Posted on 06/26/2011 5:30:06 AM PDT by NYer
In the 35th-floor conference room of a Manhattan high-rise, two of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s most trusted advisers held a secret meeting a few weeks ago with a group of super-rich Republican donors.
Over tuna and turkey sandwiches, the advisers explained that New York’s Democratic governor was determined to legalize same-sex marriage and would deliver every possible Senate vote from his own party.
Would the donors win over the deciding Senate Republicans? It sounded improbable: top Republican moneymen helping a Democratic rival with one of his biggest legislative goals.
But the donors in the room — the billionaire Paul Singer, whose son is gay, joined by the hedge fund managers Cliff Asness and Daniel Loeb — had the influence and the money to insulate nervous senators from conservative backlash if they supported the marriage measure. And they were inclined to see the issue as one of personal freedom, consistent with their more libertarian views.
Within days, the wealthy Republicans sent back word: They were on board. Each of them cut six-figure checks to the lobbying campaign that eventually totaled more than $1 million.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
“they get taxpayer money”
That is an outrage!! Would you happen to have a link handy about that?
“If it had been voted on by referendum it never would have passed. But the elitists in the Govt. know better.”
Even in CA same-sex “marriage” was voted down.
I wonder how we can get a referendum system in NY for future major issues.
You mean wealthy libertarians are funding same sex marriage?
From the article, Pg. 3:
‘“My management style,” the Senate majority leader, Dean G. Skelos of Long Island, had told lawmakers, “is that I let my members lead.”’
If Skelos doesn’t believe in leading, maybe the NY senate needs a new leader - a STRONG social conservative leader.
While Skelos is a good person, maybe he just isn’t strong enough for the job.
Prayer always helps -I have made peace with the fact that my son will either repent and be reconciled—or he will one day reap the recompense due for his choice.IF we are separated it will not matter will it-he will be blotted out.There is a way that seems right to a man but the ends thereof is death.I can no more change what is written than I can force my son to believe as I do.
This surprises you? Libertarianism has always rejected conservative positions on moral issues.
This is something of a high water moment, the GOP pretty much caters to the wealthy for a host of reasons with the understanding being social issues are off of the table.
Now, the very same wealthy have stabbed social conservatives in the back, meanwhile rushbo is out on a long golfing weekend.
Can someone tell social conservatives a single, intelligible, reason to vote for a GOP candidate now? To knock on doors? to volunteer?
Can’t think of any.
It's painful, I know. I think Skelos did his best, but he was up against a brick wall. Remember that the precedent for such a response, began with Marion Cuomo! Back in 1984 then-governor of New York Mario Cuomo gave a speech in which he outlined his ideas about how a Catholic politican who personally believed that things like abortion and divorce are wrong should approach their responsibilities towards a public comprised of Catholics who agree, Catholics who disagree, and non-Catholics who might disagree or agree. When should a politician attempt to impose their religious beliefs and doctrines on others?
privately opposed, but publicly supportive.
You can read his speech here.
Cuomo Sr. set the precedent that all of these politicians have followed.
Our wires crossed - I thought you meant libertarians spent money against fag marriage. Or should or something...
My duh.
Libertarians are worse then Dems in that regard because they pose as conservative.
Why would anyone be surprised by silence on this issue from Rush L.? Elton John performed at his recent wedding!!!!
Worse?
No, they are honest about their stances on social conservatism, it just means it is obvious that their interests are not our interests, if we allow ourselves to be deceived again that is on us, not on them.
Thanks for your insight re: Skelos, and again, I think he is a good man.
But it seems the majority of Republicans are too polite, play more than fair, and end up losing, while the left is taking over the country, a little at a time, or should I say a LOT at a time.
True, but this should be done by the individuals involved... and government currently uses marriage and tax laws to punish people who do not bequeath their wealth to the persons the government thinks are the most deserving. From a freedom perspective, a person should be allowed to leave 100% of his estate to anyone he chooses or anything he chooses. As far as gay couples are concerned, why should they have to take a tax hit in the inheritance department when straight married couples do not?
What is NOT the governments purview is DEFINING marriage.
State governments have routinely defined marriage. States have been able to define marriage as being between couples of a certain age or blood relation. No one has ever legally challenged any state's authority to "define" marriage in this regard, so it must follow that a state does have the authority to "define" marriage in the regard of the sexes of the participants.
I agree completely that the state usurping the power to define marriage will lead more confusion as participants in other types of relationships will inevitably demand legal recognition. That's why I think the government needs to give up the power to define marriage, and leave the status of private personal relationships among consenting adults alone.
Another plus to my plan is this... the current push to legalize government-sanctioned personal relationships has more to do with destroying the Church than eliminating discrimination. My proposal allows for absolute religious freedom in that churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, or any other private religious institution would retain its freedom to perform marriages in a manner acceptable to those faiths.
And from a personal perspective as a Christian, my marriage is solemnized by the Almighty God. I need no earthly authority to "sanctify" my marriage.
Because homosexuals are not a "couple" and never will be. All the man made laws in the world cannot change natural law.
States have been able to define marriage as being between couples of a certain age or blood relation.
Yes they have but never before has ANY government defined marriage as ANYTHING except a man and a woman. No government can change natural law.
Let's see, a few days ago you were pushing for eugenics-based sterilization and now you are pushing sodomite marriage.
Yes, I know you are opting for the long-standing libertarian mantra of just keeping the state out of it, but the result is the same.
For nearly a thousand years western GOVERNMENTS have been involved in the granting of marriage licenses and until recently they have ONLY been between a MAN AND A WOMAN, nobody ever questioned this. Governments have an absolute interest in marriage and they always have.
My proposal allows for absolute religious freedom in that churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, or any other private religious institution would retain its freedom to perform marriages in a manner acceptable to those faiths.
Right that means that you FULLY SUPPORT someone starting a "Church of Sodomy" and "marrying" sodomites. Your proposal also fully endorses polygamy and bestiality.
Thank you.
If you are a Christian you should be righteously angry at perverts defiling God's plan. That you are not speaks volumes.
I don't remember reading anything in the New Testament about government-sanctioned "marriage" either. These types of unions have no meaning to me, as they are not in line with God's Law.
But what I do remember reading is that none of God's plans needed any help from any government in order to be successful, and nothing that God had, has or will ever will will ever be thwarted by any government. He does what He does, regardless of what people think or want.
That's deflection and it doesn't work.
These types of unions have no meaning to me, as they are not in line with God's Law.
What did Jesus do to the moneylenders in his Father's house? You're awfully laid back about people defiling God's creation.
But what I do remember reading is that none of God's plans needed any help from any government in order to be successful
Another deflection and an untrue one. Need I remind you that Jonathan only went into battle with God's Blessing? And David did the same. Have you forgotten Joshua? They WERE "government". And they absolutely were part of God's plan. He also used them to destroy His enemies.
I suggest that you look to the Word. And study the righteous anger of God's people.
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.