We'll have a full report up tomorrow, but in the meantime, the Associated Press reports on the thousands upon thousands of you who joined us in New York City and across the state to stand up for marriage and the right of the people to vote (find out more at the official LTPV website)!
Thousands of opponents of gay marriage took to the streets in loud and sometimes tense protests Sunday, the first day that legal same-sex weddings were performed.
The National Organization for Marriage held rallies in New York City, Albany, Rochester and Buffalo, saying Gov. Andrew Cuomo and lawmakers redefined marriage without giving voters a chance to weigh-in, as they have in other states. Protesters chanted "Let the People Vote!" at rallies across the state.
A rally in New York City that started with several hundred people crowding the street across from Cuomo's Manhattan office quickly swelled to thousands of people out in loud opposition to the new law.
... Around 3:30, the protesters started marching uptown toward the United Nations. By the time they reached the UN, the crowd numbered in the many thousands, filling up 47th Street. They were joined by a brass band as a stage was set up for speakers. -- Associated Press
Check back tomorrow for more from us! A huge thank you to everyone who joined with us and supported us today in the Empire State!
73 Comments
In all honesty, a good question is that where did u get the 10,000 number? The AP article never said that.
The "thousands" in the AP article comes from a NOM press release from earlier. See how that works: issue
a press release, wait for the AP to pick up your press release, cite the AP as the source of the (unverified) information in your press release. Typical NOM dishonesty!
Great job Nom.. I watch the live feed and I could tell more then 5,000 people had join the rally...
Congrats to NOM, Senator Diaz and the thousands of attendees who made these rallies wildly successful!
Unless NOM faked the picture, they can't be too far off the mark.
During the run up to Prop 8, there was a HUGE rally in Cupertino sponsored by Chinese Churches. Probably 5000. The Mercury News reported a couple of hundred, and gave equal time to the usual anti 8 rally at Local Shopping mall that didn't have more than 20 or 30 homosexualists...max.
"The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ." from "The Family: A Proclamation to the World."
Happy Sabbath, NOM, and thanks for all you do.
NOM is as good at counting numbers as they were during their summer tour. There were not 10k people there today. Perhaps 2. 3 is being kind. There may have been 400 in Albany (again, very kind), many less in Buffalo and even fewer (no news) in Rochester.
Here's a stat: How many heterosexual marriages were ruined by gay couples who married in NY today? Zero.
Yes, thank you NOM, for all you do. It's really helping the other side. Keep it up!
It was great to see so many people standing up for traditional marriage. I knew that most people weren't for it as the press would have us believe.
Great job NOM on the rallies, let us only have just begun and continue to reach thousands. I am looking forward to seeing the videos of the rallies.
The real count, according to NYPD, is 850. Far cry from 10,000!
Marriage is and should be thought of as open-ended. It's just the bonding between two persons, not just simply man and woman. "Traditional" marriage is now thankfully a thing of the past. In this day and age, people should be allowed to live their lives the way they want them to be lived. It is rude and insensitive to oppose gay marriage. Thank you NYC, we love you!
Look at the pics online...it was a festival of hatred.
The "thousands" came directly from the reporter who wrote the AP article. I don't know where you get the idea that it came from a press release. That's not likely.
And MarkinMich, you'll need to cite a real police report or official police statement to dispute that 10,000 number, which was reported by a Spanish Language Station and other places. I don't see the number you quoted anywhere on the NYPD website or in any other official publication.
You can dispute the numbers all you want. This was still an important moment for the voters of New York who felt - and still feel - that they were betrayed by their legislators. This legislature will go the way of New Hampshire after they imposed gay "marriage." The voters gave New Hampshire a veto-proof Republican majority and a good start on repealing their gay "marriage" law. I think it's time for the voters of New York to take back their state as well.
If it was true hatred, it would most likely involved cursing, uncontrollable screaming, bullying, threats of violence, signs with obscene slogans, obscene gestures, riots, and the like. I certainly didn't see any of that. Now as for the other side...
Cute rally guys. I saw a bit right after I got hitched.
What good did the protesters do?
What did they stop?
the answer is nothing.
Hundreds wed and thousands more will.
SSM is the future and present of our country and I rejoice to live in this age.
Long live equality
"If it was true hatred, it would most likely involved cursing, uncontrollable screaming, bullying, threats of violence, signs with obscene slogans, obscene gestures, riots, and the like. I certainly didn't see any of that. Now as for the other side..."
Exactly John.
It is unconscionable to support "gay marriage".There is no public interest in there being any same-sex sexual relationships,and an enormous public interest in guaranteeing preferential treatment to opposite-sex relationships...an interest that marriage exists solely to serve.Right and wrong are not "equal".May SSM vanish from the earth!
My "traditional marriage" is, thankfully, not a thing of the past. Almost 18 years and counting. My parents' traditional marriage is almost 40 years and counting, as is my mother and father-in-laws' traditional marriage. Our grandparents were all married and stayed married, and their parents, as well. Their posterity enjoy a rich heritage of kinship, representative of both sides of the family tree, and we will pass on the same legacy to our posterity.
Brandon, just because change is available, doesn't make it good-- SSM advocates have yet to make their case for why marriage should be redefined. (Hint: calling names isn't a good excuse for lack of arguments) Let the arguments be made. Let the people vote!
Why do some anti-Christ homosexuals even post here? Is this not a gathering place for those who recognize God's definition of marriage?
Mantronikk there are many gay people who are Christian, many churches who support and wish to bless SSM, and many Christians who support SSM. You have a particular view on what is the Truth of God but there are many people who disagree wth you and have a different view.
There were VERY few actual New Yorkers at yesterday's hate rally. Virtually all of the protesters were bused in from out of state by the Dominican radio station Radio Cristiana. So what we saw was a lot of people from New Jersey demanding the right to vote in New York. Rather comical if you think about it.
Daughter of Eve, you do ever re-read your posts and realize what a pompous, ridiculous woman you are -- as well as being a hatefilled, anti-gay bigot?
In Loving v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court said that marriage was one of the "basic civil rights of man," and civil rights are not a popularity contest.
My Wife and I were proud to support traditional marriage in Albany! Here is a clip from YNN:
http://capitalregion.ynn.com/content/top_stories/551094/hundreds-rally-to-repeal-same-sex-marriage/
I saw a story on CNN about heterosexual suburban 'key parties.' I read that over 70% of straight marriages experience some form of infidelity. Newt G. proposed to his third wife while married to his second. Opponents of equality will always find reasons to reinforce that inequality.
What is there to fear? Let the people vote!
DOE, my parents were married nearly 40 years. They were far from happy, both had extramarital affairs, one of which resulted in a child that my father claimed as his. Just because you have a great marriage doesn't mean everyone does. And just because you have a bad or failed marriage doesn't mean everyone does. Marriage is what it is to the two people involved.
let's get this on the ballat for the next up comming election and vote on it. if california can get prop on their ballat so can nys!! and we can get this over turned.
SSM'ers you can twist the facts as much as you want to. The reality is, is that if there was a vote today, SS"M" would be voted down!! LET THE PEOPLE VOTE!
I see NOM chose to delete my non-profane, completely factual comment.
I repeat:
There were VERY few actual New Yorkers at yesterday's hate rally. Virtually ALL of the protesters were bused by the Dominican station, Radio Christiana. So what we saw were people from New Jersey chanting for the right to vote on New York marriages.
Rather comical if you think about it.
I was at the rally and we did have people in the thousands. We where not there to bash anyone or disturb any weddings. That was not the purpose we want the right to vote. I am believing we will have the opportunity to vote. I believe it is cruel of the government to have done what was done and then the marriages are revoked.
You can tell the SS'M' ers are concerned. They are mobing this blog with lies to try and offset a major victory for traditional marriage
DEAR D: When do I get to vote on YOUR marriage?
Joe where you there because I was and your statement is not correct.
Why do they bring God into this civil contract? It's actually bad Christians give the State power over their marriages. They should just get married in the Church because God is the only power over their marriage.
Lol d these are facts. Stop drinking the cool aid and do your research.
DEAR COMBATVET: The federal government provides most of the legal benefits of marriage, not the church. By all means, get the government out of the marriage business if you like, but be prepared to lose all the benefits under tax law and Social Security as well.
Do all those people who you say participated in the anti-Gay protest include the "virtual marchers" you signed up online?
So Mylar, do Christians get married for benefits or for God? I as a gay man will be getting married for equal benefits under the law. At this point it appears NOM Christians get confused over what the secular civil marriage contract is.
Dear Mylar - You don't get to vote on my marriage because a 1 man and 1 woman marriage has been considered as normal since Adam and Eve - I might add it has been proven to work. SS"M" is NOT normal and has been proven NOT to work. And don't try to come back with your twisted statistics either... IT IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE!! LET THE PEOPLE VOTE!
Mylar2001-"In Loving v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court said that marriage was one of the "basic civil rights of man," and civil rights are not a popularity contest."
You clearly do not understand this ruling. It enforced traditional marriage by ending the prohibition of men and women marrying who were of different races. It does not support SSM which redefines the fundamental man-woman definition of marriage. All of you should quit trying to use the Loving ruling to support your abhorant cause.
All people have an equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Just because you choose not to does not change the fact that you can.
A dog is not a cat just because you say it is!
DEAR LEEHAWKS: True, a dog is not a cat, but the only difference between a married Gay couple and a married Straight couple is the sexual orientation of the two people who have exchanged vows.
between a married Gay couple and a married Straight couple is the sexual orientation of the two people who have exchanged vows.
False. Other differences are, in a same-sex couple:
1. One gender is missing.
2. Either a husband or a wife is missing.
3. Either a mother or a father is missing.
4. No two women can ever have any firsthand experience in being a boy, a son, a husband, or a father. (likewise two men, girl/daughter etc)
5. Same-sex couples lack diversity.
I could go on, but you get the point.
Marty
We do not care what you think is missing.
You people have lost the culture wars
Get over it
Andrew, is calling names the best you have to offer this argument?
Sorry Sister -- all the laws in the world cannot make something separate into something equal.
I was at the rally in Manhattan. The rules were no anti-gay signs or bashing. We stayed focused on our message "Let the people Vote". There were homosexual and heterosexuals joined together saying "Let the People Vote". There were families, singles, seniors, teens and young adults. Different faiths and denominations were represented. We were all one. Yes, we were in the thousands. I thank all who helped in organizing the event and our City of New York for providing our New York City Finest police force.
@combatvet SSM advocates are not satisfied with getting just the legal benefits. In California, Connecticut and several other states, the civil union/domestic partnership laws ALREADY provide every government benefit available to the state that married couples get. Why then the fuss over proposition 8?
Right on TC. SSM advocates are trying to force the rest of society to agree that same-sex couples -- lacking any gender diversity, and sterile by design -- are actually "equal" to opposite sex couples -- naturally diverse, and the only union under the sun that can reproduce.
All the laws in the world cannot accomplish that goal. Separate is never equal.
"You clearly do not understand [Loving v. Virginia]. It enforced traditional marriage by ending the prohibition of men and women marrying who were of different races. It does not support SSM which redefines the fundamental man-woman definition of marriage. All of you should quit trying to use the Loving ruling to support your abhorant cause."
You clearly do not understand that the decision established marriage as a basic and fundamental right of two people. Race is but a single criterion; it you who have seen to limit it to one man and one woman. That the founding fathers did not abolish slavery or allow women to vote did not prevent them from understanding that their laws were meant to be interpreted and applied more broadly by later generations. So it is with Loving; no, the Justices did not foresee same sex marriage - but nor did they forbid it, just as the founders did not forbid abolition or womens suffrage. Otherwise slavery and coverture would still be the law of the land.
"laws were meant to be interpreted and applied more broadly by later generations."
Sure. And tax evasion can next be interpreted as equal to murder.
Hey positraction, you're right that the Loving court wrote:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.
Can you (or anyone else here) please explain to me what on earth two men, or two women have to do with "our very existence and survival"? Much less be fundamental???
Since Same Sex Marriage supporters dispute the number of protesters, and support for Marriage in the culture, then they should have no problem in letting the people vote on a redefinition.
Civil rights (your rights as a citizen) cannot be subject to a popular vote. That's why we have a constitution and courts. And by the way, it's no news that "thousands" of people hate, we already know that.
The judges in Loving vs. Virginia never imagined in their worst nightmares that anyone would deny the requirement that partners in a marriage be of opposite sexes,and therefore didn't spell that out,but they certainly never meant to say that anyone had a "right" to treat anything same-sex as a "marriage".
There is a secular public interest in promoting opposite-sex relationships that does not exist in regard to same-sex sexual relationships.
"There is a secular public interest in promoting opposite-sex relationships that does not exist in regard to same-sex sexual relationships."
That's the point. It's not a religion issue.
It's a secular, rational, fully clear point: marriage and same sex "marriage" are different, and there is a social rational interest in recognizing that difference.
Denying this self evident truth (which, by the way, is fully supported by scientific evidence) is a totalitarian social experiment.
Daughter of Eve: What a beautifull post, you articulate marriage so well, I miss your posts at the Ruth Institute.
By the way Badger there is no such thing as a homosexual Christian.
I second John Noe on that. Your posts are always thought provoking and respectfully beautiful. A breath of fresh air.
I do not understand why some are calling the rally a hate rally. If it was a hate rally the homosexual among us would of not stayed with us. What I came home with was the joy of being there and the love and repect we showed each other.
"By the way Badger there is no such thing as a homosexual Christian."
John Noe - that is exactly what was said in the 18th & 19th Century about African Americans.
Really Gloria gay people attended your rally's? Only if they were there with homophobic parents- you can't count terrified teens as willing participants
There are quite a few homosexual Christians. And that's what really gets you. That your version of the truth isn't accepted by everyone. That not everyone believes the same way you do. And that's the point of all the different religions, so that people can practice their faith in their own way.
Why, thank you, John Noe. I appreciate your kind words. I do drop into "Ruth" now and then.
Though one of the Andrews was quick to choose to be offended by my post (a reflection on his own character--not mine), I simply wanted to hold up the banner of "traditional" marriage, as defined between a man and a woman, which Mr. Beckens claims is dead. I reiterate, based on my own marital experience, and that of the marriages of my own extended family, that marriage between men and women is very much alive, very much a blessing, and very much an integral part of one's heritage, and the legacy one leaves to posterity. It is the public welding link between men and women, and the children they create, and the family tree of which we are all a part. Marriage between a man and a woman ensures that there are no missing branches in the family tree, and everyone knows their place and to whom they belong.
Andrew, I hope you can find some peace.
JT, everyone can indeed practice their own religions in their own way, but what they cannot do is force society to redefine marriage into something it's not. Sorry.
"Can you (or anyone else here) please explain to me what on earth two men, or two women have to do with "our very existence and survival"? Much less be fundamental???"
The Court's opinion goes beyond mere existence and survival, if you read the opinion as carefully as you should, it established that marriage is "one of the basic civil rights of man"; i.e., a fundamental right of _individual_ freedom not subject to state interference.
Under the Fourteenth Amendment, a reason other than mere prejudice must be advanced to show a compelling reason to deny this right to any citizen. In short, prejudicial groups cannot vote away a citizen's basic righst, nor can the State infringe upon it. Ironic that conservatives would so impose upon the rights of individuals as you suggest here.
Marriage being a basic civil right of man is not the same thing as saying that you can marry anyone anything anyway anyhow. Marriage is between one man and one woman, and this applies equally to every individual.
Badger: African Americans can become Christians as God accepts all who follow him in his ways. As is written from one man came all of us.
The scriptures on the otherhand are quite clear about homosexuality. But it is not me that you and poster#66 will eventually have to answer to.
Sister Sarah, you said we've lost the culture war and to get over it. As long as there are marriages between one man and one woman and as long as there are heterosexuals living next to you, you will never be happy. We will always be a prick on your conscience and a thorn in your side. Why else would the homosexual agenda be targeting our children at the tender age of 6 and 7 in school? Because by our very existence we have not lost the culture war and we won't.
The other thing I will never understand is why it's always the homosexuals who are constantly accusing us of being so hateful just because we don't agree with them. Define hate if you please. Last time I looked it up in a dictionary it didn't saying anything about disagreeing and having a different opinion as being hateful. When I was a kid there was a saying, "It takes one to know one." That saying has a lot of truth!
Sister Sarah is sadly mistaken if she thinks this culture war is over. A battle may be won (??) but it's just a battle, it isn't the war. The rally today is clear evidence that the war is still being fought.
I find it laughable that gay marriage advocates try to say that most of the attendees at these rallies are from out of state. They always say that! They said that when we protested outside the Senate Chamber the week of the vote. We were all from either Albany or Central New York area or NYC area. The pro-gay marriage supporters, however had many from out of state who told us they were paid. Our group took a bus full of people from Central New York to Sunday's Albany rally. We saw many, many people there that we knew. Those people were from New York State. And there were a lot more than 300, I can tell you that. You people always try to say we are small in number and from out of state. You always accuse us what you are guilty of!