She's a kick-ass politician. She's gay. She just got married. And she's likely going to be New York City's next mayor. She's Christine Quinn.
I think it's great. (I'm also proud to be related to Ms. Quinn.)
The wedding sounds lovely. A female mayor of New York sounds divine.
Anyone with a problem with any of the above,speak now or forever hold your peace...
Christine Quinn, the highest-ranking New York City official to prefer Sappho over Catullus, got married on Saturday, and all the molar-grinding of bigots across America couldn't stop her because New York is among eight states (and a tiny little district) that either allow gay marriage or are waiting on legislation to legalize same-sex nuptials.
In the meantime, Quinn kicked off the summer with what sounds like a great party, beginning with her walk down the aisle to the tune of Beyoncé's "Ave Maria," all the way to State Senator Tom Duane "dancing up a storm" with his boyfriend of two years. Quinn's wife, New York lawyer Kim Catullo, wore a suit designed by Ralph Lauren and walked in to Bruce Springsteen's "If I Should Fall Behind" as 275 guests, including Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly surreptitiously stemmed the flow of tears with their hankies.
Quinn, the speaker of the New York City Council and widely-regarded as the frontrunner for the mayoral job as soon as Caesar Bloomberg abdicates the purple toga, has been one of the most vocal advocates of same-sex marriage in a state whose first same-sex marital vows were spoken almost a year ago on July 24. Once again, the East Coast megalopolis finds itself at America's cultural vanguard — recent polls have shown that more Americans are completely fine with gay people getting married, probably because it has no bearing on how they live their own lives.
New York City's most senior openly gay official weds [Reuters]
http://jezebel.com/5911770/the-wedding- … as-awesome
This is indeed awesome. I hope that Ms. Quinn does become mayor of God's City on Earth. Let's proceed to the true meaning of the millenium-openness and acceptance of all peoples, regardless of race, creed, and/or lifestyles.
Mighty Mom, your pen is mighty and your news is welcome! I'm so very happy to hear your prediction that Christine Quinn will soon kick Bloomberg to the curb...he deserves the boot and who better to provide one. And, it would be most pleasing if a Chrisine overthrow drives all the Bloombergs of the world nuts...I love the idea of them grinding their teeth and tearing their hair...delightful!
Our mayor in Houston is female, gay and in a relationship and has done a fantastic job. Annise D. Parker is her name.
What exactly does "gayness" have to do with the ability to perform a job? Is the argument that "gays" are better politicians? Do gays make better decisions? Are gays more tolerant? I simple don't get what sexual orientation has to do with anything unless the attempt is to push a particular liberal progressive agenda.
4. Not necessarily.
Just like electing the first Black president of the United States, it should be a total non-issue, but in fact is big news that NYC's presumptive mayor will make history by being not only gay, but a married gay woman.
We have entered a new era. Everything has changed. Some just don't know it yet.
Our mayor is openly gay, and the public has kept him on his toes. The entire time there were those who tried to get enough signatures to fire the mayor, but they repeatedly fell far short of their goal. He's done a good job, but no more terms for him.
ETA: Also, a town south of here (Silverton) has a mayor that's not only gay, but he's transgendered. He's a large, handsome woman who the whole town accepts - well, they elected her.
Sandy - writing from Salem, a few miles from Silverton. The transgender mayor wears dresses and has his hair long, but is very masculine looking. Everyone seems to accept him, because he has done a good job. That's the important part. Or she... the i.d. part is still a little confusing, if you don't know anything about her personal changes.
I think that is fantastic. I was just listening to a country radio station the other day and the host said that President Obama is saying he is now FOR gay marriage. People were calling in saying he's a liberal and is trying to destroy America. Well, I am a Republican and I am for gay marriage all the way. There's no reason that they should be kept from happiness because of that. That's like saying I can't marry my boyfriend because he has blonde hair and blue eyes, and I have brown hair and brown eyes. The people against it are just discriminating and it's unfair. After all, this is a free country. So I would like to say to Ms. Quinn; You go girl!
Obama claims he is "personally" in favor of gay marriage. That is quite different from saying he supports legalizing gay marriage. And Obama came out with this position because one of his bundlers (campaign donations) who controls 20 percent of the donations is gay and would not release money to Obama's campaign.
I'm for gay marriage, but that does not change the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman. Because if we permit the definition to devolve into being defined as man and man or woman and woman, then the logical next step is to permit the marriage between man and goat or woman and donkey.
Your logic is terribly deficient, however I'm inclined to understand that you have never been taught critical thinking skills. Although America is somewhat free, the fact that you and those endorsing gay marriage, are attempting to force a lifestyle choice upon other who have the right and freedom to strenuously disagree based on the facts of law and nature.
My point is you make being gay a central point when it is a mere footnote of irrelevance.
It sounds like a beautiful wedding. We should only wish the best for them. Marriage is a tough and beautiful road to travel.
Great. Mayor of America's largest city, next a governorship and then the first elected openly gay president. Times are changing.
YAY - thanks, Mighty Mom, for the welcome update! Here's to the "Mighty Quinn" (just to add a Beatles reference )
Bloomberg was at the wedding and as far as I know he and CC are on the same political team. Not adverserial.
A bit surprised to hear the anti-Bloomberg comments here. I had thought -- up to some questionable decisions during Occupy Wall Street -- that he was a super mayor, cleaned up the city (literally and figuratively).
I'd welcome him with open arms to come run Sacramento.
Or at this point pretty much anyone but Kevin Johnson.
Excellent points regarding the transgender mayor. It IS all about the job they do for the citizens. Bonus if they keep their power issues in check (e.g., no stealing money and no flagrant sex scandals!)
Oh dear! I mixed him up with someone else - how can I salvage myself at this point?
No need, KD.
Relieved to know you're not a Bloomberg hater.
Personally, I'd vote for him for POTUS in a heartbeat!
Oh god! You know, I have been a bit out the loop for a while politically - to be honest, the political scene has been making me furious - I was a news junkie for a few years, and then stopped watching - i decided to save $ and had to slash the extended cable so I stopped watching Rachel, Ed, and Keith - then I just grabbed bits and pieces from Huntington Post, and places like BuzzFlash, or heard my friends on FB rant - I began to focus only on art and now am doing some writing here. I feel like I see the big picture - am a liberal (actually progressive) and it really frightens me to see how the right has become an extremist movement - I'm disappointed in a number of Obama's policies and his lack of follow through on many of his promises - yet who else is there?
Am glad to see you are still in the conversation!
He actually has been keeping all of his campaign promises. A lot of his policies are meant for the long term. That is why we are not always seeing instant results. People are crying to be out of poverty, but they do not realize that a temporary fix will just put us back in the same position all over again.
I know he has done some good things. I think he tried too hard to negotiate with his adversaries instead of listening to his base - the health care system is still a mess, for example. But he is better than the alternative, just not all I'd hoped for....he also has lots of ties to big business and corporation like Monsanto - that is scary stuff.
Here's an example: http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott … ry-workers
Obama is too far right for me - sides too much with the corps - without regulations the workers become slaves and their working conditions more dangerous. Also, the entire meat industry stinks - cruel to the animals and to the employees.
The health care system is still a baby. We do not have the means or the support to go fully into it, but I do believe Obama is making the right call on it. We have to keep pressing forward or the medical industry will become further corrupt and associate themselves with corrupt practices. I have to thank you. You are the first person on either side of the fence to give me a real reason of question Obama's decisions. I been arguing with Republicans about Obama to only get speculation and manipulated admiration for Romney. Obama is not perfect and some of his beliefs may be flawed. That is how it is with any president. However, I truly believe that Obama cares about us and the voice of the people.
Yes. I think we should have adopted single payer long ago--have you seen Sicko? Michael Moore nails it--of course, the Healthcare Industry has long been offering up propaganda to scare us and convince us that would make us full fledged socialists (horrible--HAHAH!). I was disappointed that never made it to the table - health care continues getting more expensive - even with insurance the deductibles are so high most people will go broke if they get really sick - prescription drugs are a racket too. I think the UK, Canada, Japan and all the other countries that have universal health care are far better off ...I voted for Obama and I will again because the opposition is frightening and on the wrong side of all the issues I care about...the environment, education, women's issues, and the list goes on - what is interesting is they are so far right now, Reagan would be considered a liberal if he was in office!
Right on, Kartika.
See other thread on whether the US will ever have national healthcare.
Just another way to reinforce the US a country of "haves" vs. "have nots."
Someone's doing an awesome (read: expensive and extensive) spin job when ordinary citizens -- many of whom do not even have health insurance themselves -- defend the insurance industry and big pharma and blame getting sick on bad personal choices.
Exactly, MM! It's all about the spin - they spend a fortune on propaganda and think tanks who research their targets and know just how play them so they become pawns. The defenders of the status quo then turn against the people who are trying to create a better, more efficient, and more fair system. They vote against their own best interests repeatedly---no healthcare, poor schools, no social programs, etc. They even support the policies that take away their civil rights and erode the constitution (just leave gun control off the table and make sure women can't get abortions!) When Bush #2 courted the Evangelicals and the Christian right, they found the answer to their prayers--the gift that keeps on giving $.
This is an outrage.
Everyone knows that a lesbian mayor will be obsessed with checking out the cleavage and backsides of all the chick interns at city hall, and will get no work done.
Everything is just going to hell in a handbasket these days.
Sounds like the lesbian mayor would fit right in with the male city council members and city staff.
Leading by example.
Yes. That's exactly what our city -- every city -- needs!
Besides, if everyone is to busy checking her out then she can get some real work done. It is a lot easier to get things passed by people who are smitten by you. The laddies and the men.
There is another branch of government as powerful as the Executive Branch called the Supreme Court that is yet to rule on healthcare constitutionality. Should the mandate be found unconstitutional, the federal government will have spent over one year only to have a group of progressives pass an illegal law, while they should have been focusing on one primary issue -- JOBS. Not healthcare.
As for the "speculation and manipulated admiration for Romney". Your claim of "manipulation" can also be claimed on the part of those that agree with Obama. But as far as speculation about Obama the facts indicate the economy has not improved under his stewardship and that is according to Obama -- "we still have a long way to go".
...true, we are still cleaning up Bush's mess and the years he squandered our resources with his bogus wars and making sure his base got their unnecessary tax breaks - the economy tanked under his watch because of lack of regulations and then Obama inherited the fall-out. Of, course, Bush first continued to stack the Supreme Court with his minions who continue to defy the constitution--of course, the Florida court elected him in the first place.
And, we need more that just minimum wage jobs that keep people poor and disenfranchised, we need an economic recovery that includes investing in alternative sources of energy so we can get off the oil teat (something the right is fighting every step of the way--thanks to Halliburton they lot). Even after the tragic oil spill in LA, people still defend our dependence on oil.
And, lack of affordable health care is as devastating to our economy as lack of jobs. It forces people into foreclosures and poverty and they don't buy goods. They can't afford to help their kids get educated. Our middle class continues to suffer from the Bush years...just some thoughts on the subject.
Kartika -- Prior to throwing the proverbial stones, you should first ensure you do not reside in a glass house. The issue of Bush is long ago passed. The reality of fact is Obama's economic policies, much like FDR's Keynesian economic policies, have stunted economic growth which has proven to deplete economic oxygen necessary to create economic and job growth. These are facts based on Obama's own claims, were he states this is the "worst economy since the great depression". In fact, many are now calling the recession under Obama -- the Great Recession.
Now before we get our panties in a bunch, it's illustrative to remind you and others, that Bush inherited a recession from Clinton due to a high tech market bubble created by Clinton, of which the NASDAQ is still suffering the effects as it is still down nearly 50% and we are up marginally the DOW and S&P after 12 years. Furthermore, 8 months from Bush took office 9/11 occurred. And ALL of YOU people were calling for the heads of those responsible. And the facts remain that 9/11 had a devastating effect on America's economy.
As for the tax cuts, if your logic were to hold true then why is the CBO claiming that if the Bush tax cuts expire the result will be a worsening of the recession? Furthermore, why did Obama insist that Congress "extend" the Bush tax cuts? And why did Obama attempt to claim the Bush tax cut extension, actually an Obama designed tax cut?
90 percent of people had healthcare. The additional 10 percent could receive care via emergency rooms. The claim that this emergency room care is the cause of high insurance premiums is an absurd false claim, because emergency room care accounts for 2 cents of every healthcare dollar. This "affordable" healthcare propaganda will result in causing 80 percent of those with private insurance to lose it and be forced into the government system which must by simple mathematics increase costs and decrease the quality to care.
You claim that the problems with Bush have passed, but then you go on to continue with all the problems on his plate. Also, do not degrade Kartika "Now before we get our panties in a bunch..." If you disagree do so respectfully. These problems you feel are a non issue are harming my family. My mom is still paying off medical bills and I can't even afford a doctor visit. If I die for a severe illness because I was not diagnosed in time at least the doctors will still go to bed with plenty of money.
by silverstararrow2 years ago
Hello everyone! I've been on HP only for a short while, three weeks to be exact. In that time, I've come across one prominent topic on both the forums and the questions section. The Gay Issue. Why people are gay, how...
by Sooner284 years ago
I will refrain from accusing anyone of holding ill will towards homosexuals, unless you flat out lie (like saying gay people are pedophiles).What I am looking for is your best argument (s) against gay marriage, in favor...
by Dale Hyde5 years ago
I am amazed that the passage of legalized gay marriage in Maryland is heavily contested by the "churches". What does gay marriage have to do with "faith"? And... why do they care or even want...
by glendoncaba7 years ago
Yea! I have written the hub on the debate because I am so amazed that every hillbilly and his homosexual cousin is out to get this girl? Do the gay rights people rule the world of public opinion? Or is...
by spellbinderdk5 years ago
If gays and lesbians started their own church, then they could get married.And nobody could stop them, because they would be protected by the first amendment, the freedom of religions act.And of course they would also...
by Evan Hutchinson7 years ago
Should gay people be allowed to marry? Why? Why not?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.