Opponents disappointed, concerned about future of marriage


Lawmakers who voted no on same-sex marriage didn’t stick around after the Senate gave final passage to a same-sex marriage bill.

Sen. George Maziarz,  R-Newfane, Niagara County, said he was disappointed about the vote, although he is not disappointed in any individuals. “I’m more of a traditionalist,” he said.

“I knew that Sen. (Stephen) Saland and Sen. (Mark) Grisanti were struggling with it,” Maziarz said of two of the four Republicans who voted yes.

This is what the Rev. Jason McGuire, executive director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, an evangelical Christian group, said in a statement:

“Despite today’s vote, the people of New York recognize that marriage provides a strong foundation for a thriving society. State senators who have chosen to pursue their own agenda or the agenda of liberal activist groups are ignoring the 62 percent of Americans who believe marriage is one man, one woman, nothing else.”


“It is unfortunate that the vast majority of Democratic legislators and a handful of liberal-leaning Republicans have put personal agendas, ahead of principled positions. We had hoped for better, but now we look to next year’s November.”

This is a statement from the Catholic bishops of New York:

“The passage by the Legislature of a bill to alter radically and forever humanity’s historic understanding of marriage leaves us deeply disappointed and troubled.

“We strongly uphold the Catholic Church’s clear teaching that we always treat our homosexual brothers and sisters with respect, dignity and love. But we just as strongly affirm that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman in a lifelong, loving union that is open to children, ordered for the good of those children and the spouses themselves. This definition cannot change, though we realize that our beliefs about the nature of marriage will continue to be ridiculed, and that some will even now attempt to enact government sanctions against churches and religious organizations that preach these timeless truths.

“We worry that both marriage and the family will be undermined by this tragic presumption of government in passing this legislation that attempts to redefine these cornerstones of civilization.

“Our society must regain what it appears to have lost – a true understanding of the meaning and the place of marriage, as revealed by God, grounded in nature, and respected by America’s foundational principles.”


About Author


  1. Five years from now, 90% of people who opposed equality will wonder why they ever had a problem with it.

  2. Siria,Roe vs. Wade didn’t make the anti-abortionists go away…and,unlike opponents of same-sex “marriage”,they’re not even right.

  3. So… how do gay couples threaten marriage? Are strait people going to stop getting married? Are we going to stop having children? Is your marriage any less valid?


    Then buzz off.

  4. Red,”marriage” as a credible entity ceases to exist if anything is considered more important to it than the partners being of opposite sexes.I can’t imagine marrying in this state unless this is repealed.

  5. Louis, you just said that the most important thing about marriage is that it be shared by an opposite sex couple. Do you really mean that? The gender of the spouses is more important than their commitment, their love for one another, the home they provide for any children they may have, the contributions they make to their community, etc. etc.? You may believe a same-sex union is not a marriage, but your claim is startling and not one I have heard expressed before. It is, however, quite telling and seems to emphasize what really fuels the opposition to marriage equality.

  6. Rick,civic-minded people who love one another and provide a nice home CAN NOT qualify to be married to one another unless they are of opposite sexes…marriage exists to promote opposite-sex relationships,not good citizenship.

  7. Yes, Rick. The gender of the spouses as one man and one woman is what marriage is, and in that respect, is more important than commitment in light of the whole same-sex “marriage” equality debate. The natural sexual use of man and women is how God created marriage to be. No amount of human dictates can make the unnatural use of the human bodies right, or more important than what God has ordained. <3+

  8. Dolores: What you say is true for religious marriage in most religions, but it isn’t true for civil marriage. Civil marriage exists to simplify the financial holdings of a couple, to prevent disputes when one spouse dies, to make it clear who has legal responsibility for minors and dependents, and to provide other legal safeguards to stabilize a family (such as the right of a spouse not to testify in court against the other). None of that depends upon gender. You are correct that the legislature passing civil marriage does not change God’s opinion on what right is, but any debate we have about exactly what God’s opinion is should be separate from the debate about what is civilly right for the health and stability of same-sex families who have a different belief in what God intends for them.

  9. I think it’s important to first realize that religion is a man-made invention. So, arguments for or against same-sex marriage based on religion aren’t terribly useful. I think that using religion to argue against same-sex marriage will only hasten the demise of religion. When people have a choice between supporting marriage equality between loving people or denying equality based on man-made religious precepts, I think the man-made religious precepts will lose out — not to mention the man-made religion.

  10. Neither Saland nor Grisanti were following any personal or liberal agenda. Both Senators, in their speeches explaining their ‘yes’ votes, stated that the could find no LEGAL reason to vote against it. Had they voted against the bill due to their own personal religions despite the fact that they could find no legal reason to, THEN they WOULD be following a personal agenda. That’s what the Legislature does, it votes on legal issues.

    Shouldn’t these ‘marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman’ religious folks be more concerned about how the actual divorce rate in this country affects the institution of marriage, rather than a projected, imaginary threat due to gay marriage?

  11. All I’m saying is that, since god is a man-made invention, arguing for or against same sex marriage based on god (or, better, “gods”, since there are thousands of gods that have been defined world-wide) doesn’t make any sense. As noted by JETSS and others, same-sex marriage is a legal issue that should be debated on its legal merits. Adding one’s personal god(s) to the discussion only distracts from the discussion, and leads people to (from my perspective) unfortunate conclusions.

  12. That people lie about God does not make God “a man-made invention”…it is our existence that is contingent on that of an Infinitely First Cause of existence (by definition God),not vice versa.
    The responsibility of a government to the general welfare is what requires that preferential treatment be perpetually guaranteed to opposite-sex relationships,in recognition of the unique benefits human society receives from their being opposite-sex and the exclusively normative status of opposite-sex relationships being upheld.There is no public interest in there being any same-sex relationships,and the government should encourage and assist in the dissolution of such relationships,never protect their continuation.

  13. Hi Louis E: We’ll just have to agree to disagree — I believe there is *vast* public interest in ensuring equality, including marriage equality, and the government should assist in the protection of such relationships whenever and wherever possible. New York is now a shining role model for the rest of the nation, and will hasten the day when marriage equality is available everywhere.

    Like I said, we’ll just have to agree to disagree ;-)

  14. Dave,treating right and wrong as equal is entirely harmful to the public interest,and “marriage equality” should be prohibited everywhere.We all have an equal responsibility to completely refrain from same-sex sexual activity.

  15. Louis, in actuality there is nothing wrong with same-sex sexual activity. I would modify your last sentence by inserting one word, “judging”: We all have an equal responsibility to completely refrain from *judging* same-sex sexual activity.

    No consensus emerging here ;-) I’m done, feel free to have the last word if you’d like, enjoy your summer!!

  16. Dave,in actuality merely being same-sex makes same-sex sexual activity completely indefensible.I wish the passage of that equally reprehensible law on marriage hadn’t marred this summer.