Gentili was a transgender woman of colour who advocated for the health and dignity of sex workers and LGBTQIA+ people.

She was also a baptised Catholic and therefore entitled to a Catholic funeral, a corporal work of mercy.

Gentili was born in Argentina and, after surviving a childhood of sexual abuse, immigrated to the United States where she was "undocumented, homeless and trafficked for prostitution in the U.S., [and] she also had a heroin addiction," The New York Times wrote in an obituary.

'In spite of these hardships, Gentili went on to assume leadership roles in nonprofits, providing health care for trans people and AIDS patients and advocating for the decriminalization of sex work.

Gentili exhibited a life of joy, love and radical acceptance.

However, the funeral garnered criticism and condemnation from a number of Catholic media outlets and figures, including the New York Archdiocese.

It is regrettable, to say the least, that many Catholics have chosen to react in anger, assuming that because Gentili had identified as an atheist, the Catholic funeral was a mockery of the faith.

But in a November 2023 interview Gentili had said, "I have been reexamining my relationship with religion for a long time," and articulated her renewed intention to attend church on Sundays with her partner.

Detractors have called her funeral "indecent" and "revolting," labelling those in attendance "rank anti-Catholic bigots."

The pastor of the cathedral, Fr Enrique Salvo, responded to the public outcry with a formal statement, calling the funeral "scandalous" and "sacrilegious."

Others have expressed concern that the event may have further harmed trans people's reputation with the Catholic Church.

But the livestream of the funeral service reveals a liturgy of joy rooted in Christian values of charity, human dignity and hope of everlasting life.

Before the funeral rite began, Black actor and singer Billy Porter delivered a powerful performance of the Gospel hymn "This Day," a rendition of the Our Father prayer.

Catholic Vote tweeted that Porter's performance was "mocking the Our Father prayer" and called it "unbelievable and sick."

Such a response belies cultural ignorance.

The song was written by Edwin Hawkins, a legend of Gospel music. The lyrics emphasize gratitude for God's love, provision and grace.

One of the most controversial moments occurred when eulogists Liaam Winslet and Oscar Diaz addressing the deceased as, "esta puta, esta gran puta, la santa Cecilia, la madre de todas de las putas," that is, "this whore, this great whore, saint Cecila, the mother of all whores."

Such language is understandably shocking to many sensibilities, but context matters.

Within Gentili's community, the word "whore" is a reclamation of a slur used with affection, much like the word "queer" itself.

Organizer Fran Tirado said that if Gentili called you a whore, this was her highest compliment. Here, a word once used for shame is used to honour a motherly heroine.

This esteem was also on display the moment a woman of colour exclaimed "Ave Cecilia!" during the cantor's rendition of "Ave Maria" and danced down the aisle, also prompting conservative ire. But "ave" is a greeting akin "O Cecilia" or "Dear Cecilia."

More importantly, that someone saw the likeness of Mary, mother of compassion, in Gentili should make us hopeful.

Some have criticized the funeral for being "raucous."

Even Fr James Martin, known for his advocacy for LGBTQIA+ Catholics, commented that when in any sacred place "I feel that you should always err on the side of respect and prudence."

But by what standards are we deciding those terms? Continue reading

• Jessica Gerhardt is a singer-songwriter, worship musician, artist, rosary-maker and writer originally from Santa Monica, California.

Federal district Judge Gary L. Sharpe has removed religious gatherings from the virtual ghetto in which Governor Cuomo, his Attorney General and New York's Mayor Bill de Blasio had placed them under Cuomo's crazy-quilt scheme of executive orders by which he is enforcing his increasingly indefensible, and in many applications patently ridiculous, COVID-19 lockdown.

Before this decision, religious gatherings alone were confined to 25% of building capacity while secular businesses, manufacturing facilities, nonprofits, office environments of all kinds and even restaurants with permitted tables of ten people—facing each other while eating and talking without masks—were allowed either 100% or 50% occupancy. Read more

Speaking to a Christian audience in New York on Tuesday, Mr Trump also promised, if elected president, to appoint anti-abortion Supreme Court judges.

In the 1960s, US President Lyndon Johnson established a ban on tax-exempt bodies making explicit political endorsements.

Mr Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, said he would overturn this, the Washington Post reported.

"I think maybe that will be my greatest contribution to Christianity — and other religions — is to allow you, when you talk religious liberty, to go and speak openly," he said.

"And if you like somebody or want somebody to represent you, you should have the right to do it."

Religious leaders in America today, Mr Trump said, "are petrified".

"You talk about religious liberty and religious freedom, you don't have any religious freedom if you think about it," he told the group, which broke in many times with applause.

Throughout the talk, Mr Trump emphasised that America was hurting due to what he described as Christianity's slide to become "weaker, weaker, weaker".

He said he'd get department store employees to say "Merry Christmas".

He also said he would fight restrictions on public employees, such as public school coaches, from being allowed to lead sectarian prayer on the field.

Catholic conservative Robert George, former chair of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom and a Princeton professor, declined to attend the meeting at which Mr Trump spoke.

Professor George said that while he may think even lower of Hillary Clinton, he fears Trump will "in the end, bring disgrace upon those individuals and organisations who publicly embrace him".

"For those of us who believe in limited government, the rule of law, flourishing institutions of civil society and traditional Judeo-Christian moral principles, and who believe that our leaders must be persons of integrity and good character, this election is presenting a horrible choice."

"May God help us."

Sources

• Washington Post
• Image: Christian Today

There will be a private meeting with the president and public Masses in Washington, D.C.; New York; and Philadelphia. He will address the United Nations.

Two aspects of his trip, though, will be unprecedented: He will be the first pope to address Congress, and, equally significant, he will visit homeless people in D.C., underprivileged third-graders in East Harlem, and prisoners in a Philadelphia correctional facility, where he will minister to 100 inmates and their families.

Counterbalancing his meetings with world leaders is a classic Francis move and a potent embodiment of his global agenda.

In the two and a half years since his election, Francis has earned a reputation for his simplicity and directness, but the pope from Argentina is also a master of political symbolism and an immensely shrewd politician.

He knows that the eyes of all nations will be on the message "the Pope of the Poor" delivers to the world's richest nation.

The pope's religious message — that the Gospel should be joyful, merciful, and embrace everyone, especially the poor — is plain and direct.

And yet the political strategies he uses to enact that vision are sophisticated and even wily. Inside the Church, he has set out to modernize the Vatican, rooting out corruption and careerism and placing the pastoral care of ordinary people before dogma and rules. Love and inclusion now come before judgment and condemnation.

In the larger world, his mission is just as radical: to realign global policy to better aid the poor and excluded. That has included pushing nations to address the prickly issues of climate change and economic inequality. Continue reading

Sources

• New York Magazine, from an article by Paul Vallely, the author of Pope Francis: The Struggle for the Soul of Catholicism.
• Image: Prima News

In a September 3 communiqué, the Diocese of Peoria, where Archbishop Sheen was born, announced that the cause was suspended "for the foreseeable future" and would be assigned to a Vatican archive.

This is because the Archdiocese of New York had refused to release the archbishop's remains and to allow the body to be transferred to Peoria for the process of official inspection and to take relics.

Peoria diocese said in a communiqué that the Holy See expected the remains to be moved to Peoria in Illinois.

Archbishop Sheen's last will and testament expressed a desire for burial in New York.

He accepted Cardinal Terence Cooke's invitation for interment in the crypt beneath the main altar of St Patrick's Cathedral.

Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria, the President of the Archbishop Fulton J Sheen Foundation, who had taken charge of the cause, was said to be "heartbroken" at the refusal.

The Peoria communiqué stated Bishop Jenky was assured on several occasions by the Archdiocese of New York that the transfer of the body would take place at the appropriate time.

"New York's change of mind took place as the work on behalf of the cause had reached a significant stage," the communiqué added.

New York's undertaking to help move the body at an appropriate time was given by Cardinal Edward Egan twice, a Peoria spokesperson said in an update.

The Congregation for Saint's Causes advised in 2005 that moving the body should wait for an appropriate time, as the diocesan inquiry had not started.

But Peoria believes that with this inquiry now complete, now is the right time.

A date for beatification could have been as early as next year, the Peoria statement added, as the process only awaited a vote of cardinals and the approval of the Holy Father.

New York archdiocese responded that Cardinal Timothy Dolan "did express a hesitance in exhuming the body" without a directive from the Vatican Congregation for Saints' Causes and the approval of Archbishop Sheen's family.

The statement added that Archbishop Sheen's "closest surviving family members" asked that the archbishop's interment wishes be respected.

The statement noted that Cardinal Dolan "does object to the dismemberment of the archbishop's body" [for relics], but, were it to be exhumed, relics that might have been buried with Archbishop Sheen might be able to be taken.

If Peoria's decision is final, New York suggested it could take over the cause.

Peoria had previously suspended the cause process, for similar reasons, in 2010.

Sources

• The Tablet
• Catholic Review
• National Catholic Register
• Catholic Post (Peoria statement)
• Catholic News Agency
• Image: Irish Catholic

Cardinal Dolan, who is archbishop of New York, is also the grand marshal for the parade on March 17.

The parade committee chose OUT@NBCUniversal -a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender resource group - to march up Manhattan's Fifth Avenue.

NBC, the long time broadcast home of the parade, was prepared to drop its coverage unless a compromise could be reached that resulted in the inclusion of a gay group.

Sponsors had threatened to pull out and politicians had refused to participate because of the ongoing exclusion of gay groups marching with their own banner.

The committee said its "change of tone and expanded inclusiveness is a gesture of goodwill to the LGBT community in our continuing effort to keep the parade above politics".

The committee's statement said the parade was "remaining loyal to church teachings". The parade is not run by the Church.

A parade spokesman said other gay and lesbian groups could apply in future years.

Last March, Guinness beer dropped its parade sponsorship.

Cardinal Dolan said on September 3 that the parade committee that operates the annual event "continues to have my confidence and support".

"Neither my predecessors as archbishop of New York nor I have ever determined who would or would not march in this parade . . . but have always appreciated the cooperation of parade organisers in keeping the parade close to its Catholic heritage," he continued.

Cardinal Dolan concluded by praying "that the parade would continue to be a source of unity for all of us".

Last year, the cardinal said he supported the inclusion of gay people in the parade, but did not take a position on whether they should be allowed to march under their own sign.

The parade always pauses in front of St Patrick's Cathedral on Fifth Avenue.

In 1993, then-Cardinal John O'Connor, facing gay protesters who staged a sit-in during the parade, vowed that he "could never even be perceived as compromising Catholic teaching" by entertaining their admission as an identifiable group in the event.

But Pope Francis has made it clear he wants Church leaders to highlight Catholicism's outreach to the poor and vulnerable, rather than always fighting culture war issues on gay marriage and the like.

Some gay groups in the US were unhappy that only one such group was in the 2015 parade.

Sources

• National Catholic Reporter
• Irish Central
• Associated Press
• Image: Irish Central

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Cardinal Dolan stated the Pope believes capitalism must come with "compassion and generosity".

The principal focus of Pope Francis's economic teaching is that economic and social activity must be based on these virtues, Cardinal Dolan explained.

"The Church has consistently rejected coercive systems of socialism and collectivism, because they violate inherent human rights to economic freedom and private property," the cardinal wrote.

"When properly regulated, a free market can certainly foster greater productivity and prosperity," he added.

"But, as the Pope continually emphasises, the essential element is genuine human virtue."

Cardinal Dolan also wrote that the capitalism experienced by many in developing or newly industrialised countries is "an exploitative racket for the benefit of the few powerful and wealthy".

Continue reading

For a few years before the turn of the century, almost every statement by a bishop or other church leader or organization contained some paean to the jubilee.

The pope had called for it, and so all sorts of people either sincerely or for show acted as if the Church were on the verge of a great renewal and the world would enter a new age.

It didn't happen.

The year 2000 came and went and all the hoopla about it faded into oblivion.

It was, however, a lesson in how much certain people in the Church will act on something a pope says, even if they are merely play-acting.

Church of the poor

Now, we have a new pope who is calling for the Church to become more aware of, in service to and guided by the poor.

As in the past, we are already seeing hierarchs and others suddenly "getting religion" and parroting the pope's call for a church of the poor.

It appears that in many cases, their advancement in the Church had not brought them into contact with the biblical emphasis upon the poor that was there all along.

Certainly, a renewed commitment to the Gospel as good news for the poor is something to be applauded and emulated.

But, we must beware of repeating the Jubilee Year phenomenon of going through the mottos and motions without thought or real commitment.

Presumptuous condescension

When I was a boy, my family lived in a slum in New York City.

People from some churches in prosperous towns outside the city decided to do something for the poor neighborhood. So, they came to paint murals on the sides of buildings in order to beautify the area.

I hated them - the people, not the paintings, which I've forgotten.

Even as a boy, I could recognize presumptuous condescension in the attitude that our problems were better understood by outsiders and could be fixed by some basically cost-free gestures on their part without ever meeting, let alone consulting, the residents.

I also knew very well what would have happened if I and some of my friends had dared to go into those people's communities and started painting pictures on the walls of buildings there.

That experience has made me wary of Christians who would use the poor by inflicting their goodness upon them, hoping to nurture self-satisfied good feelings about being "servants of the poor" or "good Christians".

The poor are not projects. They are people.

Their economic and social situations are only parts of their stories, and usually not the most important parts.

But, someone who attempts to deal with their problems rather than with their selves will never learn that.

Like the muralists, they will only antagonize.

In fact, many of the problems that face people who are poor actually have their sources and solutions in the boardrooms of corporations or the offices of governments, and probably those are the chief places to deal with poverty by building unselfish justice and ending favoritism and corruption.

If instead of dealing with poverty, Christians want to deal with people who are poor, they must make the effort to meet with, listen to and share life's joys, frustrations, hopes and pains with them as equals.

Sharing the pain, and the joys

A Trappist monk in Japan once told me that so long as we feel sorry for another, we are not being Christian, for a Christian looks upon others as brothers and sisters and we do not feel sorry for our brothers and sisters.

We share their pain. The same is true of joys.

And sharing runs in two directions. If we go to the poor hoping to merely be hearers and viewers of their pains and joys without being willing to share our own, we are nothing more than voyeurs or tourists.

Truly mutual sharing will lead us all to a new level of communion and allow us all to serve one another.

Once we achieve that level of communion, only then can we know what the real needs and riches of others are.

Only then can we offer to join them in meeting those needs and nurturing those riches, whether material, emotional or spiritual.

We can also welcome their assistance in meeting our own needs and evaluating and using our own riches.

That is the kind of relationship with the poor to which Pope Francis, echoing the prophets and the Gospel, is calling us.

Fr William Grimm is a Maryknoll priest based in Tokyo, and publisher of ucanews.com

Source: ucanews.com

Image: ucanews.com

New York's Cardinal Timothy Dolan and Chicago's Cardinal Francis George have both expressed a little concern about the bringing the conclave forward.

Cardinal George told reporters, Sunday after celebrating Mass, there should be no rush to convene the conclave because the days leading up to the election are when cardinals can lean the most about the candidates.

"You take the time needed to make a good decision ... We will go into conclave when collectively the cardinals decide that we have [had] the conversations necessary to make a good decision," said George, as reported by the Chicago Tribune.

"The most important thing is to choose well, and we'll take the time necessary to do that."

And while eager to hear some information and instructions, Cardinal Timothy Dolan admitted, Saturday, to not yet hearing anything.

"I'm eager along with the rest of the cardinals to hear some information and instructions about what will happen" he said, adding, "I would think one would not want to rush into the conclave."

The conclave, the meeting which will bring together the 117 cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church, could start before March 15 if all the cardinals are already in Rome, Vatican Spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi said.

Lombardi had previously said the conclave was likely to start between March 15 and 19, however recently gave new details saying because the pope has resigned, the conclave could be brought forward.

Well informed Editor of the Irish Catholic, Michael Kelly (@michaelkellyic) tweeted two days ago "Non Rome-based cardinals not happy about possibility of #Conclave being brought forward...I think they suspect Curia is up to something."

Sources

• Chicago Tribune
• New York Post
• Christian Post
• @michaelkellyic

Continue reading

The evening was billed as an opportunity to hear two Catholic celebrities discuss how joy and humor infuse their spiritual lives.

They both delivered, with surprises and zingers that began the moment the two walked onstage.

Mr Colbert went to shake Cardinal Dolan's hand, but the cardinal took Mr Colbert's hand and kissed it — a disarming role reversal for a big prelate with a big job and a big ring.

Cardinal Dolan was introduced as a man who might one day be elected pope, to which he said, "If I am elected pope, which is probably the greatest gag all evening, I'll be Stephen III."

Cardinal Dolan introduced Mr Colbert's wife, Evelyn, who was sitting in the audience, and brought her up to the stage. The cardinal put his arm around her and gave her a kiss on the cheek, and when Mr Colbert feigned offense, the cardinal said, in a remark that brought down the house, "I can kiss your wife. You can't kiss mine." Continue reading

The cross made of one of the twin tower's T-beams became a national symbol in the days after the 2001 attacks, however a national group, American Atheists is suing one of the 9/11 memorial museums in an attempt to prevent the cross being displayed.

The atheists claim the cross has caused them 'physical and emotional' pain.

According to CNN, American Atheists says a religious symbol has no place in a memorial that's backed by public funds and that is supposed to serve as a monument to victims of many different religions - and to those who had no religion at all.

"It is important that it not be displayed to the exclusion of everyone else," said David Silverman, president of the American Atheists, which first filed suit in July 2011.

"This case is about inclusion, it is not about the elimination of religion, it is about the inclusion of everyone."

The National September 11 Memorial & Museum says it included the cross because it "became an icon of hope and comfort throughout the recovery in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks."

The case has gained national attention and has become important to many atheists and religious Americans alike.

Calling the case "absurd", Jeffery Toobin, CNN's legal analyst, does not think the court will order the cross to be removed.

"The museum is not building a place for religious worship, they are preserving a historical relic that was meaningful to a great many people and part of the story of 9/11."

"When the government is surveying a historic development, the government does not have to exclude religious images and artifacts from its displays," Toobin said.

The case hasn't gotten anywhere since it was filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

The cross was discovered by Frank Silecchia, a construction worker who helped with the clean up and recovery at ground zero.

The cross is a steel T-beam, a common architectural device used in the building of the World Trade Centre twin towers.

Sources

• CNN
• CBS News
• The Blaze
• Image: Facebook

Catholic League and the Family Research Council, say the event shows a prejudice against religion and ignores the central role religious groups played in the city's 9/11 response.

For weeks, Trinity Wall Street, an Episcopal congregation near ground zero, allowed rescue workers to operate from its chapel. Faith-based service agencies volunteered for a range of duties, from feeding recovery teams to counseling families. Clergy organized interfaith services for the city, most prominently at Yankee Stadium.

"Nobody was turning religious leaders away from the scene 10 years ago. Why are they being banned from the 10th anniversary?" said the Rev. Richard Land, who leads the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest Protestant group.

Fernando Cabrera, a City Council member who is also an evangelical pastor in the Bronx called the decision a "tragic mistake" and Reverend Thomas Margrave, an Episcopal priest who is a board member of the New York State Association of Fire Chaplains, said "it seems extremely curious" that prayer is included in so many public ceremonies, including the presidential inauguration, but not at ground zero, where prayer was so important.

Bill Donohue, head of the Catholic League has launched a petition demanding Bloomberg reverse his decision.

However several New York religious leaders say they understand the mayor's position.

"I just think a decision was made to give priority to the families. If this means more families will be attending, I think all of us can accept that," said Rabbi Joseph Potasnik, executive vice president of the New York Board of Rabbis.

Catholic archbishop, Timothy Dolan said he met with the mayor about a month ago and had discussed the ceremony.

"He, too, I think was under some restrictions. I think other people were involved in the planning not just him," Dolan said in an interview last week with the cable news outlet NY1. "He was very honest and up front. 'I think it's very limited. It may not be the way I want it, but it's just going to be immediate family and the political people who were in office then and political people now.' I'm fine with that."

Dolan said he and other clergy have "stacks of invitations" for prayer services surrounding the anniversary.

Charles Haynes, a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center who researches religious liberty, said he worries that Bloomberg may have jettisoned clergy prayer to avoid any controversy about Islam, since he would have to include a Muslim representative.

"Bloomberg is in a no-win situation here."

Source

• Associated Press
• Image: Dumbo Books

The initiative has been criticised by Dolan for, among other things, potentially usurping the role of parents in shaping the moral values of their children.

There will be no more imams as the public religious face of the project, and Sharif El-Gamal, the lead developer and Chairman of the 45-51 Park Place property says he has been trying to regroup and reach out to the community to get input into the final design.

According to El-Gamal, it will take years of hard work to determine what kind of facilities Muslim and non-Muslim visitors want and need.

Despite a NYTimes poll indicating residents want the project moved to a less controversial site, and the Anti-Defamation League opposing the project, the vision remains.

Park 51, the community centre portion of the project is designed to be open to all with an interfaith space.

PrayerSpace will be the mosque for Muslim prayer services.

Fund-raising for both projects are at their beginnings and being treated separately, however according to the NY Times the same people are managing both projects.

The proposed centre prompted furious protests in New York, and this despite the support from New York Mayor, Michael Bloomberg and the White House's 'comment' that it supported the constitutional right to religious freedom.

Muslim leaders have said that not only did they have a constitutional right to build but they would would also help move the forward, even in the face of opposition.

It was a matter of principle, the leaders said.

The centre should not budge from its planned site.

Opponents of the Ground Zero Mosque are not seeking to restrict Muslim-Americans' right to build mosques.

The opponents are happy to respect others' religious freedoms but strongly believe religious pluralism is a two-way street and with rights come responsibilities.

Sources

• NY Times
• Front Page Magazine

One need only look at the joy and satisfaction with which the decision was greeted by some to recognize that, far from indicating the disappearance of morality, the legislation is indicative of a strong moral order, and it is this order which is really at issue when we debate gay marriage.

Charles Taylor, in his A Secular Age, outlines the contours of what he names the Modern Moral Order (MMO).

The MMO replaces pre-modern versions of social hierarchy with an "order of mutual benefit," organized around the securing of rights for individuals and their ability to exercise these rights in exchanges that conduce to mutual benefit, particularly in securing for all "the needs of ordinary life."

The order does not aim at anything "higher" than this; it does not seek to replicate some transcendent form (Plato), nor conform to any religious command. Its progress consists in the extension of this order of mutual benefit to encompass as many persons as possible - and in theory, everyone.

In its more robust forms, the political order is called upon not simply to protect rights, but bring more and more into effect the equality of persons it promises - Taylor calls this the increasing "intensity" of the order, as opposed to its mere "expansion" to more and more individuals. In this latter mode of "intensity," the modern State is at its most "crusading," for it does not simply seek a negative freedom but seeks to use laws to demand recognition of some good.

Assuming Taylor's characterization is right, gay marriage may seem like a no-brainer, since the law enables individuals to enter into a mutually-beneficial exchange, securing a particular powerful element of ordinary life, marriage.

The State has no interest in protecting any kind of transcendent order, including that of some supposed order of gender.

But if that's true, why is the State interested in marriage in the first place?

Read more about the real issue behind Gay Marriage

Source

• Image: Swift Economics

Opponents of same-sex marriage have vowed to fight back and outlaw gay marriage as they did in California and Maine.

The National Organisation for Marriage (NOM) has said it will spend at least US$2 million in 2012 to campaign against Republicans who switched sides.

"Politicians who campaign one way on marriage and then vote the other, need to understand: betraying and misleading voters has consequences, too. We are not giving up, we will continue to fight to protect marriage in New York," said NOM president, Brian Brown.

"The Republican Party in New York is responsible for passing gay marriage, and sadly it's the families of New York who will pay the worst price of the new government-backed redefinition of marriage."

Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council accused NY Republicans of taking bribes over the matter.

"Enormous political coercion has resulted in a profound failure of moral courage in the New York Senate. A clear majority of the people of New York oppose counterfeit 'marriage,' but Gov. Cuomo and anti-family lawmakers have shown that their allegiance is to a small but vocal minority seeking to redefine marriage and family," he said in a statement. "The so-called religious protections that were tacked on to the bill will ultimately do nothing to protect the religious rights of New York citizens. As we go forward there is little doubt that the "incentives," some taxpayer funded, used to sway votes, especially Republican ones, will be exposed."

New York's Roman Catholic Church has campaigned openly against the legality of same sex marriage.

The bishops are concerned that marriage will be ridiculed and the Church may face government sanctions for continuing to teach about one of the cornerstones of civilisation, the traditional view of marriage.

"The passage by the legislature of a bill to alter radically and forever humanity's historic understanding of marriage leaves us deeply disappointed and troubled," said the New York Catholic Bishops in a statement.

While reminding people to treat homosexuals with respect, dignity and love, the bishops strongly affirmed that marriage as the joining of one man and one woman in a lifelong loving union that is open to children, ordered for the good of those children and the spouses themselves.

The Republican-controlled state senate voted 33-29 for a bill that had earlier been approved by the lower house, which has a Democratic majority.

The state, the most populous US state to allow same-sex marriage, does not have a residency requirement for getting married and the new law takes effect after 30 days.

"Now that we've made it here, we'll make it everywhere," said prominent activist Evan Wolfson.

Sources

• NCR - Statement of the Bishops of New York State
• NY Archbishop Timothy Dolan's blog
• NPR
• BBC
• Washington Post
• Washington Independent
• Image: Washington Post

Friday night's victory for gay marriage advocates was the product of changing public attitudes, and a political campaign that was more sophisticated, better funded, and armed with more tenacious muscle — in the person of Gov. Andrew Cuomo — than a similar push that failed just two years ago.

Advocates spent more than $1 million trying to persuade legislators, much of it in the last two months. They targeted their publicity campaign at a dozen vulnerable or fence-sitting senators. Most of the cash came from what one lobbyist called an "unlimited" source: wealthy contributors in Manhattan and nationwide.

The Human Rights Campaign, part of a coalition of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender groups, delivered more than 53,000 post cards and made more than 11,000 phone calls from constituents to their senators. Phone banks ran twice a week, one featuring former first daughter Chelsea Clinton. She was just one of a string of celebrities, from Lady Gaga to former New York Giants great Michael Strahan, who peppered the public with gay marriage messages.

Gay marriage advocates hired 30 full-time field organizers to press their case. Other critical hires were lobbying firms that specialized in Republican politics, a mix that opened doors in the Republican-controlled Senate.

The opponents of gay marriage weren't unarmed, just less so. For example, while groups opposed to gay marriage spent less than $100,000 on a TV ad buy in June, the gay marriage coalition spent more than $400,000, according to the Human Rights Campaign. A $1 million commitment from a national group opposed to gay marriage just didn't seem to register as loudly in Albany.

Continue reading how gay marriage became NY law

Source

• Image: Reuters