If the New York Senate decides to vote on the pending gay-marriage bill before recessing for the summer, it will most likely happen today. Proponents of gay marriage really need a win here, having already lost this year in Maryland and Rhode Island — two deep-blue states where Democrats hold the majority.
In New York, as in the two most recent states where gay marriage has failed, we were told well in advance that it was a “done deal.” Once again, that prediction was proven not-quite-right as the New York Conservative Party, New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedom, and the churches — particularly the Catholic Church under Archbishop Dolan and the black churches — became fully engaged.
Next, in a stroke of remarkable good luck (some would prefer the term “providence”), NFL star David Tyree has effectively launched a one-celebrity (so far) movement for protecting marriage. Many of you probably saw David Tyree’s game-winning football-crushed-to-helmet catch in Super Bowl 42. Today might turn out to be his most effective Hail Mary completion to date. Last Friday Tyree taped an exclusive interview with the National Organization for Marriage (where I work) which spread like wildfire over the weekend, often by media outlets that believed they were putting his “bigotry” on display for a wider audience. I call it free air time.
The outcome of the New York vote — if it even happens — still hangs in the balance. But if the state senate adjourns without voting on the bill or votes it down when it is brought up, a coalition of conservatives, people of faith, and one courageous football player will have defeated one of Governor Cuomo’s top priorities, Mayor Bloomberg’s deep pockets, and just about every PSA-taping celebrity in the Empire State who owns a webcam. For gay-marriage supporters, if they fail in New York today, it’s going to feel like a very long summer.
— Thomas Peters is the cultural director at the National Organization for Marriage.
The guy caught 4 passes all season then makes that catch. He is standing up for marriage, while his opponent Tom Brady fathered a child out of wedlock, one JET Moynahan, and since then lost to Tyree, got injured and missed the playoffs, and lost in the first round two straight years, including to the Jets. And the caption for this post was onehitwonder
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDavid Tyree is an NFL star like I'm a purple unicorn. Is he even in the NFL anymore? I respect "The Catch"--an iconic NFL moment if there ever was one--but if this is the "celebrity" NOM is able to recruit, perhaps NOM is in even more trouble than I thought.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"coalition of conservatives, people of faith, and one courageous football player will have defeated one of Governor Cuomo’s top priorities, Mayor Bloomberg’s deep pockets, and just about every PSA-taping celebrity in the Empire State who owns a webcam"
This is extremely telling. In one corner, straights against gay marriage; in the other corner, straights for gay marriage. How anyone can lay out the field without mentioning the interests, dreams, aspirations, and rights of gays themselves is beyond me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI see Thomas Peters has changed the title of his article from "Gay Marriage Defeated" to "D-Day for Marriage". Why would this "paper's" editors allow a clearly false headline to go to "print"?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBizarre. An alternate version of this post, written in the past tense as if the gay marriage bill had already failed, was just disappeared from the Corner and replaced with this one.
The old one began: "Proponents of gay marriage really needed a win in New York, having already lost this year in Maryland and Rhode Island — two deep blue states where Democrats hold the majority. In New York, as in the two most recent states gay marriage has failed, we were told well in advance that it was a “done deal""...
I assume Peters had it prewritten in case the bill was defeated today, and posted it by mistake. But NRO should at least acknowledge the error and the changes made. This seems a touch Orwellian.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusemattfugazi the interests of gays are also divided on this issue. They could also be split into the pro and anti marriage camp. There is a lively debate going on in the literature between gay people who support marraige and people who think it is antithetical to the culture that has arisen (ie "families of our choosing" instead of "families we're stuck with"; egalitarianism between various relationships without giving preference to marriage; and general creativity in organizing people's lives without concern for society aproving or disaproving.) I think however that was beyond the scope of this post and was much less publicly visible than the people the author refered to.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"This seems a touch Orwellian."
No, just an error, methinks, and I share your assumption about why. It seems the writer may have reason for his optimism, though. Praying he's correct here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseit's not D Day for marriage.
Let gay people marry! Give it a rest... It's no big deal to non-gay people who should MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS, but it IS a big deal to gays. In my opinion, the more society can do to make gays feel like they're part of the social fabric, the better.
btw, we do know what laissez faire means? live and let live etc.? I thought this was the movement that promotes individual freedom, not the Puritans.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo Craig, this is the govt trynig to force a redefination of marriage as opposed to just leaving it alone. The definition of marriage pre-dates the founding of this country. It is not in its power to redefine it - that is the radicalism here, that the GOVT will forcibly redefine that which has had a definition.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA pro football player goes on and on about what "God" wants with respect to marriage and everyone's supposed to jump on the anti-gay-marriage bandwagon? Mr. Peters implies that "god" has something to do with it, which is ludicrous.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou like name-dropping? Well how about this. David Tyree came out against marriage equality, sure. But NYG owner Steve Tisch as well as NYG Defensive End Michael Strahan (who wasn't just a one-catch wonder, Strahan was amazing all season) came out for marriage equality. That's two Giants against one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI find it extremely interesting that social liberals (Jacobins) post on these boards like it was going out of style pretty much every time there is a post on same-sex marriage or abortion. I know that other posters in the past have suspected that some of these posters are "Seminar Posters" under the marching orders for some liberal group similar to "Seminar Callers" who call into Rush.
If its true is very desperate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusewhat's a definition of "limited" government? having only restrictions that are absolutely necessary in a free society?
then why restrict gay people from doing something that harms no one? I know a lot of gay people, wonderful, brilliant bright people, full of a love of life and engaged to the max in everything. I feel it's a betrayal to freedom and to my fellow man NOT to support gay marriage when it is so important to them.
The arguments on the other side are based on an archaic function of their own religion, Yaweh's taboo ethical system from Leviticus, of the Levant of 2000 years ago, has no place in 21st society experience of life as it actually lived. Practice those restrictions in your personal life if you want, but don't force them on others through unnecessary codes and restrictions.
Not everyone in the U.S. believes in the dry Wasteland Judaeo Christian god either. I value the Judaeo Christian tradition, but in it's spiritual dimension, that we can experience in an organic lived life today, not in its archaic ethical code which has nothing to do with the modern human experience, the modern heart, and lived life.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGay marriage does not "harm no one".
Gay marriage would change the fundamental rules of marriage and family, for the express purpose of forcing people to "believe" that there is no difference between a procreative union vs. a non-procreative one, no difference between a family tied by biology vs. the idea that government alone - not biology - can decide who is and is not family.
The existing rules say that exceptions to the recognition that "biology = family" should be limited: only when it is because a child needs parents, and even only when it's best for the child.
Changing those rules to eliminate the part about having to get a judge involved - so that anyone and his kid sister can "make" a family out of other peoples' kids, using a variety of questionable practices - for reasons that have nothing to do with what is best for the child being traded - is not "harmless". It harms everything that relies on the institution of marriage (starting with the child who necessarily is reduced to the status of commodity).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLin, be specific. How does it harm you personally?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo only utterly self-absorbed, self-interested people are allowed to have an opinion on the subject, in your view?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"utterly self-absorbed, self-interested people" :
does that refer to the Puritans who want to rule everyone else by their own archaic religious morality or those who are for truly limited government, who oppose unnecessary restrictions of personal freedom, and don't have "in group" mentalities?
Sounds like the former to me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusep.s. I apologize for this post. not very nice... ;)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was going to accept your apology until I saw the wink. Well, I don't know what you mean, but I accept it, anyway.
My point about self-interest, of course, was that you don't have to suffer a personal loss in order to be concerned about the harm that will come from SSM. You can be concerned about harm to others.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, my family has already been harmed by the new belief that family can be a "choice".
Family is not a choice. A healthy family is a group of people united by biological bonds, recognized and legitimated by legal bonds.
When we tell people that two people who are not actually family can pretend to be family just because they want to, we're telling them a lie, and not a harmless lie.
Likewise, when we tell people that there's no harm in simply refusing to recognize someone - like your child's mother or father - simply because we wish they weren't family, we're also telling a lie. That person, too, IS family.
And even more harm is done when a child is told that he or she is not supposed to think about, or have any feelings about, the absent mother or father.
All motherless or fatherless children deserve the right to grieve. Since when are feelings of parents become more important than the well-being of children?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse