Diaz to Paterson: Don't show your face at St. Pat's






  1. SmokinJoe says:

    So in addition to a champion of destroying personal rights …. Diaz can add bigot to his list of sleazy characteristics.

    Please go back to the gop Ruben where you would obviously be more comfortable.

  2. callmejer says:

    Perhaps Senator/Minister Diaz should read the New York State Constitution, since he took an oath to uphold it.

    “§ 3. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed in this state to all humankind…”

    Notice it says “without discrimination or preference.” This means that the State cannot and should not recognize one religious doctrine over another, or over no religious doctrine at all. Church and State are separate entities and should remain that way. The State cannot enact laws according to one religion’s doctrine. It is illegal. Oh, and I’m pretty sure that “all humankind” means gay people, too, even if some of the more spiteful religions view us as not deserving of that status.


    The State cannot provide legal protections for one group of people and not provide them for another. Contrary to what Senator/Minister Diaz seems to believe, his church is not running my State’s government.

  3. myohmy says:

    TIME OUT CHILDREN..I’m quite sure the Gov will have a “snarky” comeback for that comment..otherwise called a “snark-remark” how’s that Irene?

  4. Dek19 says:

    We need to move past this issue. It’s a waste of time, money, and energy. The majority does not want it! Move on. It’s NOT that big a deal. In most parts of the world the rights they experience here are 1000 times better!

    Let’s move on and stop wasting time worrying about such a minor issue.

    We have serious issues! This is borderline comical.

  5. ReepDaggle says:

    #4, “The majority does not want it! Move on.”

    The Federal and NYS Constitutions are specifically designed to prevent the whims of the majority from trampling the rights of the minority. You obviously don’t believe in those documents.

  6. anne says:

    #4 Dek- I agree that there are important issues at hand, the economy and the unemployment rate come to mind, however, the rights for a group of people are important. Please recall you elementary education if you can, civil rights movement, women rights movement… these were groups of individuals that were treated inadequately across a spectrum. But they are intelligent, emotional, living breathing equals. Homosexuals can vote, can sit wherever they want on a bus, can work wherever, but when it comes time for their equality to marry; it’s not an issue anymore? I don’t think so, your rights, your concerns are just as important as the rights of homosexuals. So it is an issue and I look forward to the day gay/lesbian couples can proudly recall their wedding day as a marriage and not a civil union, which by the way, civil unions lack anywhere from 1200-1300 incentives or privileges that a marriage would have.

  7. Dek19 says:

    Women’s rights, Minority Rights, have nothing to do with this problem.

    This is the concept of marriage, and there is just as much of a moral opposition against it as there is for it. Who says one side is right? We don’t know. Therefore, do nothing. Civil Unions are more than enough.

    It’s just tiring… we don’t have to worry about the 1% of the population and their marriage rights.

    Let’s move on… and this is not a Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King, type issue. Let’s be real.

  8. reality40 says:

    The arguments raised by same-sex marriage advocates on this blog are so weak that rebutting them isn’t even fun. Do any of you actually believe this stuff that you’re saying?

    Folks, what civil right do you believe is being denied under our state’s current marriage laws? Have you read the 2006 New York Court of Appeals decision in Hernandez v. Robles? (If not, it can be found here: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_05239.htm.) The Court held that our marriage laws have a rational basis and fully satisfy the equal protection guarantees contained in the Constitution. This decision made perfect sense. Opposite-sex relationships carry with them the possibility of bringing children into the world. Same-sex relationships don’t. It is not irrational to treat different things differently. Do any of you believe that the Court was wrong about this? If so, why? If not, why do same-sex marriage advocates keep on rehashing this tired argument three years later?

    The “inequality” complaints border on being absurd. People who identify as gay or lesbian have exactly the same rights under New York law as everyone else when it comes to marriage — the right to marry a consenting, unrelated, unmarried adult of the opposite sex. Thus, our state laws leave individuals free to choose relationships that can lead to marriage, or to choose relationships (multiple partners, polamory, or same-sex relationships) that do not fit within the definition of marriage. There is no inequality. There is freedom to choose a marriage relationship, or to choose to live with a same-sex partner – without being prosecuted or discriminated against – in a relationship that is not recognized as a marriage. Is the state required to redefine the institution of marriage every time someone comes up with a non-traditional relationship and wants the government to endorse it? If so, why?

    Also, is Senator Diaz a bigot, or are the people who curse at him and harass him at every opportunity — simply because he refuses to go along with or be intimidated by the well-funded lobbyists who have been trying for years to buy a homosexual marriage law in New York — the true bigots? The majority of New Yorkers agree with Sen. Diaz that we should retain our current definition of marriage. Same-sex marriage advocates tend to make it sound like these millions of New Yorkers are ALL bigots, simply because we disagree with them. This argument is either profoundly ignorant or profoundly dishonest. Memo to same-sex marriage advocates from traditional marriage advocates: We do not hate you. We do not have any ill will toward you at all. We just disagree with you about some important things. There’s a big difference.

    While many persons of faith oppose same-sex marriage, there are plenty of non-religious reasons (concerns about parental rights, the rights of those who disagree with same-sex marriage, encouraging the formation of family structures that automatically deprive children of either a mother or a father, and opening the door to further redefinitions of marriage by other special interest groups, to name just a few) to oppose it. The frequently-used and even-more-frequently-misunderstood “separation of church and state” arguments have nothing to do with this issue, or with Rev. Diaz’s comments.

    Dek19 is right. Our state government has real issues to deal with right now. Passing divisive, special-interest bills like this one should rank low on the priority list.

  9. anne says:

    It’s not to the extreme of Martin Luther King, Susan B. Anthony, but you can’t deny a group of people equality. I think it’s a little demeaning to think that only 1% of the pop. is homosexual. Civil Unions aren’t enough because it’s not the same as a marriage. How is that fair? How is that equal? A heterosexual couple is no more, no less deserving than homosexual couples. And I’m sure there will always be issues bigger and better to deal with than the equality of minorities in America, but eventually, at some point, we will have to confront them, so why fight the inevitable just allow gays and lesbians the right to marry. What’s the big deal? They have every right to the same benefits and happiness as a straight couple.

  10. Dek19 says:

    #8. Well said. Your clearly more intelligent than those wasting there time in an era of depression pushing such a meaningless clause.

    “They” have better rights here in this country than 99% of the other countries in the world. They have their own rights as human beings that we are forgetting about…

    What rights are actually being voided? NONE! The right to be unified under a Judaic-Christian ritual? Um, please.

    This is what is wrong with politics and activists… always a cause out there to drag down the people trying to move forward. This is such a small issue, we need to move on. There’s no crime being done here, and the majority would actually argue legalizing it is actually more a crime. You have to respect both sides, and those against it have just as much going for them as those for it. But in a time like this, let’s push this issue back another 20 or so years? MMMM, k?

  11. Bill Esposito says:

    Every Republican State Senator and Assemblyman should vote against this insane idea and uphold the traditional definition of marriage. It’s refreshing to see that there are some Democrats from that den of iniquity (NYC), challenge the liberal orthodoxy on a moral issue. If it weren’t for the overwhelming influence of the culture of New York City on the ideology of the Democratic Party, this issue would never see the light of day. It deserves to be buried along with the gay agenda!

    Governor Paterson, Speaker Silver and Majority Leader Smith rammed through a budget agreement and decriminalization in the sale & possession of drugs in a secret process without hearings or adequate debate. Suddenly, they want an open process to debate and persuade legislative members to support same-sex marriage (marriage regardless of sexual preference). Support is tantamount to affirming deviant behavior.

    They must not succeed.

  12. Dungeon Dweller says:

    Brown v. Board of Education dispensed with the notion of ‘separate but equal’ institutions. And fifty years later we’re still struggling with this?

  13. Dungeon Dweller says:

    Ruben Diaz, dek19, reality40, Bill Esposito….let the world see, right here, that you have firmly planted your feet on the wrong side of history.

  14. A.M. Bush says:

    It always amazes me how some people who oppose equality are so quick to compromise their own supposed morality by resorting to distorting the truth and blatantly lying.

  15. reality40 says:

    A.M. Bush, it long ago ceased to amaze me how frequently same-sex marriage advocates make up for the total absence of any real policy arguments in favor of their viewpoint by resorting to name-calling and accusations against anyone who dares to disagree with them.

    My earlier post contained absolutely no lies or distortions. I don’t recall seeing any lies or distortions from others on this blog who agreed with my position. If you are going to make an accusation like that, you should be specific about which points you are referring to. I can back up every single point I made with solid facts. If you refuse to be specific, I will take that to mean that your remarks were simply gratuitous insults that have no real basis.

  16. mercury says:

    Paterson is only doing this as an attempt to bring up his dismal ratings. I hope the gay community realizes this. He does not really care about them. Worst governor ever….he should resign immediately.

  17. A.M. Bush says:

    #17 – You can whine about being called names and being picked on all you like. You’ve presented your so called “facts” before and they’ve been exposed for what they are. But I’ll be glad to bring people up to speed.

    Catholic Charities in Mass. was not forced to do anything but comply with state law regarding adoptions.

    No parent was arrested for protesting. A parent was arrested for criminal trespass, and jby his actions should probably have been charged with disorderly conduct too. Any parent is free to withold their child from any curriculum in the school if they choose, but they are not free to dictate what the cirriculum should be based on their own beliefs.

    I’ve changed my opinion on the Ocean Grove campground now that I’ve had some time to dig further into the details and facts of the case. The tax breaks they were receiving were under the condition that they adhered to state law regarding public accommodation.

    By your own logic, if gays and lesbians have the option of abiding by the law and marrying somone of the opposite sex or not getting married at all, why shouldn’t Catholic Charities have to abide by state laws which govern adoption, or a group who runs a facility for public use (for profit too) not have to abide by state laws regarding what consititutes public use?

    Separation of church and state does not mean the church is exempt from the laws of the state if it wants to assist the state in providing services which the state governs.

    Tell us how the American Pediatric Association is promoting homosexuality. You never did explain that before.

  18. A.M. Bush says:

    Ack, I meant to address # 15. My apologies!

  19. cleo says:

    I’m all for gay marriage – who cares what people do? Everyone should have the same rights as everyone else, but I think bringing it up now in a wag the dog fashion to divert people’s attention from the current state of affairs in NY does a dis-service to the gay community. This should be one of the most important decisions that the new Senate Majority makes that can truly show NYers that there’s a new sheriff in town, but instead it seems like it’s more to attract a voting bloc because the Governor just potentially lost a whole host of typically democratic union voters. I was hoping to see this bill passed when its significance could truly be felt and understood and now it’s just muddled in with the rest of this mess.

  20. Dek19 says:

    How am I on the wrong side of history? It’s such a small minority of people who even want this, and then another TINY minority who would ever take advantage of it.

    There is something naturally different about these rights vs. the rights of a man, or woman, or certain race. They aren’t comparable… this is petty.

    We need to worry about taxes, defense, etc. Not some silly “dress-up, I want to get married too!” fiasco.

  21. AlbertJ says:

    “Civil Unions aren’t enough because it’s not the same as a marriage”, if that is your contention, Anne, why not simply advocate to correct that imbalance by adjusting and correcting the Civil Union statute?

    “The shortest distance between two points is (still) a straight line”, and rewriting Civil Union statutes to address imbalances seems a lot less contentious than rewriting a definition that has been established for thousands of years.

    Why should any same gender relationships be unable to, “look forward to the day gay/lesbian couples can proudly recall their wedding day as a marriage and not a civil union”, if that’s what thery want to do? If, as you contend, “civil unions lack anywhere from 1200-1300 incentives or privileges that a marriage would have”, doesn’t it make sense to simply quantify those discrepancies and rewrite Cilil Union ststutes to accomodate them.

    If there is any sense of discrimination involved in this issue, it seems to simply be that some seem resistant to describing their relationships as they actually are and, rather than describe their relationships accurately, would prefer to obscure them under an ammended broader description of “marriage”.

    The societal acceptance of same gender relationships is relatively new (to the extent we’re discussing) and it shouldn’t be surprising that some of the original attempts at defining a Civil Union statute may have been lacking. The “straight line” solution, that an evolving consensus has produced, would seem to be adjusting the contents of Civil Union statutes to keep pace with societies wishes.

    Then, like any other legal definition or status, as possibly more discrepancies or inequities might surface, correcting any resulting problems would simply be a matter of additional adjustment, rather than repeating this ridiculously exaggerated question we deal with today.

    If legal inequity is indeed the problem, then removing the inequities should be the focus of the solution. On the other hand, if some see the problem as including perceptions, and a carload of emotional baggage, or in masking realities so as to try and away or convert perceptions, the water gets a lot murkier.

  22. Jahosacat says:

    Marriage comes from the bible – a religious tradition. I cannot support marriage for any couples other than a man and a woman. I CAN support a Civil Union – civil meaning coming from the government. If that means that couples of any sex go to a government building and have their union sanctioned by the state and then if they want a religious marriage performed by a member of the clergy fine. Keep church and state separate that way.

  23. ReepDaggle says:

    AlbertJ – “a definition that has been established for thousands of years”

    You mean the one that saw wives as property, but now doesn’t?
    You mean the one that allowed multiple spouses, but now doesn’t?
    You mean the one that allowed marriage to 13 year olds, but now doesn’t?
    You mean the one that didn’t allow marriage across ethnicities, but now does?

    “doesn’t it make sense to simply quantify those discrepancies and rewrite Cilil Union ststutes to accomodate them”

    How is it easier to make a ton of changes to “Cilil Union ststutes” than to incorporate a whole ONE new provision into existing law? When interracial marriage became legal, was a new tpe of “union” created? Or was it added to exisiting law? Since we both know the answer to that, what makes same sex marriage any different?

    reality 40 – “Opposite-sex relationships carry with them the possibility of bringing children into the world. Same-sex relationships don’t.”

    How many of those opposite sex couples used “non-traditional” methods to have children? And how will those methods not work on same sex couples?

    On the issue of raising children, which is way more important than birthing them, how many of the opposite sex couples are raising children not their own, i.e., adopted and fostered? And how is it that same sex couples aren’t capable of doing this, all verified research to the contrary?

    How many opposite sex couples, for age or medical reason, are incapable of birthing children, thus negating that “possibility”? How is that inability is okay for them, but an alleged lack of “possibility” for a same sex couple is enough to invalidate the concept of marriage?

    The rest of your arguments are every bit as weak, as are those of all the other anti-equality zealots on these blogs. I truly look forward to the day that any of you can offer a shred of reason as to how allwing same sex secular marriage harms your marriage or civil rights in any possible way.

  24. de Tocqueville says:

    Why does Casey Seiler put “homosexual marriage” in quotations? Is that not what it is? Try reporting the news instead of warping reality.

  25. gracesaves says:

    This will not pass if God has something to do with it.

  26. ReepDaggle says:

    Non-existent nonsensical superstition-based creatures of the imagination have nothing to do with secular laws.

    Oh wait, I may have just described a few Republicans there.

    Oh well, you know what I mean.

  27. Elmer says:

    ReepDaggle–I know I am beating a dead horse, but…There is no, repeat, no, analogy between interracial marriage and gay marriage, at least not legally. Gay marriage was never made illegal, as interracial marriage was.

    And I “truly look forward to the day that (you) can offer a shred of reason why (replacing marriage with civil unions for all) harms your…civil rights in any possible way.” It has literally come down to this—the gay lobby would seemingly rather fail to attain full legal equality than give up the “M” word. Not a shining moment in rational behavior.

  28. SaveOurFamilies says:

    Hey ReepDaggle:

    This type of law is what pits athiests against those who believe in God. Homosexuals are not meant to pro-create, it’s against what this nation, founded under God, was chartered to be. Not all of us who believe in God are Republicans or Democrats. This law is a disgrace, and so is athiesm. You need a hug, go find a tree.

  29. ReepDaggle says:

    Elmer, Not analogous? It is, in fact, 100% analogous. Semantics over being “made illegal” is a diversion from the crux of the issue.

    I’ve read your posts about civil unions. I don’t disagree with your solution that ALL legal unions be civil unions, and that marriage be merely “decorative” with no legal standing. Honestly, that would be the ideal solution.

    But we differ when it comes to facing reality. I recognize that that solution will NEVER occur, you don’t. You cling to the impossible as an excuse to avoid doing the right thing. Same sex marriage advocates are dealing with the reality you’re purposely avoiding.

  30. reality40 says:

    Here goes:

    A.M. Bush: Although you didn’t make yourself completely clear, it appears that your accusation of falsehoods and distortions relate to comments I posted on this blog some weeks ago. At that time, I responded to your arguments in full detail (http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/12559/one-man-one-woman-and-sen-diaz). I see no need to repeat what I said. It is misleading for you to pretend that you exposed my comments for “what they are.” That is bologna.

    I will respond to the new questions you have raised. Regarding Catholic Charities in Boston, the answer is this: The State of Massachusetts forced Catholic Charities to choose between violating its own beliefs by placing children with same-sex “married” couples as adoptive parents and violating the law by refraining from doing so; the result was that Catholic Charities shut down its adoption placement services altogether. The state, at the very least, should have considered placing kids with adoptive parents to be more important than appeasing same-sex marriage activists and granted Catholic Charities some type of exemption. It did not. The question for same-sex “marriage” advocates, then, is this: Why is same-sex “marriage” more important to you than getting orphaned kids placed in adoptive homes? Seems a bit backwards. Also, your logic neglects an important point. The right to freely exercise one’s religion is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. The right to same-sex “marriage” is not — despite the contorted efforts of activist judges to pretend that there is some constitutional principle involved. If the two principles conflict, freedom of religion should trump same-sex “marriage” every time. Unfortunately, Massachusetts teaches us that same-sex “marriage” trumps religious freedom. That is one of the (many) reasons that same-sex “marriage” is a bad idea.

    You wrote, “Separation of church and state does not mean the church is exempt from the laws of the state if it wants to assist the state in providing services which the state governs.” Without delving into constitutional law, I would respond that your comment makes it sound like the state is doing faith-based charities a favor by allowing them to provide social services. In reality, faith-based charities save governments untold sums of money all across the country by virtue of their charitable endeavors. They also tend to do a really good job at those endeavors. Do you honestly find it so unreasonable for the state to refrain from forcing faith-based charities to either violate their own beliefs or shut their doors? One thing is clear: The State of New York can easily avoid this type of conundrum by simply retaining an opposite-sex definition of marriage.

    You asked a question about the American Pediatric Association. First of all, I am not aware of any such organization. I assume that you are trying to refer to the American Academy of Pediatrics. In response, I offer you the web site of the American College of Pediatricians, an organization which was formed due to the increasingly left-leaning, policy-driven positions of the AAP on issues like same-sex “marriage.” See http://www.acpeds.org/?BISKIT=1059186137 and http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=10002&art=150&BISKIT=1059186137.

RSS feed for comments on this post.