NASSAU COUNTY CIVIC ASSOCIATION, INC. "The government is us, we are the government, you and I." Teddy Roosevelt

The Truth behind Homosexual marriage

It's not equality, but the loss of liberty for the majority

The effort to redefine marriage is all about power and the ability of homosexual rights activists to finally suppress the last bastion of opposition. It’s not about equality, but rather the extremism of the minority with the loss of liberty for the majority.  

The proponents of homosexual marriage claim that the redefinition of marriage is necessary in order to provide some legal rights not currently provided under state law. This is absolutely false. Several laws were enacted as control of remains, hospital visitation, medical decision making and a host of other benefits. One of the latest bills was to amend the Family Court Act to remove the terms husband and wife so homosexuals could adopt and have their relationship recognized at the Family Court level. The Executive branch unilaterally decided to alter the policies of various executive agencies to further provide benefits resulting from the recognition of homosexual relationships. Taken together with the use of legal trusts and other private legal agreements, there is absolutely no reason to legalize homosexual marriage.

People with common sense understand that the role of government is to strengthen families and promote the stability of society by enacting sound public policy. In doing so, our elected leaders regularly promote a moral view which is reflected in the laws they pass. Homosexual marriage is no different. By supporting legislation to legalize homosexual marriage, each legislator is imposing their own moral view on what society should promote and defend. If enacted into law, it becomes rationally based under law thus any challenge regardless of the basis will be deemed irrational or steeped in bigotry. This is the goal of the small but radical minority pushing the bill.

While the bill does not force clergy to perform homosexual marriages, it will force clergy and religious institutions to accept homosexual marriage under the force of law. Governor Cuomo has made it clear that any rejection of Homosexual marriage is discrimination. Yet that argument was rejected by New York's top court in 2006 which held that New York's current marriage law which defines marriage as the union of one man and one women was not discriminatory.

Specifically the court stated, "First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. ... The Legislature could [also] rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like."

"The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude."

So why change the law? The issue is Liberty and freedom but for whom? It is the ultimate goal of homosexual extremists to once and for all crush the last bastion of dissent; People of Faith. The question is not whether there will be some minor religious protections in the bill, the question is why would any legislator vote for a bill which by its very nature suppresses liberty and puts the considerable power of the state behind the concept of homosexual marriage?

As to the recent changes in the bill, it does nothing to protect people of faith as its inherent nature is to promote the extremism of the few at the expense of liberty for the majority. For answers, the Senate needs to look for guidance from other states that enacted homosexual marriage laws or other similar legal schemes.

In Massachusetts, parents are not allowed to opt out of school programs that promote homosexual marriage, gender identity/ expression (cross dressing) and the entire spectrum of the rainbow relating to sexual proclivity based on a ruling from a Federal Appeals Court. Specifically the court found that while “It is a fair inference that the reading of King and King was precisely intended to influence the listening children toward the tolerance of gay marriage”, it  concluded that “requiring a child to read a particular book is generally not coercive of free speech rights”. 

A religious organization in New Jersey was found to have discriminated against a two lesbians in a civil union as they declined to rent their property for the civil union ceremony. A photographer in New Mexico was found to have engaged in discrimination as he respectfully declined to work at a homosexual commitment ceremony.

In California, a fertility doctor was sued for declining to artificially inseminate a lesbian even though he referred her to someone who would.  Ultimately the California Supreme Court ruled that doctors have no right of conscious.

Recently in Illinois, the state enacted a civil union law entitled, "The Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act". During floor debate, there were repeated claims that the law would not impact the religious practices of anyone yet that state's Attorney General has found that Catholic Charities cannot refuse adoptions to a party in a civil union. These examples come from states that have enacted so called religious carve outs.

Even if some minor carve outs are included in the homosexual marriage law with respect to religious institutions, the exceptions are insufficient as a matter of precedent. There is also no guarantee that New York's top court will honor those carve outs once homosexual marriage becomes law or for that matter any future legislature. Also there is no exception with respect to conscious, there is no exception for parents and there is no exception for private groups. Overall, the legislation in of itself by its very nature suppresses liberty and puts the considerable power of the state behind the concept of homosexual marriage.

With all of the economic problems facing Albany, a majority of New York residents do not see this as a priority. The state needs tax relief and the enactment of a school tax cap. The State is exploding in debt and the runaway growth of government with 1102 public authorities. Medicare and educational spending must be addressed as well as pension reform. An analysis of the last six months shows that economic structural problems have not been addressed only the current budgetary issues. A lot more needs to be done. So why focus on this divisive and destructive issue.  

Make no mistake; the legislation is a direct attack on the People of this State, People of faith and those who oppose re-defining marriage. If Governor Cuomo really believes that a majority of New Yorkers support legalizing homosexual marriage, he should put the matter before the People in the form of a referendum. Why the rush? Tell Governor Cuomo and Senator Dean Skelos to kill the bill. Let the People decide!

Press release on passage of homosexual marriage