Reader comments · New York gay marriage vote delayed · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


New York gay marriage vote delayed

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. The Republican Party truly is a party for bigotted scumbags.

    I cannot believe that all these Republican senators are so in favour of apartheid and opposed to civil right.

    I support large scale civil unrest (in the neighbourhoods of these bigotted scumbags) if this does not pass today.

    1. Miguel Sanchez 21 Jun 2011, 3:38pm

      I agree totally that these senators are highly bigotted scum but calling for or hoping for civil unrest in their neighborhoods isn’t the answer. All that would do is set this cause back 100 years.

      1. I disagree.

        The civil rights movement of the 1960’s was a combination of both peaceful campaigning and violent demonstration.

        Both have their place.

        If these bigotted scumbags truly believe in apartheid then then need to realise that there will be consequences.

  2. Jock S. Trap 21 Jun 2011, 11:09am

    How long can they stall for?

    1. Paddyswurds 22 Jun 2011, 10:33am

      If some scumbag decides to filibuster for instance, the session could end without a vote. If the session ends the bill dies and will have to start all over.
      The session should have ended Monday but was extended til today in hope of reaching agreement to amendments called for by the Abrahamic fiction crowd, the god creeps.

  3. This is nonsense! The “religious protections” for churches are already in place. What the Republicans are trying to do now is find a way to get around New York’s existing anti-discrimination laws. They continue to push for amendments to the bill that would allow businesses (florists, caterers, photographers) and private citizens ( i.e. Justice of the Peace) the ability to leagally refuse service to gay couples wanting to get married based on their own personal religious beliefs. In other words, leagalized discrimination. Disgusting!

    1. Yes Dana, just as racists would probably also like an exemption from the law allowing them to refuse their services to black people.

    2. Curiously enough, the discrimination by businesses (florists, caterers, photographers) would not be lawful in the UK as they are providers of services though the religious premises could be denied use for a civil partnership ceremony. We have seen what happens when a registrar refuses to conduct a civil partnership ceremony (cf.Islington case).

    3. The religious exceptions are just an excuse.

      These Republican pigs are opposed to all our civil and human rights.

      I’m pretty certain they’d lock us up in camps to experiment on us if they thought they’d get awaty with it.

      Instead they use their a$$hole ‘god’ as the reason for their discrimination.

  4. I’ve read the draft bill. It exempts churches from performing the ceremony, allows them to refuse the use of premises, property and accommodations and grants them immunity for being sued. What MORE do they want (never mind, I know the answer, they want to force GLBTQ people to the back of their bus).

    1. Not much difference from the UK then w.r.t. civil partnerships, which can be celebrated on religious premises only if the religious body OK’s it.

      1. Except in New York the matter under debate is actuially civil marriage rather than ‘back of the bus’ CP’s like we have here.

    2. Jock S. Trap 21 Jun 2011, 1:25pm

      “What MORE do they want ”

      That would everything They wanted and stuff the rest of us.

      1. ooer missus 21 Jun 2011, 4:50pm

        I heard that the Catholic Church wants to ensure that e.g. their taxpayer funded adoption / fostering agencies will still be allowed to discriminate against gay couples.

        1. There is no right of adoption. There is only the right of children to have a father and a mother. Everything different is violence.

          1. Commander Thor 21 Jun 2011, 6:42pm

            Tell that to single parents.

          2. And your nick name means “Love”. Shame on you.

          3. And what about a young gay persons right to be themselves and not have to endure abuse and stigmatisation because of that? What about the rights of a child growing up gay not to be indoctrinated with self hatred because they are gay or bisexual?

          4. Jock S. Trap 22 Jun 2011, 8:07am

            Actually there is only the right of the children to have a loving, secure, stable home regardless of who the parent(s) are.

  5. I don’t think the dam will hold – if 31 votes out of 62 are in the bag, provided nobody wobbles (and I’ll bet pastors and rabbis are busy lobbying), it becomes a case of who blinks first.

  6. I think the “Repubs” are just stalling and letting the session end without taking the matter up to a floor vote because they are afraid of their powerful, money flushed, bigoted faith based institution constituents like the less than holy hierarchy in the Roman Catholic Church, Baptist and Fundamentalist churches.Many of these so called religious leaders are all hypocrites:They have no idea, nor do they practice Christ’s teaching of Love your Neighbor.They keep their followers ignorant so they keep their societal status, power and financial security intact.They are disgusting!

    1. Jen Marcus … How can you talk that way the moment Google, Apple, entire Hoolywood, university establishment, the US Secretary of State.., back and promote the Gay Agenda worldwide (referendum in California, Europride in Rome some days ago etc.)? Gay movement is not on the victims’ side, it’s just the other way around.

      1. ooer missus 21 Jun 2011, 5:17pm

        Sure, that’s why you’ve been murdering, beating and imprisoning us since the Emperor Justinian in the 6th century. Christians didn’t seem to have a problem with gays until after the 4th Century, there were even early gay Saints who got married to eachother, and even Jesus had a cuddle with his “beloved” disciple at the Last Supper according to St John. What changed was the Roman Empire.

      2. Really? Yep, that would be why we’ve got equality world-wide then, would it? Not.
        Oh, and there’s no ‘gay agenda’ – unless you call wanting human beings to be treated equally an ‘agenda’. Most people would call it common decency.

        1. Commander Thor 21 Jun 2011, 8:31pm

          Well we have to admit, it is definitely an agenda. I mean, women had the agenda to get the vote, slaves had the agenda to end slavery, blacks had the agenda to end racial segregation, interracial couples had the agenda to lift the ban on interracial marriage. Thus it isn’t really inaccurate to call it the gay agenda.

          1. True, Commander Thor, but the anti-equality lobby like to use the word ‘agenda’ to imply some kind of underhand trick, some deceit, some ulterior motive, when there is none.
            I would laugh at the crap I’ve read about our supposed agenda if it wasn’t so sad that some people actually believe all those lies.

          2. David Myers 22 Jun 2011, 5:04am

            Just one more example of the American funadmentalist tea-partier use of code words to hide their true feelings – hatred and bigotry, and to imply that our “agenda” is more than universal human rights. We have no more of an agenda than all of the other rights groups mentioned above. Our agenda is to have the same equal rights that all humans should have – no more – no less.

      3. Jock S. Trap 22 Jun 2011, 8:09am

        Wow Agapo
        Please explain this ‘Gay agenda’ I’m sure we’d all love to know what it is…

        1. The central point is: Gay Agenda or “Equality” campaign means denying ontologic diversity of man and woman. Gay Agenda is when the US Secretary of State promotes Gay Pride in other countries, just as some days ago H. Clinton did in occasion of the Europride in Rome. Gay Agenda means deligitimate all other people with different opinions as racist, homophobe, fundamentalist, hate and bigotry driven … etc.

          1. No – the Gay Agenda means the exact same treatment under the law; and the exact same treatment in the provision of goods, services and employment as everyone else.

            Anyone who tries to argue with that is a foul bigot.

            It’s as simple as that.

      4. The Gay Agenda – well of COURSE these people support the Gay Agenda.

        the Gay Agenda simply means the exact same treatment under the law; and the exact same treatment in the provision of goods, services and employment as everyone else.

        Anyone who is opposed to this gay agenda is a bigot and probably a closet supporter of the KKK as well.

        1. The exact same treatment for radically different situations means pure unjustice.

  7. The republicans apparently want rent control and property tax issues resolved in their favour before they deal with marriage equality. If those two issues aren’t resolved, chances are they will not allow a vote this session which means it will be delayed for another year.

    Dana, quite right. Even if it passes this week with the additional language protecting individuals from law suits, its going to open up a can of worms. It could be argued that gay businesses and gay individuals should demand a separate bill demanding equal protection from lawsuits if they find religious behaviour offencive to their beliefs and allowing them to discriminate against religious people when it comes to the delivery of goods and services. It sounds laughable, but I believe its only fair.

    Either way, this confirms that the republican party is a party of hate even if it saves the day with one more vote

  8. Jock S. Trap 21 Jun 2011, 2:00pm


    PinkNews are quick to remove links to CNN and a newsreader challenging David Tyree that I just put here yet aren’t so quick when there is homophobic bullying and namejacking with the likes of Rich(unoriginal), pepa etc.

    Interesting Who they are censoring and how quick too considering they told me they don’t have the time nor the resources.

    1. Jock S. Trap 21 Jun 2011, 2:03pm

      I apologise I was wrong I mistakenly put in the wrong comment.

      Interesting interview with David Tyree.-
      At least this new reader if a bit more challenging.

  9. Thanks goodness that the LibDems in Britain have promised gay marriage in the lifetime of the current parliament, by 2015.

    1. Delga needs to push through a resolution at this year’s Lib Dem autumn conference calling on the Coalition to enact marriage equality legislation within 12 months.


      I asked the Home Office whether the Government will oppose Peter Tatchell’s marriage equality case in the ECHR. The message was redirected to Lynne Featherstone’s Government Equalities Office where it languished for weeks.


      I’ve recently been told that it has, once again been transferred, this time to the Ministry of Justice.

      1. Galadriel1010 21 Jun 2011, 3:01pm

        Keep us posted.

      2. Dan Filson 21 Jun 2011, 4:28pm

        What power you have – to get a letter from Ministry A to Ministry B and back again. It’s so handy supporting a coalition partner.

  10. Traditional discrimination is committed by treating differently what is equal, the new discrimination denies what is substantially different, just as saying: A + A = A + B !

    1. Commander Thor 21 Jun 2011, 4:42pm

      A + A = A + B if B = A.

      A man is the equal of a woman if both are consenting adults.

      1. A = B? ♂ = ♀ ? So you even deny the diversity between man and woman. Remember: man and woman have equal rights and equal dignity, being different. If you deny diversity, you deny dignity. That is the ultimate consequence of gay and gender theory.

        1. Commander Thor 21 Jun 2011, 6:41pm

          Black man and white woman is also diversity. Are you saying black woman = white woman? Black man = white man? Aren’t you denying diversity and dignity here?

          1. Yes, of course Agapo is but I doubt you’ll get a proper reply sadly. And I’ve no idea what that weird equation is about, but your black/white example clearly shows it up to be tosh.

          2. Commander Thor 21 Jun 2011, 9:11pm

            The logical fallacy Agapo committed is called equivocation.


            It (Agapo the troll) claims that accepting gay couples should be treated in the same way (1st meaning of EQUAL) heterosexual couples are treated by the law is the same as claiming the set (A,A) is equal to the set (A,B).

            I explained that the set (A,A) is indeed equal to the set (A,B) if A and B are equals, i.e. a man and a woman are legally the same kind of entity, both are humans worthy of respect.

            It (the troll) then claimed that stating men and women are equal (I meant that they were equals before the law, 1st meaning of EQUAL), means that I’m denying men and women have differences (2nd meaning of EQUAL). Then it concludes, in its infinite stupidy, that I am denying dignity to men and women because……..well I lost it right about here.

          3. Commander Thor 21 Jun 2011, 9:14pm

            Wiki’s example:

            A feather is light.
            What is light cannot be dark.
            Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.

          4. Thanks for that, Commander. Nice to put a name to such a daft argument.
            I did notice that he/she had a strange choice of name himself/herself – agapo comes from the Greek and means ‘I love you’.
            I guess it’s a very special kind of love – one that wishes to deny rights to other human beings and discriminate against them…. Not what most people would understand as love.

          5. Sorry, as a CathoIic I cannot see a substantial, ontologic diversity between black woman and white woman (or man), beyond mere appearances. Diversity of man and woman is existential, between blacks and whites not.

          6. Then you’ve missed the point of Commander Thor’s comment, agapo. The point is your argument didn’t make any logical sense.
            As for your comment above about the diversity of men and women being existential, that’s irrelevant – simply because whether it’s correct or not, it is in no way relevant to the issue of equality. One might equally have used such a statement to deny women the vote, for example.
            You’re continuing to use arguments that make no sense. If your objection is simply a religious one, then just say because your proofs are illogical.

          7. Commander Thor 22 Jun 2011, 12:57pm

            “Sorry, as a CathoIic I cannot see a substantial, ontologic diversity between black woman and white woman (or man), beyond mere appearances. Diversity of man and woman is existential, between blacks and whites not.”

            Not today, no, you wouldn’t. Certainly not after slavery has been abolished and interracial marriages are considered legitimate and moral.


            I didn’t invent the terms miscegenation nor the Curse of Ham.

        2. Jock S. Trap 22 Jun 2011, 8:17am

          “That is the ultimate consequence of gay and gender theory.”

          And there we have it Ladies and Gentlemen.
          Bigotry in a sentence.
          The ignorance of religion.
          The arrogance of humanity.
          Everything that is wrong about this world is there for all to see from the likes of Agapo.

          We are All born Equal Not some more Equal that others.
          We are All born Human Beings Not some born second rate.

          You are clearly a hypocrite if you think have any dignity coming here and spewing such hatred.
          But then I guess thats the ultimate consequence of being a discriminating bigot.

        3. Commander Thor 22 Jun 2011, 12:57pm

          “Sorry, as a CathoIic I cannot see a substantial, ontologic diversity between black woman and white woman (or man), beyond mere appearances. Diversity of man and woman is existential, between blacks and whites not.”

          Not today, no, you wouldn’t. Certainly not after slavery has been abolished and interracial marriages are considered legitimate and moral.


          I didn’t invent the terms miscegenation nor the Curse of Ham.

  11. confused…Nick Clegg has promised that? How is he going to make it happen, assuming he’s actually said it, without Cameron supporting it? Now if Miliband declares it as official party policy then maybe that might make a difference in the Tories supporting it.

    1. Miliband is as duplicitous as the Lib Dems. He promised to campaign for marriage equality. The party conference speech he made on becoming leader praised civil partnerships – but no mention of marriage equality.

  12. Exemptions to discriminate :(.

  13. Unless the definition of ‘marriage’ is amended why would any self-respecting queer WAN’T to get married? Marriage has always been linked to religion,& again,unless the established ‘churches’ accept homosexuality as an EQUAL alternative sexuality then they aren’t suddenly going to allow gays to marry in church! There’s a way to go yet before ALL parties can agree a compromise!

    1. Jock S. Trap 21 Jun 2011, 3:40pm

      Marriage was around long before religion and don’t forget civil marriage.
      Religion hijacked marriage as it’s own and it has nothing to do with civil marriage.

      Having said that the Quakers, Liberal Jews, Reform Jews, Unitarians etc all wish to perform marriage as an Equal act regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

      It’s the C of E and Catholics, Muslims who has a problem and will go out to prevent us having such Equality.
      Still though there are some within those religions, Imams, Vicars etc who which to perform even though it goes against their church leaders.

      But like I say Civil marriage has nothing to do with religion and nor should it so I don’t see your argument.

    2. No, Paul, the churches/religion took over marriage and claimed it as their own. I don’t see the word ‘marriage’ as connected with any religion at all. Recently, there has been a lot of propaganda by some churches pretending that marriage is a religious thing. It’s not. They didn’t invent it and they don’t own it.

  14. Exactly right, Jock.

    Paul, Governor Cuomo of New York said that as a Catholic, his religious beliefs have nothing to to with his support for same-sex civil marriage. He went on to say that religion has NOTHING to do with civil marriage. He’s absolutely right. The problem with marriage equality opponents is that they think they own marriage, including civil marriage. They certainly don’t own civil marriage, the state does and so does the government. They should not be allowed to dictate civil laws.

    1. ooer missus 21 Jun 2011, 5:08pm

      No single religion owns religious marriage either, since different religions have different views about what constitutes marriage and whether divorce is allowed. Some religions/denominations support gay marriage. And while I’m no fan of polygamy, I read (I think on wiki) that 100 years ago something like 80-90 % of marriages in the world were polygamous and obviously in much of the world that form of marriage is still accepted, but it gives Evangelicals apoplexy.

    2. Jock S. Trap 22 Jun 2011, 8:23am

      Agreed Robert.
      What amazes me is how they can carry on claiming they ‘own’ marriage even though history dictates very different.
      It’s pure ignorance of them to keep on about it when even they must know they are wrong.

      It does show the lengths they’ll go to, to get their own way, the lies they are prepared to use.

  15. Iris, a lot of religious people believe that God invented marriage. It all centers around that myth in Genesis where “God” supposedly caused Adam to fall asleep and a rib was taken from his side while he slept and a woman was created from his rib. There isn’t much else to suggest that marriage was a divine creation. Nobody has proved that the “be fruitful and multiply” nonsense was ever spoken by a supreme deity or that it inferred marriage. The bible was written down by fallible men over several centuries. In the case of the old testament by Jews where you find a lot of the questionable verses right wing religious nutters use to villify gays.

    1. ooer missus 22 Jun 2011, 12:34am

      I don’t think a reference to Jewish people is relevant here; the New Testament gospels were also written by Jewish people, Christianity was still a small Jewish sect at that time.

    2. Jock S. Trap 22 Jun 2011, 8:25am

      The power of the male ego.

    3. Well the bible is a badly written work of fiction written to give meaning the lives of iliterate, desert-dwelling peasants, thousands of years ago.

      Religion should not be invoked when it comes to civil rights.

      Religion has nothign to do with civil rights, which is why it is so incredibly offensive that the Cult of England is the ‘official’ cult in this country.

  16. Great speech by Senator Jim Alesi (the first Republican to come out on our side) this afternoon at the rally in front of the Sate Capitol in Albany, New York:

  17. Paddyswurds 22 Jun 2011, 10:43am

    Isn’t time GLB people worldwide demanded equal rights without qualifications. We are not without considerable power. Gay people contribute disproportionately to the tax pot and receive the lest benefit as we dont have families draining that same pot.If we have to pay equally to the tax pot we MUST be given equal rights.End of I think that is the tack we should adopt from now on. I think you would then see a cloamur to see us right.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.