Monthly Archives: June 2011

NFL Pro Bowler David Tyree Doesn't Regret Marriage Stance

In Charisma Magazine:

“I am not political,” says Tyree, whose famous "helmet catch” was the defining moment of Super Bowl XLII. “I believe there is right and wrong. I think many things are subjective, but truth is not. Marriage [between a man and woman] is the backbone of our society.”

Now, Peter Grandich, founder of Trinity Financial Sports & Entertainment Co, is speaking out in support of Tyree. Grandich applauds him for saying what many believe and don’t have the courage to openly state.

“He is a courageous man to say what so many others will not for fear of retribution, yet David is strong in his conviction and that comes first. I admire his passion and faith," Grandich says. “What David has really said was he chooses not to go against the will of his God and that his Lord’s words must come before man’s. This is not Tyree vs. gays but a God-fearing man’s willingness to stand firm in his beliefs. I wholeheartedly agree with him.”

Grandich feels many in the media are taking cheap shots at Tyree because they don’t share the same opinion. “This is America, where freedom of speech is not just guaranteed, but is one of the foundations upon which our country was established,” Grandich says. “Though the media is certainly free to report David’s opinions, I say shame on them for chastising him for standing up for his beliefs.”

See Tyree's first video for marriage here.

Truth Matters - A Message for Politicians, NOM Marriage News June 30, 2011

NOM National Newsletter

Dear Marriage Supporter,

The Republican Party in New York decided last week to pass gay marriage.

That is what happened last Friday. I'm still struggling, like you, to explain why.

This is not over! NOM has announced a multi-year plan in New York to fight back!

The first step is to analyze, with clarity, how this betrayal happened.

Maggie, writing in the Wall Street Journal, summed it up succinctly:

“What happened last week in New York is simple politically: Republicans enabled the passage of a bill that will help the governor please the Democratic base in his state and nationally. It simultaneously alienated a significant portion of the Republican base.

“Memo to Empire State Republicans: Abandoning your core values to get elected is wrong. Abandoning your core values to help the Democrats get elected is just plain dumb. The governor emerges from this vote as a strong horse; Senate Republican leaders look weak.”

Just plain dumb, as well as wrong.

Here I am on MSNBC, debating Al Sharpton on this point:

Here's Maggie on PBS News Hour doing the same thing.

But this isn't about politics or parties, it's about principle.

We've never seen a clearer case in which one state's politicians have simply lied to and betrayed voters—and for what? To get good coverage in the New York Times?

You and I know that's not good enough.

Help me fight back today by donating to NOM's national fund!

You can help us make a difference today, this hour, by fighting back against politicians who lie—point-blank!—to their constituents.

This is a short email because this week the point is clear and short: Politicians across this country who campaign one way and vote another need to know there are consequences.

This isn't business as usual, it's values above business.

Truth matters.

Will you join us?

Semper fi,

Brian Brown

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
National Organization for Marriage

PS: Again, please consider what you can give to our national fund to fight for marriage—in New York, and across this great nation.

Maggie Gallagher in WSJ: New York's GOP Lets Down the Base

Maggie Gallagher writes in the Wall Street Journal "voters don't like politicians who flip flop—especially under pressure from Democrats":

New York was a big win for gay-marriage advocates, no question. It was a big win precisely because it was not inevitable: The New York Republican Party decided to abandon its base to make this happen.

Four Republicans voted for gay marriage. Republican Majority Leader Dean Skelos permitted a vote on marriage, a move that he asserted the majority of Senate Republicans supported. To kill this bill, Republicans only needed to do what Democrats repeatedly do when they control a chamber: refuse to bring it up for a vote.

So what will the consequences of Gov. Andrew Cuomo's triumph be in other states and for New York's Republican Party? There are three things to keep in mind. [Continue reading...]

William Duncan: NY SSM's Passage Sets Bad Precedent, Possibly Illegal

William Duncan, Director of the Marriage Law Foundation, examines the "unconventional" process of the bill's passage in the New York Senate. Some highlights:

Not only was Assembly Bill 8520 not available 72 hours before the vote last Friday, it was not public until earlier that same day... The New York Court of Appeals explained this constitutional requirement in Schneider v. Rockefeller: "The clear purpose of this provision is to prevent hasty and careless legislation, to prohibit amendments at the last moment, and to insure that the proposed legislation receives adequate publicity and consideration." It may be that courts will not want to examine the sufficiency of the governor's determination of necessity, but that should not insulate the determination from public criticism and debate. The governor's certification of the reasons for the quick procedure should be made readily available immediately.

... Second, Article III, section 10 requires: "The doors of each house shall be kept open, except when the public welfare shall require secrecy." Senator Kevin Parker revealed after the vote that the members were locked in the chamber.

... Other procedural irregularities, such as the failure to allow senators to speak to the bill or to allow the bill to be laid aside for debate are also relevant to this discussion. It has been reported that the governor was anxious for a quick resolution in order to allow the vote to be reported on the 11 o'clock news. This may be a politically savvy course but it does not necessarily comport with the law and these questions ought to get more attention and the actions of the governor and his Senate supporters deserves scrutiny.

However one comes down on whether same-sex marriage is good public policy, its passage in New York clearly sets a bad precedent, perhaps rendering its enactment illegal.

Video: Judicial Analyst Says Procedural Irregularities in NY SSM Bill Could Prompt Lawsuits

At 4:35 In this CitizenLink Report, Judicial Analyst Bruce Hausknecht says procedural irregularities in the 11th-hour push to legalize same-sex marriage in New York could prompt a legal challenge:

Religious Liberty Expert on the Importance of Exemptions

Prof. Robin Wilson of Washington and Lee University in the NYTimes:

The wrangling over these religious protections [in New York] is evidence of just how important they are. Without such protections, groups that hew to their religious beliefs about marriage would be at risk of losing government contracts and benefits and would be subject to lawsuits from private citizens. These risks are not speculative. The City of San Francisco yanked $3.5 million in social services contracts from the Salvation Army when it refused, for religious reasons, to provide benefits to its employees' same-sex partners. In New Jersey, two sex-same couples sued a Methodist nonprofit group when it denied their requests to use the group's boardwalk pavilion for their commitment ceremonies.

Benjamin Shapiro on Why The Argument for SSM Is More Dangerous Than SSM

Benjamin Shapiro, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center argues against David Frum's abdication of defending marriage:

What was Frum’s justification for his shift from traditional marriage advocate to same-sex marriage friend? “The short answer is that the case against same-sex marriage has been tested against reality. The case has not passed its test.”

... This, of course, is supremely idiotic. Same-sex marriage has not been tested nationwide. It is sanctioned by the government in precisely six states now: New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire. California is on the fence. Not much of a sample size.

...nobody is accusing same-sex marriage of being the sole determinant of marital decline. But it is a symptom of a broader devaluation of marriage. The same people who push for same-sex marriage push for registered partnerships, for civil unions – for governmental benefits for non-traditional marriage. As those legal situations become more available, more people will take advantage of them, and less people will buy into traditional marriage. We’ve already seen it in the Netherlands, where the number of marriages has declined consistently since the legalization of gay marriage; it’s down 10 percent since 1999. Meanwhile, registered partnerships have exploded 500 percent over the last ten years. According to William C. Duncan of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, “Nine in ten couples plan to live together before marrying and two-thirds of cohabiting couples plan to marry ‘but keep postponing marriage.’”

New York Bar Association Met Privately With Sens. Grisanti and Saland Prior to SSM Vote

In the New York Law Journal:

Mr. Younger [past president of the state bar] said that the "local touch" also was important. He said that Buffalo attorney Vincent Doyle, the current president of the state bar, and Susan Laluk, the outgoing president of the Monroe County Bar had visited Republican James Alesi, who announced his support for the bill last week. Also, Mr. Doyle had visted Republican Mark J. Grisanti, who remained undecided until the last minute but eventually backed the bill. Mr. Grisanti said during the debate that his background as an attorney was important in making his decision. He also cited "research" that showed that civil unions produced chaos rather than full equality, a position that mirrored a conclusion reached by the state bar two years ago.

Finally, Mr. Younger said that he had talked to Poughkeepsie Republican Stephen Saland, another undecided senator, who backed the measure this evening. Messrs. Grisanti and Saland provided the votes that finally put the measure over the top.

CatholicVote: "Laws May Change, but the Truth about Marriage Never Will"

An email from Brian Burch, President of CatholicVote:

Voters in Iowa last year threw out three of their state Supreme Court judges that had decreed same-sex marriage. The Iowa State House has since strongly voted in support of a marriage amendment, and if Republicans can regain the State Senate, they likely will call for a vote in that chamber.

And in New Hampshire, politicians who supported so-called same-sex ‘marriage’ were booted out of office last November. As we write, significant efforts are already underway to oust the turncoat Republicans in New York that switched sides and voted for this new law.

This year too, voter pressure stopped efforts to re-define marriage in both Rhode Island and Maryland.

Friday’s vote in New York may in fact represent the high water mark in the effort to redefine marriage in the United States.

... Laws may change, but the truth about marriage never will. Marriage will always remain a union of one man and one woman.

Sen. Alesi Acknowledges His Vote for SSM a Disaster for NY GOP

In Politicker NY:

Before the vote last week, “I did call my chairman in Monroe County and did give him a courtesy call,” said Alesi. “And I think shortly thereafter, in a matter of seconds, we had an understanding that our relationship was over.”

NY State Conservatives May Dump Sen. Saland Over SSM

In the Daily Freeman:

The chairman of the State Conservative Committee said he expects the party to pull its endorsement of state Sen. Stephen Saland, R-Poughkeepsie, because of his vote in support of gay marriage in New York.

Michael Long on Monday said his party stands for traditional values of marriage only between a man and woman and every candidate seeking their endorsement knows this going into an election.

Journalists Reflect on Catholic Church's Role in NY SSM Debate

From a Catholic Culture summary:

Three different journalists offer interesting perspectives on the role that Catholicism played in the political battle over same-sex marriage in New York:

Columnist Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, rejoicing at the legislative victory for gay rights, focuses on the role played by Governor Andrew Cuomo, who still identifies himself as a Catholic despite flouting Church teaching on a number of issues, both personal and political.

... John Zmirak, writing for Crisis, questions the legislative strategy employed by Church leaders in New York during this political struggle. Rather than calling for a “full-court press” against the proposal, he notes, lobbyists for the bishops—apparently feeling that they lacked the votes to defeat the proposal—settled for concessions that will exempt religious institutions from some of the new law’s effect.

... Rod Dreher is more caustic in his assessment of the New York bishops’ political strategy. Although Archbishop Timothy Dolan made a strong statement before the vote, and the bishops of New York joined in a lament after the legislators had reached their decision, Dreher argues that Church leaders did too little, too late.

NOM-RI: Passage of Same-Sex Civil Unions Bill in Rhode Island A Disappointing and Dangerous Day for Marriage

“This is a disappointing and dangerous day for marriage in Rhode Island.  The passage of Civil Unions presents a clear threat to the definition of marriage and the religious liberties of tens of thousands of Rhode Islanders,” declared Chris Plante, executive director, NOM – Rhode Island.

Hiding behind the idea of “compromise” and ignoring the almost universal opposition to this bill, the Rhode Island Senate has opened the door for the courts of Rhode Island to redefine marriage without a vote of the people.  The Senate’s refusal to allow a definition of marriage to be inserted into the bill is either a deliberate omission to set the stage for a future law suit or a naïve belief that homosexual marriage advocates will now go away.  Further, by not including an “inseverability” clause, the Senate has left vulnerable the hard won religious liberties protections put into the bill by the House of Representatives.

The National Organization for Marriage – Rhode Island is pleased that this bill has unprecedented protections for religious liberties in a civil union bill, however we are well aware that the protections do not go far enough to protect the religious liberties of business owners and professionals who wish to run their practices according to their deeply held religious beliefs.  By not extending these protections to individuals the Senate has put at risk the myriad of small businesses and practices run by people of faith.  These voters do not have the resources to defend against lawsuits and as such are left with the tragic choice of betraying their faith or risking their livelihoods.

Nevertheless, the National Organization – Rhode Island is pleased that marriage was successfully defended in Rhode Island against very long odds.  The voters of Rhode Island fought for marriage and defeated the number two priority of the Governor and one of the highest priorities of the Speaker of the House.  With a strong coalition of faith communities, NOM – Rhode Island was able to assist the House of Representatives in drafting and passing religious liberties protections that are unprecedented in other Civil Union laws.

The National Organization for Marriage – Rhode Island will continue to defend marriage and religious liberties in the Ocean State in the next legislative session and the electoral season to come.

More on Sen. Grisanti's Flip-Flop

He's got a lot to explain.  Here he is trying to explain his strong statements against gay marriage (in light of his vote for gay marriage) to the gay press:

In 2008, while running for the New York Senate as a Democrat, Grisanti wrote in a letter to local ministers that he was “inalterably opposed to gay marriage,” and labeled the institution part of a “radical agenda.”

... “If people said that they voted for me on this issue alone, that I was a 'no,' then absolutely. Then I misled them. Do I think there are a lot of people that voted on just that one issue? I don't know. I don't know what the numbers are. I do know that people also voted for me becase there was nothing being done here in Western New York.”

NRO Editors on the Passage of Same-Sex Marriage in New York

The editors of National Review on the passage of New York's same-sex marriage law:

For years, we were told that same-sex marriage was necessary for meeting couples’ concrete needs. Then, that it could and should be used to make same-sex couples live by marital norms. More recently, that relationship recognition was necessary for equal personal dignity. Now Katherine Franke, on the day that same-sex marriage passes in New York, tells us that that was all wrong.

The latest canard is that the defeat of the conjugal conception of marriage is inevitable because there isn’t even an argument for it. But the core argument is simple, and pieces like Franke’s bolster it: As many liberals now concede and even embrace, redefining marriage leaves no principled reason—none at all—not to recognize relationships of every size and type. As normative features of marriage, permanence, exclusivity, and sexual complementarity are a package deal. The first two norms make sense—are intelligible as norms—only because of the link between marriage and procreation. The only question, increasingly, is whether the loss of these once-defining attributes of marriage is bad. For clearheaded and candid liberationists, it’s only just. (Think: Which argument for same-sex “marriage” wouldn’t easily extend to any relationship that someone, somewhere, finds most fulfilling? Non-discrimination among loving relationships? Non-stigmatization? It won’t hurt anyone else’s marriage?)

And so, when emboldened liberals use this victory to push their quasi-religious myth of Inevitable Historical Progress, we should recall that there was nothing inevitable about it. New York Republican senators could have tabled the bill and sent the issue to the people, without moral or political cost, and it would have been over. Liberals opposed a marriage referendum for exactly one reason: They would have lost, as they have in all 31 states that put the issue to a referendum. But in a year when Democratic minorities have been fleeing statehouses to block unfavorable votes, the New York senate’s Republican majority brought this upon itself, and for no apparent reason.