Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
paperwork

Buffalo Denied This Lesbian a Marriage License. A Moment Later She Grabbed a Stranger and Married Him

Too bad for performance artist Brian Feldman: The heterosexual Florida man who tomorrow will marry a woman he doesn’t know, to prove something about America’s ridiculous hetero-centric marriage laws, was beat by a woman in upstate New York.

Gay activist Kitty Lambert stopped by Buffalo’s City Hall this week to secure a marriage license for she and partner Cheryl. But as the staffer explained, she could not apply for one, because two women cannot marry in the State of New York. So (in a planned stunt, of course) Kitty grabbed a male stranger, Ed, and moments later was on her way to getting married.

It cost $40, and they now have their marriage license. Because New York doesn’t discriminate against homosexuals who want to get married; just homosexuals who want to marry other homosexuals.

So, uh, congratulations?

Kitty, you’re The Awesome.

(Let’s all remember: A marriage license doesn’t make you married. You still need a justice of the peace to officiate a ceremony.)

By:           editor editor
On:           Feb 11, 2010
Tagged: , ,
  • 58 Comments
    • romeo
      romeo

      I’m not sure I’m getting the point about her statement.

      Feb 11, 2010 at 12:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jamie
      Jamie

      Symbolically this is great, but I can’t help thinking what a hassle their tax returns are going to be next year. (Just did mine so it’s on my mind I guess)

      Feb 11, 2010 at 12:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jon
      Jon

      It’s the whole idea that str8 marriage is so easy to get and abuse and if the heteros really cared about marriage they would have laws to block the stunt she just did.

      Feb 11, 2010 at 12:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BUSSY
      BUSSY

      Okay as an anti gay marriage person.. this is well funny and just proves that gays are juvenile.

      Mommy no let me get married so im gonna marry the first straight stranger i see. So there!!! Pathetic.

      It doesnt prove anything but that gays obviously dont respect marriage and it cements in my mind why they shouldnt do it.

      Further more i am opening my polygamy page.. I want my “rights” too.

      Feb 11, 2010 at 1:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soakman
      Soakman

      @Bussy

      This happens all the time with drunken heteros in Vegas. So please don’t pull out the soapbox. You can’t ban marriage based on the fact that people don’t “respect” it. There’s no test you can give to someone to see if their love and commitment meet any type of vague guidelines that meet the Christian standard of this-is-meaningful.

      I wouldn’t by any means say that hetero’s shouldn’t marry just because a bunch of them get married by Elvis impersonators in Vegas on a whim, so why would you generalize like that about gay people? Homophobia is the only answer I can think of. That or just plain ignorance that there are a lot of trashy hetero marriages too. Stopping gay marriage won’t stop trashy marriages.

      Feb 11, 2010 at 1:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hal
      Hal

      No, what it proves is that the government does not respect marriage as an institution, as it will allow a straight couple to get married under the most obvious of insincere circumstances.

      That line of rhetoric about “gays obviously dont [sic] respect marriage” strengthens my resolve that the only defensible position for someone to take regarding the “preservation of marriage” is to outlaw divorce and to make adultery a felony with mandatory jail time.

      Feb 11, 2010 at 1:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Andrew
      Andrew

      @BUSSY: I would usually take the time to respond to you. But whenever I look at the exit polls and the statistics, and remind myself that people my age overwhelmingly support my rights, I am reminded that your kind will soon die out and be remembered no more kindly racists, anti-suffragists or any of the other people throughout history whom have worked to deny people their rights.

      Feb 11, 2010 at 1:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • romeo
      romeo

      Half of American marriages end in divorce. Makes you wonder what the fundies are protecting.

      LOL! Ban divorce and give jail time for adultery? If anything kills marriage as an institution in this country, THAT will! For sure we’ll be a country of bastards literally, not just figuratively.

      Feb 11, 2010 at 1:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jamie
      Jamie

      @BUSSY: “Okay as an anti gay marriage person.. this is well funny and just proves that gays are juvenile.

      Mommy no let me get married so im gonna marry the first straight stranger i see”

      Well if she married a “straight stranger” then it proves that heterosexuals are juvenile as well, by your “logic”.

      Feb 11, 2010 at 1:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David in Houston
      David in Houston

      I don’t think Bussy is getting it. The lesbian couple DID want to get married to each other because they DO respect marriage. The state barred them from doing that. This political “stunt” proves that when heterosexuals say they are trying to protect the “sanctity of marriage”, they are kidding themselves. There is no religious “sanctity” in a civil marriage. ANYONE can get married as long as they are both adults, they are not related, and they are the opposite sex. Those are the ONLY legal qualifications to getting married. The state (and our government) has no interest in whether or not the couple is in love, plans to have children, or (in this case) is heterosexual. This stunt makes the arguments against same-sex marriage look ludicrous: a man and a woman who are virtual strangers can get legally married, but a same-sex couple who have been together for decades can’t. At some point common sense is going to win out.

      As for people that don’t respect marriage; you might want to have a chat with Gov. Sanford, Sen. McCain, Rush Limbaugh, Gov. Spitzer, etc.

      Feb 11, 2010 at 1:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BUSSY
      BUSSY

      No. 7 · Andrew ..Dude im 34. Unless them beers kick in soon..im not going anywhere. And u are basing ur views on polls..wow so university cool. Can we change into our pjs and whine about why the guys dont like us too??? Oh and..im not racist Andrew. I just do not believe in gay marriage. Kindly explain the similarity with race and homosexual marriage then we can talk.

      No. 8 · romeo. Dude, i agree. I totally agree. Religious people are probably the most hypocritical people on earth. Praise Jesus! However, not a good reason to finally nail the coffin closed on traditional marriage. We should try and get marriage to mean something not redefine so we can all marry who we like.

      No. 9 · Jamie . Huh???

      No. 10 · David in Houston: I get it fine. (Sighs tiredly) Prove the fact that marriage is not as sacred as it intends to be. My question here is ‘Has marriage decayed so much and so badly that gays can do it now?’ I guess so. I wanna marry as many chicks as i want. I mean we are all legal and non related.Oops sorry. Non related?! Im sure soon the incest folks will want their tax paying rights too. Anyways i say legalise polygamy too. I want to marry as many as 5 chicks..wait do you think polygamy will have a government defined limit?

      All these details..Ill hola that facebook page to you.

      Feb 11, 2010 at 2:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Anne
      Anne

      @BUSSY: “Kindly explain the similarity with race and homosexual marriage then we can talk.”
      You can’t change your race or sexuality. Denying people rights on basis of either of those is discrimination. You’re (I hope) not saying black people shouldn’t be able to get married, that would be wrong, and so is denying gay people the right to marry who they love.

      “traditional marriage” There is no traditional marriage. It has changed over the decades. Black people couldn’t get married not too long ago. Keeping something the same just because “it’s tradition” is not a good reason.

      “We should try and get marriage to mean something not redefine so we can all marry who we like.” It means something to gay people. And marrying someone you love who you want to be with forever seems the major point of marriage to me.

      Feb 11, 2010 at 2:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BUSSY=IDIOT
      BUSSY=IDIOT

      At least he is one douchebag we don’t have to worry about getting married, god help the moron that does. I’m all for gay marriage, but its idiots like this that make me long for a law that requires an IQ standard for breeding.

      Feb 11, 2010 at 3:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PADude
      PADude

      @BUSSY=IDIOT: Kind of like Harrison Bergeron in reverse?

      (Bussy, that’s a short story, which is a bunch of words all put together that people who can read sometimes enjoy. The main character’s words aren’t usually printed in red to make them easy to ignore, though.)

      Congratulations to Ms. Lambert for showing that marriage isn’t exactly a high standard. And congratulations as well on receiving 1,168 rights with a stranger.

      On the up side, she can divorce (or annul) her marriage with Ed, take Cheryl a bit north and marry her there, and have NY recognize the marriage. That’s a plus, at least.

      Feb 11, 2010 at 3:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ben
      Ben

      @romeo:

      It’s tearing down the assertion that heterosexual marriage is a sanctified, historical, traditional, immortal institution designed to keep society from crumbling down around our ears and our children from becoming homeless wandering cannibals.

      The fact of the matter is that any straight person can get married for any reason, stay married for however the fuck long they want, and end that marriage for whatever reason they like. And plenty of them do.

      The idea of what Kitty is doing is that it reveals that the kind of institution-shattering damage that anti-gay folks claim to fear is already happening, and gays have nothing to do with it. Allowing committed gay couples to marry could not possibly do more damage to the institution of marriage than fucked-up straight idiots are already doing to it.

      Feb 11, 2010 at 3:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • missanthrope
      missanthrope

      “Im sure soon the incest folks will want their tax paying rights too.”

      Where are all of these incest advocates clamoring for their “rights”? How can they assert their “rights” when incest is illegal and queer relationships aren’t? This is a scarecrow and slippery slope argument all in one right wing talking point*.

      *Scarecrow because it goes hand in hand with the argument that LGBT people are advocating a bunch of social degradations that have nothing to do with being gay (incest, bestiality, etc.)

      Feb 11, 2010 at 3:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ben
      Ben

      @David in Houston: You’re wrong about one thing.

      26 states allow first cousins to marry – so you CAN marry someone to whom you are related.

      Feb 11, 2010 at 3:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ben
      Ben

      @BUSSY the Idiot:

      Apparently you are too simple to grasp the fact that marriage is a civil contract and not a “sacred institution.”

      Feb 11, 2010 at 3:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BUSSY=IDIOT
      BUSSY=IDIOT

      @ PADude

      Many thanks for the Vonnegut reference. I am a librarian so went immediately to the stacks to get the book.

      And thanks for using small words so BUSSY could (hopefully) understand. It works for Sarah Palin.

      Feb 11, 2010 at 3:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Andrew
      Andrew

      @BUSSY: Nope, sorry, not polls. Exit polls. Exit polls are not polls, they are how people actually voted. Thus there is no room for your ‘the gayz fabricated the pollz!!11!’ or other similar shit.

      Also, that may very well be. I wasn’t talking about you in specific, however you will be a very small minority amongst people of your age group. Every single indicator, I dare you to give me one that says otherwise, that is legit, shows that young people [overwhelmingly] support Gay rights. Just as in every other civil rights battle in history, generation after generation increasingly supports civil rights. Whether it was for Blacks, Woman, or any other number of people denied rights based on immutable personal characteristics.

      Perhaps you should go have fun over at FOTF rather than trolling us here? Cause you’ve already lost the battle, and you know it just as much as we do. It’s only a matter of time. :]

      Feb 11, 2010 at 3:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David in Houston
      David in Houston

      @BUSSY: It is not the gay community’s fault that heterosexuals have made a mockery of marriage. It is also not a valid reason to deny gay couples the right to marry. Ironically, gay couples still want to be part of your “decayed” institution. That’s why we’re fighting so hard to be part of it.

      Your “slippery slope” arguments are also not a valid reason. Why didn’t interracial marriage lead to polygamy or man/sheep marriage? Because NO ONE is fighting for the right to marry their sister, or hamster, or 8 wives. No one… except you.

      Feb 11, 2010 at 3:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bussy is a hate monger
      Bussy is a hate monger

      Bussy- simply put, you are nothing more then a judgmental prick who was probably a bully in high school. Either that or you are a closet gay and haven’t excepted your crush on the five guys that won’t look your way because of the hate you carry around in your heart. Listen, people like Bussy have issues, and nothing any of us say will even sink in because he is too hateful to hear anyone other then himself out. Incest dude? You are comparing incest to being gay? Are you sure you are 34? You talk like you are 94 and man I sure hope *them beers* kick in… Its a real shame that you have nothing better to do then hate on others. Why in the world do you care if two people who love each other get married? Seriously! Get over it dude! And one final comment and then I’m done wasting my time on this bigot.. Uh HELLO she wasn’t being Juvinial about it! She was proving a very very good point! She can marry any one she wants as long as its someone of the opposite sex, but can’t marry someone she LOVES and is commited to and probably shares a home with? Yeah! Makes sense in your world doesn’t it? Have another Beer will you?

      Feb 11, 2010 at 4:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      Obviously, Bussy’s mom never taught him not to talk while he has a mouthful of carpet.

      Or, is it cock? ;P

      Feb 11, 2010 at 4:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BUSSY=IDIOT
      BUSSY=IDIOT

      @ Bussy is a hate monger, et. al

      Good points, but you’re wasting your breath on this Neanderthal. What you’ve got here is a 34 year old moron who probably still lives in his parents’ basement playing video games with the teenage neighborhood kids while inhaling glue. He claims to want to wed multiple women but my guess is that he probably couldn’t satisfy one woman were he even given the opportunity. He’s big talk, but that’s the only part of him that’s big…well, probably his gut too. An idiot of this caliber doesn’t have many options in life so he’s bent on spending the time that he’s not working at Taco Bell clinging to the anitquated ideologies his (probably)equally ignorant father instilled in him.

      Our efforts and words are better spent elsewhere.

      Feb 11, 2010 at 4:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • lolstupid
      lolstupid

      @BUSSY=IDIOT: I love Taco Bell but their new “diet” menu is really throwing me off.

      Who the hell wants to eat healthy food at 3 am when they’re shit faced??

      Feb 11, 2010 at 4:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PADude
      PADude

      @BUSSY=IDIOT: I think you’ll find it absolutely delightful. There’s a movie as well, but it’s not nearly as good, of course.

      You’re a librarian? Librarians are my heroes…from the one who let me into the adult stacks at 10 (I’d exhausted the children’s library) to the one who took the time to explain who that Dewey dude was and how to use his Decimal System, you’re all amazing.

      There’s always a little warming of the cockles of my heart when a librarian stands up and resists banning books. You’re amazing people.

      Feb 11, 2010 at 6:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 4 · BUSSY wrote, “Okay as an anti gay marriage person.. this is well funny and just proves that gays are juvenile.”

      … not half as juvenile as the straights – the following wouldn’t be so funny if it wasn’t so close to the truth:

      http://www.filmsite.org/1944.html :

      The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek (1944), 99 minutes, D: Preston Sturges
      One of director/writer Preston Sturges’ top screwball war-time comedies, considered a controversial, bold, irreverent farce at the time due to its scandalous content. A hapless, small-town girl from Morgan’s Creek, Trudy Kockenlocker (Betty Hutton) attends a rollicking, all-night party with servicemen from the local army base, gets drunk, and marries a soldier. She finds herself pregnant, but can’t remember which soldier she married. The mother-to-be convinces a bank-clerk boyfriend/4-F reject Norval Jones (Eddie Bracken) to marry her and pretend to be the father. Before the frantic film ends, Trudy gives birth to sextuplets, and the young couple become national celebrities.

      Feb 11, 2010 at 6:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • angus
      angus

      They will marry a heterosexual couple. These guys, Kitty and the agy guy who steps forward, are not a heterosexual couple.

      Feb 11, 2010 at 6:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lukas P.
      Lukas P.

      @BUSSY: If you want to support the sanctity of marriage, you’d be better off trying to make divorce illegal. Divorce is the numero uno cause of marital break up. Not us gayfolk.
      You’re wasting your time here; we’re not breaking up str8 marriages in any statistically meaningful way. Go preach to the heteros and see how well you fare with them.

      Feb 11, 2010 at 6:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Adam
      Adam

      I love how dismissive people like Bussy are, in pretending that our wish to marry the love of our life and have all the protections and responsibilities accorded to such a commitment is merely us wanting to “have our way”. Then when our rights are denied us, they pretend surprise at us being upset. They characterize us as “throwing a tantrum”, to borrow another ‘oft used phrase of theirs.

      Feb 11, 2010 at 6:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      No. 30 · Adam

      Dismissive?

      You are much too kind, Adam.

      Poster no. 22 had it right. Bussy is nothing more than a judgmental prick.

      Anything more, is gilding the lily.

      Feb 11, 2010 at 7:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • geoff
      geoff

      Mark Sanford, Newt Gingrich, John Edwards, Larry Craig, Iris Robinson, Mel Gibson, hell, the list could go on for days. People who don’t think gays should marry, and yet shit all over the institution of it.

      Feb 11, 2010 at 8:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      No. 32 · geoff

      Mark Sanford, Newt Gingrich, John Edwards, Larry Craig, Iris Robinson, Mel Gibson, hell, the list could go on for days. People who don’t think gays should marry, and yet shit all over the institution of it.

      Well, the thing is, Geoff, when heteros do it, it’s forgivable.

      When gays do it? Not so much. *sarcasm front on*

      Feb 11, 2010 at 8:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PopSnap
      PopSnap

      I love this video, but I feel sort of bad for the woman behind the counter. It wasn’t her fault that we are run by ridiculous bigots.

      Feb 11, 2010 at 9:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kitty Lambert
      Kitty Lambert

      This is what we all hope for…. discussion.
      A few things I should clear up.
      1. The young man and I did not marry…. NY has a waiting period AND I am a lesbian, no offense to the darling Ed or any of you here, but I don’t do boys or men. (Cher and I have a grandchild that is nearly this age!)
      2. This is just part one. We don’t intend to stop with this and encourage you to start. Cher and I have lobbied for 5 years and the (truly stupid) excuses/myths we are given by legislators are on a list. Our goal is to bust them and in the process get people thinking/talking/debating. Obviously, it is working.
      3. Okay, there are some people who don’t/won’t/(or in the case of the boy BUSSY)can’t think this issue though… but they really aren’t a large number of individuals any longer, in fact, dwindleing every day. Even many of the USED-TO-BE Evangelicals have began to come around and have become welcoming and affirming congregations… Buffalo NY has 112 W&A clergy.
      4. As long as we don’t demand our rights we won’t get them. No one is going to just decide that we deserve our rights so they give them to us. We are going to have to organize. We are going to have to become a solid mass that moves together… just like the RR/Catholic/Mormons have done. Just making a phone call will not change much… they are necessary, but there is alot ALOT of work to be done LONG before the phone calls will have any impact.
      5. Some of you really got why we did this. Some of you actually sound frightened that we made a public statement. That is okay. We will do it for you until you feel strong enough to stand up for yourself. I really understand. I still get the shakes and dry mouth and am frightend that someone might attack my sweet Cheryle and hurt her just to get at me or try to stop me from doing this work… and it is WORK. (Oh, I have a real job, I manage an art gallery)
      6. This didn’t cost anything beyond the $40 but it has had an incredible impact. I have received emails from EVERYWHERE, including Lebannon where they can’t even have a discussion about the issue yet.
      7. All politics is local. All change starts at home. Grass roots are really hard to kill off…. grassroots organizations are the strongest way to create change.
      8. Of SEVEN Senators here in Western New York, ONLY ONE voted FOR marriage. Keeping in mind that ONE of the 6 that voted NO was a dinosaur of a Democrat. PINK VOTES HAVE POWER… just ask Obama… better yet…. just ask McCain and Palin. Why do you think she is still courting the RR?
      9. Don’t waste your time talking to the Beer’ed out BUSSYs of the world.
      10. If you aren’t creating change, you are part of the problem. Keep talking. Keep debating. Keep educating. Keep demanding.
      11. Join a local Grassroots Org and work on the issue… don’t have one? Start one.

      With great love and affection,
      Grandma Kitty

      Feb 12, 2010 at 12:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      No. 35 · Kitty Lambert

      From one Grandpa to one Grandma, you are one totally awesome lady.

      Thank you so much for stopping by our little site to share your experience, your thoughts and suggestions with us today.

      With folks like you who are willing to stand up to the establishment and demand your rights in the glare of the public light, how can we not feel strong enough to stand up for ourselves?

      You are an inspiration to all LGBT people around the world…including those in Lebanon. Thanks again for sharing with us.

      We will keep talking. We will keep debating. We will keep educating and yes, we will definitely keep demanding.

      I am certain you know how the old expression goes…

      The squeeking hinge gets the oil. :)

      Feb 12, 2010 at 12:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      Oops…typo. That should have been “squeaking”.

      Feb 12, 2010 at 12:29 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      No. 17, Ben…..yes, you’re right about that. How convenient that marrying one’s first cousin isn’t deemed as incest. To me it most certainly is! Then we have states that allow children as young as 14 to marry. In states that don’t, having underage sex is considered a crime. The laws are fucked up for sure especially marriage law, biased towards straights who can marry and divorce as many times as they wish, sanctioned by the state. Who would the anti same-sex marriage foes blame before we could ever marry in five states I wonder? I put that to Maggie Gallagher recently and she ignored the question, among others.

      Feb 12, 2010 at 4:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BUSSY
      BUSSY

      No. 35 · Kitty Lambert

      Gasp! You actually sound like a well grounded lady.

      Look i want you to have legal protections. I understand that as a human being. I want you to be able to protect yourself and your loved ones. I support that. I just dont think marriage has suffer as a result of that.

      We have to draw the line. Polygamists will soon start on this. I mean just 10 years ago we never could have concieved that we would actually be arguing if homosexuals can marry. Expanded civil unions can give you all these protections. I believe that this will help you better and will get you where you want to go. You are right, marriage is now messed up. We need to revaluate the whole marriage situation to make it more decent and respectable. Not destroy it completely by letting any one do it.

      Gays are making it sound like they are living in dungeons and being forced to live so horribly. The truth is not the case. It sucks your unions are not recognised by the federal government and almost all the states of this nation do not have any regard for your unions. I say get nationwide secure civil unions for gays. After all if you only want rights why not take that and leave marriage as it is?

      Fighting for marriage is only going to get uglier because we dont want to give it up. Oh and who told you we are dying out?? The polls?? Dont believe what you read honey. We are not going anywhere..just as our youths are becoming more pro gay marriage they are also becoming more anti gay marriage. The battle will just continue long after you and i are gone.

      Oh and i am 34 years old. Why does everyone assume only old people post here? Thats so ageist. LOL..its so cold today

      Feb 12, 2010 at 5:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jamie
      Jamie

      @BUSSY:

      I’ll type slowly so you can understand. Maybe.

      You implied that the lesbian who married a straight man was “juvenile” for marrying him. . . but what about the straight man? Isn’t he just as responsible for that marriage? By painting all homosexuals as irresponsible for this one lesbian’s decision to marry a straight man, mustn’t you paint all heterosexuals as juvenile for the straight man’s decision to enter into this marriage? 50/50 buddy.

      Yeah. Ridiculous, isn’t it?

      Feb 12, 2010 at 8:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian NJ
      Brian NJ

      They should have a new show, legal hoarders. I would like to hoard the laws for myself, too. Higher taxes for people who drink too many beers! A caste system like they have in India. Privileges of the educated, who contribute more style, brains and industry than the lower, physical labor classes.

      Instead of everyone being equal, lets start carving up our legal books like like a turkey! Oh, you don’t like that? Too bad! We put it to a vote, so that makes it OK.

      You want to talk about a slippery slope? Lets go down the slippy slope of a privileged legal system, and see who wins. My money would be on the Brahman.

      Feb 12, 2010 at 8:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      Bussy said Look i want you to have legal protections. I understand that as a human being. I want you to be able to protect yourself and your loved ones. I support that. I just dont think marriage has suffer as a result of that.

      Please give us one sane, logical way in which marriage would suffer. With a divorce rate of approximately 50%, it seems to me that marriage is already suffering quite a bit…and not because of anything gays have done, since we are not allowed the dignity of solemnizing our now second-class unions. Take responsibility for that and start doing something to clean up your own messes before getting on the case of others. When your own backyard is clean, then perhaps you might have earned the right to be sanctimoneously and self-righteously.

      We have to draw the line. Polygamists will soon start on this.

      There the Guardian of Morality and Virtue goes with the stale, old polygamy schtick again. Spending 24/7 and Sundays on the cross is a terrible job, but someone has to do it. It’s the the only argument they have left after the Prop. 8 trial in San Francisco showed how blatantly discriminatory the Christian Church and the Mormans was and are toward LGBT people. Bigotry and hatred doesn’t cut it anymore in America and that was precisely why the religious bigots demanded (and got) a trial shrouded in secrecy and aware from the glare of public awareness. They understood that their heinous actions would be condemned buy most decent people when they became aware of exactly what came down in Prop 8.

      Expanded civil unions can give you all these protections. NOT!

      The difference between civil unions and civil marriage (how many times do we have to tell marriage defenders that we are not interested in religious marriage) has been explained, ad nauseum and I am not about to go through that crap again. If you and the advocates of Civil Unions, which do not give all of the rights you allude to, are going to make parsimoneous statements, then at least do a little research and get your facts straight. Drink at separate but equal water fountains often, do you, Bussy?

      Gays are making it sound like they are living in dungeons and being forced to live so horribly.

      If Bussy does not believe that being forced to leave the land of one’s birth in order to be with their loved ones or being separated from them because we are not allowed to marry, and therefore petition our government to bring them to this country, like heterosexual couples are allowed to do, or the denial of inheritance rights and the some 1100 federal benefits, for which we pay taxes but are denied, then Buzzy and people like him/her have to have hearts of stone and be one the sorriest excuses for human beings this earth has ever seen.

      Fighting for marriage is only going to get uglier because we dont want to give it up.

      You bet your sweet bippy it is. We aren’t going anywhere anytime soon, either. And just when did you heteros get awarded the exclusive ownership and control over marriage? Your churches stole that and assumed it as their own. How about going to your local library and cracking a few history books….honey, before you shoot your stupid mouth off. All blather and no actual facts to back your bullshit up.

      Oh, and I am one of those “old” people who do post here. The fact that you even brought the word “old” up, is ageism on your behalf…honey!

      Feb 12, 2010 at 9:32 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      No. 38 · Robert, NYC

      The laws are fucked up for sure especially marriage law, biased towards straights who can marry and divorce as many times as they wish, sanctioned by the state

      You have amply illustrated the glaring disparities that exist in our system of laws. If we, as a nation, cannot even agree, from one state to the next, what constitutes a crime, then how can we, pray tell, observe and protect any of our laws on our books without laughing at them…or even scoffing them.

      A glaring example of that, is demanding amnesty and equality for undocumented aliens who crossed our borders illegally (I will definitely be called a racist for saying this), while denying American-born, tax-paying citizens the right to bring their partners to these shores. Hell, we aren’t even included in the “sweeping Immigration Reform Bill” before Congress.

      Is this not in itself, a dichotomy?

      Feb 12, 2010 at 9:56 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      Schlukitz, absolutely right and no, its not racism either.

      Feb 12, 2010 at 10:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      Bussy, No. 39. Give it up! Polygamy was a common practice among the Mormon cult during the 19th century, all STRAIGHT in origin. Name one of the 8 countries where same-sex marriage is allowed where it has led to legalizing polygamy? If you want to discuss polygamy, always a straight phenomenon throughout history and actually condoned in some sections of the old testament, just look at Islam. A religious cult that does actually permit polygamy but only for straights of course. As for the divorce rates, adultery…who was responsible for that prior to same-sex marriage? Those rates have been soaring long before same-sex marriage was a blip on the radar. We see through these canards you and your kind throw out to deny civil marriage equality to same-sex couples. It doesn’t fly any more, just as the procreation mantra doesn’t. How about incestuous marriages where only a straight can marry his or her first cousin yet the law overlooks the incest component?

      What about the situation that I mentioned in #38 regarding 14 year old straight children in some states who are allowed to marry and have legal underage sex, but is considered a crime in states that don’t? Why aren’t you getting your own filthy, fucking breeder straight houses in order first? Same-sex marriage didn’t cause very straight republican Governor Sanford to cheat on his wife or his very straight democratic fellow hypocrite John Edwards to father a child outside of his own marriage, or others like Newt Gingrich, John Ensign, Vito Fossella, Governor Spitzer, the late Henry Hyde among many others who practiced adultery by their own volition. Your pal Maggie Gallagher had premarital sex that resulted in her having a baby and she like you has the gall to negate same-sex civil marriage? You’re all a bunch of maladjusted hypocrites, masters of the double-standard, liars in fact, but then religious cults are notorious for that too.

      Feb 12, 2010 at 10:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      No. 41 · Brian NJ

      Lets go down the slippy slope of a privileged legal system, and see who wins.

      Sadly, with the events of Prop. 8 and more recently, New Hampshire, we have already begun that descent.

      We can only hope that the outcome of the civil rights trial that just ended in San Francisco, will put the brakes on that runaway train.

      Feb 12, 2010 at 10:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      No. 45 · Robert, NYC

      Bravo! Well said.

      A standing ovation is in order.

      Feb 12, 2010 at 10:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David in Houston
      David in Houston

      @BUSSY: “We are not going anywhere..just as our youths are becoming more pro gay marriage they are also becoming more anti gay marriage.”

      That’s simply not true. The statistics clearly show that younger people overwhelmingly support same-sex marriage. If people under 30 were the only ones voting, same-sex marriage would be legal in 40 states. Yet, if voters were 45 and older, same-sex marriage wouldn’t be in any state. It doesn’t get more clear than that.

      http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/11/05/support-for-same-sex-marriage-by-age-and-state/

      Feb 12, 2010 at 10:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      No. 48 · David in Houston

      I hate to be the one telling you this, but you are confusing Bussy with the facts.

      Bussy has already made up his/her mind. ;)

      Feb 12, 2010 at 12:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      Schlukitz #47, many thanks for that! Back at you!

      Feb 12, 2010 at 12:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • pogobock
      pogobock

      This is all Obama’s fault.

      Feb 12, 2010 at 1:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Schteve
      Schteve

      @BUSSY: “I mean just 10 years ago we never could have concieved that we would actually be arguing if homosexuals can marry.”

      Good gracious you are ignorant of the facts. Ten years ago we already had civil unions in Vermont. Fourteen years ago Congress was arguing if homosexuals could marry when they passed DOMA. Nineteen years ago Hawaii’s Supreme Court decided that it was unconstitutional at the time to not allow them to marry. Hell, the issue goes as far as thirty years back when Baker v. Nelson was decided.

      Don’t sit there stupidly thinking this is some sort of new debate we’re having.

      Feb 12, 2010 at 7:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Schteve
      Schteve

      My bad, Baker v. Nelson is actual forty years old, not thirty. Heh. Even longer then.

      Feb 12, 2010 at 7:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • nicetoblowyou
      nicetoblowyou

      The best stunt on truth in a long time. Great game they played.

      Feb 12, 2010 at 7:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      No. 52 · Schteve

      Good gracious you are ignorant of the facts.

      BINGO! Ignorance is the key word here.

      And as we all have learned, ignorance is the ONLY asset folks like Bussy have going for them.

      Allah, be praised!

      Feb 12, 2010 at 8:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • KirilleXXI
      KirilleXXI

      Sanctity of marriage argument is a loony one. There is no universal sanctity in a civil marriage. We all have our own understanding of marriage, we all include something ours in it. We have a right to bring some special, religious or not, interpretation of our marriage, of our commitment to one another, but we don’t have to take it from some of those religions that claim marriage to belong to them. It belongs to people, not to religion institutions.

      Also:
      ? it is not the government’s place to tell us that marriage should be sacred for us;
      ? it is not the government’s place to demand children from us as a result of our marriage;
      ? it is not the government’s place to demand applicants for marriage license to be in love;
      ? and so it is not the government’s place to demand us, the applicants, to be of different genders.

      I think by now it is very clear to everyone that it is not the United States of America who prohibits same-sex couples to get married, for, legally and morally speaking, there is no good reason to do so, au contraire, by prohibiting recognition of homosexual relationships the States uphold discrimination that harms people for no good reason. It is the people we elect to govern us who stand against our relationships because of their own personal beliefs — beliefs they base their opinions on to make decisions to deny the aforementioned recognition — this is not how the government should work! this is not how our elected representatives should work!

      @BUSSY the PUSSY
      Look up “separate but equal” and see for yourself that it never worked and it never will. Civil unions and civil marriages are two separate but equal institutions, but that’s only on paper, in reality they will never be equal and they will never be treated equally, the very notion that they must be separated makes them inherently unequal. And that’s what we fight for — total equality, not just and not so much the rights and benefits and privileges. If there is no total equality, we will be always hated and seen inferior. We know how it hurts to be seen and treated like that. And we don’t want the future generations of gays and lesbians to suffer the same fate we had to suffer.

      And, by the way, why so many states did not ban just same-sex marriage, but banned any recognition of any marriage-like relationships for homosexual people? Isn’t that animus? Isn’t that hatred? Don’t we have a right to fight these bans? So, don’t you tell me that there are no hard feelings involved and that we make too big of a deal from this! It’s insulting, and not just for us, but for you, too!

      Shifting focus from injustices and unequal treatment (which clearly exists and there is no reason to deny it) to slippery slopes arguments is just sick and has no grounds. But if you really want to examine these arguments, go ahead and read this article published in a newspaper 5 years ago (thanks goes to 1EqualityUSA for bringing this article to my attention).

      Also recommend to read this opinion about polygamy (creates completely new set of rights, it’s not like extension of marriage to gays; high risk of rivalry among spouses; problems with equality), incest (forbidden to preserve familial relationships, to prevent abuse of power; this prohibition does not take away the right to marry someone else of 3 billion people within their heterosexual orientation), and bestiality (animals cannot give legal consent, they are property in legal terms, they cannot be a party of legal contract which marriage is).

      @Robert, NYC (#45) — standing ovation it is!

      Feb 14, 2010 at 10:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      KirilleXXI, right on and thank you!

      Feb 14, 2010 at 10:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      No. 56 · KirilleXXI

      Co-sign. Excellent piece of writing, as we’ve come to expect from you.

      Hope some of it sinks into Bussy’s thick cranium.

      Feb 14, 2010 at 10:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     




    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.