Tweet
New York state Senator Mark Grisanti (R, North Buffalo) joined three other Republicans voting for the Marriage Equality Act Friday evening. The bill passed on a bipartisan vote of 33-29 and has already been signed into law by Governor Cuomo.
Sen. Grisanti, a Roman Catholic, was the very picture of integrity last night as he described how careful consideration of the facts led him to support the bill. ”I would not respect myself if I didn’t do the research, have an open mind and make an informed decision based on the information before me. A man can be wiser today than yesterday, but there’ll be no respect for that man if he has failed in his duty to do the work,” he said during the floor debate.
Kudos to Sen. Grisanti for exercising his duty as a lawmaker with integrity rather than subjugating that duty to his personal beliefs. Last night, Sen. Grisanti joined the solid majority of Catholic Americans who support marriage equality.
As you may know prior to me coming here — it’s only been about 6 months — and the issue of same-sex marriage was never really a strong topic of discussion among family and friends. I simply opposed it in the Caholic sense of my upbringing.
And I have stated that I have a problem with the term marriage. But at the same time I also said that I have a problem with the rights that are involved that are being overlooked.
I have never in the past four months researched an issue or met with so many people and groups on a single issue such as this. I have struggled with this immensely, I can tell you that. I have read numerous documents, independent studies, talked with a lot of people on both sides of this issue.
As a Catholic I was raised to believe that marriage was between a man and a woman. I’m not here however as a senator who is just Catholic. I’m also here with a background as an attorney, through which I look at things and I apply reason.
(Transcript continues below…)
I know that with this decision, many people who voted for me will question my integrity a short time ago. I tell you though that I have studied this issue. For those that know me, they know that I have struggled with it.
To those whose support I may lose, please know that in the past what I was telling you, and what I believed at that time was the truth. But by doing the research and ultimately doing what I believe to be the right thing, to me shows integrity.
I would not respect myself if I didn’t do the research, have an open mind and make a decision – an informed decision — based on the information before me. A man can be wiser today than yesterday, but there’ll be no respect for that man if he has failed in his duty to do the work.
I cannot legally come up with an argument against same-sex marriage. Who am I to say that someone does not have the same rights that I have with my wife who I love, or that have the 1300-plus rights that I share with her?
But there’s another important point here that this bill brings up, and that’s its religious protections. Because I am Catholic. Under this bill the religious aspects and belief are protected as well as for not-for-profits. There’s no mandate that the Catholic Church or any other religious organization perform ceremonies or rent halls. There cannot be a civil claim or an action against the church. It protects benevolent organizations such as the Knights of Columbus and many others. And as a lawyer I feel confident that the religious organizations and the others are protected.
We in this state have recognized same-sex couples who are married in other states and are now in New York. I have read studies about civil unions that show that they do not work, and causes chaos. I believe this state needs to provide equal rights and protection to all of its residents.
I struggled with the word marriage as between a man and a woman — that’s how I’m raised. But I also struggle with the rights that are lacking for same-sex couples, and I’ve stated this numerous times. I cannot deny that right or opportunity for someone nor stand in the way of allowing them to obtain the rights that I have.
I’m not going to get into the philosophical arguments, because I’ve heard them all. But for me the issue boils down to this. I’ve done the research, and my belief that a person can be wiser today than yesterday. I apologize to those who feel offended, to those who I have hurt with the votes I had six months ago, but I believe you can be wiser today than yesterday when you do the work.
I cannot deny a person, a human being, a tax payer, a worker or people in my district and across this state, the State of New York, and those people who make this the great state that it is, the same rights that I have with my wife. And I also can’t ignore that one of the things that was put into this bill, that there are protections in this bill for church and religious organizations. And I am proud of that because I am fearful that those protections may be lost. If this bill fails, I believe that next time around these protections won’t be there.
I vote in the affirmative, Mr. President.
14 Comments
Grisanti was a pleasant surprise. I didn’t think we had him. My money was on Saland (yes) and Lanza (disappointed me and others).
But wow, when these converts come out of the closet they really roar. Thank you Senator Grisanti.
SHARING and keeping.This validation will be very useful in the coming days. I may even send him $$ for reelection!
Wonderful and HistoricNY’ers deserve a round of applause and hugs.
It is sad that one person who could do the most to bring equality to Americans is far right of the Republicans.
Did anyone record Diaz’s tantrumIt should be posted on YouTube.
That said, we will be paying quite a price for this, though it is worth it.
Tax dollars will not be stripped from agencies that discriminate from us, such as Salvation Army alcohol rehabs, Catholic Charities, etc…LGBT’s pouring money into their persecutors
Newt emerges from the political graveto spout off to a crowd of tea-baggers:
Lots of positive feedbackIt’s gratifying to see all the positive messages Sen. Grisanti is getting on his Facebook page.
LOLZHe’s clearly projecting when he talks of “muddling” marriage. Which number wife is the philanderer on now?
And the Repblicans plant to bring back the 2004 election strategyand push for candidates that would pass a Federal Marriage Amendment while disempowering part of the Democratic base with Voter ID and challenge laws
they clearly have run out of ideas
in that caseprogressives, with the advantage of hindsight, already have knowledge of how to counter that strategy. Forewarned is forearmed. If people can learn from history.
Interesting take he has on itI would hardly call Knights of Columbus a “benevolent organization,” let alone the rest of that child rapist-coddling organized crime syndicate known as the Catholic Church. But that’s just my personal opinion and shouldn’t be construed as anything else.
Diaz was actually trying to “lay the bill aside”Creepo Diaz is about as bad at the New York State Senate’s procedure as he is on interpreting the Bible or his command of the English language.
When the marriage bills were first taken up based on being forwarded via a message “at the desk” from the State Assembly and Assemblymember Danny O’Donnell, they were laid aside” by the president of the senate (I believe it was the lieutenant governor who was presiding). Then the conversation with majority leader Skelos continued and it was another “message at the desk” – this one being the Governor’s message of necessity for both bills.
So, the bills having already been laid aside, were taken up again.
That is the first reason why the chair ignored Diaz’s protests that he was receiving no respect, that he had “laid the bill aside” when in fact the bills had been laid aside and then taken up again just so someone like Diaz could not pull the stunt to delay the vote another day.
The second reason is even simpler. Diaz was yielded the floor solely for the purpose of “explaining his vote on the matter.” There is a difference between explaining a vote and a procedural thing like laying a bill aside.
BTW, I would not worry about the tax dollars not being stripped. The in terrorem clause does not provide that the state legislature can never amend the law again, only that the courts and local governments can’t interfere with the law at the risk of invalidating the whole law. However, getting the law changed can be very difficult. People really won’t care as much about the use of tax dollars to promote bigotry as they were for getting the connubium of marriage extended on a gender-neutral basis.
Ahh KeoriWhat is it about the K of C that bothers you?
Their playing “front man” for Bishops during the height of the scandal?
Their pouring money into Canadian elections take them back to the right?
“$80 Billion Strong”They are an insurance vendor, giving them a lot of profit to and wield:
Unfortunately their “charity” work includes stripping LGBT people of their civil rights.