Reader comments · New York state approves gay marriage law · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


New York state approves gay marriage law

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Yes, for not doing it sooner.

    1. Ok so the troll comment was deleted.. anyway, good news and the last paragraph shows that NOM are just one issue bigots. Maggie must be face deep in a nosebag of ice cream as we speak.. but not Ben and Jerrys.. oh no.

      1. Oh, I’m sure Maggs doesn’t really care what the outcome is. More defeats = more donations. And donations make Maggie happy.

  2. Jock S. Trap 25 Jun 2011, 9:20am

    Congratulations New York!!
    Excellent news!!

    1. Peter & Michael 25 Jun 2011, 3:16pm

      No sign of this happening in UK , anytime soon?

      1. Jock S. Trap 25 Jun 2011, 3:30pm

        Consultation starts next week I believe.
        (Or week after)

  3. Fantastic!
    Congratulations New York.

  4. Excellent news

    Other major cities, states and nations (including UK) sit up and take notice ….

    1. Yes, London, Paris, Milan, Sydney and many other alpha world cities now need to catch up with New York, it will have to happen.

      So amazing New York! It’s a shame that London, the other greatest of Cities, has been left hanging in the past.

      1. The CPs we have here are still way ahead of the New York marriages in terms of rights granted, but this news will make it more likely that CPs will be phased out in favour of marriage equality here in Europe. People are getting used to the idea. Congratulations to New York. I really hope this now kickstarts marriage equality in enough states across the US to finally see it nationwide.

        1. The New York Marriage approval however comes with stringent religous exemptions

          “Religious organizations and not-for-profits with religious affiliations won’t be required to “provide services, accommodation, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of marriage,” the bill says. Any such refusal “shall not create any civil claim or cause of action or result in any state or local government action to penalize, withhold benefits, or discriminate against” the organizations.”

          1. @JohnK

            I have no problem with religious exemptions provided civil marriage is equal

          2. In a similar vain, UK Christians are trying to pre empt a similar situation, by asking for similar opt out clauses which would allow them to legally reject LGBT people.

          3. The New York marriage approval appears to raise a number of interesting challenges to the UK
            Since religious in New York appear to be allowed to discriminate in terms of good and services.
            Should Relgions in the UK by exempt from the recent “Good and services” Act?

          4. @JohnK

            In terms of religious marriages per se, I have no problem with religious organisation being able to choose whether or not to marry anyone – and to use whatever criteria they wish to determine who they deem suitable to marry. The reality is that equal civil marriage will entitle those marrying to equal treatment in law, entitlements and symbolism.

            I’m no expert in NY law or US law but I took the goods and services umbrella to be relevant to allowing property, clergy, choirs etc to be used to marriages to me a decision for the religious group to make. I am fairly sure the civil liberties legislation in the US would cover free and unfettered access to shops, services etc generally.

          5. Jock S. Trap 25 Jun 2011, 1:44pm

            Thats a bit like swapping one Equality for the sake of another so that religions can keep up their superior act and discriminate.


            Knowing full well that they will be allowed to discriminate legally by rejecting anyone they choose on the ground of sexual orientation.
            I think for now that should be more than enough leeway.

            It’s just ashame they don’t go by the “treat others how you wish to be treated” stance.

          6. So are we saying that “Civil Society” should allow some groups, namely religions to be exempt from the Law?

          7. So are we saying that “Civil Society” should allow some groups, namely religions to be exempt from the Law?
            I was referring to the UK Goods and service Act, and the challenge which Gay marriage would propose to religious groups.

          8. @JohnK

            I would never argue that any organisation should be above the law (and have argued vociferously that religious groups should be law abiding on other threads on PN).

            In terms of goods and services legislation in the UK and the Equality Act etc etc there should be equal parity of all organisations regardless of religious or other affiliation.

            I was merely arguing on what I perceive to be happening in NY.

            I do find the competing rights issue interesting and it will come up repeatedly – political rights, freedom of religion, right to free speech, right to family life, right to quiet life etc etc

          9. Jock S. Trap 25 Jun 2011, 2:11pm

            Definitely not but unfortuntely I reckon that will be the deal if we get marriage Equality here in the UK.
            They already think they are above the law so the fact thing aren’t going there way a lot, which is because the Equality Act includes them, I believe they will use this as some kind of emotion blackmail to swap marriage for some other rights.

            I do hope people see through this though.
            Like I said the fact they will be legally allowed to discriminate against us on their premises we shouldn’t budge an inch with anything else.

            Get our foot in the door and deal with the rest as time goes on.

          10. Well, it will certianly be interesting to see what happens in the UK, if gay marriage is approved.
            Interestlingly, the goverment is already trying an opt-in approach in relation to faith groups with regards the use of religious premises for civil partnerships

          11. Jock S. Trap 27 Jun 2011, 8:06am

            It will be interesting.

            Just read that piece by the Christian Institute.
            Talk about a load of b@llocks.
            Esp the bit
            “The consultation paper also seems to imply the plans are the ‘first step’ towards redefining marriage, a move which would be deeply unpopular with the public.”

            It’s funny because I’ve yet to find anyone against marriage Equality and most polls suggest the public are supportive.

            Of course with the Christian Institute and the likes it’s hardly surprising they would think it unpopular being that they are so out of touch with reality with ideals of that fitting of the 12th Century.

            Maybe they should get with the program instead of trying to put the spanner in the works every flippin time.

        2. CP’s always sound like corporal punishments to me, and because CP’s are so much the equivalent of marriages not calling same sex partnerships marriages is classification purely for the sake of discrimination.
          We now need full marriage equality in UK.

          1. @Pavlos

            On the whole I agree with you with two slight reservations.

            Firstly, some countries such as New Zealand do not use the label marriage for civil unions but do grant entirely equal rights and responsibilities otherwise to same sex couples is a state recognised partnership. Now, I have mixed views on this as it meet the equality issue in most senses but some people would definitely prefer equal in name too.

            Secondly, some heterosexual couples do not like the label marriage and would prefer equalisation of civil partnerships.

          2. “CP’s always sound like corporal punishments to me”

            Just like marriage then :D

          3. Agreed , always think cps sound like getting a dog licence or someit or being in a law firm. I don’t like the idea of introducing my future husband as a civil partner , hence we’re belgium bound because our own country does not allow us that human right.

          4. @Stu, I don’t suppose CP’s can or should be uninvented especially as some people are apparently quite happy with them, I did say and mean marriage equality and I would invisage that as comprising of CP’s being made available to opposite sex couples who want them while similarly marriage be extended to same sex couples.

        3. Jock S. Trap 25 Jun 2011, 1:39pm

          The more countries shown to have marriage Equality the more likely they will become in countries fighting for them.
          The best thing is, this is finally happening in the face of these bigots, religious or not so it’s something even they cannot ignore anymore.

      2. Great for NYC, but I for one am glad that we in London don’t have a different rule from the rest of the country. Equal marriage will come in time I think, and for the whole UK.

        1. Galadriel1010 28 Jun 2011, 8:06pm

          Well London did get Domestic Partnerships first, didn’t they? (Correct me if I’m wrong. I was fairly young)

    2. Amazing, amazing, amazing news!!!

      I have no doubt that such a landmark move will have a snowball effect!
      New York today, London tomorrow!

      1. If London is next?
        Should Relgions in the UK be exempt from the recent “Goods and Services” Act ?, in a similar situation to what exists legally in New York

        1. Well that is a sad fact, but something as historic as this will no doubt get the ball rolling on eliminating all anti-LGBT discrimination.

          1. Also I couldn’t resist but share this little gem:

            Posted June 24, 2011 at 11:47 pm | Permalink
            To the homosexual activists I say savor your victory in New York State. You have, indeed, prevailed there today after failing in Maine, Maryland and Rhode Island. To this hour, homosexuals cannot marry in California and over 30 states constitutionally prohibit homosexual marriage.

            I urge all homosexual activists to continue fighting as the war continues and we are eager to engage you on the field of battle. We will fight until it is decided. There can be only one. LOL

          2. Jock S. Trap 25 Jun 2011, 2:00pm

            Oh my, they don’t like losing do they.
            It’s a shame they never see the shame in themselves, though.

            As I’ve said before they don’t want the love in the world and always happy with their wars and the consequences they bring.

        2. JohnK – I’m not quite sure what you are getting at, Quakers, for example, will only perform marriage for Quakers and their Friends. They have requested to do the same thing for “religious” CPs in their meeting houses. This has been enshrined in the marriage law for decades. They’ve always been allowed to discrimainte on religion. The consultation on religious CP was all about opting out on discrimaintion grounds. In what respect do yo think “gay” marriage would be different. Indeed now we are going to force a “christian” register not only to do a CP for gays but also force them to do a CP in possibly a synagogue or mosque…are we really trying to provoke them. A Quaker CP wedding won’t want a Jewish registrar to do their CP registration, why would they want a Jewish/Catholic registrar present to do what is part of the Quaker CP wedding…..yet goods and service means that a Jewish registrar will now have to register a CP in a mosque!!!!

          1. John Wrote
            ” In what respect do yo think “gay” marriage would be different.”
            If Gay marriage is no different to a Civil partnership, then I agree there is likely to be no major changes.
            All I am saying is should religion (Which is a service) be exempt from the “Goods and Services” act with regards Gay marriages

          2. Moreover, should the C of E be allowed to reject two nominally Gay Anglicans from having a marriage ceremony in one of its churches.
            As far as I know the C of E very rarely rejects two nominally heterosexual Anglicans from having a marraige ceremony in one of its churches.
            Should the C of E be allowed to opt out of the Goods and Services act, or should it revise its moral and religious standards, so that only devout and practcising Christians are allowed to marry in its churches. Certianly this does not appear to be the current stituation in the C of E.

          3. Johnk – personally I think it’s an internal issue..since 2009 the Quaker came to a decision to do same sex cemonies/marriages. I personally wouldn;t want to impose my religious views on any other. I don’t think govts should as well. They’re given opt outs in any new bill. With the religious CP change CofE won’t have to do them unless the Synod gives the go ahead …the council won’t be able to issue a certificae for a CP venue without it. I’m sure any legal opt out can be put into the law. I do get annoyed when people just talk about civil marrigaes for gays though and although the European courts have said gays don’t need to be given marriages then once the uk brings it in then I can’t see how they can give straights, civil or religious marriages and only give gays civil ones especially since the Quakers only want to do marriages. This would surely fail under any discrimintion or equality laws.

  5. What a pity they won’t get the equal federal tax benefits we get here.

    1. Its progress though and demonstrates symbolic equality. It can be built on. I hope the NY LGBT communities celebrate, use the new equality and campaign for further measures to equalise LGBT rights.

      1. Amazing News.
        Congratualtions to New York
        I agree as well, an enormous symbolic shift in our concept of marriage

  6. scallyskin 25 Jun 2011, 9:36am

    sound nice 1
    i luv NY

  7. fantastic news, congrats to the yanks.. well the New York ones anyhow ;)

  8. How about the UK next….

    Bravo NY

  9. “Raw Video: NY Legislature Legalizes Gay Marriage” :


  10. This is great news. I just wish the media would refer to this as marriage equality for gay people, not “gay marriage”. The whole point of this is not that we want some special kind of “gay marriage” – we want the same marriage as is available to mixed sex couples. We don’t want “gay” marriage – we want equality.

    1. de Villiers 25 Jun 2011, 11:33am

      It may be because heard by a person who is not gay, the term “marriage equality” conveys no information about the group to which it refers whereas gay marriage instantly conveys the meaning without further explanation.

      1. Gay marriage equality would leave no-one in doubt.

    2. Jock S. Trap 25 Jun 2011, 11:44am

      I agree David G.
      It should be marriage Equality.
      I understand what de Villiers says though but having it as Gay marriage still makes it sound separate.

    3. David, don’t the media call it gay marriage because Peter Thatchell calls it that? “Our event will urge the royal couple to support moves to end the ban on gay marriage.” (25 April)

  11. New York helped humanity take one magnificent step towards a world with less division.

  12. Here was the scene outside the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village last night:

  13. Michael Moore, CairnsBlog 25 Jun 2011, 10:13am

    Sydney (Australia) is wwwwaaaayyyy behind popular world opinion…

    Here we have an atheist, female, living in sin, prime minister, who is against same sex marriage because it’s “against our culture and our heritage”, but then explained it’s based on the bible… WTF?

    New Zealand dealt with this more than 6 years ago…

    1. But let’s not forget both Ausralia and America have federal govts and there is still no change at that level in America ??, at least in Australia we have de facto status which gives us the same fed tax rights and other rights as straights married and de facto couples, it sounds like America is still way off that! All our states are making noises towards marriage equality including NSW????

    2. New Zealand is a strange one. They do not currently permit same sex marriage in name. They permit civil unions which grant all the rights and responsibilities of marriage but they are not labelled as marriage.

      1. Michael Moore, CairnsBlog 25 Jun 2011, 10:56am

        Good clarification Stu… anyway.. why would we want a Christian name of “marriage” anyway? There is of course the other argument, that Govts should get out of the business of defining what is a relationship altogether…

        1. Who do you mean by ‘we’? You might not want a religious marriage but thousands of LGBT people do. But even if you do not, marriage is not a Christian name anyway. There is such a thing as civil marriage. Equal but separate is never equal.

          1. @Dromio

            I don’t quite know how to reconcile this one. Firstly, I think the priority has to be to have some element of equality (even if it is not perfect) in the UK – thus, civil marriage has to be the primary goal.

            However, whilst all my instincts tell me that religious groups should not put any barriers in the way of gay couples marrying that they would not put in the way of any other couple (and that could cause some theological arguments!), I do also accept that people have a right to think what they want and apply that (within reason) how they want within their own property. For example, I can’t change someones racist beliefs but I can expect them not to be racist in public, distribute racist literature or commit any criminal offence. I can’t make a religious organisation or its members change their beliefs (even if based on misinterpretation). I can expect them not to commit a criminal offence, be homophobic in their literature etc. How we then reconcile (what I perceive..

          2. … to be miscontrued beliefs) with true equality is a really complex one based on competing rights.

            Of course, gay couples with religious beliefs should be free to marry somewhere with meaning to them. This can (in part) be addressed by Quaker, Unitarian and other groups permitting marriage, although I concede it doesnt address the entire issue – and I struggle to work out how we ensure equality (which should in my opinion have primacy) whilst respecting peoples rights to have beliefs that we do not agree with.

        2. At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, there is nothing uniquely Christian about the word ‘marriage’.

          1. Totally. Marriage clearly predates the Christian use of the word.

  14. check out the buzz outside stonewall in NY last night..

    wish i was there – if u ever go there – check out the pet shop next door – loads of cute doggy’s in da window

  15. Don’t know anything about the marriage laws in NY but I presume this means all marriages are equal ie religious (with opt out) and civil (assuming they are split like the UK’s)….It’s an important point since the UK govt here keeps talking about consulation on civil marriage only and I can’t see why when we are fannying around doing “religious” CPs then the same rules wouldn’t apply to religiousmarriages (assuming we ever get that far here). After all it sounds like NY managed to get their opt outs in this bill for religious groups..

    I did read a funny comment about some Reverend in NY objecting to Christian cake makers and hairdressers and other professionals being forced against their will to bake a cake etc for a gay wedding…how daft!

  16. Michael Moore, CairnsBlog 25 Jun 2011, 10:26am

    Meant to add.. why should the bible ever be a justification for public policy in a secular society?

  17. Amazing. :)

    1. Absolutely – I can see a tourism trade in marriages to New York in the gay travel industry now.

      1. Paddyswurds 25 Jun 2011, 11:25am

        … home state of Massachussetts was first and did this years ago and Boston is an even better place to Holiday..

        1. Paddyswurds 25 Jun 2011, 11:27am

          ………..Oh and congrats to Cuomo and New York.

  18. I just love New York and love it even more now :)
    Hope, like me, that today you’re in a New York state of mind! :)
    Congratulations to all LGBT New Yorkers.

    1. And the dreams that you dare to dream really do come true.

      1. I guess so, Pavlos. Even for an old cynic like me. I keep thinking of that famous quote by Winston Churchill:

        “Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing…after they have exhausted all other possibilities.”


        1. Not one of the Churchill quotes that I really knew – but I like it

          Its definitely a day for New Yorkers to celebrate – the rest of the global LGBT communities to welcome and for LGBT people is other US states, and many other nations and cities to seek to emulate (or improve upon)

          1. Absolutely, Stu. Much work to be done. Here in California, we’re still waiting for the hateful Proposition 8 to die it’s slow and painful death in the courts…hopefully by the end of the year. I just hope that what took place last night in New York will in some way be beneficial to LGBTs in all parts of the world.


    1. I hope so too!!!!

      1. Hope is not enough John. You need to know it. You need to choose it and fight for it. Fight with love. A lovely fight :) Long run love always wins.

  20. Congrats new York hopefully it will make all the other countries take note!!!

  21. Paddyswurds 25 Jun 2011, 11:49am

    ………Is féidir linn!

  22. Alf N. Spit 25 Jun 2011, 12:26pm

    Well done!

  23. Rev.Dr. John Hunt 25 Jun 2011, 2:05pm

    Despite comments by some readers, this clearly ISN’T marriage equality.

    Here in the UK, the Gov.t consultation on civil partnerships [which closed on Thursday] STILL won’t give us equality.

    And couples where one member undergoes gender reassignment will continue to be forced to get divorced and then cement a civil partnership, [or get departnered and then marry].

    What the Gov.t urgently needs to do is to stop kowtowing to the religious lobby, disestablish the Church of England, remove the bishops from the House of Lords, and make this a SECULAR state.

    1. The marriage consultation begins within the next 2 weeks ….

    2. The LibDems have promised marriage for gay people by 2015 John

      1. Alice Randall 25 Jun 2011, 4:17pm

        The LibDems promised a lot of things that didn’t happen.

  24. What an amazing way to start the NY pride weekend!

    What’s next? The Minnesota ballot?

    1. I would like to think so but (maybe my prejudices telling me) I feel that Minnesota will be one of the last states to change and may even wait until forced by overriding federal law.

  25. Some religions already discriminate against even straight people who want to marry. For example, the roman cult won’t marry a divorced catholic. I think this is a non-issue. Who really cares if they refuse to marry a gay couple. The roman and C of E cults are not going to stop other denominations recognising our marriage and officiating them. The Quakers, reformed Judaism, United Church of Christ, the Unitarians are all supportive. Who needs the catholic church and the C of E? I can live with them having exemptions, and they should have them. I’ll take my business elsewhere and my money.

    Congratulations to Governor Cuomo, you are a hero! Come on London, say “I do”.

    1. @Robert

      Whilst I don’t share your views on religion, your rationale as to the existing forms of discrimination in some religions mean to me that it doesnt matter whether the CofE, RC church or evangelical churches support equal marriage – there will for those who do have a faith and want it be denominations who will be prepared to engage and I suspect they will grow in number over time. I suspect the Methodist church, URC and others will be supportive in time along with the Quakers etc

    2. I basically agree Robert, civil marriage is all that really matters to me but our gay and lesbian religious friends have their own religious requirements and rights that need to be addressed and upheld, religion doesn’t belong only to straight people and the churches are simply going to have to come to terms with this and find some accommodation for same sex couples, this issue isn’t going to disappear.

      1. Assuming we ever get to the end of the consultation process on marriage equalty and someone writes a bill to do it and there is no dispute on either marriage equality and CP equality and that no-one else knobbles the bill by trying to cover polygamy as well then it makes no sense to bring in civl marriage only. I can’t see that ever getting thru equality laws when you are offerring straight couples the option of civil or religious marriage and gay couples only civil. It’s ok when we don’t have marriages at all but once we do then the equalities laws must surely kick in and since some religious bodies are for gay marriage then this would equally be daft to just deal with civil marrigae. We’d could get into a situation where we would have straight (assuming that part of the bill passes) and gay CP done in church but only have civil marriages avaiablefor gays…..doesn’t make sense to just have civil marriages!!

        1. @John, When did anything to do with religion ever make any sense, apparently it does for some though certainly not for me.

          1. the Annual Population Survey, 70.1% of “those formerly or currently in civil partnerships declare that they have a religion….” ….with a figure like that then I think that excluding relgious marriages for gays wouldn’t be justified…

      2. But these gay Religous know the rules of their religion. by remaing there, they accede to them, do the religion won’t change fr them

  26. It’s about time, this is a fantastic way to start my morning.

    1. Isn’t it though!

  27. David Cameron et al should listen to Senator Mark Grisanti’s emotionally charged speech. He’s a republican and who supported passage of marriage equality. Truly unforgettable. I get teary-eyed listening to him. So profound.

  28. For those interested, Google Senator Grisanti’s marriage quality video. Its really moving.

  29. Tom Stoppard 25 Jun 2011, 4:09pm

    I didn’t think it was possible, but I heart NY even more.

  30. Stu, many straight divorced catholics marry elsewhere. I know several who married in Congregational and Methodist churches. I don’t find it important or necessary for the Roman and C of E clergy to recognise or perform our marriages. The Epsicopalian branch of the C of E will probably go a lot further in that area as will the Lutherans and Presbyterians, arguably the Methodidsts. There are sufficient denominations already recognizing and supporting same-sex marriages. Good for them and good for gay couples who want a religious marriage. I’ve nothing against that either. Its just not my choice if I had one. We can’t even marry yet.

    1. @Robert

      I agree its not necessary for the RC or CoE to offer marriage universally. I do think it might matter to some couples and thus whilst I dont think pressure is the right word – persuasion may be a useful tool.

      Like you I think equal civil marriage is the priority. Then if we can establish equali religious marriage for those who want it that would be beneficial, but in my opinion lets get some form of marriage for all, first as a priority

      1. the Annual Population Survey, 70.1% of those formerly or currently in civil partnerships declare that they have a religion…..I think we need marriage equality with straights and that means religious ones as well. We can’t have straights being offered civil and relgiious marriages and us only civil. We can’t have straight and gays (assuming we have CP equality) having religious CP and have no religious marriage for gays. According to the govt figure then that would be catering for the minority gays who say they have no religious ie 29.9% of them as oppposed to 70.1% of them who do have religion.

  31. @stu

    The problem with “broad” religious exemptions is the possibility of abusing those exemptions.

    The language of the exemptions in the NY SSM Marriage bill is such that civic groups can claim they are following their religious teachings to exclude people for some very important areas.

    Why that gets murky is that, depending on the state, religious groups operate “for profit” businesses open to the public. For example in NY the Archbishop is technically and legally the landowner of all church property and in accordance with their ownership can buy, sell, rent, use that property for their personal gain.

    The church recognizes that ownership and so does the state law.

    The catholic church is one of (if not the biggest) biggest landowners in the U.S.

    so one twist of this law is that potentially the Archbishop could refuse to rent to companies that offer SS benefits. If he claimed the religious exemption, there would be nothing to do about it.

    1. an additional problem is that some people here will use their claimed exemption to discriminate against people of color. These of course will hopefully end up in court where the question will come up of “how they knew” the person(s) were homosexuals and/or a married couple.

      other people who want to discriminate will take steps to get their company or group declared “a religious affiliate” to be cloaked by the exemptions. These will also end up in court. The good news is that the sooner it happens the soon the over-broad exemptions will be struck down, the bad news is that bigots will still actively try and hide behind the law.

  32. Such a great day in the history of New York state and also the history of the United States of America!

    One more step in the right direction, showing that “equal rights” are possible and should be shared!

    All the best to everyone involved in making this happen and with the legislators who voted its passage! “You did the right thing”!


  33. Rich (original) 26 Jun 2011, 3:55pm

    I feel sorry for normal New Yorkers because certain politicians caused governmental approval of immorality and provides opportunity for homosexual degenerates acting as noble citizens, while they are most shameful creatures on Earth – worst then dogs and pigs…

    1. Worse than you? Surely not.

    2. @Rich (Original)
      As the master purveyor of the broken record, I think your rhetoric says more about your incapacity for creativity than the citizens of New York’s immorality.

    3. Dr Robin Guthrie 27 Jun 2011, 3:54pm

      Does that drivel even constitute a coherent sentence.

      More like Borat on acid….

  34. Stu, absolutely right, let’s get civil marriage for gays first and foremost.

    One interesting piece of news I read today online. Several Episcopalian (Anglican) churches will be willing to perform religious marriages for same-sex couples in their churches in the New York area. It will be interesting to see the reaction of Rowan Williams to that. Not a happy camper I’m sure. As more Episcopalian parishes get on board, I think this will eventually lead to a schism with the C of E. Long overdue. One thing I know. The C of E would quake if that happened. The bulk of its missions in developing countries, particularly in sub-sahara Africa would be directly affected because the Episcopalians donate most of the money to fund Anglican missions. That could stop leaving the C of E in a very difficult financial situation.

  35. Just Another Gay Activist 27 Jun 2011, 4:53am

    Well done New York Senators – gee that was no so hard was it???????

    This law is long overdue!!!!!

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.