New York state Senator Mark Grisanti
Posted on 07/12/2011 6:44:36 AM PDT by NYer
.- New York state Senator Mark Grisanti ran as a Catholic Republican opponent of same-sex “marriage” in 2010. In June 2011, he became a key vote ensuring its passage, telling a local newspaper: “If I take the Catholic out of me, which is hard to do, then absolutely they should have these rights.”
Richard E. Barnes, Executive Director of the New York Catholic Conference, said Grisanti showed a lack of integrity as a Catholic by “ignoring” the “teachings he knows full well” on the subject of family life.
“Obviously, he's acknowledging that he does understand the Catholic position,” Barnes said to CNA on July 8. Grisanti seemed to be “making the assessment that, while it was 'hard to do,' he has 'taken the Catholic out of him' for the purposes of this vote.”
“I don't think that a public official should ever 'take the Catholic out' of himself or herself, because Catholic positions are meshed perfectly with public policy positions,” said Barnes, who directs public policy advocacy efforts for the New York bishops.
“No person should say that they are a public official and need not live according to the tenets of their faith. And I find it disappointing that he felt he had to do that.”
When Sen. Grisanti cast his vote in favor of legalizing gay “marriage,” he stated that he could not “deny anyone in my district and across New York the same rights I have with my wife.”
But this reasoning contains faulty logic, Barnes said.
“He substitutes the notion of marriage as a relationship between any two people, in the place of the longstanding legal state interest of a man and woman having and raising children in a stable family,” Barnes observed.
Further, “as a lawmaker, Senator Grisanti set aside the analysis of marriage as having a state interest that the courts in New York have always acknowledged that it has.”
“In 'Hernandez v. Robles,' the New York Court of Appeals – our highest court – firmly rejected the notion of same-sex 'marriage' as a constitutional civil right in this state, and declared that in fact the state has a legitimate interest in the rearing of children.”
The New York State Catholic Conference director said his organization has “warned both elected officials and the judiciary in New York, for a long time,” that ignoring this state interest and redefining marriage “will open the door to a situation where marriage is viewed simply as granting benefits for a relationship between two individuals.”
If this occurs, Barnes said, “the door will be open to abandonment of all principle of natural law underlying marriage.”
On June 29, just days after the “marriage” bill's passage in New York, Senator Grisanti's chief of staff Doug Curella told CNA that the senator was no longer giving any public comment on his vote.
“Senator Grisanti's floor comments explain his vote in the affirmative for Marriage Equality,” said Curella.
Grisanti said in those comments, that “under this bill the religious aspects and beliefs are protected, as well as for (sic) not-for-profits,” The senator went on to explain why he believed the bill should be passed as soon as possible: “If this bill fails, I believe the next time around those religious protections won't be there.”
But Barnes said it is far from clear what the supposed protections, which he recalled were “introduced as a chapter amendment in the last moments of the legislative session,” actually accomplished.
“It wades into an area of law that is, in many ways, brand new,” he noted. “It touches on constitutional protections, which are now overlaid with a law declaring same-sex 'marriage' to be a civil right. Much of it is untested, and its impact will not be fully known for many years, I believe.”
Maggie Gallagher, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, said the supposed protections trumpeted by Grisanti are seriously flawed.
“It protects some religious organizations; it doesn't protect religious people,” she told CNA on July 8. “If you're a marriage counselor, it's not going to help you stay in business against a claim that you're discriminating if you are not willing to help gay people keep their relationships together.”
“It's not going to protect others in the wedding industry, who feel they cannot in good conscience assist in a gay 'marriage.' And it's certainly going to do nothing for parents who do not want their children taught that gay 'marriage' is a fundamental civil right.”
Grisanti himself acknowledged, in his floor speech, that “many people who voted for me will question my integrity” because of his change of position. Gallagher recalled that her organization was among the groups courted by Grisanti as he touted support for traditional marriage last year.
“He was such a vocal opponent of gay 'marriage,'” she recalled. “He came to us, and he came to a lot of other people, when he was running against a Democrat who had voted for the gay 'marriage' bill in 2009, and he said he was unalterably opposed to same-sex marriage.
“'Unalterably' – that's a quote from him.”
Dr. Kevin Backus, chairman of the Grand Island Conservative Party, has claimed that Grisanti privately confirmed himself as a “No” vote on “Marriage Equality” only 11 days before the final vote.
Gallagher noted that at the national level, there are powerful forces working to flip the votes of wavering social conservatives.
“At the elite level, in the Republican party, there is a powerful desire to make both parties functionally pro-gay 'marriage,'” she noted. “What happened in New York is part of a deliberately orchestrated campaign, from some major Republican elites, to eliminate marriage from the portfolio of the Republican Party.”
“They are betting that if they raise enough money, they can protect the Mark Grisantis of the world from the displeasure of actual Republican voters,” she said.
But she observed that the apparent lack of integrity is likely to cost Grisanti – who pled in his floor speech with “those whose support I may lose,” telling them that “in the past what I was telling you, and what I believed at that time, was the truth.”
Yet three days later, on June 27, he acknowledged that the strength of some of his past rhetoric against redefining marriage “was probably more political than actually conscience.”
Gallagher pointed to a recent New York Times article, featuring interviews with constituents in the districts of four senators who had changed their votes on the matter.
“They actually talked to a 27-year-old Republican who favors gay 'marriage,' who said he would never vote for Grisanti again – because he's such a liar,” she said.
“'Unalterably' – that's a quote from him.”
Follow the money trail. How much was he paid for that vote?!
Ping!
Hey Grisanti. There are forces at work that want to take the Catholic out of all of us.
Why would anyone practice a religious faith they can “take out” of them?
Comfy pews? Pretty chapels? Nice music? Nice holidays?
Hyprocrisy?
He needs to be booted next election along with Skelos and Saland.
Skelos could have stopped this vote, but he was bought. Wonder what his price was?
If he could take the Catholic out of himself, then he wasn’t much of a Catholic to begin with.
Either he was paid for that vote, or someone paid him a visit and gave him an offer he couldn’t refuse.
Ted Kennedy used to do this at least 845 times per year in my observation.
Thirty pieces of silver?
“If I take the Catholic out of me, which is hard to do, then absolutely they should have these rights.”
Statists and homosexualists love that many are conditioned to think that marriage is just a collection of rights from the state, that can be granted, enforced, severed and resumed as long as the state gives its permission. They know if marriage is merely viewed as a contract that applies between any people the gov’t deems, then there is no real reason not to accept impossibilities like “gay marriage”.
Freegards, thanks for all the pings
He is from our area..but not our rep..
This was a “political deal “ he hopes make people forget this vote.. At the same session the bill passed the 2030 UB plan that will help UB to grow ..that is his district..
Apparently we now know his price
How come nobody uses the word “Excommunication” for such as these?
I am a Jewish pro lifer - we exist - and I oppose gay marriage. I read somewhere that Alessi, another one who voted for gay marriage, claimed that “his church performs gay weddings” (or at least blesses them). Do you know which church he is talking about? With the name Alessi, I had imagined that he was Italian.
Thank you for the tip! I did a little digging in the catholic blogosphere and found some interesting information. Senator Alesi is from Rochester. The Catholic Church bans gay unions and homosexual marriages. However, there are certain 'progressive' members of the clergy who wink and nod, even laugh at church doctrines. While they cannot violate them, they often choose to ignore them. Such is the case with Senator Alesi's bishop who runs the Diocese of Rochester. I will be posting a thread in the religion forum on this topic, shortly.
In a revealing video, Catholic State Senator Jim Alesi (a Republican from Rochester NY who voted for same-sex marriage) tells a party hosted by the Human Rights Campaign (the wealthiest gay rights organization in America) how his Catholic parish and pastor celebrated his vote to redefine marriage (while harming society and threatening the Church with legal penalties, by the way).
As a Jew, I know you can appreciate that some people dissent from faith based teachings. Each week, I pass a beautiful, old synagogue that is run by a partnered, lesbian rabbi. Both were vocal in advocating passage of this bill.
wait until he meets the debt collector.These little things some men do to better their own life /enlarge their own borders in this world these little compromises with the world ALL seem to have a way of coming due —in Gods time.
The lesbian rabbi and her “partner” belong in San Francisco! I would like to know what is going on with Alesi and his church. When I first read his comments, I thought he had joined an Episcopal church but I know of Episcopal priests who will not perform gay marriages and now they will be pressured to do so. This law will result in many clergy members losing their jobs.
So ... he "took the Catholic" out.
That makes him apostate.
It's a free country; he has that right.
But ... if he continues to portray himself as Catholic in any way, shape or form, he will be a liar.
There's your thirty pieces of silver ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.