Egomania In Albany
By Steven Osborne | Monday, June 27th, 2011 | Politics
Egomania has run amok in Albany, New York.
The New York Senate joined that state’s lower chamber on Friday night and decided to make an attempt at redefining marriage. In what was ultimately a close vote in a liberal state, a counterfeit form of marriage was initiated by the signature of the Governor who championed the bill.
It should be said boldly and unequivocally that the actions of New York’s Governor and state legislature have been egotistical in the extreme.
Because one should judge his own house before discussing his opponent’s, any analysis of the arrogance displayed Friday night would be incomplete without first examining the actions of the Republican leadership in New York. Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos, did not have to let Cuomo’s bill come up for a vote. After this initial blunder, four Republicans caved under pressure from big libertarian Republican donors and voted for passage. One Republican Senator whose ego seems to have been especially profound, actually told his constituents during the campaign that he favored natural marriage, he seems to have felt so confident in his position of power that he broke his word to the voters.
However, this bill’s primary authors and champions were Governor Andrew Cuomo and his cohorts. As the details of this bill’s passage begin to come to light, their egotistical ways are only becoming more and more apparent.
First, Governor Cuomo pushed this legislation during a special session. Special sessions in New York are only supposed to be called in the instance of an emergency. Evidently, Governor Cuomo felt that redefining marriage was a pressing issue. However, homosexual marriage has been waiting for five thousand years; it could have afforded to wait one more.
Secondly, as a consequence of government overstepping its bounds, Cuomo and the New York legislature have trampled upon the religious liberties of the people of New York. Yes, there was supposedly an “exemptions” clause, however, we shall see how long it takes for a liberal organization to try and overturn said exceptions with the help of a liberal judge. Also, the exceptions clauses do not apply to Christian owned businesses. What will happen to the Christian photography company that refuses to photograph a homosexual union ceremony? What about the individual who owns a piece of property used for weddings who refuses to allow a homosexual ceremony to take place there for reasons of conscience? Reports are that the exemptions clauses will not protect these people, despite claims to the contrary.
Lastly, to fully understand the degree to which the ego of Albany has demonstrated itself, one must examine what marriage is. Marriage is not a civic or even a religious institution; rather it is a natural one. The fundamental natural element of marriage is that it is a complete union of a man and a woman. This means a union not only in the financial and legal sense, but also in the spiritual and physical sense. There is no doubt that there are fundamental laws that are reflected within nature. These fundamental laws of nature, including physical realities, dictate that a truly complete union can only be made by a man with his distinct nature and a woman with her distinct nature. This is why homosexual marriage simply does not exist. Marriage must involve a complete union. Meanwhile, religion administers the rites of marriage, while the government recognizes it and creates a legal framework. Logically, one cannot recognize something that does not exist. So what Governor Cuomo and company did in New York was not to “expand” the definition of marriage to include new people. They created a whole new institution altogether, one that does not have the grounding in the laws of nature that natural marriage has. This is especially troubling to those who believe that God created and ordained marriage for the good of mankind; because what Governor Cuomo has essentially done is to create and ordain a new form of marriage that he determines to be for the betterment of mankind. Some would call that a messianic complex.
In all seriousness, natural marriage cannot be added to or taken away from. It is established by higher laws and reflected through the laws of nature. Regardless of what governments may do, one cannot change higher laws or the laws of nature, one can only draw from them or contradict them. However, when any government, including New York, contradicts those laws, the liberties that are also drawn from those laws are put in jeopardy.
So, the egotistical Republicans will quite possibly be shown the door.
Meanwhile, Governor Cuomo wants to be President; however, such ego should not be too close to power.
Extra Note: The Commonwealth of Virginia is blessed to have an amendment to the constitution that enshrines the limits of government power by recognizing natural marriage and in the process, preventing any attempt in Virginia to create a new form of marriage. While some conservatives have been leering of commenting on the marriage issue, it is important that conservatives realize the effect that creating a new form of marriage will have on limited government. I would recommend that everyone take a few minutes to read George Weigel’s column in the National Review on this issue. It is worth the time.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Steven Osborne is a grassroots conservative activist from Central Virginia. He is currently furthering his education at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. In addition to writing for Bearing Drift he is also a columnist for the Christian Law Journal.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
32 Responses to "Egomania In Albany"
I must say with great disgust that one of the egotistical cavers is my former state senator, as I lived the first 25 years of my life in his district. I think I even voted for him at least once … I am hoping that the local conservatives are planning is immanent political demise. That said, this is not really a surprise in NY where the GOP and the Conservatives in particular cannot find their head from a hole in the ground. They can’t get themselves out of a paper bag politically speaking. Needless to day, I was very happy to no longer call myself a NYer, but a Virginian last Friday night!
The California legal system overturned the will of the voters on gay marriage and now there is a deal sealed with a handshake and a kiss by a New York Governor who likes to march in Gay Pride parades. Lost in all of this arrogance of power is the will of the voting people who are becoming politically and legally marginalized to the point where they aren’t participants in their government anymore. There has been a very long history of Serfdom in western civilization and as the ruling political class is emboldened towards more invasiveness and arrogance towards people’s beliefs, history and freedoms, we are losing our identity and slipping backwards in so many ways. Our current crop of politicians are using economics to separate and stratify society and others are separating us based on our differences of culture, religion and lifestyle preferences.
Maybe sometime in the future and at great sacrifice, our descendants will realize what we have done to them. Hopefully they will have access to unrevised history where they can reconnect with the gut sense of what personal and individual freedom really means.
“Also, the exceptions clauses do not apply to WHITE owned businesses. What will happen to the WHITE-OWNED photography company that refuses to photograph a BI-RACIAL union ceremony? What about the individual who owns a piece of property used for weddings who refuses to allow a BI-RACIAL ceremony to take place there for reasons of conscience?”
Does it make a little more sense now?
“The fundamental natural element of marriage is that it is a complete union of a man and a woman.”
So YOU say but on whose authority do you speak?
“These fundamental laws of nature, including physical realities, dictate that a truly complete union can only be made by a man with his distinct nature and a woman with her distinct nature.”
So you must now revert basically to a existential argument to support your definiton of “marriage”? You are beginning to sound like a 1970′s liberal.
“Meanwhile, religion administers the rites of marriage, while the government recognizes it and creates a legal framework.”
Really? There are no purely secular marriage rites?
“However, when any government, including New York, contradicts those laws, the liberties that are also drawn from those laws are put in jeopardy.”
Now how, pray tell, are YOUR liberties put in jeopardy by a gay couple getting married in NY? No specifics offered, just rhetoric – I am not surprised.
@ Eric
There is no such thing as “white” liberty. There is such a thing as religious liberty. Apples and oranges.
Now, I will take your contentions one at a time.
1.Only a man and a woman can make a complete biological union. It is not this way because I say so, but because that is the way that mankind was created.
2. See point 1. It is a reality based argument, not sure were you get the existentialist comparison from, I’ll let that one go.
3. Sure there are. The government recognizes those with a certificate as well. Remember though that secularism is in and of itself a religion, usually the deification of the state. If the government is administering those rites then it is creating an interesting establishment if religion question.
4. I am grateful for the free people living in the pre-Civil War free states who did not just sit back and say, “well it’s not MY liberty that is at stake.” It very well could effect my liberty, as I said in the extra note, I am blessed to live in the Commonwealth of Virginia, however this could effect the religious liberties of my spiritual brothers and sisters in New York, and if my post was not specific enough on that front, you can research numerous sources and learn of specific instances of how religious liberty is effected by homosexual marriage.
So I think that pretty much covers your objections. Thanks to you and all for commenting.
It seems to me that what you are arguing for here is a religious-based exemption to allow people to discriminate based on sexual orientation.
I understand you believe such discrimination is well-justified by your religious beliefs and your perception of natural law, but it is an argument in favor of discrimination nonetheless.
Here is a simple question for you: Forget marriage for a moment — should a motel owner who is a Christian have a right to refuse to rent a room to individuals solely based on the fact that they are gay?
Aznew,
All he has to do is call his motel his private home. One redefinition is as good as another.
It seems that the issue is the appropriation by the state and thus by the left of the term “marriage”. If a different legal term is created with no religious meaning or connotation for non heterosexual (human) domestic cohabitation, I have a feeling the controversy would subside. YMMV. The left however wants to deconstruct the family so that the State can raise the children. Read the Fabian socialists.
valentinus – Well, sure, Mr. Osborne could sidestep the point by changing the facts of the hypothetical, but then that wouldn’t be an answer, would it? It would be a new, largely irrelevant hypothetical. One’s right to discriminate in their own home is pretty absolute, as well it should be.
As to your point about appropriation of the term marriage, I tend to agree, sort of. I don’t see any nefarious motivation on the part of the state or a desire by the “left” to deconstruct the family (although I don’t doubt that some fringe elements subscribe to that kind of wacky thinking), but I do agree that the central issue is whether we should ensure that gay people can enjoy the same legal/contractual benefits of marriage that heterosexual people can enjoy. That is all that should concern the government, IMHO. Just don’t discriminate against someone because of who they are, or how they behave, so long as they are not hurting anyone else.
Would the issue subside? Perhaps for some, but, I suspect, not for Mor. Osborne. Consider this, which he wrote above:
“The Commonwealth of Virginia is blessed to have an amendment to the constitution that enshrines the limits of government power by recognizing natural marriage and in the process, preventing any attempt in Virginia to create a new form of marriage.”
The amendment which Mr. Osborne says we are blessed to have does not merely concern the appropriation of the term “marriage” by the state. Rather, it also provides, in relevant part:
“This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.”
@ aznew
Motels and other businesses have always had the right to refuse service on the basis of behavior.
You state that those of us who oppose homosexual marriage favor discrimination. I find that insulting. Homosexual individuals are entitled to the same basic rights that everyone else has. Marriage,however, is not a right, but a privilege. I would encourage you to read the NRO column that I recommended in my extra note, it actually lays out the reasons why homosexual marriage is not a civil right.
aznew,
You stated: “Just don’t discriminate against someone because of who they are, or how they behave, so long as they are not hurting anyone else.”
It is not a matter of discrimination, it is what society should encourage. I believe society should encourage monogamous heterosexual relationships.
As for not harming anyone else? I am going to link to a CDC (Center for Disease Control) piece from which I am going to lift a quote:
http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm
“In 2008, men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 63% of primary and secondary syphilis cases in the United States. MSM often are diagnosed with other bacterial STDs, including chlamydia and gonorrhea infections.”
Note that is 63% of total cases while the MSM population is a small minority. This means the RATE of infection is huge.
Sexually transmitted diseases are increasingly showing resistance to all the drugs modern medicine can throw at them. At one point, it was hoped that syphilis would go the way of smallpox and be completely wiped out after a global effort to eradicate it. However it has come back with a vengeance and some explain this as being due to the MSM population serving as a vector for the spread of it.
The evidence is strong and convincing to me that sexual orientation is genetic and not chosen. That being the case, it seems to me that our laws should not discriminate based on sexual orientation. If we are going to give married people special privileges under the law (e.g. statutory inheritance rights, tax breaks), then it is wrong for the government to deny such opportunities to gay people. Furthermore, as stated by others here, I do not in any way see how allowing gay people to get married jeopardizes or affects heterosexual marriages. My marriage is as secure today as it was the day before NY approved its gay marriage law.
This is a basic principles issue. The primary difference between conservatives and leftists is that leftists see people as merely members of various collectives, while conservatives respect the dignity of each person as an individual. Prohibiting the entire class of gay people from getting married merely because the idea makes some heterosexuals uncomfortable is a concept far more consistent with leftism than with conservatism. Treating gay people with the dignity as individuals that they (and all of us) deserve means guaranteeing them equal access to the mainstream and common institutions of society.
All of that said, I do believe that religious institutions should be protected from having to perform or sanction gay marriages if doing so goes against that religion’s teachings. I am not familiar with the language of the NY statute, but to the extent it would force religious institutions to perform or sanction gay marriages, I believe it is overreaching and probably unconstitutional.
Why is it OK to discriminate against me as a smoker “for the good of society” but not against those who engage in MSM (male sex with male) activities? If I smoke outside when I go out in public, there is no harm done to you is there?
Nope, that is not what happened. My family pays well over a thousand bucks a year because society wants to discourage us from smoking. Increased health costs is the argument given. Well, those who engage in MSM, on average, suffer from STD’s (Sexually Transmitted Diseases) at a far higher rate then the population at large. What is being done to protect society from this costly activity?
Little David:
Here is why your argument is not analagous. There is mounting evidence that the passive inhalation of someone else’s cigarette smoke (commonly known as “second hand smoke”) can have serious health consequences for the passive inhaler. The passive inhaler of second hand smoke is not actively choosing to smoke cigarettes but is at the mercy of the active smoker for smoking in a public setting. Persons who actively engage in high risk sex, unless they are raped, are directly and consensually engaging in sexual activity. There is a world of difference between a person inhaling second hand smoke and persons actively seeking out and engaging in high risk sex. That’s why your argument in this situation is not analagous.
Jay
Jay Hughes,
I’ll quote myself for your benefit:
“If I smoke outside when I go out in public, there is no harm done to you is there?”
David:
Provided I’m not standing next to you in a crowded outdoor event on public land, no there isn’t. So if you want to smoke cigarettes in your home or in your front yard then please do so. To my knowledge there is no law in the Commonwealth preventing you from doing so.
And, for the record, I did not support the smoking ban in restaurants and other business that was enacted under the Kaine Administration. While I abhor smoking, I believe that decision is best left to market forces.
V/r
Jay
Jay,
I supported the ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces. I could understand the justification for that. I did not support the raising of federal taxes which taxed my family at an increase of over $1,000 dollars a year for smoking in my home or in my front yard.
David:
I agree with you. The federal gov’t shouldn’t impose higher taxes on you for your choice, as an adult, to smoke cigs. Now if your private sector insurance provider wishes to make you pay higher premiums because you smoke that’s a different story all together. But the federal gov’t shouldn’t impose new and/or higher taxes on you for smoking.
V/r
Jay
How about this?
Anyone wishing to engage in MSM (Male Sex with Male) sexual activities should have to pay a tax of $1,000 dollars per year indexed to inflation. If they get caught engaging in it without having paid the tax, they are thrown in prison.
They are costing us and they should pay their way. We force cigarette smokers to pay so why should those who engage in MSM sex escape paying their own increased costs to society?
Well, since I don’t support the tax on you for smoking I think it’s consistent that people who engage in the sex you describe shouldn’t pay a tax either. I think both you, the smoker, and the dudes engaging in the high risk sex will pay for it later in terms of negative health consequences.
No matter what you support, the majority have chosen to tax cigarette smokers without choosing to tax those who engage in MSM sexual activities. Why is that?
I’ve tried googling this cigarette tax you keep mentioning. Can you tell me more about it? Is it an excise tax of sorts, i.e. a tax for each pack or carton of cigs you buy? Or is it something you file on your fed tax return?
The federal tax on cigarettes is $1.10 per pack. Rates by state vary with New York being at I think the highest at $4.35 per pack. Virginia is at the lowest at $0.30 per pack but then the cities and counties make up for it. For example, I live in Virginia Beach and the tax is $0.50 per pack.
Ooops, I transposed numbers. The federal tax is $1.01 per pack.
@ Steven Osborne – I am sorry you are insulted, and I do not mean it personally, but the fact is that the policy you advocate is discriminatory.
I made very clear that the rights conferred by gay marriage legislation, as I understand them, are solely contract rights, i.e., a set of obligations and rights between parties enforced by the law. Are you saying that we do not have a basic right to enter into contracts? I submit the right to contract is one of the inalienable rights spoken of in the Declaration, but just in case, it is enshrined in the Constitution as well as a Constitutional Right.
Ken has it exactly right, insofar as what the policy ought to be (although as I said above, I don’t subscribe to the general theory that gets him there of how leftists and conservatives view the world, though that is a different debate). For me, at the end of the day, it comes down to the government ought to stay out of people’s business, if one’s activity is not hurting anyone else.
@ Little David
A few points.
First, I am a former smoker, but I completely agree with you. In fact, I not only oppose laws that limit a person’s right to smoke outdoors, I oppose laws that limit a persons right to smoke virtually anywhere, except where safety is involved (i.e. gas stations, hospitals). Laws banning smoking in bars and restaurants, in particular, are wrong and intrusive. It should be left entirely to private business owners to decide whether to allow smoking on their premises or not. If one doesn’t like second-hand smoke, don’t frequent the business.
As for your assertion that gay marriage harms people based on the frequency of STD disease transmission, this argument is not against gay marriage (which simply involves contract rights), but against homosexual conduct. Indeed, I would hazard a guess that to the extent laws allowing gay marriage would tend to encourage stable and long-term relationships among gay people, it would actually reduce the incidence of STDs among gay people.
Beyond that, do you really think the government ought to regulate our sexual conduct?
Last, but not least, you assert “society” should encourage certain kinds of behavior. I actually agree, but you advocate government encouraging certain behaviors, not society, and I think “society” and “government” are two different things.
I am all for you or Mr. Osborne or anyone using your church, your money, your time, whatever, to promote lifestyles you deem acceptable and wholesome. And if enough people in a community feel the same way and join you, “society” will be doing its job in encouraging beneficial behaviors.
When you bring government into the picture, it gets to be a sticky wicket. Frankly, I’ll raise my children with my values, and Bob McDonnell, Ken Cuccinelli, and Barack Obama, for that matter, can keep out of it. I want government to be neutral in these matters, as much as possible (that, of course, raises the issue of what government’s role is when parents and communities fail at this task, but that is an entirely different debate).
David:
I totally grok your argument: why should the government attempt to dis-incentivize one unhealthy behavior via taxes (i.e. smoking) versus another particular behavior (i.e. lots of promiscuous boot knockin’). My personal druthers is that government shouldn’t try to overtly discourage either behavior. Rather, the government should provide information as to the dangers of either behavior. Then the individual can make informed choices and accept responsibility for those choices.
But here are some specific rebuttals to the points you make. First, there’s a logistical practicality as to why we can tax cigs and not sex. Purchasing cigs is a business transaction. We can track inventories and cig sales to make sure business are collecting those taxes on cigs. In order to tax sex, we’d have to have some kind of registration system where everytime someone hooked up they would have to make a log entry and fork up some cash to the government. I really don’t think you want that kind of Orwellian surveillance of individual’s personal lives. Second, sin or vice taxes like those on cigs are really luxury taxes and they are totally self-imposed taxes. Your vice is smoking and mine is having a vodka tonic on Friday nights while I grill dinner. They aren’t neccesities like food, water, shelter, etc. And government has to raise money somewhere to pay for the nice things that everyone wants. This past spring I was recently elected to my property owners association’s Board of Directors. So now I find myself on that side of the table where I’m having to tell people that if you want the nice things we have to pay for them, if you don’t want to pay for the nice things I’m more than happy to turn off the nice things but don’t come whining when the nice things are turned off. The bottom line is we can’t have our cake and eat it too. So when it comes to raising revenue I don’t mind paying extra taxes on that bottle of vodka. If I don’t want to pay a tax on booze then I can stop drinking. If you don’t want to pay a tax on cigs, then stop smoking cigs.
Jay
aznew,
You stated:
“Beyond that, do you really think the government ought to regulate our sexual conduct?”
Yes. I just happen to support keeping prostitution illegal as well.
@ Ken
As far as homosexuality being genetic, I know some former homosexuals who disagree with you.
If the case for creating homosexual marriage rests on the fact that they are being discriminated against because of lack of access to the special privileges that naturally married couples receive, then should we create a special instituion for single people who are also “discriminated” against?
Actually, evidence out of countries that have created homosexual marriage demonstrates that homosexual marriage can lessen the societal impact of natural marriage.
@ Jay
I will have to take issue with you concerning your suggestion that STD’s do not effect others. People who are infected with HIV can eventually suffer from a breakdown of the immune system which can cause that individual to become an incubator of sorts for communicable diseases.
@ aznew
Marriage is more than just a contract. Natural marriage is a covenant that involves a union.
Steven:
With respect, that’s a very, very weak rebuttal to my argument. Anybody can serve as an incubator for communicable diseases. If you are not immune suppressed and have all your shots you’re about as safe you can get.
If you are standing next to an AIDS patient who has pneumonia you have the same risk of getting pneumonia from someone who got it from another vector, i.e. smoke inhalation, near drowning, etc.
V/r
Jay
I do not know if this is true of all heterosexuals, but I can state that without a doubt the reason I am involved in a monogamous heterosexual relationship is because I was taught by my parents and the society I lived in to conform.
What proof can I offer? Well I do not want to go into the details. Let me only state that I know from personal experience that for so
My dog jumped on my keyboard so let me finish!
I do not know if this is true of all heterosexuals, but I can state that without a doubt the reason I am involved in a monogamous heterosexual relationship is because I was taught by my parents and the society I lived in to conform.
What proof can I offer? Well I do not want to go into the details. Let me only state that I know from personal experience that for some of us there is a choice. My own choice depended heavily on what I was taught. It is my opinion that my parents taught me wisely.
“I do not know if this is true of all heterosexuals, but I can state that without a doubt the reason I am involved in a monogamous heterosexual relationship is because I was taught by my parents and the society I lived in to conform.”
So do you belive that had your parents and society NOT taught you this you may very well be a homosexual today? In other words, are you saying it was NOT your natural inclination to be a heterosexual?
Eric,
You asked:
“In other words, are you saying it was NOT your natural inclination to be a heterosexual?”
What I am saying is that as an adolescent learning to deal with raging hormones, I was taught by my family to channel my sexual desires towards girls. If I had been taught that it was OK to be Gay, there might have been a different outcome.
Leave your response