Bloomberg Rewards GOP Senators with Financial Windfall for Backing Same-Sex Marriage
By Jerry A. Kane
Last June, Republican Senators James S. Alesi of Rochester, Mark J. Grisanti of Buffalo, Roy J. McDonald of Saratoga County, and Stephen M. Saland of Poughkeepsie broke with their leadership and their party base and voted to cast aside 6,000 years of history and the time-tested male-female view of marriage to impose homosexual “marriage” on New York State.
For their betrayal, the four campaigns will split $900,000, a windfall by upstate standards. Gotham’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg and several hedge fund managers forked over the cash to send a message to Republican lawmakers that they can ignore the wishes of their party leaders and violate their constituents’ trust with impunity.
In granting marriage rights to homosexuals, the New York legislature is “defining deviancy down” for a group that has never had the right to marry, which means new attempts to broaden the definition of marriage will surely follow.
Now that the meaning and definition of marriage has been profoundly changed and the most radical step ever in deconstructing society’s most important institution has been taken, what has yet to be determined is whether or not the legislators will be able to legally ban any marital arrangement if the group seeking the right to marry argues that the ban is unfair and discriminatory and demands equal protection under the law.
The short answer is the new law sets the precedent; therefore, Gothamites and Knickerbockers should brace themselves for the following eclectic martial arrangements that’s coming down the pike:
• Polygamous or polyandrous marriage, i.e., a man having multiple wives or a woman having multiple husbands.
• Group marriage, i.e., the marriage of several men with several women.
• Pedophile marriage, i.e., the marriage of an adult to a prepubescent child.
• Incestuous marriage, i.e., the marriage of a father to his daughter, a mother to her son, a brother to his sister.
• Bestial marriage, i.e., a marriage of a human to a nonhuman animal. Speciesism is discrimination against nonhuman animals based on the assumption that humans are superior to and more important than all other species.
• Marriage to self, i.e., a person marries himself or herself. It would be prejudicial to assume that marriage must involve at least two people.
• Marriage to an inanimate object, i.e., the marriage of a person to an object. It would be discriminatory to keep people with objectum sexuality from having significant relationships with particular inanimate objects.
For thousands of years, cultures the world over have sanctioned marriages based on the complementary nature of men and women. As William Bennett wrote in his defense of traditional marriage:
“Marriage is not an arbitrary construct; it is an “honorable estate” based on … how they [men and women] refine, support, encourage and complete one another. To insist that we maintain this traditional understanding of marriage is not an attempt to put others down. It is simply an acknowledgment and celebration of our most precious and important social act.”
Yet, four Republican lawmakers chose to ignore their nation’s religious heritage and the foundation principles of Western civilization to impose “a radical, untested and inherently flawed social experiment on an institution that is the keystone in the arch of civilization.” They decided to radically redefine marriage without taking the time to examine the potential societal impact of their actions.
“For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.”
Nothing happens in a vacuum; and knee-jerk actions have built-in consequences, especially when they stem from a bad idea to being with.
I feel there is nothing I can do, yeah
I watched the world float
To the dark side of the moon
After all I knew it had to be
For more on the story, see GOP State Senators Reap the Benefits of Supporting Gay Marriage.