POLL ALERT! Same-sex marriage in NY State. Influence of the Catholic Church, Archbp. Dolan.

ACTION ITEM!  READERS! BLOGGERS!

POLL ALERT!

In the Metropolis section of the WSJ there is a piece about the legalization of same-sex “marriage”.  Archbishop Dolan of New York is featured in the article.  There is a POLL about the legalization of same-sex marriage.

June 14, 2011, 12:34 PM ET

As Gay Marriage Gains Ground, Archbishop’s Influence Is Tested

By Jacob Gershman

Therese and Joel for The Wall Street Journal

Archbishop Timothy Dolan

With the refrain of “Please not here!,” New York Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan beseeched state lawmakers to block gay marriage from becoming legal in New York. [BTW... I object to the twisting of the word "gay". I hate the destructive misuse of that word.]

The stampede is on,” Dolan wrote Tuesday on his official blog. “Our elected senators who have stood courageous in their refusal to capitulate on the state’s presumption to redefine marriage are reporting unrelenting pressure to cave-in.”

The archbishop has written about gay marriage in the past. In a post last month, for instance, he wrote that advocates for gay marriage were engaging ”in some Orwellian social engineering about the nature and purpose of marriage.” He has also compared the legislation to radical attempts of social engineering seen in China and North Korea. But the tone of his latest post was more urgent.

Catholic officials have asked Dolan to make personal calls to Republican lawmakers. Momentum appears to have shifted behind passage of same-sex marriage legislation before the legislative session ends on June 20. Four lawmakers who voted against gay marriage two years ago, including one Republican, declared on Monday that they would now vote in favor of allowing gays to wed.

That means the odds are long for the Roman Catholic Church in its bid to prevent gay marriage from becoming legal in New York. [This is really a reversal of the issue.  The Catholic Church is trying to defend true marriage and is doing so for the good of all society.] The next few days will be an interesting test of Dolan’s influence. It probably doesn’t help that the archbishop is 3,000 miles away, leading a bishop conference in Seattle.

Some of you readers are a lot farther away.  But you can vote in the poll at the bottom of the page where this article appears.

The Poll looks like this.  I voted “No”.  You, of course, will vote in any way that pleases you to vote.

And at the time of this writing here are the results.

As you can see, this poll needs some additional votes.

UPDATE 20:14 GMT:

There has been some improvement, but more attention is needed!

UPDATE 22:16 GMT:

Keep it going!

UPDATE 16 June 13:15 GMT:

Get the word out!

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Biased Media Coverage, One Man & One Woman, POLLS, The future and our choices and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to POLL ALERT! Same-sex marriage in NY State. Influence of the Catholic Church, Archbp. Dolan.

  1. Theodore says:

    Voted No.

    BTW, the sidebar for the article contains this headline for another article on the WSJ Metro Section: “No Weiner Criticism From NYC Politicians.” Guess that says it all.

  2. Ezra says:

    Is he going to excommunicate Catholic lawmakers who vote in favour of legalising same-sex marriage?

  3. Anne C. says:

    I just voted, and the “no” votes were up to 31.2%, “yeses” down to 68.8%! It makes a difference!

  4. antmcos says:

    I live in NY. Apparently they are just one vote shy of passing this in the Senate. The Assembly has passed this before and will do so again. Cuomo, a catholic, has made this a top priority of his administration. Lots of behind the scene “influence” going on, especially from people like Mayor Bloomberg(NYC). Not a word from the pulpit where I attend Mass. Haven’t seen anything publicly from Cuomo’s bishop, no suprise there. (see Fr Z’s coverage from Ed Peters) And Dolan’s in Seattle now. What does that say? For courageous relentless outspoken defense of marriage, look up Rev Ruben Diaz, a state senator from the Bronx( who has received death threats over this) and Yehuda Levin. Please pray for my state.

  5. Andrew says:

    A commenter at the WSJ is complaining that the vote is being unfairly influenced by WDTPRS. I suppose it means, in his mind, that my opinion is unfair, while his is fair.

  6. Andrew. That’s okay. If a poll is an open poll, then people are free to vote in it. Right?

  7. Augustin57 says:

    What a pile of pullusfimus these legislators are trying to pass! Talk about ruining a society from the ground up! Should we rename New York after Calligula?

  8. Malateste says:

    The sad thing is that the poll itself is framed as a leading question. In colloquial American English, at least, “to legalize” carries the passive sense of “allowing” or “decriminalizing” an activity (think “legalizing drugs” or “legalizing gambling”). So asking whether we should “legalize” gay marriage automatically presumes (a) that the current system is some sort of unjust, active restriction on the natural liberties of gay couples, and (b) that gay marriage is only about lifting that restriction, not about actively extending government endorsement and support for homosexual unions.

    There’s really no way to answer this question in a Catholic sense, because our understanding posits that the gay-marriage question is a definitional issue, not a question of rights at all. We really should be more careful about policing the rhetoric in these cases– goodness knows the other side is, with all of their handwringing about “pro-life” vs. “anti-abortion. “

  9. vox borealis says:

    Malateste,

    correct, though indeed the point should be pushed further. Gay marriage is nowhere in the USA illegal, in the sense that homosexuals may go to the nearest Episcopal church (or whatever) and get married. They can call themselves married. They can make vows in a public ceremony in the park. Etc. No one will get thrown into jail for such activities.

    Rather, what these activists want is civic (and indeed societal) recognition and approval—they want all of us to affirm their status.

    The entire rhetoric of “legalizing” gay marriage has been a boon for those pushing the agenda.

  10. HyacinthClare says:

    We’re having an effect — now it’s 62% to 37%.

  11. lucy says:

    Voted NO ! And put out the word for others to go vote no. up to 38%

  12. There has been some improvement, but more attention is needed!

  13. melafwife says:

    Voted, shared with Catholic Homesteading Women and tweeted!
    Many Blessings,
    Melanie

  14. Mundabor says:

    Voted and published in my blog.
    Thanks for sharing this
    M

  15. shane says:

    I voted also (…the comments there are vile).

  16. RMT says:

    Nos are up to 41.8% at 5:25 EST

  17. UPDATE 22:16 GMT:

    Keep it going!

  18. APX says:

    @Fr. Z

    Grrr! That means it’s going down. I voted 5 minutes before you posted that and it was up to 43.something%.

  19. Random Walk says:

    Update: 43.4% “No” as of 3:29pm PST :)

  20. BobP says:

    I don’t see the point. There is no such thing as a gay marriage, a same sex marriage, or an animal marriage. If it’s all about contracts and federal taxes, let them change contract and tax laws, not redefine or mock the union which God has already formed.

  21. EWTN Rocks says:

    I am thankful for Bishop Cordileone’s work to promote and defend traditional marriage and family. I noticed the USCCB issued a news release today announcing the availability of a new DVD, “Made for Life” that follows an earlier video, “Made for Each Other” that I viewed several months ago and found quite compelling. Here is a link to the new video and resource information:
    http://usccb.org/marriageuniqueforareason/

  22. Legisperitus says:

    No is up to about 46% now.

  23. Kerry says:

    “Cuomo, a catholic..” Doesn’t he represent that “small, parallel church”?

  24. benedetta says:

    With all of the political maneuvering and manipulation it can’t be said that there is a mandate. It may squeak through.

  25. UPDATE 16 June 13:15 GMT:

    Get the word out!

  26. pelerin says:

    The Z effect has worked well. 52% yes to 47.2% no today

  27. wolfeken says:

    The saga in New York shows the sad state of priorities for even so-called conservative bishops.

    Why in the world is Archbishop Dolan at the USCCB meeting this week in Washington state as his state gets ready to crumble? When the president of the U.S. is away and something big happens at home, he bolts his business immediately to tend to the problem. So too should the president of the USCCB. The USCCB can wait to draft its document on homilies.

    A blog post this week by Archbishop Dolan was nice. Hard-hitting on the subject and it got some attention. But he is charge of Roman Catholics in the Archdiocese of New York — several of whom are lawmakers who have stated they will vote in favor of the sodomite “marriage” legsislation.

    He should immediately fly home, hold a news conference, and publicly state that he will personally excommunicate each and every one of the Catholic lawmakers in the Archdiocese of New York who vote for that bill.

    40 years of screwing around with honey has not worked — it is time to threaten excommunication to these politicians and follow-through. If Archbishop Dolan can’t take firm action against Catholic lawmakers on this, I really do not know what the point is of having a “conservative” bishop in an important place.

  28. RickMK says:

    I voted ‘No’, even though I do not think much of any Internet polls.

    Anybody who knows how to delete Flash cookies (which is only slightly more difficult than deleting normal cookies) could keep voting repeatedly and easily skew the results of that poll.

  29. benedetta says:

    wolfeken, I agree but of course Gov Cuomo who has been playing games with this and has engineered the timing of this vote, in secret, has banked on the fact that all of the US Bishops this week are elsewhere. That meeting was scheduled long ago. The political issue has been forced as though an ambush and the pressure is being brought to bear and all the ugliness, threats and pork deals that will necessitate, for a few votes when the popular sentiment is divided by most polling measures. You are not alone when it comes to grave concern about situations more or less created and engineered by certain bishops. Archbishop Dolan, relatively new on the scene, is not one of them. The attitude of hatred towards Catholics this is premised on well predates his tenure. Since so much is based upon unchallenged, expressed hatred towards Catholics, I am not sure that reason plays much of a role in it now at this point.

  30. jbosco88 says:

    The “no” vote percentage is declining – down to 46.3 at 21:00GMT. Surely the WSJ doesn’t have that big a readership online?!

  31. benedetta says:

    There is discussion of religious exemptions, these “carve-outs”. Given the harassment people endure for doing what is within their rights, without animosity, I am not sure this will do much. Maybe we need something that protects Catholics from bigotry given all that has happened. In the case of an elected civil judge, who may be Catholic, if approached by a same-sex couple to officiate (as judges are empowered to marry) if she decided that as she was Catholic that she could not in good conscience perform such a ceremony, though not required to perform any, would she then be liable to civil rights claim, to be sued for millions of dollars for doing what her conscience dictates as a Catholic? And when Catholic schools teach about the sacrament of matrimony since Catholic schools do teach about the sacraments, would the school be sued for this?

    And another matter is the way the politicians couch this in terms of civil rights. Will the popular mind now pronounce all Catholics discriminatory and in violation of civil rights?

    And yet it is hard to believe that any Catholic who supports expansion of abortion can be seriously described as being in support of any human being’s civil rights. I will expect them to next turn their attention to life, having placed their leadership and efforts in support of this legislation. What would be stopping them?