Know a same sex couple marrying this Sunday?
This Sunday is the first day same sex couples will be able to marry legally in New York State. Some couples are already preparing to get hitched and celebrate just after midnight Sunday morning.
New York’s famous I Love NY campaign is extending the invitation to gay and lesbian couples to generate tourism. From the “Save the Date 7-24-11” campaign website:
Adventurous souls might appreciate the historical 1835 grist mill setting of St. Johnsville’s Inn by the Mill, with theme rooms, private waterside cottages and hot-tub spas overlooking cascading waterfalls. Or escape to the wide open Adirondacks at the Mirror Lake Inn’s legendary lakeshore, offering special honeymoon packages in the shadow of the Olympic Village.
Clerks’ offices in New York City, Binghamton, Ithaca, and other places are planning to be open on Sunday.
Meanwhile, anti-same sex marriage groups are offering to defend clerks who refuse to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.
Here are North Country Public Radio, we’re looking for same sex couples in northern New York who are tying the knot this Sunday. If you are one, or know one, or if you’re a clerk issuing (or not issuing) licenses, or a pastor officiating a ceremony, please e-mail [email protected]. Thanks!
Tags: glbt
Not really a pro gay marriage advocate. Don’t much care one way or the other. But a town clerk or justice of the peace who doesn’t want to follow the law should resign.
I asked the town clerk just last week if the new license forms had been made available and she indicated that they had not. I have a got a long list of things to get done over the weekend and I can’t see myself wasting the time to sit through a wedding ceremony regardless of who’s getting married.
Best of luck to all who decide to take the plunge on Sunday.
I would not want the pressure, marriage is hard enough without it being a political event. I hope people wait and do it in their own timing not the states.
“Here are North Country Public Radio, we’re looking for same sex couples in northern New York who are tying the knot this Sunday. If you are one, or know one, or if you’re a clerk issuing (or not issuing) licenses, or a pastor officiating a ceremony, please e-mail [email protected]. Thanks!”
So NCPR is taking a political stance on this issue. And yet, you’re going to be impartial and fair minded and not take sides. Interesting. Tell me Dave, just what are you going to do to people who aren’t issuing licenses (which ABF says aren’t in yet) or marrying gay couples?
But Bret regardless of what we think about the law it IS the law now in NY. So in fairness to NPR I think it is newsworthy that they would profile some local couples getting married this weekend. I don’t think it means necessarily that they are taking a political stand it is just a brand new thing, it is news and I think people would be interested.
Like Mervel says, it is the law, meaning it is legal, not illegal. To use an example: what kind of bar keeper would refuse to sell a beer to someone who is of legal age and the reason they use is that demon rum is sinful?
Don’t want to serve rum, don’t be a bar keeper. Don’t want to do your job, quit.
If someone has a religious reason to not do their job, they should have the moral fortitude to quit, not whine.
What political stance did NCPR take, Bret? I musta missed that.
to echo what mervel, pete, and dave have said, there’s nothing remotely political or biased about what david wrote. there isn’t the slightest bit of partiality there. it’s just a news organization looking to cover a patently newsworthy story.
but i’d go one step further and say, what a perfect example of so many of my favorite tropes coming from the right! you’ve got your triumph of ideology over reality, your victimization/persecution complex, your culture of grievance, and your bunk claims of media bias, all intersecting neatly in one place. i’d urge everyone to keep this example in mind in the future.
I think NCPR’s search for a gay,lesbian, homosexual whatever couple that is “tying the knot” is not just looking for news but also shows an interest in pushing an agenda.
how so, mark?
quote: “I think NCPR’s search for a gay,lesbian, homosexual whatever couple that is “tying the knot” is not just looking for news but also shows an interest in pushing an agenda.”
Oh, boy. Now we have a conspiracy theorist added to the line up.
It most certainly is pushing an agenda and taking a political stance. Yes, it’s the law but it’s still controversial. If NCPR wants to celebrate gay marriage that’s fine, but will NCPR also celebrate hetero marriage? Will any attempts be made to treat that as “special”? No, probably not. NCPRs overall slant to this issue has been very much in favor of gay marriage. That’s all well and good, I don’t begrudge NCPR from taking a stand they feel is proper. But to deny it’s a political stance or to claim there are no biases involved is ludicrous.
Bret, It’s called reporting. You interview people involved in an event that’s newsworthy, and see what it’s like from their perspective. To get interviews, sometimes you put out a call over things like telegraphs, telephones, the internet, etc… Better to ignore the whole thing, in your opinion?
Also, how does a reporter’s request for a clerk that won’t issue a marriage license to a gay couple promote a political point of view?
Bret–
If you look at the illustration, NCPR is not doing the “celebrating”–it’s the I Love NY campaign (and what they are celebrating is the opportunity to get more business for NYers in the wedding trades).
Whatever bias you may feel NCPR or individual reporters hold on this or any other issue, we clearly have a bias toward big news. And this is a big deal–the culmination of decades of political struggle by New Yorkers on all sides of the issue. One side has prevailed. Why would we not want to talk to them?
Dale Hobson, NCPR
“So NCPR is taking a political stance on this issue”
What nonsense. It’s reporting on the FACT (if it happens) that gay couples in this area will get LEGALLY MARRIED.
The contention that this constitutes taking a political stance on the issue is beyond absurd. Did the “take a political stance” when they aired the interview with the Catholic bishop of Ogdensburg?
Bret, you’re side lost. It’s legal and thus news. Get over it.
Hi all, David here. Just a quick response to the thread about bias.
First, there’s nothing biased about asking to find sources for a news story. Notice in the same paragraph, I also asked (parenthetically, I admit) to talk with clerks who would be uncomfortable issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples.
Second, the simple fact that on Sunday, same sex couples will be getting legally married in New York, is news, and therefore merits coverage. (That’s why the “new” is in news.) People’s reactions – positive and negative – are also news. Rallies on Sunday for hetero marriage – which will take place in Albany, Rochester, and Buffalo, so far from what I know – are also news, and merit coverage.
A heterosexual “traditional” wedding, however, is not news, and does not merit coverage by itself. I doubt heterosexual couples are getting married this weekend in response to same sex couples being able to wed.
Thanks for all the dialogue, please keep it civil, and have fun!
According to Bret’s logic, if NCPR interviews a convicted murderer, it’s taking a pro-homicide stance.
The bitterness and irrationality are barely believable and quite sad.
It also shows how the far right goes desperately searching for that mythical “bias” ogre in every nook and cranny. The fear over nothing is almost palpable.
“Notice in the same paragraph, I also asked (parenthetically, I admit) to talk with clerks who would be uncomfortable issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples.”
Oh please. You know very well that those searching for that mythical “ogre” bias notice the tiny nuggets they want to and disregard inconvenient things like the rest of it.
Though Bret and the fearmongers can relax. In three months, gay marriage in NYS will be as un-news-worthy as straight marriage. Except maybe for those commentators who point out that, contrary to predictions, the sky did not fall.
The interesting thing will be ten years from now how marriage is viewed by society and the impact if any of changing the formal definition of marriage.
It also will be interesting to see how many same sex couples actually get married?
From my perspective as an employer this is good news. We always wrestle with not providing benefits to unmarried partners because gay people could not get married, but now we don’t have to we can simply stick with providing benefits only to married spouses.
July 24 is a Sunday so why would any clerk work on their day off. It is blatantly obvious that David is trying to stir the pot.
David Sommerstein’s comment about how NCPR is also seeking the thoughts of clerks with ‘religious objections’ to gay marriage is revealing.
According to the whiners on this blog, NCPR’s bias isn’t that it’s ignoring the anti-gay marriage position; it’s that the station is including the pro- side.
The bias accusation is less a tactic than a belief. But this is how the right-wing media manipulators work: contrive ‘bias’ out of nothing, stomp their feet loud enough and try to intimidate the media. Just say any criticism of conservatives is ‘bias’ (even if they level criticisms of supposed liberals). If they allow conservatives to look like fools simply by letting them hang themselves with their own words (think Sarah Palin with Katie Couric, not one of journalism’s hard hitters), that’s ‘bias’ too. Throw tantrums loud enough and hope the media goes easy on conservatives. They’ve done this for decades and now liberals are trying the same tactic. The result is we have no have a cowering media that largely doesn’t ask tough, iconoclastic questions of ANYBODY.
“The bias accusation is less a tactic than a belief.”
Whoops, meant the opposite. It’s less a belief than a tactic.
Getting tired of bret in general…..
Glad I’m wearing on you 2. Funny, when the SCOTUS upheld the Heller decision a couple years back there was a great hue and cry and near hysterics from some here. So why is it wrong for me to express my opinion about a law and right for the other side to do the same on a different issue? The general tone of NCPR has not been middle of the road on a variety of issues from environmental issues to gay issues to religious issues. There is a political slant. While I agree this is a news worthy issue in the sense that it IS big news, I’m also 100% certain that any clerk refusing to issue a license will not be held up as a person to be admired for their civil disobedience, and truthfully, I can agree. As Pete said, it’s the job. But that doesn’t change the treatment of a controversial subject. That’s all I’m pointing out. It’s the law, good enough.
everybody should read brian’s 11:53 comment at least three times today. it’s 100% on the money.
i can’t help but point out how ridiculous this is:
well of course it’s controversial — which is why it’s newsworthy! which is why it’s reasonable and sensible and good that david is reaching out for leads to cover the story.
i really think that the people who are claiming bias on ncpr’s part have demonstrated nothing but their own deep bias in how they interact with the world. i don’t see why anyone should pay them any credibility at all, here or elsewhere.
To be an eternal victim, ya gotta have someone to persecute you, and when it isn’t happening enough, ya gotta say something “controversial” to create blowback and a reason to feel persecuted. Said it before, it’s a hobby.
I was not big fan of changing the definition, but now that it has happened you live with it and besides its not all bad.
But anyway I think it would be really weird to be in a long term gay relationship right now particularly if you really don’t want to get married, ever. There is a reason so many straight couples live together and don’t get married.
@Bret4207: “So why is it wrong for me to express my opinion about a law and right for the other side to do the same on a different issue?” It is not wrong and differing opinions is what makes the In Box interesting. But, initially, you were not expressing a differing opinion on gay marriage you were accusing NCPR of biased reporting. So, which is it Bret that you are trying to take issue with, a differing opinion on gay marriage or biased reporting on NCPR’s part?
Bret
It’s like this. when i commented Murdock has homes all over , you acussed me of not approving how he spent his money, being my issue.
I had said nothing of the sort. It was to point out he has positive things in his life to pursue.
so i ask you- why is it you’re so upset about how someone else spends their marriage?
Me? I think David Somerstein was just soliciting help for a project.
Maybe this wasn’t the best place to ask for help with half of his “homework”, but it was not bias.
You provided the bias.
Oh come on you guys, its Bret Ball and he’s lured you into the game again!
Let me try and explain my feeling on this-
1- This is what struck me in the OP- “Clerks’ offices in New York City, Binghamton, Ithaca, and other places are planning to be open on Sunday.
Meanwhile, anti-same sex marriage groups are offering to defend clerks who refuse to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.”
To me, that smacks of a judgment against those clerks who want to take a stand against the law but give support to those wanting to stay open on Sunday. In light of recent discussions regarding NPRs and NCPRs attempts to remain neutral and unbiased, this just stood out to me.
2- I realize around here I am bucking the norm. 80% of the time the posts I read from most here are almost text book liberal talking points straight from the pages of the Kos or Media Matters. Sorry guys, I respect most of you, but I don’t agree with the standard every day “Left is Best”
ideal. To me much of what I read here is nonsense. So I expected this reaction to my post, you guys see no wrong in handing out special privileges to select groups of people. I do. Sorry. It’s the law but I don’t have to agree with it.
Let me ask you guys- If a clerk refused to issue a license and made it a point to state his disagreement with the law, would you respect them for standing on their principles or trash them as hate mongers? Off on a tangent a bit, but in the same line as the I Love NY program trying to make that weekend a big deal, if we celebrate Black History month, how would you feel about a White History Month? If a Gay Pride parade is good, how do you feel about a Straight Pride Parade? If The Black Panthers are okay (a militant society based on race), why is the Klan not? Isn’t a lot of that hypocritical and divisive? Do you see even a little of how this works?
PS- Two Cents, what you said was “He has SO MUCH” and mentioned homes etc. I’m sorry, but that did not read ” I wish a man with so many resources would use it for good”, whatever good is to you.
Bret, GOOD is the opposite of hacking private communications in order to get private information for a newspaper.
He has SO MUCH = better things to occupy his time with that do not hurt others so he can get more stuff.
I get it. Ya’ll up north here are farmers and intellectuals.
I went to school too, and you’re like that kid who nobody really liked in class.
“Clerks’ offices in New York City, Binghamton, Ithaca, and other places are planning to be open on Sunday.
Meanwhile, anti-same sex marriage groups are offering to defend clerks who refuse to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.”
————-
Bret,
I’ve read that a dozen times now, and I still don’t understand where you are finding bias, or judgement, or the taking of a political stance.
It is a statement of two facts… with no fluff at all.
Fact 1, Some clerks are opening on Sunday. Fact 2, anti-groups are going to defend clerks who refuse to issue licenses.
Where is the bias in stating those two facts?
Which part of that statement exactly are you interpreting as a bias?
There seems to be a weird irony here… it seems like you actually brought a bias against NCPR’s reporting to this discussion and have read something into a very simple, matter-of-fact statementing that just isn’t there.
Dave, take what’s there and NCPRs history on this subject, from Manager Roccos editorializing on the air about the St Law Co poster “scandal” (and the ensuing questions about whether such a thing is proper for a publicly funded entity-according to NCPR it is!) to the recent blog entries regarding gay marriage. Then look at that and, to me at least, it’s just more of the same bias that’s said not to be biased! I’m not saying it’s incorrect or wrong somehow to take a stance on an issue, but at least be up front about it and admit it. I don’t care if it’s NCPR or Fox News, the bias is there to one degree or another.
True, as Stephen Colbert said:
“Reality has a well known liberal bias.”
Your reality or mine Knuck? All comes back to perception. Some people look at the Mona Lisa and see a beautiful painting. Personally, it gives me the creeps. Some listen to rap and hear music, I don’t. Perception.
So, as you just stated, you are bringing your personal bias against how you perceive NCPR has reported on this subject in the past… to this discussion.
Which is fine, on some level. I think there is validity to considering past statements and reporting when evaluating current statements and reporting. But in this case Bret, you are picking on the most benign, matter-of-fact statement about this issue that anyone could possibly make. It was a simple, factual statement. No fluff or editorializing. I don’t even see adjectives in there.
I suspect you would label ANY mention of this subject by NCPR as a “political stance”. And I am not sure how that could be considered anything but an application of your own bias.
Reality has sense of humor too. Maybe you should google it: “sense of humor.”
If Colbert was ever funny I might do that Knuck. So far, I don’t need to. He ain’t John Candy and certainly not at the level of Bob and Ray… the radio guys from the 50’s in case you thought I meant Radio Bob, although he’s also funnier than Colbert.
Dave, there are any number of things other people bring to discussions about completely benign statements that don;t get shot down around here. Remember Sarah Palins “Don’t retreat, reload!” I’m pretty sure even here among the intelligentsia I heard people trying to make it into a suggestion to shoot people. It wasn’t. In my defense, I did point out and explain the background that leads me to this perception of what Dave wrote. I’m not demanding anyone accept that as the only truth, but NCPR does have a history on this subject and others that should lead any reasonable person to at least recognize that their bubble is at least slightly left on many subjects. If my pointing this reality out bothers you, I’m sorry. I calls ’em as I see’s ’em.
Should the day come NCPR takes a slant even the tiniest bit to the right, I will most gladly point that out too.
In Bret’s defense I mean it has been pretty apparent that NCPR supports and has supported the legalization of gay marriage.
How many arguments against gay marriage have been presented on NCPR beyond just reporting about a particular religions objections?
But I think that is okay, I don’t think it is totally overt and we all do the best we can. In this instance I honestly don’t think it was some sort of political stance but a true newsworthy event to follow a same sex couple who is getting married in the North Country. I would be interested for example, I would listen to the report, and I was not a big supporter of the change.
“How many arguments against gay marriage have been presented on NCPR beyond just reporting about a particular religions objections?”
How many such non-religious arguments are there, beyond the incorrect “there’s not homosexuality in the animal world”?
Jeeze OA, we went over that before. You don’t agree with the way some of us feel about it. That doens’t make it “incorrect”, it just makes it another persons opinion based on the way they see things.
oa there has been several based on declining marriage rates among nations that have changed the definition of marriage. There may be unintended consequences of this change it is a huge change, we no longer have husbands for wives for example. Anyway there are non-religious arguments which would call into question making this large of a change in the definition of this social institution. Some of them from admittedly very conservative thinkers, I am not saying I agree with them.