"We have a time-held and time-tested tradition honoring those marital rights. I am taking the same approach that this state always has with respect to out-of-state or marriages conducted in foreign governments being recognized here in the state of New York. I am following the law as it has always existed.
Excuse me, but bullshit.
As even the Lambda Legal Defense Fund has acknowledged in pleadings, New York in fact does NOT recognize "marriages" which are repugnant to morality or natural law:
[the] abhorrence exception requires an overwhelming social consensus that a marriage is patently repugnant to the morality of the community. Id. The exception is so narrow that, throughout the lengthy history of the marriage recognition rule, only polygamous and closely incestuous marriages have been held to meet its stringent criterion. Van Voorhis, 86 N.Y. at 26 (exception applies in cases "of incest or polygamy coming within the prohibitions of natural law"); Earle v. Earle, 141 A.D. 611, 613 (1st Dep’t 1910) ("the lex loci contractus governs as to the validity of the marriage, unless the marriage be odious by common consent of nations, as where it is polygamous or incestuous by the laws of nature").In other words, NY will recognize proxy marriages, or common law marriages contracted elsewhere, even when NY herself does not allow such marriages. But when there are purported marriages that violate the fundamental concept of marriage (such as polygamy--trying to re-define marriage to include more than one man, one woman) or incest (trying to redefine marriage to include father-daughter, mother-son, or sister-brother couplings), NY has had nothing to do with such "marriages."
Homosexual "marriage" is of the same category: an attempt to re-define what marriage actually is, or put another way, the destruction of the commonly held notion of marriage that has perdured in the West for some 6,000+ years, and replace it with something else, all for the benefit of practioners of sexual abnormality that represent perhaps 1/10 of one percent of the population. That the idea of homosexual "marriage" is not in fact condoned ("odious" if you want to use the old-fashioned term) is shown by the people of New York's refusal to bestow the title "marriage" on such couplings, while being willing to allow homosexuals to enjoy certain civil benefits enjoyed by married citizens.
It reminds of Lincoln's aphorism: "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."
It's a nice try, but could it be these Dem leaders, like Paterson and Spitzer before him, advocate no-holds barred couplings because if there really are no limitations on how people couple, their own well-documented personal sexual immorality might seem less disgusting?