New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg announced this week that he would back any Republican senator who agreed to support gay marriage (New York Times). In his visit to Albany on Tuesday, May 17, Bloomberg strongly encouraged New York state senators to get on “the right side of history” by voting yes on same-sex marriage.
In pushing for the move towards a progressive approach to marriage equality, Bloomberg appealed to the senators’ moral sensibilities, sense of history and self-interest in furthering their re-election campaigns. Putting his money where his mouth is, Bloomberg agreed to provide assistance to any Republican candidate who supported gay marriage – regardless of how they vote on any other issue. This marked a significant shift for Bloomberg who has not in the past built endorsements around a single issue.
In addition to voicing this political challenge, Bloomberg also spent time listening to the senators’ concerns and objections to legalizing same-sex marriage. It is not clear how much of an impact Bloomberg’s challenge will have, but several senators who are undecided on the issue indicated that they would consider endorsing a bill to legalize gay marriage in New York.
So now it has come down to common and loutish … bribery!
And in one moment of seamless … or should that be ‘shameless’ … political skulduggery … obvious to all but himself, Bloomberg offers to “buy the vote”!
Were Cuomo and Bloomberg misled on “gay marriage”? Or are they simply ignoring the evidence against it?
Who misled them, and why?
As the very liberal Mr. Kirby said, good laws are based on good data, and the very least that our legislators can do is to acquaint themselves with the details of any issue.
The article “Was Cuomo Misled on Gay Marriage?” outlined 21 reasons … 11 explicitly stated …why New York would reject gay “marriage! It is evidence-based!
The FRC’s “Ten Arguments from Social Science Against Same-Sex Marriage” has as yet NOT been addressed by Cuomo or Bloomberg. It is evidence-based!
A more realistic interpretation of the obvious psycho-sexual distress and mental disorder embodied in same-sex-attraction- disorders would be that outlined in the 2002 law review by Steve Baldwin “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement”.
Part of that document reads:
“… Unfortunately, the truth is stranger than fiction. Research confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals, and the mainstream homosexual culture commonly promotes sex with children. Homosexual leaders repeatedly argue for the freedom to engage in consensual sex with children, and blind surveys reveal a shockingly high number of homosexuals admit to sexual contact with minors. Indeed, the homosexual community is driving the worldwide campaign to lower the age of consent … ”
Also See W.D. Erickson et al, Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters, 17 ARCHIVES SEXUAL BEHAV. I, 83  and numerous other references on page 2 of 16 in Dr. Baldwin’s review
What, exactly, are the current facts for New york … for America?
WHY ISN’T BLOOMBERG ASKING THESE QUESTIONS?
HE WOULD GLEEFULLY SACK THOUSANDS OF FIREMEN AND TEACHERS, THEN FOIST UPON NEW YORK THE COLOSSAL BURDEN OF HEALTH COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CARING FOR THE ‘GAY’ (SIC) POPULATION.
How do we know this? Look no further than the Center for Disease Control “Snapshot” report for September 2010 ( http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf ) which cites Inter Alia the following astonishing statistic:
‘… While CDC estimates that MSM (Men having Sex with Men) account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522–989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men)….”
Kathleen Melonakos’ “Why Isn’t Homosexuality Considered a Disorder based on its Medical Consequences?” (http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2006/nov/061130a )asks the question of Bloomberg, but gets no answers to his obvious recklessness!
The sane answer is NOT to pretend that a mental/psycho-sexual disorder doesn’t exist, or to bribe legislators, or to institutionalize it through “marriage”, but to treat it with every medical/psychiatric/spiritual means available!
See the last line in Dr. Paul McHugh’s online article “Surgical Sex” ( http://www.policystudies.ca/documents/Surgical_Sex_Change.pdf ) ! Tell me what you disagree with about it!
Then understand the imperative of the article “Homosexuality is Not a Civil Right” ( http://www.crrange.com/wall34.html ) by Robert Regier and Daniel Garcia. Its predictive accuracy was … scary! An excerpt from that well-reasoned and articulated article clearly states the public/social-policy imperative :
“… When protecting one’s inalienable and civil rights, the government must discern between liberty and license. This requires that rights attach to persons because of their humanity, not because of their behaviors, and certainly not those behaviors that Western legal and moral tradition has regarded as inimical to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” as stated in the Declaration. Yet, today some advocate granting “rights” to behaviors hostile to the most fundamental forms of self-government—family, church, and community. This is especially the case with homosexual activists, who ironically seek to hijack the moral capital of the civil rights movement….”
Were Cuomo … and Bloomberg … misled on “gay marriage?”
Who misled them … and why?
Or … are they willfully misleading others?