies of same-sex parents and their children ... on their face do not establish beyond doubt that children fare equally well in same-sex and opposite-sex households. What they show, at most, is that rather limited observation has detected no marked differences. More definitive results could hardly be expected, for until recently few children have been raised in same-sex households, and there has not been enough time to study the long-term results of such child-rearing."
"In the absence of conclusive scientific evidence, the Legislature could rationally proceed on the common-sense premise that children will do best with a mother and father in the home."
Here's the official website: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ctapps/decisions/iiilQ6/iul06.htm. The quoted language was copied directly from the Court's opinion. See for yourself.
Okay, so, I’m really glad I went - the theme was, we’re very sad about the decision the fuckers in the New York State Court of Appeals made, and damn, yes, it’s a set back, but we will KEEP ON FIGHTING!!!!!
Probably not dial-up friendly.
One man spoke of his experience in the 50’s and 60’s, the “dark days”, and gestured to the very site we stood at, the beginning of the modern gay rights movement.
There was a lot of “What do we want?” “Marriage!” “When do we want it?” “NOW!” I yelled along with everyone. I usually don’t do that sort of thing. It was very inspiring. Do you know the Long Island Teamsters support gay rights? I do now.
The plaintiffs.
There were a LOT of legislatures who came to speak. One thing I remember is being told that history is on our side. And, we were reminded that most of the resistance comes from the older generation, and that most people under 35 have the response of, “What’s the question?” BUT WE DON’T WANT TO WAIT THAT LONG!!!!
Christine Quinn, Speaker of the NYC Council, first woman elected speaker, out and proud.
And, just because yes, I am this shallow, this guy. They may have won a victory this time, but they have crazies like Jerry Falwell and we have this:
If you go to New York Times web site, and look at the picture of the rally there, if you look all the way to the back of the crowd, the red cap in the middle of the shot is my friend Matt. I'm too short - you can't see me. Course, you can't really see him either!
The following is a handout we were given at the rally, explaining the specifics of the decision. Brace yourself, this is some major bullshit. Essentially, marriage is denied because gay people have stable relationships, and they don’t need the stabilizing force of marriage the way heteros do. Read it and weep.
ON GAY MARRIAGE: TWO "RATIONAL" REASONS WHY IT'S OK TO DISCRIMINATE
COURT: UNSTABLE STRAIGHT COUPLES ARE A DANGER TO CHILDREN
Gay couples who have children are too stable to need marriage.
"First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships." ... "Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not."
"The Legislature could also find that such [heterosexual] relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement - in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits -- to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.
"[Homosexual] couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more."
COURT: UNSTABLE STRAIGHT COUPLES ARE STILL BETTER THAN TWO MOMMIES OR TWO DADDIES
"The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like."
"[S]ocial science literature reporting studies of same-sex parents and their children ... on their face do not establish beyond doubt that children fare equally well in same-sex and opposite-sex households. What they show, at most, is that rather limited observation has detected no marked differences. More definitive results could hardly be expected, for until recently few children have been raised in same-sex households, and there has not been enough time to study the long-term results of such child-rearing."
"In the absence of conclusive scientific evidence, the Legislature could rationally proceed on the common-sense premise that children will do best with a mother and father in the home."
Here's the official website: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ctapps/decisions/iiilQ6/iul06.htm. The quoted language was copied directly from the Court's opinion. See for yourself.