New York’s pro-homosexual, blind governor keeps his eyes on the prize
Paterson—acting in compliance, he says, with a New York State Court of Appeals ruling—has issued a directive requiring all state agencies to recognize same-sex “marriages” performed in other states and to conform all state regulations and procedures to same sex marriage.
While the New York Times article does not say, we must assume this means that all language in state law speaking of “husband and wife” or “father and mother” will be changed to something like “partner A and partner B,” “parent and parent,” and so on, eliminating the very concepts of husband and wife and of mother and father. Without a single vote having been cast by a voter or legislator, the governor is defining the most basic human institution out of existence.
Meanwhile, here is Maggie Gallagher’s May 16 article in NRO about the California Supreme Court decision overturning the state law—originally passed as Proposition 22 in 2000 by 62 percent of voters—which says that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Gallagher heads a group that has raised a million signatures to put a Proposition on the ballot this November using the language of Proposition 22 for a state constitutional amendment, which liberal judges will be unable to overturn. Here is a New York Times article from May 16 which provides a clearer account of the California decision.
As I explained most recently here, the ONLY sure way to stop the advance of homosexual marriage is a federal constitutional amendment that says:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither the United States nor any State shall recognize or grant to any unmarried person the legal rights or status of a spouse.
- end of initial entry -
Philip P. writes:
Man, the California situation had my head spinning, and now this in New York!
Look, as a kid, I couldn’t begin to imagine two men or two women getting hitched. It wasn’t a concept I resisted, it was a concept that simply warranted little or no thought. The whole thing was a Twilight Zone hypothetical. (This from someone who spent every elementary school religion class poking holes in Church theory.) And I grew up in the ’80s and ’90s. In a non-religious household. In a liberal community. Maybe media folks mulled it over, maybe activists got a word in here or there, but it didn’t seem a battle that would materialize in a significant way.
Well, I wised up a bit the last few years (following current events helped), but even so, the California ruling and NY decision still come as slaps to the face. They’ve left me feeling not angry or disgusted, but … bewildered. I suspect that I’m not alone. This is what they call “futureshock”: massive change in minimal time, being dragged outside the box by forces bigger than yourself in the blink of an eye. Hell, it’s disorienting and off-putting.
As a guy who hasn’t been particularly animated on the subject one way or another, this sudden dose of the new reality gives me a lot to chew on. And, honestly, I’m unsettled. I’ve got nothing against gays (friends and family bat for that team), but this might be a bridge too far. Will I really be OK with my kid playing in a house with “two daddies”? Maybe eventually, but right now it’s a really, really, really peculiar possibility.
I suspect that once others like myself escape the initial confusion, they’ll think similarly—then the radicals will have something to worry about, and perhaps their recent—and appallingly sudden!—gains will be reversed. These agenda-pushers may have finally done enough to wake the sleeping giant that is middle America, the place populated with people like my dad, who still doesn’t understand that straight people can catch HIV/AIDS.
Waking the sleeping giant of middle America is like waiting for Godot.
Richard W. writes:
Your site has been more excellent than ever lately.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 29, 2008 10:01 PM | Send
I’ve been buried with work, so haven’t had time to respond as I’d like but I’ve been keeping up and am so impressed.
The variety of topics is great: snakes in the everglades, the fall of the Byzantine Empire, Obama, the blind Gov. of New York, and Buchanan’s book.
Really excellent! Keep up the good work. And, thanks. It means a lot to some of us out here.