Bloomberg to preside as two gay top aides wed
On Sunday, New York becomes the sixth state where same sex-marriage is legal.
The milestone was achieved in no small part due to the efforts of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, long a vocal advocate of the cause.
Two of Bloomberg's senior aides are gay - and he'll be presiding Sunday when his chief policy adviser, John Feinblatt, and his Commissioner of Consumer Affairs, Jonathan Mintz, get married.
The couple will be among the first to take advantage of the new law, in the morning.
Bloomberg has only officiated at two other weddings -- one was his daughter's, and the other was of his predecessor, Rudy Giuliani.
But he's making another exception, he says, because of his close personal connection to Feinblatt and Mintz and the role they played in personalizing the issue of same-sex marriage for him.
"John and Jonathan are two of the smartest and hardest-working people in our administration," Bloomberg says. "This just felt like the best way for me to say thank you." He says he's "honored to be part of it."
Mintz and Feinblatt have been together 14 years and have two young daughters.
To meet demand from the many same-sex couples wanting to marry on the first day they can in New York, the city is taking the unusual step of opening the City Clerk's office on a day when it would normally be closed.
On "The Early Show on Saturday Morning," Bloomberg, Feinblatt and Mintz talked about the enormity of the day, for themselves and the rights of the entire gay community.
Bloomberg said he's officiating " because I think this sends a message to the world that New York is open to everyone.
"I've always thought America's great strengths include the fact that we treat everybody equally and we that don't impose our religion on anybody else. And, in this case, everybody should have the right to get married, and every religion should have the right to decide what's appropriate within their religion.
"And I think New York has done that, and I'm very proud of the state. The state legislature, the governor, and the speaker of the city council all got together and did what I think the people would want.
"And it's a sentiment, I think, that's growing throughout this country: It's just not the government's business to get involved in your personal life unless there's some overriding compelling public policy purpose. And there's not."
To see the interview, by co-anchor Rebecca Jarvis, click on the video at the top of this story.
- Dad Punishes Daughter with Free Babysitter Ad Play Video
- How to stop junk mail - forever
- New tornadoes hit Midwest Play Video
- Legit Work-from-Home Websites - and the Scams
- Terms to Never Use in Your Resume
- Best Low-Tech Cell Phones Suitable for Seniors
- Bill Nye's Withered Romance
- 'Sex And The City' Premieres Play Video
Location: Washington Square Park
Look for Registered NYC Officiant: Mary C Pugh in a purple robe and lavender stole
Date and Time: Sunday July 24th from 10:30 a.m. to 2pm
Wedding Officiant: Mary C. Pugh, (203) 838 1038
www.ct-jp.com mary@ct-jp.com
Photography: Photos will be taken if the couple desires.
License
Obtain your wedding license in New York City
municipal hall and have the 24 hr waiting period
waived
Bring your license and two witnesses
THE UNITED STATES IS BECOMING WEAKER IN ALL AREAS! AS WE CONTINUE TO MIS-MANAGE--OPEN UP OUR MILITARY! AND OUR SOCIETY! TOO! TO ALL THINGS! GOOD LUCK TO ALL THIS! TOO! AS THE WHIRL POOL BEGINS TO SUCK US DOWN! LOTTERIES, CASINOS, GAY MARRIAGE ETC! IT ALL BEGAN MANY YEARS AGO! AND THE TIME FOR A RUSTY PIPE TO BREAK --TAKES JUST THAT! TIME! AND THE FLOOD WILL DROWN ALL!
Do you picture everyone you meet having sex?
I would urge readers of this article to also read the essay on which this post is based. Entitled "The Case for Limiting Government Recognition to Traditional Relationships," it consists of an essay that I placed at,
http://marriage-onemanandonewoman.blogspot.com/2011/07/case-for-limiting-government.html
Here, besides a more detailed discussion of the list, above, there's citations to the scientific references (mainstream, respected, and apolitical references) on which the essay is based (after the end of the essay). After considering what's written here and/or in the essay, I would urge proponents of same-sex marriage reconsider their view. If they can't offer a fact-based rebuttal to what I've written, then proponents of same-sex marriage have no right to demand that our government recognize same-sex marriage and subsidize it with tax and legal incentives, like it rightfully does for heterosexual marriage.
For those who agree that same-sex marriage is a bad idea that needs to be opposed. I urge you to copy this post (including the link to the essay) and email it to as many as you can and ask that they do the same. Also, email it to your legislators and call them to demand that they vote against any law recognizing same-sex marriage and promise to vote against them, if they don't. You can do so in its current form or rewrite it in a form that's more to your liking.
Doing this simple task, we can overcome the head start that gay activists have had in spreading their propaganda and keep marriage between one man and one woman, as it needs to be. We can also remind people, especially the politicians, that all good law is based on facts - not on the whims of one individual or even a few -a condition that our forefathers fought to erase more than 200 years ago. Clearly, as I've shown here, the facts clearly oppose government-recognition of same-sex marriage
I believe same-sex marriage is still illegal in Iran. You may be happier there.
You were obviously such a hurry to do what proponents of same-sex marriage usually do, which is to smear the message and/or messenger, while offering no factual rebuttal of your own, that you failed to read post 2 of 2. In it, I very clearly say that the SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES upon which these FACTS are based is at the end of the essay that is linked here:
http://marriage-onemanandonewoman.blogspot.com/2011/07/case-for-limiting-government.html
The FACTS as REFERENCED in the linked essay resolutely prove you and other proponents of same-sex marriage to be wrong.
People on both sides of the gay marriage debate have to be clear on what it means to live under the rule of law. Living under this form of government means that someone - usually a legislator - brings forward facts showing why a law is necessary. In other words, even if it's only perceived or contrived, the need must be shown before the law can be passed.
The means for doing so are facts. Hopefully, the legislator (or the person - if it's a ballot measure) proposing the law is presenting all the facts - not just those favoring the law - so that his fellow legislators (or citizens) can have adequate information on which to determine the law's necessity and whether it should be dropped, adopted, or modified before going into effect. If that person fails to present all the facts, then legislators opposing the law will present them, so that the pros and cons of the law can undergo debate.
This process is foundational to an adversarial form of government and it's been in place ever since the founding of our country. Its purpose was to prevent the excesses of old Europe, where one or more aristocrats could impose laws based on nothing more than whim or a false sense of superiority, in which they - and only they - knew what was best for the fellow citizens. The result was usually laws that favored the very few over the very many, leaving society worse off than it was before.
For the most part, as indicated by the stature and success of our country, we've been relatively successful at avoiding this mistake. To be sure, there's been egregious exceptions, the most notorious of which was slavery and the ugly segregation that followed. Yet even here, the full set of facts overcame whim and baseless prejudice to establish liberty and justice for a group that had been unjustifiably denied it for far too long.
Did slavery and other injustices committed in years past invalidate the rule of law? No. Rather, it was selfishness and willful ignorance - the negative side of human nature - that unjustifiably enslaved others for the sake of economic gain. It was facts acted upon by the rule of law that exposed these harmful motives, defeated them, ended these horrible institutions, and started healing the deep hurt and damage that these inhuman practices had caused.
The lessons of history should be crystal clear. Whether it was due to the aristocracy of old Europe or other privileged or powerful groups, instituting laws in accordance with whim or selfish reasons inflicts harm. Instituting laws in accordance with fact - the full set of facts, not just those supporting a particular point of view - are beneficial, because they provide the greatest good for the largest number of people.
Why then would anyone want to ignore history and return to making laws, based on feelings or whim, instead of fact? Yet that's precisely what proponents of same-sex marriage want to do, even if they don't realize it or won't admit it. Indeed, instead of supporting the need for the government to recognize same-sex marriage, the facts show why the government should not do so because it be of no benefit to society and would actually harm it in the long run. For example,
1. Unlike race or gender, homosexuality can be triggered though social and cultural influences.
2. In comparison to heterosexuals, homosexuals are far more prone to bodily damage and disease, much of which is serious and life threatening.
3. Even in "committed" relationships, homosexuals, primarily men, are notoriously non-monogamous.
4. In areas that permit SSM, homosexuals are far more likely to divorce than heterosexuals.
5. Homosexuals experience more emotional and mental illness, than heterosexuals.
6. Domestic violence is much more prevalent in male same-sex relationships than in heterosexual ones.
Nice try. Pretty obvious propaganda.
I LOVE watching you social conservatives whine!!
I love watching the social conservatives get dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century!
.