Reason.tv: Stonewall 2011-The Night NY Legalized Gay Marriage
On June 24, 2011, thousands gathered outside New York City's Stonewall Inn, anxiously awaiting the New York State Senate's vote on legalizing gay marriage.
When news came that the bill had passed on a narrow 33-29 vote, the crowd erupted with joy.
Stonewall is widely considered the birthplace of the modern gay rights movement. Forty-two years ago this weekend, a brutal raid by the New York's Police Department set off a spontaneous and prolonged rebellion that lead to the establishment of annual "Gay Pride" weekends around the world, and the slow and steady march toward equal protection under the law.
As the New York Times reported (and Nick Gillespie noted on Hit & Run), the bill's approval ultimately swung on Gov. Andrew Cuomo's appeal to several libertarian-leaning investors.
"Gay marriage is really just a fight about whether the government should be allowed to regulate personal liberty," noted New York Magazine's Chadwick Matlin. "On that, libertarians side with liberals."
Approximately 2.17 minutes.
Produced by Anthony L. Fisher.
Visit Reason.tv for downloadable versions of the video and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
“A jubilant sense of liberation was in the air, but for many it was just a relief that the government was finally getting out of their way.”
“As New York magazine’s Chadwick Matlin wrote, ‘When you strip away the cultural and identity politics, gay marriage is really just a fight about whether the government should be allowed to regulate personal liberty.'”
I would have liked to hear the narration for this piece as written by a libertarian.
“As New York magazine’s Chadwick Matlin wrote, ‘When you strip away the cultural and identity politics, gay marriage is really just a fight about whether the government should be allowed to regulate personal liberty.'”
The answer appears to be “yes.”
Yup
Only thing is they never “strip away the cultural and identity politics”.
I call bullshit. And just who is this amorphous “they” of whom you speak?
RTFA
On a related note those “rich libertarians” include a Commentary board member neocon 2008 Giuliani backer and two big Obama donors.
Burn the heretic!
You think libertarian purges are bad? You should see RevLeft or Democratic Underground when one of their members does so little as insinuates that maybe, just maybe free markets can work in some instances.
The bonfire and screaming can be seen and heard for miles.
Well, maybe free markets should try harder.
Free markets can’t try harder when Team Blue is busy working harder to fuck it all up.
Hey… this shit takes time, yo.
I would have liked to hear the narration for this piece as written by a libertarian.
OK:
It sucks! Who does The State think it is, regulating marriage?! This isn’t a victory, it’s an outrage! Fuck the state!
There’s probably a middle ground. One can be happy for the development, even reverential of the historic cultural significance, but that can be done without the pretense that this is a libertarian step forward. In the battle to turn people from state worship, it’s not even a lateral move.
^ This
^Ditto
That’s why defining libertarianism as the brainless grunt “government = bad” is so pointless. This is not an increase in government power, it’s the correction of an injustice under government power. I’m confident you can handle it, even if it doesn’t fit neatly into a pro- or anti-government rubric.
I think you end up being the one with the less nuanced take on this. What FoE seems to be suggesting is that there’s a middle ground to be found, one that acknowledges the leap forward for a free society to not base laws on religion but also hopes to stress that government doesn’t belong here in the first place.
That may be fine in the abstract, but it’s bad timing bordering on curmudgeonliness to bring up the irrelevant antigovernment point at the exact moment a minority is gaining equal rights. Way to rain on the parade. Heteros have only enjoyed the benefits for hundreds of years. Now that gays want in… time to abolish them!
But it’s not fine, because it’s an incoherent point. The only thing at issue is whether certain government rights that pertain to a certain type of contract are distributed equally. As far as I know nothing but governments and mafias can enforce contracts, so I’m not exactly sure what you want.
Heteros have only enjoyed the benefits for hundreds of years.
I couldn’t imagine being married for hudreds of years.
But on a serious note:
Now that gays want in… time to abolish them!
In defense of libertarians, we’ve been speaking the “get government out of marriage” line for years. This isn’t a new philosophical leg that just grew after the New York decision.
The only thing at issue is whether certain government rights that pertain to a certain type of contract are distributed equally.
On this, we agree completely. If…if the government’s going to hand out favors, it’s got to hand them out equally.
It’s still not equal. It’s still an exclusive benefit group. It will never be equal until it’s all inclusive.
Take it up with a dictionary. If the law is truly applied equally, there can be no differences in its application. At least there is no legal justification here for doing so. Your issues with Webster’s don’t quite reach the bar.
Spoken like a true statist fuck, eh, Tony.
It sucks! Who does The State think it is, regulating marriage?! This isn’t a victory, it’s an outrage! Fuck the state!
Not true. Libertarians always celebrate when another group successfully wins their fight to be taxed and regulated.
Except when they don’t. And that’s what’s so great about being a libertarian: you can be and not be at the same time!
“…but for many it was just a relief that the government was finally getting out of their way.”
Mwuh?
It will be cool to see the first wedding registry in NY with softball equipment listed.
Or lacrosse gear…
Hey!
Oh, they aren’t gay… THEY RAPED ME!!!
That didn’t come out right. Let’s try:
Unfortunately liberals believe that most other aspects of personal liberty should be regulated by the government.
Yeah, that jumped out at me, also. Exactly when did liberals suddenly decide the government shouldn’t be allowed to regulate personal liberty? Are liberals really that delusional?
Liberals believe in more individual liberty than you do. They believe in it for everyone, not just people who can afford it.
And they’re going to keep right on passing laws and writing regulations until everyone is free, darnit!
Freedom takes hard work.
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
So my hard work must be done to ensure your freedom, right?
I am totally certain that others have done far more hard work ensuring my freedom than you ever will.
But, what of “raising consciousness”?
Raised consciousness is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
So does making money.
So does not making very much money.
This just in:
Tony is miserable and wants to drag everyone down to his level of misery, especially filthy, rich people.
This just in: libertarians want to maintain the maximum possible amount of misery in the world so that a few billionaires don’t have to suffer the burden of a meaningless increase in taxes.
By the way, you must be new here. Hi, I’m Tony, and I have lots and lots of money.
So you send every dime you make over, say, $50,000 to the IRS, right? Or do you just want the government to seize money earned by others?
BTW, increasing income taxes isn’t going to hit those evil billionaires.
Silly Arcaster. You really think that Tony cares about the poor? Of course not! He just feels guilty about being rich, but not guilty enough to give away any significant portion of his wealth.
Can you say “champagne socialist”? ‘Cause Tony sure can!
Actually I just want good, sustainable economic and fiscal policy instead of that which is based on ridiculous fairy tales that exist in the service of the short-term profits of a few powerful connected entities. But feel free to ascribe it to lizard brain impulses; I know that’s how you’re accustomed to arriving at policy preferences.
Powerful connected entities like GM, GE, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc. don’t do well at all under the current regime, right?
Tony, your head is so far up your ass you have to pump air in through your navel.
Even traditionally Republican-allied powerful interests (like oil and wall street) are doing well under the current regime, and they kind of make your examples pale in comparison.
That’s not a response at all you idiot. You assert that in a libertarian world only the connected would thrive, but that’s bullshit. Connections are king because of the powerful federal government which is able to pick winners and losers. The current situation where donations to the right people get your companies bailed out and protected from competition is the system you support.
God you’re a dumbass.
So you’re saying you don’t voluntarily send all of your money over a certain line to the government? Do as I say not as I do, right? People might take you seriously if you actually took your own medicine. Until you do, you’re nothing but a god damn thief.
Actually I just want good, sustainable economic and fiscal policy…
Seriously, WTF does that even mean? You’re basing your economic policy on ambiguous goals that you can’t quantify, and you accuse others of believing in ridiculous fairy tales.
Giving all my money away wouldn’t do a damn thing to change policy. I care about policy, not setting an example. And the goals are totally quantifiable. Does everyone have access to quality healthcare? For how many people is upward mobility possible? Does every resident of this very wealthy country have access to a basic standard of living?
Michael don’t be a baby. Symbolic gestures are nice and all, but they don’t amount to changing anything, which is why policy matters.
Charity absolutely could reach many goals for people’s well-being. Free clinics are among the best examples. FEMA leaves disaster areas pretty quickly, and it’s the churches, charities, and community organizations that do the rest of the cleanup, and they do it better.
*cursory glance.
Edit button, please.
“Liberals believe in more individual liberty than you do. They believe in it for everyone, not just people who can afford it.”
You have some serious money issues, don’t you, Tony.
I simply don’t worship it as the source of all virtue.
Show us on the doll where the money touched you, Tony.
Tony’s strawmen provide a valuable stimulus to the wheat industry. It’s estimated that if Tony was actually to debate using logic and reason there would be an increase in unemployment among farmers by 90%, freeing up all those resources to produce things that people actually want.
You’re right, Tony… what you worship is big-assed government and high taxes.
PLEASE let this blow up into another 300+ comment thread about gay marriage so that we can finally resolve what the True Libertarian Position is, because I don’t feel we reached a good consensus last time. *crosses fingers*
No homo?
No, homo.
After we have finally and conclusively put the “gay marriage vs. libertarianism” debate to bed, we can get to work on whether theft is really freedom, abortion is killing, and Michael Bay is the antichrist. Also pizza preferences.
I’m just gonna keep my mouth closed on this one.
[insert appropriate gay joke]
“On that, libertarians side with liberals.”
Maybe it’s just an aesthetic thing, but I prefer “On this issue, the liberals are on the side of liberty”.
P.S. The ninth amendment rocks!
This.
“While getting libertarians on the side of liberty remains similar to pulling teeth.”
Why would I waste money on “pulling teeth”? I just beat the orphans in the mouth with my cane until all their valuable molars are knocked loose.
I love that you guys think that the liberal stereotype of libertarians has something to do with canes and monocles.
Nobody has that image of you except you. We all think you are nerdy/unibomber-y and poor. Poor, hence chumplike. The self-made wealthy tend to be liberal. All the libertarian plutocrats seem to have family money for some reason. Prolly why they don’t understand or care about the long-term.
*like*
“While getting libertarians on the side of liberty remains similar to pulling teeth.”
How can you say that after the Koch brothers gave all that money to Cuomo?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4964…..ch-Problem
But… but… the Koch brothers are teh evul! MediaMatters said so!
The Koch brothers cause cancer.
I would much rather the state get out of marriage entirely, but absent that this is a positive development. I do, however, bristle at the notion that libertarians are ever on the liberals’ side: liberals being right on this one is analogous to a stopped clock being right twice a day.
Didn’t we do this yesterday?
You say “The general custom of the populace,” but all I hear is “conservative Christians.” Most of the country supports gay marriage now. Who the fuck are you to tell them they have to defer their democratic will to “custom”?
Wow, every angle of this debate has a slippery-slope response. Why again should equal protection be denied to gay people because you are uncomfortable altering an entry in the dictionary?
Furthermore, you don’t think legislatures are capable of redefining “drunk” all on their own without the rhetorical leg up of giving gays equal rights? I sure as hell am not drunk after two glasses of wine, but tell that to the breathalyzer.
Words are defined by how they are used in reality, not by a Platonic ideal. As marriage laws become equal, dictionaries will change their entries. It will be okay I promise.
Furthermore, you don’t think legislatures are capable of redefining “drunk” all on their own without the rhetorical leg up of giving gays equal rights? I sure as hell am not drunk after two glasses of wine, but tell that to the breathalyzer.
Words are defined by how they are used in reality, not by a Platonic ideal. As marriage laws become equal, dictionaries will change their entries. It will be okay I promise.
Am I the only one here who finds the whole gay thing has gotten pretty tedious?
Try being gay and having to endure heterosexuality.
You brave man.
Poor Tony. Can’t get laid by anybody from any gender.
Just saying… talk about tedium.
What’s to endure? Just ignore it, like most people ignore homosexuality.
That’s hate speech!
Just not you, who finds it “tedious.”
It IS tedious.
Unlike the vibrant, dynamic culture of libertarianism.
Unlike the vibrant, dynamic culture of libertarianism.
Why should gays get special attention? You like the same sex. Ooooh, would you like a medal?
Beats the state-worshiping tendencies of Team Blue and Team Red.
Just equal rights. Sorry if that inconveniences you.
Try being an Austrian and having to endure neo-Keynesians.
An N.Y. town clerk is refusing to sign licenses for same-sex couples .
I wonder how Michael Bloomberg, who routinely denies pistol permits, thinks about that.
“I just want good, sustainable economic and fiscal policy”
Sounds good.
When’s it gonna happen?
Sure as fuck not now, with Team Blue spending our great-great-grandkids’ money…
Spoken like a good Christ-fag.
I’m an atheist, actually. But nice try.
To shrike, all capitalists are Christ-fags.
“Giving all my money away wouldn’t do a damn thing to change policy”
And neither would confiscating every niblet of wealth from everyone with a net worth of more than a hundred grand, Tony.
There just isn’t enough money to fill the holes YOUR FUCKING PARTY is digging.
Oh, and THEIR FUCKING PARTY, as well.
Really… we’re here again. Raising taxes won’t result in more revenues. Got it.
Really… we’re here again. Raising taxes won’t result in more revenues. Got it.
Won’t do any good if your Team Blue pigfuckers keep throwing money down the shitter.
Get one thing right in your life: Republicans are mostly responsible for this country’s debt. Wars, tax cuts, unfunded Medicare expenses, and the recession were all done by them.
Okay, spoof. It’s gotten too out of hand to be Tony. Even he has limits.
Spending 800 billion dollars of nonexistent money didn’t cause any debt. Got it.
To prevent even more debt caused by the previously referenced Republican disasters. It’s not like anyone offered up a reasonable alternative. And it’s not like the Republicans whose really lame talking points nobody buys but that you parrot dutifully have any ideas other than what they already tried.
Behold!
“See?? We TOLD you we prevented a financial meltdown!”
Post-game quarterbacking at its finest.
However, this thread is about the hoo-ha over the gay-marriage decision, which is just as trivial as saying a five-percent tax hike will cure all our ills.
Tony is double-plus good.
I could use people like you and Tony on my staff, to help bamboozle the press and the gullible fucks that lap up what my boss says.
We like the cut of your jib, Tony.
Ain’t NOBODY cuttin’ NO fuckin’ jibs ‘less WE say so.
“Does every resident of this very wealthy country have access to a basic standard of living?”
1. There goes the jealousy again. (Yes, we know… you brag about the size of your income. But you’re still a wealth-jealousy participant.)
2. Where is it guaranteed that everyone have access to what you describe?
Oh, and don’t rely on that tired old “it’s in the preamble” bullshit. That is no excuse for attempted egalitarianism by legislative means.
It’s not jealousy, and it’s guaranteed by the facts of the world. There are other wealthy countries in the world, and even though they are less wealthy than the US, they manage to provide these things much better. It’s just a question of priorities. Why is your priority defending obscene wealth over human welfare and dignity?
Say there was one guy with a net worth of a trillion dollars, and your friends at the IRS found a way to liquidate his entire net worth down to the point of selling his last pair of socks.
Now… do it at least ten more times, and MAYBE we’d be able to fill the holes your fucktard hero Obama is digging at this very moment.
Oh, wait… there’s no such thing as a trillionaire.
Never mind.
Well, in the meantime, regale us with tales of how raising taxes five pennies on the dollar, will solve all our problems. That’s a knee-slapper every time you tell it.
Look I’m in favor of economic stimulus, which is not tax hikes. But I’ve been boxed in to defending tax hikes based on the presumption that we should be worried about debt. It’s not because of some petty emotional issue, but because when you want to balance budgets, you have to raise revenues, especially if you can with little trouble to anyone. Your hysteria about how it will never be enough is a ridiculous excuse for not doing anything. Curiously, the only solution to the problem YOU care about above all else is a radical imposition of your entire ideology in one swoop.
It’s not hysteria… it’s fact.
It’s lame Republican talking points. They aren’t even trying anymore and you still lap it up.
Why in the world are you debating him? People have tried to show him how wrong he is countless times; he just doesn’t care.
So just laugh, Mr. FIFY. Just laugh!
It’s fun watching him lie and accuse anyone who dares disagree of being gullible regarding “lame Republican talking points”.
Answer the other parts of my post above, Tony… same parameters.
“It just seems like you guys miss out on so much by qualifying every single advancement in liberty and/or equality with your dour utopianism.”
Pot, kettle.
Geez, Tony, you should be happier than shit right now… one more state decided it gets to hand out permission slips at whatever the going rate is these days for fucking pieces of paper dispensed from a government agency…
I am happy about it. The question is why it chaps your hide so that gay people are getting equal rights. Gay people want equal marriage rights. What possible reason is there to deny it to them? So far you haven’t offered anything convincing. “They can marry someone of the opposite sex, therefore they are equal” is ridiculous and you know it. It’s effectively the equivalent of saying that anyone can marry a member of their own race, so interracial marriage is OK to outlaw.
Tony,
How does not letting gay people marry really hurt them?
Way to call me a bigot without actually using the word, Tony.
I don’t know what you are except a person straining very hard to find excuses not to support equal rights.
“bigot” doesn’t mean much to people anymore.
Over 1300 legal rights come with the word ‘marriage’ – take those away an you can have the word back!
gay marriage is for fags, haha.. j/k, it is for straight people who think they’re fags. Right god?
thank you
Not Funny
is good