Did anyone attend rallies in other cities that they want to report on? Empire State Pride Agenda put together – on almost no notice – one here in Syracuse that 250 people turned out to. My short write up is here: http://aliveincny.blogspot.com/2006/07/rally-for-equal-marriage-rights.html

I went to the one in Greenwich Village. I'm bad at crowd estimations, but maybe 500? Maybe bigger. There were some energetic speakers (Jonathon Tasini, for one, was fabulous-- he's challenguing Hillary in Nov. and has my vote for sure.) The mood was a mix of disappointment and defiance. People there felt like they had been kicked in the gut-- but mustered the energy to shout out against the injustice of it. It was a sad day. Next week, my partner and I are going to begin what will no doubt become a daily trip to City Hall to apply for a marriage license. I am hoping that we will be but one gay couple among hundreds doing the same.

I was disappointed, but not any more than slightly surprised. It's a chilling effect. Year after year the judges are assaulted with charges of "activism," and it takes a toll. The judiciary on the whole is being marjinalized and trained to defer to lawmakers instead of exercising their role to defend the rights of people and apply common sense to difficult issues.

But thank you for the link, because I was very glad to see a response, instead of just laying down and taking it. Gathering, talking about it, putting the pressure on, keeping in the public eye, all have a beneficial effect. This is an issue that will be won, eventually, because it is an issue that is not going away.

"Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like" What the hell does that mean?

Well, New York State is certainly approaching the problem with all deliberate speed.

Less snarkily, I find the New York Times' claim that the majority opinion was dry and legalistic and the dissent emotionally charged a blatant misrepresentation. The majority opinion is a standard conservative trope against gay rights complete with the usual coulda-woulda-shoulda approach to social science, overlain with legal citations (this is what the part you quote means, Melanie). The dissent is a fairly legalistic document with a charged preamble, unless using a historical perspective to refute the majority's argument from tradition is somehow anti-legalistic.

The NYTimes was appalling on this issue:
"The...decision thrusts several challenges before gay activists : Do they continue waging legal battles when more courts seem skeptical of forcing gay marriage on the public ?"....
"For now, at least, so-called marriage equality..."
To hell with them and their so-called newspaper.

I think there needs to be serious consideration in the gay marriage movement on the approach that's taken on getting equality.

It seems like the more we push for progress, the more states show that they won't allow gay marriage.

It seems like the brick wall gets taller and thicker the more we pound on it.

We need to figure out a way to get up and over it. And quick.

Alon Levy:
I appreciate the clarification-i wasn't literally wondering what the court meant, i was just venting my distaste for their reference to that particular line, which i find to be perplexing. How does living with parents of both sexes allow children to form an understanding of what it means to be a man and a woman. Because what does it really mean? Are they (the majority) implying that typical stereotypes should be in play in the household in order to teach children proper role playing for when they enter adulthood? As someone who has been following the case and the broader issue of gay marriage i fully understood that this type of opinion was possible i just didnt think it would be used in NY.....silly me