July 23rd 2011

  Buy Issue 2856

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


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?


BOOK REVIEW How our media let us down

BOOK REVIEW Australia's aviation pioneers

Books promotion page


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

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Memo to Shorten, Wong: LGBTIs don't want it

COVER STORY Shorten takes low road to defeat marriage plebiscite

COVER STORY Bill Shorten imposes his political will on the nation

COVER STORY Reaper mows down first child in the Low Countries

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Kevin Andrews: defend marriage on principles

CANBERRA OBSERVED Coalition still gridlocked despite foreign success

ENVIRONMENT More pseudo science from climate

News and views from around the world

Menzies, myth and modern Australia (Jonathan Pincus)

China’s utterly disgraceful human-rights record

Japan’s cure for childlessness: a robot (Marcus Roberts)

SOGI laws: a subversive response to a non-existent problem (James Gottry)

Shakespeare, Cervantes and the romance of the real (R.V. Young)

That’s not funny: PC and humour (Anthony Sacramone)

Refugees celebrate capture of terror suspect

The Spectre of soft totalitarianism (Daniel Mahoney)

American dream more dead than you thought (Eric Levitz)

Think the world is overcrowded: These 10 maps show why you’re wrong (Max Galka)

© Copyright NewsWeekly.com.au 2011
Last Modified:
November 14, 2015, 11:18 am