NASSAU COUNTY CIVIC ASSOCIATION, INC.
"The government is us, we are the government, you and I." Teddy Roosevelt
|
NASSAU COUNTY CIVIC ASSOCIATION, INC. "The government is us, we are the government, you and I." Teddy Roosevelt |
|
July 26, 2007
Damn the People
The implications of homosexual marriage
When the Assembly voted last month to re-define marriage as the union of two men or two women, the debate was premised on dishonesty and arrogance. Joe Lentol (D-Brooklyn) claimed that the opposition was based solely on tradition and criticized those of Christian faith. Chuck Lavine (D-Oyster Bay) claimed that it is now a period of "enlightenment" and that the founding fathers would be smiling. Richard Gottfried (D-Manhattan) compared slavery to marriage as the union of one man and one woman . Ginny Fields (D-(Islip) claimed that she sponsored the legislation as her district supports homosexual marriage. Phil Ramos (D-Brentwood) asserted that it was unconstitutional to deny homosexuals the right to marry based on Elliot Spitzer's legal opinion. These assertions are consistent with the arrogance of the Assembly. This vote was an effort to mock the people.
Contrary to the Phil Ramos' belief, Eliot Spitzer’s legal opinion on homosexual marriage as New York Attorney General in 2004 was nothing more then the substitution of his own political view for the law. This is consistent with his words and deeds. Elliot Spitzer endorsed homosexual marriage as Attorney General. His “legal opinion” did not address the 1996 Federal Defense of Marriage Act which gives states the right to refuse to recognize homosexual marriages performed in other states or countries. Based on this political opinion, Governor Pataki declined to issue an executive order consistent with the Attorney General’s opinion. Elliot Spitizer went further; he filed an amicus curie brief in support of a man in a Vermont civil union who was seeking to be declared a spouse under New York state law while pursuing a wrongful death claim. His recent executive order as Governor directing the state’s civil service agency to recognize homosexual marriage consistent with his own “legal opinion” has been challenged in court.
The re-definition of marriage goes beyond homosexual rights and is a direct attack upon the people of New York State. The New York Court of Appeals ruled last year that New York’s Domestic Relations law was constitutional as it is rationally based and is not discriminatory. When ever the matter comes before the people, it is clear that Americans do not support re-defining marriage even in blue states such as Oregon and Michigan. Last year, the people of Nassau County rejected another parallel legal scheme, a domestic partner registry.
Regardless of the name; a domestic registry, civil union or marriage, there is no difference if the legal scheme provides all of the benefits of marriage. It’s a matter of semantics. The only legal difference is the reciprocity state to state of the particular legal scheme. Even though the Federal Defense of Marriage Act gives states the right to refuse to recognize homosexual marriages performed in other states, the full faith and credit clause of the constitution argument has not been fully adjudicated relative to homosexual marriage. Thus this effort to force homosexual marriage upon the people of New York is part of a national political goal. If passed and signed into law, homosexual advocacy groups plan to file lawsuits in several states nationwide to bring the matter before the US Supreme Court in an attempt to legalize homosexual marriage throughout the country..
The premise that homosexual marriage will not affect individual marriages is absurd. It will effect the institution of marriage by validating all other relationships as being acceptable in terms of public policy. Public policy is a statement by society of what behaviors and or relationships they wish to encourage or those they wish to discourage. This is accomplished by enacting legislation and or regulation such as tax policy, economic policies, etc. Courts all over the country have validated society’s wisdom in defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman as rationally based.
If homosexual marriage becomes the law of the land, every level of society will be affected. As the recognition of homosexual marriage will be construed as rational under the force of law, any other view to the contrary will be deemed irrational whether in a judicial, political, social, medical, educational or religious forum. Public policy will be required to support, defend and promote homosexual marriage. This will require recognition of all forms of sexual expression on the continuum of the rainbow (1972 homosexual rights platform) and advocacy in the classrooms of America. Any entity that fails to accept this institutional change will be subject to litigation regardless of the basis upon which their viewpoint is based. Family and gender will be undefined, ambiguous and subjective. The lessons of history are no further then California and Massachusetts.
The principles of liberty are inherent to having free will. While all Americans are equal before our Creator and our constitution, all life choices are not. Marriage is no different. This is the distinction.