I think that you are right when you say that it is something that hasn’t been available to the LGBTQ community and thus something that is strongly hetero-normative.  

I also think that it is silly to think that thousands of people are/were going to run out and get a license.  This is something that has been so denied for so long that the reality of it is still new to a lot of people.  They are dealing with a huge paradigm shift.  

Also, many of my LGBTQ friends are/were annoyed by the rush that was existent.  As Christians, they take marriage way too seriously to rush out and get a license just because it is available.  Many want ceremonies in church.  They want it to be about them, their love, and their relationship, and not about a political victory.  

I think that the issues here are wide-ranging and exceedingly complex.

My partner and I are getting the deed done at the end of next month. My boss and his partner are doing it later in the year. With weddings comes planning.

Dude, that’s one day.  Possibly people waited until the next day, or the next, in order to avoid the crush?

I think it’s ludicrous to hang so much meaning on this number.  Isn’t the LGBT community under enough of a microscope?  We have to pore over their actions and dissect everything?  “We offered this to you and you JUST DIDN’T JUMP FAST ENOUGH.  You ingrates,” is the message I take away from this article.  As an admittedly rabid straight advocate of my LGBT brothers and sisters, this article offends me greatly. 

My husband is white and I am black.  When Loving V Virginia was successful, you did not see a change immediately.  Did that mean that interracial couples had somehow let down the movement?  Or, perhaps were there other factors involved?  Family obligations, wanting to do things right (meaning a quality wedding rather than a race to the alter), not wanting to be sensationalistic, etc.  Yet, it is because of this ground breaking decision that I am able to enjoy a wonderful marriage. Additionally,  If I  were gay and I had been in a committed relationship for years, just because it was now “legal” does not mean that I would not take a year to plan the “perfect” day for my partner and I.  I would not just run to City Hall immediately.  I would take time to plan.

As a researcher, I am first and foremost troubled by your vague assumptions and failure to adequately compare it to the marriage rates of heterosexual couples in a statistically accurate way, and the reliance on an argument that reads like this: “I don’t really know anything about the marriage rates of heterosexual couples in NYC, the actual LGBT population of New York or the barriers preventing same-sex couples from getting marriage licences on this day, but in my head – in some abstracted number I have decided is “good enough” or “not good enough” – this just doesn’t seem like enough.”

But more that that I am a bit troubled by your failure to realize the intense heteronormative nature of marriage in general and the fact that some same-sex (and heterosexual) couples feel uncomfortable participating in a union that they feel promote conformity to a heteronormative culture and brings the government into a union that, quite frankly, is of God and not government. Not that I necessarily agree with them on all accounts, but it is the legitimate stance of some couples that I respect and understand. 

I also agree with others bellow. Who gives a rat’s behind? I mean really, married, not married, monogamous, not monogamous? Pretty sure I know plenty of heterosexuals that fit into all of those labels, so why should we be surprised that same-sex couples also fit into an array of those labels? 

I agree with the sentiment that this article makes far too much out of one data point. And I’m wary that some will make the quick judgment  – “See, gay people aren’t as committed to monogamy and families as we good heterosexual folks are!”

And wait, you say 2600 applied, but only 659 could be accommodated. Would you rush to apply if you knew there was a good chance you’d be turned down, or would you wait? After all, you don’t get your money back if you rent out the local rec room at the Y.

Yes, weddings take planning. (Have you ever tried to plan a wedding in NYC?) Maybe gay couples are taking this more seriously than you give them credit – it takes months to get families on the same calendar, etc. Maybe they didn’t just want to wait in line when all the cameras were on city hall. (And did you see the NYTimes Sunday — the couple who didn’t want to take their children with them, because of all the hate signs?) Maybe, not everyone wants their wedding to be caught up in all the political/media frenzy. We really don’t know.

Write something in a year, maybe 5 years. Let’s see what the numbers look like, state-wide. And let’s quit thinking we know much about people we don’t know. And let us remember — most of these couples have only one legal avenue to marriage — the civil one. Maybe some are holding out for our churches to come around.

Took me 3.75 years going steady to screw up courage to propose; 8 more months for two families to absorb this & make arrangements both could live with. Then ’cause wife’s a near-saint & lowered her standards, marriage has survived 37 years despite my best efforts (AA’s helped). Didn’t the Witch in “OZ” warn us that “these things must be done delicately?” If we old straights have this much difficulty, imagine if things are pioneering & more complicated?

Well i think that you are correct that the planning of ceremonies and gathering of families may be a major cause of lowering the number down.  Another possibility is that many may have been fighting for the right to marry, not necessarily this instant but the ability to have that option.  I know that if i were unable to marry as a heterosexual, i would fight with all my might for the ability to marry, yet i would not marry instantly because im not ready to (not even a girlfriend at the moment).  Maybe a majority of these couples realize that they want to continue discovering each other and ensuring the marriage step (being cautious isn’t the worst trait).  These are just a few of my random thoughts.

Perhaps gay couples weren’t pushing for the legalization of gay marriage just so they can quickly get married. They were merely pushing for the right to get married. Now, that it has finally passed, there is likely no rush to quickly tie the knot. They can plan things and move on with life.

Nevertheless, marriage is a sacred and holy institution established by God. A bond that can only be shared between one man and one woman. These are not my words, but the written word of God.

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. (Genesis 2:24)

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her. (Ephesians 5:25)

When I read that, I immediately interpreted the “record” number as meaning they had never had 659 couples of any description applying for a marriage license in one day before.

I read somewhere that they actually limited the number of ppl who could get hitched that day because of the number of clerics they had on hand. So while it was a record number, it could well have been higher if they’d had more staff to deal with the requests.

Using California as an example…I think a lot of LGBT couples are waiting for the dust to settle to see if the right to marry is going to be taken back.  California had gay marriage for only a few months before the state initiative known as Prop 8 revoked that right.  Many couples I talked to said they didn’t want to plan a wedding and then have Prop 8 pass and make their marriage invalid.

I don’t know why you are so “shocked”. This is a strange article, and I think the fact that you feel the need to say “I’m not making any judgment statements about gay marriage” means that you probably are. Think about it – 659 licenses; if the office was open for (for the sake of argument) 10 hours, it would issue 66 an hour, that’s more than 1 license being issued every minute for 10 hours – that sounds a lot to me. Also, you have to remember that not everyone will have wanted to get their license on the first day of it being legal, with all the TV cameras and hype – I certainly wouldn’t. Not everyone wants to make a political statement, but all just want the right to get married. If I were one of them I would want to queue up quietly after all the dust had settled.

Andrew,
I think American culture and mass marriages don’t fit very well. The footage from that day makes it look kind of like a mass marriage. Too unceremonious.

Everyone else,
Please don’t take this so personally. The numbers are pretty interesting. I wouldn’t blame anyone for being surprised.

sorry double post

My thoughts are: I don’t believe you when you say, “I’m not making any judgment statements about gay marriage. I’m not trying to subliminally suggest anything.”  Worse yet, if you’re really not making any judgments about it, I don’t trust you.

Doesn’t matter if only one couple went and got hitched, it’s just right that two people who love each other and want to publicly affirm that union be allowed to in law and that they be afforded the same rights as their fellow citizens. It’s called equality… 

Why only two?

I like your thought process, but it is loaded with speculation. I guess I don’t know that I assume that I know anything about these movements. I find it usually obscure, when I measure How I would have pressumably reacted to a situation? and how others did or are reacting? I think it’s immature to say that things should be one way or another. Especially after being oppressed for so long. Give somebody some space, to respond how they respond.

I think you’re making a mountain out of a molehill, Andrew.  Perhaps many members of the LGBT community are simply more aware of the ‘commitment’ aspect of marriage, and desiring to honor it, instead of rushing right out to “do it” just because they now have the legal right to do so.  Or – maybe they just don’t like crowds and waiting in line…

I was very sterotypically thinking all along as I read down to your brief consideration at the bottom, “Duh, they are gay in New York!” Of coarse they want to plan for a fabulous, real wedding ceremony!” Having a sociology degree I think the number is not alarming at all and there are probably many, many more factors involved.  How many of the LGBT population in question are of an age to consider getting married. How many are recently out of a previous long term relationship and haven’t found a new partner yet? How many are old and have grown comfortable in their situation and, like many, many heterosexuals, do not feel the need to make a public issue of their relationship? How many couples still prefer to remain in the closet because one or both partners need to for business, family, or faith reasons? Given the smaller pool of potential partners how much more difficult is it to find a partner with whom one wants to go into legal domestic partnership and that other person also agree?  Given that such unions have not previously been legal, I imagine many couples have a mountain of legal, business, and personal property logistics to work out before they can marry in civil terms. Its not quite the same as a typical young couple with college debt and no home or furniture coming together to build their lives together, but might be in the future. As a married heterosexual of faith I personally have always felt people who go to the court to marry or missing out. I once got into a fight with a close friend who did this  to the deep disappoointment of her family.  I’m guessing plenty of couples are joyfully planning events as we speak to include out of state family, friends, and inviting God to bless their union and their future. I’m guessing  many reject the idea of a courthouse wedding and want to go to their own house of faith or have a clergy unite them  in beautiful or special place surronded by people who  love them rather than being a number in front of a judge.  And I say good for them! 

It was only the first day! Many people probably did not hear about it until later, since not everyone lives their lives watching TV 24/7. Also, many gay people will wait to see if it really turns out to be true after what happened in California.

Well, not all straight monogamous couples walk down the aisle (you’ve no doubt heard the expression, “It’s just a piece of paper, right?”), so I’m assuming that many monogamous gay couples are the same way.  Correct me if I’m wrong, of course.

Andrew, I have to agree with others who found this article perplexing. I was left thinking, “So what’s your point?” I did read all the way to the end where you take pains to protest that you have no point, but if that’s the case, and this is really just a “things that make you go hmmm”, musing sort of post, then it strikes me as a little out of place on a site like Red Letter Christians, which I think of as kind of a semi-well-known destination site for many folks – a place where folks would typically expect content with a thesis, or that at least asks *pointed* questions. I and others have been known to write vaguely musing posts on our little Blogspot blogs and the like, which is no doubt one reason why our blogs are not so widely read. But on a place like this, I just feel like it’s more usual for a point to be made, or for a question to be asked with clear implications regarding what potential answers might mean. Maybe that’s why some of us are having trouble with your contention that you’re raising these questions without any kind of “so what?” in mind.

A debauched depraved aberration is normalized by the NY legislature.  Not surprised.  Typical of when decisions are driven by the lowest common denominator rather than what is right and what is wrong.  Doubtful if that decision was remotely informed by any consideration of what the Bible teaches on the subject.  Likely not informed by but ignorant of what the Bible says on this subject.  Hard to imagine how one can be expected to treat as equal a lifestyle and conduct condemned in Scripture as sin.  Do not expect and have no intention of viewing the issue later any differently that now.

I think the point here is not so much that Marin is making or not making a statement about gay marriage but that he is trying to open up more dialogue about obstacles that the LGBTQ community faces/is facing even after marriage has been legalized. I think he wants us to continue to think, rather than just spell out an answer or opinion for us. I also find it interesting that some of the comments below are so quick to judge Marin’s intent by this article, particularly after Marin makes a point to mention his neutrality. We are being critical without looking at all the details, just as others are claiming Marin has done with this article. Ironic.
I’m also curious to know how many of the people commenting on this with criticism of Marin know what he does for a living? Or have read his book? Or in the least have read the short bio under this article.

No, the bible was not considered, because in America we have this thing called the Bill of Rights, which includes Freedom of Religion.  That means that the government can’t pass laws just because a specific religious text denounces something (or people think it denounces something because they haven’t studied the context in which it was written.)