Rally, rally f#cked up.

I love New York. I do. I love the rush and the bustle and riding the subway, and I even love the smell of urine every once in a while on a hot day in Chinatown to remind me that we're all human beings and that some human beings drop trough on the sidewalk. I love the you're-okay-I'm-okay-just-as-long-as-you-don't-fuck-with-me attitude. People are real and honest and very, very blunt. Even if they're from a conservative Jewish or Italian Catholic family, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who will evangelize to you about why living their way is the best way.

That's why I find it absolutely fucking ludicrous that last week, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled against gay marriage. The majority offered ridiculous arguments:

First, the Legislature could rationally decide that for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are often too casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement - in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits - to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.
I just don't understand how this is an argument. Someone please break this down for me. Judge Robert Smith is saying 1) That boys and girls make babies, which we know, or if we don't know that, one of our mommies will soon tell us; and 2) That because boys and girls can make babies, they're more likely to stay together.

Here's a big surprise. Are you ready for this? He cites absolutely no scientific proof to validate this conclusion and furthermore fails to give props to the fact that when gay couples want children, they actually have to go great lengths to plan for them.

I know I don't have to bring up any divorce statistics for all of you, no matter what you believe, to see that the argument is weak. And to those of you reading my blog at are gay, can you please PLEASE let me know if you guys are great, big abusive, shiftless whores? PLEEEEASE. If you are, I'm afraid I just didn't get the memo.
The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like. It is obvious that there are exceptions to this general rule - some children who never know their fathers, or their mothers, do far better than some who grow up with parents of both sexes - but the Legislature could find that the general rule will usually hold.

Second verse, same as the first. Everyone knows that gender roles are a crock of shit anyway. Men play sports and bring home the bacon and do not under any circumstances cry. Women serve their men martinis, teach the girls how to do their hair, and are spendthrifts at the local mall. Again, he cites no scientific evidence.

The court's minority opinion differed in language and sentiment:

Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them. The claim that marriage has always had a single and unalterable meaning is a plain distortion of history. In truth, the common understanding of "marriage" has changed dramatically over the centuries.

The state plainly has a legitimate interest in the welfare of children, but excluding same-sex couples from marriage in no way furthers this interest. In fact, it undermines it. Civil marriage provides tangible legal protections and economic benefits to married couples and their children, and tens of thousands of children are currently being raised by same-sex couples in New York. Depriving these children of the benefits and protections available to the children of opposite-sex couples is antithetical to their welfare.

Defendants primarily assert an interest in encouraging procreation within marriage. But while encouraging opposite-sex couples to marry before they have children is certainly a legitimate interest of the state, the exclusion of gay men and lesbians from marriage in no way furthers this interest. There are enough marriage licenses to go around for everyone.

Thank you, Judge Judith Kaye. By the way, does anyone else find it superbly-fitting that someone by the name of Judy Kaye is fighting for for gays? Sorry. Couldn't resist. Judy Kaye, the actress lives in Jersey, anyway.

There was a rally last night in several places all over New York State. I attended the NYC one at Sheridan Square, outside the Stonewall Inn. This is a historic site for gays everywhere, because it's where the gay rights movement was born.

A lot of great speakers were present offering reassurance, and the rally was both comforting an invigorating.


You can read an article about it here or here. Or see a slideshow here.

The overall urgent message of the evening was simple: WE (meaning ALL citizens) HAVE TO TAKE ACTION IN ORDER TO SECURE OUR RIGHTS.

In the past couple of years, the gay community has been beaten back a bit. I've noticed it in New York as a volunteer for Marriage Equality New York who organizes an annual march across the Brooklyn Bridge. Three years ago its attendance boasted 4,000 and this year it was down to a few hundred.

We've taken a backseat to our own fight and allowed organizations such as Lambda Legal, Empire State Pride Agenda, and the Human Rights Campaign to fight the fight for us. Thankfully, they've been up for it.

Now the fight is with the lawmakers---with your New York State representatives. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE write everyone who represents you. You can write one email as I did and copy and paste them using the user-friendly ESPA site. Simply type in your zip code, and the site lists everyone you could possibly have voted for. Demand that they support full marriage rights for every single New York Citizen.

If you don't live in New York, please visit www.hrc.org to find out how you can help in your state.

15 minutes, tops.

Thanks,
Jenks