New York Governor Andrew Cuomo

At this point it’s impossible to tell if he’ll win, but like his father Mario (the Governor of New York from 1983 to 1994) he identifies as a Catholic. Just not the kind that thinks it’s important to live out their faith in public. Or in private for that matter, seeing how he and his first wife Kerry Kennedy divorced in 2005 and he currently shares a home with his live-in girlfriend.

In 2011, Governor Cuomo signed a same-sex marriage bill into law. Now, he’s throwing his support behind legislation that would not only expand abortion access, but could put Catholic hospitals and state-funded ministries out of business.

According to Kathleen Gallagher, the director of pro-life activities for the New York Catholic Conference, Governor Cuomo’s proposed legislation would do away with “parental-notification laws, informed-consent laws, restrictions on taxpayer funding of abortion and abortion bans of any kind.”

Although Cuomo says the reforms will help usher in a new era of women’s equality, Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, New York sees the bill in a different light.

In an interview with the National Catholic Register, Bishop Murphy argued that when Governor Cuomo says women should have an unfettered right to an abortion because “it’s their body,” he is “espousing a position that excludes God.”

How so? Bishop Murphy responds with a question: “Are we so sovereign over our individual bodies that God the Creator has nothing to do with how we use our bodies? How we respect them? How we care for them?” He continued by pointing out that…

…in a society where everyone’s dominion over his or her body is so absolute, can we ever recognize that there are social relationships without which we cannot achieve a fully human flourishing? We become monads with no intrinsic mutual responsibility to help protect and build up human dignity.

This may seem abstract, but it illustrates what is happening: A false premise, absolute control over my body with no reference to God or neighbor, leaves us each isolated from one another and thus at risk in society. Thus the governor — and any governor or president or political leader — has to step in and arbitrarily define the legal expansion or limits of human actions and human activities.

When asked about the challenges Catholics would face if Cuomo’s plan were to become law, Bishop Murphy responded by saying the following:

This [law] is, of course, a further blow at the freedom of religious practice and a further undermining of the principle of subsidiarity, which is under tremendous attack today.

Practically, it could mean the [state’s] ability to revoke operating certificates or withhold Medicaid dollars from our hospitals, of which this diocese has six on Long Island. There is the risk that the government could extend its control by finding any of our ministries, schools, charities, etc. discriminatory because we cannot support or make references to people to exercise this new “right.”

Programs that promote birth over abortion could be at risk. And, in keeping with my overall concern, it is another blow against a pro-life position, making that position officially “unacceptable” or “bigoted” or “intolerant,” a very strange fruit in our society, where the majority of Americans, however they define it, call themselves pro-life.

To read all of Bishop Murphy’s thoughts on Governor Cuomo’s sinister plan click here.

Before I go any farther, special thanks to everyone who heeded my requests to support Bob Turner in what was considered only weeks ago to be race where he only had a long-shot chance at winning.

Bob Turner, I am told, is a daily communicant, a product of Catholic education, and put all of his children through Catholic schools. He is also pro-life and pro-marriage.

The National Organization for Marriage released a “flash” survey this morning revealing that people in the district who believe in marriage voted for Bob Turner 81%-19% (David Weprin had recently voted for same-sex marriage in the NY Assembly). Moreover, Bob Turner, won 72% of the Catholic vote (and 88% of Orthodox Jews, who also strongly believe in marriage) – more proof that Catholics and other people of faith who prioritize the right to life and the dignity of marriage can swing elections the right way!

This is also a good reminder to us that “social issues” — proLife and proMarriage — are not “wedge” issues that divide Republicans. Instead they are bridge issues that allow socially conservative Democrats to join with Republicans and Independents in electing people who are committed to serving the common good of society (socially conservative Hispanics in the district, for instance, who normally vote Democrat, probably went for Turner as well this go-around).

If you are interested in learning more about this race there is plenty to read on the NOM blog under this tag.

Score one for the good guys in New York this time — and for the rest of us, may this come as a timely reminder that politics is only as good as the people we elect to be in politics. So let’s commit ourselves again to electing good men and women who believe in life and marriage if we want to see our representation improve!

… that sound you aren’t hearing is the sound of the mainstream media ignoring the news.

Meanwhile, the special election in NY-9 (Brooklyn & Queens NY) is shaping up to be very interesting. Pro-life, pro-marriage Catholic Bob Turner is taking on pro-abortion, pro-gay-marriage David Weprin to replace disgraced Anthony Wiener in Congress, in a district that Democrats have a 3-1 voter registration advantage.

Will Bob Turner pull it out? We’ll certainly see! I’ll be tweeting tonight as the results come in.

Meanwhile, if you live in this district (or have friends or family who do) please go out and support Bob Turner!

UPDATE: Bob Turner won tonight’s special election 54%-46%! A huge upset and awesome news! More from me after I catch a few hours of sleep. In the meantime, see the AP coverage.

NY Assemblyman David Weprin is running for the seat recently vacated by disgraced Anthony Weiner (of “sexting” infamy). It should be an easy win next Tuesday for Weprin in this Queens district (NY-9) which sees Democrats at a 3-1 voter registration advantage over Republicans.

Problem is, back in June, Weprin voted to redefine marriage, and went as far as to claim in doing so that he was inspired by his Orthodox Jewish faith to undermine the ancient and common sense understanding of marriage as between one man and one woman.

That ticked off, well, most everyone who isn’t a liberal white Democrat. 40 Orthodox Rabbis have signed a letter “blasting” Weprin’s gay marriage vote. The Jewish Journal and NY Assemblyman Dov Hikind (also an Orthodox Jew) have crossed over and endorsed Weprin’s Republican opponent, the Catholic Bob Turner. NY Senator Ruben Diaz, a Democrat and an ordained minister, well-respected by the Hispanic Community has taped a radio ad against Weprin — because Diaz puts faith and marriage in front of his political party. The New York Times recently published a fascinating profile of the immigrant communities in Queens who believe in marriage and feel snubbed and outraged by Weprin’s vote to redefine it.

… all of which has combined to push Bob Turner ahead of David Weprin by 6 points, according to a recent poll. The race has meanwhile been changed from a “Lean Democrat” to a “Tossup.”

Democrats are taking note and are funneling an absolutely massive amount of money into the race in the hope of changing the tide and pushing Weprin across the finish line, but make no mistake: the reason Weprin is fighting for his political life right now is because he crossed his constituents on one of their core values: marriage. The National Organization for Marriage (where I work) has invested $75K to get the word out among more people so they know where Weprin stands on marriage.

Whatever the outcome next Tuesday (and if you have resources you can provide to help defeat Weprin, please do!), let the lesson once again be learned: voting to redefine marriage is the best way to make an easy election difficult, and make a close election losable. Power to the people who believe in marriage.

You can follow the story here (I’ll post an update whatever the outcome on Tuesday) or until then at the National Organization for Marriage blog.

UPDATE: Bob Turner won tonight’s special election 54%-46%! A huge upset and awesome news! More from me after I catch a few hours of sleep. In the meantime, see the AP coverage.

Standing with House and Senate supporters, Gov. Martin O’Malley announced this afternoon that he will lead the charge for gay marriage in Maryland and put his name on a bill that allows same-sex couples to wed.

“Marylanders of all walks of life want their children to live in a loving, stable, committed home protected under the law,” O’Malley said. He said it would be one of “a small handful” of legislative priorities.

The governor was supportive of same-sex marriage last year, but stayed mostly in the background. Today’s announcement was rumored for weeks, with chatter increasing after a gay marriage bill was signed into law in New York.

The Maryland Catholic Conference immediately issued a statement calling the governor’s decision “regrettable.” “The moral and social impacts of redefining marriage would be pervasive and severe,” according to the statement.

Martin O’Malley is a Catholic and a graduate of my alma mater, the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. As is Maureen Dowd, who yukked it up about eternal damnation with Andrew Cuomo recently in a same-sex-marriage-victory cackles column.

As you may recall, last year, churches inundated Annapolis to stop an attempt at redefining marriage there. Pray that they will fight another day.

And pray too we all recommit ourselves to supporting actual marriages, practically, in our lives, too — not only in political fights.

And on the Archdiocese of New York website, the archbishop blogs:

for us in the Church, not much changes.  We continue to hold fast to the God-given definition of marriage, and acknowledge that no unfortunate legislative attempt can alter reality and morality.  Yes, we have a big catechetical challenge, in that we have to admit that quite a few people no longer hold to this timeless moral truth.  (Although I still believe most people do; thus the fear of areferendum on the issue by those who still claim this is a “grassroots movement” sweeping the nation.)  Yes, we do have our work cut out for us, as even some Catholics, and, scandalously, even political leaders who claim to be Catholic, tell us the Church is “out of it,” and has no claim on truth.

So, we try our best to witness to the truth, encouraging our married couples and their kids to be loving, radiant, “lights to the world.”  We acknowledge that, as St. Augustine taught, if something is wrong, even if everybody else is doing it, it’s still wrong; and, if something is right, even if nobody else is doing it anymore, it’s still right.  Like St. Thomas More, we’re willing to take the heat and even lose our head from following a conscience properly formed by God’s revelation and the teaching of His Church, even if it is politically incorrect, and clashes with the King’s demands to re-define marriage.

But there is more, so please read it all.

And for some further reading, the archbishop cites Robert P. George in a recent interview with me over at National Review Online. Here is the exchange:

LOPEZ: Why should anyone care about this debate anymore? A man and a man can legally get married in New York. The die is cast. Besides, who wants to be an intolerant anti-civil-rights bigot — or so my inbox has called me all weekend, again.

GEORGE: Well, people should care because the whole edifice of sexual-liberationist ideology is built on damaging and dehumanizing falsehoods. It has already done enormous harm — harm that falls on everybody, but disproportionately on those in the poorest and most vulnerable sectors of our society. If you doubt that, have a look at Myron Magnet’s great book The Dream and the Nightmare: The Sixties’ Legacy to the Underclass, or some of the writings of Kay Hymowitz and other serious people who have examined the social consequences for the poor of the embrace of sexual liberalism by celebrities and other cultural elites. Marriage is a profound human and social good; its weakening and loss is a tragedy from which affluent people can be distracted (and protected) by their affluence for only so long. The institution of marriage has already been deeply wounded by divorce at nearly plague levels, widespread non-marital sexual cohabitation, and other damaging factors. To redefine it out of existence in law is to make it much more difficult to restore a sound understanding of marriage on which a healthy marriage culture can be rebuilt for the good of all. It is to sacrifice the needs of the poor, who are hurt the most when a sound public understanding of marriage and sexual morality collapses. It is to give up on the truth that children need both a father and mother, and benefit from the security of their love for each other.

So people are calling you “intolerant” and an “anti-civil-rights bigot”? Well, for those who have absorbed the premises of sexual liberation and embraced its dogmas so fanatically that they can’t fathom the possibility that any reasonable person of goodwill could dissent from them, that’s what people like you and me seem to be. Like overly impassioned believers at all times and in all places, these folks suppose that anyone who doubts the tenets of their faith must have malign motives. Dissenters from what they regard as an unquestionable orthodoxy must be “haters” (the modern word for “heretics”). It’s ironic — and amusing — that these folks regard themselves as urbane, sophisticated people — critical thinkers — who are much smarter and better informed (not to mention more “tolerant” and “open-minded”) than their opponents. In truth, they rarely have the foggiest notion of what the arguments are in support of the view they reject or what the intellectual challenges are for the view they hold. They already know the truth, and that’s that! So what need is there for reflection, study, deliberation, and debate? Why argue with “intolerant, anti-civil-rights bigots”? To the barricades!

Of course, there is an astonishing degree of ignorance on display in all this, especially when considered in proportion to the certitude and moral passion of sexual liberalism’s true believers. Perhaps it is too much to ask of them, but for those who might (perhaps secretly, when no “sophisticated,” “urbane” friends are looking) want to know why those of us on the other side dissent, and who might be wiling to consider what we believe are the damning intellectual challenges that same-sex “marriage” advocates have not met and cannot meet, here again is the link to “What is Marriage?”

Read that conversation here.

And on the homophobia concern, please read George Weigel.

On religious freedom, please read Tom Messner.

The movie is much on my mind because it tells the story of a man who commits a grave crime, but is miraculously spared being caught and punished for it. As the movie concludes, we realize the man has actually been punished, in the worst way: in rationalizing his evil act, and having no earthly justice visited upon him, he is forced to kill his conscience, otherwise he knows he will go mad with guilt and self-hatred.

That’s what I see played out again as I read Maureen Dowd’s triumphalist interview with New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who just succeeded in legalizing same-sex “marriage” in that state despite the lobbying and warnings of the Catholic Church:

I FIGURED I’d get straight to it.

“So, Governor,” I asked, “are you afraid you’re going to hell?”

… “It’s troubling for me as a Catholic to be at odds with the church,” he began, before dissolving into a wry laugh. “Having said that, it seems that my entire political life, the tension with the church has come up again and again.”

Maureen editorializes:

Just as his father seized a social issue and established himself in opposition to the church with his Notre Dame speech on abortion, now the son has seized a social issue and established himself in opposition to the church with gay marriage.

“In opposition to the Church.” What a haunting phrase. What an honest phrase. The question I have to respond with is, why on earth do Dowd and Cuomo insist on remaining Catholic, when they happily grasp the mantle of being in “opposition to the Church” on abortion and marriage? Really, why be part of a Church which one has to be in opposition to? There are plenty of denominations that have given up Christ’s teaching on life, marriage and family. Why not be part of one of those churches instead?

It gets worse:

“I have a portrait of Saint Thomas More in my office,” the governor said, calling from the statehouse in Albany. It is a picture Mario Cuomo once kept in his office. He gave it to Andrew as a present when he graduated from Albany Law School, and the younger Cuomo has kept it with him for 30 years as he moved from job to job and city to city. “It’s not the first time there is a tension between the teachings of the church and the administration of the law, for my father and for myself.” Dryly, he adds: “I haven’t lost my head yet.”

… maybe that’s a bad thing. I mean, does Cuomo have the faintest idea about what St. Thomas More’s life (and martyrdom) was all about? If he knows the story, does he see himself in Thomas More’s shoes, or King Henry’s (or Will Roper’s? or Richard Rich’s? or Thomas Cromwell’s?). Does he believe he will die the King’s good servant, but God’s first?

Maureen again:

Far from it. The New York governor says he still goes to church with his three teenage daughters. He received Communion at his Inaugural Day Mass, but mostly abstains. He has managed to stay on good terms with New York’s pugnacious archbishop…

Cuomo is trying to keep the lie up that he’s a faithful Catholic, although his conscience may be somewhat piqued because he “mostly abstains” from Communion. That means he still receives at times, with no public recanting of his public “opposition to the Church.” It’s hard for me to see how Cuomo’s being on “good terms” with Abp. Dolan is true for anyone besides Cuomo.

Now, on to the concubinage:

When I asked if the archbishop would preside over the ceremony if the governor decides to tie the knot with the Food  Network glamour girl Sandra Lee, Cuomo says it couldn’t happen “because I’m divorced.”

He shrugged off the shrill complaint of Vatican adviser Edward Peters that he’s living in “public concubinage” with his girlfriend in their Westchester home.

“He was a blogger, not from my state,” Cuomo  said of Peters. “I didn’t want to give it too much credibility.”

As for whether Lee was hurt by the crude, archaic term, he conceded, “It was not a pleasant conversation for anyone.”

A lot to point out here: a) Dowd seriously thinks +Dolan would celebrate Mass for Cuomo’s wedding? Does she know absolutely nothing about the Church? b) As for Sandree Lee being “hurt” by the “crude, archaic” term, my father responds: “It’s not a likeable word, it’s not a likeable thing.” c) If you read carefully, Cuomo dodges the question about my father’s point. “[He's] not from my state” is no answer at all. My father’s arguments (most recently today) are about the Church, which is very much in Cuomo’s state.

I could go on, but I think the more effective thing would be for me to just say the hard truth: Governor Cuomo needs a wake-up call, in the form of a public rebuke by the bishops of New York, which begins with informing him that his public actions against innocent unborn life, against the institution of marriage and the family (and the Church), and his choice to live in, yes, public concubinage with his girlfriend, prohibit him from presenting himself for the Eucharist in New York until he recants and does penance.

Andrew Cuomo’s soul is at stake. And his interview with Dowd demonstrates that he knows he is in public, personal, profound opposition to the Church, and yet because he has not yet “lost his head” he believes he can continue to present himself as a Catholic in communion with the Church. Cuomo is in danger of becoming the main character of Woody Allen’s movie Crimes & Misdemeanors, who absent earthly punishment, does violence to his conscience and puts his eternal soul in jeopardy thereby.

That’s why Christ came and died for us: to forgive us of the sins He shows us we have. The Church needs to help Cuomo see his sins, for he can no longer see them himself. God have mercy on him.

LOPEZ: How significant is it that this governor is Catholic?

GEORGE: Is he? There are many devout Protestants and even Jews and Muslims whose moral beliefs and practices are far more closely in line with Catholic teachings than Andrew Cuomo’s are. Andrew’s father’s views and policies gave scandal (as Catholics use that term) precisely because people took him to be a serious Catholic. No one is scandalized by Andrew’s beliefs or conduct because no one takes him to be a serious Catholic, that is, a Catholic who is serious enough about his faith to live by its tenets. Indeed, he quite publicly flouts Catholic principles, and doesn’t even seem to wrestle with it or be anguished about it, as his father at least liked to give the appearance of being. In word and deed, he has made it clear that he simply does not believe what Catholicism teaches about sexual morality and marriage. There is no reason to suppose that he regards the Catholic Church as having the authority to teach definitively on these issues or anything else. If there is a sense in which he is a Catholic, it does not involve believing what the Catholic Church teaches or even that the Catholic Church has any authority to teach. So I don’t see Cuomo’s Catholicism as a significant part of this story. He doesn’t even pretend to be serious enough about it to make anyone care or even take much notice.
LOPEZ: Why weren’t churches able to stop it?

GEORGE: As I’ve noted, New York is one of the most socially liberal states in the country. The governor is a powerful, quasi-dynastic figure who knows how to brandish both carrots and sticks. He’s a tough hombre who knows how to get what he wants. He had the support not only of rich and powerful Democrats, but of wealthy, socially liberal Republicans as well. And, of course, he had the enthusiastic support of the entertainment industry, the intellectuals, people who are famous for being famous, the media, and other cultural elites. All Cuomo needed was to peel off two or three Republicans in the state senate. In a way, it’s amazing that the task proved as difficult as it did. In any event, New York is scarcely representative of the rest of the country. It is quite unlike Minnesota (where the next big marriage battle will occur), for example, or Missouri, or New Mexico, or South Carolina.

A little different than Maureen Dowd’s painting of the scene in the New York Times today.

And about the belated nature of that debate — it is analogous to the whole debate. I have been getting e-mails all weekend encouraging me to criticize the archbishop for not getting the job done. But he, of course, is not an elected member of the New York State senate. There are many reasons this bill passed Friday, and he is not one of them. The fact that many checked in late to the debate — a debate many would like to avoid — is a big one.

God bless the laity who did labor for marriage in Albany. May they not lose heart.

I suspect George Weigel’s piece today on the New York marriage law will be subject to some conversation, too.

Incidentally, I witnessed friends’ beautiful wedding — and in New York — on Saturday. It is our commitment to prayer and dedication to family that will see us through — and inform our political lives and leadership.

The official state legislative session expired at midnight Monday night — but legislators (and Catholic governor Andrew Cuomo) are preparing to extend the session into overtime to vote on same-sex “marriage.”

If legislative leaders cannot secure enough votes, they will NOT schedule a vote.

It’s time to go all in.

Last week we mobilized the entire nationwide network of over 500,000 CV members to rain down calls. And you responded.

Today we need to focus on the following undecided senators. Pick up the phone and tell these state senators that marriage is not for them to decide. Tell them you OPPOSE the state legislature dictating the definition marriage in New York:

• Stephen Saland: (518) 455-2411 (saland@nysenate.gov)
• Andrew Lanza: (518) 455-3215 (lanza@senate.state.ny.us)
• Marrk Grisanti: (518) 455-3240 (grisanti@nysenate.gov)
• Greg Ball: (518) 455-3111 (gball@nysenate.gov)
• John Flanagan: (518) 455-2071 (flanagan@senate.state.ny.us)
• Joseph Addabbo: (518) 455-2322 (addabbo@senate.state.ny.us)
• Shirley Huntley: (518) 455-3531 (shuntley@nysenate.gov)

These swing votes could re-define marriage in New York for millions! Call ‘em now.

But wait…

What about our secret weapon?

As Catholics we have the greatest weapon of all at our disposal — prayer. The deck often seems stacked against us — the media, Hollywood, political pressure and money — yet we press forward with the sure hope that with God, all things are possible.

So today, in addition to making these critical calls, we have a very simple request:

Pray.

Call upon the angels, saints, and Our Lady to intercede for us.

If you can, do it now. Stop what you are doing for 10 seconds right now and make a simple aspiration. Ask the Holy Spirit to fill the minds and hearts of these senators with wisdom and courage.

As a final nudge to get involved, consider this…

Today is the Feast of St. Thomas More – the patron of statesman and politicians — and the model of courage for our public leaders. The fate of marriage in NY could be decided on the Feast of St. Thomas More. A coincidence? I think not.

We’re in overtime. Let’s roll.