Same-Sex Marriage Finds Friends in NYS Assembly

The push for equality for same-sex marriages in New York began in earnest with the introduction of the Marriage Equality Bill by Governor David Patterson. In its current form the bill passed the New York State Assembly on Tuesday, May 12, the same day the Knights of Columbus were in Albany for their annual prayer rally and lobbying day. The final vote was 89 yeas and 52 nays. Assemblyman Greg Ball voted against it; Michael Spano voted for it, as did Sandy Galef who moved away from her previous position in opposition and voted yes. All recorded votes can be found on the New York Assembly website for New York State Assembly Bill #A7732 at http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A.7732 The bill moves to the New York State Senate where we hope it could be defeated, as it has been before. The margin is narrow, depending on several outspoken Democrats like State Senator Ruben Diaz who has been consistently opposed to this legislation. His support and others will be vital in stopping the political and social sabotage disguised as same-sex marriage "equality".

LifeNet has been contacting legislators and our email to Yonkers City Councilman John M. Murtagh who put forward a public resolution in defense of same-sex marriage, said in part:

"John, it was stunning to learn of and read your Resolution in support of the New York same-sex marriage bill. Many thought it was a cruel joke and that you would be speaking out soon about this hoax foisted upon us.

That you would support such legislation with your Catholic identity and pro life credentials and history on display is even more troubling. No one can explain this betrayal of your faith and principles. Political expediency must be at play here because truth is not...Please take the time, or have a staff person return email your statement of explanation of this incomprehensible retreat from your stand on respecting the institution of marriage as between one man and one woman."

         Here is his response:

    "Thank you for sharing your thoughts regarding the Governor's proposed "marriage equality" legislation. Please know that I appreciate your advice and your thoughts on this issue. Please also know that I have given this issue a great deal of thought.

    While I appreciate the concerns expressed by many over the religious institution of marriage, I must draw a distinction between marriage as a sacred religious institution and as a civil, legal construct. There is simply no avoiding the fact that, as a civil society, we have chosen to accord many benefits and impose many obligations on those who are "married" in the eyes of the state, whether or not they are married in the eyes of a church (their own or another). Perhaps if the civil law had chosen not to use "marriage" as the touchstone for a host of legal rights and obligations then "marriage" would not be an issue, but, it has. As a result, when two people have committed and dedicated their lives to one another for years and decades, I am simply not willing to deny them the benefits of our laws of inheritance, the right to make medical decisions and the countless other rights and responsibilities the state has chosen to place on those who it recognizes as civilly married.

    Again, thank you for reaching out to me on this issue and please know that your opinion is important to me."

Sincerely,

John M. Murtagh

Council Member, District 5, Yonkers City Council

City Hall, Suite 407, 40 S. Broadway, Yonkers, NY 10701

(914) 377-6315; (914) 964-8140 (fax)

Comments

[Gerald Yeung]

I like John and I supported him in his latest election bid. As a Catholic, John would do well to examine the Church's teaching in this regard.

In the Vatican document entitled CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS we read, "When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral." (See http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html)

The government 'favors' traditional marriage not simply because it involves two people who are committed to each other. Rather, it is because science and reason tell us that a family with a mother AND a father is the natural building block of society. Legalizing same-sex marriage would deny the rights of children to have both a mother and a father.

John needs to realize that the phenomenon of families with same-sex parents is naturally opposed to the respect for life that we in the pro-life movement hold so dear. When a couple intrinsically separates procreation from sexuality, they lose their respect for both. Activities that lead to the destruction of embryos like in vitro fertilization are the result.

I pray that John will fully inform his conscience on this issue and then vote accordingly.