Immediately after Govenor Cuomo signed New York’s same-sex ‘marriage’ bill into law under cover of darkness last Friday night, Brooklyn Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio issued a statement blasting New York politicians. His Excellency wrote, in part (my emphasis),
At a time when so many New Yorkers are struggling to stay in their homes and find jobs, we should be working together to solve these problems. However, the politicians have curried favor with wealthy donors who are proponents of a divisive agenda in order to advance their own careers and futures.
It looks like Bishop DiMarzio knew whereof he wrote. From Saturday’s New York Times …
In the 35th-floor conference room of a Manhattan high-rise, two of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s most trusted advisers held a secret meeting a few weeks ago with a group of super-rich Republican donors.
Over tuna and turkey sandwiches, the advisers explained that New York’s Democratic governor was determined to legalize same-sex marriage and would deliver every possible Senate vote from his own party.
Would the donors win over the deciding Senate Republicans? It sounded improbable: top Republican moneymen helping a Democratic rival with one of his biggest legislative goals.
But the donors in the room — the billionaire Paul Singer, whose son is gay, joined by the hedge fund managers Cliff Asness and Daniel Loeb — had the influence and the money to insulate nervous senators from conservative backlash if they supported the marriage measure. And they were inclined to see the issue as one of personal freedom, consistent with their more libertarian views.
Within days, the wealthy Republicans sent back word: They were on board. Each of them cut six-figure checks to the lobbying campaign that eventually totaled more than $1 million.
Steve Cohen, the No. 2 in Mr. Cuomo’s office and a participant in the meeting, began to see a path to victory, telling a colleague, “This might actually happen.”
There is a lot more of this sorry story here.
Tags: Homosexual Agenda
|
All the money in the world is not going to protect these Republicans who have rejected the wishes of those who have supported them.
Note to Republicans: When you vote like a Democrat, you generally get replaced by one.
Re: Anon-3098
Why can’t we do both at the same time? We should not put off addressing this growing homosexual so-called marriage phenomenon. By then it may be too late. Look at what has happened throughout much of Europe.
Actually, 3098, they’re both fruit of the same rotten tree – the contraceptive culture and the idea that sex and procreation can be separated. The only reason premarital sex and cohabitation are as widespread as they are, is because of the widespread acceptance of contracepted sex – sex is viewed as a recreational activity rather than the Sacred participation in God’s very creation. And once sex and procreation are completely separated (as they have been in our modern world), it’s difficult to mount a credible intellectual challenge to the notion of “gay marriage.”
One could perhaps lay some of the blame on the Church Fathers of Vatican II, who made what seemed to be a small change in the theology of marriage – while previously procreation was seen as the primary end of marrige, Vatican II stated that the ends of marriage are the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of children (in that order). I doubt the wise Fathers intended these to be anything other than co-equal, but in society’s view (and sadly, in the view of most Catholics in and out of the hierarchy) the good of the spouses is the only consistent end of marriage and the conjugal relationship.
Annonymouse,I disagree…you present the false dichotomy between two extremes,and consider credible intellectual arguments possible only for a more moderate position that is open to contraception but closed to same-sex relationships.
Louis E. – I would be interested to hear you elaborate on this.
Annonymouse – That is an interesting point – I didn’t have the same reaction as Louis E. and look forward to hearing this flushed out a bit.
Dr. K. – On a previous thread (and forgive me for not having time to look it up) it was argued that of all the social justice issues that the Church needs to address today, the Pro-Life movement should be of the utmost concern. Because of all issues, abortion is by far the most dangerous threat to our society – the accepted killing of innocent children. I could not agree more. Other social justice concerns, such as the preferential option for the poor, are still of critical importance to the Church, but take a “back seat” to the issue of abortion. Gay “marriage”, I would argue, could take a back seat to the far more prevalent attacks on the Sacrament of Marriage – the sad realities of premarital sex, premarital cohabitation, casual sex, “friends with benefits”, the pervasiveness of pornography, and the disordered view of sexuality that has destroyed the sacredness of marital relations, the sacredness of the body, and the holiness of purity.
Anon -3098, I’m butting in here, but I think you could just add “gay marriage” to your list of valid concerns. I certainly agree that the attacks on the Sacrament of Marriage are long-standing and increasing in intensity. “Gay marriage” is another assault in this war.
Hi LouisE,
While I welcome your defense of traditional marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman, it’s hard to understand why you hold such a position absent some acceptance of a natural and moral law. I know you believe in “God” (and also believe that He doesn’t have a “fan club”, as you put it, or leave us a special book), but how do you justify your stance on homosexual marriage? What exactly is your argument?
Nernia – No worries, I am delighted to have you join the conversation! My reasoning for raising this point is this:
I recognize the attention that this issue is receiving in light of current and recent legislation. However, I would contend that we as a community (both online and within the Church) have spent swaths of time raising the issues of homosexuality, our response to it in light (and truth) of Catholic Orthodoxy, and the (lack of appropriate) response by our Diocese, and less time critically evaluating the largely accepted, frankly sinful, behavior of the heterosexual community. I raise up the issue of balance: the number of sexually active men and women who engage in heterosexual sex outside of marriage, who devalue the body and the spirit through viewing pornography, and who see living together as an acceptable, even recommended, avenue to take before marriage, is far greater than the number of sexually active, gay Catholics. Yes, it is wise to see this as “another drop” in a bucket, but that bucket has been filled far longer and far more by others. By focusing our attention on the gay community without balancing it with an equal condemnation on the straight community, we devalue our own arguments and defense of the teachings of the Church.
Hi CBD,
All I can say is “AMEN” and I agree with you wholeheartedly. I would love to hear a sermon about the danger of pornography. I would also love to hear of marriage prep programs that seriously discuss the danger of cohabitation prior to marriage (divorce rates are greatly increased when couples live together prior to marriage). I would fall down in thanks for a priest brave enough to confront the rates of divorce among Catholics or to touch the “third rail” of Catholicism – contraception.
As you note, the issue of homosexual “marriage” is getting all the attention right now, in part, because the topic is “hot,” but also, I think, because this attack has changed the face of the war. Before the push for homosexual “marriage,” it seemed possible that our culture would return to its senses regarding sexual liberalism. Now that hope is all but gone. Robert P. George has a great interview on National Review discussing this very issue. You can find it at the following link: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270662/sex-and-empire-state-interview
Nerina,while inclined to give a man and woman a broad degree of latitude on what they do sexually,I think that the evolution of sexual dimorphism in a species renders opposite-sex sexual relationships exclusively normative for that species,and failures to adhere to that norm are to be deplored and discouraged.Civil marriage exists for the specific purpose of securing to opposite-sex relationships the preferential treatment to which their being opposite-sex entitles them.
Louis E – I have no idea what you’re asking or why you disagree with my point.
Anon-3098 – you think my point is interesting and want more. What don’t you understand about my point?
Let me say it this way – sex and procreation are divorced in our contraceptive culture. That divorce leads to the evils of premarital sex, cohabitation, pornography (inherently tied to masturbation), and homosexual activity. If one’s paradigm is that sex and procreation are intrinsically linked, homosexual activity or so-called “gay marriage” is unthinkable! Oh, and let us not forget the evil of abortion, which is inherently a product of a contraceptive mindset.
The devil is working overtime in our culture. It gives me some solace to think of St. Paul writing to the faithful in the “midst of a crooked and perverse generation,” that each era has its share of depravity. Our era is gunning for the “most depraved” prize, however.
I am saying that one need not obsessively link sex to procreation,merely require that sexual partners only be of opposite sexes…there is no need for the polar-opposite positions of sex-only-for-procreation or sex-with-whoever-however.