On gay rights and same-sex marriage, Cuomo's vision is national in scope
Andrew Cuomo at the Empire State Pride Agenda dinner. Azi Paybarah
2:50 pm Oct. 28, 20112
In his first major speech before a predominately lesbian, gay and transgender audience since passing New York's same-sex-marriage law, Governor Andrew Cuomo laid out what he said is the next phase of the gay-rights agenda.
At the Empire State Pride Agenda's fall dinner in midtown Manhattan, Cuomo said it will include passing "real" anti-bullying legislation in Albany and getting LGBT people protected under federal anti-discrimination laws for housing and employment, and legalizing same-sex marriage in every state.
"Now, we are going to come with the rest of the equality agenda," Cuomo said.
"There are no federal anti-discrimination laws for housing, or for employment. DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act] has to go away once and for all," Cuomo said.
"And we need marriage equality in every state in this nation, otherwise no state really has marriage equality," he said. "And we will not rest until it is a reality."
Since becoming governor last year, Cuomo has been very disciplined about limiting his talking points to New York-specific issues—even when his determined parochialism has looked suspiciously like a means of distancing himself from President Obama. He hasn't even left the state, physically, except when he drives through New Jersey on his way to Albany or to his family vacation home vacation upstate.
Even when the Human Rights Coalition—the national umbrella group associated with the Empire State Pride Agenda—sought to honor Cuomo for passing same-sex marriage, the governor politely declined to accept the award, since the event was in Washington.
Last night's speech was explicitly national in scope.
Still, after the event, when I asked Cuomo what the president could do to help get same-sex marriage passed in other states, he reverted to form.
"Far be it from me to give the president political or policy advice," Cuomo said, with convincing modesty.
Cuomo received a hero's welcome from the more than 1,000 guests in attendance.
He was introduced by City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, the New York's first openly gay citywide official. She said that by making such a pivotal piece of the LGBT agenda part of his first year's accomplishments, Cuomo, in essence, created "a game-changer for how every elected official has to view the issues of our community."
LGBT legislative issues "are no longer to be done in the final year in the last term you're in office. They're to be done immediately to define whether or not you're really committed to all Americans being equal," she said.
Then, appearing moved by the emotionally charged moment, Quinn looked directly at Cuomo from the brightly lit stage and said that he "forever changed the lives of people you will never meet."
"You have sent a message to children struggling to figure out their sexual orientation, you have sent them a message that they matter, that they're important, that their lives are worth something," she said. "Children who are in homes where they dare not say to their parents that they think they might be gay, children who are getting bullied in schools, you have literally given them a life preserver."
Quinn called it "an act of bravery and humanity and an act of ultimate, unselfish love for the people of New York State and the children of this country."
By the end of Cuomo's speech, his eyes appeared to glisten as he spoke about his father, former governor Mario Cuomo, and his 14-year-old daughter Michaela.
"She said your father gave you a legacy, and gave you a tradition and gave you a reputation because he was the voice for social justice," Cuomo said. "He fought the death penalty and he fought for a woman's right to choose and that is a gift that your father gave you, that you will alway have. She said, 'I am the daughter of Andrew Cuomo, the man who signed marriage equality into law, and that is a gift that you gave me.'"
The fact is that same-sex marriage is neither beneficial to the individuals who engage in it nor to the society that permits it. The reasons have to do with health and the origins of homosexuality. Concerning health, same-sex behavior involves human physiology that's not designed for same-sex interaction. Consequently, they're prone to bodily damage, which, in turn, is the most efficient means by which serious diseases, such as hepatitis, HIV/AIDS, STDS, microbes from the intestinal tract, are transmitted. Concerning origins, homosexuality (the urge for the behavior) results from a mix of genetic, biologic, and social/peer-related factors, each of which varies in significance among individuals but none of which (in and of themselves) guarantee same-sex attraction. Rather, they impart a greater tendency or predisposition towards developing the urge.
Hence, a society that in any way encourages homosexuality through marriage, teaching, or other means, makes it more likely that people with this predisposition will develop same-sex attraction and engage in the behavior. It's no different than taking someone with a familial history of alcoholism, who's never had alcohol or been in a bar, and encouraging them to drink. The urge which had heretofore been dormant now becomes active.
Hence, the government should not recognize same-sex marriage and encourage it with legal and financial incentives, like it does for real marriage – that between one man and one woman. Besides this post, other reasons for opposing same-sex marriage is in the essay at
http://marriage-onemanandonewoman.blogspot.com/2011/07/case-for-limiting...
Here, in addition to a more detailed discussion concerning the risks and origins of same-sex behavior, you'll find references from respected, mainstream, and objective sources (such as UCLA, USC, the University of London, the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association and none from anti-gay marriage groups), upon which this post and essay are based.
I realize that proponents of same-sex marriage will probably disagree. However, if they do, then it's their responsibility to provide a fact-based rebuttal (that includes all the facts – not just those supporting their view), using reputable, objective, and apolitical sources, as this essay does, proving what’s written here to be wrong. If they can't or refuse to do so and offer an implausible excuse for their refusal, then it will prove that proponents of same-sex marriage have no logical or objective reasons (the only reasons for passing a law) for their cause, except a selfish desire that's devoid of any care about the damage that would result.
For those, who agree with what's written herein, please help in sending this post and the essay link (in whatever form you like or rewrite it to your satisfaction) to as many as you know and ask that they do the same. Additionally, email it to your legislators and demand that they vote against any law permitting government recognition of same-sex marriage or put forth bills overturning it, if gay marriage exists in your state. In this way, we can bypass a very biased and dishonest media that's only interested in broadcasting the propaganda generated by proponents of same-sex marriage and reach the public with the facts showing why same-sex behavior, whether it's in a committed relationship or not, is an unhealthy behavior that shouldn't be encouraged by the government through marriage.
The fact that you correctly stated homosexuality cause as "biological and genetic" destroys your own argument.
1. HIV is spreading more rapidly among heterosexuals than gays. By your own statement heterosexuals should loose their right to marry.
2. Marriage will probably never be of benefit to you... however the Supreme Court has defined it as a basic human right.
3.Comparing gay people to alcoholics is prejudiced, offensive, illogical and ignorant.
4.If homosexuality is genetic driven in any form why is equal rights "encouraging"? That is a stupid and illogical conclusion. Besides, homosexuality existed in humans and many other species and societies, long before the legal contract of marriage was invented.
5.Why are you commenting on people and subjects you obviously have little knowledge of beyond Fox New?
6.Just because no one responds to lies does not make them true.