Libby Post: Proudly Out

Comments on the politics of LGBT life

Wasting Tax Dollars To Stop Marriage Equality


Of course, the Radical Christian Right couldn’t let a day go by without rearing it’s ugly head to, once again, try to deny us our right to marry.

Yesterday, Brian Brown and his merry band of homophobes from the National Organization for Marriage rallied at the Capital to defend freedom and family from their favorite scourge–marriage equality.

Today, New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms is suing the state over the bill on procedural issues. Here’s the story from today’s TU:

New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms is suing over same-sex marriage, saying the Senate violated the open meetings law when it debated — for days — behind closed doors over whether to bring the bill to the floor.

The suit, filed this morning in Livingston County Supreme Court, does not seek to restrain state officials from carrying out the law, according to the Rev. Jason McGuire, NYCF’s executive director and a lawsuit plaintiff. The Senate, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and the Department of Health are named as defendants.

“It was not an open or deliberative process. There are a lot of things that occurred both within Senate rules, but open meetings laws are clear statutes,” McGuire said. “That’s certainly something the courts will be dealing with.”

Scott Reif, a spokesman for Senate Republicans, declined to comment.

The lawsuit was filed the day after the state’s same-sex marriage law went into effect. Starting early Sunday, hundreds of gay and lesbian couples have wed.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo led the effort to legalize same-sex marriage, a measure that for years had support in the Assembly but only this year received majority backing in the Senate.

“The plaintiffs lack a basic understanding of the laws of the state of New York. The suit is without merit,” Cuomo spokesman Josh Vlasto said.

To say the suit is without merit is being kind. The suit is, plain and simple, is just a waste of taxpayer money and nothing more than another media grab on the part of the Radical Christian Right.

I wonder what their Tea Party brethren have to say about this frivolous lawsuit that will only end up costing Joe and Jill Taxpayer?

But then again, the line between the two–the Radical Christian Right and the Tea Party–is nearly invisible. When I was down at the Capital during the dramatic days leading up to the vote, people identified themselves as Tea Partiers. Michele Bachman, the Tea Party Queen, rails against us yet isn’t above taking advantage of Medicaid dollars, through her husband’s psych practice, to pay for reparative therapy–you know, pray away the gay.

These people are the two sides of the same coin–hell bent on destroying democracy for their own sake.

Categories: General
Libby Post

84 Responses

  1. Ann says:

    If it came to a vote, I would vote for same sex marriage. That being said, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, however wrong it may be!

  2. Valkyrie says:

    Just what is it that these people have against love? Or other people being happy? -Sigh- I never understood it.

  3. Jeffrey says:

    I can only hope that after NOM gets its pathetic law suit thrown out of court that they will be required to pay ALL legal fees incurred. I saw the same people at the capital. There is no difference, the Tea Party is nothing more than a reincarnation of the Moral majority, but far more rabid then Jerry Falwell could ever imagine. The brown shirts had nothing on these thugs!!

  4. John says:

    Your blog entry today is bigoted on so many levels it’s hard to know where to begin, but a rebuke in in order (yes that’s Christian code for saying you are wrong). First, the repetitive use of the term “homophobic” in most pro-gay retoric continues to perplex. There is no such diagnosis (I’m sure you know that) anymore than there is a diagnosis of being a homosexual. There are however legitimate phobias listed as mental illnesses in the DSM IV. Making light if phobias by calling people homophobic is an offense to people with legitimate phobias. How is this mis-use of a real diagnostic label any different than calling someone a “retard”? Further, you really should check your use of the term “radical” in reference to certain Christians. The term actually means deeply rooted, and if that was your intended meaning than I’d have to agree that Christians who lobby against unholy unions are in fact being true to the faith. Mocking other peoples faith is plain and simple bigotry, no matter how wrong you may deem them to be.

  5. ReepDaggle says:


    Interesting thing about the English language, John. Many words have multiple meanings, including “radical”. Deeply rooted is but one of those definitions. Holding extreme views, and willing to use extreme measures to enact political change is another. Libby’s use of the word is completely appropriate. But no doubt you already knew that and are looking to pick a fight over something really stupid.

    “Christians who lobby against unholy unions are in fact being true to the faith.”

    They’re being true to THEIR faith. There’s no such thing as “the” faith. And in acting on THEIR faith, they’re essentially mocking others of the same religion whose interpretations differ and who do not hold the same extreme narrow-minded views.


    Bullshit. From their own respective mission pages: “As a Christian ministry, NYCF exists to influence legislation and legislators for the Lord Jesus Christ.” and “The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is a nonprofit organization with a mission to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it.”

    Religion is not so sacrosanct that it’s immune from criticism when it’s used to oppress others. These organizations USE their religion to justify their OWN bigotry. Nothing Libby has said comes anywhere close to being as offensive.

  6. Jeffrey says:

    Sorry John but that post is bigoted, totally and completely!!! Your “faith” is a choice, my sexual preference leading to my “unholy union” is not. Homophobia is very real and please do not lecture me about the DSM. There are hundreds of phobias that are not listed specifically. Homophobia is very befitting for you and your “radical” christianists. You fear what you do not understand and that fear has turned into loathing. So much for “christian” love, oh I forgot, I should spend my days praying to an imaginary man in the clouds who micromanages the universe to take the gay away. Why not keep your fairy tales to yourself, the world would be a much better place.

  7. Tom T. says:

    John, I’m not sure where you got your information on the DSM IV-TR, but it absolutely contains a diagnosis of “Specific Phobia” under Anxiety Disorders. A specific phobia could be anything (or condition) that causes significant anxiety (and possibly panic attacks) for a long enough period of time, and like Jeffrey said, not every specific phobia is mentioned in the DSM, as it would take up many hundreds of pages.

  8. Tom Foolery says:

    Libby, your posts usually have a more civil tone. It appears the “merry band of homophobes” are under your skin. Could there be merit to their argument? Should we not let the people decide (and yes, for all the “regulars” on this blog, I did address this before)? Why not let the people of the state vote? Your stereotyping of the “Radical Christian Right and the Tea Party” are shameful. What happened to civil discourse? I am sure this post will bring about some.

  9. Billy The Kidd says:

    No one has a “RIGHT” to Marriage.

  10. Jeffrey says:

    Tom Fool…the only thing shameful is your dogged insistence that while you would like LGBT people to slip quietly back into their closets and share none of the rights and responsibilities of our fellow heterosexual Americans…that you are some how not homophobic. Let the people decide? Why? Can the voters also decide to make divorce illegal? Why limit your “special” vote to the question of gay marriage. Unfortunately, I think we both know the answer to that and it has nothing to do with “protecting traditional marriage” or “living by biblical principles”. It has everything to do with your hatred of gays and lesbians and the fact that you just don’t think we are quite human enough to be full citizens of this country, which by the way is the United States of America, not the United States of Church. Whine all you want, there will not be a referendum in New York State, besides, you tea party people have bigger fish to fry i.e. dimantling the economy of this country to undermine a BLACK President. Oh, I can’t wait for Albert paid-to-post J’s response!! I am giddy with excitement.

  11. John says:

    I think I get it now. The DSM allows for the fabrication of new phobias. Tom T, that must make you a Christophobe. Jeffrey, are you a heterophobe, and ReepDaggle I suspect you may be semantic phobe, that is the fear of the true meaning of words. If Christians who oppose same sex marriage are considered extreme, what in the heck does that make Libby?

  12. elmer says:

    Again, @6 and others–why must every response to a religion based objection to SSM automatically lead to an anti-religion screed?

    Not every gay guy is effeminate. Not every lesbian has short hair. Not every Christian is an intolerant jackass.

    Please deal with it.

  13. Libby Post says:

    I’ve never said every Christian is intolerant. In fact, there are hundreds if not thousands of Christians in NY and throughout the country who support LGBT rights. When I write about the Radical Christian Right those folks know I’m not talking about them. I’m talking about the Brian Browns, the Maggie Gallaghers, the Michele Bachmans, Focus on the Family, the American Family Association–I’m talking about those folks not the well-meaning, supportive Christians who have been and always will be a part of my life.

  14. Kingnothing says:

    Just wondering, does the idea of us voting for your ability to marry seem fair? How about the idea of eliminating marriage all together, so no one at all can get married. Would any of you think that would be ok? Or would you feel comfortable or accept that it is the “right of the people” to vote on it? Some how I doubt it. If you would not be ok with the idea of voting to eliminate marriage all together, than to be for removing same sex marriage, or putting it to a vote, would make you a hypocrite, and likely “homophobic” to some degree. It is not truly fair if you feel one way is ok and not the other.

  15. laura says:

    Well, John, I guess that makes me an a$$hole-phobe, because idiots like you scare the crap out of me.

  16. Joseph Cea says:

    If I remember correctly wasn’t one of the main oppositions to the “I am gay” billboards was that it was funded with taxpayer dollars. Anyone that is outraged about wasting taxpayer dollars on this lawsuit because it attempts to stop an already passed gay marriage law should also be outraged at the billboard for supporting a gay lifestyle for the same reason.

    It isn’t really being all that objective to support a gay lifestyle billboard that wastes taxpayer money and denigrate a lawsuit that seeks to stop gay marriage on the basis that it wastes taxpayer money.
    Point is being objective is the path we all need to take.

  17. Kingnothing says:

    Yea, and being objective, the purpose and intent on the billboards was to promote acceptance for gay people, as there is often problems with homosexuals who are alone / feel alone / need someplace to fit it. Objectively, the billboards promote a positive message to many who are in need. Objectively, the lawsuit does not promote any positive outcome for anyone except self gratification for those who oppose same sex marriage.

  18. masaya says:

    John..have you ever even picked up the DSM or are you pulling your non sense from your ass? You may be interested to know that there are hundreds of scholarly journal articles reporting on research into HOMOPHOBIA. Have you ever heard of a hate crime? Do you know who Fred Phelps is? Have you ever read some of the posts regarding gays as “sodomites”, “perverts”, “pedophiles”, “immoral” the list goes on ad nauseum and I am sure you get the picture. Do you really think that the “christians” throwing those terms around are motivated by religion? Or are they motivated by something much darker such as the irrational fear of gay people also known as HOMOPHOBIA!!!

    I love how the same people that come on here with their not-so-veiled anti-gay rhetoric (yes John there is an “h” in rhetoric)suddenly become the victims of those horrible homosexuals who are out to oppress not only their “christian way of life” but also people with phobias? Really? Nice try John, but you really are a HOMOPHOBE. The only difference between you and Fred Phelps is that he, for all his insanity, is very clear about how much he hates us. People like you, on the other hand, mire that hatred in terms like “defending REAL marriage” or “the bible says homosexuality is wrong”. The bible also says it is ok to enslave people from neighboring countries…anyone up for a road trip to Canada? There are many, many cultural prohibitions in the bible, why cherry pick this one…why??? Because you hate gays. And spare me the compassionate christian bullshit. I don’t want your prayers or your reparative therapy. Just live your damn life and let us do the same.

    In the meantime, my partner and I are making our WEDDING plans. After 18 years of “dating”, we can now be afforded the dignity of legal recognition, at least in New York regardless of NOM, Focus on the Family, Tea Party, Albert J, Maggie Gallagher, Fred Phelps, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann and the rest of those “loving” religious people.

  19. Tom Foolery says:

    Well said @ #16. Thoughtful, literate and well said. I remember bringing up that exact point about the billboards, but spending taxpayer dollars for that was, at least on this blog, well received and OK.
    Jeffey – It has nothing to do with hatred. While you go on a tangent of labeling me Tea Party person, you do not know me or my party affiliation. And, while I was serving in Iraq and the presidential election took place, I think the country and this president missed a huge opportunity. He is multiracial. His mother as I am sure you know, is Caucasian and his father a black man from Kenya. Why could he not celebrate the fact he is our first multiracial president? And, if I read you correctly, you may believe in the theory of evolution and if you do, we are all black and he is not the first black president (they were all black).
    Sorry for the additional tangent.

  20. Victoria Roth says:

    KIngnothing (#14)
    Don’t forget that there was no such outcry to “let the people vote” in 2009 as I recall. Same-sex marriage opponents were all too happy to let the Senate vote stand back then.
    Such complaints now indicate nothing but a taste of sour grapes rather than civic-mindedness as they would have us believe.

  21. AngelEyes says:

    So Libby as long as a person who is a Christian agrees with you and your lifestyle, then they are okay in your book. Otherwise they are radical rightwing homophobes, right?

  22. masaya says:

    Yes AngelEyes (creepy name). That is correct. How is your dH? Still having a nervous breakdown when he sees gay people on his television???

  23. Jeffrey says:

    Then Tom please tell us all what it is about? Has your marriage been thrown into chaos and dysfunction since 12:01 am this past Sunday when ssm became legal? Are you suddenly having strong desires to have sexual relations with men? throw fabulous dinner party’s or listen to Lady Gaga? How has this impacted your life and the life of your marriage one iota?

  24. A.M. Bush says:

    So AngelEyes, as long as a person is a heterosexual and agrees with you then they are okay in your book. Otherwise they are liberal left-wing perverts, right?

    See how easy that was! :-)

  25. Ted says:

    Libby, I definitely lost a lot of respect for you after reading this post. There is a tone of anger and hatred in your words that I have never really seen before in your posts. While I respect your committment and right to defend LGBT issues, it’s disheartening to see you use slanderous terms such as “radical” and “homophobe” to generalize an entire group of people that have different views than you.

    You know as well as the rest of us that there are loony radicals on both sides of the aisle. But the vast majority of us are civil people located more toward the center. Yes, we may have different views on a lot of different issues, but that doesn’t mean one group is correct and the other is evil. Why can’t we all respect the views and opinions of others? You basically said in #13 that Christians are intollerant unless they support your cause. Is that really fair?

    I disagree with gay marriage, but I’m not a “radical christian.” In fact, I’m a registered independent and other than Christmas and Easter mass, I don’t even go to church. And I’m certainly not a “homophobe” either. To be called either is an insult and I know I speak on behalf of many others when I say I don’t appreciate it. I just believe in traditional marriage between one man and one woman. And a lot of other people do too.

  26. Libby Post says:

    Hmmm, I didn’t think the tone of this post is much different from any of the others where I’ve singled out homophobia and duplicity. Both make me angry.

  27. ReepDaggle says:

    “ReepDaggle I suspect you may be semantic phobe, that is the fear of the true meaning of words”

    Get yourself a god damned dictionary, John. Or are you afraid of that?

  28. Ted says:

    Thanks for the quick reply Libby. But you’ve failed at addressing my concerns. Again, I respect your committment and right to defend/support gay marriage/rights. I don’t call you (or any LGBT supporters) slanderous names for feeling the way you do.

    Why can’t you respect my right to disagree with you and leave the “radical” and “homophobic” slurs out of it?

    Thanks again.

  29. Libby Post says:

    Well it would be easier to not be so direct if it weren’t my life we were talking about. When a swaztika is spray painted on a synagogue, we have no problem calling it anti-Semitic. When people are denied employment because of the color of their skin, we have no problem calling it racism. Why is it then, when the LGBT community speaks up for itself and puts words and a voice to the discrimination we face, we’re the ones who are called out on the carpet? I respect your right to disagree with me. I don’t respect the desire to deny the LGBT community our rights. Plain and simple, you and I disagree about what those rights are.

  30. Jeffrey says:

    Well put Libby. Our tone does become defensive because simply saying “I am not homophobic, I just don’t think you people should be allowed to marry”, is somewhat maddening. If we are not allowed to marry than as far as I am concerned you are simply devaluing our lives and our families. It amazes me that people cannot see that. You can deny homophobia until you a blue int he face but if your message is that we are not worthy of marriage than you really are telling us that we are less than. And I also agree with Libby on another point, why is it that when the gay community speaks out demanding equality we suddenly become a threat to your religious beliefs and a threat to your marriage. WHAT IS THE THREAT??? Can anyone answer that?