Stonewall Inn, Greenwich Village, NYC — Forty-two years ago next Tuesday, a police raid against this gay bar started a series of riots that sparked the birth of the modern gay-rights movement. Tonight marks, for New York, the end of the long road that began at this unassuming little bar.
The crowd here is not that large, by New York City standards: I’d guess fewer than a thousand people. And, having seen a few gay-pride parades, I can also say it’s a remarkably demure group here tonight — cheerful and exuberant, to be sure, but not aggressive, boisterous, or eager to shock. You know those people who take cameras to rallies — whether it’s a Gay Day or a Tea Party — just to photograph the two or three creepiest-looking people there, to post on the Internet and say, “See? You see how creepy those people are?”? Well, their effort to find creepy-looking crazies here would be in vain. The most out-there people I’ve seen are a sweet young couple, being interviewed by a reporter with “Associated Press” on his accompanying camera: a handsome 26-year-old chap from Ireland in a laid-back T-shirt and a gorgeous platinum-blonde in a stunning 1950s Seven Year Itch-style dress. Wait a minute, you’re thinking, what’s so “out there” about great retro clothes? And you’re right, it’s actually not that “out there” at all. The only thing that makes it worth mentioning is that the hot blonde proves, on my closer inspection, to be a guy.
There are a few high-fives, and fewer shouts; mostly a remarkably placid, well-behaved crowd enjoying the sweetness of a symbolic victory. And I stress symbolic: There is no actual change in what these folks are allowed to do in their private lives. The only difference tonight makes is that the people of New York decided, through their elected representatives, that the handful of gays who want to make the particular kind of commitment to each other known as marriage, can do so with our collective blessing. (With the proviso that some who object to this approval for religious reasons will not themselves be compelled to approve. The road from Stonewall, June 1969, to Stonewall, June 2011, was a trajectory of greater social acceptance of difference and nonconformity. It would be a betrayal of the deep American principles at work there if tonight’s victory for the gays resulted in the violation of the conscience rights of those who have religious objections. I’m sure the lawyers will weigh in with words-a-plenty on the specifics; have at it.)
I learn tonight that the annual gay-pride march is on this very Sunday; perhaps there will be a louder, more in-your-face contingent there. But here, tonight, I see neither the face of anarchy, nor that of a nascent “North Korea.” I see smiles on young people — and also, on some quiet senior citizens who are actually old enough to remember Stonewall 1969.
And speaking of 1969, here’s a little bit of perspective. In 1969, Spain was a conservative religious republic, led by the legendary Generalissimo Francisco Franco; and New York City was already Babylon-on-the-Hudson, well on its way to being the crime-sex-drugs-porn-and-atonal-music capital of the world. If I had said to you then, “Forty years from now, one of these places will allow homosexuals to marry each other with the blessing of the state” . . . well, let’s just say you would have made a lot of money if you had bet on Spain.
Spain did it in 2005, six years ahead of the Empire State; and now we have it here in ol’ Babylon. I call it Babylon affectionately; let no one question, on this night, my patriotism as a citizen of the state of Alexander Hamilton, Theodore Roosevelt, and the Marx Brothers.
"Tonight marks, for New York, the end of the long road that began at this unassuming little bar." Sounds so peaceful and serene. It's just another blow to the battered institution of marriage--the decline of which bears great responsibility in so many of our current crises.
And as you must know--for the sodomites and other libertines (does that include you?), it's not the "end" of the road--the Human Rights Campaign "envisions an America where LGBT people..can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community." Or in other words, where they are "safe" from even the suggestion of disapproval. Someone in New York once said something appropriate to our times:
"The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them, is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them.
"These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call [homosexuality] wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them...The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to [homosexuality], before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.
I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in this way. Most of them would probably say to us, 'Let us alone, do nothing to us, and say what you please about [homosexuality].' But we do let them alone - have never disturbed them - so that, after all, it is what we say, which dissatisfies them. They will continue to accuse us of doing, until we cease saying."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Potemra,
I disagree with your assertion that this is "all ok" because there is a religious exemption clause. Hog wash! The NYS Constitutions provides for equal protection and due process. Those constitutional provision override any exemption clauses in the law. They are as meaningless as the executive order that President Obama used to buy off the "pro-life" democrats during the Healthcare Law battle.
All it will take is a sufficiently militant gay couple to dupe someone into denying them a service based on their expressed religious belief that gay marriage is not appropriate, and said couple can bring a lawsuit in state court seeking damages and attempt to overturn the exemption provisions.
Similar instances of this have occurred as with the example of an Arizona wedding photographer who was duped by a lesbian couple into agreeing to work a "wedding" (conveniently leaving out the fact that they were homosexuals) and, when the photographer backed on on religious grounds, she was sued by the couple in state court, found guilty of violating state anti-discrimination laws and ordered to pay damages to the lesbian couple. If you don't think that has had a chilling effect on the right to speak out against gay marriage or practice their beliefs think again.
Under what circumstances do you believe that an extremely small minority of the population (self-described LGBT represent, at most, 4% of the US population) has the right to impose its beliefs on a much larger group, perhaps even a majority if you lump together both religious and moral objectors?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour line of argument does not actually make sense. Sure, any "religious exemption" may well face some kind of court test. But the same holds true for any statutory regime, including the one that has existed all along (until this new one is signed into law).
If you think the NYS judiciary is going to overturn exemptions based on state constitutional rights to equal protection... then what makes you think they would have upheld laws that withheld marriage rights entirely to the same plaintiffs? Common sense would say you've got a much better shot at retaining the exemption ... if continuing to discriminate is really what's important to you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhich religious belief was hurt? For the couple and their friends it was a marriage for the photographer not! But she won`t like the people there so she denied her services.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf it it had been a AA couple and friends and a white racist the outcome would be the same.
Mr. Power Pickle,
I thought there is a clause in this bill which says that if a court did overturn the religious exemption, then the whole bill would be overturned. That effectively discourages litigating the religious exemption clause.
Mr. Potemra - excellent reflections.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI never say this on NRO, but your post made me smile. And while I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop (as it often does on posts here that begin sounding actually sane and empathetic), on this one either I missed it or there wasn't one. I'm assuming you're conservative given you write for this website and must associate with the other writers here and I must say, if there's any hope for the conservative party, whether I agree with the policies or not, it's in your acceptance of where the world in heading in equality and an understanding of the indifference most young people have today towards the dated morality of those dying out.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere's nothing 'dated' about the idea that children are stakeholders in their own family status.
"Gay marriage" has yet to acknowledge the conflict between the child's interests vs. their own desires. Simply pretending the child will obediently feel whatever he is told is not going to work forever: sooner or later truth always comes out.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHughman,
Check the proportion of children under 5 in, say, Idaho or Utah versus New York (or even more so, New Hampshire and Vermont). Then talk to us about who is dying out.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, Potemra's one of the good ones. And not just when he's saying stuff I agree with. He writes thoughtfully, and only about what he knows.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBabylon?
More like Sodom and Gomorrah.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, Biblical fables that have been proven as misconstrued by religious scholars are always a basis for gross injustices against minorities. Seriously, get some new material.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf by "proven...by religious scholars" you mean "unsuccessfully disputed...by a smattering of contemporary PC-revisionists," then, yeah, you're right.
Otherwise, not so much.
As for the S&G reference, there's no need for new material when the material itself is timeless and directly on-point, your delicate little sensibilities notwithstanding. The truth often hurts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe "truth"might hurt. When I hear it. So far, not so much.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's very telling that you put the word "truth" in quotation marks. As if there's really no such thing.
There is a truth. You've been hearing it all your life. Ignoring it doesn't make it any less true.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJewish scholars have argued for millennia that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing to do with homosexuality. See External Link
for a good summary of what the actual reasons were.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat is one of the best quotes I've ever read and I'm going to steal it. ;-)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe traditional definition of marriage is not some "gross injustice."
Or, if it is, then we're still guilty of injustice against minorities, because New York's radical redefinition STILL excludes minority groups, including polygamists and those eccentrics who wish to be considered married to their beloved pets.
So what is it going to be? Are you going to embrace the continuation of a supposed gross injustice now that your favored group is being affirmed, or are you going to take the rationale behind your position to its logical conclusion and support the abolition of ANY definition of marriage?
--
As for your contempt for the supposed "fables" of the Bible, I don't believe you know half as much as you think you do -- and I'm not surprised to see your open-minded tolerance end so abruptly at Christianity.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEsquire and Lawrence, you guys go. I can't put it much better than that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was not judicially imposed but passed legally. You have a remedy if you disagree, convince enough voters to change the law back.
If you can't do that, well then what can you say?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Joe,
One problem is that normal order was not followed and the bill was rushed to the floor under the pretense of "emergency". A mockery was made of the legislative process.
I agree that legislation is better than judicial fiat, but I would argue that a question of this magnitude (fundamentally changing the definition of marriage) ought to have been put to a referendum.
And finally, the notion that religious exemption clauses somehow will make this law immune to judicial challenges and expansions is a bit naive. Now that this "right" has been established by law, it will be expanded and stretched by the liberal courts like so much silly putty. Courts can't rule on laws that don't exists...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse