In an act of civil-sorta-disobediance, local LGBT activist Kitty Lambert received a marriage license to a stranger named Ed at Buffalo’s City Hall today, after being denied a license to marry her same-sex partner.
A small group gathered in the lobby before proceeding to the 13th floor. Entering the City Clerk’s office, Kitty and long-time partner Cheryl attempted to apply for a marriage license. Armed with the appropriate documents City employees informed them due to New York State law, they would be unable to grant them a license. As the clerk’s office employees gathered to watch, a tearful Lambert explained the benefits only available to straight couples with a marriage license.
With news cameras rolling, Kitty then turned to the crowd and asked for any male who would be willing to get married to her. A gay man named Ed stepped forward and volunteered. They briefly exchanged information and presented the appropriate documents along with $40. City staff verified the information, and proceeded to give them a marriage license.
Kitty’s point in approaching the City Clerk for a marriage license is that there is no religious basis for marriage, and it serves only as a legally binding contract in our society. Instead of being offered the ability to receive a license with her long-term partner, she was able to secure a license with a virtual stranger, strictly based on their gender.
Below, video from the afternoon:
See YNN’s coverage here.
Thank you for capturing this moment – a very telling one that perfectly illustrated the lunacy of the laws concerning marriage within the state of New York. The spectacle was eye-opening, very emotional, excruciatingly heart-wrenching, and yet, in spite of it all, quite hopeful. I can’t wait to bring the fight to Albany in two weeks.
That’s the spirit! This is exactly the point we have been trying to make through the whole fight. Thank you to Ed and Kitty. You are an inspiration.
MAY YOU ALL DIE IN A FIRE
dear ihatefags. we’re all gonna die in a fire someday. see ya there.
It’s hard to imagine a more effective protest. THANK YOU Kitty Lambert. (Ed had much less to do, but thanks to Ed for being so nonchalantly game.)
Absolutely, thoroughly brilliant.
And what a video, too. Wow. It only has 300 some views right now….I predict 100,000 within a couple weeks.
Save the comments from “Ihatefags” to prove in future court cases the existence of animus.
Thank you for this post. I just sincerely hope more people would see how wrong the current legislation is.
Wow, that was simply amazing, proving the lunacy of the marriage debate.
If marriage was a business, no one would invest in it due to it’s failure rate. How sanctimonious is an institution that depends on other’s relationships to validate their own? It is a shame that people that fight to have the same rights as their brothers and sisters are turned away by those that need external validation for their own relationship, which is one reason why the divorce rate is so high. Obviously there are other reasons to marry, it is a legal document that affords a number of rights and it most certainly is not a religious institution considering it was originally a business transaction between two families, e.g. dowry, estate rights and inheritance (not to mention that today, if you have $400.00, you can get a nullification by the church: undoing what God has done…silly logic infects the zealots). I am amazed at the lack of intelligence in the heterosexual communities that adhere to such divisive principles and invite them to speak to a gay/lesbian couple; as a gay man in an amazing relationship, I have never met anyone who maintained their belief that marriage was for a man and a woman after seeing the virtue and love that I share with my partner. For those that are staunch opponents, I leave them to their own demise but to those that remain on the fringe, I invite you to join in the fight for true equality for all, not just for those that are alike.
Umm WHERE does it say they got married? It says they applied for and were granted a marriage license. It does not say they fulfilled it…
Same sex benefits? ok. Same sex marriage, etc? Please don’t push that lifestyle on me or my children. Clearly, it is not right.
To my brother or sister who has chosen the name Ihatefags:
It’s okay to stop hating yourself. I promise you. It’s okay. Come out. You’ll be surprised at how much love is out there. Sure, there will be people who act they way you’ve acted here, but I’m telling you they’re the exception. Best of luck and lots of love to you.
–M
Hey “Name” — nobody’s making you or your children do anything they don’t want to do. Don’t like it, look the other way, but don’t stop me or anybody else from doing what they want to do when it doesn’t affect you or your kids in any way.
On the other hand, you and people who feel the way you do are restricting me from my RIGHT to do as I please so long as it doesn’t affect you or your kids in any way.
The gay couple down the street aren’t going to suddenly behave any different after they’re allowed to get married. You clearly commented on something that you missed the point on entirely.
Dear Name: no one is forcing thier lifestyle upon you or your family by deciding to officially pledge their loyalty to the person they love. Just because Buddhists and vegans and swingers and Libretarians and drinkers exist and are out in the open, doesn’t mean that they all want you and your family to be just like them. Accept people for who they are instead of trying to make them more like you.
[...] a day late to posting this, but PinkBflo writes about an act of civil disobedience-ish behavior that took place in Buffalo: local LGBT activist Kitty Lambert received a marriage license to a stranger named Ed at [...]
Doesn’t New York already accept marriages from other states? Just go across the border to MA, spend your money there on a marriage and then come on back over and there you’re married IN NEW YORK STATE.
Dear “Ihatefags”, you should take some Imodium AD…I hear it cures verbal diarrhea.
[...] Kitty Lambert and her longtime partner Cheryl attempted to apply for a marriage license yesterday in Buffalo, New York. When she was denied, she turned to the crowd: [...]
I fail to see how mocking the institution of marriage is an effective way to advocate for marriage equality. Marriage is a sanctimonious institution – that is why it is such an affront to civilized society that it is not allowed for same-sex couples. The institution of marriage needs be treated with respect if members of the GLBT community want to win popular opinion. I, for one, was offended by this.
Brian,
So, the state legislature will allow 2 complete strangers to get married, and will not allow the same right to 2 people who are in-love and committed to each other. Yet rather than being offended by this ridiculous inequality and by the fact that the “justice” system is just one raging hypocrasy, you’re offended by the fact that people show to the world exactly how UNJUST this JUSTICE system is. You’re not offended that a country founded on equality for all breaks that ideal every chance they get.
sir, tsomething in your thinking doesn’t add up.
Who’s mocking the institution of marriage, Brian? How about the 60% of straight couples who divorce within the first five years of taking their vows? How about the Catholic Church who, for $400, will give you a piece of paper saying “it never happened?” How about people who breed with reckless abandon and produce children with several partners with no intention of marrying them? Hmm? Who’s mocking what here? Clearly the *institution itself* is a mockery. Maybe if straights would treat it with more respect and handle it more responsibly, the gays wouldn’t have to fight so hard to show what it’s supposed to be – an institution of love and partnership; not the obscene racket run by the wedding industry and divorce lawyers. THAT’s been bastardized by the straights.
Kitty and Cheryl were trying to UPHOLD the institution of marriage, and by “mocking it” they proved what a mockery the system is. A lesbian and a gay man qualify for a marriage license regardless of their relationship, yet two partners who’ve stuck by each other for years and built a life and a family together do not. Pfft. Institution of marriage, indeed.
Hate is a waste of energy. It gets absolutely, everyone, nowhere. Harm none, do what you will. These people are harming no one, they are preserving an institution well respected by American Law and trying to abide by it, receive the benefits thereof and live in harmony with their neighbors. They are doing the responsible thing by forming a family unit and (perhaps) raising a family within the institutions held sacred by their country. Again, they are harming no one, they are trying to receive the lawful benefits of marriage bequeathed to them by the Tax (and other) laws of this country, but denied them simply because of their sexual preference. Just as there are a variety of intelligence/personality/outward appearances in our race, there is also a variety of sexual expression. The sooner we realize that, the better and more harmonious we can live with one another.
This just shows how ridiculous the whole issue is. Gays cannot be married, but ‘hetero’ couples can marry spontaneously? Which circumstance is a mockery? I think it’s obvious.
‘Traditional marriage is treated so frivolously it’s absurd. Why can’t people see this with clarity?
I’m not gay but I’m from Jersey and I’d like to impose my lifestyle on someone. Please???
Jersey,
How would you be imposing that lifestyle on me? Would you purposely find me, scream in my face with your spiked up hair and orange spray-tanned body with your fists pumping in the air?
Please give one example of how gay people “impose” their lifestyle on you, PERSONALLY, and if you do then at least I can respect your opinion.
I’m confused.
Being a LGBT activist, you’d assume that Ms. Lambert would have bedn aware of New York State’s laws and regulations regarding marriage.
What was the point of her city hall visit? If I had to venture a guess I’d say her motives involved a whole lot of self promotion mixed with a healthy dose of what is quickly becoming overwhelmingly tedious and cliched “activism” .
Yaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.
Fantastic!!!! Brilliant!
Marriage was a religious institution long before it was a civil law and long before anyone landed on this soil. Just because governments have picked up the term does not nullify it’s roots, background or religious significance. If you want the benefits, fine, accept a Civil Union(something that the government should be giving out to everyone regardless of the genders of the couples, let their church decide if it’s a marriage or not) and leave marriage alone. Marriage is very clearly defined in the Bible as being between a man and a woman, the Bible would be the place the definition of marriage was taken from when written into law. Now for anyone who would like to have the separation of church and state debate a few points: 1) The First Amendment clearly and only states that Congress may not establish a state religion (ie favor one religion over others) they have the option of supporting none(as has been historically done) or supporting all equally (which is a virtual impossibility given human nature). 2) There is no legal document that grants the separation of church and state, the idea stems from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a congregation in Connecticut with his opinion on the topic of religion & government. 3) There are various treaties that seem to imply the separation of church and state, most are correctly interpreted as “we didn’t attack you because you practice “x” religion”, furthermore treaties dictate actions between the United States and other countries, not within the US itself
“Marriage was a religious institution long before it was a civil law”
No, it wasn’t. That’s an understandable assumption, but just because religion acknowledged its existence, that doesn’t make it a religious institution, any more than creating a blessing over food makes eating a religious institution. Marriage was a -social- institution before any particular involvement of religion in it, and religion doesn’t get to own it just because it licked it.
In ancient Israel the rules for marriage were to have come from God as stated in Genesis. In Ancient India rules for marriage are found in the Vedas. Ancient Greece involved multiple gods in the wedding ceremony (such as the bride giving up her toys to Artemis)Roman tradition tends to mirror the Greek. Ancient Egypt considered marriage a sacred vow. Ancient Chinese marriages were rife with religion, including consulting the zodiac and kowtowing to the heavens. Shinto, the ancient Japanese religion clearly defines marriage, as Shinto as a whole was very focused on families. Ancient Persian marriage ceremonies included readings from the Avesta, the zoroastrian holy book, and a blessing from god. Even going back to Sumeria, which predates Hammurabi’s Code there is evidence of marriage being a religiously significant event. So I am not sure which civilization to which you are referring when you say that it was a social institution first but I would be happy to see your evidence.
Marriage predates all recorded history; that you can find recorded cases of history of religion being involved does not trump that. There may have been ceremonies that some could undergo in a marriage in Ancient Greece, but marriage itself required no ceremony.
Marriage has been a standard in disparate civilizations, ones with widely varying religion and cultures in other forms. It seems to be largely a natural societal occurence, that humans tend to pair by their nature. Of course religions would reflect that and try to invest themselves in it, but that’s far different form them inventing it or from it being primarily a religious rather than a social institution.
Without the ceremony there is no marriage, the ceremony is religious in nature, the “natural pairing off” of humans are not marriages. You can live together, therefore paired off and not be married. Furthermore religion also predates all recorded history, so that leaves the possibility of either of us being correct, but marriage, the ceremony, the wedding, the formal acknowledgment of a legitimate couple has historically been a religious event, recorded history shows us as much.
“Without the ceremony there is no marriage, the ceremony is religious in nature”
That is a religious view, not an historic one. Through much of European history, the “ceremony” need only entail private agreement between the couple that they are married. The Catholic Church didn’t require witnesses and church involvement in marrying until the 16th century.
And if there must be a ceremony which is religious in nature to be married, then there are a heck of a lot of people in the world who think they’re married, but aren’t.
Adam,
I am fascinated by your argument, even if I completely disagree. So by your logic, Atheists, Humanists or Agnostics (those who are, arguably, without religion) should also be unable to wed. What about Universalists (those who cling to no one specific religion)?
Per your previously stated comments, it can be logically implied that all of these people do not have a religion, and therefore their marriages should all be nullified, as there is not a foundation in religion. What about about people who marry in some religious tradition but do not actively participate in said religion? Mary Sue marries in St. Jehoshaphat’s, but she doesn’t go to church. Her marriage is therefore invalid as well.
Your argument of “let their church decide if it’s a marriage or not” also concerns me. If a church has absolute power over what is and is not a marriage, then any church can nullify any marriage for any reason. I’m sure churches all of over the country will be thrilled to have the option of severing interracial marriages, generational marriages, mixed-religion marriages, marriages of opposing political or ideological viewpoints, and so forth.
Let’s take your idea further. Let’s end all marriages because somewhere one of the spouses in every marriage certainly offended somebody or broke some church’s “rule.” Drinking coffee is against the teachings of the Church of Latter Day Saints, for example. Using technology is against the teachings of Stauffer Mennonites. Sorry Adam, you have sinned as you are on a computer, so wave goodbye to your wife, should you have one!
I think this is a great idea. Write to your congressman and representative at once. I’m sure it will go over splendidly.
Of course, churches are already free to have their own views on who is married and who is not, for their own religious purposes. For example, if Catholics Joe and Brenda get a civil divorce, then Brenda marries Sam, in the eyes of the Roman Catholic church, Joe is still married (because he never received an annulment), and Sam is not married (because Brenda was still married to Joe, and thus not free to enter into marriage with Sam.) So the religious view of who is married already fails to match up to the civil view… and laws permitting same-sex couples to marry will not effectively require the church to recognize that marriage -for religious purposes-. (It may have some effect on how they have to pay benefits and other such concerns, but those are matters of civil dictate, not religious.)
Where were the religious people when the government decided to regulate marriage in the first place? Oh, that’s right! Government regulation of marriage was a BENEFIT to THEM. Ahh, the religious right, always standing for freedom, unless somehow there’s something more in it for them. Hypocrites.
[...] Kitty’s point in approaching the City Clerk for a marriage license is that there is no religious basis for marriage, and it serves only as a legally binding contract in our society. Instead of being offered the ability to receive a license with her long-term partner, she was able to secure a license with a virtual stranger, strictly based on their gender. (source) [...]
i am straight, happily married, and i have a pleather of gay friends, i would leave my kids in the hands and care of my gay friends before i would ever leave them with some of my straight friends…God Bless you for having the courage to make a public point, and having the “Rosa Parks” attitude.
David, I forgot to make my original point clear, that is on me and I apologize. The term marriage would have to be replaced in all law and legal documents with the term civil union (or another such term) BEFORE the church would be given that power. Everyone, male/male, female/female, male/female would get a Civil Union License. You go an get your Civil Union License and what do you tell all your friends? You’re getting married of course, it would only be in the eyes of the government that it would be a civil union, and my argument for this path is that it walks the middle. The entire problem with this debate is not that people don’t want same sex couple to have benefits, it’s the definition of marriage, this term is an extremely polarizing force, and will almost always get people up in arms and out to vote, because most people have very strong opinions about it. Take marriage out of the equation for everyone (on the legal level) and I think laws allowing for same sex couples to receive civil unions (or whatever term is deemed appropriate) and then benefits there of would go much more smoothly. And this isn’t me trying to be discriminator, everyone should get a Civil Union license and leave marriage to the churches (once the term has no legal bearing).
Nat G.
Discounting the Bible which you will obviously not accept as a historically accurate document we have reliable evidence of Christian wedding ceremonies dating back to the 9th century not the 16th, and you can date Jewish ceremonies much older than that. To your point about those who have been married by a justice of the peace, ect, the only reason this is an issue that you can raise is because the government took the term marriage in the first place, replace it with another term, such as civil union, and that point is moot.
It really is unfortunate that people do not understand that the author of marriage is God. He in His word says that it is to be between a man and a woman.People are trying to change what God says and are using flawed systems and flawed marriages and non-scriptural attitudes to try and force the government to comply with their wishes whether or not God agrees with what they do. It is no different than the Constitution. People find something in it that does not allow them to do what they want and so they want to redefine or alter what it meant when it was originally crafted. This is only because they don’t agree.Please realize that not agreeing with God’s word is not a valid reason to attempt to force others to agree. I cited no Scripture because the same folks who fight for same-sex marriage are the same folks that say there is no reference to homosexualty in Scripture. The ir wisdom say if I disagree then laws should be changed to comply with my disagreement. I pray for your salvation.
Benjamin C. Bell Jr.: You pompous windbag – you think it is self-evident that the citizens of this country are governed by both the Constitution and your scripture? Not only do pro-gay marriage activists openly admit to the existence of the passages in the bible; they also highlight the many other passages in the bible that are completely ignored by the religious today. Your “moral” arguments are “unfortunate” because they are so pervasively ignorant; they should not have any place in contract law.
At least when i burn in hell i’ll be with a bunch of hott, sweaty lesbians :) yummy. I refuse to give love to people who so viciously hate us for who we are. GO GAY!!!
The bible thumping needs to stop. Has it not occurred to any of you that have taken the religious angle that quotations from ancient book of stories, legends, and interpretations means nothing to those that do not buy into it? To believe that they will alter their lifestyle because of it is akin to me assuming that if I quote the Italian penal code you would tailor your actions to fall in line with it. Please, stop harassing people due to your insecurities. They deserve the right to be happy as much as you do.
The word “marriage” needs to be eliminated from governmental text. Rights should be associated with a civil union, and people should be free to add on to the recognition of the state with the religious trappings of their choosing in a separate event. There is separation of church and state for a reason, and this vestige of a Christian dominated government is at the core of the issue. Remove the term “marriage” for everyone.
Here is to moving on, accepting people, and not hiding your insecurities behind the veil of religious zealotry.