Archbishop Dolan’s “Timmy One-Note” Afterthoughts on Marriage

I have to say it: New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan is no John the Baptist. If he were, he’d be telling his superiors in the Vatican hierarchy the truth about marriage, and he’d likely lose his job, but not his head.

Instead, he continues to play it safe in his quest for his cardinal’s red hat.

In his July 7, 2011 blog essay, entitled Some Afterthoughts, he refers to the historic passage of the Marriage Equality Act as New York State having “sadly attempted a re-definition of marriage.” But the Act was no attempt to “redefine” marriage, but rather involved an extension of connubium, which is “the right to marry” so that it is applied on a gender-neutral basis, in addition to the enactment of certain “religious protections” to insure that it is clear on the face of the legislation that those religions with faiths based in misogyny, patriarchy, and heterosexist supremacy, may continue to limit the marriages they sacramentalize and celebrate to those that they do allow.

It is interesting that he says, “the Church neither has nor wants political ‘clout.’” That is actually refreshing, since it is likely to be an indication that Archbishop Dolan does not plan to order priests in the archdiocese to refuse communion to Governor Cuomo and Catholic legislators who voted for the bill as retribution for their not following the Church’s party line.

The archbishop expressed concern about the religious protections, referring to, but not citing any, “editorials already call(ing) for the removal of guarantees of religious liberty.” I’d really like some credible evidence of this.

Dolan goes on to accuse pro-marriage equality forces of religious intolerance – the case where the bully accuses his victim!

He refers to his side as “those protecting traditional marriage” as if the proponents of the gender-neutral connubium are in some way against traditional marriage. We are not.

There are many LGBT people who have suffered persecution at the hands of the Church and other so-called “Christian” Christianist organizations. I do not blame them for their issues with the opponents of marriage equality, or their form of expression of their reaction to having been bullied by people like Dolan.

I myself will point out that Archbishop Dolan is a heresiarch, and that he really is not a Christian but is rather a Christianist, as is the rest of the Roman Catholic Magisterium. In a credal sense, the RCC hierarchy is nearly as true Christian as the Orthodox Christians who did not add a filioque to the original Nicene Creed. But in a doctrinal sense, as it pertains to moral theology, the Roman Catholic Magisterium is deeply in error because of its teachings in opposition to true natural law (as opposed to the Aristotelian conception of nature brought in by Aquinas), and because of the many Church Fathers whose writings were misogynistic and heterosexist. The Church’s interpretations of biblical passages related to LGBT people is rooted in misogynistic heterosexism, and are among the things that are the cause of error. (I won’t get into matters of faith, since I have evolved theologically since the Catholic Church threw me out in 1999, to the extent that I am now Unitarian/Universalist – so I am not Christian myself, in a credal sense, any more).

Archbishop Dolan apologizes, and I will share that apology here:

“. . . if we did hurt anybody in our defense of marriage, I apologize. We tried our best to insist from the start that our goal was pro-marriage, never anti-gay. But, I’m afraid some within the gay community were offended. As I replied recently to a reporter who asked if I had any message to the gay community, ‘Yes: I love you. Each morning I pray with and for you and your true happiness and well-being. I am honored that so many of you are at home within our Catholic family, where, like the rest of us, we try, with the help of God’s grace and mercy, to conform our lives to Jesus and His message. If I have offended any of you in my strenuous defense of marriage, I apologize, and assure you it was unintentional.”

I will accept that the apology is sincerely intended, but if only Dolan understood what it is that he, and the Church, are doing, I think he would want to rethink his position. (Certainly, casting his position as a “defense of marriage” is still an error.)

I could start with the schizophrenic passages in the Official Catechism of the Catholic Church, in which homosexual “activity” can never be “condoned” while homosexual people are to be “respected” and that there should be no discrimination against them. While Dolan is not responsible for the schizophrenia, he should interpret it in a more humane manner.

The tension between respect and condonation is thick – and the Church hierarchy often steers a course that can only be understood within the context of this tension – it is what allows Catholic organization leaders to refuse to allow a student group that has the word “gay” in it, but to permit the group without the name. I often find myself explaining (but not justifying) such actions on the basis of this.

From what I can tell, the Church Magisterium’s vehement opposition to even civil marriage rights is rooted in the “condonation” thing, even though I think that is a very wrong interpretation. The Church should be outside the civil marriage loop – it should be concerned solely with the sacrament of matrimony for Catholics. The opposition to civil marriage smacks of discrimination, and should be seen as against the Catechism. The problem is that the insane ravings from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the topic ties Dolan’s hands, so that in order to come across with the official party line of the Vatican, he has to make himself seem to be a fool (But, I am sure he might rejoin with, “but only a Fool for Christ!” or at least “only a fool in a quest for the red hat!” were he to read this essay)

Archbishop Dolan does not understand that we who support civil marriage rights being legally extended on a gender-neutral basis know that this does not have a single negative effect on the traditional marriage. There is a difference between connubium and matrimonium; while conjugal aspects of human reproduction through heterosexual sex acts are integral to many traditional marriages, they are not integral to all of them, and there are children integral to many same-sex couples’ lives.

Archbishop Dolan was in New York when New York adopted a no-fault divorce law just last year. He refers to the Church opposing no-fault divorce “sixty years ago.” Where was he last year, when the National Organization for Women was fighting valiantly in a losing effort to prevent New York from being the last state to adopt no fault divorce? I see nothing in his blog essays from 2010 that indicate that he was railing to stop the no-fault divorce law at that time.

There are many areas of the marriage “fight” where I could join with Archbishop Dolan. There are aspects of my 45 years as a practicing Catholic that still remain important to me, and aspects of Catholic morality that are not evil. The principles of monogamy and fidelity within marriage are sound. The idea that divorce should be limited to adultery and spousal abuse is one that I could support – I never understood the idea of “until death do us part” as meaning “or until we get tired of each other.”

I wonder what Archbishop Dolan would do about the thing that damaged marriage the most in the past century – the abolition of the common law regarding “bastardy and filiation.” This single legal change meant that women who would refuse a man carnal knowledge until “the ring is on the finger” because of the consequences to he and to any child, are now allowed to scheme on how to get celebrities and sports figures to get them pregnant out of wedlock so they can bring on the paternity suit. (One change I would make to the common law, though, is that it should not be the child who should be labeled as a “bastard,” but the man who was the “carnal sperm donor.”)

To my knowledge, while Republican Catholic and other Christianist legislators in New York State fought hard to include “religious protections” against gender-neutral connubium, there has never been any attempt by the Catholic Church or other Christianists to exempt Catholic marriages, or marriages performed in Christianist churches, from “no fault” divorce laws. While it is true that the Church maintains rigorous control over the granting of Church annulments, the canon law has been changed in such a way as to make it possible for just about any Catholic marriage to be annulled on the grounds that the parties were not really ready to be married at the time they were wed.

In addition to the above, there is much else to give the lie to how “the Church has always stood up for (its understanding of) marriage.” Yes, within the confines of spiritually guiding Catholics, but not to interfere with the civil laws – except for this time.

Where are the religious protections in the civil law against civil divorce involving Catholic marriages? I am sure that the LDS would join in to protect one of their forms of marriage, and the fundamentalist Christianists would support a civil “covenant marriage” concept that would be more difficult to end than the usual, run of the mill, marriage.

Here’s a quote that has me in partial agreement:

“And now we ring the steeple bell again at this latest dilution of the authentic understanding of marriage, worried that the next step will be another redefinition to justify multiple partners and infidelity. If you think I’m exaggerating, within days of the passage of this bill, one major newspaper ran a flattering profile of a proponent of what was called ‘nonmonogamy.’ Apparently, ‘nonmonogamy’ is the idea that society is unrealistic to think that one man and one woman should remain faithful in marriage, and that openness to some infidelity should be the norm!”

I think the Archbishop is referring to the New York Times Magazine article on infidelity that prominently featured Dan Savage, which caused some interesting conversation over at the Joe.My.God. blog, entitled "Homoquotable - Dan Savage" (Is this the "editorial" he was writing about earlier? - if so, it's not an editorial, but is rather a magazine article, and Dan Savage was perhaps tryig to be practical rather than theological.)

Marital infidelity  is something that should not be legally condoned, or condoned by the Church. However, I would not push my moral position beyond that. The law against adultery and the adultery ground for divorce already contains defenses for both condonation and procurement. So, in the situation where both parties to the marriage enter into the marriage with the agreed intention of condonation or even procurement, I’d hesitate to be a moral judge. (With the "no fault divorce" law, they could get divorced anyway, but what if that were to change and divorce became more difficult to get without a legitimate reason?)

To speak against the practice, to advise against it, yes. To forbid it, no. People should be allowed make their own personal moral choices, though there should be guidance available for those who want it.  I would not change the law with regard to marriage to eliminate adultery as a ground for divorce, or to remove the defenses.

On the issue of multiparty marriages, that, too, is one that requires more examination. The state should provide a legal structure for various kinds of multiparty marriages (much as it allows various different kinds of business entities), all of which would require the up-front consent of all parties in advance, and all parties would have to be competent adults who freely and willingly enter into the arrangement with full knowledge and understanding and without any coercion. Ideally, each party should be required to be represented by an independent attorney as well, since it is not likely that most people would fully understand the various ramifications of such a marriage.

As I have pointed out in the past, the Catholic Church itself has examples of forms of multiparty marriage, albeit marriage-like family structures that do not require sexual congress among the parties – these are the various religious orders of priests, nuns, monks, lay brothers and sisters, particularly evident in those who live in religious communities, such as monasteries or convents.  In some ways, these are marriage-like structures modeled on the natural law relating to certain insect colonies and other creatures.

If Archbishop Dolan were pro-marriage, he’d be for both gender-neutral connubium and a framework for multiparty civil marriage that would protect all parties.  But he isn't - he is just pro one kind of marriage, and against other kinds.

Dolan’s blog post shills a bit for Robbie George. I have demolished some of Robbie’s writings in earlier blog essays –it would be a pleasure to do it again.

Dolan frustratingly holds “fast to the God-given definition of marriage, and acknowledge that no unfortunate legislative attempt can alter reality and morality.”

It’s interesting that in this, Dolan himself, like his mentor Robbie George, is retreating from reality in his inability to understand gender-neutral connubium as not affecting traditional marriage at all. He is retreating from morality by what I would call an institutionalized heterosexist blindness. It’s sad, really, that he does not understand that the misogynistic, heterosexist supremacist position of the Church is one which has no basis in Truth.  Heterosexist supremacism can be understood by an analogy to white racist supremacism - which I would assume is a concept the archbishop can readily grasp.  The idea that opposite-sex couples are superior to same sex couples, and that their legally sanctioned relationships should be better than those of same sex couples, that opposite sex couples have a relief valve for their natural sexual urges by way of a sanctioned moral marriage right, but that no same sex couple can have such a legal or moral outlet, is rooted in the same sort of thinking that led white supremacists to believe in the moral superiorityof the white race, that it is the pinnacle of evolution, and that the black race is destined by the Bible to be the chattel slaves of the white race, because they are the descendants of Canaan, and all the other arrant nonsense that goes witth the racial  bigotry of white supremacists.

Archbishop Dolan would have to be blind to be unable to make the connection.  He could try to rationalize the different kinds of -isms as having some sort of moral difference - but it would be just like turning to the Bible and retelling the story of the children of Ham to justify slavery.

Even so - he really likes his job, and he really wants that cardinal's hat.  Even if we could provoke a crisis of personal conscience in him, he would likely push it deep below his conscious thought, lest he run off the rails on his trajectory to a princedom in the Catholic hierarchy.

He started his essay with John the Baptist, and ended his article with Thomas More, both of whom quite literally lost their heads, while Dolan himself only loses his rationality and moral compass on the subject of marriage (to be fair, he does it on women's reproductive rights as well - but that's the misogyny again).

Thomas More was a brilliant man, but he was also a creature of his times. Neither the admittedly erudite but misguided Robbie George nor Archbishop Dolan can hide behind that fig leaf.  They live in a world where they have access to sufficient rational knowledge to change their views - unfortunately, the availability of Rational Truth may well not be efficacious in their cases.

Quo Connubialis?

The infamous arch-enemy of marriage equality and LGBT rights, Robert P. George,  was quoted in a June 28, 2011 interview in the conservative National Review Online, entitled Sex and the Empire State touting a paper he co-wrote with Sherif Girgis of Princeton University’s Philosophy Department and Notre Dame Political Science professor Ryan T. Anderson, simply titled What is Marriage?

The pseudo-scholarly article may be cited as:

Girgis, Sherif, George, Robert and Anderson, Ryan T., What is Marriage?. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 245-287, Winter 2010.

Now, before anyone gets impressed by the “scholarly” seeming journal name, I’ve read that this journal is not a peer-reviewed journal, and is affiliated with the notoriously right wing Federalist Society.  So when we read Sharif/George/Anderson  article, we have to take into account the bias that is built into the article by the authors, and we also must remember that the reality is that it was intended as a propaganda piece to be used by The National Organization “for” Marriage, a notoriously anti-marriage organization, of which Robbie George is the board chair emeritus.

Unfortunately, we're not going to be able to get to the National Review article in this essay, since it ran 13 pages in Word, just going thrrough a debunking of much of the pseudo-scholarly article.

You might also remember Robbie George as one of the principal authors, with convicted Watergate felon Chuck Colson, of the infamous Manhattan Declaration, which I subject to a scathing analysis in my blog essay entitled Responding to the Manhattan Declaration

So with that as prologue, let’s look at the What is Marriage? Article, and see what we might uncover.

---

The authors create two “competing views” of marriage, conveniently labeling them as “conjugal view” and “revisionist view” – thus creating an immediate bias in favor of the former and setting up the latter as a straw man to beat up.  Let’s call them the “procreation centric” and “family-formation centric” to create a more level semantic playing field (rather than to provide a naming scheme favoring the latter, such as “breeder marriage” and “equal marriage”).

Many of the concepts and even the phraseology of the argument made by the authors can be drawn from papal encyclicals of Leo XIII (Arcanum, (1880)) and Pius IX (Castii Conubii (1930)).  The buzz words "conjugal union" and as we will later see, "true marriage" come from these documents.

So, if the authors were limiting themselves to marriage as it is conceived by the Roman Catholic Church, we would be a smidgen less critical.  But when they presume to apply Roman Catholic doctrine beyond the constraints of adherents of that religion, they go too far.

The authors place a central focus on what they refer to as “the behavioral part of the process of reproduction,” which seems to reduce the centrality of “procreation centric” marriage to nothing more sacred than simple heterosexual f-cking.  They indicate that the bearing and rearing of children “contributes to its distinctive structure.”  But this sex-act-centered definition, seems to paint a broader exclusion and  is intended to leave out those heterosexual couples in which one or both are infertile, or post-fertile, or choose not to have children, as well as those whose marriage contract is made on a gender-neutral basis in those jurisdictions in which the connubium of the right to marry is available on a gender neutral basis.

The “procreation centric” definition also seems to ignore the fact that gay men and lesbians may adopt, or have children from a prior heterosexual relationship (or even as the result of rape or incest) – what about those families where there are two parents, but they happen to both be the same sex, or one or both happen to be transgender?

Moving to the “family-formation centric” view (what they call “revisionist”), the authors do a fairly credible job in their definitional paragraph of describing a gender-neutral rationale for the connubium, while pointedly leaving out the fact that there are many same-sex relationships in which there are children being reared, a situation that also brings in aspects of the matrimonium concepts of marriage.  Key to this contractual “family-formation centric” view is the idea that the state should recognize and regulate marriage on a gender-neutral basis because “the state has an interest in stable romantic partnerships and in the concrete needs of spouses and any children they may choose to rear.”

I also find no fault with the fact that the authors cite as to the matrimonium not being based solely on religious beliefs – this makes perfect sense, since the care and nurture of children must be a central function of a society that grow and continues to the next generation.  One need only look at the Shaker religious movement, to find a focus on non-procreation to find a societal culture that made nice furniture but died out because none of the members did any procreating.

The issues I have with placing primacy on a matrimonium based solely on children conceived within the particular marriage on the basis of heterosexual reproductive sex acts between the parties to the detriment of having marriage in which the connubium is open on a gender-neutral basis to accommodate those whose sexual orientations make them different from the norm, are twofold.

First, not everyone in a marriage relationship can (or should) have children.  There are very real issues of a worldwide human population that is out of control, as we struggle to feed a population fast approaching seven billion people before the end of this year of 2011), in a world that did not reach one billion people from the distant mists of time until somewhere around 1820 (it took nearly 500 years to double population from 1350 until then), and had perhaps 2.5  billion people when I was born in the 1950’s baby boom.  Technically speaking, the human population is a plague that is reaching, or has reached, epidemic proportions, and the authors seem to think that the principal purpose of marriage should continue to be fueling massive population growth.

While I do not think placing the power of the state to make and enforce limits on reproduction, I do believe that we need to recognize that there are limits to human population growth. Continuing an age-old Western societal emphasis on human reproduction that was aimed at building the population size of nomadic desert tribes (the Hebrews) and of warlike empire-building city-states (the Romans) that combined by way of  the adoption of a Hebrew splinter sect as the official religion of the Roman Empire in 325 C.E., is not a moral or effective way to address massive overpopulation.  It does not help that most civilizations, other than the Chinese civilization, don’t seem to have addressed the issue (and the Chinese found it necessary to impose limits as a matter of state policy).

Moving back to the What is Marriage? article, the authors seem to believe that the “procreation centric” view and the “family formation centric” views of marriage are somehow in conflict – and that the adoption of civil laws that complete the legal equality of the sexes in marriage by making the connubium gender neutral, where all the other rights of marriage have already been made gender neutral is somehow detrimental to children.

The authors (and the anti-marriage equality organizations like NOM) take the preposterous position that adopting a ”family formation centric” view of marriage damages the “procreation centric” view.

The authors try to distinguish the anti-miscegenation laws overturned by Loving v. Virginia,  that extended the connubium on a race-neutral basis, from the new laws extending  connubium on a gender-neutral basis.

Incredibly, thay say: “antimiscegenation was about whom to allow to marry, not what marriage was essentially about.”

Stop. Right. There.  Simply put, both the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws and the enactment of gender-neutral marriage laws, both affect the connubium¸ and not the matrimonium that involves the care, rearing and custody of children.

Just as the ban on interracial marriage was designed to enforce and establish white supremacy, the ban on same-sex marriage is designed to enforce and establish heterosexist hegemony.  The argument against gender-neutral marriage literally drips with institutionalized heterosexist bias.

We live in a society that has the medical scientific ability to allow women to conceive without the necessity of having that biological heterosexual sex act going on.  It is possible for both lesbian and gay couples to raise children who are biologically related to one (or both in some cases) of the parties, whether the children are conceived by artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, surrogacy or other methodology, in addition to those children biologically related to one of the parties from a pre-existing relationship.  It is also possible for lesbian and agay couples to raise children who are abandoned by heterosexual parents for any number of reasons. 

The fact that heterosexual people can make babies by accidentally engaging in certain reproductive heterosexual sex acts at the wrong time of the month does not justify creating or continuing a special limited method of family formation that encourages prolific breeding.

The authors blithely ignore the fact that marriage laws have changed over the years.  In New York, until 1848, the husband controlled the inheritances of the wife, and until 1860, the husband owned and controlled the wages of the wife.  Married women under the common law were not more than the chattel slaves of their husbands, and should their husbands be unhappy with them, the courts would invariably place the children with the husband.
 
They ignore the many other changes that have been made over the years, changes that started with nearly all the rights of marriage residing in the husband, meandered for a time so that the wife had some rights that were seen as superior, particularly in the context of divorce, and eventually resulted in marriage in which the bundles of rights between the parties have all been made gender neutral.  In most cases in the United States, all but one, and that is the connubium – the right to marry.

New York is the sixth state to make the connubium gender neutral.  Several other countries around the world have also taken this more elightened and non-heterosexist viewpoint.

Nothing in the law recently enacted in New York, or previously enacted in those other places, has taken a single iota away from opposite sex marriage, not even the matrimonium or the idea that a heterosexual marriage should be “procreative.”

That does not mean that if world population continues to rise exponentially, something will not have to be done – if heterosexual people cannot remain continent on their own, or at least start using effective forms of birth control to slow down the growth, the governments may have to trample on individual liberty for the public good.

The authors pull out the hoary arguments based on incest – that despite having legitimate reasons to discourage incest, that the connubium should be allowed to those with close genetic relationships.  (New York is a state that, unlike some other states, does allow first cousins to marry.)  (They might as well raise polygamy and the various fetish object and animal arguments of traditionalist marriage opponents).

The public policy argument, though, bears a look – with rampant breeding leading to massive overpopulation, there is possibly a draconian public policy argument to be made in favor of the notion that perhaps heterosexual  connubium be limited only to the eldest child of a married couple, with younger children and all children born out of wedlock being required to have birth control implants to prevent the possibility of impregnating or becoming pregnant.

(Of course, this is the kind of thing that one nation couldn’t necessarily do without finding itself at a reproductive disadvantage against competing nations which could have a desire to expand territory at the expense of the less-densely populated but morally superior neighbor.  Thus the idea of social control being imposed by one nation-state, other than China, with the hugest problem, is one that may carry detrimental consequences in the event of war, where there are fewer bodies to throw into uniform on one side than the other.  Perhaps technological advantages can maintain some parity or superiority for the less-reproductive nation, but there is no guarantee of this.

At some point on page 250, the authors start meandering toward an Equal Protection argument on page 251, where they diddle with the idea of polyamory.

Of course, there are arguments in favor of permitting various kinds of polygamous family formation, but such relationship recognition has to wait for the law to be revised in such a way to make them possible.

In the 1950’s and 1960’s, the idea of same-sex marriage wasn’t even on the drawing board.  People with minority sexual orientations were persecuted by the heterosexist majority, with so-called “anti-consensual sodomy” laws (which by name completely misrepresent the nature of the inhospitable patriarchist macho misogynist men of Sodom, who weren’t gay, but were rather people who hated strangers and people who were different from them (much like the American right wing, with its anti-immigrant and anti-LGBT positions are the true heirs of Sodom).  Transgender people were persecuted by laws such as New York’s “three articles of clothing” law.

In those days, the legal rights of husbands differed greatly from the rights of wives – and that made marriage a sort of “sour grapes” proposition for lesbian and gay people who might have wished to form families.  It is the oppressive laws that encouraged the development of the idea of “alternative lifestyles” to people for whom the idea of marriage was too high up on the arbor to reach.

But when the laws became gender neutral, the idea of connubium came within reach.  The striking down of the anti-sodomy laws in 2004 in Lawrence v. Texas made it even more attainable.

The authors introduce the concept of “real marriage” into which they place their heterosexist notions and deny reality to non-heterosexual unions.  Let’s call this what it is – no need to be polite, and call it “heterosexist marriage.”  That is, marriage that does not extend the connubium on a gender-neutral basis.  When the civil marriage laws are fully gender-neutral, nothing is lost to opposite sex marriage, and all familypforming relationships are enhanced.

On page 252, the authors pronounce that only marriage between a husband and a wife can be “real marriage.”

They make an example of two people pledging to monogamously play tennis with each other and only each other, until death parts them.  Is that a marriage?

They didn’t have to go far to be in reductio ad absurdum. 

On the other hand, for multiparty marriages, what better example than to look at an existing Roman Catholic phenomenon,, that of certain religious orders of men and women.  These bear, in a group sense, many of the indicia of marriage – in which nuns or sisters say their final vows in a white wedding gown, wear a plain gold band, and profess themselves to be “brides of Christ,” making them the celibate equivalent of Mormon “sister wives” who don’t have reproductive sex with each other, and have a husband who is conveniently unable to engage in reproductive sex with them.

The close-knit relationships of the members of these religious orders are, to me, certainly indicative of family formation, in relationships that are not based on sex, relationships that involve groups and governance much like business organizations.

(Similarly, male members of religious orders are similarly brides of Christ in a same sex union without sex being involved as a necessary incident.)

For many straight married couples of advanced age, sex is often an absent part of their relationship – should they then no longer be allowed to be married to each other?  No – there are so many other benefits, burdens, rights and responsibilities in the bundle of rights that are appurtenant to legal marriage, that it would be unconscionable to deny them on the basis that reproductive sex is no longer possible for them.

Sex, whether it is reproductive or not, may make a couple “one flesh” but love makes them “one soul.” 

One can argue that loveless arranged or dynastic marriages are not true marriages.  While it is true that the two may become “one flesh” for the purpose of reproduction of heirs, but without becoming “one soul” their relationship is only a parody of marriage, even if the union is legal.  Perhaps in this, we might discern the true nature of what the authors are trying to identify as “real marriage.”  But the reality is based on love, not sex – and that is something the authors should have considered.

Marriage should not be a property transaction to seal the alliance of one family with another, for business or for the ruling of nations.  Marriage should not be a matter in which an immigrant from a small Sicilian village seeks out a “paisan” from the same village so he can marry a daughter of the paisan, right off the boat, who has never met him before – but it has been at times such a sham, even with children having been produced.

The procreation-centric view is not even good Catholic theology.  Robbie George should familiarize himself with Casti Comubii, and encyclical written by Pius IX, in 1930, which I cite in my June 17, 2011 Marriage v. Civil Unions  essay.

Much of Casti Conubii  could easily be adapted to read in a gender-neutral manner without losing any of its moral force.(At the same time, much of it could easily be pared down with Jefferson's Razor to eliminate the parts that make it seem as if God actually had something to do with the civil institution of marriage for people who do not adhere to the mythological structure of Catholic Christianity or of Bible-based Christianity)

To Pius IX, the primary reason and purpose of marriage is that of a determined effort on the part of the spouses to perfect each other, by giving their entire beings to the relationship.  He saw it not in the restrictive procreative sense, but for the blending of life as a whole.

This is something that does not require opposite gender parties to work,  This is what family formation is all about, and this is why marriagelaws, including the right to marry, must be gender neutral.

However, it should also be clear that the Roman Catholic encyclicals do not and should not represent the totality of our understanding of the civil institution of marriage,

For example, one passage in Casti Conubii gives us the authors' source for the idea of "true marriage" only being the "conjugal" kind.

"For each individual marriage, inasmuch as it is a conjugal union of a particular man and woman, arises only from the free consent of each of the spouses; and this free act of the will, by which each party hands over and accepts those rights proper to the state of marriage, is so necessary to constitute true marriage that it cannot be supplied by any human power."

There are references in the text to the Roman Catholic code of Canon Law.  Canon Law applies to the Roman Catholic Church and has neither force nor effect as the law of the United States or of the several states.
I have not even gotten through a third of the What is Marriage?  Article, and its clear already that there is almost nothing that the authors write that cannot be refuted, and the things that they write that are actually true are things that are not objectionable in the first place.

Soldiering on, we move to the special parental relationship with children – and this is something that gay and lesbian couples can share just as well and just as effectively as opposite-sex couples.

The authors address the idea of consummation on page 257, and define it in the “traditional” sense – but the idea of David and Jonathan, married husbands,  kissing in the field while David goes “amplio” is completely lost on them.

The authors turn to references to studies on parenting of children.  The thing about this is that if there really were competent studies of the nature they put in this non-peer-reviewed article, the sources would almost certainly have been used by the defense in the California Proposition 8 case.  The fact that the only experts that the opponents of marriage could find in that case actually helped make the case for marriage lends credence to the idea that I should not waste time trying to address these bits of biased research.

At page 260, they start addressing the idea of harm being done to opposite sex marriage by extending connubium on a gender-neutral basis.  They talk about “abolishing” the procreation-centric view of the matrimonium  as if that would actually be adversely affected by gender-neutral connubium.  These are separate aspects of marriage, and their conclusions do not follow.

Their explanations are institutionally cissexist, and unfortunately, they can’t see it.  Citing to Maggie Gallagher and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops as being authoritative is rather sad.  We well know the bias of both sources, which are worthless.

They argue that gender-neutral marriage would :obscure the value of opposite-sex parenting” as an ideal, without understanding the notion that children are the center here.  Opposite-sex couples will still have heterosexual relationships, and children.  Same sex couples with children would see their children enjoying the benefits of marriage.  Single-parent families might see a societal encouragement to form a family with someone of their own sexual orientation, rather then resisting the idea because they cre not compatible with someone else.

On Page 263 they get bolder with the heterosexist supremacy argument, seeming somewhat like racists who would assert that white parents make better parents than parents of other races, without taking into account the many disparities in things like legal recognition.  If someone unbiased did a study of people in Massachusetts with marriages and children, who got married after marriage was made gender-neutral in that state, such a study would be worth consideration.

One can make a comparison of divorce rated in states that have fair marriage laws as opposed to states with heterosexist marriage laws.  The states with marriage fairness have significantly lower divorce rates than the other states.  This says a lot about the positive aspects of marriage equality on even opposite-sex marriages.

Lower on the page, they turn to the false argument of a threat to “moral and religious freedom.”  As I pointed out in my criticism of the Manhattan Declaration, Robbie George only sees religious freedom as belonging to people who share religious beliefs similar to his own.

Proponents of marriage equality have no problem with traditional marriages, which would certainly not be abolished.  But let’s call a spade a spade – only a heterosexist supremacist would hold to the view that heterosexual marriages and families are morally, spiritually and otherwise better than same-sex marriages and families, just as a white supremacist would se white marriages as superior to any others.

The lie about the Catholic Charities adoption service in Boston appears on page 264.  It is well known that Catholic Charities voluntarily gave up it operation rather than give up on state financing of their operation.  The Latter Day Saints still discriminate on the basis of their own religion in their adoption agencies in Massachusetts becaseu they take no state money.

Disruptive students who use religion as a cudgel are properly disciplined.  In the public square, gays are legally just as good as straights, and to hold otherwise does not injure religion, it is biased, bigoted and prejudiced people who flock to religions and images of God that reflect their own biases, prejudices and bigotry.  Religion should be a shield and not a sword – no one should require Catholic priests to perform sacramental marriages for two Jewish straight people, for example – gender-neutral marriage isn’t even a necessary component toward showing how silly the authors’ argument is.

No one is forcing straight people to enter into gay marriages.  But Robbie George and his co-authors feel free to deny Unitarians the right to perform same-sex weddings.  The authors are willfully blind on this issue – their heterosexism obfuscates any real argument they might find – and they just do not have any realistic religious argument.

The bigotry of people who deny that LGBT people are equal is an objective fact, and their religion is not an issue.  No real Christian would oppose same sex marriage.  Only Christianists do that – and while many Roman Catholics are Christians, the Roman Catholic Magisterium itself is an immoral body that on this issue attempts to require Catholics to reflect the evil in their hearts.

There is a huge difference between “proponents of conjugal marriage” (what I have been calling “procreation-centric”) and the cissexist  opponents of making marriage laws gender-neutral.  Referring to NOMbies like Brian Brown, Maggie Gallagher or Robbie George as “proponents of conjugal marriage” (Robbie’s term” without taking into account the bigoted half of their position, is at the least disingenuous, and certainly misleading. 

No one, except perhaps the folks at Zero Population Growth (and honestly anyone else worried about rampant overpopulation), have any issue with the procreation-centric concept for those who believe in it.  It’s the opposition to gender-neutral marriage laws that comprises the prejudice that people of good will find objectionable.

Believing in “procreation centric”  marriage is not “hate.” Opposing the human rights issue of extending the connubium on a gender-neutral basis is – it is that simple, it is a wonder that the authors can’t seem to grasp that their arguments are so weak that they have to rely on lying in their article to try to make their lame points.

And now we’re about half-way through this mess.

I don’t have to argue anything about infertility – I don’t have any problem with gay or infertile couples marrying, so this isn’t going to bother me.  Their attempt to use heterosexist arguments to make a distinction is still objectionable.

At page 269, we get to a section on challenges for “revisionists.”

Anyone who has seen the way marriage laws have changed over the centuries should have some idea that the idea of making one last step toward making the entire marriage law gender neutral by adding the connubium to the gender-neutral aspects is just one more step on the arc of history bending ever-so-slightly toward justice.

Their challenges seem to be based on heterosexist assumptions.

I am not going to defend those who are subversives – I recently had a direct encounter with people of that mind-set over at the Joe.My.God. site comment area on an entry entitled Homoquotable - Dan Savage

(There are 227 comments at the time I am writing this, so it may take a while to find my comments)

I wrote (in part):

“Marriage should involve a commitment of mutual trust, support, and fidelity.”

One response (in part):

‘Says who? Where is the Marriage Policy and Procedure Book that outlines this? You made it up, didn't you? C'mon - confess.”

O which I reply (again in part):

“This somewhat exasperated lawyer (who admittedly does title insurance for a living these days, but has in the past handled a number of matrimonials) suggests that you take a look at a nice law book called "The Domestic Relations Law" of the State of New York. (assuming that since Dan was speaking of the recently signed Marriage Equality Act, that we are talking about New York law). Perhaps also looking at the many cases over the years that interpret the law.”

I suggest that readers of this article go take a look at Joe.My.God. – it is a great source for the news of the day on LGBT issues.

Robbie George and his co-authors mention Michaelangelo Signorile on the subversion topic, and the article I commented on quoted Dan Savage in a post New York marriage vote article on marital fidelity.

All I can say is that the existence of people who would abuse the institution of marriage is not something one finds exclusively in gay circles.  Any time a heterosexual married man, like a Donald Trump, a John Edwards  or a Newt Gingrich (mentioned only because they have been in the news,, steps out on his wife, he is abusing the dignity of marriage. (And this is not an exclusively Republican or straight phenomenon.  Disrespect for marriage comes from many sources – but advocating for extending connubium on a gender-neutral basis is not one of them.

They go on to raise absurd arguments not worthy of even a response.  I’ll issue a challenge to the authors, if I haven’t addressed something in this pretty much “stream-of-consciousness” response to the pseudo-scholarly article – point it out here and I will provide an answer. 

The authors seem to not know tha basis for same sex attraction.  I have a hint, it is not different from opposite-sex attraction, only reverse-polarized.

Their analysis suggesting that same-sex attraction in a small minority of the population is “undesirable” is just more cissexist supremacist tripe.  One might just as easily think of heterosexuality as undesirable in a world threatened by rampant overpopulation – but I’m not doing that, it’s just as logical an assumption to make as the cissexist one.

Even their thought experiment at the end is a narrow-minded cissexist one.  I can only point out, once again, the development of Catholic religious orders of nuns. sisters, brothers and monks, priests, etc. as exemplifying family-like institutions very much similar to marriage that don’t require sexual relationships as a basis.

Reason is on my side, it seems – and the chink in Robbie George’s armor is still there.  His morality is flawed, as is his logic. Gathering like-minded othes to co-author the article does not provide any improvement at all.

Perhaps I might at some other time get to the National Review interview that was New York-specific.  But this essay has been so long in response to the principal arguments in the pseudo-scholarly article, that I don’t feel justified forging any farther ahead.

Is “Rev.” State Senator Diaz willing to violate his oath of office?

Ruben Diaz was quoted in the Christian Post as saying the following things:

“Pastors and religious leaders are supposed to remember that we are supposed to be Christians before being Democrats or being Republicans. Our responsibility is with Jesus and not with Democratic Party or Republican Party."

"We should always think first as Christians; we should not be concerned if that person is Republican or Democrat. We should be concerned if that person has Christian values and go all the way for that person."

Senator Diaz is in a special position, and is not just a pastor and religious leader, he is also a New York state senator. He took an oath of office that follows this format:

I [state your name] do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of New York, and I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of New York State Senator according to the best of my ability [so help me God.]

When he wears his pastor hat, he should certainly feel free to act in accordance wioth the dictates of his personal religious beliefs (within reason, of course), but it may be argued that by putting his own particular and narrow religious views above the broad sweep of the federal and state constitutions when he is wearing his “state senator” hat, Diaz could be violating his oath of office.

That is not to say that his vote against the marriage equality bill or its additional religious protection amendment in and of itself violates the federal or state constitution. Indeed, the New York State Court of Appeals, in its 2006 decision that left the issue of marriage equality to the legislature, Hernandez v Robles (2006 NY Slip Op 05239), 855 NE 2d 1, 7 NY 3d 338, 821 NYS 2d 770 (2006) the New York Court of appeals expressly held that marriage on a gender-neutral basis was not required under the constitution of the State of New York or by the language of the existing statute.

But we have to note for the record, that even before the vote on the marriage equality bill and its additional religious protection amendment, out of state marriages have been understood to be recognized for all purposes under the law of the State of New York, when they are valid in the jurisdiction of origin. This is because they do not violate the express public policy of the State of New York, even if the marriage could not be performed in New York. Since New York had never passed a state-level Defense against Marriage Act, the Appellate Division in the 4th Department confirmed this on February 1, 2008, in Martinez v. County of Monroe (50 A.D.3d 189; 850 N.Y.S.2d 740).

However, it is the “Rev.” State Senator Diaz’s reasoning for his vote that makes me suspect that he would choose his religious bigotry over constitutional requirements.

It is interesting that Diaz ignores the express teachings of the Gospel in placing his religion first, over his constitutional obligations.

Jesus taught a basic separation of Church and State – see the synoptic gospels on “rendering to Caesar.” In all three, at Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17, and Luke 20:25, we see that when confronted by a question as to the authority for a particular thing, whether it be secular or spiritual, the rules to follow ae those that go with the respective authority.  For religious marriage, by all means there is no problem with looking to one's own sacred scripture or the interpretation of it that one understands, but when dealing with the civil rights of the citizens of the state, one particular religious belief should not be the primary consideration to trump the civil rights of all the citizens.

If rendering to Caesar is not enough of a scriptural admonition, there is also the teaching “no man can serve two masters” that I find in two of the synoptic gospels, at Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:13. While Jesus is specifically referring to God and money, the spiritual and temporal authority are still intended to be separable - and when there is a conflict, and it is not possible to do justice to the one or the other in a proper circumstance, stepping down from the obligation that cannot be met would be proper.

Even when he identifies himself, the “Rev.” State Senator (or the State Senator “Rev.”), he can’t seem to avoid combining his titles and his allegiances – and yet, he readily and constantly admits putting his “Rev.” hat above his “State Senator” hat. When the time does come that he has a conflict between his oath of office and his religion, he will put his religion first, and he openly admits it in nearly everything he says on the subject. Should such a time come, if he does not resign his office and it can be established conclusively that he violated his oath of office, he could suffer consequences.

Since it would be really hard to prove his motivations if he did not keep yapping about them, Diaz should perhaps take some additional precedent from Jesus himself, and just stop telling everyone that he puts his religion ahead of the constitution and his oath of office. This way we can only guess that he might be violating his oath of office, but we wouldn't actually be able to pin it on him.

See, in particular Matthew 21:23-27.

In this passage, Jesus remains opaque about how he interprets his own source of authority for his teaching in the temple courts. When asked by the religious authorities to explain his authority, Jesus responds with a question about the source of John’s baptism, from divine or human authority – and when they refused to answer that, he also refused to answer them himself. Were Diaz silent about his motives, it would be impossible to prove whether they violate his oath of office.

It is one thing to for him to take his religious beliefs into consideration in deliberating how he should vote on the legislation placed before him – and it is quite another to set aside all other considerations other than his religious belief in formulating that vote.

Diaz can get away with putting his religion first if only he doesn’t advertise his reasoning so obviously. Otherwise he might find himself accused of violating his oath of office, and his own words would be found to incriminate and condemn him.

I am not suggesting that he be removed from office, only that he be somewhat more discreet about his motives and his parody of reasoning.

Of course, he does not even really understand Christian teachings about marriage – most Christianists don’t understand the true meaning of the Good News - they look to the miracles and things that require a suspension of disbelief, and not to the social justice message.

Let’s look briefly at two passages:

In Matthew 19:6, Jesus refers to traditional opposite sex marriage, in which the two become “one flesh.”

But in the one same-sex marriage referred to in the Bible, we get this, in 1 Samuel 18:3 (the link is to the KJV for this passage), that essentially, David and Jonathan are knit together as one soul by their covenant.

One flesh, and one soul - and as if the beating of a single heart. The two relationships are the same sort of thing in bible terms, as far as establishing a family relationship (the connubium aspect, even though a same sex couple’s relationship (or the relationship between opposite sex couples in which one partner is infertile or menopausal) does not naturally produce children?

Senator Diaz should seriously consider looking more carefully at both his beliefs and the obligations he has under the two or more hats he wears.  He does not seem to be able to reconcile his obligations to both his masters, the constitution and his (erroneous) version of God.

The latest draft of the amendments to the Assembly bill - PASSES!

The canary is not dead, just a little sick:

S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K

8520

2011-2012 Regular Sessions

I N ASSEMBLY

June 24, 2011

Introduced by M. of A. O'DONNELL -- (at request of the Governor) -- read


once and referred to the Committee on Judiciary


AN ACT to amend the domestic relations law, in relation to the ability


to marry; and to amend a chapter of the laws of 2011, amending the


domestic relations law relating to the ability to marry, as proposed


in legislative bill number A. 8354, in relation to the statutory


construction of such chapter; and repealing certain provisions of the


domestic relations law relating to parties to a marriage


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM


BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:






Section 1.






Section 10-b of the domestic relations law, as added by a


chapter of the laws of 2011, amending the domestic relations law relat


ing to the ability to marry, as proposed in legislative bill number A.


8354, is REPEALED and a new section 10-b is added to read as follows:






S 10-B. RELIGIOUS EXCEPTION. 1. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF STATE, LOCAL OR MUNICIPAL LAW, RULE, REGULATION, ORDINANCE, OR OTHER PROVISION OF LAW TO THE CONTRARY, A RELIGIOUS ENTITY AS DEFINED UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW OR SECTION TWO OF THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAW, OR A CORPORATION INCORPORATED UNDER THE BENEVOLENT ORDERS LAW OR DESCRIBED IN THE BENEVOLENT ORDERS LAW BUT FORMED UNDER ANY OTHER LAW OF THIS STATE, OR A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION OPERATED, SUPERVISED, OR CONTROLLED BY A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, OR ANY EMPLOYEE THEREOF, BEING MANAGED, DIRECTED, OR SUPERVISED BY OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, BENEVOLENT ORDER, OR A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION AS DESCRIBED IN THIS SUBDIVISION, SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE IN ITS NATURE DISTINCTLY PRIVATE AND THEREFORE  SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE SERVICES, ACCOMMODATIONS, ADVANTAGES, FACILITIES, GOODS, OR PRIVILEGES FOR RELATED TO THE SOLEMNIZATION OR CELEBRATION OF A MARRIAGE.  2. A ANY SUCH REFUSAL BY A BENEVOLENT ORGANIZATION OR A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, INCORPORATED UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW OR THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAW, TO PROVIDE SERVICES, ACCOMMODATIONS, ADVANTAGES, FACILITIES, GOODS, OR PRIVILEGES IN CONNECTION WITH SECTION TEN-A OF THIS ARTICLE SHALL NOT CREATE ANY CIVIL CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION OR RESULT IN ANY STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PENALIZE, WITHHOLD BENEFITS, OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SUCH RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, BENEVOLENT ORDER, A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION OPERATED, SUPERVISED, OR CONTROLLED BY A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, OR ANY EMPLOYEE THEREOF BEING MANAGED, DIRECTED, OR SUPERVISED BY OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, BENEVOLENT ORDER, OR A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION.






2. 3. PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION ELEVEN OF SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-SIX OF THE EXECUTIVE LAW,  NOTWITHSTANDING ANY STATE, LOCAL OR MUNICIPAL LAW OR RULE, REGULATION, ORDINANCE, OR OTHER PROVISION OF LAW TO THE CONTRARY, NOTHING IN THIS ARTICLE SHALL LIMIT OR DIMINISH THE RIGHT, PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION ELEVEN OF SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-SIX OF THE EXECUTIVE LAW, OF SHALL BE DEEMED OR CONSTRUED TO PROHIBIT  ANY RELIGIOUS OR DENOMINATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ORGANIZATION, OR ANY ORGANIZATION OPERATED FOR CHARITABLE OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, WHICH IS OPERATED, SUPERVISED OR CONTROLLED BY OR IN CONNECTION WITH A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION, TO LIMIT FROM LIMITING   EMPLOYMENT OR SALES OR RENTAL OF HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS OR ADMISSION TO OR GIVE PREFERENCE TO PERSONS OF THE SAME RELIGION OR DENOMINATION OR FROM TAKING SUCH ACTION AS IS CALCULATED BY SUCH ORGANIZATION TO PROMOTE THE RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES FOR WHICH IT IS ESTABLISHED OR MAINTAINED.






3. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE DEEMED OR CONSTRUED TO LIMIT THE PROTECTIONS AND EXEMPTIONS OTHERWISE PROVIDED TO RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS UNDER SECTION THREE OF ARTICLE ONE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.






S 2. Subdivision 1-a of section 11 of the domestic relations law, as added by a chapter of the laws of 2011, amending the domestic relations law relating to the ability to marry, as proposed in legislative bill number A.8354, is amended to read as follows:






1-a. A refusal by a clergyman or minister as defined in section two of the religious corporations law, or Society for Ethical Culture leader to solemnize any marriage under this subdivision shall not create a civil claim or cause of action OR RESULT IN ANY STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PENALIZE, WITHHOLD BENEFITS OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SUCH CLERGYMAN OR MINISTER.






S 3. A chapter of the laws of 2011, amending the domestic relations law relating to the ability to marry, as proposed in legislative bill number A. 8354, is amended by adding a new section 5-a to read as follows:






S 5-A. THIS ACT IS TO BE CONSTRUED AS A WHOLE, AND ALL PARTS OF IT ARE TO BE READ AND CONSTRUED TOGETHER. IF ANY PART OF THIS ACT SHALL BE ADJUDGED BY ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION TO BE INVALID, THE REMAINDER OF THIS ACT SHALL BE INVALIDATED. NOTHING HEREIN SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO AFFECT THE PARTIES' RIGHT TO APPEAL THE MATTER.






S 4. This act shall take effect on the same date as such chapter of the laws of 2011, takes effect.




The bottom line?  It's really not a lot worse than it was before - and to boot, all it really does is extend to marriage a number of the religious exemptions that were included in SONDA, just with a lot more teeth to make sure there are no challenges.

The in terrorem clause, threatening to invalidate the whole law if any part of it is successfully challenged, is a particularly interesting touch - it might have been added at the suggestion of a GOP senator with a trusts and estates practice, familiar with the value of simmilar in terrorem clauses in the drafting of wills.

While I might feel a little queasy that the Republicans felt necessary to throw all this in, I think that if and when this passes in both Assembly (and perhaps a single bill incorporating all the changes in the Senate), it should be time for a minor and muted celebration.  They're not doing anything with GENDA.

But if they do want similar "religious protections" in GENDA, I guess I will have to take a close look at them - as long as they apply acoss the board, as these seem to, then it should be fine.

So, if a religion does not want to perform interracial marriages or the local Masonic Lodge does not want to allow an interracial couple to have their wedding reception at their hall, this bill will protect the Masons, and not a thing can be done about that.

UPDATE: The amendment passed in the Assembly first, and then the Senate first passed the Amendment, and then the underying bill.  ha maon bill passed 33-29 - with one vote more than the 32 needed for passage.  Upstate Senatr Grisanti was vite #33 - and his explanation of his vote was nearly as well received at The LOFT as Senator Duane's emotional and stirring words.

I cannot help but be pleased that marriage has passed - it's as close to equality as one could reasonably expect, given the power and influence of the Roman Catholic Church. 

In the final analysis, the opponents got what they really felt they needed - keeping weddings that don't want out of their churches and affiliated organization reception halls - and the proponents got the word maddiage and civil equality, at least  outside those churches and affiliated organizations.

Audio file of WCBS 880's Peter Haskell reporting "vast majority" in Senator Lanza's district supports marriage equality

WCBS 880′s Peter Haskell In St. Sen. Andrew Lanza’s District In Castleton Corners, Staten Island





If the button does not work, you can find the link here, part way down the page:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/06/21/lawmakers-return-to-albany-to-tackle-gay-marriage-rent-control/

While Senator Lanza is best known for changing his vote (because he was threatened, or rather, strongly urged by Senator Ruben Diaz to change his vote) at the Judiciary committee meeting last year that killed GENDA for the last session, it is possible that he might vote for marriage if he hears enough from his constituents

Here is his Contact Information:

Albany Office:
State Senator Andrew J. Lanza
188 State Street Room 915
Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12247

--
Phone: (518) 455-3215
Fax: (518) 426-6852

District Office:

State Senator Andrew J. Lanza
3845 Richmond Ave. Suite 2A
Staten Island, NY 10312

--
Phone: (718) 984-4073
Fax: (718) 984-4455



E-Mail:
 lanza@senate.state.ny.us

Here is what I tried to fax and ended up e-mailing:

June 22, 2011


By FAX to 518-426-6852

Hon. State Senator Anthony J. Lanza
188 State Street - Room 915
Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12247

Re: WCBS Newsradio 880 reports “Vast Majority” of Staten Islanders support Marriage Equality

Dear Senator Lanza:

A broadcast yesterday from Castleton Corners by Newsradio 880 reporter Peter Haskell indicated that the vast majority of your constituents support extending the right to marry on a gender neutral basis.

Your YES vote on this bill will be critical.

Please vote YES for marriage Equality, and NO to any poison pill. Religious institutions already can choose whose marriages they will bless, and that right will not change by extending the connubium of marriage on a gender neutral basis.

This is the last part of the Domestic Relations Law that has not been already made gender neutral.

Please vote YES on the Marriage bill, and tell Majority Leader Skelos that you don’t want to add a poison pill to the bill

Do the right thing!

Thanks,


Joann Prinzivalli

Carl Paladino Dysfunctional and Unfit for Governor

PICTURE REMOVED BASED ON CARL PALADINO ISSUING AN APOLOGY.
Carl Paladino showing his true colors.

In a story published today, The New York Daily News quotes Carl Paladino, the clearly mentally unstable short-fused dysfunctional heterosexist whoremonger "Republican" candidate for New York Governor as saying,

"I didn't march in the Gay Pride parade this year. My opponent did. [There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual. That's not how God created us, and ] that's not the example that we should be showing our children - and certainly not in our schools."

*(italics show portion of Carl's statement NOT in the video remarks. Still, the rest was bad enough.)

Paladino was also quoted as saying that he does not support gay bashing,

"Don't misquote me as wanting to hurt homosexual people in any way. That would be a dastardly lie. My approach is live and let live."

It is actually even worse than reported at the Daily News - here is a video of the speech with some context:



Video source: Azi Paybarah via Pam's House Blend.


When Carl thinks of gay people as “dysfunctional,” he clearly shows his ignorance of the fact that for a percentage of the population, same-sex attraction is a part of their nature. When he says “That’s not how God created us” he shows his irrational prejudice is based on the teachings of some repellant and immoral false religious cult he may profess as a mask to cover his naked bigotry. When he talks about “examples for children” he implies that gays are unfit to be teachers, and that children should not be taught that there are different family constellations,and that gays should be relegated to the shadows and closets. Essentially, Carl has once again shown in a clear and unambiguous fashion that he is completely and totally unfit for election to the position of Governor of the State of New York.

The video reveals more:

Carl says:

"We must not pander to the pornographers and the perverts who seek to target our children and destroy their lives."

Carl is himself actually the sort of dysfunctional heterosexist pervert who wants to target our children, and anyone who is different, and destroy our lives, if we're not macho like him.

"I just think that my children, and your children, will be much better off, and much more successful, getting married and raising a family."

And what does he mean - is he supporting marriage equality? I sincerely doubt it, not in his bigoted context.

"And I don't want them to be brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid or successful option."

Carl proves he is a loon - homosexuality is not an option, it's a natural sexual orientation for a percentage of the population. Perhaps Carl should get some education before shooting off his mouth. Perhaps the sort of "homosexual" experiences Carl may have had were the kind that oversexed macho men who can;t keep "it" in their pants have when they don't have immediate access to women, like what he seems to have wanted to do with that New York Post Reporter he wanted to "take out" last week.

Carl Paladino has provem that he is is a liar, a sneak, a cheat, a whoremonger and an unscrupulous businessman. He is a clearly dysfunctional heterosexist who, based on the evidence of his display of sexual “prowess” won't be able to control his sexual urges unless he submits to a voluntary castration, and perhaps not even then.

He is so ashamed of his love child that he is unwilling to appear with her and his concubine with the rest of his family in campaign appearances. He has been paying off his concubine to keep her quiet and out of the picture. He pretends he is trying to protect the unfortunate child, but it is clear from his actions that he is not protecting her, but rather that he is ashamed of her – or else he would take her with him on the campaign, with both his wife, his concubine, and his other surviving children, and show the world he’s proud of her, and that she has a father who’s good for more than hush money.

After first erupting with his bilious and noxious lunacy, when he was challenged by a reported, he either backed off like the miserable cowardly pusillanimous uncouth wacko that he is, or he contradicted his earlier statement somewhat when he realized he went way over the line.

From what he says, it appears that he does not want private individuals gay bashing – he wants to make that the prerogative of the government of the State of New York. His earlier comments certainly did not imply a “live and let live” attitude.

Does he mean he is planning yet another way to repurpose the portions of the prison system that are going unused since the repeal of the horribly repressive Rockefeller drug laws? Is he already planning some sort of “final solution” for welfare recipients and gays?

Already, the camps he plans for welfare recipients sound like they will bear the motto, “Work will make you free.” The last time that was used, in the 1930's and 40's, the results for the inmates were not very promising.

Does he plan on rounding up gay teachers, and other LGBT people, and putting us all in camps, too, to be subjected to medical experiments from the quacks from NARTH in an attempt to find a “cure?”

When he was reported as making these statements, Carl was apparently talking to a group of Orthodox Jews – perhaps he forgot that Jewish people were among those rounded up for the camps the last time around – and maybe they have not forgotten. On the other hand, hearing their applause, perhaps they have forgotten - maybe they want it to happen all over again. Perhaps, in Carl's world, at some point he will be coming for them, too, and when he comes for them, who will speak up for them?

I must remind Carl that last week, he told a reporter from the New York Post, ”I’m gonna take you out!” If that wasn’t a threat of bodily harm, perhaps it was a request for a date. Considering Carl’s apparent satyriasis (inability to keep “it” in his pants), perhaps his dysfunctional voracity means he is willing to do it to anything that moves.

Carl Paladino has crossed the line one time too many. He has shown his true colors, and they are not at all pretty.

Carl, there is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional heterosexual. Not all heterosexuals are dysfunctional, but your history shows that you're mentally unfit and not exactly monagamous. God did not create you to be a bigot and a whoremonger.

New York does need any more short-tempered ill-mannered bigots, Carl. You are certainly not an example of an upstanding citizen who merits election to office, and you are a bully - not the sort of example that schoolchildren should emulate. I am standing up to you, bully, and I am not going away. I am a transsexual woman and a lesbian, and I vote. My vote, and the votes of many millions of New Yorkers, are going to make sure that you are going to return to Buffalo with your tail between your legs.

I am calling on you to do something honorable for the second time in your life (the first being when, at the request of your now-deceased drug addict son, you honorably admitted the existence of your concubine and child to your wife) – Do yourself a favor and withdraw from the race, before you embarrass yourself any more, and before you are buried by a landslide at the ballot box.