Dolan: gay marriage bill "an ominous threat"

The Archbishop of New York made his remarks this morning on a New York radio show:

Timothy M. Dolan, the Roman Catholic archbishop of New York, who has been a low-key presence during the debate over same-sex marriagein the state, called in to a capital radio talk show Friday morning to warn that the proposed legislation posed an “ominous threat” to society.

Archbishop Dolan, who was in Seattle to preside over a meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said that Bishop Nicholas A. DiMarzio of Brooklyn had been dispatched from Seattle to Albany in a last-ditch effort to influence the Senate Republican majority, which will determine the fate of the proposed same-sex marriage bill.

The bill was proposed by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and approved by the Democratic-controlled Assembly, and now the Senate must decide whether and how to vote on the measure as the clock ticks toward the scheduled end of the legislative session Monday.

Archbishop Dolan, speaking on Fredric U. Dicker’s radio program on WGDJ-AM (1300), repeatedly made it clear that he strongly opposed gay marriage, which he called “unjust and immoral,” “detrimental for the common good” and “a violation of what we consider the natural law that’s embedded in every man and woman.”

Acknowledging that supporters of same-sex marriage need just one more vote to prevail in the Senate, Archbishop Dolan said that “we are still working for the defeat of this bill,” but that “we’re realistic to know the forces pushing this are very strong, they’re well oiled, they’re well financed.” However, he said: “It’s not a done deal. There is a good chance that this is not going to pass this year.”

Archbishop Dolan was dismissive of efforts to protect religious organizations from being affected by the legislation, which he called “a couple bones to the dog.” He argued that the rights of churches are already guaranteed by the Constitution, and that as for any additional protections drafted in Albany, “we worry that, what the government gives, the government can take away.”

“We just don’t want this definitive religious freedom to be at the mercy of some government whim,” he said.

Read the rest.

And if you want to hear another side of the debate, framed in decidedly colorful language, check out this report about one New York politician, Republican Roy McDonald, who snapped at reporters:

“You get to the point where you evolve in your life where everything isn’t black and white, good and bad, and you try to do the right thing,” McDonald, 64, told reporters.

“You might not like that. You might be very cynical about that. Well, f— it, I don’t care what you think. I’m trying to do the right thing.

“I’m tired of Republican-Democrat politics. They can take the job and shove it. I come from a blue-collar background. I’m trying to do the right thing, and that’s where I’m going with this.”

"I think I would have been happier had the CDF handled the nuns the way ..."

Vatican challenges “interpretation” of cardinal’s remarks ..."
"Blaming "Islamics" for this is like blaming the Pope for the Holocaust Denial of Hutton ..."

One killed, 44 injured in Catholic ..."
"It smacks to me of hyper-sensitivity, a veiled spiritual and intellectual pride, with regards to ..."

Pope Francis: “A Christian who complains, ..."
"Oh, no, we never change our mind, and we always agree, even on points of ..."

Vatican challenges “interpretation” of cardinal’s remarks ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

23 responses to “Dolan: gay marriage bill "an ominous threat"”

  1. momor, I think I know what you mean … HE MUST!!! First Cuomo openly cohabitiates or what not and gets communion, and now this??? Cuomo should have the spiritual sense knocked back into him!

  2. I always feel bad about these things because it sounds like we are picking on homosexuals…

    But the reality is that Cuomo, who hasn’t been a 100% bag Governor, obviously has NO IDEA what the meaning of marriage is. Too bad that someone with such an impoverished view has decided to be the crusader in this issue.

  3. The Archbishop is correct. When I sa a pro-homodsexual story in the sports pages in last Sunday’s New York Daily News, I knew I was reading a piece of agit-prop.

  4. “We just don’t want this definitive religious freedom to be at the mercy of some government whim.”

    Which it is.

    Dolan’ comments are decidedly undemocratic. He recently compared New York to North Korea as two examples of dictatorships. He lost my vote right there. In this country, it is “We the People” who make the law.

    Our laws aren’t perfect, but hat’s the way it is. Democracy, as bad as it is, is better than all the alternatives. If you’re going to oppose a proposed law, you’ll have to do better than complain about democracy in action.

    “a violation of what we consider the natural law that’s embedded in every man and woman.”

    As an argument for public policy in the United States, “natural law’ has a sordid record of justifying the unjustifiable (Slavery, for just one example). Natural law is worse than “unconvincing” to most legislators–its track record is awful. It is usually a concession that you have no real argument to support your position.

    I’d really like to hear a good argument agaisnt a same sex marraige law but I haven’t heard one. As an above commentator notes, it *DOES* look like we’re picking on homosexuals. No sqawks about laws regaulting divorce, no squaks about artifical conception, both of which affect day to day Catholics. Same sex marriage that has a miniscule effect on day to day Catholic life? Well, for that we will die on the beaches and we will drop the “E” word but we will never, never surrender. Something’s wrong with that picture.

    As a Catholic, I certainly won’t be married to another person other than my wife and will remain chaste within the marriage. That example will have to be the demonstration of the benefits of a Christian marriage, for better or worse, so to speak. That is the limit of my power to influence others as to the sanctity of marriage. My day to day failures to carry out that example and the failures of others to do so are far more damaging to the sanctity of marriage–but that would require me to actually accept responsibiltiy for the current state of affairs instead of claiming “persecuted minority” status.

  5. IMO, and with respect to many religions who oppose marriage being allowed for same gender folks—there is a separation of church and state in this country. The separation is for a reason—religion should not be telling the government(state or fed) how to vote on anything. This is a nation of many, many religions and those who chose to follow no faith. The govenment is not like those of some of the Middle East countries…run by the church/faith. If a person doesn’t agree with same gender marriage—don’t do it—but there is not a right to deny equal rights to others who wish to do so. It is an equal rights issue—not a religious one, IMO. No church has ever been forced to marry anyone and that would not change should NY decide to give their citizens equal marriage rights.

  6. pagansister:

    Please quote where in the Constitution there is this “separation of church and state”.

    Here’s a hint: it is not there!

  7. Furthermore:

    The anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment is to protect religion from government, not the other way around!

  8. Jim D. I’m very aware of that particular phrase not being in our Constitution, but thanks for reminding me.

    Thomas Jefferson used the phrase “wall of separation between church and state in his talk to the Danbury Baptists, 1/1/1802.
    The US Supreme Court has interpreted the 1st Amendment as if it requires the wall of separation between church and state. It, as you probably know but I will write it anyhow, prohibits any government from adopting a particular denomination or religion as official, but requires government to avoid excessive involvement in religion—thus the interpretation by many—including myself—the 2 should not meet. Gay marriage is, as I said above, IMO, not a religious matter but a legal one—equal rights. At one time Blacks were not given equal rights as citizens of the US, interacial marriages were illegal etc. That is no different than the right of 2 consenting adults of the same gender to marry.

  9. The democracy argument is bogus. Every state in which the people have had a direct say–the people have overruled the courts or the political hacks that tried to put in Gay “marriage.” Even leftist Cal. and Maine revolted. (In fact the Gay issue wound up making Maine overwhelmingly conservative Republican for the first time in decades.
    Here in Ma. the courts, the powerful leftist political establishment, etc. used every dirty trick in the book to successfully keep the issue off the ballot. One Gay leader even bragged about buying votes in our corrupt legislature (which has just seen its 3rd Democrat Speaker of the House in a row convicted of a serious felony–the latest is facing 30 years in jail.)

  10. Wow, so much to say.

    The religious clause has been hijacked by the left to try and get God and religion out of our country. So tired of hearing about the founders of our country and how bad they are because slavery was allowed. Usually comes from the same folks crying out for bipartisanship. So many have no idea of how our country was founded, what went on at the convention, the understanding of the people at the time, and the simple fact that had anyone held out for the end of slavery, we would not have a USA today. We also would not have a USA if those voting for ratification would have known that the first amendment religious clause would be completly transformed into the opposite meaning using a private letter from Jefferson for justification. It is important to understand why both free speech and religios freedom were put together into the very first amendment. The founders did not believe our society could exist for long apart from faith and we were 99.9% a Judeo Christian country. They wanted both speech and religious freedom to be protected FROM the government. If they had known that liberal judges would decide they could force God out of the public arena to a point where fools would buy the separation argument, they would have spent a lot more time to make sure that could never happen. Had they known that liberal judges would find words like privacy to allow women to kill their babies or to make sodomy not only normal but given special rights for a behavior choice, they would have made sure that an amendment included limitations on the court so they could have no power to legislate from the bench. They put freedom of speech and protection of relgion up front because they knew things like slavery and other issues would come up and they believed that only with free speech and freedom of relgious involvement, that the government of the people, by the people and for the people would have a good chance of figuring it out. Little did they know how the liberal judges would make atheism the state religion forcing the removal of God from our schools and elsewhere. That is a devastating blow to our country in that the founders and centuries of other judges agreed that it was protected from Government and essential. Does anyone have a better understanding of why both were in the first amendment? Yes, it takes time for things to bubble up and for new rights to be granted. That is how things work in a democracy. But allowing unelected lifetime appointed judges to grant new rights that are supposed to be coming from our Creator in one nation UNDER GOD does not seem to make sense without the first amendment.

    It is also foolish to allow the 14th amendment to be hijacked. It was one of three reconstruction amendments to deal with free slaves and how the states were handling this freedom. Keep in mind that it had to pass congress with a wide margin and 3/4th of the states. If any of them thought that libral judges would use the words all persons and any persons to be hijacked to give gays the right to marry or other purposes, they would have changed it to limit its use. For over 100 years the amendment served its purpose until the liberal judges starting in the 70’s decided they wanted to use it for anything they desired to allow them to legislate from the bench. Every time judges do this, they deny the government of the people to exist and turn it into a government as decided by unelected lifetime appointed judges. Today they might rule for liberals, but they could also rule in ways that make liberals very unhappy and take rights away. We should never forget that most of the evil done in Germany was with the OK and support of the judiciary. The founders worried about and warned about a judiciary out of control with lifetime appointments.

  11. pagansister, As a citizen and a Catholic I have every right to vote for laws and people that support my religious beliefs and to rally others to do so as well. Why would you deny me my rights while supporting the rights of others to change the definition of marriage?

    If people can’t bring their religious views to the public arena you are de facto making atheism the state religion and denying my religious freedom.

  12. If you are falling for the media campaign of Gay groups and think this will be the end of their agenda, and will finally make us all one big happy family…You are wrong. This is only the beginning. This means they can legally challenge school curriculum (outlawing supposedly discrimniatory terms like Mommy and Daddy), so they can indoctrinate chilidren as young as 5 into their culture of sex and hedonism. They will use it to attack religious freedom, and anyone who dares oppose them. Even if your child was molested, or exposed to the most pornographic homosexual material by school administrators, if you protest, you can go to jail for a hate crime. And before you laugh this off, please research the case of David Parker in Massachusetts. Or Deerfield Illinois, where children were made to sign aggreements, not to inform their parents about the homosexual materials they were exposed to. Or Hayword California, where kindergarteners were given gay pledge cards. Research the battles that are being fought in Britain, about the abuses of the gay agenda, in their school system.

    Secondly any stardards of marriage are gone. There is nothing they can do to stop poligamy, or potentialy even laws protecting minors. Once the one man to one woman standard is taken out of marriage. Once morality is legislated out of the law – everything becomes arbitrary and permissable.

    I know everyone wants to be fair, and not discrimonate. I’m probably in favor of the majority of issues gay people raise. But there are remedies to that outside of marriage. Ask yourself one question. Why would a hedonistic, sex crazed, drug induced culture be fighting so hard for marriage rights? This is merely the tip of the iceberg. Its merely a means to an end.

  13. For those who are uncertain of our 1st Amendment

    The Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

    “Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF”

    Therefore anything that prohibits the excercise of my religion is unconstitutional. Also note that it comes before free speech or freedom of the press. Such was its importance to the Founders.

  14. Ray, that of course is not the interpretation of the flaming liberals. They found that letter from Jefferson and used it as if it was integral to the constitution to get God out of government and the public square. Of course they also found privacy rights to allow them to legalize the murder of babies and used one of the reconstruction amendments from the 1860’s concerning how black people were to be treated as free people by the states for any other purpose they want a hundred years latter because the words “all persons” was in the amendment. Of course when women tried to use that argument on the 14th amendment to vote, it was rejected because it did not apply to that use. It was not until the magical mystery tour of the liberal judges after 1960 that they decided they could legislate using distortion and lies. the first aim was to get God out of everything and to eliminate religious beliefs from anything to do with Government. In essence, they created a state religion people call atheism in direct violation of the exact words of the constitution. Obama wants judges to rule on empathy, not the actual words. We are at war with those who want to destroy religion and freedom in America.

    Why did the founders start with free speech and religious beliefs protected from government in our country? Because they viewed the nation as flawed with serious issues yet to be fixed such as slavery. They trusted the people with religious values and free speech to over time find a way to work out the problems. They gave us a process with amendments to change the constitution as the majority became convinced that change was needed. Then, with a super majority in congress and 3/4th of the states ratification, changes became law. Far from wanting religious beliefs seperated by law from government, they wanted to protect those beliefs from government because it would take a people of deep religious beliefs integrally involved in religion to do anything in a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people that was one nation UNDER GOD and from whom we gained all our rights. In removing religious beliefs from the square, we have created a mess and the growing anger at these new rights coming from flaming liberal unelected lifetime appointed judges is a serious problem. No wonder they gave us a new holocaust of over 50 million dead babies. They are following in the tradition of judges in Nazi German who made killing jews legal in another holocaust.

  15. Religious folks by all means have a right to voice their views on any and all issue in the public sphere. They just should not expect that everyone else will say, “Oh, we have to defer to that religious point of view.” Others — including governors and legislators — have a full right to say, No, I think that’s wrong-headed.

    The civil rights movement in the U.S. grew largely out of the Black church, along with support from many Jewish folks. (Catholics climbed aboard too, though I wish there had been more bishops and cardinals in the front lines of that battle sooner.)

    I would never want to discourage people of good will (religious or not) from speaking their minds — in a civil manner — on any issue. Of course, we should not forget that there are some religious folks (many Episcopalians and United Church of Christ members, for instance) who are championing equal marriage rights in civil law specifically BECAUSE they believe that God wants everyone to have equal rights in public laws.

  16. The homosexual lobby has been working overtime through sitcoms and the media for the past 20 years or more to make homosexual activity acceptible. Now they want to redefine reality and anyone who opposes the government’s redefining reality and creating so-called rights out of thin air is labeled a bigot.
    Ask yourself what is marriage?
    What are its essential properties?
    If you say “love” without adding the theoretical possibility of “procreation” then ask, “why should the state care about love alone?”
    The state should stay out of private lives. The state should not be concerned about who loves whom. And so, redefining marriage to include inherently unprocreative unions is a farce and twisted manipulation of reality.

    But, the state must care that it continues to exist and that provision be made to produce healthy new citizens raised in a stable environment with a male and female parent.

    “Gay marriage” is unltimately a misguided effort of self-centered people who want to force everyone in society to accept their own perverted fantasies rather than reality.

  17. How about this?
    After gay marriage is passed, any man gay or straight can go abroad and offer to marry a foreign man – for the right sum. After he gets citizenship they can divorce. The foreigner can marry whoever he wants and the American can do the same thing again.
    Hopefully, the government will end its “discrimination” against those who believe in multiple marriages at one time. Then we can have 3 or 4 husbands and wives at once.
    It could be quite a profitable business!

  18. Yeah, #16, Greta, gotta watch out for those “flaming liberals”.! :o) They might make sense, especially when it involves civil rights for everyone.

  19. “gotta watch out for those “flaming liberals”.! ) They might make sense, especially when it involves civil rights for everyone.”

    There’s a first for everything..but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

  20. The Church is correct to declare its doctrinal teaching, and to use its prophetic voice to speak out on public issues. However, the difficulty comes in attempting to *impose* its doctrine on society at large.

    The United States Constitution has a wonderful balance (in marked contrast to the imposed “secularism” of a number of other nations) that includes both the non-establishment of religion AND the guarantee of the free exercise thereof. The Church needs to keep this in mind when interacting with public policy. Hyperbolic comments such as “unjust and immoral,” and “detrimental for the common good” are not helpful (and untrue).

    Outside of religious teaching, there is no rational basis for bias against homosexuals. We also need to remember that the Church’s teaching is very strongly AGAINST the discrimination or marginalization of people based on their sexual orientation. Catholics do not have to follow blindly the homophobic rants of the Evangelical religious right–which all too often has the tragic effect of turning good and otherwise well-meaning people away from Christ.

    While Catholics should not be forced to perform same-sex marriages–something this proposed law protects against, and as the Archbishop rightly points out is ALREADY protected by the Constitution (and the government CANNOT take that away)–it would be unjust and immoral to deny it to those outside the Church. The Church’s dogma is for her own members.

    The question before the state Senate does not concern religious ceremonies or doctrine, it concerns only the civil issuance of marriage licenses. Already the state issues licenses to people whom the Church would refuse to marry (divorcees, persons of different religions, etc.), and yet the Church’s free-exercise of its religion is not in the least affected.


    #9 Jim Dotter said: “The anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment is to protect religion from government, not the other way around!” Actually, no. According to the Founders, it is supposed to work both ways; and as a result, both benefit from it.

  21. # 8 Jim Dotter said: “Please quote where in the Constitution there is this ‘separation of church and state’. Here’s a hint: it is not there!

    Here it is: “Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.