Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, February 9, 2010
Homo Marriage Equality Activists In New York City...
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:16 PM
...are planning a protest designed to drive home the absurdity of denying marriage licenses to gays and lesbians. Same-sex couples are going to apply for marriage licenses this Friday morning at the City Marriage Bureau in New York and, after their applications are rejected, one opposite-sex couple—a gay man and a lesbian—will apply for and receive a marriage license. Here's the plan for the action this Friday in NYC:
A gathering of same-sex marriage equality proponents for a press conference and rally in the park opposite the bureau; The application—and subsequent rejection—of several same-sex couples hoping to obtain a marriage license inside of the bureau; The application—and subsequent approval—of a lesbian and gay man, whom according to New York State law may legally marry each other, for a marriage license; and a significant act of civil disobedience to rival the lunch-counter sit-ins of the 1960s, in which black Americans asserted their rights of equal treatment by society at large.
If part of that plan sounds familiar—a gay man and a lesbian getting a marriage license?—it's because a co-worker and I did it here back in 2004...
The clerk called over her manager, a nice older white man, who explained that Amy and Sonia couldn't have a marriage license. So I asked if Amy and I could have one—even though I'm gay and live with my boyfriend, and Amy's a lesbian and lives with her girlfriend. We emphasized to the clerk and her manager that Amy and I don't live together, don't love each other, and don't plan to have kids together, and that we're going to go on living and sleeping with our same-sex partners after we get married. So could we still get a marriage license? "Sure," the license-department manager said, "If you've got $54, you can have a marriage license."...
Amy and Sonia and I didn't show up at the county building last Friday because we were planning to sue. We came to make a point about the absurdity of our marriage laws. Amy can't marry Sonia, I can't marry Terry—why? Because the sanctity of marriage must be protected from the queers! But Amy and I can get a marriage license and enter into a sham marriage, if we care to, a joke marriage, one that I promise you won't produce children. And we can do this with the state's blessing—why? Because one of us is a man and one of us is a woman. Who cares that one of us is a gay man and one of us is a lesbian?
So marriage has to be protected from the homos—unless, of course, the homos marry each other.
The New York activists—a new group called Queer Rising—is also planning acts of civil disobedience for Friday. I'm all for it. I'm all for gay men and lesbians obtaining marriage licenses to demonstrate the absurdity of bans on "gay marriage" and I've already called for acts of civil disobedience. It's time, people.
4
I still think we should burn the house to the ground, mass wedding ceremonies all over the country where us gays and lesbians get randomly paired up, sign pre/post nups, get marriage licenses, merry with vows including that we aren't in love, are gay, will divorce and will not have children and then immediately file for divorce.
It would drive the bigots crazy and there is not a damn thing they can do about it.
It would drive the bigots crazy and there is not a damn thing they can do about it.
5
I'll totally do this if I can marry JD Samson, Beth Ditto or Peaches.
We'll have a Rock 'n Roll annulment where we get hammered and throw those "aw, happy couple" inserts you get when you buy a new picture frame off a freeway overpass. Then we'll go hold each other's hair as we vomit all over Broadway.
We'll have a Rock 'n Roll annulment where we get hammered and throw those "aw, happy couple" inserts you get when you buy a new picture frame off a freeway overpass. Then we'll go hold each other's hair as we vomit all over Broadway.
6
Dan I remember that happy wedding at Re-Bar. I still cry when I think of that blessed event. Oh the boys with white wings and tighty whities. Oh that cake, oh the booze!
7
Wasn't this the plot on one of the episodes of Spin City? You know, that late '90s sitcom starring Michael J Fox as the assistant to the mayor of New York. I think the woman freaked out at the last minute and didn't end up marrying the gay coworker... let's hope that storyline isn't repeated here.
9
I got a marriage license yesterday and it was ridiculous. My partner and I have lived together happily for 14 years and have been raising our daughter for a year and half now. But for some reason the govt is prepared to offer us a whole slew of new benefits because yesterday we raised our right hands to swear that we have different naughty bits and no undisclosed STDs.
10
Now, there's something for NOM to work on. Make licences more expensive and harder to obtain. That'll do something to ensure the sanctity of marriage.
I'm not familiar with the DMV, but I'd venture a guess and say that it's harder and more expensive to get a driver's licence than a marriage do.
"Sure," the license-department manager said, "If you've got $54, you can have a marriage license."
Now, there's something for NOM to work on. Make licences more expensive and harder to obtain. That'll do something to ensure the sanctity of marriage.
I'm not familiar with the DMV, but I'd venture a guess and say that it's harder and more expensive to get a driver's licence than a marriage do.
11
@ 8 - Civil Rights are not to be voted on, LC. Don't you remember how we explained that to you last year, with the very good example of the Civil Rights act of the '60's? You remember, the one that only a tiny portion of the voters supported? Remember? The one that took AN ACT OF CONGRESS to enact, to ensure that black people had all their same Civil Rights as non-black people? Any of this ringing a bell yet?
Because Civil Rights are not a matter to be voted upon. Civil Rights are not a matter to be voted upon. You don't get a say in my civil rights, because my civil rights just ARE.
Remember??
Because Civil Rights are not a matter to be voted upon. Civil Rights are not a matter to be voted upon. You don't get a say in my civil rights, because my civil rights just ARE.
Remember??
12
These not-as-clever-as-the-gays-seem-to-think protests drive home the absurdity of homosexuals' claim that they are discriminated against, as does Dan's stunt.
No one cares if homosexuals marry.
Be our guest.
Just follow the same rules as everyone else.
No one is promised they can marry the person they "Love".
The government doesn't care if you are in love when you get married. Or if you stay in love.
Gays squeal that they 'Can't Marry the Person They Love!' and 50 million heteros look at their spouse and wonder 'so what...'
And this is not 'civil disobedience', as desperate as the gays are to borrow some shine from the (actual) Civil Rights' Movement.
No laws are being broken.
NO ONE CARES IF HOMOSEXUALS MARRY.
yawn.
go for it.
No one cares if homosexuals marry.
Be our guest.
Just follow the same rules as everyone else.
No one is promised they can marry the person they "Love".
The government doesn't care if you are in love when you get married. Or if you stay in love.
Gays squeal that they 'Can't Marry the Person They Love!' and 50 million heteros look at their spouse and wonder 'so what...'
And this is not 'civil disobedience', as desperate as the gays are to borrow some shine from the (actual) Civil Rights' Movement.
No laws are being broken.
NO ONE CARES IF HOMOSEXUALS MARRY.
yawn.
go for it.
13
#4 - I really like your idea. I'm picturing something along the lines of an old-time Moonie wedding - thousands of gays and lesbians, maybe many who don't even know each other before the ceremony. Doubt it'll happen, but it's nice to contemplate.
I'm straight, but if any lesbians would like to marry me here in Maine, I'd be happy to oblige. I could use the tax breaks!
I'm straight, but if any lesbians would like to marry me here in Maine, I'd be happy to oblige. I could use the tax breaks!
14
Love the civil disobedience. It perfectly illustrates the redonkulousity of the situation, not that anyone opposing marriage equality will notice.
But rivaling the lunch-counter sit-ins? Really?? To merely scratch the surface of the vast differences between these situations, I sincerely doubt the couple getting married are at any real risk of physical harm.
I wish we would stop comparing oppressions. It emphasizes our arrogance and racism, and loses us allies. A thought-provoking article, in case anyone cares.
But rivaling the lunch-counter sit-ins? Really?? To merely scratch the surface of the vast differences between these situations, I sincerely doubt the couple getting married are at any real risk of physical harm.
I wish we would stop comparing oppressions. It emphasizes our arrogance and racism, and loses us allies. A thought-provoking article, in case anyone cares.
17
Loveschild, voters do not have the right to dictate who can be married. If such a vote had been taken in Virginia in 1967 Mildred and Richard Loving, an interracial couple would not have been allowed to remain married. And yes it is the same thing. Here is what Mildred Loving had to say in her support for same sex marriage:
"My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone, they have a right to marry.
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about."
"My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone, they have a right to marry.
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about."
19
Now if you really want to be clever try this:
Have two hetero couples go and get their licenses to marry.
Then have the two guys say to the clerk, "wait, we just realized that we love Each Other and we want to marry Each Other"
And, since they are heteros of course the clerk will give them the license right away.
And it will prove that homos are discriminated against.
Because the hetero boys can marry each other.
But homo boys can't.
Right?
Have two hetero couples go and get their licenses to marry.
Then have the two guys say to the clerk, "wait, we just realized that we love Each Other and we want to marry Each Other"
And, since they are heteros of course the clerk will give them the license right away.
And it will prove that homos are discriminated against.
Because the hetero boys can marry each other.
But homo boys can't.
Right?
20
@19: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. You realize that for them to want to marry each other, the two dudes would be gay. And under the law two guys can't marry each other, nor can two girls. The law is not unfair because it prevents homosexuals from marrying (it doesn't), it is unfair because it prevents homosexuals from having any chance of marrying who they want to marry.
You're just dumber than a bag of hammers, huh?
You're just dumber than a bag of hammers, huh?
21
@20 - don't ask don't tell.
how do you know they're gay.
they could just be two NY firefighters who are buds with a really hot LGBT aide worker who has the hots for one of them.
how do you know they're gay.
they could just be two NY firefighters who are buds with a really hot LGBT aide worker who has the hots for one of them.
22
The elite demonstrating against working class people and their values, sorry but that's as far from the civil disobedience of the sixties as you can get.
Every single time this has come up the working class black, white, latino, men and women alike have rejected it, but now the (mostly) manhattanite elite is gonna protest them, lovely.
Their morals and values protested by the rich and their demands. . . . . .that will not get you very far.
Every single time this has come up the working class black, white, latino, men and women alike have rejected it, but now the (mostly) manhattanite elite is gonna protest them, lovely.
Their morals and values protested by the rich and their demands. . . . . .that will not get you very far.
25
http://www.towleroad.com/2010/01/study-o…
Loveschildrenwhenthey'reinsideher, it's not the gays taking away the voters rights, it's you people.
Loveschildrenwhenthey'reinsideher, it's not the gays taking away the voters rights, it's you people.
26
The people who the "Loveschild" persona stands for are bigots. They wouldn't dare to publicly air their bigoted views on other subjects (race or women's equality), but they feel free to do so when it comes to gay people and what's even more incredible is that, in this day and age, they're not only encouraged but in some cases are celebrated for doing so. They parade their ignorance and hatred with pride as though it were something to commend rather than condemn, and as Christopher Hitchins and Stephen Fry so brilliantly showed in the video linked from the other thread, much of the blame lies squarely with the Abrahamic religions.
27
@ 22, would it ruin your perspective a little to be told that most of the whites who stood against Civil Rights were also working class? Or that most of the leaders of the Civil Rights movement, as well as almost all the white participants, qualified as middle class?
Sorry, but class warfare revisionism counts as bearing false witness. Hope you're packing sunscreen for your trip to Hell.
Sorry, but class warfare revisionism counts as bearing false witness. Hope you're packing sunscreen for your trip to Hell.
28
@22, my mom is a lunchlady at a middle school and my dad was an auto mechanic. I'm working, deciding between college or the AF. We're very working class. Our socio-economic level is lower middle class, with a family history of blue collar workers. I will be the first to graduate with a college degree (eventually).
My mom supports gay marriage. My dad supported it whole-heartedly, along with a few of his fellow mechanics (one of who has an openly gay son he loves deeply). Dad was also very Southern, from deep in Tennessee.
My mom supports gay marriage. My dad supported it whole-heartedly, along with a few of his fellow mechanics (one of who has an openly gay son he loves deeply). Dad was also very Southern, from deep in Tennessee.
29
The elite demonstrating against working class people and their values, sorry but that's as far from the civil disobedience of the sixties as you can get.
Since every other argument you've tried has been effectively shot down you're going to resort to class warfare, Loveschild? Do you ever bother to check your facts before you talk?
Aside from history being very different from the way you paint it, exactly how would same-sex marriage harm "working class people"? Here's a quote of a summary of some of the testimony in Perry v. Schwarzanegger:
[S]ame-sex marriage would provide a large number of benefits including more committed relationship, less promiscuity, higher living standards, reduced burden on the state, less prejudice and hate crimes, more scholarship and discussion on the value of marriage, an expansion of the American idea, and less heterosexual marital unhappiness due to gay people heterosexually marrying.
(Source: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/01…)
It sounds like all that would benefit not just the working class but the whole society. And do you know who admitted that all those things would be benefits of same-sex marriage? David Blankenhorn, one of the defenders of Prop 8.
If you don't like the way the trial is going then you need to blame the defense for undermining their own case.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Required Listening: Howard Stern on Ellen, JC Penney, Bullied Gay Kids, Rosie, Santorum, Bachmann, et al by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
State Legislator Testifies That His Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Came to Him from a Commercial for Jack in the Box by Christopher Frizzelle
-
"Let me be the first one to say: My business will refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony," by Republican Representative Matt Shea of the Spokane Valley by Eli Sanders
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
"I don't know if I want to be here [if gay marriage passes]," by Republican State Senator Jay Rodne of North Bend by Eli Sanders
-
Announcing The Stranger's Tournament of Dunces! Who's the Dumbest Representative in the State House? by Christopher Frizzelle
-
Republicans Put Gay Marriage on the Ballot at Their Own Risk by Goldy
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (30) RSS