July 23rd 2011


  Buy Issue 2856
Qty:

Articles from this issue:

EDITORIAL: Carbon tax: putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop

TAXATION: Single-income families the biggest losers

CANBERRA OBSERVED: Greens - bad for Coalition, worse for Labor

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE I: ALP bent on overturning traditional marriage

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE II: New York embraces same-sex marriage

EUTHANASIA: Bob Brown's plan to introduce euthanasia via the ACT

AS THE WORLD TURNS

FOREIGN TRADE: Anti-dumping rhetoric no assistance to local industry

FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Thai election result offers hope for the future

ASIA: The Republic of China is reborn on Taiwan

POPULATION POLICY: Moscow summit highlights threat of depopulation

POLITICS: Why conservatives are the new radicals

EDUCATION: Greens terrorising our children

SOCIETY: How cyber-porn breeds cyber-cowards

OPINION: Why don't we speak clearly about Islam?

LETTERS

BOOK REVIEW How our media let us down

BOOK REVIEW Australia's aviation pioneers

Books promotion page

survey link

FONT SIZE:

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE II:
New York embraces same-sex marriage


by Patrick J. Byrne

News Weekly, July 23, 2011

The New York State Senate vote for homosexual marriage doesn’t make its introduction inevitable in other U.S.states. Rather, it is likely to make it an issue for the next presidential election.

In one sense, the New York vote can be considered a defeat for those defending traditional marriage. It doubles the number of Americans living in states where same-sex marriage has been introduced by legislation.

However, the New York state Senate vote has to be considered in perspective. The bill was carried by only 33-29 votes, i.e., a shift of only two votes could have defeated it.

Sharon Slater of Family Watch International commented: “Several senators who had voted against legalising same-sex marriage in the previous legislature, caved in this time to intense pressure and political threats.

“They were also offered financial support from wealthy contributors to soften the inevitable backlash from angry voters who counted on them to protect marriage.”

According to the New York Times (June 25), New York Governor Andrew Cuomo sought the backing of three financiers: Paul E. Singer, the founder of Elliott Management and an ardent Republican donor; Clifford S. Asness, the head of the quant fund AQR Capital; and Daniel S. Loeb, the leader of Third Point.

They raised a significant amount of the $US1 million for the lobby campaign. The paper described these financers as “inclined to see the issue as one of personal freedom, consistent with their libertarian views”, and their contributions as key to the final outcome.

The vote for homosexual marriage in New Yorkcomes after a number of major defeats over the past year.

Sharon Slater says that attempts to legalise homosexual marriage have failed in several “liberal” (i.e., left-wing) states, including Maryland, New Jersey and Rhode Island, where homosexual activists had been confident they would win.

They also failed to stop proposed state constitutional marriage amendments defending traditional marriage in several states, most notably in liberal Minnesota where a marriage amendment will feature on the 2012 ballot.

In the six states and the District of Columbia, where homosexual marriage has been legalised, it has been imposed either by activist judges (as in Connecticut, Iowa and Massachusetts) or by state legislatures (as in Vermont, New Hampshire, New York and Washington DC).

By comparison, in all of the 30 states where referenda have allowed the electorate to have the final say on whether or not marriage should be between one man and one woman only, the majority have always voted for traditional marriage.

In two U.S.states, where homosexual marriage had been legalised, voters have overturned the legislation.

Californians passed Proposition 8, amending the constitution to repeal homosexual marriage.

In Maine, voters exercised their “citizen’s veto” to prevent a same-sex marriage bill, that had been passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, from becoming law.

In contrast, the New York legislature refused moves to allow the state’s voters to have a say on homosexual marriage.

But this has provoked a political counter-reaction. Groups supporting traditional marriage in New York are already organising to repeal this law.

One group, the National Organization for Marriage, has pledged $US2 million to defeat the incumbent senators who switched their votes or reneged on campaign promises.

More importantly, President Obama can no longer stay silent on the issue after the New York legislation. Homosexual marriage is being pushed onto the agenda for the next U.S. presidential election.

Until now, it has been regarded as a peripheral issue in small, liberal U.S. states.

The push for homosexual marriage is just the first step towards dismantling the whole concept of marriage as being between one man and one woman, which underpins the right of children to know and be raised by their biological mother and father.

Matthew Schmitz warns in First Things (June 30, 2011), “As early as 2006 … in the statement ‘Beyond Same-Sex Marriage’, prominent figures including Cornel West, Gloria Steinem, Barbara Ehrenreich and Judith Butler called for the legal recognition of polyamorous households ‘in which there is more than one conjugal partner’.

“Having jettisoned a view of marriage as procreative in nature (and so necessarily a union of a man and a woman), marriage revisionists have also given up on the idea that marriage should last a lifetime or be limited to one partner.

“And just before the New York legislature voted to approve same-sex civil marriage, Katherine M. Franke — a signatory of ‘Beyond Same-Sex Marriage’ — hailed the New York vote with an op-ed for the New York Times that called for putting ‘non-marital ways of loving’ on an equal footing with marriage and same-sex civil marriage.

“Franke, who is the director of the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law at Columbia Law School, argued that non-marital arrangements ‘far exceed, and often improve on, the narrow, legal definition of marriage’.”

Touring celebrity Lady Gaga may be calling on the Australian Government to legalise homosexual marriage, but it would likely cost Labor the next election.

Patrick J. Byrne is vice-president of the National Civic Council. 




























Join email list

Join e-newsletter list


Your cart has 0 items



Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers



Trending articles

NATIONAL AFFAIRS Cardinal rebuts commission's 'Get Pell' campaign

COVER STORY Anti-discrimination law validates Safe Schools

U.S. AFFAIRS First Brexit, now Trump: it's the economy, stupid!

INDUSTRY AND ENVIRONMENT Wikileaks reveals U.S, funding behind anti-coal campaign

COVER STORY QUT discrimination case exposes Human Rights Commission failings

FOREIGN AFFAIRS How the left whitewashed Fidel Castro

ANALYSIS What is possible to a Trump Whitehouse



News and views from around the world

Frequently asked questions about section 18C (Simon Breheny)

Chilean legislators kill explicit sex-ed program (LifeSite News)

France to ban people with Down syndrome from smiling (The Huffington Post)

Child abuse and family structure: What is the evidence telling us (Family First NZ)

Woolworths beats ACCC supplier mistreatment case (Eli Greenblat)

Australia set to ride the quantum computing wave (Science in Public)

Weatherill warns states could introduce carbon prices (Rosie Lewis)

Green-left legerdemain doesn't make religion relevant (Fr James Grant)

Mass murderer Castro dies unpunished (Augusto Zimmermann)

The rise of political correctness (Angelo Codevilla)



























© Copyright NewsWeekly.com.au 2011
Last Modified:
December 2, 2016, 2:36 pm