Michael Bloomberg Cuts Ad Supporting Marriage Equality (VIDEO)

New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg has cut a new ad for a Human Rights Campaign initiative that is seeking to push the state to pass marriage equality legislation.

New York Magazine provides a rundown of the ad:

As Alicia Keyes croons about concrete jungles in the background, Michael Bloomberg's new ad on behalf of the Human Rights Campaign to support gay marriage shows the mayor saying, "I'm a New Yorker and I support marriage equality." The ad then cuts to the words, "New Yorkers Support Full Marriage Equality. Do You?" displayed across City Hall.

"Because government shouldn't tell you who to love or who to marry," Bloomberg says.

New York's equal marriage legislation was rejected by the State Senate last year by a 38-to-24 vote, but the Human Rights Campaign's new effort hopes to utilize some star power to reinvigorate equal rights action.

According to the New York Times:

As part of that strategy, the Human Rights Campaign and its allies are spending heavily to oust three New York state senators -- all Democrats -- who voted against the marriage bill last year and who face opponents in the primary on Tuesday: William Stachowski of Buffalo, Shirley L. Huntley of Queens and Rubén Díaz Sr. of the Bronx.

Other ads from the HRC are slated to feature high profile figures such as actors Julianne Moore, Kyra Sedgwick, Kevin Bacon and Whoopi Goldberg, as well as Rev. Al Sharpton.

WATCH:

Comments

[carnitine]

03:10 AM on 10/17/2010

So why cant I marry my Sister or have more than one wife?

[daveg5]

09:54 PM on 10/16/2010

This is awesome. Who wants the govt to tell them who they can and cannot marry? NYers must be very proud of their mayor.

[jerryatthebeach]

04:47 PM on 10/11/2010

A disgrace to your heritage and aren"t you gay? You might be an asexual masturbator, who knows or cares.

[daniwitz13]

02:29 AM on 10/10/2010

For those that keep on harping on that everyone is EQUAL spiel. We are not EQUAL. Man and Woman are NOT EQUAL. It may be a small point to many, but a Woman is GREATER than a man, sorry. Man can jump up and down and protest my logic all he wants but when the day comes that he can bear and bring forth another human being into this world only then will he be EQUAL to a Woman. Till then, shut the hell up on EQUALITY. If Bloomberg wants every couple to be EQUAL, let them be EQUAL and have children too. Can't deny them anything, right? No Govt. should ever tell two men that they cannot bear children, If that other couple can have them, then EQUALITY demands they get that right, right? AHHH, EQUALITY

[Ioan Lightoller]

09:45 PM on 10/12/2010

WHAT are you on about? Sure sounds like you have issues with men. I'm a lesbian and feminist as they come but if two men want to adopt or use a surrogate, no problem. Please come into the 21st Century and drop the man hating stance.

[carnitine]

03:13 AM on 10/17/2010

women greater? I agree the last gagfactor pr0n i watched the women were great in it!

[WHTrout]

11:54 AM on 10/06/2010

Thank you, Mayor Bloomberg. I applaud your leadership. Now, if you could just walk back that endorsement of Meg Whitman out here in CA....

[Carl Caroli]

09:59 AM on 10/06/2010

A politician with the guts to stand up for what's right. How about that!

[CoffeeOnIce]

09:48 AM on 10/06/2010

When you say "cut an ad," it sounds an awful lot like saying "got rid of the ad." Either this is poorly worded or poorly interpreted...

[gene poole]

04:59 PM on 10/09/2010

It sure had me wondering why he did the ad then cut it. Glad I read the comment section.

[carlsonem]

08:20 AM on 10/06/2010

anyone notice that the leaders who actually are smart are calling for this right for gays? It just makes sense.

[MinnesotaGrandma]

10:53 AM on 10/06/2010

I have been married to a great guy for 38 years, I have the utmost respect for ANYONE who wants to make this promise to another person. It is not right for my husband and I to enjoy all the benefits, and perks of marriage, but deny the right to others. Who you love is your own business, and I welcome all who want to be married.

[Ioan Lightoller]

08:52 PM on 10/07/2010

Fanned and faved, MinnesotaGrandma. It is straight Americans such as yourself who give me hope for this country and for seeing marriage equality eventually the law of the land in this country.

[kdb7594102]

12:28 PM on 11/13/2010

FnF and make me 19

[hetrose]

08:05 AM on 10/06/2010

I hope that gays and lesbians do gain this right. Also, how about granting it to Consenting Adults who may want a multiple party union?

[hallowellboy]

07:56 AM on 10/06/2010

Thank you Mayor Bloomberg.

[taddles]

03:08 AM on 10/06/2010

"As part of that strategy, the Human Rights Campaign and its allies are spending heavily to oust three New York state senators -- all Democrats -- who voted against the marriage bill last year and who face opponents in the primary on Tuesday"

Excellent. Good to see people holding politicians accountable for their choices. If you choose to crap on the party platform and vote against the tenants of the party, if you choose to vote with Republicans against Democrats, if you choose to Filibuster with Republicans against Democrats, you should expect to be ousted.

I don't think the Dems need a purity test like the Repubs have, but if you're a Dem there are some things you just don't do and stabbing your supporters in the back is on the top of the list.

[tangolas]

01:35 AM on 10/06/2010

but the smokers can go to hell.

[hazlnut]

11:46 PM on 10/05/2010

Good for him!

[indiecratublican]

11:07 PM on 10/05/2010

Why don't they just grant "civil unions" to gays with all the benefits of traditional marriage? I mean grant them everything but the sacred name "marriage". People who are uneducated about the matter will think they've won because of the terminology and gays who just want the legal recognition and benefits and support will be satisfied because they can be legally protected. Sure, the activists will be upset and sure, the majority will be upset at any form of union for gays, but at least the bases will be covered. Those gays who just want stability and don't want to pick fights will appreciate it. The only inequality would be the legal terminology, which would in effect be meaningless as both parties would be getting the same thing.

Then all Americans will have the ability to abuse the act of marriage and divorce each other at ever increasing rates regardless of sexuality. Oh, the American tradition. Keeping it in tact.

[juanjo]

02:27 AM on 10/06/2010

Marriage is not and never has been sacred. Martin Luther himself stated that marriage was a civil contract and not a religious act. Marriage predates Christianity and Judaism and was civil before the Catholics ever decided to make it a sacrament.

So my proposal is simple. Let's just remove religion from a civil institution and be done with it.

[zest]

12:39 PM on 10/06/2010

Well said; just take the word "marriage" out of the courthouse. Problem solved.

[indiecratublican]

05:41 PM on 10/06/2010

I agree, but religion's never going to be absent in this country.

I don't feel marriage is treated as sacred by straight people and I kind of feel gays don't know what they're asking for. I mean, I'm straight, and I've always admired gays who stayed together forever because of love and not some stupid contract. However, I do want gays to be protected just as much as the straight couples when and if something happens to one of their partners.

I kind of worry that gay marriage will trivialize the longevity of partner relationships. I remember reading about one lesbian couple who went through a nasty divorce, which involved kids, and I remembered thinking -"No! Gays are supposed to stay together forever!" But I was young-er, and I realize both homosexuals and heterosexuals are more or less the same. Gays break up, straights break up. Now we can institutionalize it. Because marriage always means divorce, which I feel would somehow be more acceptable than the marriage itself. Ironic, huh?

I just think we should give them ALL THE EQUAL RIGHTS of marriage, but disguise it under the "term" civil union.

Oh, and there are as many religious gays as religious straights. So your proposal might backfire- just a litte. But, I do find it to be clever.

[taddles]

03:10 AM on 10/06/2010

Why is it so hard to just no worry about it and let anyone who wants to get married get married. Since when has any gay couple getting married hurt any other married couple? This is a handful of bigots and freaks whining about something that has no effect on their lives.

These same people will scream about Liberty and Freedom all while holding up signs saying gays shouldn't have the right to marry. Hypocrites are always the last ones to see how hypocritical they are.

[indiecratublican]

05:28 PM on 10/06/2010

So true, that's why I say trick 'em into thinking gays are getting something different, when they really aren't I mean they're only looking for key words like "marriage" any way. I mean, not to say people are stupid...

[Ioan Lightoller]

09:03 PM on 10/07/2010

Fanned and faved. There is no reason not to permit marriage equality to same-sex couples except ignorance and bigotry. We do not affect the lives of heterosexuals by being permitted to marry. It is time to say that the whining by the religious reich should not be allowed to affect the lives of hard working, tax-paying individuals who are different only because they wish to marry someone of the same sex.

[onionboy]

10:37 PM on 10/05/2010

When this guy opens his mouth, common sense seems to come out. How is that he has an R after his name in the year 2010?

[Edward Standley]

11:26 PM on 10/05/2010

Yep, gotta agree. the "R" or "D" doesn't matter. I like the guy. He's a statesman. The rest of ya .....ya don't like it? Tough!Fanned, onionboy.

[Nostra]

11:40 PM on 10/05/2010

Great, "marriage equality", how about just "equality" and we leave the religious terms to the religions?

[onionboy]

01:09 AM on 10/06/2010

I agree in theory. The problem is that it's not the religious definition that's being argued over, it's the legal definition.