Some pro-life activists might disagree

“Mr. Obama finally stopped temporizing and ‘evolving’ his position on same-sex marriage and took the moral high ground on what may be the great civil rights struggle of our time.”

– New York Times editorial this morning.

The “great civil rights struggle” of our time?  Really?

  • John V

    The “moral high ground”? Really?

  • Irish Spectre

    Remember the good old days, when moral high ground was known as raw political calculation?? Anyway, is it just me, or is the Times’ statement a gross demeaning of the struggle for racial equality??

    …and by the way, how come bisexuals aren’t allowed to marry multiple partners?? Can we expect our Chief Executive to advance THEIR civil right??!!!

  • Kenny R

    As the President said-his opinion was formed after talking with his daughters. It isn’t very comforting to me to know that he gets his advice from little kids.

  • http://awashingtondccatholic.blogspot.com/ awashingtondccatholic

    The gay community should not be happy with him. He played them for as long as he could. Now, with the looming possibility that he may not be re-elected (and in need of cash), he now admits that he supports gay marriage. As I always have said, if being a Muslim would help him get elected, he would become Muslim (or Jewish, Mormon, etc.).

    What I also find interesting is that he says that his family should be kept out of politics, but whenever he seems to get into a tight situation, he trots out the daughters (in this case, he talks about them).

  • http://catholicsensibility.wordpress.com/ Todd Flowerday

    It’s been defined by the opposition in those terms more than by supporters.

    It seems to me that all a minority of SSA people want are a collection of basic courtesies: being able to visit a dying partner, sharing legal responsibilities, sensible parental things like picking up a child at school. It’s far easier to lump it under an existing legal framework, civil marriage, than it is to attempt to extract these things piecemeal from local, state, and federal legislatures and courts.

    The US president is pretty far away from the actual legal battleground, except as a figurehead. And this particular president is liable to be more divisive than inspirational on the issue.

    We’re talking about tens of thousands of couples, not all SSA people by any means. I’d say civil rights have a long way to go in the US, still. But same-sex-unions are a more important voting issue for its opponents than those it affects directly. But it is a civil rights issue. A majority imposing it will on something outside its own direct experience on a minority who are probably a generation away from being able to gain enough acceptance to win a poll.

    And still, few anti-gay folks seem to want to touch the sex-outside-of-marriage problem. So maybe it does hit pretty close to home for some.

  • http://jscafenette.com Manny

    Pathetic. I’m sick of these pointy headed, supercilious elites implying that I’m a neatherthal because I hold to natutral law. If this is the “great civil rights issue of our time” than I’m supposed to be a bigot. No wonder I stopped buying the NY Times years ago. It’s trash.

  • http://jscafenette.com Manny

    Of course I missed spelled neanderthal and natural. Maybe I am a neanderthal. LOL.

  • http://awashingtondccatholic.blogspot.com/ awashingtondccatholic

    No. It is just that spelling is not your strong point.

  • Deacon Greg Kandra

    As I always have said, if being a Muslim would help him get elected, he would become Muslim (or Jewish, Mormon, etc.).

    I think that way about Romney sometimes, too. Our leaders today have no true north..

    DGK

  • Klaire

    Funny thing, it has nothing to do with “civil rights.” Every gay person in every state in the US has the same “civil rights’ as the rest of us, including marriage. It’s more of the “never enough” , as in getting married is not valid unless the government sanctions it, and redefines what has been in place since all of civilization.

    This is more or Obama’s modern day sophistry, same stuff he used to get elected that few, if any, of the “elites”, could see then as they do now. Reality is, Obama isn’t offering them ANYTHING, except more rhetoric.

    Mark Levin gave a great commentary last night, and IMO, the only one in the media to really get why Obama did this. He said it was because of the election results in W VA and WI, leaving no doubt that the Reagan Democrats are back, more than obvious in a primary turnout to vote against Obama.

    Sad that in addition to our media elite, many of our gay friends cannot see this for what it is, Obama using them for his own needs, nothing more.

  • Peter

    I am perplexed that the Catholic Church is so anti gay, especially with such a huge percentage of its priesthood and hierarchy being gay, not to mention so many of the dedicated parish workers and musicians. Somehow, this group has been identified as a good target because of its already existing marginalization in society. On the other hand, the hierarchy has wisely decided to keep a tight lip about contraception when it comes to the people filling churches using it. Contraception is only denounced when it is the “government” impinging our “religious freedom”. I see very little Christian or pastoral in 99% of the statements that church leaders, and Catholics in general, make concerning homosexuals. I am sure that this is severely hurtful to the many homosexuals attending mass, or who serve the church.
    Catholic sexual policies are in a very unhealthy state. “Celibate” priests counseling those who will marry. A priesthood dwindling to extinction while many say that its numbers would greatly increase if married priests were permitted. Vows by our deacons not to remarry if their wife dies.
    Somehow, the Catholic Church has totally missed the great spirituality of sex, and what a wonderful gift it is. I recall the horrors that we were taught about masturbation in Catholic grade school. Eternal damnation for a single act!
    The persecution of gays and lesbians by the catholic Church is somehow the focus of all the Church has gotten wrong about sex, and the institution has made this a last stand issue.
    The most perplexing aspect about the church’s opposition to same sex marriage is that the Catholic Church will not be performing any regardless of what any politician thinks. The debate is solely about civil marriage. In much of the world, couples go through two separate marriage ceremonies if they want a church wedding. First, the civil ceremony by the civil governmental authorities, and later a religious one if they want it. The Catholic Church has always maintained that all the marriages outside the Catholic Church are not valid. (See example of Newt Gingrich).
    So how is the Church so disingenuously worked up about what some people will choose to do at the city hall or in some cases in the churches of other denominations? I have never heard a homily about marital fidelity, encouragement of couples to adopt children, or most marriage related subjects. Cathlolics should be happy that gays adopt so many children that heterosexuals produced and do not want. In the District of Columbia, as reported on NPR, 28% of adoptions are by gay couples. I’m sure that these kids are better off in a loving home than they are simply being warehoused. yet, our Catholic Charities has pulled out of adoptions all together rather than allow this to happen. There are several gay couples who are very active in my parish. With all the anti sentiment within the Catholic Church, i am really surprised that they tolerate such opposition and stay. We had a lesbian who was part of a coupe as our parish council president, and when someone mentioned this to the pastor, he said that she was the best fund raiser that he has ever worked with. Anyway, I read precious little in Catholic publications that is any way supportive or even tolerating of gays in the Church. And don’t point to that stale writing Always our Children that has always been window dressing, and nothing more.

  • Klaire

    Peter with all due respect, you are so misguided on Catholic Theology, I hope every reader stops and prays a Hail Mary for you.

    You know not of what you speak.

  • Will

    He now agrees with Dick Cheney.

  • Klaire

    I would disagree Will. Dick Cheney actually cares about gay people, being that he has a gay daughter he loves dearly. Obama is using gay people.

  • jcd

    Progressives need God’s grace to be enlightened not evolve. This is what our President needs to understand:
    http://www.jillstanek.com/2012/05/new-animated-video-shows-personhoods-link-to-native-americans-slaves-disabled-and-preborn

  • Barbara P.

    Manny I don’t think you are a neanderthal – who can spell anymore given our dependance on spell check. just want to say you made me laugh out loud this morning.

  • IntoTheWest

    It’s not just pro-life activists who should take exception to the Times’ estimation that the gay marriage movement is the “greatest civil rights struggle of our time.” Are people so living “in the now” that they forget that black Americans couldn’t even use the same water fountain as white Americans less than a century ago?

  • Fiergenholt

    Well now; could it be that none of the current staff of the New York Times were even alive in the 1960′s much less were old enough to attend “Western” for their training in civil disobedience or marched with MLK across the Selma bridge ?

  • http://jscafenette.com Manny

    Can we now declare that Obama has a war on marriage? Can we now declare that Obama has a war on Christianity? Can we now declare that Obama has a war on common sense?

  • Drake

    I do not read the editorial to mean that the gay civil rights struggle is greater than the black struggle. The writer has taken the civil rights struggle of the African Americans to be substantially along the way, and the gay civil rights struggle to be in an earlier stage, not yet in mid-course, perhaps, thus the great struggle currently being waged.
    I also more broadly interpret the support that the gays and lesbians are receiving from the Democrats as part of the tradition of that party that “every single person in American counts, and is equal.” This is in its tradition of supporting the immigrants throughout the 20th century, including many of our ancestors here on this blog, and within the Catholic Church. It includes women, when the Republicans opposed all the various equality legislation for equal pay, the creation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, equality in education opportunities, and other legislation improving the status of women within American society, it includes the support of the Democrats for the black civil rights legislation of the 1960′s and ’70′s, and now in this same tradition it is expanding to help another group of many millions of Americans who are on the fringes( even on the fringes within several religions such as ours) ,the lesbians and gays.
    I think it is a real stretch to call opposing gay rights in civil society part of the seamless web of pro-life positions within the Catholic Church as the headline to this post suggests.
    I have absolutely no fears that my wife is going to run off with some woman that she meets. Nor, following President Obama’s remarks, do I feel sudden attractions towards men. I do not foresee my kids giving up their spouses or boy friends and girl friends to pursue a same sex option now that a President of the USA has thoughtfully spoken against prejudice, and thoughtfully spoken in favor of legal eguality within civil society,regarding marriage.
    I see as threats to marriage ( heterosexual and homosexual) adultery, materialism, excessive debt, lack of constantly renewed commitment to the marriage, lack of engagement by one spouse in the raising of children, loss of spirituality ( not loss of “churchiness”), and failure to spend sufficient time together on a daily basis, whether the failure is by choice or by necessity for job, military service, etc. None of these issues are really addressed often in homilies nor in most parishes generally. Nor are they addressed by the programs by which the Church is pouring a great many millions of dollars of our contributions to fight same sex marriage, in all the states, and through the National Organization for Marriage and the Knights of Columbus. All such efforts are ignoring the aforesaid threats to marriage, and many other threats to marriage that don’t come to mind right now. At the end of the day, the church will be gaining nothing for current or future marriages by their positions, and the great amount of time that the bishops are spending on the subject.

  • http://catholicsensibility.wordpress.com Todd Flowerday

    No thanks. Can we just tamp down the temperature level of discussion? Mr Obama is a politician, nothing more and nothing less.

    It fires our spirits to think we’re in some momentous conflict. But by all means, if you want to declare war over it, I wonder if you’re playing right into your opponents’ hands. Go to war over a few thousand same-sex unions, and you will have the civil rights issue of the era. It seems like that’s the way the bishops are playing this.

  • savoldi

    our leaders should listen to us here……we KNOW true north from a light socket……

  • http://catholicsensibility.wordpress.com Todd Flowerday

    Drake is correct. We are misusing material resources when we could be putting more effort into supporting real marriages. When my wife heads into major surgery later this month, why should I care about some bloated bureaucracy’s assessment of religious freedom? Or even who is marrying whom in my country? I just want to care for my spouse and keep my family afloat. I will find support from my parish’s clergy and parishioners–but that’s not true of all Catholics, believe me.

    But this political indulgence is doing nothing for me, nor for many millions of Catholic couples who struggle to keep it together day to day in spite of economics, Bush/Obama adventurism in Asia, and the other obstacles thrown in our paths.

    Please wake me up when the bishops start getting serious about the sacrament of marriage.

  • Barbara P.

    In the Gospels Jesus talks about marriage and says that some are incapable of marriage because they were born that way. Matthew 19: 11-12. I have never heard this discussed or interpreted in terms of the same sex marriage issue. Does it relate to the issue at all? I am curious as to how the Church has interpreted this passage.

  • Klaire

    Mike your quote:

    The president is right, and those of you who disagree with him on this question are fundamentally immoral. Your position, the Catholic Church’s position, is evil

    That is 100% impossible being that the Catholic Church and offical teachings IS Jesus Christ, the only standard (God) of which morality can rightfully be determined. Evil is merely the absence of that “”Goodness, Truth, and Beauty.”

    Can I ask on what standard you based this mindblowing observation?

  • RomCath

    I thought that myself. Who listens to kids’ advice on such an important issue. Does he check with them on foreign policy too?

  • RomCath

    “The Catholic Church has always maintained that all the marriages outside the Catholic Church are not valid. (See example of Newt Gingrich).”

    Peter, That is utter nonsense as are most of the allegations in your post. The “huge” percentage of clergy, parish workers and musicians are gay? Who says?

  • RomCath

    Mike, I think you got it wrong. You meant to say that same sex marriage is immoral.

  • http://jscafenette.com Manny

    Why should I tamp down the temperature? Obama inflamed it. He’s getting political milage out of it. It’s an outrage. And I’m tired of being called a bigot for what is natural law.

  • http://jscafenette.com Manny

    I never noticed that before. It does seem to suggest that some people are not capable of marriage for various reasons.

  • ron chandonia

    This is definitely a rights issue, but not the one on which media attention has focused. The Church teaches that every child has the right to be born to his or her two married biological parents. In the wake of the sexual revolution, this right has been denied to an increasing number of children–with dire consequences to them and to our society. Redefining marriage will only further weaken the already tenuous connection between marriage and child-bearing, and it will open the door to adoption for more same-sex couples, whose adopted kids will–like the friends of the Obama daughters–be denied the most basic of rights: a mother and a father to care for them.

  • http://jscafenette.com Manny

    I’m too much of a gentlman to say what I think of your comment.

  • Oregon Catholic

    OK, call me cynical but I can’t help but wonder if the timing had anything to do with the Hollywood fundraiser tonight at George Clooney’s. Celebs all seem to be tripping over themselves to show support for gays so I’m sure this will pry a few more dollars from their pockets.

  • Barbara P.

    One reason being that they are “born that way.” I have always wondered what Jesus meant to tell us.

  • Drake

    We all know that the paradigm of a child being born into a good home with both a good a mother and a father is an ideal that has not really existed for a great many in society for time eternal.

    Babies have always been abandoned by one or both parents.
    Infant homes and orphanages for centuries have been filled with abandoned children, all too often warehoused, rather than adopted into loving homes.

    Heterosexual couples too often are not able to conceive and bear children. The Church does not approve of many methods of fertility treatments. Are these couples then to be denied marriage under your definition? Should older couples be denied marriage when beyond their fertile years?

    There is no attempt to redefine the Catholic sacrament of matrimony. Same sex marriage has nothing to do with the Church’s definition, nor the Church’s criteria for receiving its sacrament of matrimony.

    The consideration is solely for CIVIL MARRIAGE, a part of the civil legal system. The USA does in fact have a separation of church and state. Each (church, state) has its own laws. Civil law covers persons of every different religion in America, not only Catholics. It also covers persons of no religious affiliation. It is not right for Catholics, or several religions banded together, to attempt to skew the civil legal system against those of no religion or members of other religions who wish to have a civil marriage. Catholics and other religions can do whatever they want to do to its own members who do not agree with any of its tenets. However, Catholics and other faiths, should not be able to restrict the CIVIL rights of persons. Ecclesial rights and obligations are the appropriate purvey of the church authorities, but they should not be imposed on the broader diverse society.

    Throughout history, when the Catholic Church can not convince its own membership to follow a particular conduct or discipline, it has regrettably often turned to the civil authorities to enforce its own tenets on its members, and all of society. This has never worked out well. (See the backlashes in Mexico and France after their revolutions). Today in Italy, the Church attempts to control the civil legal system with one result that almost no one goes to Mass there any more. I saw this when I lived there for 3 years.

    I see a diminishment in the spiritual tone at Mass on those Sundays when we have one of the Cardinal’s political letters read at every Mass. People are edgy in the pews. People argue about the contents of the letter and the appropriateness of these at Mass. I have even seen people walk out during the reading of the letters, then return. The civil politics being dragged into the masses and into the faith is disruptive and divisive. Arguments are breaking out about whether or not to have people at tables gathering signatures for this or that political agenda, referendum, etc. If I wanted to see heated political debates on Sunday mornings, I would watch the weekly Sunday morning news shows. Instead, we are not witnessing it at Mass. I shudder to think how much worse this will get as we near election day in November.

  • IntoTheWest

    I suppose it could mean anything from physically malformed to asexual to mentally challenged. Of course, in those times it could also mean merely suffering from some kind of disease like epilepsy or leprosy.

    There are people who wonder if that phrase refers specifically to gay people, but I think it encompasses those who are single by either circumstance or choice. Of course, circumstances change, and single-by-choice is only a relatively modern concept.

    There are people who have no interest in marrying, yet whom are also not called to consecrated religious life. They could be “born that way”, I guess. Doesn’t have to be some kind of physical manifestation or dysfunction.

  • http://jscafenette.com Manny

    My Daniel Durken Bible Commentary says:

    “The reaction of Jesus’ disciples reveals the radical nature of of his teaching. ‘It is better not to marry’ (v10) is akin to the hyperbole in 18:8-9, which states that it is better to cut off a hand or foot or eye rather than cause a little one to sin. Jesus acknowledges that not all can accept his teaching. It has long been debated whether the saying in verse 12 refers to those who choose to remain celibate or to those who do not marry after the death of a spouse. ”

    There’s more, but the general drift is that Jesus is refering to why people can’t divorce.

    Perhaps a scholar can add something to this.

  • Oregon Catholic

    Please explain why, if as you say this is just about civil marriage, we have laws being pushed by the gays to force churches to hold their marriage ceremonies where they are not wanted? This is not just about legal civil rights. This is about having everything the heterosexuals have in an attempt to convince themselves and everyone else that homosexuality is ‘normal’. And the more they can shove it in the face of religion the better.

  • Barbara P.

    but marriage after the death of a spouse wouldnt include people who are born that way or who choose to remain celibate since someone doesnt choose the way they are born.

  • Barbara P.

    But Jesus would know that people with epilepsy or leprosy would be capable of marriage – are you saying that Jesus would think that people who are not capable of sex are not capable of marriage? That does not feel right to me.

  • Barbara P.

    With respect to the author of the commentary, even though He was discussing divorce, Jesus stated that some people were incapable of marriage.

  • ron chandonia

    The reason gays want to marry rather than enter civil unions is that “marriage” is a magic word: it confers a status in society that no other contractual union does. Even very young children understand what marriage is. That’s the reason kids pressure their unmarried parents–those who live together or at least see one another regularly–to tie the knot. Redefining marriage represents one more strike–perhaps the fatal strike–against the right of children in this country to be born to their married biological parents. And for what? To make believe that, in the words of Andrew Sullivan, the “father” of the gay marriage movement, being gay is “virtually normal.”

  • Fiergenholt

    Oregon Catholic says:

    “Please explain why, if as you say this is just about civil marriage, we have laws being pushed by the gays to force churches to hold their marriage ceremonies where they are not wanted?”

    OK: give us specific details here. I am not aware of that actually happening anywhere. Even in the Military — which was worried about this for a while — this does not appear to be an issue. Gays inthe military realize some chaplains will not do this at all and thus will only ask those who will.

    I have always been told that Oregon citizens have the highest per-capita educational attainment but the lowest per-capita church attendance of any state in the Union. Couldn’t prove it by me. I was there in a suburb of Portland for a Sunday Mass in early November 2009 and it was really crowded. In fact there were THREE priests on the altar at that mass: the presider/pastor; the assistant pastor/preacher; and a visiting priest from Poland.

  • Oregon Catholic

    It’s part of the WA state SSM law passed this year – our liberal friends to the north. Any church that rents it’s facilities for weddings/receptions has to rent to gay couples or face discrimination prosecution.

    “I have always been told that Oregon citizens have the highest per-capita educational attainment but the lowest per-capita church attendance of any state in the Union. ”

    You probably forgot that we both have assisted suicide too. Oh, and the mayor of Portland is a pederast who used the john in City Hall for his liasons, lied about it to get elected then later admitted it, and despite that has survived 2 recall attempts. Education ain’t always what it’s cracked up to be.

  • http://themightyambivalentcatholic.blogspot.com/ Steve

    RomCath, you should reread the President’s remarks in the ABC interview. He did not say that he “listen[ed] to [his] kids advice” on same-sex marriage, nor did he imply that. Rather, he said that when he and his family sit around the dinner table and talk about the girls’ day and what their friends and their friends’ families are up to, he started to realize that those parents shouldn’t have fewer rights than other people. In other words, the lived experience of families who love their kids (and each other) just as he and Michelle love their kids (and each other) led him to be more empathetic.

    You know what? I find myself growing more compassionate and respectful of others’ rights when I realize their families resemble my family in some important way; those other folks aren’t from Mars after all. That’s hardly the same as the President getting “advice” from his daughters. He never said he did that.

  • Will

    Where is the proof that Obama is using gay people?

  • Deacon Norb

    OC: Am I missing something. You said at 3:16pm

    “Any church that rents it’s facilities for weddings/receptions has to rent to gay couples or face discrimination prosecution”

    but that’s not what you said at 2:30pm

    “we have laws being pushed by the gays to force churches to hold their marriage ceremonies where they are not wanted?”

    Which one is it? Does Washington State require all state-licensed ministers — including Catholic priests — to witness “gay marriages” or does it simply prohibit any church — Catholic or not — that rents their facilities to general public/outside groups from discriminating against anyone based on “sexual orientation”?

    BIG DIFFERENCE!

    You solve the second issue by NOT renting your facility out to non-parishioners. No big deal.

  • Oregon Catholic

    There is no inconsistency in what I said. Churches that rent out their facilities for weddings and receptions will be required to rent to gay couples regardless of their religious teaching on the subject. I never said it applied to individual ministers/priests. Catholic churches will be exempt because we are not in the habit of renting our sanctuaries. However, if they rent out a reception hall to non-parishioners they won’t be exempt. How easy it is for a church to say NO to further rentals will depend on how much the congregation depends on the income.

    Regardless, it shows that gays want to be able to use legal force against churches which would not otherwise accomodate their SSM. I was speaking to Drake’s comment that gays just want a civil marriage. If that’s all they want, city hall or other secular venue will do just fine, they don’t need a rented church. BUT, obviously that’s not all they want as I said earlier.

  • http://themightyambivalentcatholic.blogspot.com/ Steve

    The Catholic Church can most certainly reject the idea of performing marriages among same-sex couples. It has that right, regardless of people sounding the alarm bells about how Obama and proponents of the “gay agenda” are out to force gay marriage on the Church. (We all know who the proponents of same-sex marriage are, of course: those dangerous gay people who are in favor of commitment, monogamy, family meal time, obtaining a thirty-year mortgage together, staying together for decades, and inheriting spousal property automatically without it all having to go through probate.)

    Religions have a right to stake their claim on whom they are willing to marry and whom they are not. For instance, the RCC has opted for all time not to marry straight couples in which one or both spouses have been divorced yet have not had the previous marriage annulled. There are PLENTY of those folks around (many of them very good people, very devout), and yet no one has been able to force the Church in the United States to marry even one such couple. The First Amendment.

    Yet there is such a thing as “civil marriage.” People have always been able to go to the courthouse, or make arrangements to have a justice of the peace marry them in the park, or have a captain marry them on board a ship. That right is available even to couples who have four or five or seven divorces between them. That right was available to Britney Spears when she (drunkenly) married a childhood friend in Vegas in 2004 — the marriage that Britney changed her mind about less than two days later. There has never been, at least not in the United States, the expectation that the Church needed to be okay with any given couple’s marriage plans in order for that couple to obtain a marriage under civil law — a state-recognized marriage. There’s no requirement under civil law that marrying couples pledge that they want to have children; twenty-year-olds and ninety-year-olds can be married by a J.P. without the couple’s take on childbearing affecting the legal validity of the marriage.

    Civil marriage is different from the sacrament of marriage that my wife and I sought out seventeen years ago this summer — a religious sacrament that we chose and which the Church CHOSE to recognize. Yet my neighbors who went to the court house are also married. It’s **civil marriage** that is being debated, folks. No one has argued that the RCC must recognize marriages it does not want to recognize. Just ask those divorced individuals who haven’t been able to get an annulment.

    Obama came out for equal rights under civil law. You can easily believe in the sacrament of marriage (as I do) yet also recognize your neighbors’ right to equal treatment under civil law. Casting stones at gay couples because they want the legal rights enjoyed by their fellow adult citizens is wrong-headed in so many ways — even if you say you’re doing so out of respect for the church’s sacraments. The sacrament is not in danger…unless, of course, you count infidelity, divorce, spousal abuse, etc. Those problems really do need attention.

  • Oregon Catholic

    I am thinking beyond the Catholic Church, which is admittedly not at much risk, to other churches who would be opposed to SSM ceremonies in their places of worship whether or not one of their ministers was officiating. Apparently renting out a church for the wedding of people who don’t belong to the congregation is not uncommon.

  • http://catholicsensibility.wordpress.com/ Todd Flowerday

    Actually, there is no such push. If it had ever been successful, countless mothers of the bride and divoerced/remarried couples would have come up with it long ago. Smokescreening from the bigots. No more.

  • ron chandonia

    I gather from your comment and Drake’s that the “civil marriage v. religious marriage” talking point is up and running. It won’t fly. The Church does not object to the bizarre notion of same-sex marriage because our priestsor deacons might be forced to witness such spectacles. The Church objects because marriage has an objective meaning: the union of one man and one woman, the only genuine basis for family life. As statistics on illegitimacy and divorce indicate, we have largely given up on the idea that the care and nurture of children is a paramount social good, but at least we have not yet abandoned the idea of marriage entirely. If we embrace the notion of same-sex marriage, we will have done just that, and our children will all be the worse off for it.

  • Mark Greta

    This new evolution was too much draw to allow me to stay away. I had to see what the spin was here. However, some of the best came from the links from The Anchoress to tweets and other comments that had some interesting questions which I would think they media would want to pursue.

    Here is a round up of those I have seen thus far..

    In view of the finally evolved position for Obama that he is now personally for gay marriage:

    Does this mean he will introduce a Constitutional amendment to make gay marriage the law of the land in all 50 states?

    If his view that it should be left up to each state:

    Why are you not evolving on the life in the womb and why do you not also believe that that issue should be left up to each of the 50 states. After all, one person wants the right to marry someone of the same sex. The baby simply wants to not be murdered. Do you support the repeal of Roe based on human rights?

    Why is his administration going after states that try to help enforce federal law failures with immigration? Seems like state business once the federal government fails to do its job and then imposes huge costs on the states as a result of that failure.

    in light of North Carolina’s Amendment One, will Obama support other democrats call for moving the national convention from North Carolina, a state obviously filled with bigots?

    If he favors gay marriage being left to the states, why can we have fifty state policies on marriage but one Washington-managed national health care system?

    Will Obama support a gay marriage plank in DNC platform? Will he use executive power with the same passion he uses to support planned parenthood for gay marriage rights and if so, what are the specific plans? Is this another area he will be more flexible after the election?

    Today, Obama states clearly, to all Americans, whatever your cause, he will proudly stand with you once enough campaign donations are at stake. If this is cynical, please explain the timing around Hollywood fund raisers and is your campaign now sending out letters to the gay community for a pay back? What has been promised behind the scenes to the gay community that we should expect to see if you are reelected?

    Will you be following VP Biden leadership for the administration on other keys issues going forward?

    How does your new stance on gay marriage impact our relations with Muslim countries in the middle east? Won’t this prove to be a tool used by Islamist for recruiting new terrorists affirming again the depravity of the West.

    Since you say you evolved on the gay marriage position, meaning you flip flopped depending on what election you were running in and what needed to be said for you own benefit, what other positions on key issues are you “evolving” on positions you declared in past elections?

    Does this mean Americans will now be lectured by you and your wife about how Americans who disagree are bigoted and wrong to be against gay marriage? Does this mean that only gay fund raisers can still sell cupcakes?

    When a Democrat opposes gay marriage, are they “hateful” and “bigoted?” Will you campaign with or support any Democrat that opposes same sex marriage?

    Everyone has seen the West Virginia election returns showing a jailed felon got almost 40% of the vote against you in the democratic primary and that hundreds of thousands turned out to support Governor Walker in Wisconsin. What impact did this have on your evolution timing and if none, how can you explain it. Was it just those upcoming fundraisers?

    Now I can return to prayer to try to overcome some of my many faults, one of which is curiosity and the need for having something to say on too many issues. One thing is certain, we all need to pray that Obama is not given four more years.

  • http://jscafenette.com/ Manny

    I can’t reply below to you Barbara. But I agree with you. It does seem like Jesus is saying that some people were not capable to not marry.

  • Peter

    Was Lady GaGa quoting Jesus with her hit “Born this way”?

    By the way, I wonder how Jesus was viewed in His time concerning the fact that He was not married, and marriage was considered so very important in Jewish culture for propagation of the race and the family name. Of course, I guess that I am assuming that He was not married.

  • http://jscafenette.com Manny

    Very good Ron. And not only that, but supporting homosexual marriage even if it were segregated from Christian religious institutions would be edorsing sin. Homosexual acts are a sin. To turn a blind eye to general publich homosexual marriages would be like saying Catholics cannot have abortions but society can have laws for non Catholics to have abortions. That would be endorsing sin.

  • http://jscafenette.com Manny

    My reply was intended for Mike, whose comment apparently got deleted, deservedly so.

  • Deacon Norb

    To both Peter and RomCath:

    –Marriages outside of the Catholic Church by a couple of whom neither are Roman Catholic are perfectly valid and are treated that way by our church. Thus if two Baptized Lutherans celebrate their marriage in a Lutheran ceremony; or two Jewish folk in a Jewish ceremony; or two Islamic folk in an Islamic ceremony; these marriages are perfectly valid and licit and recognized as such by Roman Catholicism as well.

    –The problem surfaces when ONE (or both) parties in these non-Catholic situations I described above divorces the other and then wants to get married to a Baptized Catholic. Believe it or not, that would require a full and complete annulment process of the non-Catholic marriage by a diocesan tribunal.

    –NOW, I certainly would not say that a HUGE percentage of Catholic clergy are gay. What I will say is that the celibate life-style of the ordained Roman Catholic priest does attract gay men who want to avoid all the embarrassing social questions about not being married. As it was explained to me years ago: “If you are genuinely celibate, and understand what you agreed to and what that demands of you, then whether you are gay of “straight” is totally irrelevant.”

  • http://themightyambivalentcatholic.blogspot.com/ Steve

    Manny, you might as well put that same logic to work in other areas of civil law. Namely: The state should not allow Catholics to remarry in a civil ceremony after a divorce because the first marriage is still viewed by the church as being intact. (How many Catholic leaders have called on voters to outlaw multiple divorces and remarriages under civil law? I can’t think of any. Can you?)

    Applying your logic again, couples who commit adultery should be arrested and tried — lest we endorse sinful choices by not having civil injunctions against penalty (as many states once did…and which no one seriously proposes bringing back).

    Catholics are also called to not eat meat on Friday during Lent — and for good reason (self sacrifice/mortification) — but we do not expect civil law to reflect that requirement. By not having a legal prohibition on the eating of meat on Lenten Fridays, we are not saying that society is “endorsing sin.” Rather, we accept that society is diverse and people have generally have a right to make their own choices as to what is moral and what is not — so long as they are **not infringing on others’ rights**.

    By the way: I’ve always understand the Church’s reason for fighting for laws against abortion is not simply because abortion is a sin, but rather because abortion is viewed as an infringement on the human rights of the unborn child.

    In religious terms, yes, you and I both regard abortion as a sin…chiefly because the child’s human rights are not respected, and arguably because a woman’s difficult situation is being exploited by abortion providers as well. We do not fight legal battles over abortion because it’s a sin, but because it’s a human rights issue. Terming something a sin is not a legal argument, and it’s not an argument for outlawing civil marriages for same-sex couples, not in a society that is based on people’s right to accept the concept of sin or reject it entirely. Ultimately, however, a great many opponents of same-sex marriages under civil law insist on coming back to the issue of religious prohibitions on gay people being sexually involved with one another. You’re entitled to hold that belief, but it does not mean civil law must be based on what you believe.

  • http://themightyambivalentcatholic.blogspot.com/ Steve

    I apologize for the tangled, almost unreadable sentence at the beginning of my fourth paragraph! Bad, very bad…

  • Oregon Catholic

    See my further explanation of the WA law below. I guarantee that any subsequent SSM laws in other states will include similar language now that it has passed in WA. I think you are the one blowing smokescreens, although perhaps ignorantly. But you should be careful how you throw around terms like bigot when truth is being told. Would it be too much to expect an apology from you for the slur?

    I can’t help but wonder if Drake and Fiergenholt are surprised things have come this far legally since they haven’t commented in follow-up on what they were so sure wasn’t being made a religious issue. Because once again we see commerce laws (anti-discrimination) being given precedence over religious freedom and how churches manage their own business. How long do you think it will be before any minister or priest or deacon given secular authority to perform marriages for the state will be required to perform SSMs or lose their authority? Not long I predict.

  • pagansister

    Peter: Good question—-marriage was very important for Jewish men and women in the days Jesus lived and I have often wondered why Jesus wasn’t married, or at least not reported to be married by any of the books of the Bible that I know of. (not being a Bible scholar). He was supposed to have been 33(?) when he was crucified. I would suspect most Jewish men would have been married by that age, as the life span was shorter than now.

  • pagansister

    Yes, ron c, children have a right to be loved and cared for—-no matter what the combination of those parents—-and many times it will be a single mom or single dad. The so called “good old days” (which were by no means “ideal”) with the stay at home mom, and the dad who took care of everything and fathered all the kids, are not so common anymore. (thank goodness). Its the love and caring that counts. Male and female homes do not guarantee perfect children. Actually, nothing guarantee’s great kids. :O)


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X