http://www.villagevoice.com/slideshow/christopher-streets-gay-marriage-celebrations-33633368/

Pictures of celebrations on Christopher Street

Hooray! I <3 New York, though I still think it's great that the rural, Midwestern state of Iowa where I spent four great years of school got it first. :)

The reason behind it, is that in Latin America the religious freaks are not as economically influential as they are in the United States; plus the US of A is much more diverse from a religious point of view than their neighbors South of the Border.   In Latin America the masses are vastly Catholic and the Catholic religion has evolved a lot there to the point that the younger generations don't really care anymore and are just Catholics by name.

In the US of A, religions come by the hundreths and many of them have a lot of economic pull and influence, so it's much harder to get everyone together.

What I am trying to say is that Latin America is very religiously homogeneous (more than 90% Catholic) therefore religion has modernized and evolved faster, in North America they have a lot of different religious denominations, some very wealthy and influential in politics as a result they have a harder time trying to get everyone on the same page.

and I disagree with you, I don't think religious beliefs are garbage; I am not particularly religious but you need to respect those that DO believe.

In addition, in the US system, this has to be passed state by state because of the factors mentioned above by andy o.

A similar situation happened  with abortion rights. For many decades before the landmark US Supreme Court Roe v. Wade (1973) decision, there were only a handful of states where a woman could get a safe and legal abortion. As a result, women who could not afford to travel to New York state and a few other states, risked dangerous back-alley abortions and some died of horrible complications.

I respect the rights of people to believe in whatever diety they want. I don't want to have to believe in their god, though.  Twelve years of Catholic school was more than enough for me...

Looking forward to Gay Pride this weekend!

Ah, I just saw this in wikipedia  about the UK:

Same-sex marriage is not currently legal in the United Kingdom. Marriage laws vary in thecountries of the UK, however they all prohibit marriages between same-sex couples. Since 2005, same-sex couples are allowed to enter into civil partnerships, a separate union which provides the legal consequences of marriage. In 2006 the High Court rejected a legal bid by a British lesbian couple who had married in Canada to have their union recognised as a marriage in the UK and not as a civil partnership.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_Kingdom

Switzerland does not allow gay marriage but a form of civil union. Gay couples are forbidden from adopting.

Apparently, the some parts of the US are much further ahead of Europe in this matter...

Of some of the other major European nations:

The Netherlands: [YES] Same-sex marriage (Dutch: Huwelijk tussen personen van gelijk geslacht[1] or commonly homohuwelijk[2]) has been legal in the Netherlands since 1 April 2001.[3][4]The Netherlands was the first country to legalize same-sex marriage.

On June 1, 2003, Belgium [YES] became the second country in the world to legally recognizesame-sex marriage, with some restrictions. Originally, Belgium allowed the marriages of foreign same-sex couples only if their country of origin also allowed these unions. Legislation enacted in October 2004 however, permits any couple to marry in Belgium if at least one of the spouses has lived in the country for a minimum of three months.

Spain: [YES] Same-sex marriage in Spain has been legal since July 3, 2005. In 2004, the nation's newly elected Socialist government, led by President José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, began a campaign for its legalization, including the right of adoption by same-sex couples.[1] After much debate, a law permitting same-sex marriage was passed by the Cortes  Generales (Spain's bicameral parliament, composed of the Senate and the Congress of Deputies) on 30 June 2005 and published on 2 July 2005. Same-sex marriage became legal in Spain on Sunday, 3 July 2005,[2] 

France:  [[NO] Same-sex marriage cannot legally be performed in France, though some foreign same-sex marriages are recognized and the PACS, which confers some of the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, is available to same-sex couples.

Germany:  [NO] Since 1 August 2001, Germany has allowed registered partnerships (Eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaft) for same-sex couples. These partnerships initially provided many but not all of the rights of marriage, and currently provide all except joint adoption and full tax benefits. As of 22 October 2009, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany has ruled that all the rights and obligations of marriage be extended to same-sex registered partners.[1]

Italy: [REALLY NO] Notwithstanding a long history of legislative proposals for civil unions, Italy does not recognize any type ofsame-sex unions. 

Sourced through wikipedia

In the Americas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_same-sex_marriage

Canada: yes -- On July 20, 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world and the first country in the Americas to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide with the enactment of the Civil Marriage Act which provided a gender-neutral marriage definition. 

In South America, only Argentina recognizes same-sex marriage.

Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, and Uruguay recognize civil unions.

It's fun to hate the US of A... even better to do it when you have the facts, though...

I'm back to add some some eastern flavour - here's the chronology of the legal battle for LGBT rights in India.

The legal battle was, in fact against Section 377 which was introduced during umm...British rule in India? Wonder what they were doing in the sub-continent. 

Thinkin' out loud - sounds like 'some' of the suffering in the world stems equally from colonial hangovers as from religious beliefs.

Let's blame religions anyways...it's one-size-fits-all, easier, safer and a lot cheaper that way.

An interesting discussion with among others, Democratic New York State Assembly Member Daniel O’Donnell, a marriage equality bill leader and the first openly gay man elected to the New York State Assembly.

Background on this struggle since 2007, its rejection by a Democratic Senate and now acceptance with Republican support, how the Catholic church was sidelined, the role of extremely rich financiers, and the long national struggle ahead.

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/6/27/is_new_york_equal_marriage_bill

Thanks for the link.  Only 4 Republicans supported the measure. Of  those 4, one was formerly a Democrat who had recently switched parties.

"On December 2, 2009, same-sex marriage legislation was defeated on the floor of the New York State Senate by a vote of 24 to 38;[28] no Republican voted yes, eight Democrats voted no.[29][30] "

"In June 2011, the Marriage Equality Act, another bill to legalize same-sex marriage in New York, was passed by the state Assembly. In the Republican-controlled Senate, three Democrats and two Republicans who had voted against the 2009 bill indicated their support for legalizing same-sex marriage. On June 24, the bill was passed in the New York Senate by a 33–29 vote; 29 Democrats and four Republicans voted in favor.[3] "

Quite right only 4 republicans and I hope I didn't give the impression of substantial republican support (but that was clear in the report and blurb below). I think the story goes beyond party politics (although each has its own constituency to fear or respect - depending on your point of view) and is a testament to the determination of a number of players (political and not) to pass legislation that is consistent with the Federal constitution affirming equality.

There are a number of elements that are interesting in the story which come out in this report e.g. the idea of civic marriage versus religious and that it is civic marriage which is a constitutional right and should not be infringed on by any religion as it has no place in the constitution except for the freedom to practise one's religion.

All in all a positive story which sends hopefully an encouraging message to otherr states and politicians not to be afraid to do what is right according to the constitution.

True.  And this being the 4th of July, recognizing the need to change the US constitution, when necessary.

Here is a link whose article outlines the fight for marriage between races in the U.S.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar14.htm

"The constitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1883 case Pace v. Alabama (106 U.S. 583). The Supreme Court ruled that the Alabama anti-miscegenation statute did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. According to the court, both races were treated equally, because whites and blacks were punished in equal measure for breaking the law against interracial marriage and interracial sex.

This judgment was overturned in 1967 in the Loving v. Virginia case, where the Supreme Court declared anti-miscegenation laws a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore unconstitutional."

Oops, sorry, forgot to mention that the two final paragraphs were from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States