« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
05/29/2009
CNN Sunday: Accomplished city leader vs. Professional discriminator
On this Sunday's edition of "State of the Union," the CNN crew will profile two very different leaders in the fight to inform the status of the Empire State's ring fingers. A preview story shows us what we can expect.
On one side you have out New York City Council speaker Christine Quinn, who is interviewed along with partner Kim Catullo. The two weigh in on both the politics...
"The fear of the unknown," is how [Quinn] describes it. "This is a vote they've never cast before. And they don't know how people are going to react. You are in a position where people's reaction to you is the key to your success. And the unknown creates fear and fear often creates paralysis."
...and the personal:
Catullo would prefer a conversation less political.
"I really do believe that if someone lived next to us or really knew us, it wouldn't be an issue at all," she said. "I mean we are good people. We're law-abiding. We're taxpayers. We're just an eight-year couple that's been together a long time and we do a lot of the things that a normal couple does. There's a lot more things in the world to worry about than the fact that we want to be married."
But on the flip side, the CNN folks also chat up the National Organization For Marriage's notorious Maggie Gallagher, who smugly relishes the possibility that her side will get to be the dark rain cloud that ruins scores of New Yorkers' wedding days:
"We are now working in 24 Senate districts," ..."We know we have generated thousands of phone calls to legislators. I don't think they will be passing a gay marriage bill this session."
Oh, Mags. You also think that the unbelievable amount of bad press and string of comical failures that your organization has suffered are good for business. So forgive us if we don't put too much stock in your personal views regarding either the fate of equality or the efficacy of your own unprincipled pushes. Self-assessment would not seem to be a NOM (nom, nom, nom) strongpoint!
To read more about the forthcoming report, click below link:
King: Same-sex marriage debate heats up in New York [CNN]
And to ruin Maggie's divisive day rather than let her ruin your own peaceful one, call your NY senator and tell them to SUPPORT BASIC CIVIL FAIRNESS:
(518) 455-2800
Your thoughts
Let me guess...she'll be wearing a black shirt with a red coat, with this miserable "I'm a a persecuted Christian" look on her face, and she'll be armed with a full deck of victim cards.
Posted by: zortnac | May 29, 2009 6:57:15 PM
Well, chances are Mags may get to give herself credit and a pat on the ample back when the NY Senate doesn't take up the issue this session, but it'll have nothing to do with her or NOM. It'll have everything to do with homophobic senators like Diaz and Huntley.
Posted by: Bruno | May 29, 2009 8:10:18 PM
I'm assuming every single one of G-A-Y's readers has written their senator demanding marriage equality. Right?! Pour yourself a pot of coffee, sit down, and hand write a letter. Pen and paper! And put in a picture of yourself, you and your parents, or you and your mate. Here's your senator: http://www.nysenate.gov/senators?OpenForm
Win marriage equality in NY and give NOM another victim card to play - Mags is obviously not playing with a full deck.
Posted by: Sykler | May 30, 2009 8:49:21 AM
Hey, anyone living in Astoria, Sunnyside or Long Island City, ours is one of the Senators voting against marriage. George Onorato (D) District 012
Here's his phone in Albany: 518-455-3486 and in Long Island City: 718-726-9706
and his email address: onorato@senate.state.ny.us
Let him know how unhappy you are with his decision to oppose equal rights for all!
Posted by: Morry | May 30, 2009 3:40:04 PM
Marriage is an old institution. I'm sure that it has evolved over time to mean different things. It will continue to evolve. There are civil and religious marriages, arranged marriages, marriages of convenience, stupid and smart marriages. To define it solely on the religious base is just stupid and wrong. Not every one is religious and not all religions believe the same thing. So it must be by definition a civil institution with other flavorings added on a free basis by the participants. Since the hard religious right took over through the Bush administration, they have tried to define it to the narrow religious views to the detriment of all others. This will change too since the country has already rejected that conservative philosophy that too often appears as hateful, vindictive and intolerant. Some say that marriage exists for the purpose of reproduction, this argument too is silly since making babies does not require the approval of anyone, church or otherwise and should never require it. I know gay people, some in my family are so. They choose to not raise a family, they can though. Adoption or even birthing their own children is an option should they choose to do it. All that is required is a loving, stable nurturing environment. That can happen even with people that choose not to marry. This silliness will subside and the country will define marriage outside of the church as it should. Give it time. Young people now a days don't care about this. They are the future. I think the haters have already lost.
Posted by: PJF | May 31, 2009 8:29:53 AM
I'm so sick and tired of this ridiculous gay marriage debate. There's nothing wrong with being gay and we should not deny people basic human rights based on their sexual orientation. But gays are demanding that everyone accept their lifestyle as "normal." That's never going to happen. The reason is that, while there's nothing abnormal with homosexual desire, exclusive homosexual identity and a complete denial of heterosexual motivation is, in reality, nothing more than a psycho-sexual maladaptation. Yes, it is, and denying it doesn't make it any less true. It makes no difference that the maladaptation is is established very early in life and is irreversible. No one is born gay. One becomes gay. Basic biology is the only proof needed to accept this truth.
So we must accept homosexuality as part of our reality and allow gays to live full happy lives. We do not, however, have to accept some of the more bizarre practices and behaviors so common in the gay community. Nor do we have to accept the gays' unreasonable demand that we redefine the ancient institution of marriage to include same-sex unions. It is enough to codify civil unions in order to convey basic rights to gay couples. They may call themselves married, if that pleases them, but they can't demand that others do the same. That's what freedom is all about: the right to choose what one thinks and believes.
Many gays just don't get it. There have been referenda on gay marriage in 30 states thus far. In each of these, voters have overwhelmingly rejected the idea of gay marriage. This rejection crosses cultural and religious lines. Even many gays reject the idea.
Posted by: Reality | May 31, 2009 8:41:25 AM
Reality, you are talking out of your ass. And, it is obvious that you know that, as evidenced by the fact that you don't put your real name on your post.
And, while none of us care (not even a little) whether you accept us, or whether you absolutely abhor us, we do care when our lives are diminished by a government that happily subtracts our taxes from our paychecks. And, I am sure that you would be very happy if we were to go quietly into the night, but that isn't going to happen.
If you truly are "sick and tired" of the discussion, then get out of it.. it doesn't affect you in one single way. So listen to your own stupid argument, and move on.
Posted by: Dick Mills | May 31, 2009 9:00:41 PM
