We are Now Enemies of the State

I have been warning for some time about the intolerance that we are likely to face from the forces of “tolerance” who backed the bill legalizing same-sex “marriage” here in New York.

The other day, the impending persecution became even clearer, as Governor Cuomo, the highest public official of New York State, declared us to be enemies of the state and nation.

He was speaking to a group of “gay rights” advocates about the process that led to the passage of the so-called “Marriage Equality Act”.  He was remarkably candid about that process, including interesting remarks about the power of money in buying votes, and the behind-the-scenes negotiations for votes.  (By the way, this account of the event comes from the “Gay City News” — I refuse to link to such a source, so you’ll have to take my word for it).

When asked if he found persuasive any arguments offered by the opposition to re-defining marriage, this is what the Governor of all New Yorkers said:

“There is no answer from the opposition. There really isn’t. Ultimately, it’s, ‘I want to discriminate.’ And that’s anti-New York. It’s anti-American.”

Savor that quotation for a moment, and drink in the depth of its arrogance, contempt, and hostility.

No answer by defenders of marriage?

  • Not the thorough and comprehensive philosophical arguments rooted in natural law, offered by Sherif Girgis, Robert George and their colleagues?
  • Not the repeated statements of the United States Bishops and the New York State Bishops?
  • Not the arguments offered by the public in the 41 states that have rejected the re-definition of marriage?
  • Not the arguments that were deemed persuasive by 85 Senators, 342 Representatives, and President Clinton when the Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996?
  • Not the arguments offered by Mr. Cuomo’s predecessor as state Attorney General, Eliot Spitzer, that were found persuasive by our Court of Appeals in the case upholding the real definition of marriage?
  • Not the arguments we were giving legislators in the hallways of the State Capitol and their home offices, for weeks prior to the vote?
  • In reality, Mr. Cuomo doesn’t just disagree with our arguments, he denies their existence.  He clearly believes that they are pernicious, beyond the pale of proper discourse, and motivated only by hatred.

    That is why he has now declared that we are “anti-American” — that is to say, enemies of our nation.

    Those of us who have memories of American history are deeply angered and disturbed by such rhetoric.  We recall a time when Catholics (and the Irish in particular) were deemed to be a threat to America, and were openly persecuted. We thought that we were past those days, but obviously they are returning.

    And remember, the Governor’s thuggish remarks don’t just target the Catholic Church, but also the Orthodox Jewish community, the Evangelical Christian community, many mainline Protestant Churches and Muslims, and others of no religious faith who all believe in the authentic, traditional meaning of marriage.

    It is a chilling moment when the top elected official of our state — a man who took an oath to uphold the Constitutions of our state and nation — has declared that so many people are political pariahs.  When he calls us enemies of the state.

    This is legitimately frightening.  We all know what the power of the state can do to its enemies.

    Tags: ,

    104 Responses to “We are Now Enemies of the State”

    1. Harold Crews says:

      At the risk of getting burned here goes.

      First, whether some attitude or belief is ‘American’ or ‘anti-American’ is a matter of complete indifference to me due to the term ‘American’ lacking any substantive meaning. For all practical purpose it is by and large a term of manipulation the best I can tell. Regardless characterising an action or belief as ‘American’ or not is a poor substitute for right and wrong.

      Secondly, let’s put aside the pretense that homosexual ‘marriage’ is about equality before the law. It isn’t. There are any number of actions that homosexuals partners can undertake to secure inheritance rights, property rights and health care decision making without the recognition of homosexual ‘marriage’. It is about requiring other individuals, businesses or institutions to change their behaviour under threat of civil penalty or even possibly criminal penalty. And it is completely dishonest to claim otherwise. The legal enshrinement of homosexual ‘marriage’ will require that those people, businesses or institutions who possess moral or other objections to either stop offering some service in conformity with conscience or to continue offering the service in violation of conscience. This has already occurred in that some Catholic adoption agencies have had to close down due to refusing to place children with ‘married’ homosexual couples. There are other instances outside of adoption concerning use of facilities. It is not whether there will be discrimination or no discrimination. It is about what forms of discrimination will be permitted or even required by the State.

      Equality before the Law is one of the underpinnings of Justice. But it must be remembered that the scope of the Law is limited. For where the Law goes, politics naturally accompanies it. And the party spirit inherent in politics is incompatible with Justice. The institution of Marriage arose outside the Law and as such is not subject to it.

      Judging by some of the comments entered here, the Church is headed for persecution.

    2. Irene says:

      For Catholics, it all comes down to ‘who do you follow’? Cuomo is the ‘king’ of his own little world up in Albany. He is a coward….a Catholic in name only, and has no problem proving it over and over again. To be a faithful Catholic takes incredible courage…one must live a life that is counter-cultural…to be in this world, but not of it. Those are the teachings of Jesus. How sad that Cuomo thinks he knows more than God does. Who do you follow?

    3. George says:

      Great article, Ed!!! It’s nice to see someone unafraid of the tyranny of political correctness. It’s OK to bash the Catholic Church, but when the members of the Church strike back and give their insightful opinion — look out! The church is not opposed to civil unions, which gives legal protection to our gay brothers and sisters, but is opposed to redefining marriage. The problem is that the State may now force Catholic, and other faith traditions, to participate in things it’s morally opposed to, such as adoption by gay couples. It also opens up the issue of censoring free speech against homosexual behavior (I said BEHAVIOR, not the person) by labeling such teaching or speech at “hate speech”. In Canada, a preacher was jailed for preaching against homosexual behavior. We’re next!

    4. Francis says:

      As faithful followers of Christ, who value chastity, we refuse to sacramentalize anal intercourse and other practices that I cannot mention. The Blessed Mother spoke at Fatima that more souls go to hell for sins of the flesh than for any other reason. And that was 1917. The diabolical disorientation that Sr. Lucia spoke of is clearly at its low zenith so to speak. I am not looking forward to the next phases. The hatred toward Christ and his word, the twisting of his words to suit the sordid reasoning of homosexuals and their supporters has hardened and deepened to the point that more and more are hoping that what once was an extra-scriptural fringe prophesy of an Illumination of Conscience will actually become a reality as the only hope for many.

    5. Dr. James Kightlinger says:

      One thing the heretical Mr. Cuomo, who in my understanding is living in sin, and tries to justify it through his misused authority, needs to do is to take his earthy opinion and take it up a level to our Lord’s judgment.
      He is a an age where he should be working for his final opinion by a much higher court and the one that gives a final and eternal judgment.
      He needs a lot of prayer to realize this before it is too late. Could be at any time.

    6. What is un-American is the fact that one can no longer express their freedom of Christian belief. What we use to say in our song, “God Bless America” is no longer desired by our own governors who are supposed to uphold the laws of the Constitution. As a nation that was once built on Christian beliefs, we now have threw the Holy Bible out completely. Instead we have made our nation a godless, lawless nation without any morals. So if the constitution is still active but not being followed , then those who hold office in this country and don’t uphold the constitution are the ones who are the enemies of the state. There will be NO compromise for me to change God’s laws for man made perverted ones.

    7. john says:

      To apostate Cuomo
      What good is it if you gain the world at the cost of your soul.We may labeled enemies of the state…but it’s far better than being an enemy of God.

    8. kathleen says:

      Governor Cuomo may think he is the King of Albany, but he is not a Catholic…It is harder to be a Catholic and stand up for what you believe in and so easy to follow
      the wrong doings of the world..One day Cuomo will meet the Judge of all and he will
      be judged for what he said…I am also sure he would approve little children getting hormone shots to change there sex…Again, it is harding to be a Catholic and a parent and just say NO

    9. Gregory says:

      Harold wrote: “There are any number of actions that homosexuals partners can undertake to secure inheritance rights, property rights and health care decision making without the recognition of homosexual ‘marriage’. It is about requiring other individuals, businesses or institutions to change their behaviour under threat of civil penalty or even possibly criminal penalty. And it is completely dishonest to claim otherwise. ”

      I wouldn’t say it’s dishonest at all. You’re still free to disapprove of anyone’s behavior that you see fit and to impart those beliefs to your children, to writer letters to the editor, stand on a soapbox and orate ’til the cows come home and beyond.

      You say, it’s not about “equality before the law, ” but then remind us that in order to achieve the rights and protections afforded by civil marriage, homosexually oriented people have to go through all kinds of legal hoops and expense just to get an approximation of the rights that heterosexuals can achieve by simply taking a trip to the town clerk’s office.

      You are also quite mistaken that “..some Catholic adoption agencies have had to close down due to refusing to place children with ‘married’ homosexual couples.” The most commonly cited instance of a Catholic adoption agency closing its doors, is Catholic Charities in Boston. They were not forced to close down at all–rather they were told that they could not use public funds if they refused to place children with same sex couples..They could have continued to offer adoption services as a non-publically funded institution. I don’t see any reason why they could NOT have done precisely that, given the extensive resources of the Catholic church. Instead, they seem to have said, in effect, “We want public money AND we want the right to discriminate.” They didn’t get their way and went off in a snit.

    10. Jim McCartney says:

      This is typical of leftist arrogance and self righteousness. The followers of Truth understand the meaning of “receiving a hundredfold more houses, brother, sisters, children, and with them persecution”. Defenders of marriage will continue to promote the real meaning of the union between one woman and one man which was considered to be both moral and American long before the blustering voices of dissent came to the fore.

    11. kaves1 says:

      Why should homosexual couples have special rights and titles when they have not procreated? The State’s survival is uniquely and totally dependent on procreation. Those that procreate and raise these children deserve special recognition and titles for their relationship – because they ensure the survival of the State. This is of vital importance to the State. Since marriage has always been primarily about bearing and raising children, the title of marriage belongs to those that procreate. Why should the State not give special rights and titles to those who have earned them in this unique way?

    12. Steve Martin says:

      I’ve done quite a bit of study of the homosexual issue, 29 books over the last 10 years. There is a mountain of evidence our there that shows homosexuality is a psychological sickness and that people are not born gay. In other words the religious conclusion about homosexuality supports the psychological evidence and vice versa. What I don’t understand is why there is not more talk about homosexuality being a sickness? The evidence is there. One would think that the scientific evidence would be more persuasive in converting pro-gay people.
      To gain a good perspective on the psychological evidence go to http://www.narth.com.

    13. John says:

      This is very disturbing. I recall that one of the tactics used by the Nazis was to call their political enemies or victims “un-German.” Please note: I’m not comparing Governor Cuomo to the Nazis, but I am saying that it’s dangerous to marginalize whole groups of with such labels. Such off-handed, ad hominem attacks are bully tactics. Governor Cuomo, you can do better.

    14. Greg C says:

      How dare him – we have our opinions, praise God they’re not in line with Cuomo’s liberal sinful vision of America. To hell with Cuomo and Gay marriage.

    15. Byzcat says:

      The worst enemies of the Jews in ancient Judea were the Hellenistic Jews who betrayed their people and Judaism to the Seleucids. Today, we see similar behavior from apostate Catholics, such as Governor Cuomo, towards the Church and the moral laws of God. A real persecution is coming, and we will have to shelter our faithful priests and bishops because the churches who oppose gay marriage and other abominations will be shuttered.

    16. John says:

      @ Mechmann

      I appreciate the thoughtful response. I disagree with your justification of denial of human rights from a minority based on “fixed meanings of words” and Natural Law, but I nonetheless appreciate the response. I think we can both agree that without revisionist ideals or people, we’d be in a MUCH darker place in the world.

      @ Harold

      Let’s perform an exercise, shall we? I’m going to take a full paragraph of your comment, not entirely out of context, and replace the word “homosexual” with “interracial”. And then you’re going to tell me how your paragraph does not show animus towards a minority. Ready? Let’s Go!

      “Secondly, let’s put aside the pretense that interracial ‘marriage’ is about equality before the law. It isn’t. There are any number of actions that interracial partners can undertake to secure inheritance rights, property rights and health care decision making without the recognition of interracial ‘marriage’. It is about requiring other individuals, businesses or institutions to change their behaviour under threat of civil penalty or even possibly criminal penalty. And it is completely dishonest to claim otherwise. The legal enshrinement of interracial ‘marriage’ will require that those people, businesses or institutions who possess moral or other objections to either stop offering some service in conformity with conscience or to continue offering the service in violation of conscience. This has already occurred in that some Catholic adoption agencies have had to close down due to refusing to place children with ‘married’ interracial couples. There are other instances outside of adoption concerning use of facilities. It is not whether there will be discrimination or no discrimination. It is about what forms of discrimination will be permitted or even required by the State.”

    17. James says:

      George – “The church is not opposed to civil unions, which gives legal protection to our gay brothers and sisters, but is opposed to redefining marriage.” I don’t believe this to be the case. I would like to see the author share his views regarding civil unions. From what I see, the bishops have been in opposition any time a state has voted on a civil unions bill such as in New Jersey and New Hampshire (which later passed a marriage equality bill). Perhaps I am biased because I live in Queens and read the Tablet (which is vehemently anti-gay). I recall Bishop DiMarzio questioning the need for repeal of DADT last December.

    18. Ed Mechmann says:

      @James —

      You are correct that the Church has opposed civil unions bills, for several reasons. I discussed this in an earlier blog post

      In a nutshell, the reason we oppose such laws is that, for all intents and purposes, they actually are “marriage” in all but name. As a result, they would equate non-marital relationships with real marriages. They would also threaten religious liberty by requiring recognition of those unions as the equivalent of marriage. In fact, two of the most prominent cases of a conflict with religious liberty (the case of the Methodist wedding pavilion in Ocean Grove, NJ, and the exclusion of Catholic agencies from adoption and foster care services in Illinois), stemmed from civil union laws, not the redefinition of marriage.

      Another major reason we oppose them is that they have been used as a justification for litigation seeking the re-definition of marriage. The argument is that a civil union law violates the Equal Protection Clause by treating same-sex couples differently from married couples — just by virtue of the label “civil union” itself. That was the approach used in Connecticut to overturn their marriage law.

      To round out the picture, though, I should note that in several states where civil union bills were proposed, the bishops also added that they did not oppose legislation that would grant certain rights to same-sex couples (e.g., inheritance rights, hospital visitation, health benefits, etc.). The Church here in New York never took that position because a civil union bill was never seriously considered by the Legislature.

    19. Ed Mechmann says:

      Just a house-keeping note, because I’ve been noticing a number of duplicate comments.

      I have to approve all comments before they’re posted. This means there may be some delay between your submission of the comment, and when it appears. The reason for the delay is that I actually do other things for a living, and some time usually elapses before I can check the comments queue. So, if your comment doesn’t appear immediately, it’s not because I’m deleting them — I’ve waved virtually all of them through (unless they’re abusive or indecent).

      Please be patient. You don’t have to re-submit the comment twice.


    20. James De Silva says:


      That’s not really a fair exercise as it begs the question of how marriage is defined. The Loving case did not change the definition of marriage. Our own Court of Appeals recognized that – and said the exact opposite of Governor Cuomo, that a belief in “traditional” marriage is not the product of bigotry. By the way, an African-American judge was part of the majority that held that view.

    21. Henry D says:

      The definition of marriage was established by God when He created Adam and sent him A WOMAN, NOT A MAN AND TOLD THEM TO GO FORTH AND MULTIPLY. A man’s
      body is incompatible with another man’s body. It is not only unnatural but disgustingly
      filthy for men to con-join with one another. Nature had not intended it. You cannot
      change the definition of marriage anymore than you can change the definition of what
      is A man and what is A women.

    22. Ed Mechmann says:

      @John —

      We’re back to the natural law and human nature issue. In our view, race is an accidental feature of a human person (like eye color or hair color). It is utterly irrelevant to a person’s ability or eligibility to enter into a conjugal marriage (unlike sex, which is relevant). In fact, natural law would agree with the conclusion of the Supreme Court in the Loving case (the case that struck down Virginia’s interracial marriage ban). Indeed, our position is that the courts were compelled to strike that law down, and that no person was obliged in conscience to obey it — it was fundamentally unjust because it violated the natural law.

    23. I find it rather sad that Governor Cuomo has resorted to making such comments. Natural law and biological consequences with regards to same sex behavior are disavowed or given little, if any regard. It is all about discrimination and rights. Those of us who oppose same sex marriages are labeled as ‘bigoted’, ‘hateful’ and now, ‘unamerican’ by those who claim to be ‘tolerant.’ I am just curious: How would he deal with a person or a number of individuals for that matter who claim to have a a bi-sexual orientation and wish to marry a man and a woman? Where does it end, Governor Cuomo? He just does not get it. He needs our prayers! Let us lift him up to St. Thomas More, the Blessed Mary and Joseph and Sts. Ann and Joachim.

    24. Steve says:

      Then I’m “UN American”. But Cuomo should be UN Catholic. And of the two i’ll be happy as a Catholic. Though I still think America can be turned around.

    25. John says:

      @ Mr. Mechmann

      I’m glad you and Mr. De Silva bring up Loving v. Virginia. In the same sense that you believe gay Marriage would redefine “traditional Marriage”, Loving ABSOLUTELY redefined Marriage, by overturning anti-miscegenation legislation, and by making the Marriage contract more inclusive. I can’t wait for the day that the findings of fact from Perry v. Schwarzenegger are used to overturn anti-gay legislation in the same fashion.

      But on the topic of Natural Law, I agree it is an intellectual argument for discrimination against gay men and women. However, if Natural Law adherents want to object to gay sex, they have basically only procreation for use as reasoning. For example, if someone were to place love and mutual support as a priority of Marriage, same-sex couples would meet this standard, and would be morally sound.

      In our modern times many concessions have been made in regards to Natural Law. Let’s call this the reverse slippery slope. Like my reference to revisionists, if we were to still abide by the facets of Natural Law from say, the Roman times, we’d be in a much darker place.

      Again, I appreciate your responses and providing this forum for debate. You are actually helping me to bring my beliefs and arguments to bare and hopefully refine my reasoning and attempts at persuasion to see my point of view. Civil debate on this topic is hard to find across the internet (on either side). The fact that I, a gay man and an admitted atheist, can present these arguments without censorship is very telling of your character.

    26. James says:

      Ed Mechmann’s, “the Governor’s thuggish remarks”, is a most unfortunate choice of words as I see anti-Italian (“Cuomo is Mafia”) connotations in it. I am 100% Irish Catholic but I still take offense. So much for civil dialogue. You go on to refer to Cuomo “as a man who took an oath to uphold the Constitutions of our state and nation”. Well that is exactly what he did on June 24, 2011 with the support of 33 of 62 NYS Senators of various religious backgrounds. He did not take an oath to impose his religious views on the state on an issue of civil law. To do so would be un-American. In your response to my query about the Bishop’s position on Civil Unions, you say the Bishops effectively take the “slippery slope” argument and as such any state recognition of homosexual orientation is wrong. Thus as I mentioned earlier, Brooklyn’s Bishop DiMarzio decried the push for repeal of DADT as granting special rights to gay people. I love my Church for the tremendous amount of good it does throughout the world. I have received tremendous support from religious and others in the Church despite my innate sexual orientation. I still describe myself as Catholic but felt tremendous pain just over 4 months ago when rhetoric by Church leaders against our constitutional values reached a feverish pitch. Let us render to Caesar what is his and thank the Lord for what he has given all of us.

    27. Gregory says:

      @Steve Martin. Somehow I just knew that the “scientific” source you were going to cite would be the discredited NARTH ideologues.

    28. Pat Kolb says:

      We belong to God and obey God alone. We love those who are different but will not allow man to offend God. God is King of all Christians and if we obey the King all will be just and peaceful. Repent America and Follow our Lord Jesus Christ to the end.

    29. Harold Crews says:

      Gregory, so you are saying that in order to be eligible for government funds you have to toe the government line? After all you’re not suggesting that Catholic adoption agency who refuse to adopt to homosexual couples and that those agencies who will place in homosexual couples are both eligible. That is the true non-discriminatory policy. You are advocating the discriminatory policy as well as myself but for different segments of the population. Additionally I have the right to verbally oppose homosexual ‘marriage’ you assert. That may be the case for the moment but homosexual organisations have little reservation about advocating the criminalisation of speech or through regulation of speech civilly through the imposition of civil penalties. Further I object as you do to having to fund behaviours or attitudes I find repellent through the payment of taxes. Again it is not a question of whether there will be discrimination or no discrimination but what forms of discrimination will be permitted or required by government. Personally I would rather that government and taxes were greatly reduced to the extent that private charity could be adequately funded through donations.

      John your analogy is fallacious. The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual behaviour is innately disordered. As such individuals who engage in homosexual behaviour are engaging in self destructive behaviour. Homosexuals on average have significantly more health and mental problems than heterosexuals, not that there is any shortage in the latter. I don’t know about you but people who would encourage me to engage in self destructive behaviour, I do not consider to be my friends. On the contrary being of a particular race is not innately disordered. I hope we can agree on this. Opposition to homosexual behaviour or ‘marriage’ may be the result of animus, we are dealing with people of course but it need not be. Additionally it is just bad form to argue by imputing malevolence on the part of your opponent.

    30. Teresa says:

      Actually, the ENEMIES OF GOD are politicians like Cuomo and the current president of the United States. Barry lifted the Mexico City Policy after 3 days in office. Now taxpayer money is being used to fund abortion WORLDWIDE. In other words the liberal’s Fourth Reich of human extermination is really WAY outdoing the Third Reich.
      Uncomfortable? It’s true.

      Can Cuomo be publicly excommunated, please??

    31. ann says:

      Yeah, I guess you could say it’s “un-American”, since our country is accepting all kinds of perversion and immorality is the norm. Pity this is what we are becoming known for. Our government leaders are leading us all right. LEADING US STRAIGHT TO HELL.

    32. dallas says:

      Interestingly it is Mr. Cuomo who seems to be confused as to what being an American is about. He seems to be fine with discriminating against anyone who doesn’t agree with him. Isn’t that the definition of bigotry?

    33. David Suchanick says:

      I’m trying to figure out who suffers more from the evil of relativism, Governor Cuomo or the people who voted for him…something to think about – our leaders are nothing more than a mirror image of those who voted for them – might be a difficult examination of conscience and NY is not the only state that needs one.

    34. Anita says:

      Cuomo is offending God in every way possible and then he has the nerve to attend Mass and receive Holy Communion. Father Fontanini is correct, that he needs much prayer. Unless he has a change of heart and lives the faith he supposedly professes he will have a serious problem on Judgement Day.

    35. Lazarus says:

      Jesus said to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s. In this case there is nothing that can be given to Caesar, and everything to God. Marriage as defined by God through natural law is one man and one woman exclusively for each other with the openess to procreation of children. All else is counterfeit, sinful, and deeply insulting to the Lord. To those that want to label me un-American, I say I’m pro-God. Better to acknowledge Jesus before the world and receive his promise to be acknowledged before the Father at the end of my days. Jesus was labeled a blasphemer by the Sanhedrin. I can accept the label of un-American. If being pro-God means martyrdom for Jesus, then there are many good examples of steadfast faith. Ex; Archbishop Romero, St. Maximillian Kolbe, St. Peter, St. Paul, the Polish, the Japanese, the Korean, the Mexican, and the North American Martyrs. We should rejoice because our rewards will be great when they utter every kind of slander against us because of the Lord Jesus’ name.

    36. Ed Mechmann says:

      @John — Thank you, too, for a civil and interesting discussion.

      As for Loving v. Virginia, it really is no help to your argument. If you go back and read the Supreme Court’s decision, you’ll see that they were not re-defining marriage. The Justices (and the underlying statute that they were striking down) assumed that marriage was the union of one man and one woman, and they never discussed the question of changing the definition of marriage in itself. Rather, the entire focus of the decision was on the constitutionality of racial classifications for one’s eligibility for marriage, under the Equal Protection clause and the Due Process clause.

      Just five years after Loving, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case from Minnesota in which a couple tried to use Loving to require the recognition of same-sex “marriages” (Baker v. Nelson). The Supreme Court rejected the appeal because in their view it did not present a “substantial federal question” — in other words, there was no merit to the couple’s arguments under the federal Constitution. The lower courts also understood that Loving did not re-define marriage, and specifically rejected the same-sex couple’s arguments. The Minnesota Supreme Court said this: “in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.”

    37. James De Silva says:


      The natural law is immutable and unchangeable. It is not bound by history or culture.

    38. Mary says:

      How do I reconcile the picture of Governor Cuomo yucking it up at the Al Smith Dinner two weeks ago and this intolerant bilge that is a direct attack on Catholicism?

    39. Peter Rox says:

      It’s important to remember that Gov Cuomo and the supporters of the recent changes to the New York marriage law were dealing strictly with CIVIL marriage, that is, the legal marriage recognized by the State of New York. Nothing at all was done concerning Catholic marriage or any other religion’s form of marriage. There are many New Yorkers who want to marry, who are not Catholic. It is totally appropriate that when the government establishes a law, that it applies equally to everyone. In the US system, this is known as Equal Protection of Law. It is recognized ( and legally permissible) that such does not exist in the Catholic Church. For example, women are not permitted ordination as well as numerous Church offices. Non-Catholics are not permitted Catholic sacraments. The Catholic Church alone sets its own criteria (it’s another subject whether or not these criteria are moral, just, or appropriate). In recent years, the Church is ever more involving itself loudly and harshly in legal and political matters. I am greatly offended that the hierarchy injects itself into so many civil matters, makes public scandals about political candidates receiving communion, and in some dioceses even preaches or writes to the Catholic faithful that voting for particular candidates or a particular party ( of course, the Democrats) is grievously sinful. The hierarchy is highly selective in denouncing politicians, political parties, and denying communion buy only focusing on “pelvic morality” all the time. Whatever happened to Social Justice in our Church?
      My faith taught me that it’s immoral to not support a living wage, as well as affordable health care and an education in this country. Our Catholic Bishops opposed the health care reform passed into law. Thank-goodness many other Catholic organizations supported the extension of health benefits to tens of millions of more Americans. Likewise, our Church is opposing simply being decent to gays in our society. Plain and simple, our church is grievously anti-gay at every turn, no matter what the issue.
      There has never been a fair housing law, job protection law, marriage law, extension of health benefits law, or any other civil rights law that extended protections to gays that Catholic bishops have not shamefully opposed, in every state. The bishops also went ballistic on letting gays be open in the military.
      Since the equal marriage law in New York state in no way infringes on the rights of Catholics to restrict marriage in our faith to the criteria delineated by the bishops, this should not even be an issue. We should be focusing more on living the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and living and acting the two Great Commandments. Jesus never spoke on homosexuality. Public opinion polling has demonstrated over and again that around 90% of Catholics differ with the church hierarchy on the issue of contraception, and that almost all practicing Catholics use non-approved forms of birth control (whether they are married or not). This is never talked about any more, because the vast number of heterosexuals in the Church would simply quit their financial support or quit the Catholic Church.
      I have never heard a married person say exactly how gays having CIVIL marriage in any way hurt or diminished their sacramental Catholic marriage. I have never heard of a Catholic priest, a Jewish Rabbi, or Mormon, or any other type of minister showing a court order that he was required to perform a gay marriage although prohibited by that faith.
      Supposedly, divorce is also prohibited by the Catholic Church for its members. Somehow, the Church has learned how to live with divorce, even though we actually do have Biblical statements from Jesus Himself speaking squarely on this subject.
      These fights over Civil gay marriage are diversions from the multitude of matters internally in our Church that we should be improving. Likewise, our faith calls us to a faith of action, by performing the corporal and spiritual works of mercy. There is too much impression that a good Christian today is one who hates gays, says Obama was born in Africa, and guns are an essential element of being American. Aren’t we Catholics capable of doing better?

    40. Julie Schuerger says:

      As we are labeled anti-American it brings to mind how the rights and the freedoms of the Jews were chipped away more and more aggressively until the holocaust became a full- blown reality. Our rights and freedoms as Catholics are now being handled the same way. We need to speak strongly on our own behalf at every opportunity.

    41. Jurek says:

      Dear Mr. Mechmann:
      1. I am in this country for few years from my native Ukraine. Believe me, Catholics here complain too much about ” religious persecution”. Look to Soviet times if you want knowledge about “religious persecutions”. What do you expect in nation like USA that calls itself “the melting pot” ?
      There are lots of nationalities, lots of political opinions, and lots of religions. Constitution teaches that there is “no religious test” for politics here in USA. I do not understand how religions argue with government officials using their doctrine as reasons. How should government act if 5 religions say “YES” to something, and 4 religions say “NO” to the same something? Whose religions should be in charge? See what I mean ?

      2. What you people are calling religious persecutions are nothing but hot airs. America is a country famous about its freedoms, and not famous about its religions controlling the politics of nation. Look to European history. The Pope and Catholics over many centuries tried to impose church law on countries, and to have a civil earthly kingdom. All it got in end was little Vatican City, after many centuries of hiring mercenary armies, fighting lots of wars, and sparking anti-clerical revolutions in nations like France. Like Jesus told everybody in gospel last week, ” Give to Ceaser what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” Politics is Ceasar’s, not God’s.

      3. If the laws do not also make “the gays” the same as all of the rest of people, I must wonder, “Well, when do the laws turn on Ukrainians ?” All groups must want the same from the legal system. Otherwise, look what happened in USSR, with Russian Supremacy the unofficial religion. All the rest of us non-Russians were clearly “less desirables” in eyes of the controlling ruling elites. Yet, the elites in USSR fell. The little mice roared. America is not going to keep as stable country if so much hatred is stirred against minorities, especially by powerful institutions as are the religions. It will only come back and hurt the religions one day.

    42. Teresa says:

      PS: Enjoy the (October) snowstorm Governor. Did you even ponder after the earthquake, the hurricane, the floods, the tornado, or any of the latest anti-blessings in New York State after you forced the same-sex ‘marriage law’ through? Since you brought up ‘anti’ concept, I think we should expand on the idea…

    43. Jim Shoe says:

      The Democratic Party, under the leadership of President Barack Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has moved so far to the Socialist Left that it can no longer represent the interests of Roman Catholics or any other Christians for that matter.

      To be a Democrat in America now is to be a Socialist. That may not be the philosophy you personally subscribe to, but it is the philosophy you are supporting (perhaps unwittingly) so long as you remain a member of this party and continue to vote for it’s candidates. So you say you cannot stomach the Republicans? Fine! Don’t vote for them either. Vote independent. Vote third party. Do something, but STOP voting for the Socialist Democrats! Stop sending them money, and for heaven’s sake, stop associating with their party! For every day you remain a Democrat is another day you attack and undermine the Catholic Church, standing as an affront to everything the Church represents.

      Socialism sees no moral reason for people to restrict sex to marriage, that is, to an indissoluble union between a man and a woman. Furthermore, socialism undermines private property, which Friedrich Engels, founder of modern socialism and communism along with Karl Marx, saw as the foundation of traditional marriage.

    44. Guerline says:

      I will keep you in my prayer Cuomo this is a reminder for us Christians to get up and apply ourselves into government. Office because the devil has people in big position using their leadership to do devious work Cuomo is not Catholic so he should not stated himself as being Catholic

    45. James says:

      A few comments on posts above. Although I don’t agree with everything Peter Rox has to say, I find his comments most insightful as are the comments of our Ukrainian friend, Jurek. I can only laugh at comments about the threats to religious freedom due to the legislative vote (majorities in the Senate and Assembly, Teresa – not decree by Cuomo) for equality in Civil Marriage. I consider myself a Catholic in the Jesuit tradition. I recall attending an alumni retreat at my former (Jesuit)high school some 18 months ago where discussion focus on how will people know we are Christian. The answer was people will know we are Christian if they see the face of Christ in us and in our actions. I failed to see the face of Christ in Archbishop Dolan’s comments last June that he thought he was living in North Korea because of the movement for equality in Civil Marriage laws. I cannot see the face of Christ in Teresa’s comments above ( I see the face of Fred Phelps or Pat Robertson post 9/11). I would tell Archbishop Dolan that he is not living in North Korea but also that he is not living in Vatican City – he is living in New York City a vibrant multicultural city that reflects the diversity of this great land of ours. Let’s be grateful that we live here and not in North Korea or the Ukraine in Soviet days or in Saudi Arabia (with its thriving religious police force) or in Iran. Gob Bless America and all of its people.

    46. Elaine Schenk, M.Id says:

      The early Christians were enemies of the state of Rome due to their refusal to recognize the Emperor as a god. They worshiped Jesus, as do we. Countless Christians have died for their faith over the past 20 centuries, and their martyrdom only made the Body of Christ stronger. Others apostasized or cowered in the cellar or fled. May our Father in Heaven grant us strength of spirit to remain firm and not be conformed to this pagan age, but rather to continue to speak the truth with serenity, clarity and conviction, never resorting to arguments based merely on our passions but firmly rooted in Scripture, Catholic tradition and the Magisterium, as well as what the sciences authentically tell us about human nature. If you read this, please say a prayer for me that I may know how to transmit the truth to our college youth and encourage them to live it. Difficult days are coming fast.

    47. Ed Mechmann says:

      Anyone who wishes to understand the Church’s concerns about religious liberty would do well to read Bishop Lori’s testimony before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution. It lays out the religious and legal premises for the protection of religious freedom, and the specific threats that we see developing. It is not a laughing matter.

    48. dana says:

      I thought it was established in the psychiatric medical community as far back as the 1970’s that homosexual life style was not really healthy, etc. I know that is taboo to hear that today. Also, the CDC has stated that homosexuals are 50 times more likely to contract the aids virus in today’s times more than non-homosexuals. These times that we are in are dark, evil and vulgarity runs rampant. I think we are in the end of times. God is love and does not condone what is going on in today’s society now.

    49. lauren says:


      Your un-Christ-like attitude towards folks with HIV/AIDS saddens me.
      HIV transmission rates for the poor and Blacks/Latinos are very high.

      By race/ethnicity, African Americans face the most severe burden of HIV in the United States (US). At the end of 2007, blacks accounted for almost half (46%) of people living with a diagnosis of HIV infection in the 37 states and 5 US dependent areas with long-term, confidential, name-based HIV reporting. In 2006, blacks accounted for nearly half (45%) of new infections in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Even though new HIV infections among blacks overall have been roughly stable since the early 1990s, compared with members of other races and ethnicities they continue to account for a higher proportion of cases at all stages of HIV—from new infections to deaths.


      Also, the DSM-II stopped listing homosexuality as a disorder in 1974.

      Presented with data from researchers such as Alfred Kinsey and Evelyn Hooker, the seventh printing of the DSM-II, in 1974, no longer listed homosexuality as a category of disorder. After a vote by the APA trustees in 1973, and confirmed by the wider APA membership in 1974, the diagnosis was replaced with the category of “sexual orientation disturbance”.


      Please get your facts right!

    50. Teresa says:

      To James: Cuomo PRESSURED any dissenters on the matter of homosexual ‘marriage.’ Payback would have been severe for those who didn’t vote ‘yay.’ That was his agenda from the very beginning.

      As far as seeing the face of Christ in my comments. Who is your Christ? He turned the tables over in the temple and spoke very severely to the pharisees and the scribes on many occasions. ‘Tis time to be bold my friend. We need more muscular Christianity. I stand with Archbishop Fulton Sheen and Cardinal Clemens von Galen who WARNED the world about the path of chastisement ahead.

      I also pray the Bishops will process the statue of Our Lady of America into the Washington, DC Basilica and dedicate the country, especially the youth, to her purity. The times are dire… And we need the graces desperately.