Prior to the vote, a lengthy and one-sided debate was held on the floor of the Senate. The Republican senators elected not to participate in the debate, and the only senator to speak against the bill was Sen. Ruben Diaz (D-Bronx). However, eighteen Democratic senators spoke in favor of the legislation. The debate revealed that many Democratic senators have serious misconceptions about this issue. Some of those misconceptions relate to factual matters or are rooted in faulty logic, while others reflect a flawed moral compass or a lack of understanding of the Bible. This article will examine certain statements made in the debate and will offer a Christian perspective on those statements.

 "This is not about morality, because you can’t legislate morality, ladies and gentlemen." Sen. Eric Schneiderman (D-Manhattan/Bronx)

 Secular liberals regularly use this slogan, but it is an untruth. Legislation is the collective expression of our morality as a people. New York State has laws against environmental pollution, domestic violence, and child abuse based on our collective belief that these things are wrong; all three are profoundly moral issues. Same-sex marriage is also a moral issue. The real question is this: Whose morality will be legislated?

 "I respect the opinion of my colleagues that have religious beliefs, and I have religious beliefs. But when I walk through these doors, my Bible stays out." Sen. Eric Adams (D-Brooklyn)

Sen. Ruben Diaz, the most stalwart supporter of authentic marriage in the New York State Senate, responded to Sen. Adams’ comments as follows: "That’s the wrong statement to send. The Bible should never be left out. You should carry your Bible all the time." Like Sen. Schneiderman’s earlier comments about legislating morality, Sen. Adams’ remarks reflect the wrong notion that an elected official’s religious and moral beliefs must stay outside the doors of the Capitol. While the First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees religious freedom and forbids the existence of a state-sponsored church, it does not require people to purge themselves of their faith in order to participate in government. In fact, the religious and other freedoms that we enjoy in the United States are based upon the Founding Fathers’ Christian conviction that "all men are created equal, [and] that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…" Given the frequent instances of corruption and moral failure in our government, it is clear that a Christian perspective in government is needed now more than ever.

 "[T]his bill doesn’t force anyone to do anything." Sen. Craig Johnson (D-Nassau)

 "This bill does not, could not, and, as long as our Constitution remains the law of the land, could never affect in any way, shape or form [or] compel any house of worship in this country to do anything that is against their belief system." Sen. David Valesky (D-Oneida)

 "This myth that [same-sex marriage] is going to affect religious institutions is a myth. The facts do not support it." Sen. Eric Schneiderman (D-Manhattan/Bronx)

 "I know there are many people in the religious community who feel that we’re going to force this on them when that in fact is not true. We have never done that." Sen. Diane Savino (D-Staten Island)

Many senators appear to have huge misconceptions about how churches and faith-based charities would be impacted by same-sex marriage. Governor Paterson’s same-sex marriage bill contains language guaranteeing that no member of the clergy will be required to perform same-sex weddings. While this language is unnecessary, as the clergy’s freedom in this regard is guaranteed in the Constitution that is not the end of the story; the same-sex marriage bill would affect religious institutions and faith-based charities in profound ways. In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities has ceased providing adoption placement services, due to that state’s requirement that they place children in same-sex households. In New Jersey, where there is a civil unions law, a Methodist organization lost a tax exemption on a portion of its property and was sued for discrimination because it declined to hold a lesbian civil union ceremony on its premises. For more information, see New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms’ position paper on same-sex marriage (http://www.nycf.info/position-papers/same-sex-marriage), as well as the web site of the Coalition to Save Marriage in New York (www.savemarriageny.org).

 "This bill hurts no one but gives the American ideal of equality to many, many people." Sen. Eric Schneiderman (D-Manhattan/Bronx)

 "We have nothing to fear from love and commitment." Sen. Diane Savino (D-Staten Island)

If we replace the words "love and commitment" in Senator Savino’s comments with the word "homosexuality," we will have a more accurate indication of her meaning. Let us examine that proposition—"[w]e have nothing to fear from [homosexuality]"—along with Sen. Schneiderman’s assertion that same-sex marriage "hurts no one." In reality, same-sex marriage would hurt people because homosexuality hurts people. First, homosexuality hurts the people who engage in it. For men, homosexuality is nothing short of a health disaster—even when the devastating impact of HIV and AIDS is taken out of the equation. While some same-sex marriage advocates might take the view that same-sex marriage would encourage monogamy among men involved in same-sex behavior, there is no factual evidence that this is the case. Homosexuality is correlated with high rates of addictive behavior, mental health issues, relationship instability, and domestic violence. Second, homosexuality hurts families. Having a child who engages in same-sex behavior can be a nightmare for parents and other loved ones, who often feel helpless in attempting to reach out to their sons or daughters. Also, same-sex marriage encourages the formation of families headed by same-sex couples, which—if children are in the household—deprives children of the opportunity to grow up with a married mother and father. Third, homosexuality hurts churches. Apart from the religious freedom concerns created by same-sex marriage laws, the question of how to deal with homosexuality has created more intense division and conflict within mainline Protestant denominations than any other issue in recent decades.

Sen. Savino is mistaken. We do have something to fear from homosexuality. As Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage so eloquently puts it, "Marriage isn’t a private act—It’s a public status. And when your government tells you that same-sex unions are marriages, it’s going to affect a lot of people besides the couple who wants to do it."

"…I’m hoping that in a few years the idea that same-sex marriages wouldn’t happen, wouldn’t be able to be legal in this country, will be [considered] ridiculous. That that notion [will be] as antiquated…as dinosaurs." Sen. Kevin Parker (D-Brooklyn)

Sen. Parker’s remark contains one kernel of truth: While authentic marriage is not an "antiquated" idea, it has been around for a long time—since the Garden of Eden. Given that the definition of marriage as an opposite-sex union was ordained by God and has been recognized across the world for millennia, it does not appear likely that this concept will be permanently jettisoned. Rather, it would seem more likely that the notion of same-sex marriage will end up being a blip on history’s radar screen: "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever" (Isaiah 40:8).

"We in government don’t determine the quality or the validity of people’s relationships. If we did, we would not issue three-quarters of the marriage licenses we do." Sen. Diane Savino (D-Staten Island)

This comment by Sen. Savino reflects a deep cynicism about the institution of marriage. It cannot be denied that many married people—including some Christians—do not keep their marriage vows; however, that is not the real issue here. The State of New York is not responsible for determining the "quality or validity of people’s relationships," but it is responsible for determining the definition of marriage that is set forth in our laws. The senator’s remarks create a straw man to distract from the real problem, which is that same-sex marriage advocates are asking the state to call something a marriage that is not a marriage.

"I just want to remind my colleagues that it was always considered that if you were living together…and not officially married, that you were actually living in sin. So for those of us who believe in the religious tenet of why we should be supporting people being able to marry, we do not want them to live in sin." Sen. Velmanette Montgomery (D-Brooklyn)

While it is difficult to know whether Sen. Montgomery was speaking tongue-in-cheek, and while her comments are not completely clear, Sen. Montgomery seems to say that those who believe homosexuality is a sin should support same-sex marriage in order to sanctify same-sex unions and somehow render them sinless. Sen. Montgomery’s comments—if serious—are misguided. Changing man’s law does not change God’s law. Homosexual unions—which God has clearly forbidden in Scripture—cannot be rendered pure by virtue of being "blessed" by the New York State Legislature.

"This bill is not about encouraging people, enticing people, but rather giving them the right to make the choice for themselves. And if there’s a condemnation in that choice, which is something that my church preaches, then that’s between them and God." Sen. Ruth Hassell-Thompson (D-Bronx/Westchester)

Sen. Hassell-Thompson has thought more deeply about this issue than most of her colleagues who spoke in favor of same-sex marriage, but she has, unfortunately, reached the wrong conclusion. On this particular point, Sen. Hassell-Thompson is mistaken in believing that the actions of government will not "encourage" homosexual behavior. While feelings are not chosen, behavior is chosen. The "blessing" of homosexuality by government might well encourage some people to choose to engage in same-sex relationships and behaviors, and this is unacceptable. "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Isaiah 5:20)

"My rabbi has quoted…one of our great sages, who said, ‘All of the Ten Commandments are important, but one is so significant that it makes all the others commentary.’ I wonder which of us knows which this is. And that is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Sen. Suzi Oppenheimer (D-Mamaroneck)

While the Golden Rule is set forth in the Old Testament (Leviticus 19) and is referred to by some as the Great Commandment, it is not one of the Ten Commandments. In fact, the Golden Rule is most notably set forth by Jesus Christ in Matthew 7:12: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."

"To my colleagues on this [Democratic] side of the aisle, the interesting thing is throughout these last months people have come to me from time to time and …tell me ‘Well, the Bible says [same-sex marriage] is wrong.’ What is wrong is not knowing what the Bible says and retreating to it. The Bible does not say same-sex marriage is wrong. The Bible talks about the importance of individuals and the importance of relationships and fairness and understanding one another…" Sen. Malcolm Smith (D-Queens)

Sen. Smith’s comments show deep confusion about the Scripture. The definition of marriage is clearly laid out in Genesis and reaffirmed by Christ in the Gospels. The immorality of homosexuality is also made plain every time such behavior is mentioned.

The Senate debate on same-sex marriage underscores the crucial importance of Christians speaking the Biblical truth in love on the issues of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. We need to engage our elected officials on these issues, and we need to preach the Gospel to them and to seek elected office ourselves.

(All Senate quotations drawn from the stenographic record of the New York State Senate Extraordinary Session, December 2, 2009.)