Gov. Cuomo yesterday ratcheted up the pressure in favor of same-sex marriage in New York, sending his own bill to the Legislature while arm-twisting lawmakers on its behalf.
That’s a pity.
Sure, politics drives everything in Albany, but some topics properly are a matter between legislators, their constituents and their consciences.
We would include same-sex marriage on that list.
Cuomo isn’t the only one big-footing the issue. Conservative Party Chairman Mike Long has warned that no legislator who endorses same-sex marriage will be listed on his party’s ballot line — no small matter for many Republicans.
There is no denying that same-sex marriage could become law this year. This reflects a seismic shift in society’s attitudes on the issue — and a growing acceptance of gays in general.
Still, the question is vexing.
But if we had a vote, it would be no.
Marriage as an institution has fallen on hard times in recent years. But that’s no excuse for weakening it further.
Since the dawn of human history, marriage has been defined as the union between one man and one woman, the point being procreation — that is, raising children in a stable, nurturing environment.
But, as Professor Robert P. George of Princeton has written, same-sex-marriage adherents “do not propose leaving intact the historic definition of marriage and simply expanding the pool of people eligible to marry. Their goal is to abandon the conjugal conception of marriage in our law and replace it.”
That is, discarding its role as society’s principal means of fruitful renewal — and that alone is a sufficiently compelling reason to reject same-sex marriage.
As it is, there are many legal restrictions on who can marry: Half the states ban marriages between first cousins and all ban them between closer relatives. Each state imposes age restrictions, and many bar mentally ill people from marrying. All states ban polygamy.
In short, it has always been accepted that government has a right to regulate and restrict marriage under certain circumstances; that is, there is no civil right mandating that any two people in love must be given official sanction to wed.
We’re also troubled by the potential threat to religious freedom if same-sex marriage is legalized.
As Professor George argues, “the state would be forced to view [traditional]-marriage supporters as bigots who make groundless and individual distinctions,” which would “undermine religious freedom and the rights of parents to direct the . . . upbringing of their children.
“Already we have seen anti-discrimination laws wielded as weapons against those who cannot, in good conscience, accept” same-sex marriage, he says.
In Massachusetts, the Court of Appeals overrode parents who objected to public schools teaching that gay relationships are moral, in violation of their religious beliefs. And that state’s Catholic Charities was forced to end its adoption services when ordered, against its principles, to place children with same-sex couples.
We understand the frustration of gay couples who insist that they be treated the same as everyone else.
In the long run, though, society will be better served by retaining the traditional, time-tested definition of marriage.