No to Same-Sex Marriage

IT’S NO SECRET that another effort to legalize same-sex marriage is being promoted in New York state, with the goal of bringing the matter to a vote in Albany before the current legislative session ends next month.

Two years ago, the state Senate turned back legislation on same-sex marriage by a fairly wide margin, but supporters have been emboldened by the advocacy of Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who was recently quoted as saying the Marriage Equality Act would pass this time around. He seemed to backtrack a bit last week, saying that the bill would not be put forward unless enough votes were in for passage.

And the jury still seems to be out on whether Albany’s political landscape has shifted on same-sex marriage—and not all the movement is necessarily going in one direction. There is still some question as to whether the Assembly, which passed the measure last time, has the votes to do so again. And in the Senate, where a same-sex marriage bill went down to defeat last time, the current legislation seems short of the necessary votes.

But it’s hard to be sure when it comes to politics and vote-counting. One thing for sure, though, is that once proponents of same-sex marriage feel that they will win, they won’t delay in taking the vote.

So it’s encouraging to see advocates of traditional marriage, the union of one man and one woman, mobilizing recently to get their agenda into the public square. Archbishop Dolan, in his blog last week, reminded us all that to uphold and defend the traditional definition of marriage, the one that has flowed down through the millennia—unimpeded and unchallenged until current times—does not make one a bigot or a bully.

The archbishop wrote, “As the philosophers remind us, in a civilized, moral society, we have the right to do what we ought, not to do whatever we want.”

Others have also taken up the chorus, including the National Organization for Marriage and politicians such as state Sen. Ruben Diaz, a Pentecostal minister, who joined together last weekend to lead a Bronx rally with some 3,000 supporters in defense of marriage, as the Page 1 story in this issue reports.

There is compelling reason to reserve the institution of marriage to one man and one woman. Society has a vested interest in protecting and supporting marriage because of the framework that it provides for husband and wife, binding them legally and morally to each other and to the children they will raise together. Successful marriages are the building blocks of a healthy society.

Changing the definition of marriage into one that would be open to all couples blurs the clear understanding of what marriage really means. Relationships between two persons of the same sex, although now given legal recognition as marriage in several states, do not have the same nature. Marriage between same-sex partners would separate the institution from its fundamental connection to children.

Also important would be the potential damage to religious liberty presented by the Marriage Equality Act, as it currently stands. Because the bill fails to offer an exemption permitting individuals and organizations to decline to recognize same-sex marriages if they are against their religious beliefs, complaints could be brought under state and local anti-discrimination laws.

New York should not join the handful of states that have passed same-sex marriage laws. Our opposition to same-sex marriage should not be considered grounds for any kind of prejudice or bigotry toward homosexual persons. Instead, we are speaking the truth in love.

We urge Catholic New Yorkers to make their voices heard on this issue, so that their legislators in Albany will understand that many of their constituents share the views expressed here.