PDA

View Full Version : Same-sex couples trade wedding vows in N.Y. college town to cheers of crowd



ELVIS
02-27-2004, 03:21 PM
Friday February 27, 2004

By MICHAEL HILL
Associated Press Writer (http://wcco.com/national/GayMarriage-NewYork-aa/resources_news_html)

NEW PALTZ, N.Y. (AP) Gay couples began exchanging wedding vows on the steps of village hall Friday in a spirited ceremony that opened another front on the growing national debate over gay marriage.

Officiating was Jason West, the 26-year-old Green Party mayor in this village 75 miles north of New York City, who joined Gavin Newsom of San Francisco as the country's only mayors to marry same-sex couples.

``What we're witnessing in America today is the flowering of the largest civil rights movement the country's had in a generation,'' West said.

Billiam van Roestenberg, 38, and Jeffrey McGowan, 39, were the first to wed, among up to a dozen couples who planned to trade vows. Wearing suits, they held hands and carried flowers as the crowd cheered.

``I feel happy and joyful and peaceful,'' van Roestenberg said. ``A little bit of peace has finally come in. I feel proud to be an American.''

``Now I'm normal and equal like every one else,'' he said.

More than 100 people, mostly supporters of gay marriage, turned out on the green across from village hall, outnumbering family and friends of the couples there to marry. A few scattered protesters carried signs opposing gay marriage.

Jay Blotcher of High Falls, N.Y., said that while West could only give him a certificate and not a marriage license, it was still important to go through the ceremony.

``We have to show people who we are,'' he said. ``We've been badmouthed by religious zealots. We've been deprived by President Bush, and we have to show people that we're your friends, neighbors and family.''

Blotcher, who with his partner has already gotten a civil union in Vermont and a domestic partnership in New York City, said Friday marked another important step.

``This country was founded on a revolution,'' he said. ``And this is a revolution, but it's a revolution of love.''

One protester stood outside the hall with a sign that read, in part, ``It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.''

``It's against nature,'' Angelo Da'Quaro said. ``It's against religion, it's against all of that.''

The ceremonies came a day after the state Health Department said New York's domestic relations law does not allow marriage licenses for same-sex couples. It said a clerk issuing such a license or anyone solemnizing such a marriage would be violating state law.

West and some legal experts said they read the law differently.

``For a marriage to be legal in this state all that's required is for it to be properly solemnized by someone with authority to do so,'' West told the CNN cable network early Friday. ``I'm fully able to do that.''

Vincent Bonventre, a professor at Albany Law School, said nothing in New York law explicitly prohibits same-sex weddings, but that the framers ``clearly were contemplating opposite-sex marriages.''

Discussion of gay marriage heated up this month after the top Massachusetts court ruled that anything less than full-fledged marriage for gays there would be unconstitutional. Since then, San Francisco officials have performed more than 3,400 same-sex marriages and have challenged their state law barring such unions. Earlier this week, President Bush endorsed a movement to amend the Constitution to ban the practice.

A bill in the New York Legislature would ban same-sex marriages. Similar bills have died without action in the past. At least 34 states have enacted so-called defense of marriage laws.

As word of the New Paltz ceremonies spread Thursday, the number of couples seeking to marry quickly tripled to 12, and the mayor set up a waiting list on the village's web site. By noon Friday, West said more than 100 people had signed up on the Web site, and he had received ``innumerable'' phone calls and e-mails from others who want to marry.

Plattsburgh Mayor Daniel Stewart New York state's first and only openly gay mayor said he will not perform same-sex marriages.

``I believe in changing the law, but I don't believe in breaking the law in order to change it,'' said Stewart, a Republican.


Hmmm...
:elvis:

FORD
02-27-2004, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS

``I believe in changing the law, but I don't believe in breaking the law in order to change it,'' said Stewart, a Republican.


Was Rosa Parks breaking the law when she sat down on that bus, in the "wrong" seat?. Some would say she was. However, the reality... which almost nobody is talking about, is this:

Civil unions ARE legal in this country under the 14th Ammendment. If I'm not mistaken, that was the basis for the Massachussettes ruling. And therefore the mayor of SF is not breaking any law, nor are the people getting married there, NY, or anywhere else.

Junyore Grades
02-27-2004, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
and we have to show people that we're your friends, neighbors and family.''
:elvis: [/B]

Not in my neighborhood!!
That's the best thing about living in a state who's senator is Robert KKK. Byrd, I don't personaly have to hate homesexuality, my friends and neighbors can do it for me.:lol: See, the smiley getting beat up is gay.

ELVIS
02-27-2004, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Was Rosa Parks breaking the law when she sat down on that bus, in the "wrong" seat?.

Not the same thing...

Civil unions ARE legal in this country under the 14th Ammendment.

A civil union is not a marriage...

Full Bug
02-27-2004, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Was Rosa Parks breaking the law when she sat down on that bus, in the "wrong" seat?.

What kind of comparision is that? Oh yeah, this is from the same guy that thinks Bush planned all the Sept.11 attacks......

ELVIS
02-27-2004, 04:08 PM
FORD thinks this is a civil rights issue...

Cathedral
02-27-2004, 04:26 PM
If the Mayor is issuing them a Marriage License then he is breaking the law. And if he isn't issuing them a marriage license then they aren't married and pretty much just had a nice ceremony for the fun of it.

This is all a political issue to gain survivor rights over their lovers.
personally i don't see why they are in such a hurry to have a marriage tax imposed on themselves.
But i wonder why they don't just make a will and make their lover the beneficiary of each others estates?

ELVIS
02-27-2004, 04:26 PM
The Politics Of Gay Marriage

I am adamantly opposed to gay marriage and I'll be going into detail about my position on the subject in an editorial that'll be released on Thursday. But today, I want to talk about the politics of the Gay Marriage Amendment that Bush is now publicly supporting.

There are more than a few earnest, knowledgable, rightward leaning bloggers, who'll tell you that the President is making a political mistake to back a Constitutional Amendment that preserves the sanctity of marriage. They usually base that contention on polls that show the country is roughly divided on the topic of a Constitutional Amendment, anecdotal evidence that comes from left leaning/Libertarian blogs & emails, and posts from the relatively small number of prominent conservatives who oppose an Amendment (for the moment at least).

However, as I said back in July of 2003, this is a good issue for W. to take on. But, how can it be if the polls are split on the issue? Well, the polls ARE NOT split on gay marriage. The voters are against it by a wide margin. In most polls I've seen on the subject lately, Americans come down against gay marriage almost 2 to 1. Furthermore, not only do the voters who are against gay marriage tend to be older and more likely to vote, I feel confident that on the whole, they are much more passionate about the issue than those who favor gay marriage. That's why even in perhaps the most liberal state in the nation, California, "61% of (the) voters...supported Proposition 22, a ballot initiative in 2000 that said the state would recognize marriage only between a man and a woman as valid." I can tell you with confidence that I don't believe that there is a single state where Bush will be hurt more than he is helped by strongly coming out against gay marriage.

Furthermore, now that we have two clear examples, in Massachusetts and San Francisco, of radical gay activists &/or liberal judges running roughshod over the will of the voters, I think the case for a Constitutional Amendment just got much, much stronger. And if the choice is between having gay marriage imposed on states by activist judges or having the Federal govt block it via Constitutional Amendment, and it is, then the latter is a better option and much more in line with what the American people want.

Last but not least, this issue is going to energize the GOP base while weakening Kerry.

The overwhelming majority of Republicans oppose gay marriage and social conservatives and Evangelicals in particular find this to be a hot button issue. So if Bush needed a way to help fire up the base without alienating a significant number of moderates, this is it.

On the other hand, as per usual, Kerry is stuck trying to play to both sides of the issue. He says he's against gay marriage and believes "marriage is between a man and a woman," but he doesn't back a Constitutional Amendment and is criticizing Bush for going that way. That's going to be a tough position to maintain long-term because the overwhelming majority of people who are militantly pro-gay marriage are on the left and Ralph Nader, who Kerry has to worry about siphoning off his voters, supports gay marriage. Yet Kerry doesn't want to alienate the majority of voters who are opposed to gay marriage. So Kerry will need to rabidly attack the people who are fighting against gay marriage to please his base even as he portrays himself as against gay marriage to the general populace. Trying to thread that needle is going to be very difficult for Kerry and I suspect he is going to end up looking very conflicted, evasive, and hypocritical, as he attempts to pull it off.

In any case, I applaud President Bush for doing the right thing and I certainly hope and expect for him to reap the political benefits of doing so.

John Hawkins (http://www.rightwingnews.com/)

Pink Spider
02-27-2004, 06:49 PM
It IS all about civil rights. This is right up there with segregation and treating people like they're second class citizens. The duhumanization of the 1960's can be seen continuing on today. They were using the same book then to justify segragation and even further back, slavery.

All I have to say to those against it, is that you can complain to each other all you want. There is no stopping it now. Not even with an amendment. Fool yourselves all you want to.

Lou
02-27-2004, 08:39 PM
Well it's joke that a 26 year old is mayor of a town in the first place. What the fuck kind of place is that where a 26 year old gets elected?

Seshmeister
02-27-2004, 08:56 PM
So don't encourage the homos to get into stable relationships.

Make sure they fuck anything that moves and keep the AIDS spreading.

Pink Spider
02-27-2004, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by Lou
Well it's joke that a 26 year old is mayor of a town in the first place. What the fuck kind of place is that where a 26 year old gets elected?

There are some in their 20s that are more knowlegeable than 40 year olds when it comes to politics. So, why not?

ELVIS
02-27-2004, 09:58 PM
It's not what they know.. it's how they act...

Why does the presidency have a minimum age requirement ??

John Ashcroft
02-27-2004, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by Seshmeister
So don't encourage the homos to get into stable relationships.

Make sure they fuck anything that moves and keep the AIDS spreading.

Ah, but I'm of the opinion that they can do whatever the fuck they want. It's not up to me to tell them who to fuck and how many times. But it's interesting you mention AIDS... Is this your official position? That AIDS is a gay person's disease?

Interesting.

ELVIS
02-27-2004, 10:28 PM
It was at one time...

Seshmeister
02-27-2004, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
It's not what they know.. it's how they act...

Why does the presidency have a minimum age requirement ??

Why should it when it doesn't have a minimum IQ requirement apparently?

Seshmeister
02-27-2004, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Ah, but I'm of the opinion that they can do whatever the fuck they want. It's not up to me to tell them who to fuck and how many times. But it's interesting you mention AIDS... Is this your official position? That AIDS is a gay person's disease?

Interesting.

I don't have an official position except maybe propped against the bar.

Strictly speaking it's a beastiality disease getting to the root of it.

Ally_Kat
02-27-2004, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by Lou
Well it's joke that a 26 year old is mayor of a town in the first place. What the fuck kind of place is that where a 26 year old gets elected?

someplace close to me.

look out world - President Ally_Kat just figured out how to get on the Presidental highway. :D

ELVIS
02-28-2004, 12:14 AM
I'll vote for you...

Cathedral
02-28-2004, 12:56 AM
Ally, you got my vote also... ;)

Wasn't that Mayor in Cali. the one who was elected when he was 18?

If so then time is just flying by. funny but i still feel 20 on a good day.

ELVIS
02-28-2004, 02:05 AM
I feel 20 on a bad day...

:elvis:

Ally_Kat
02-28-2004, 02:09 AM
i always feel 20 :D

Cathedral
02-28-2004, 02:19 AM
And you look it as well *whistle* Hey baby, lookin gooooood! ;)

ELVIS
02-28-2004, 03:27 AM
Read my Rothism...

:elvis:

BigBadBrian
02-28-2004, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by Pink Spider
It IS all about civil rights. This is right up there with segregation and treating people like they're second class citizens. The duhumanization of the 1960's can be seen continuing on today.

Is that the same dehumanization that calls an unborn human a "mass of tissue" and then kills it? :gulp:

BITEYOASS
02-28-2004, 12:18 PM
Well fuck, if 2 cities wanna break the law with gay marriage. What's next? Is some small town in W. Virginia gonna legalize a union between a woman and a dog or a fuckin horse?!?!

FORD
02-28-2004, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by BITEYOASS
Well fuck, if 2 cities wanna break the law with gay marriage. What's next? Is some small town in W. Virginia gonna legalize a union between a woman and a dog or a fuckin horse?!?!

Nah, WV would be more likely to legalize man/sheep relations. Dog fucking will be in Pennsylvania because Senator Rick Santorum is into that.

ELVIS
02-28-2004, 12:40 PM
Teeheehee...

Pink Spider
02-28-2004, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Is that the same dehumanization that calls an unborn human a "mass of tissue" and then kills it? :gulp:

That's a good point. Gay people can't have abortions of a non-sentient mass of tissue, so therefore you should support gay marriage.