Press "Enter" to skip to content

New York Affirms Homosexuals Are Americans, Too

Last updated on 2011.06.27

New York's legalization of same-sex marriage makes clear that this land was made for you and me and that nice gay couple down the block.

U-S-A! U-S-A! Please pardon my goosebumps.

Those cheers make clear that the dreaded "radical homosexual agenda" is really about the same radical idea that got our country started: that all people are created equal and share certain inalienable rights.

Republican State Senator Mark Gristani from Buffalo gets that radical idea:

I cannot deny, a person, a human being, a taxpayer, a worker, the people of my district and across this state, the State of New York, and those people who make this the great state that it is, the same rights that I have with my wife [New York State Senator Mark Gristani, quoted by Nicholas Confessore and Michael Barbaro, "New York Allows Same-Sex Marriage, Becoming Largest State to Pass Law," New York Times, 2011.06.24].

Now that's the liberty-loving Republican Party I love. (Gristani was one of just four GOP senators to vote aye on this bill.)

Pass the fireworks: we've got some celebrating to do... and, in 30 days, some really fun wedding receptions to attend in the West Village, out on Long Island, up in the Adirondacks...

"I feel like a full citizen." As should we all. U-S-A!


  1. John Hess 2011.06.26

    Civil Unions make more sense and would be more acceptable when this becomes a federal issue. Why get hung up on the word marriage?

  2. larry kurtz 2011.06.26

    It won't matter in South Dakota, John. Civil rights will be expendable in your state for a very long time to come. i'm sorry, there is no way to fix failure.

  3. Vincent Gormley 2011.06.26

    Cory, I couldn't agree more especially since I was born and raised in the Empire state by Republican parents. They need to be reminded they chose to behave in the way that they have been acting. And being unreasonable isn't a guaranteed right.

  4. hans 2011.06.26

    Sorry John, either states get out of the marriage business, or this is an equality issue. My partner and I were never interested in a 'civil union' and why should we? Who wants a sloppy second? We've been together for nearly 20 years, pay our taxes like everyone else and should have all the same federal benefits and recognition as a married couple like anyone else.

  5. caheidelberger Post author | 2011.06.26

    Civil union versus marriage: what is the fundamental difference? "Marriage" is obviously the cultural norm; Erin and I don't tell people about what a strong civil union we have. If I'm reading this right, "civil" would have to do with public, state, secular affairs. If the distinction between civil unions and marriage is recognition by the church, then that distinction lies beyond the state's purview. Is there anything else that distinguishes civiliunions from marriages that would allow the state to offer certain perks to Erin and me but deny those same perks to Hans and his partner?

  6. John Hess 2011.06.26

    Well yeah, it does make more sense for all unions to be civil in the eyes of government, but that's just not how they have been recognized and with the term marriage so tied to people's personal beliefs on the topic, civil union does give equality and leave marriage as a term to be defined by the individual and their church if so involved. Better to be more politically realistic for the country as a whole and shoot for civil unions. Remember everyone has different reference points.

  7. larry kurtz 2011.06.26

    What enlightened society allows clergy to act as agents of government? christian chaplains: what a crock! god is your co-pilot like a millstone is a personal flotation device.

  8. caheidelberger Post author | 2011.06.26

    John, I appreciate what sounds like a pragmatic point. But I'm here to change folks' reference points. Asking the government to recognize two different kinds of unions feeds into an incorrect mindset that appears to ask for state approval of a religious union.

    I won't get hung up on words if they do not by themselves confer any special status. The state could avoid any appearance of conferring special religious status by getting out of the marriage business completely.

  9. John Hess 2011.06.26

    You're logical when things often aren't. I didn't expect to see a black President until the end of my lifetime and people have already shifted. Now I'm starting to think we may see a gay President.

  10. hans 2011.06.27

    Being legally married in the state of California, we are filing a joint return in the state and for federal, separate and single. This was challenged in MA already. Not to mention that if either one of us dies, the other is not allowed to collect on their social security benefit like every other married couple along with a laundry list of other benefits we aren't entitled to. Civil Unions on a state level do not address these larger federal issues around benefit of marriage.

Comments are closed.