Jul

24

Gay Marriages in New York Start Today

Written by

Love is in the air today, the first day that gay and lesbian couples can legally wed in the state of New York. In the city alone, 823 couples—including two of Mayor Bloomberg’s aides—are scheduled to be married. It’s all thanks to the Marriage Equality Act, which passed late last month. In honor of this historic victory for civil rights and love, Bwog reached out to pertinent campus groups to get their take on the passage of the Act. Also be sure to check out Cityroom’s piece on how young New Yorkers—that’s sort of us!—feel about marriage equality in New York.

CQA‘s response:

CQA applauds New York State for affirming the relationships of LGBTQ New Yorkers by passing the historic Marriage Equality Act! While this victory is certainly a cause for celebration, it is also an opportunity for the Columbia community to open serious dialogue about the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the proper role of the State in marriage, and the many next steps that we can take in advancing rights for all LGBTQ persons.

EAAH‘s:

Columbia’s Everyone Allied Against Homophobia is proud to join in the celebration of Governor Cuomo and the New York State Legislature’s approval of marriage equality. Marriage equality is an important step on the road to ending discrimination against the LGBTQ community and achieving equal rights throughout America. In particular, EAAH would like to congratulate our own State Assemblyman, Daniel O’Donnell, on his recent engagement to his partner of 31 years. Assemblyman O’Donnell has worked tirelessly for marriage equality and introduced the Marriage Equality Bill in the State Assembly four times since 2007. We are proud to have him representing Columbia and the rest of the 69th District.

However, EAAH also recognizes that much work remains in achieving recognition of LGBTQ equality: discrimination in housing and employment based on sexual orientation and gender identity and expression, providing support services for LGBTQ homeless youth who have been denied a home simply for being true to themselves, the daily harassment and discrimination which LGBTQ kids and teens across the nation face daily, and an immigration system which does not recognize the legitimacy of same-sex marriages all remain serious issues. EAAH remains firmly committed to fighting for a greater recognition of the equality and dignity of LGBTQ individuals through education and activism on Columbia’s campus and the greater community.”

And GendeRevolution‘s:

“GendeRevolution finds the recent passage of the marriage equality bill by the New York State legislature a welcome development and a victory for the acceptance of sexual minorities in the United States. But we feel that LGBTTQQIA [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transsexual, Queer, Questioning, Intersexed, Asexual] persons and their allies in New York ought to be well aware that this victory is far from the end of struggle for social and political equality for sexual and gender minorities in this country. At a time when more than 90% of transgender Americans report having faced employment discrimination and the transgender community endures rates of homelessness and unemployment double those of the general population, as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force noted in a landmark study released this February, more urgent matters call for our attention. High school students across the country continue to report frequent and merciless bullying due to real or perceived sexual and gender identity, rates of suicide attempts and homelessness among LGBTTQQIA youth remain staggering, we do not yet have national employment non-discrimination legislation, and it is estimated that one trans person every month is the fatal victim of a hate crime. In the face of these desperate problems, marriage equality in New York remains an important milestone, but we cannot let ourselves be distracted from either the invidious conditions under which so many LGBTTQQIA persons live in this country, or what we can do to change them.”

Hearts from Wikimedia Commons.

Tags: , , , , , ,

69 Comments

  1. Anonymous

    How about some unbiased reporting? I'm for gay marriage, but not everyone at Columbia is. Let's show their side too.

    • Anonymous

      so in other words you're not

      • hmm

        I suppose it's easy to conflate disagreement with openness to debate if you've hardly ever experienced a real debate on a contentious question, no less had your beliefs challenged. Anyway, I grant you that most people prefer to have their opinions validated and wouldn't call for more inclusiveness if they felt included. And I'll add proudly, because I'm accustomed to having opinions that aren't widely shared , that indeed I have a different opinion from yours-- although that isn't the reason I take issue with your response to the other commenter, but your attempt to enforce a comfortable insularity and group mentality, which is undesirable whatever your beliefs.

        • hmm  

          would you like an open debate? Then I suggest you stop reacting to bwog of all places and go to a forum that is as mature as you pretend to be. But then again, if you did want that then you would not have posted here in the first place.

          ha assertion was part of my capcha

    • well  

      On the one hand, Bwog did only ask the groups that were certain to support this overwhelmingly.

      On the other hand, I don't know who they could ask as a "counterpoint" - any LGBTQ group at Columbia is clearly going to be glad about this, and I don't know if you could even find a group to say something against this.

      Sorry bro, but I think you're the member of a tiny minority.

      • Anonymous

        *cough* CUCR *cough* anti-safespace *cough*

        • Just because this is their philosophy?  

          Recommended Reading:

          Obviously, The Bible comes first and the US Constitution comes second. This is the political thought that comes after.

          (from the cucr website)

        • John

          anti safe space does not equal anti gay marriage.

          • Anonymous

            it just means that if those goddamned minorities want some place where they're not going to be persecuted and can let their guard down and have productive discussion, then well, fuck 'em.

          • John

            So you think the level of persecution is really high at Columbia?

          • If you are not  

            then how are you able to see persecution? Its one of those tricky things that if you are not persecuted against then you do not notice it.

            btw have you not read the comments on what should have been a celebration for everyone?

          • John

            You point out a problem with the nature of persecution, but don't really answer my question. Perhaps you are saying that you are part of a typically "non-persecuted" population and so can't know if persecution exists within Columbia. Or perhaps you're saying you believe I am not part of a typically "persecuted" population, and so couldn't know what their experience is.

            Regardless, I wasn't asking that question rhetorically, I was asking if you feel Columbia has a high degree of persecution of minority groups.

            And the comments on this forum don't prove that Columbia has low tolerance. There largely is a debate over what is the role of a newspaper( blog, news source, whatever you want to call it) concerning those against popular measures. Should they ignore the side the majority feels is "wrong"? Or should they interview both sides, which one commentator feels will lead to "false equivalency", another way of saying "I don't like your idea so mine is better so no one should hear yours!" (you may be able to sense how childish I find this view.)

          • So it's not okay to say

            “I don’t like your idea so mine is better so no one should hear yours!”

            -- but you're saying it's ok to say "I don't like your marriage because mine is better so no one should allow yours!"

          • John

            Have I once said I'm against gay marriage? Read through everything I've written on this board.

            And those are very, very, very different statements. I am arguing (as Mill did) for freedom of speech (as well as that speech getting exposure.) Speech (and ideas) are by their nature quite different from contracts. Your argument doesn't hold.

          • If you view all of us  

            as childish then it says more about your debating techniques by taking on an immature opponent because you have a mature view. I bet you do the same thing with relationships.

            I make it personal because this topic is not to you. It is just a debate.

          • John

            @if you view all of us and
            @wait one sec
            (since you changed your name)

            I said the view was childish, not the people. I trust once the point is explained they'll do better, precisely because I don't think they're childish.

            This - "I make it personal because this topic is not to you. It is just a debate."
            Doesn't make sense.

            Nor does your trying to attack me instead of what I'm saying. (unless you're intentionally trying to divert attention from the argument.

            I find it interesting that hitting track also reveals at the bottom you try to denigrate me by saying I must be gay. Funny, on a page celebrating gay marriage, that that is how you try to "attack" me.

            but perhaps what you say @ Only way to respond to this (track button is a useful one) is most apt: bwog might not be suited to having a real conversation. at least, you're not. thanks for the reminder.

          • wait one sec  

            as I get out my persecution list (we all have one, along with minorities and other genders)

            Next time during take back the night I will look for you alone with your rhetoric. If that is all you and your 'friends' are then that is all that you are

      • Well

        I am pro-gay marriage. But just because somebody is part of a "tiny minority" does not make their viewpoint less valid. Bob Saget, the hypocrisy.

        • Well

          When their tiny minority opinion involves denying legal rights to a portion of the US population, then yes, their viewpoint is less valid.

          • John

            Like, denying the right to vote to minors??

            Your wrong. it doesn't follow that denying something to a certain segment of the population makes an argument less valid. it might not be a sound argument, if you disagree on what they believe is a "relevant reason" for discrimination. but felons are denied a lot of "rights" too, and people can have good reasons why they think that's appropriate. lazy debating on your part.

          • John

            *you're wrong. sorry for the grammar.

          • Only way to respond to you  

            SHOW TITTIES OR GTFO!

            you do not want your voice heard, otherwise you wouldn't post on bwog as if it was the proper place to do so.

          • John

            you can keep changing your name all you want, the track button still shows you double-responding to what I'm saying.

          • I had no intent  

            to hide who I was. I understand what a track button is.

          • Nice

            Real smooth -- comparing gay marriage rights to giving rights to convicting felons.

          • John

            Did you read what I wrote at all? The poster above my comment said that "denying legal rights to a portion of the US population" makes an argument less valid. I responded by saying there are plenty of "portions of the US population" that are denied certain legal rights. Felons and Youth are among those portions. Thus his statement that "denying legal rights to a portion of the US population" makes an argument "less valid" is incorrect, as most people, for example, don't think 10 year olds should be allowed to vote.

            What she should say is "denying legal rights to a portion of the US population 'for no relevant reason'" is wrong. And then the debate is about what is or is not a relevant reason. But his logic for his first post was wrong, and the comparison illuminates that point.

            PS: read through my comments, if you want to give me a thumbs down for being against gay marriage. Have I said I am?

          • Well

            I feel no need to continue arguing with you over my word choice, but I am amused by the number of times you changed my gender in that post and thought I should tell you that I am female, just to clear that up.

    • unbiased  

      Yeah Bwog, and let's get some unbiased reporting on Martin Luther King, Jr. day too! I don't have a problem with the unholy mixing of the races, but there's a tiny minority of people who worry about miscegenation. Let's show the side of those who would prefer Columbia be more homogenous.

        • John

          Well, you best believe that throughout the civil rights movement newspapers would interview people from both sides. This is a historic step forward. You may believe that homophobia will one day be as rejected as racism, but if there were a campus group opposed to the bill, it would make sense for Bwog (as a historical record of important events) to speak to those groups.

          • Seriously?  

            You think papers should be proud that they provided a platform for racist assholes while reporting on landmark civil rights victories. Wow. Papers should report the truth, not try to shoehorn in false equivalency by interviewing "scientists" funded by oil companies whenever they report on global warming and the Westboro Baptist Church whenever they report on equal rights for LGBT individuals.

          • John

            Thinking that it was only the KKK (the equivalent of the Westboro Baptist Church for racism) that spoke out against civil rights legislation is just plain inaccurate. It was a much larger swath of society, and if a newspaper means to be a record of historical events, it doesn't include quotations from only one side. This worry that allowing false opinions to be stated will provide "false equivalency" is basically the same one a totalitarian dictatorship would use in explaining its censorship laws. Mill defeats it pretty well, I think, but if you want to argue like a monarch from the 1600's, go ahead.

          • John

            And yes, I understand you didn't mention the KKK by name, but I presumed thats who you were referring to as racist assholes. The large swath of the population comment refers to people who were unknowingly racist but weren't trying to be, and for a historical record it is interesting to see what those people said.

    • OMG YOU GUYS

      OMG OMG BREAKING BADDDDD NEW EPISODE TONIGHT 9/10 CENTRAL ON AMC!!!

  2. ^better idea

    If you do not like gay marriage then do not marry someone of the same gender.

  3. that is

    so fuckin gay yo...

  4. TT  

    I don't know why people make such a big deal of it. It is others life, let them do what they want. My personal take: I do not care whether you are homo or hetero....as long as you are happy and not a nuisance to the people around you everything i fine.
    Be happy and make others happy.....

  5. next on the agenda...polygamy?

    I've never seen a logical reason why gay marriage is okay while polygamy isn't.

  6. Bored Not In Butler

    Anyone want to do it in the Farmington County Library in Nebraska?

  7. Anonymous

    wow racism. Miscegenation laws were laws instituted by popular demand in certain states to change the definition of marriage (Similar to the recent gay marriage law). To deprive a man’s and woman’s right to marry respectively. ( I.E. preventing a man from marrying a non married non related woman. Preventing a woman from marrying a non married non related man )
    Regardless of how one defines their gender every man and woman had the respective right to marry. ( I.E A man has the right to marry a unmarried unrelated woman. A woman has the right to marry a unmarried unrelated man. Everyone regardless of race, creed, and gender has the right to marry one unmarried person of the opposite sex ) Marriage did not discriminate against anyone and everyone had the same right. The “marriage equality” argument is nonsense. Those who employ it fundamentally do not want a marriage and wanted to redefine/invalidate marriage. Marriage in the civil sense is a contract. By removing Husband and wife or man and woman from the vows, the law or adding anything, changes the covenants of the contract therefore, destroys the original contract. So those who push for the law do not like marriage, which is why they wanted to invalidate it. Does the existence of car registrations discriminate against motorcycle owners or those can only afford a motorcycle. Moreover, this recent legislative decision has invalidated the definition of husband and wife. Black's Law Dictionary: " Marriage is the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.". Marriage actually defines the term husband and wife. By changing the meaning of marriage and having a partner A and B you damage family and matrimonial law, which is dictated in terms of husbands and wives. Not only will you will it change and invalidate those laws, it will add legal precedence to husbands and wives (traditionally defined) and partner A and B, which will apply to each other. This in turn will be damaging to the majority of families, especially biological children of married couples among other things, because the same presumptions cannot be made that partner A and B (same sex partners created a biological child). Moreover, within recent history we have a recent case in Vermont and Virginia, which they have had to apply lord mansfields rule ( the transcendence of English common law in the us law system, preventing a father from abandoning his child, to protect women and children ) ascribing paternity (in this case maternity) to a married partner, who is not the biological parent ( which then in turn invalidates lord mansfields rule, which had a covenant that if the father could prove the child was not his (by not being in the four corners of England during conception and gestation the law did not apply) ), between the “non biological mother and self proclaimed activist” and the “former lesbian biological mother”, normally if you were a stepfather (not biologically related) and did not adopt the child and you divorce the mother you have no legal rights to the child. However, activist judges have drawn this out and it will cause legal precedence. In this case, against the rights the biological parent for a custodial parent, which never happens in marriage unless the child is adopted. Furthermore, Plessy vs. Ferguson states you cannot have call the institution the same but have different rules for couples (which would in turn be discrimination based on gender).. Same sex relationship should not be defined as marriages because they are different and will have different implications within the law and legal relationships concerning children, inheritance etc. That is why you should not call apples oranges or same sex relationships marriages


    Moreover, when Massachusetts instituted the law, the court determined that there is no "rational basis" for such a restrictive definition, which it said reflects a "destructive stereotype" about the instability of same-sex couples and their inability to procreate. ( Why not incest? They do not have to procreate in our contraceptive age . Does marriage even imply sexual relations ?)
    The court ordered that at the end of 180 days Massachusetts will have a new definition of marriage: "We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others." ( What is the rational basis for two (the only potential indivisible procreative relationship. No, not that was thrown out in the first paragraph) Why not polygamy?)
    That formula not only redefines marriage, but also spouse. Although spouse is a gender neutral word, federal law states the obvious: "The word spouse refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
    Why are mother and father discriminatory terms every child has a mother and father that is reality, they would not exist without them. That is offensive?
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,229738,00.html
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/07/passport-applications-soon-gender-neutral/

    • ...

      man, you really need to lay off the fox news and read some fiber... cos you got one hell of a case of verbal diarrhea.

      • John

        Still no response to his point tho?

        • I'll respond

          As for the first part, he's really concerned about gay marriages because he's afraid of America being forced to change judicial rulings? Dude, it's not like we wouldn't be able to modify those decisions to include gay marriage. It's freakin' America, we don't keep the same old laws all the time -- if we did that, we'd all be stuck in the stone age.

          For the second point, gay marriage does not actively cause any harm to people. In the case of incest, you could say this creates harm when a genetic freak is produced. And polygamy can almost always be associated with a serious breach in women's rights. Here's 10 reasons for not allowing polygamy if you're interested: http://clearcutblogging.blogspot.com/2006/05/ten-reasons-why-polygamy-should-be.html

          • Anonymous

            gay marriage is not a separate entity. The law states it is marriage. How do you neuter the gender of a husband and wife and mother and father, which are all recognized legal entities, and not profoundly change all and invalidate many of the law regarding marriage relationships and children? You cannot have to separate laws governing men and female and other relationships. There is no separate but equal. Regardless of how one defines their gender every man and woman had the respective right to marry. ( I.E A man has the right to marry a unmarried unrelated woman. A woman has the right to marry a unmarried unrelated man. Everyone regardless of race, creed, and gender has the right to marry one unmarried person of the opposite sex ) Marriage did not discriminate against anyone and everyone had the same right. The “marriage equality” argument is nonsense. The relationships are fundamentally different especially regarding children, paternity, maternity, etc. Given that they are the same institution the law and rulings have to apply to both. Why are the current laws wrong?. We have different legal entities for different things. Why don’t we define every legal entity the same, even where not applicable? Is it discriminatory the law will not recognize a mother of the male gender? The legal title confirms rights and privileges not even given to the father. Are men being discriminated against? Are all conditions for legal contracts a form of discrimination?

            Moreover, when Massachusetts instituted the law, the court determined that there is no “rational basis” for such a restrictive definition, which it said reflects a “destructive stereotype” about the instability of same-sex couples and their inability to procreate. ( Why not incest? They do not have to procreate in our contraceptive age . Does marriage even imply sexual relations ?) (are there not childless married couples? Should people how potentially have genetics disease be prevented from marrying they currently are not?)
            The court ordered that at the end of 180 days Massachusetts will have a new definition of marriage: “We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others.” ( What is the rational basis for two (the only potential indivisible procreative relationship. No, not that was thrown out in the first paragraph) Why not polygamy?)
            1. That is a judgment on their lifestyle people would be free to enter leave marriage divorce etc. Does polygamy cause a low status of women?
            2. How does this not include polyandry the law is gender neutered? That is a personal choice.
            3. Wouldn’t women or men affirmatively staying single cause the same thing? Should people be banned from dating multiple people at the same time?
            4. Aren’t there families and single folks on welfare of every race color, creed and gender?
            5. Cannot the abuse of women happen in any relationship with a woman?
            6. Multiple marriage and divorces?. Doesn’t immigration fraud already happen. Would not the same screening process apply?
            7. How do not women have equal protection under the law? Should we ban immigration for other cultures, which we do not believe conform to our own? There going to breed a nation of 300 million people out in a generation?
            8. “We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others.” ( What is the rational basis for two (the only potential indivisible procreative relationship. No, not that was thrown out in the first paragraph) Why not polygamy?)
            9. semantics. Why not call partnership reciprocal imprisonments
            10. A polygamous lifestyle is currently illegal in US. Bigamy and polygamy laws in the US. I think there is currently a case in Utah decriminalization of polygamy if it weren't a criminal act.

          • ...

            if you keep this up, you're going to end up with colon cancer... of the mouth.

            why don't you try stating your argument in 100 words or less? it's far too hard (and really rather unpleasant) to dig through your giant verbal splatters to find the undigested corn kernels of half-argument.

          • ahh yes  

            the time tested (testy?) filler buster troll.

  8. CC'12

    Let these gay fuckers "give" and "take" for lifetime now...

  9. @John  

    When you come out we will accept you will loving arms and cheer for you at your marriage!

  10. Anonymous

    I'm pretty sure when God created Adam and Eve, he wanted men to fuck women and women to fuck men.

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.