“Stand 4 Marriage Rally” – June 9

New York State Capitol Front Albany NY 2_JPG

“What God did was he dropped a huge boulder in the path of the same-sex marriage bill yesterday with the Senate coup.”

—Rev. Duane Motley, executive director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms on the Senate coup.

Just a few weeks after the Pray for Marriage New York effort began, the looming specter and beating drums of the same-sex marriage movement in this state seem to have vanished overnight.  Incredible.  Truly, this is the answer to prayer for New York.

Check out these pictures from NYCF.  Reports are from 1,000-2,000 attended the rally.  Great job!

—Beetle Blogger

From CitizenLink:

…Marriage advocates gathered on the Capitol steps in Albany, N.Y., today to support the state laws defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman.

The rally came one day after two Democrats in the state Senate switched their party affiliation as the debate over a same-sex “marriage” bill escalated. Republicans now control the Senate, which wraps up this legislative session in eight days.

Leading the rally were Tony Perkins, president of FRC Action; Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage; and Bishop Harry Jackson Jr., founder of the High Impact Leadership Coalition.

“Yesterday, we were thinking we needed to come up here and make a strong push so gay ‘marriage’ would not be passed,” said Valerie Case, a reporter at WMHR in Syracuse. “Today, it looks like it may not even be an issue. However, we know in New York  that may not last long.”

Josh Griffin, who participated in the rally, said he can see God at work.

“First of all, God ordained marriage between one man and one woman, and it’s important to keep it that way,” he said. “Also, I believe it (same-sex ‘marriage’) has ramifications for our liberties here in the United States.”




  1. June 9, 2009 at 5:55 pm

    The Nassau County Civic Association strongly supports marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We will continue to keep the People of NY informed of those Assembly members who voted for homosexual marriage and those in the Senate who have indicated their support for the bill.

  2. pomegranateappleblog said,

    June 9, 2009 at 6:15 pm

    woot woot!

  3. Dave said,

    June 9, 2009 at 6:46 pm

    Yea for marriage. Marriage is ordained from God as between a man and a woman and has been so from the time of Adam and Eve. I’m glad people are starting to wake up and decide which side of the line they stand on. The right side or the wrong side.

  4. June 9, 2009 at 7:07 pm

    Actually the count was “2,000” in attendance.

  5. beetlebabee said,

    June 9, 2009 at 7:30 pm

    Jonathan, did you attend? I’d love a first hand account.

  6. June 10, 2009 at 2:34 am

    Great to hear that so many people were present. Marriage really is between one man and one woman.

  7. Smokezero said,

    June 10, 2009 at 12:28 pm

    Keep “God” out of politics. Please. Other than that, looks like the democratic process is at work and in action. Though I do think its a bit strange that two people switched parties over one issue. Meh, whatever they feel is best.

    Also, Beetle, how would I contact you outside of your blog, I had some questions that are probably best off the chat boards (nothing bad).

  8. beetlebabee said,

    June 10, 2009 at 1:08 pm


    I’ve had some excellent conversations since I spoke to you last on the subject of government, religion and politics. Our consensus was that self government was the best temper for capitalism possible. Let’s not rail against religion, which is the main vehicle for teaching self government, we should embrace it rather than imposing morality through the state.

  9. Urabus said,

    June 10, 2009 at 7:42 pm

    I wish I could have been there to support. If they ever have a rally like that here in southern California I’ll be there in a minute. Being so close to Hollywood we NEED a family values rally around here raise awareness before the next homosexual bill comes up in 2010.

  10. Robert said,

    June 11, 2009 at 8:53 am

    Way to go to all the supporters of marriage! I’m so glad that people took the time to tell government what’s right!

  11. Nipun said,

    June 11, 2009 at 9:38 am

    Bigotry won’t last long.. I’m sure the God you talk about will inspire in you some love and understanding, rather than such virulent hate!

  12. pomegranateappleblog said,

    June 11, 2009 at 11:48 am

    Nipun, can you please explain what you mean by “bigotry”?

  13. pomegranateappleblog said,

    June 11, 2009 at 11:49 am

    Also, can you give a concrete example of “virulent hate” in this post?

  14. Larry.P said,

    June 11, 2009 at 10:38 pm

    “New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedom”? Isn’t that backwards? You are trying to keep homosexuals from enjoying the same freedoms you enjoy. Of course I only have these pictures to judge by, but it looks like maybe 500 people to me. I see a bunch of nuns and people who were probably bussed in from area churches. I do not see any kind of diverse representation of New Yorkers.
    The irony is that you are there to celebrate the union of 1 man and 1 woman. When gay marriage becomes legal in New York, your marriages will remain intact…. so what’s your point? On top of that , guess what: gays think that’s just great. No one is against that. Obviously homosexuals support marriage – that’s why we want in on it. Many of us come from loving tradtional marriages. It is untrue to say we are anti-traditional marriage. We just believe that “non-traditional” marriages should be treated the same. Any union of 2 loving and consenting adults should be treated with equal respect.
    Likewise many of us are not anti-God either. I and most of my friends have great relationships with God. We just don’t like it when people try to use their religious views to keep others down.
    Just because someone doesn’t agree with your narrow views of what marriage is or what God is does not mean he is anti marriage or anti God.

  15. vladimir998 said,

    June 15, 2009 at 6:25 am

    Larry. P, you wrote:

    “You are trying to keep homosexuals from enjoying the same freedoms you enjoy. ”

    Actually homosexuals have EXACTLY the same rights I do in this regard. I’m a man and I can marry any unmarried adult woman who I choose and who chooses me. All homosexual men have EXACTLY that same right. They can marry whatever women will have them. What the homosexual activists are demanding is a special “right” no one in history has ever possessed.

  16. Frisco said,

    June 15, 2009 at 2:56 pm

    No woman had the right to vote in national elections until the 19th and 20th centuries. Is this bad because the right had never been possessed before in history? Clearly we should revoke this, as it is way out of line and revolutionary.

  17. June 16, 2009 at 2:27 am

    […] blog named Beetle Blogger has a nice series of photos showing the big crowd that the June 9 event brought […]

  18. June 16, 2009 at 2:32 am

    […] blog named Beetle Blogger has a nice series of photos showing the big crowd that the June 9 event brought […]

  19. karisa said,

    June 17, 2009 at 5:47 am

    Beautiful pictures! I love the brave ones who fear God more than man coming together, of all religions (or not) races, and walks of life! Inspiring! I feel that this is how it will play out in the last days.

  20. June 17, 2009 at 11:09 pm

    Frisco: One gaping hole in your logic (?) is that when woman were given the vote (beginning in Utah- for all you anti-religionists) there was not a stack of facts and evidence showing that women voting would cause an increase in sexually transmitted diseases, domestic violence, suicide, and drug abuse (all due to increased indoctrination of it to children, who then emulate what they have been taught is acceptable behavior).

    Homosexuality is not harmless or inconsequential behavior.

  21. Smokezero said,

    June 18, 2009 at 8:52 am

    Mr. Kearney, it wasn’t Utah, it was Wyoming. Very close, but not completely accurate. There actually was some concern though about Utah, because they felt that the women would vote en masse with their husbands, and give too much weight to one issue, (as Utah had Polygamists).

    Originally, the right to vote was allowed to women in Utah, because they felt that the women would vote against polygamy, however, when the women actually did vote, and for polygamy, they were again disenfranchised (via the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887).

    Though, if we want to look at other “significant” changes that happened with Utah, Prohibition, the only Constitutional amendment that stopped someone from doing something (Via the 18th Amendment), was repealed with the last vote repealing it coming from voters in Utah, even though some LDS Church leaders were against the ratification of the 21st amendment, specifically Heber J. Grant, then president and prophet of the LDS church.

  22. Smokezero said,

    June 18, 2009 at 9:33 am

    Also, I should point out, with women voting, there were stacks of books written about how if a woman was able to be equal in a mans world, then society itself would fall apart. Preachers were quick to call the women to repentance for challenging “God’s given hierarchy.” Social scientists claimed that women getting an equal voice, and equal footing with men would disrupt the fabric of the family and society itself would come crashing down.

  23. Emissary said,

    June 18, 2009 at 9:38 am


    And yet, with all of that, allowing women to vote did not change the underlying definition of voting. But allowing homosexual marriage changes the underlying definition of marriage as the “husband-wife relationship”. Relationships are a completely different ballpark, because at the core of the definition is the people allowed to enter into it. And in close family relationships, gender is an essential part of those definitions. Father-son relationship is not the same as mother-son because of gender.

  24. Frisco said,

    June 18, 2009 at 11:08 am

    D. Rolling: I am pretty sure the increase in suicide of LGBT teenagers is due to the discrimination against them. Just a hunch. Last time I checked, sexual orientation doesn’t predisposition someone to have suicidal tendencies.

  25. Smokezero said,

    June 18, 2009 at 12:39 pm

    It actually did “change the underlying definition of voting.” Our old definition of voting was for landholding males aged 21 and older. Over time, that has changed to what we have now: Citizens, aged 18 and older. The face of the voter has changed with each new step we took towards freedom and equality for all.

  26. Emissary said,

    June 18, 2009 at 1:08 pm


    No, I’m talking about the core definition — the part where if you change it, voting will cease to be voting and become something else. When you strip away all the limitations based on age, gender, land-holding, etc., there is a core definition that remains voting. But if you try to strip the “limitations” of gender from a relationship, what do you get? Nothing. Because the relationship is BASED on who can enter into the relationship. If marriage is the “husband-wife relationship”, and you try to strip away the husband-wife relationship, what is left? Absolutely nothing. “Any two consenting adults entering into a contract” is a far cry from the husband-wife relationship.

  27. Smokezero said,

    June 18, 2009 at 2:12 pm

    Actually, it becomes two consenting adults who share medical benefits, assets, lives, dreams, ambitions, love, homes, “for richer and poorer.” The ability to see your loved one in the hospital, to make decisions in proxy if necessary, all these things still make a marriage a marriage. You are looking at a definition of the world as you see it now, which is fine, but changing it does not destroy the entire definition of the word.

    I’m sure there are actually some good arguments out there as to how things do change, (and I’ve had some brilliant conversations with people on both sides of the fence as to either position) but the area that you are treading in is not a valuable argument, at least for the time being.

    Try harder, in all sincerity. Why would changing a definition from “man and woman” to “two consenting adults” change all the benefits I listed above?

  28. June 18, 2009 at 2:25 pm

    What you are describing Smokezero is a contract. Marriage is so much more.

    Marriage always has been and always will be a covenant between a man and a woman. The core meaning is a part of human nature. We can’t change the meaning of marriage because we can’t change human nature. Most of us anyway have an innate desire to unite with a person of the opposite sex and form a life long relationship. The whole relationship type is stamped with in our very being and is evident by our different yet compatible bodies.

  29. Smokezero said,

    June 18, 2009 at 4:33 pm

    Contract or not, it doesn’t change the meaning into something completely different. Its not like we’re talking about changing the meaning of the word Marriage to mean “When someone makes a right turn onto a freeway.” It broadens the spectrum of situations that can be placed within the given contract as it stands now. Marriage between man and woman is still a contractual obligation. So adding people to it doesn’t change it. At least by the ideas given so far.

  30. August 13, 2009 at 9:57 am

    […] blog named Beetle Blogger has a nice series of photos showing the big crowd that the June 9 event brought […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: