We’ll See

Guy who promised he would not interfere with religious liberty before forcing Catholics to pay for somebody else’s contraception at gunpoint, and who tried to force Lutherans to ordain who he said they should ordain now promises that he will not try to force religious institutions to accept gay “marriage”. This is the Constitutional Scholar who also believes the Executive–who coincidentally happens to be be him–has the raw power to jail citizens forever without charge and even, when he deems it appropriate by his royal, secret, and unilateral will, to murder citizens without evidence, arrest, trial, judge, jury, or appeal.

Interesting how the supine media reports it. Not that Obama “can’t” force religious institutions to accept gay “marriage” (because, you know, the Constitution), but merely that he “won’t”. Message: A royal stay of execution from our Just and Wise Leader who has pity on a defeated foe of Progress. Not an executive prevented by the rule of law from doing whatever he likes.

  • B.E. Ward

    The state doesn’t have to do anything. Those that hold The Correct Opinion will make sure that any church that doesn’t go along with the program is identified as being full of troglodyte bigots and nothing more.

    • Dillon T. McCameron

      Short hop and a skip from troglodyte bigot to bronze-age fanatic. Proto-terrorists, I mean.

      • FW Ken

        And another hop-skip-jump to canceled tax exemptions.

        • Dan F.

          Forget about canceled tax exemptions, just another hop-skip-jump to criminal penalties/indefinite detention (see “Terrorists (TM)” ) etc.

    • Sven2547

      If the shoe fits…

  • AquinasMan

    What could possibly go wrong?

  • Lee Johnson

    I saw that word “won’t,” too. My first thought was not good.

  • Ben @ 2CM

    Under the catagory of “Next-up” – This will encourage formal public school teaching that
    says marriage means ANY two people and those who think otherwise are bigots who
    make groundless distinctions. Winning the youth is key for the long term.

  • wlinden

    To be fair: Obama did not write the headline, and the statement that he “won’t, not can’t” is the writer’s, not his. The text of the statement, as actually given in the story, says that the court ruling DOES NOT affect religious marriage.

    • chezami

      That’s why I said this was how the supine media report it. Our Watchdogs are all about the Rule of Law, doncha know.

  • BabyMal

    What about military chaplains?

  • Gee

    This is getting so ridiculous. He made a statement reiterating what is obvious to most people. He did it to comfort those (like you) who keep playing the victim card and espouse delusional paranoid fantasies about a dystopian future. What do you want Obama to say? “All Churches now have to marry gay couples!”

    Gay marriage has been civilly recognized in many nations and states for a while now. Has any Catholic Church in those places encountered any real interference for denying gay couples marriage?

    A Catholic Church has long been able to deny marriage to a heterosexual couple marriage if one of the participants is divorced, or the couple is otherwise deemed unfit. Again, has there been any government interference there?

    If you have evidence, please share.

    • Ian Bibby

      He’s such a consistent liar on the topic of religious liberty (and many others) that when he promises something, that’s actually further reason to believe the opposite will happen.

      • Gee

        How can that be a lie? Obama is merely stating the obvious: that the Defense of Marriage Act never dictated who can (or cannot) get married in a private religious ceremony. That fundamental right existed long before DOMA, so repealing it won’t have an effect on that.

        Once again, you folks need to provide some serious evidence if you’re going to keep making serious claims about the doom of religious liberty. Is there any historical precedent or documented plan to force gay marriage on churches once it’s federally recognized?

        You can keep calling Obama a liar, but the burden of proof is still on you. This is your chance to quit being incredibly cynical and start being persuasive to people visiting your blog.

        • Jason Hall

          The issue has never been whether churches can be forced to celebrate gay marriage. Of course they can’t. What is being routinely done is the forcing of individuals to participate in gay wedding ceremonies. If you own a business that is in any way involved with weddings, you must either participate in gay marriage, pay severe penalties, or give up your business. Once that is the case (as it already is for photographers, bakers, etc.; do a Google search), it is small comfort that your pastor won’t be forced to actually celebrate the weddings in the church you attend.

          • kenofken

            That’s what civil rights laws have always been about. We decided a long time ago that the right of people to enjoy public accommodations without discrimination trumps the rights of the business owners in those instances to discriminate, even out of personal belief or conviction. This is nothing new. All that’s new is that some people are claiming their reasons for discrimination are more noble than others and should therefore be immune from civil rights considerations.

            • http://www.likelierthings.com/ Jon W

              Yeah. We get that. We’re just pointing out that all the ‘reassuring’ language about religious liberty is just bulls*** happy talk. It’s satisfying to hear you confirm it.

            • kcard82

              Again. You do not have the right to the fruits of other people’s labor. As much as I think that the jerks in the south were absolutely wrong in refusing business to blacks, no one had the right to force them to do so. Think about it. What was more effective in getting business practices and attitudes to change? The Civil Rights Act or the Montgomery bus boycott? Stop acting like the government is your nursemaid. Real change happens at the grass roots level.

          • Sven2547

            the forcing of individuals to participate in gay wedding ceremonies.

            Hahahahaha, right
            It was always about the bakers and the florists and the photographers! That’s why DOMA and Prop 8 mention them.

            Oh wait. It doesn’t. It’s not about the bakers and florists and photographers, You just can’t stand the thought of gays marrying.

            Boldly standing up for the right to treat others as second class citizens. It’s the Catholic way. Just like the poor oppressed business owner who was FORCED, AGAINST HIS WILL, to let “coloreds” in the front door of his private establishment. The horror! The persecution!

            • oregon catholic

              Our government is destroying religious liberty through business law. If you take away a person’s right to conduct their business in accord with their religious views or moral conscience you have infringed not only their religious liberty but their right to self determination and their abilty to make a living of their choice. If they are forced to choose between running a business or violating their conscience then constitutional liberty has been violated.

              When it comes down to an individual’s right to freedom of religion/conscience or another individual’s right to patronize a business, the right to religious freedom should always trump. The fact that it does not just proves how destructive and oppressive our business law has become (and that’s not even getting into taxation abuses!).

              • Sven2547

                So if someone has a religious objection to serving Jews, blacks, Catholics, gays, dwarfs, women, or anyone else, that should be completely protected under the law? You’re entitled to that opinion. I, for one, support equality instead.

                By your argument, the Civil Rights Act was an attack on business owners.

                • oregon catholic

                  Let the law of supply and demand determine if they stay in business. I probably wouldn’t patronize such a business if I knew because I would not want to let them profit from my money, but I wouldn’t take them to court either. Last I checked we still have the right to our opinion in this country. The thought police have not quite taken over yet – unfortunately for you.

    • theCork

      Ministers have been imprisoned in Europe and Canada over this topic. A Canadian bishop is currently threatened with jail time.

      • kenofken

        I’ll buy that when you can provide some solid documentation.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      “One of our arguments has always been that people of principle who feel this violates their deepest-held convictions are going to be forced to the wall,” Archbishop Dolan said. “We were told we were being Chicken Littles and that was ridiculous.”

      But “no sooner was the ink dry,” he said, than priests throughout the state started coming to him with stories of couples threatening to sue if they didn’t agree to rent out their parishes for same-sex weddings.

      http://m.deseretnews.com/article/700192892/Defending-the-faith-How-Archbishop-Dolan-is-redefining-the-battle-over-same-sex-marriage.html?pg=3

    • JoAnna Wahlund
  • RichFader

    I trust Barack Obama about as far as I can throw Chris Christie.

    • Merrymom

      Too true!!!

  • Sven2547

    Churches still aren’t required to perform interracial marriages either, and that’s not about to change.
    Cue outrage at my direct historical parallel in 3…2…

    • Brian Niemeier

      1…0

      This analogy fails for the following reasons:

      1) the Catholic Church has never condemned or refused as a matter of principle to perform interractial marriages.

      http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm#

      2) The same arguments used to promote traditional marriage can be and were used to defeat anti-miscegenation laws, e.g. that marriage is a real and definite institution involving one man and one woman. The spouses’ respective skin colors are irrelevant to this definition.

      Anti-miscegenation was an arbitrary alteration of marriage as historically understood restricted to couples of the same race. The false claim that two partners of the same sex can marry is likewise an attempt at arbitrary alteration.

      • Sven2547

        1) Churches that opposed interracial marriage back then and churches that oppose same-sex marriage right now share this in common: the government won’t make them change. The fact that your specific church was for one and against the other doesn’t change that in any way.

        2) Most of the same arguments against same-sex marriage now are just re-hashed from the ’50s. It will be bad for children! The Bible forbids it! It damages traditional family norms! Communism! Same old story. The sons and daughters of the segregationists are the conservative Republican “base” of today. Is it really surprising that the heart of conservatism in America is in Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas?

        50 years from now, fighting same-sex marriage will be shunned the same way fighting interracial marriage is shunned today. You’re fighting for the right to make millions of Americans into second-class citizens. As Mark says: “We’ll see”.

        • SteveP

          You may want to steer clear of Loving v. Virginia: the right
          to marry is the right to bring forth children. Had the ruling upheld Virginia’s law, the Loving’s children would have become wards of the State. Founding a family is not really something “gay marriage” needs to worry about, eh?

          By the way, it was made clear in today’s ruling that only
          second-class citizens pay estate tax. Given the number of marriages in the US is at an all-time low and single habitation is at an all-time high, expect more “equal protection” arguments.

          • Sven2547

            Virginia v Loving does not require marriages to be fertile or reproductive. Anywhere. Why do you lie so much?

            Millions of individuals are enjoying equal liberty today and you are against that. You just can’t stand it.

            • SteveP

              The Racial Integrity Act was discarded because the Lovings
              were fertile; “mixing” is the fundamental human right.

              • Sven2547

                So if they were not fertile, the state of Virginia would be right to ban them from marrying? Is that what you’re saying?

                • SteveP

                  The Racial Integrity Act banned non-whites from “mixing”
                  with whites. DOMA limited Social Security Survivor benefits, amongst others, to a female-male marriage. You can say RIA and DOMA are the same if you want but those who can read will probably disagree.

                  • Sven2547

                    I’m not just talking about DOMA. You’re avoiding the question: if “mixing” is the fundamental right protected by Loving v Virginia, would Virginia have been in the right if Loving was infertile, yes or no?

                    • SteveP

                      Huh? Everybody knows that coitus between a male and a female, in general, produces children where there is no natural or artificial impediment in the individual. Everybody knows that two males or two females cannot perform coitus regardless of their individual state of fertility. The RIA did address fertility – the infirm were sterilized so they could not reproduce. Loving v. Virginia establishes the right to reproduce which is why it is so incredibly amusing that “gay marriage” advocates use it . . .

                    • Sven2547

                      Still avoiding the question. Typical for someone who is leaning on a dishonest or fallacious argument.
                      Let me get this straight. You say:
                      Non-reproductive marriage between an infertile heterosexual couple: okay.
                      Non-reproductive marriage between a homosexual couple: not okay.
                      If that’s the case, then reproduction cannot be your justification here. The State always has, and always will, happily permit non-reproductive marriages. If reproduction is the basis for marriage, then why all the effort to ban just one specific kind of non-reproductive marriage?

                      Because it’s not about reproduction, you just can’t stand the thought of gays marrying.

                    • kcard82

                      The sexual acts of infertile heterosexual couples is still ordered toward procreation.

                      Homosexual acts are not ordered toward procreation. Never will be.

                    • Sven2547

                      What do you mean by “ordered toward procreation”, and why should the state care? Get a clue: It’s none of the state’s business what you do in bed.

                      Such a dystopian, totalitarian form of governance you support, when a couples’ consensual private sex acts confer a legal status upon them.

                    • SteveP

                      Order toward procreation means not hating oneself for
                      producing the gametes one’s body produces. I.e. the way one is born.

                    • Sven2547

                      So now it’s about gamate production and the avoidance of self-loathing?
                      You’re moving further and further from what any rational person would say marriage is all about (love, commitment, stability, etc). Keep on digging that hole. It’s fun to watch.

                    • SteveP

                      Hmmm . . . you started with interracial marriage and now
                      object when it has been made clear that the legal prohibition of the same in Virginia was to prevent a gamete from a non-white person and a gamete from a white person from joining. Strange. Would you point out in the RIA where it says a non-white person cannot love a white person?
                      What about commitment? Where does it say that a white person cannot legally commit to terms with a non-white
                      person?

                    • Sven2547

                      Loving v Virginia is not an exhaustive or complete list of potential reasons that people may marry. It makes no claims as such, and only an idiot would interpret it that way. It does (accurately) say that these two people in love, who can reproduce, should not be banned from marrying.

                      You think marriage has nothing to do with commitment or stability? What a miserable relationship you must have with your wife, if you have one.

                    • SteveP

                      I’m not finding anything in the Loving decision referencing
                      love or commitment. Would you help me find them?

                    • Sven2547

                      You clearly did not read my comment.

                    • SteveP

                      Thanks, Sven2547, it’s been a thin slice.

                    • wlinden

                      First you say that the ruling (which I assume is what you mean when you attribute statements to a case) does not give an exhaustive list of reasons for marriage. Then you imply it does, by claiming it only applies to people “in love”. I guess people who marry for any other reason can be forbidden?

                    • chezami

                      “It’s none of the state’s business what you do in bed.”

                      Agreed. So get your damn gun out of my ribs and stop frog-marching me into your bedroom to pay for you r contraception. Buy your own damn condoms.

                    • Sven2547

                      I’m very confused by this comment. Nobody is asking for you to go into someone else’s bedroom.

                    • SteveP

                      Fertile versus infertile is not relevant in the subject you
                      brought up – interracial marriage. Keep
                      using Loving v. Virginia if you want, it’s good for a bemused smile.

            • kcard82

              Yeah, last night I just writhed in my bed with pure hatred!!!! Oh wait, no I didn’t, I read a book.

  • Joseph Bryant

    Nobody is going to make your church perform gay marriages, ever, just like nobody now or ever will make you perform marriages of divorced persons.

    However, social pressures are going to make it more and more and more uncomfortable for your little sect to inflict its bigoted views on others. I can very easily see in 30 years, if the RCC doesn’t either change its teaching or shut up about this, having the vast majority of the people of this country viewing you the same way they view the Klan. Thinking that, though you have a right to your views, that your views are so backwardly disgusting and bigoted that no moral person in polite society should hold them.

    Welcome to the dustbin of history, Catholics.

    • Ben

      *talks about polite society, insults everyone on the blog*

      Brilliant! /slowclap

    • kcard82

      Catholics couldn’t care less about being on the right side of history. We care about being on the right side of truth.
      Your post is dripping of ignorance about the Catholic faith. I bet you have never even read what the catechism says about persons with same sex attraction.
      We will not change our teachings and we will not shut up.

      • said she

        Minor quibble: It’s not “we will not change our teachings” – it’s that the Church’s teachings cannot be changed.

        • Sven2547

          Except for geocentrism.
          And women’s suffrage.
          But aside from that, it never changes, no sir!

          • kcard82

            You guys just can’t stop yourselves from looking ignorant about the church, can you? Teachings relating to faith and morals cannot and will not change. (i.e. marriage, abortion, etc.) Other teachings *can* change, like, eating meat on Fridays during Lent. It used to be all Fridays.

            • Sven2547

              Wasn’t geocentrism a matter of “faith”? Wasn’t women’s suffrage a matter of “morals”?

              50 years from now, I predict the RCC will change its mind about SSM too, saying it wasn’t a matter of faith or morals.

              • SteveP

                I predict that the faith statement of “born that way” will
                follow the Boomers into the grave.

                • Sven2547

                  When did you choose to be “straight”? Was it a choice you made once, or is it a choice you make daily? Is the decision easy or hard? Does it take a while, or is it a snap judgement call?

                  If my comment seems absurd, consider that it’s a completely natural response to the implication that sexual preference is a choice. I’m a man who is attracted to women. I didn’t make a decision to, it’s simply how I am. I’d be a fool if I thought that my gay friends were making choices about their sexuality when I know my sexuality is an intrinsic part of me.

                  • kcard82

                    No one is disputing that sometimes people are born with same sex attraction and did not choose that. Being attracted to persons of the same sex is not a sin. Partaking in homosexual acts is a sin and a choice.

                    • Sven2547

                      No one is disputing that sometimes people are born with same sex attraction and did not choose that.

                      Did you not read SteveP’s comment? That is literally what he is disputing. Such astounding denial.

                  • SteveP

                    You seem to be stuck on the horns of a god named “Choice”
                    and a god named “Fate.” It must be very uncomfortable.

                  • oregon catholic

                    You are comparing apples and oranges. You are implying that a person comes to homosexuality (a disorder) in the same way a person comes to heterosexuality (the norm). There is no scientific basis for your assumption whatsoever. In fact, it is quite scientifically accepted that abnormal conditions require that something somewhere in the normal course or development of things has gone wrong.

                    • Sven2547

                      In fact, it is quite scientifically accepted that abnormal conditions require that something somewhere in the normal course or development of things has gone wrong.

                      That’s what they thought… 40 years ago. Understanding homosexuality has come a long way since then. It’s no longer classified as a disorder by any major scientific body… just by people who want to continue stigmatizing them.

                    • oregon catholic

                      The APA, a largely liberal political organization, made the determination to declare homosexuality to no longer be a mental disorder. If you think that changed the science I was speaking to go right along your merry deluded path. If you think finding a biological reason will prove homosexuality to be normal in the scientific sense then you will also have to accept that every other biological disorder is also normal. Remember that occuring in nature does not equal normal – not even in your own mind I’m sure if you are honest.

                    • Sven2547

                      So you disregard scientific consensus, you misrepresent my position, and you call me a liar. If you think this is a remotely valid comment, you are sadly mistaken.

                    • oregon catholic

                      I didn’t call you a liar, I called you deluded. I will also say you have a lot to learn about the scientific community and how research gets done. It is far more political than anyone wants to admit. It is as much about what doesn’t get funded as what does. So when you talk about consensus you are really talking about consensus among a group that is already in consensus on the big picture and is only hashing out the details.

                      When you say that a body of research exists to prove something, it is only fully valid if you also have a body of research that has studied and failed to prove any opposing scientific conclusion. That largely doesn’t happen because most science is publically funded and the decision makers are politically influenced and that is why much of our scientific research is flawed and narrow.

                      Whenever you hear someone say that “no evidence exists….” your first question should be “has anyone conducted a study to find out if the evidence exists?” If the answer is no, then you’ve just discovered one of the biggest flaws (not to mention outright lies sometimes) in the quoting of statistics.

              • kcard82

                *Sigh* shooting from the hip again, I see. Please read JPII’s “Letter to Women” and see what you think. If you’re intellectually honest, you will.

                You’ll be very sad to find out in 50 years that the teachings on marriage will remain the same.

                • Sven2547

                  I’m reading it now. If you’re intellectually honest, you’ll read up on the widespread Catholic opposition to women’s suffrage in the early 20th century. As I said: the Church turned itself around, and Pope John Paul II was quite supportive of it. Just like the switch on geocentrism/heliocentrism.

        • kcard82

          Touche. ;-)

    • Mike

      Thanks Joe, I needed a laugh. This little sect has faced much worse than what it has faced today. You see Joe we don’t put our trust in temporary or earthly things, but in our Founder who has promised that His Church, His Mystical Body here on earth will not be defeated. So, peace to you Joe.

    • SM

      Congratulations, you are more enlightened and brilliant than all the people who have ever lived in the history of the world, as well as the large majority of people on the Earth today! One would think if it was such an important human right for two people of the same sex to marry each other, someone would have mentioned this concept before 5 seconds ago. There were plenty of ancient societies that celebrated homosexuality, so why did none of them have “SSM”? That’s right, because that is not what marriage IS.

      • Joseph Bryant

        Really? Only “five seconds ago’?

        This is just from Wikipedia:

        ANCIENT

        An example of egalitarian male domestic partnership from the early Zhou Dynasty period of China is recorded in the story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian. While the relationship was clearly approved by the wider community, and was compared to heterosexual marriage, it did not involve a religious ceremony binding the couple.[71]

        Same-sex marital practices and rituals were recognized in Mesopotamia.[72] Some ancient religious Assyrian texts contain prayers for divine blessings on homosexual relationships.[73][74] The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on anequal basis the love of a man for a woman and of a man for man.[75][76]

        The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[77] These were usually reported in a critical or satirical manner.[78] Emperor Elagabalus referred to his chariot driver, a blond slave fromCaria named Hierocles, as his husband.[79] He also married an athlete named Zoticus in a lavish public ceremony in Rome amidst the rejoicings of the citizens.[80][81]

        The first Roman emperor to have married a man was Nero, who is reported to have married two other men on different occasions. His first marriage was with one of his freedmen, Pythagoras, to whom Nero took the role of the bride. Later, as a groom, Nero married a young boy who resembled one of his concubines.[82] named Sporus in a very public ceremony with all the solemnities of matrimony, and lived with him as his spouse. A friend gave the “bride” away as required by law. The marriage was celebrated separately in both Greece and Rome in extravagant public ceremonies.[83]

        It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).[84] Furthermore, according to Susan Treggiari, “matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her.”[85] Still, the lack of legal validity notwithstanding, there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships existed in ancient Rome, but the exact frequency and nature of “same-sex unions” during that period is obscure.[86]

        In 342 AD Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans issued a law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) prohibiting same-sex marriage in Rome and ordering execution for those so married.[87]

        MEDIEVAL

        A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.[88]

        • SM

          The story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian is a work of fiction, and Wikipedia states, “Nothing similar to our modern civil partnerships or unions existed. A form of possibly gay or lesbian relationships was sworn
          brotherhood or sisterhood, which often if not always involved more than two people. So, speaking of “gay marriage” or “gay unions” or egalitarian relationships in Zhou China is historically irrelevant.”

          In the Roman Empire, some members of the ruling class had mock marriages to men for fun. Wikipedia even states that these events “were usually reported in a critical or satirical manner.” In his “wedding” Nero pretended to be a bride and even wore a veil. He was role-playing. Similar to how Caligula made his horse a senator. Plus the Wikipedia article states these “marriages” had no legal standing.

          I can’t find anything about the marriage that supposedly took place in Spain beyond the couple sentences from Wikipedia. Plus, one specific marriage from over one
          thousand years ago?

          SSM advocates often mistake any kind of commitment ceremony (such as an initiation warrior bonding) between
          people of the same-sex as a marriage. Prayers and blessings for people of the same sex? That does not seem necessarily romantic to me at all, and friendships
          used to be a lot closer than they often are today. In addition, many men who took part in romantic same-sex ceremonies already had wives and children.

          Now the puzzling part is figuring out why marriage has always necessarily involved a male and female. What’s so different about sex between males and females and sex between two people of the same gender? Hmmmm…..

        • Joseph

          Aside from what SM just pointed out… Wikipedia… the infallible source for lazy people. I find it funny when *enlightened* combox warriors quote Wikipedia in defense of their positions. It’s no different than one declaring, “uh huh, I saw it on the History/Discovery/PBS Channel”. There is an actual reason why university professors will not accept Wikipedia as a source for research papers.

        • kcard82

          If it’s on Wikipedia, then it MUST be true!

    • Strife

      Oh right. No one is going to force the Church to perform gay marriages. I’m sure “no one” will. Why, that’s just silly I’m sure.

      However, the Federal Government will simply force the Church into nonexistence with taxation and an increasing ease of class action lawsuits under the new definitions of “discrimination”. So there’s that.

      But force gay marriages? No. Never. So Catholics can now rest easy. Right? Right I’m sure.

    • Strife

      The dustbin of history? I think not.

      During the seize of Rome in 1800 AD, General Berthier, who was under
      Napoleon Bonaparte, captured Rome, took Pope Pius VI prisoner and
      seized items in the Vatican including the papal tiara. Pope Pius VI died
      of illness while in captivity.

      Napoleon had threatened the Pope, “I will destroy the Church in one year.”

      The response of a Cardinal to the Emperor was, “Sir, we priests and bishops have been trying to destroy the Church for 1800 years, so I seriously doubt that you will be able to destroy what God has set aside”

    • John C Wright

      Ah, I remember the Arians in the Third Century consigning the Catholic Church to the dustbin of history also.

      Then the Muslims in the Seventh, and the Albigensians in the Thirteenth, and the Puritans in the Sixteenth, and the Religion of Reason promoted by the French Revolution in the Eighteenth, and then the Communists in the Twentieth, and now the post-rational philosophy of post-Christianity in the Twenty-First.

      We are older than your philosophy, your system of government, your language, and the number zero. When worldly things attack the Church all that happens is they destroy themselves. Moths mugging a flame.

      Good luck with that.

    • said she

      “The Catholic Church has gone to the dogs at least three times in history and each time it is the dog who died!” – G.K. Chesterton

  • michicatholic

    We need to get out of the civil marriage business. NOW. We’ve always had all kinds of reasons not to do this little service for the state. Now is the time.

    • Joseph Bryant

      I think it’s high time you gave up your tax exempt status as well since you are denying civil rights. You have a right to do that, of course, under the First Amendment, but you have no right to get out of paying taxes while doing so.

      • kcard82

        Says who?

        • Joseph Bryant

          Well, how would you feel about extending tax exempt status to the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan? They do charity work too, you know.

          • kcard82

            Nice straw man argument. Try again.

          • Strife

            Race is a passive, natural, and superficial state. Homosexuality is a profoundly unnatural and completely dysfunctional activity.

            The two have about as much in common as your imbecilic comments do with intelligent reasoning. Which would be nil….

            • Sven2547

              You’ve got some nerve resorting to a naturalistic fallacy while calling someone else’s comments “imbecilic”. Marriage does not exist in nature. Anywhere. Nature has no opinion on marriage. It is a completely artificial institution. In a free country, you don’t just ban something because it’s “unnatural”.

              Unless a “free country” is not your goal….

              • kcard82

                Marriage is based on natural law. All societies have had some form of heterosexual, complementary marriage.

                • Sven2547

                  Marriage is not based on “natural law” because, again, marriage does not exist anywhere in nature. It’s inherently unnatural.

              • Strife

                Heterosexual marriage is a societal recognition of the primary paradigm for a health civilization. But of course, lower species are incapable of fostering organized societal norms on advanced levels. So no, it’s not an artificial institution. But rather, it’s an institution based on our natural design. So your point is a further demonstration of your imbecilic thought process.

                However, NO society in the annals of human history has EVER recognized the dysfunction of homosexual coupling as the building block of healthy civilizations, much less advocated the disordered lifestyle as an official status on the same moral level as marriage. So there’s that.

                • Sven2547

                  The lack of historical precedent for same-sex marriage doesn’t automatically make it wrong. Talk about imbecilic thought processes! If we always did things the same way, without changing them for the better, then women wouldn’t have the vote, slavery would be more common, and America wouldn’t even have religious freedom.

                  • Strife

                    Actually – it does. What new wisdom can you cite that suddenly lays 6000 years of human understanding of human design to waste? Riddle me that. And again, womens rights and slavery have nothing in common with gay rights. Homosexuality is observably in conflict with our biological emotional and spiritual design. None of that is true about women’s rights or racial differences. So again, you’re an idiot.

                    • Sven2547

                      You think marriage has been unchanged for 6000 years?
                      I’m done with you. You live in a fantasy realm. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness is too complex of a concept for a zombie of the Vatican.

                    • Strife

                      Give me one example (before the last 20 years) where ANY society has EVER accepted homosexual unions on the same moral par as heterosexual marriage.

                      Show me. Cite it.

                    • Sven2547

                      There are none. So what?

                      Marriage HAS changed though, numerous times.
                      Interracial marriage used to be forbidden. Polygamy used to be the norm. The Church didn’t actually start getting involved in marriage until the medieval period. Divorces used to be forbidden. Women used to be property. Marriage is a societal institution, and as societies change, so does the idea of marriage itself. This is not an opinion, this is historical fact.

                      Interestingly, there is mounting evidence that some medieval Catholic monks actually engaged in same-sex marital rites. Food for thought.

                    • Strife

                      So what?

                      So this: What new insight can you provide that suddenly deems homosexuality normal and natural?

                      And if you can’t – then you have no rational reason to prohibit ANY unnatural union – do you? Riddle me that.

                    • Sven2547

                      There you go again: “natural and normal”.
                      Get a clue: just because something is not normal or not “natural”, that’s not a valid reason to ban something.

                      then you have no rational reason to prohibit ANY unnatural union – do you? Riddle me that.

                      Correct. “Unnatural” is not a valid reason to ban anything. You think yourself clever, but you’re really just helping prove my point. If you’re going to ban any form of marriage, it must be shown that it is HARMFUL. Not “unnatural”, not “abnormal”, harmful.

                    • Strife

                      Oh really? Then pedophilia, pederasty, incest, and bestiality are all morally A-OKAY by your reasoning.

                      Oh but define HARMFUL. After all, traditional definitions are just status-quo “circular logic” right? Right.

                      So riddle me these twisters, stumpy.

                    • Sven2547

                      Do the words “informed consent” mean anything to you?

                      Whenever someone brings up pedophelia and beastiality, he might as well wave a flag that says “I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT A MARRIAGE CONTRACT IS”

                    • Strife

                      “Do the words “informed consent” mean anything to you?”

                      According to you – they’re simply traditional definitions that are merely status-quo “circular logic”.

                      So tell me, why do you want to BAN pedophiles and pederasts and incestuous pervs and animal-loving pervs THEIR RIGHT to have their love formally recognized? Why are you such a bigoted hater towards them? Why do you want to ban their civil rights?

                      People like you need to go back to the stone age where you belong with your superstitious horse and buggy prejudices.

                    • Strife

                      Gee, all of a sudden Sven-The Brain-Stem doesn’t no how to repel his own intellectual flatulence. Sweet.

                      LOL

                    • Sven2547

                      According to you – they’re simply traditional definitions that are merely status-quo “circular logic”.

                      You are continuing to embarrass yourself. I said that defending a definition solely for a definition’s sake is circular logic.

                      So tell me, why do you want to BAN pedophiles and pederasts and incestuous pervs and animal-loving pervs THEIR RIGHT to have their love formally recognized?

                      Because children and animals are incapable of informed consent. How are you unable to grasp this simple concept?

                    • Strife

                      “You are continuing to embarrass yourself. I said that defending a definition solely for a definition’s sake is circular logic.”

                      Actually, that was your response when I explained that the Church’s definition was based on Natural Law – to which you replied “so what?” because … you know – all those old “natural” “normal” things are just status-quo “circular logic”.

                      So in other words, you can’t even defend your own insane irrational logic. LOL

                      If anyone is embarrassing themselves – it is you. But you’re not even bright enough to be embarrassed. LOL

                      Oh and, children and animals are subjected to things everyday against their “informed consent” for the sake of love. so who are YOU to define them and their loving relationships – slick?

                    • Sven2547

                      “I can explain this to you, but I cannot comprehend it for you.”
                      –Ed Koch

                    • Strife

                      You can’t even comprehend your own explanation. So there’s that.

                    • Strife

                      You can’t even explain it to yourself… nimrod.

                    • chezami

                      Perhaps you should consider reading my “God bless you and the horse you rode in on” piece at the Register.

                    • Strife

                      I have no love for these people nor do I pretend to be a good Christian.

                      I’m a sinner through and through. I’m a self-proclaimed “hater” and I make no apologies for that nor do I ask for their forgiveness. But above all I’m a damn mean debater and I hold nothing back with these disingenuous left-wing fascists idiots and their delusional sense of supposed “intellect”. The rest of you can pray for them (and me while you’re at it) – meanwhile I’ll be smacking the living crap out of them with their ridiculous reasoning and their bankrupt moral relativism.

                      These immature little snots need to be treated like the silly little brats they truly are. So I’ll dismantle their stupid arguments one fallacy at a time and I’ll turn their moronic reasoning against them until they choke on the bile of their own insane tautologies. And all the while I’ll taunt them, deride them, and endlessly ridicule their very existence.

                      And don’t pretend you don’t love it, because deep inside you know you do. And you’re welcome.

                    • chezami

                      So you believe in doing evil that good may come of it? You might also try reading this: http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/2340/The_Most_Popular_Moral_Heresy_in_the_World.aspx I appreciate your honesty, but you’re not really helping here–just giving grist for the Sven’s of the world to go on attacking the Church. Rethink. Your anger is getting the best of you.

                    • Strife

                      Thanks for telling me what you *think* I believe. Now whaddu say I tell you what I actually do believe? How about that?

                      No, I don’t think that doing evil will bring about good. I really don’t give a flying ratz azz what comes about from my actions in here other than the pain of the gay fascists.

                      But hey, thanks for assuming that you are qualified to deem my actions “evil”.

                      And don’t give me that moral equivalence crap about my words somehow justifying the Left’s attacks on the Church. Those disingenuous pieces of garbage don’t need any further “grist”. It’s actually milquetoast doormats like you who give them moral cover.

                      And frankly, (aside from this current topic) I’ve come to the realization that the Roman Catholic Church deserves to crumble down under the bilge of it’s own leftist priests, Bishops, and this current Socialist clown of a Pope. So there’s that.

                      Here’s an idea, save your holier than thou piety for your own damn soul and leave my immortal destiny to the qualified saints and sinners in the afterlife. Because junior – you ain’t qualified to read me. Mkay? Mkay.

                    • chezami

                      Right. So you hate (your word) gays, you hate the Church, you hate the Pope, you love the murder of children in their beds at Hiroshima and you make no apologies for that, but you don’t praise doing evil that good may come of it.

                      Yeah. Really helping. Who wouldn’t jump at *that* gospel?

                    • Strife

                      I really don’t care what comes of my words in here, just as long as they cause pain for the gay fascists. But I thought it was quaint that you *thought* you knew my intentions. See how unqualified you are at this? Thanks for playing.

                      Oh and, your little article displays a picture of the atomic mushroom cloud over Nagasaki during WWII, as if that bombing was somehow unjustified. Apparently the ridiculous zero-sum moralization by the author failed to realize that the bombing of Japan saved the lives of some 100,000 American lives that an invasion surely would have caused.So that reasoning in the entire article is milquetoast doormat bilge.

                      And it’s a similar vain of moral equivalence on your part that truly emboldens the gay fascists to keep on attacking the Church. So there’s that as well.

                    • chezami

                      Since you don’t care what comes of your words, I have decided you won’t have any more posted here. I don’t like rude people and don’t owe you a forum (so spare me the typical rot about censorship and go get your own blog). Bye!

      • Laura S

        No one has a civil right to a sacramental marriage.

      • Mike

        Thank you Joseph for confirming Mark’s point and the concerns many of us have tonight. This is not so much about “allowing” gays to marry but the clear strategy to punish the Church and anyone else who disagree by claiming we have “violated” the governments law. You are quite bigoted but at least transparent.

      • JoAnna Wahlund

        If marriage is a civil right, why can’t siblings marry? Why can only two people get married? Are civil rights being denied to these folks too?

        • kenofken

          That’s a mile-high sign of admission that you have no real argument of substance in the real debate at hand, and it shows in the results on the ground.

          • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

            You do realize that the polygamists are already campaigning to destroy the 2 person limitation, a result that the homosexuals were denying would happen just a few short years ago. The slippery slope’s getting a lot steeper these days.

            • kenofken

              You folks ought to like the polygamists. They have the right anatomy, they’re all about procreation, and they have plenty of Biblical precedent.

              Anyone can press a claim, and each claim must be considered on its own merits. Gays had to undertake decades of court and legislative battles to prove that what they wanted in civil marriage posed no public order threat sufficient to warrant government denial of those benefits. Polygamists would have to do the same, and they have some very different elements that need examination ie the complexities of multiple parental custodies, the presence of true consent among all parties etc. We ought to weigh these things with the prime consideration being the safety and well being of children and equity of all parties involved. A case can be made that people would be safer if polygamy could be brought out of the shadows.

              Gay marriage did not grease the slope on this issue. The Court found no generic “right to marry.” It found that the feds had no good reason for overriding state laws and it reaffirmed a lower court decision on gay marriage in one state based on standing issues.

              • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                Somehow, in all those decades of pressing, gays never did get around to figuring out what marriage’s legitimate secular purposes were and methodically lay out how they qualify. For that, you’d have to actually look up the laws, lay out what are constitutionally legitimate reasons to have the institution at all, and how the new class to be added on to the institution fits in and furthers the legitimate secular purpose.

                Marriage has been an organically developed hand-me-down institution. We’ve never had that discussion because, frankly, it’s a creepy discussion that offends sensibilities. We’re still avoiding that discussion because we’d rather do significant injury to society than grow a pair and have at it.

                So long as we didn’t have somebody try to create a chimera and bolt onto marriage classes that shouldn’t be included, we could avoid the whole thing, something that we successfully managed to do for the most part, the idiocy over miscegenation being a sad exception. The homosexual lobby has taken that away from us and I resent it.

              • Imp the Vladaler

                The Court found no generic “right to marry.”

                Yeah, we’ll have to wait one – or a maximum of two terms – before that happens.

              • oregon catholic

                It will be almost immediate that someone will press the issue that gay marriage is a civil right that should not be left to the decision of states. The Prop 8 decisions (and others) have already effectively said it cannot be left to the democratic voting process.

                You cannot dismiss the slippery slope argument so easily. It is completely valid to look at how changing any legal definition of something can intentionally or unintentionally change other laws. In fact, looking at the domino effect of SSM is a very valid approach to deciding if one man, one woman, language should be abolished. Individual rights have to be balanced against the good of society. Once the right to object to SSM on moral or biological issues is taken out of the marriage law equation it will have to be taken out of the legal equation for any other arrangement. And that means there is already essentially no barriers anymore. It just awaits the next case to be pressed in the courts. And now that the main criteria for marriage has been abolished, all other permutations will get approved quickly unless a Supreme Court challenge to protect one man, one woman can be made.

                No fault divorce and the easy break-up of the life-long biological family paved the way for SSM legal challenges. If we had had a better discussion about the effects of changing divorce law on society and particularly children, we could have prevented a great deal of the harm to marriage and family we now see. It’s no coincidence that the Catholic Church was the loudest voice on that topic and society ignored it at our peril. Society is once again ignoring the wisdom that the Church brings to this topic because of so much vocal and rabid hatred toward anything religious and most especially Catholic.

          • kcard82

            Oh really? Plural marriage is already making headway in Europe. Are you for or against plural marriage?

            • kenofken

              IF a body of equitable family law can be created around such structures, I support it. I think we at least ought to be having the conversations about how women and kids would fare under a legal regime versus the underground existence of plural marriage today. There are quite a lot of people already living in these arrangements without benefit of law. I’ve come to know a lot of them over the years and most are very ordinary decent people. On the other hand, the illegality and underground nature of it provide perfect cover for older men who abuse and exploit younger women.

              • kcard82

                You said earlier, “That’s a mile-high sign of admission that you have no real argument of substance in the real debate at hand, and it shows in the results on the ground.”

                Do you realize you just contradicted yourself? First you said that plural marriage is an “admission that you have no real argument” and now you are justifying it with people that you know who live in plural relationships.

                • kenofken

                  Slippery slope arguments are an admission of failure on the main issue because they are a tactic to avoid engaging the merits of that issue. The anti-SSM movement has had nothing of substance to say about why gay marriage, as a civil union, should be denied (no secular reason anyway). So they resort to “but what about x, but what about y”? Those are not arguments on gay marriage. They’re dodges. At the same time, some of the slippery slope issue do merit debated as separate issues of their own. I don’t think polygamy is so self-evident a horror that it can be used to effectively shut down gay marriage debate. It’s something that needs to be addressed on its own merits and in its own time.

                  • kcard82

                    That’s not true. Countless times opponents of SSM has warned of the harm it will have on society presently. The main argument is threat to religious liberty and the right of conscience. I have already pointed out that business owners are being sued for choosing not to participate in gay weddings.

                    • kenofken

                      That’s not a societal harm. It’s the legal balancing that goes on all the time in an evolving legal system. The impingement on “right of conscience” is no different than that we have employed in civil rights law going on 50 years.

              • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                You might benefit from an old National Review article, Monogamy and its discontents. EBSCOhost has it but there seems to be no permalink so searching the title via google seems your best bet.

                Short version, monogamy is a superior social organization system that was adopted by our hunter-gatherer forefathers as an exception to the general state of mammalian polygamy, was abandoned when we invented agriculture, and was discovered to be a societal dead end and we flipped back to monogamy. We do this for the children, because monogamy provides a better environment to raise them and eliminates the socially destabilizing “bachelor herd” that plague polygamous societies. Monogamy also seems to correlate highly with economic wealth and democracy.

                But family law organized around polygamy is easy. Just go and open up a Koran for a ready made model.

          • wlinden

            Why is it “hate” and “bigotry” to say that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, but not “hate” to say that marriage is the union of two and only two people? I have been waiting for years for an answer that makes sense.

            I know living, breathing polyandrists, and they did not disappear at a chant of “There’s no slipperly slope there’s no slippery slope….”

            • kenofken

              I don’t get caught up in the whole “hate” and “bigotry” label in this whole debate. I don’t think someone’s opposition to gay marriage makes them a bigot. I think they’re wrong in their understanding of how our Constitution and traditions approach the question, but that doesn’t make them haters. A fair percentage of anti-SSM folks reveal themselves to be bigots through the tenor and content of the language they employ against gays in their arguments. At the end of the day, it makes no difference to me whether they truly are haters, or whether their opposition comes from quiet scholarly deduction. The issue sooner or later has to be settled on its merits, not our characterizations of one another.

          • JoAnna Wahlund

            O rly?

            http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/27/polygamists-hope-supreme-court-rulings-will-pave-w/

            You’re avoiding the question, and it’s a logical one. If marriage is a civil right, why can’t siblings marry? Are they bring denied civil rights?

      • Strife

        Dysfunctional sexual acts that are fundamentally contrary to the primary paradigm of our physical design are NOT “civil liberties”.

        You’re little more than a pyromaniac in a field of your own ridiculous strawmen.

        • Sven2547

          So the government should be allowed to ban particular harmless consensual sex acts? How horribly (and unsurprisingly) totalitarian.

          • Strife

            Who said anything about banning?

            But there is no sane logic that says you clowns should have the right to FORCE all of society to recognize and even advocate your twisted sexual dysfunction.

            How horribly totalitarian and perverted of you. Which proves yet again that homosexuality is a mental disorder.

            • Sven2547

              Who said anything about banning?

              It’s the official position of the Roman Catholic Church, Mark Shea, and most of the commenters here. Have you been hiding under a rock?

              But there is no sane logic that says you clowns should have the right to FORCE all of society to recognize and even advocate your twisted sexual dysfunction.

              Nobody’s saying that. Awesome strawman. The government is not “all of society”. Also: It’s not MY “perversions”. I’m just one of the hundreds of millions of “straight” Americans who supports basic equality and religious freedom.

              How horribly totalitarian and perverted of you. Which proves yet again that homosexuality is a mental disorder.

              Promoting individual liberties is “totalitarian”? I’m not the one who needs his head examined

              • Strife

                The Church is not banning homosexuality, it is refusing destroy the definition of marriage by recognizing the perverted gay lifestyle on the same moral plan as true marriage. And yes, legal recognition of homosexual marriage DOES force all of society to recognize the twisted union lest any descent be prosecuted on the grounds of discrimination or under the ruse of “hate speech”. And yes, this has already happened in Europe and Canada, it is already happing here. And the civil recognition of homosexuality is not a matter of individual liberties, it is a matter of special and exceptional privilege in an historically unprecedented way.

                • Sven2547

                  A definition is just a statement of the status quo. Defending

                  a definition for a definition’s sake is circular logic. It’s meaningless and shows a troubling lack of critical thought.

                  Words don’t have rights. People do.

                  And yes, legal recognition of homosexual marriage DOES force all of society to recognize the twisted union lest any descent be prosecuted on the grounds of discrimination or under the ruse of “hate speech”.

                  False. Utterly, completely false. Same-sex marriage has existed for a number of years now, in multiple states and countries, and the Roman Catholic Church has never accepted a single one, which seems to contradict your claim that they’re being forced to.

                  it is a matter of special and exceptional privilege in an historically unprecedented way.

                  It’s marriage. Just marriage. Marriage isn’t a special and exceptional privilege. Equal rights aren’t “special rights”, and you should be ashamed of yourself from pulling that stupid line from old segregationist rhetoric.

                  • Strife

                    What? So yes means no and no means yes – if you want it too. *facepalm* Unbelievable.

                    “False. Utterly, completely false. Same-sex marriage has existed for a number of years now, in multiple states and countries, and the Roman Catholic Church has never accepted a single one, which seems to contradict your claim that they’re being forced to.”

                    Uhm, hey moron? The in everyone of those countries and states- the Church HAS been sued and prosecuted. So yeah, my point is valid. *geez this guy unbelievably dense*

                    And yes marriage by its very definition IS an exceptional privileged – if it’s not – then anyone should have the right marry then- no?

                    • Sven2547

                      I see the number of insults increasing on a line-by-line basis. Your shoddy argument is falling apart.

                      Businesses have been prosecuted. Churches have not. Name one church that has been “prosecuted” in “every one of those states”.

                      And that’s correct: it’s not the business of the government to ban consenting adults from marrying, unless it’s actually harming people. Mormon polygamy, for example, harmed many boys because they were ostracized from their communities, so it is illegal.

                      Does that scare you? Does the thought of equality blow your mind so much that you’re unable to grasp it? What makes it okay to ban marriage for tens of millions of Americans? Because you don’t like it? Do you think that’s a valid reason?

                    • Strife

                      “Insults”? I’m sorry, but according to your reasoning that the definition of the word “insult” is meaningless “circular logic”. So there’s that.

                      Catholic Charities (which IS part of the Catholic Church has been driven out of business in several states by the militant gay lobby. But now you’re simply moving the goal-post by refusing to recognize them as part of the Church (which they are).

                      You cannot redefine marriage without destroying its original definition and purpose. For instance, homosexuals will have the same rights (if not superior rights) to adopt children into their dysfunctional houses.

                    • Sven2547

                      Now who’s moving the goalposts? You’re unable to defend a ban on same-sex marriage, so you’re switching to a ban on adoption by same-sex couples.

                      Is single-parenthood against the law? Should it be against the law? No. So explain to me how having two moms is worse than having one?

                    • Strife

                      That makes no sense whatsoever. Gay marriage doesn’t require a ban, because it is not legitimate to begin with. You keep conflating that point. So it only stands to reason that homosexuals have no moral or legal right to adopt children. Period.

                      And single parenthood has no moral equivalence to the perverted lifestyle of homosexuality. For starters homosexuals are rarely monogamous (the refer to is as “open” monogamy) and that in and of itself is unhealthy for the children, not to mention the perversion of sexual identity and societal roles.

                    • Sven2547

                      That makes no sense whatsoever. Gay marriage doesn’t require a ban, because it is not legitimate to begin with.

                      In a free society, things are considered lawful until banned. Same-sex marriage is explicitly BANNED in a number of states.

                      For starters homosexuals are rarely monogamous and that in and of itself is unhealthy for the children

                      That’s a reason FOR gay marriage. To promote monogamous relationships. You are actively DISCOURAGING homosexual monogamy.

                    • Strife

                      “In a free society, things are considered lawful until banned. Same-sex marriage is explicitly BANNED in a number of states.”

                      Homosexuality used to be banned. Then it was permitted. Now they want special privileged legal recognition for their perverted lifestyles.

                      So given that synopsis:

                      You obviously agree that pedophiles and pederasts and incest and animal lovers should all be considered lawful too – right?

                      Well of course you do.

                    • Strife

                      It looks like Sven-The Brain-stem doesn’t like the taste of his own cognitive flatulence.

                      heh

                    • Sven2547

                      You obviously agree that pedophiles and pederasts and incest and animal lovers should all be considered lawful too – right?

                      Well of course you do.

                      No, I do not. Because children and animals are incapable of informed consent. Why do you keep lying like this? You’re making a fool of yourself.

                    • Strife

                      “No, I do not. Because children and animals are incapable of informed consent. Why do you keep lying like this? You’re making a fool of yourself.”

                      Define “Informed” define “Consent”. Oh that’s right, those are just status-quo circular logic definitions according to you. So you’re foisted by your own petard – yet again.

                      But still, children and animals are frequently subjected to things and actions against their consent for the sake of love. So who are you to limit that love with your old stone-age definitions of close-minded hate and intolerance?

                      Who are you to do so?

                    • Sven2547

                      Define “Informed” define “Consent”. Oh that’s right, those are just status-quo circular logic definitions according to you.

                      My God. You really don’t get it, do you? Using legal terms isn’t circular logic, you dimwit. That’s not what I said at all. You seem incapable of grasping English.

                    • Strife

                      Uhm … hey dumb@ss? “Legal terms” are based on rational time-proven definitions solidified by human experience. But you’ve ultimately deemed all of that “status-quo” and “circular logic”. So in essence, you’re just adding another layer of “status-quo” under the guise of “legal term”.

                      LOL. Moron.

                    • Sven2547

                      I never said the usage of legal terms is circular logic. Anywhere. Re-read my comments. My God you’re making such a fool of yourself.

                    • Strife

                      *facepalm* Uhm…yeah, I know you never said it. Because you never realized the extension of your failed reasoning. And THAT was my entire point, you imbecile.

                      *geez* I’m officially arguing with a moron. *sigh*

                    • Sven2547

                      But you’ve ultimately deemed all of that “status-quo” and “circular logic”.

                      I never said the usage of legal terms is circular logic. Anywhere.

                      Uhm…yeah, I know you never said it.

                      So you knew I never said that, but you deliberately misrepresented my position anyway to hurl insults instead of discuss the actual points I raised. You’re right: I am a moron to keep talking to such a blatant internet troll. Nobody could possibly be as stupid as you and be serious about it. Nobody could seriously be unable to grasp the lawful and ethical differences between homosexuality and pedophilia.

                    • Strife

                      Not hardly. I merely extended your rationale back to its logical origins AND forward to its logical conclusion. And it still flew over your flat-head my a light-year mile. LOL

      • SteveP

        I *knew* “gay marriage” wasn’t about love but about taxes!

      • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

        McCulloch v. Maryland laid out that the power to tax necessarily includes in it the power to destroy because taxes can be raised arbitrarily high until an organization breaks. So either you don’t believe John Marshall decided that case rightly (and good luck getting it reversed) or you just don’t believe in the 1st amendment and want the state to have the power to destroy churches.

      • Stu

        Oh look. A progressive for the state influencing the Church. What is this? China.

    • kenofken

      There never should have been any conflation or intermingling of religious and civil marriage functions. It’s well past time to separate those things.

  • Josh

    Joseph, in 30 years – if you arent a Catholic already – you will be eating crow like the communists of 20th century

    • Sven2547

      Non-Catholics are like communists? Wow.

      • Josh

        Nope. Didn’t say that. Merely that Joseph’s absurd liberal bigotry might just be a flash in the pan…. which will require some re-thinking in the future. A la the Communists of yesteryear

      • FW Ken

        He didn’t say that, but thanks for exposing, again, your lack of a rational – or honest – argument.

      • Strife

        Now, that was either willful dishonesty on your part, or sheer blithering ignorance?

        So which is it?

        • Sven2547

          I read that in 30 years, if you aren’t a Catholic already, ‘you’ll be eating crow like the communists of the 20th century’.
          Maybe I misread his comment. What did he mean by it, if he wasn’t directly comparing non-Catholics to Communists?

          • Josh

            I mean that we Catholics will outlast this present bigotry the same way we have outlasted all others that have come and gone. A recent example is communism… but many more preceded it. You guys (i.e. those who hate us) come and go. We remain. In fact, we continue to grow. We’ll be here long after modern liberalism has given way to some other foolishness. We’ll infuriate that group too for not blessing their cherished “truths”… and they, like Joseph, will get all puffed up and assign us to the “dustbin of history”. I’m not sure about Joseph’s grip on history and where he thinks it’s dustbin actually is… because if history teaches us anything, it’s that the Catholic Church will go on… and on. Prepare to be outlasted.

            • Sven2547

              Explain to me how allowing same-sex couples to marry is anti-Catholic “bigotry”? I don’t remember having a vote on whether Catholics are allowed to marry.

              The bigots here are the ones who want millions of Americans to be second-class citizens, unable to marry or adopt. Same-sex marriage is not an attack on any person or institution. The dissolution of DOMA is “anti-Catholic bigotry” the same way Loving v Virginia was “anti-white bigotry” (it wasn’t).

              • Strife

                Targeting the Church with lawsuits and fines for their refusal to accept the degenerate practice of homosexuality is most certainly bigotry. Catholic Charities in Mass and Illinois were driven out of the adoption business because they rightly refused to adopt kids to homosexual couples. And the Church had every right to do so.

                But tell me, by what twisted logic did a perverted sexual dysfunction that defies the human design suddenly become “normal” “natural” and a “civil right”?

                • Sven2547

                  Catholic charities are not “the church”. If you offer a service, you offer it fairly or you don’t offer it at all. That’s not bigotry, that’s equality.

                  I never called homosexuality “normal” or “natural”. In a free country, you don’t ban something just because it’s not “normal” or not “natural”. It’s a civil right because people have the right to marry, simple as that.

                  There is also a religious freedom factor. Many religions recognize same-sex marriage. Any state ban on the practice is a direct attack on the Free Exercise clause. Meanwhile, in the years same sex marriage has been legal in a number of states and countries, the number of Roman Catholic same-sex marriages remains zero. That’s because nobody is FORCING the Catholic Church to marry gays, and claims to the contrary are lies.

                  • oregon catholic

                    Nobody was forcing Catholic college insurance programs to provide coverage for abortifacients to it’s student subscribers 3 years ago either. But the gov is now.

                    The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior and everything about this administrations past behavior says it will attempt to force it’s political views on churches.

                    Your argument is so weak and false that no one with any common sense is going to fall for it. Go tell it to your liberal echo chamber where I’m sure you will find all the validation you need.

                    • Sven2547

                      Hahahahaha
                      Your entire argument is speculation and you have the nerve to call my position “weak and false”? You’re a riot!

                      There is historical precedent. Religions that refused to perform interracial marriages before are still not required to do so today.

                      You keep dishonestly conflating business (like colleges) and charities (like adoption agencies) with churches. These are different things! Churches are free to do what they like. Colleges, on the other hand, must uphold a modicum of equality. And being required to treat people equally is considered to be “oppressive” to you? No wonder your message resonates so strongly with the sons and daughters of the segregationist South.

                    • oregon catholic

                      You make the same mistake in understanding the Constitution that so many other religion haters make as well. Religious liberty does not exist only within the 4 walls of a church/synagogue/mosque or the 4 walls of a home. And we will resist all attempts to confine it to such. I will not be forced to check my religion at the door.

                      You really need to get off the segregation soapbox. Most black Americans despise the co-opting of it. Gay ‘marriage’ should stand or fall on it’s own merits.

                    • Sven2547

                      Yet for religions that DO recognize same-sex marriage, you think it’s totally fine to ban their free exercise. Double standards ahoy!

                    • oregon catholic

                      A church could conduct any marriage ceremony it wanted, even if it wasn’t recognized by civil law, so no I’m not infringing on a religious belief. Islam does it more than you might realize in this country. Many men have one ‘legal’ marriage and additional religious marriage(s).

                      You are confusing two separate issues. One is my Constitutional right to practice my religion in the public square (business matters) and influence the law and the culture as a voter or through my right of free speech. The other is forcing people to practice Catholicism, which no one in their right mind thinks is happening, but which you seem to be equating with demanding the right of free expression and exercise of religion in public.

                  • Strife

                    Uhm yeah, Catholic Charities IS part of the Catholic Church. Hence, their moral objection to refuse adoption to gay couples.

                    And again, no one is “banning” homosexuality in any legal sense. However, the Church is exercising its constitutional right to refuse moral recognition of the gravely disordered lifestyle. And no, the formal recognition of homosexuality is NOT a civil right by any definition of the terms. In fact, marriage in and of itself IS an exclusive PRIVILEGE – not a civil right. If it were a “right” then anyone could marry anyone else without restrictions. You don’t even comprehend the literal definitions of the words you keep throwing around. But then, you’re simply a thoughtless drone who’s mag-pieing the Gay Activists talking points.

                    And you keep conflating the Church’s right to refuse recognition of homosexuality – with some imaginary legal banishment of the depraved sexual act. Like I said before, you’re either willfully ignorant OR intentionally deceptive. So which is it sport?

                    • Sven2547

                      The Church has every right to refuse to accept homosexuality.

                      The Church does NOT have the right to force government to refuse to accept homosexuality.

                      The Church does NOT have the right to run businesses that get to ignore laws pertaining to businesses. If you’re running a business, you need to play by the same rules as the rest of us.

                      Hurling insults doesn’t help your position.

                    • Strife

                      What? The Church is NOT forcing the government to do anything. HOWEVER, 5 people on the Supreme Court (who were never elected nor selected by the American people) are forcing the good people of California to legally accept the legal institution of gay marriage – AFTER the good people of that state voted against it – TWICE.

                      So just who in the h#ell is forcing who here?

                      Are you always this obtuse?

                    • Sven2547

                      The Church is NOT forcing the government to do anything.

                      Every attempt to ban same-sex marriage is exactly that.

                      …forcing the good people of California to legally accept the legal institution of gay marriage

                      False. For the 96% of Californians who are heterosexuals, this ruling doesn’t affect them in any way.

                      AFTER the good people of that state voted against it – TWICE.

                      By a narrower and narrower margin. The vote would fail if they tried it again today. But that’s beside the point: you don’t put civil liberties up to a popular vote, that would be stupid and unconstitutional. If you did, Mississippi would still be segregated to this day.

                    • Strife

                      Homosexuals have no natural right to the legal definition marriage. Period.

                      “False. For the 96% of Californians who are heterosexuals, this ruling doesn’t affect them in any way.”

                      What? If the legal definition of marriage does not require societal recognition – then why pursue it in the first place? Because all the fiduciary/tax/ and legal perks could equally be attained through legal contracts and separate legislation- so why pursue marriage at all? Riddle me that, oh slow-one.

                    • Sven2547

                      Homosexuals have no natural right to the legal definition marriage. Period.

                      The government and courts of our republic DO have the power to modify and enforce laws as needed to secure the rights of the governed. Period.

                      What? If the legal definition of marriage does not require societal recognition – then why pursue it in the first place?

                      You are conflating government recognition and societal recognition. You and your church are more than welcome to remain in the stone age forever and never acknowledge any same-sex union. The government, however, is not allowed to bury its head in the sand. Further, government recognition of someone else’s marriage doesn’t affect your marriage in any way. Why are you unable to grasp this simple concept?

                    • Strife

                      “The government and courts of our republic DO have the power to modify
                      and enforce laws as needed to secure the rights of the governed.
                      Period.”

                      Uhm , hey slick? What you’ve just described is NOT a Constitutional Representative Republic. But rather, a dictatorship.

                      “You are conflating government recognition and societal recognition.”

                      That doesn’t even make any sense. But you never answered my question. So here it is again:

                      If the legal definition of marriage does not require societal recognition – then why pursue it in the first place?

                    • Sven2547

                      Uhm , hey slick? What you’ve just described is NOT a Constitutional Representative Republic. But rather, a dictatorship.

                      Wait wait wait
                      You think that a Constitutional Republic’s fairly-elected government does NOT have the power to create, modify, and enforce laws? I am dumbstruck by your astounding lack of understanding of what government is and how it works.

                      If the legal definition of marriage does not require societal recognition – then why pursue it in the first place?

                      Filing joint income tax returns with the I R S and state taxing authorities. Creating a “family partnership” under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members. Inheriting a share of your spouse’s estate. Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse. Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts. Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse – that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf. Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses. Receiving veterans’ and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans. Receiving public assistance benefits. Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse’s employer. Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness. Receiving wages, workers’ compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse. Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies. Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility. Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment. Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures. Making burial or other final arrangements. Filing for stepparent or joint adoption. Applying for joint foster care rights. Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce. Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce. Living in neighborhoods zoned for “families only.” Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse. Receiving family rates for health, homeowners’, auto, and other types of insurance. Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities. Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families. Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy). Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states). Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage. Receiving crime victims’ recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime. Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse. Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

                    • Strife

                      Who elected the Supreme Court? And by what constitutional logic do homosexuals garnish any “rights” to marry?

                      And any and all of the perks and benefits that you’ve listed can be obtained through legal contracts and/or legislation without redefining marriage.

                      So I’ll ask you this again: Why redefine marriage?

                    • Sven2547

                      And any and all of the perks and benefits that you’ve listed can be obtained through legal contracts and/or legislation without redefining marriage.

                      Separate-but-equal got thrown out with Brown v Board of Ed.

                      Why redefine marriage?

                      Because liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights. Because the “definition of marriage” has been changed before to secure those rights, and nobody else’s marriage is getting “redefined”. This is just the government’s acceptance of marriage. Your religion may continue to define it as it pleases.

                      What gives your specific religion the unique privilege of defining what marriage is for all Americans?

                    • Strife

                      “Separate-but-equal got thrown out with Brown v Board of Ed.”

                      There is no logical equivalence between the passive state of race and the active and profound perversion of homosexuality.

                      “Because liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights. Because the “definition of marriage” has been changed before to secure those rights, and nobody else’s marriage is getting “redefined”. This is just the government’s acceptance of marriage. Your religion may
                      continue to define it as it pleases.”

                      How does redefining marriage make homosexuals legally happy? And again, all the reason you’ve listed can be obtained through contracts and legislation. You cannot redefine marriage for some without refining it for all. It’s just not legally or logically possible.

                      So again: why redefine marriage?

                      “What gives your specific religion the unique privilege of defining what marriage is for all Americans?”

                      On the contrary, what gives 2% of the population the right to suddenly redefine the natural basis for the legal recognition of marriage.

                    • Sven2547

                      Such tired, stupid claims.
                      Tell me, did Loving v Virginia redefine marriage for same-race couples? No, it did not.

                      Homosexuals are people too, who deserve equal rights. It really is that easy. You are putting the importance of their individual liberties behind the importance of the legal definition of a word, and that’s just sad. Legal definitions change. That may shock and frighten you, but that’s the nature of civilized society. Catholics are working to redefine “murder” as we speak, so it’s pretty funny to see them raise such a fuss about the almighty immutable “definition of marriage”.

                      And the 2% remark is pretty darn stupid. Most of the country supports marriage equality now. They’re not the minority, you are. So why should 44% of the country get to make tens of millions of Americans into second-class citizens? I don’t remember having a vote on your marriage.

                      I’m done with you. If you haven’t gotten the concept yet, you never will. You’ve made a magnificent fool of yourself, and I think this exercise has been enlightening to anyone who may bother reading this thread.

                      Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is winning. Grow up and realize that this is not a bad thing.

                    • Strife

                      As I stated before: Race and sexual desire are not morally equivalent arguments. But you keep right on f**kin that chicken – mkay?

                      Homosexuals are people who suffer from perverted desires. The have legal rights as human-beings. Their perverted desires – do not. End of story.

                      Actually, when people actually vote – they overwhelmingly vote gay-marriage DOWN, like in California. Oh but, 5 people on the Supreme Court just ruled against the will of the people. But even still, the gay population is about 2%. So why redefine marriage for a sexual perversion that only 2% of the population suffer from? Especially when all the benefits can be obtained through contracts and legislation WITHOUT redefining (and thus destroying) the legal definition? Why?

      • kenofken

        As a non-Catholic, I have to dispute that! Pagans don’t march (we dance a lot), and our chants and drum circles, while very inspiring in their own way, don’t quite match the soaring Motherland sorts of military anthems the communists were known for! On the other hand, the Guardians at Pagan Spirit Gathering this past weekend DID march in pretty tight formation, and they did have a preponderance of red in their garb…..:)

  • kenofken

    This is an argument about nothing, or at least nothing germane to the core issues in the Court’s decisions. The cases were findings about what rights gays have to marriage under federal law and in a state which sought to revoke those rights. It has nothing to do with Obama or the fact that he is a runaway executive with a clear contempt for the rule of law. We don’t determine the rights of people based on what political abuses might be undertaken in their name one day.

    If we say Obama is given to abuse of power (and I say that as a man who voted for him twice), than surely the Court’s decision did not loose anything new upon us. We’re talking about a guy who has claimed the discretion to kill Americans at will without transparent due process, and who perhaps has begun to exercise that discretion already. Does anyone really believe DOMA (which was a miserably un-American law), would have shielded churches from harassment if he had set his mind to it? Runaway executive power is a serious problem which ranges far beyond DOMA and Prop 8, and your linkage to the tired old proposition that “gays are evil and just out to get the Church” cheapens and diminishes the underlying issue.

    • http://www.likelierthings.com/ Jon W

      the tired old proposition that “gays are evil and just out to get the Church” cheapens and diminishes the underlying issue

      When, sir, are you going to stop lying about what the church teaches? That was a damned lie.

      • said she

        It happens so often! Outsiders frame the Church’s position, either out of ignorance or malice, making the Church appear to teach something that it most certainly does not teach. But the words are out there, others have read/heard them, and they get repeated.

        A lie told often enough… is still a lie. Even if everybody thinks it’s true.

    • said she

      kenofken: The Church has never, ever, ever said that “gays are evil”. Never said it! Never will!

      Please don’t spread falsehoods. That only serves the father of lies.

      • kenofken

        It’s not about the Church’s teachings, it’s about how the overwhelming majority of regular people involved in the debates, including Mark, tend to assign the very worst of motives to gays. The party line here and in most corners of the anti-SSM world is that gays have no legitimate personal aspirations for gay marriage. They do what they do solely out of an agenda to destroy the Church.

        • http://www.likelierthings.com/ Jon W

          Damn it. I misread what you wrote, kenofken. Sorry. Got it.

          Fine. Have a problem with the fact that Mark’s a blogger and shoots from the hip. That’s why I read him and not Jimmy Akin. Mark’s rhetoric, while occasionally over the top, is interesting to read and worth fighting over, while not descending – like Rod Dreher’s – into full-throated hysterics. That said, 2 things:

          1. The people at this blog (and in most corners of the anti-SSM world) do focus on how these events will impact their lives, mostly because that’s what humans do.

          2. People have said that the end-game is the destruction of marriage. They don’t want marriage to exist at all, and they think this is a means to that end. So you can’t say that there’s no intentional strategy to completely change the way of life in Western Civilization. There totally is. Now, there are also a lot of individual gay people who just want to have society approve and support their partnership, sure, but to pretend as though there isn’t a real, organized, intentional effort to change civilization is to have your head way in the sand.

  • Zeke

    To paraphrase:
    1 – Obama hates Catholics because of the ACA aims to provide contraception to all women who desire it as part of health care plans.
    2 – He was responsible for the deaths of some truly cretinous terrorists who happened to have American citizenship, possesses unbridled power not afforded to any other POTUS (somehow), and a journalist critical of his administration died in a car accident recently so clearly he’s coming after you next.
    3 – He has the power to force Catholic Churches to start performing gay marriages and plans to use it. Because of, you know, the first point.
    This is getting old, move on, the rest of the planet already has.

    • iamlucky13

      1 – Who really knows why he’s doing it. Point is, he said he wouldn’t, but he lied. Just like he said (2007) that the government must stop using National Security Letters to spy on Americans, but lied, and just like he said he would end the war in Iraq and stop the flawed policy of American interventionism but spent the first 3 years of his administration trying to extend the presence of combat forces in Iraq and has intervened in several other conflicts on his own initiative.

      2 – We have a way of dealing with truly cretinous terrorists, intentionally provided for in the Constitution and formalized into a process by the US Code.

      3 – His history provides us absolutely no comfort.

  • B.E. Ward

    A simple question for Zeke, or Sven, or Joseph, or anyone else (the more the merrier) who holds conservative Christians in contempt when it comes to this matter:

    Is it possible for an intelligent, thoughtful, respectable, kind-hearted individual to hold a view on this matter that differs from your own?

    I’m just looking for a one-word answer: yes or no.

    • kenofken

      Yes. I support absolutely the right of anyone to hold contrary opinions and to express them free from state interference. I also support the right of any church or religious body to control their own theologies and sacraments and to forever withhold gay marriage as a sacrament if that’s what their theology calls for. At the same time, I draw a line where private religious belief intersects with public accommodation and discrimination.

      I don’t support a right of florists or banquet hall owners to refuse gay business, nor even of church hall rentals to refuse gay business if those rentals are being conducted with the general public as a business. I support the recent SCOTUS decisions, but only as instruments to confer civil equality within a civil process. If is used by government entities to try to force interference in sacramental matters or to force public orthodoxy of thought and expression, I will fight that, as would a great many of my religious brethren in paganism. (There is some good interfaith going on these days.)

      That last point bears clarification. It’s not ok for government to squelch expression of unpopular opinions. If you’re feeling oppressed because your views are increasingly unpopular in the free market of ideas, that’s tough toenails, not oppression.

      • kcard82

        “I don’t support a right of florists or banquet hall owners to refuse gay business, nor even of church hall rentals to refuse gay business if those rentals are being conducted with the general public as a business.”

        NO ONE has the right to the fruits of other people’s labor. NO ONE! And it’s not “discrimination” to refuse to serve a gay wedding. Would you force a Jewish caterer to supply a pig for a pig roast? No, because you don’t have the right to force him to act against his will and conscience.

        For many of these wedding vendors who refuse to serve gay weddings, many of them have said that it’s not solely based on the fact they are gay, it is the action of the gay wedding they don’t want to participate in. If a gay man came in asking for a flower arrangement for his mother’s birthday, they would have no reason to refuse business.

        • Sven2547

          The only difference between a “wedding” and a “gay wedding” is the sexes of the bride and groom (indeed, a “gay wedding” is just a subcategory of “wedding”). As such, discriminating against “gay weddings” is nothing more than discrimination against a person’s sex.

          • Stu

            So when a lesbian chooses to “marry” another lesbian, is that discrimination on her part based upon a person’s sex?

            • Sven2547

              Sure, but she’s not a business. She’s not offering goods or services to the public. She’s an individual with her own taste in mates.
              Surely you can tell the difference between personal preference and discriminatory business practices, right? Please tell me you haven’t sided with the ‘corporate personhood’ crowd…

              • Stu

                No, I side with a individual who has a preference not to take part in a fake marriage that they don’t find acceptable.

                Surely this isn’t about forced acceptance? Is it?

                • Sven2547

                  Non-discrimination in business isn’t the same as “forced acceptance”.

                  Misogynists still needs to serve women at restaurants, or get out of the restaurant business.
                  Racists still need to sell groceries to black patrons, or get out of the grocery business.
                  Christians, Jews, Muslims and atheists all need to sell goods and services equally to the patrons of their respective businesses, or find another line of work.

                  I remain astounded that these same things keep repeating themselves throughout history, and every time the would-be discriminators are going “No, my example is different. My grievance is legitimate. Those people are wrong and I refuse to serve them.” But it’s not different, it’s the same sad story, over and over again.

                  • Stu

                    Yes, that’s what you say. But that’s your vehicle for forcing acceptance.

                    By your own admission, we have actually established that “discrimination” isn’t necessarily a bad word or practice. We all do it everyday if we are smart. I’m a discriminating consumer. I would hope you are as well. Not every issue is the same and to claim all comparisons are valid is just as daft as saying all situations are different.

                    It’s one thing for a doctor, who takes an oath, to refuse treating an individual because of her or she suffered from SSA but it’s completely different to refuse to sell them a wedding cake, take pictures of their ceremony or even provide them a space to carry out their celebration for such an event. I’m astounded that you personally can’t see such a difference. (Though down deep I think you do.)

                    At the end of the day, people like you will use the power of the state to force acceptance of this disorder in an effort to make people call it normal. But since it isn’t based upon the truth, that effort will ultimately fail by collapsing on itself. In the meantime, you will see acts of civil disobedience and some creative response by business people who are being forced to take part in such immorality that homosexuals will simply not want to go through the trouble of using that business.

                    Homosexuality will never be “accepted.” Case in point. Ever notice how the “tolerant left” who espouse so-called homosexual causes continue to use homosexual epithets or assertions that someone is a homosexual as a putdown? They don’t even really “accept” it.

                    • Sven2547

                      At the end of the day, people like you will use the power of the state to force acceptance of this disorder in an effort to make people call it normal.

                      That’s funny, coming from someone who wants to use the power of the State to abolish something just because his personal religion forbids it, other religions be damned. I don’t want to use the power of the state to infringe on you IN ANY WAY. I want my friends to have equal rights, individual liberty, and religious freedom. You want to abolish that. It really is as simple as that.

                      Tell me, would it be acceptable for a Catholic business owner to refuse to sell floral arrangements to a Jewish wedding? Do you think the excuse “I have nothing against Jews, I just think their weddings are wrong” would be a remotely valid excuse? I don’t think so.

                      Ever notice how the “tolerant left” who espouse so-called homosexual causes continue to use homosexual epithets or assertions that someone is a homosexual as a putdown?

                      Actually I don’t see that much, no.

                    • Stu

                      “That’s funny, coming from someone who wants to use the power of the State to abolish something just because his personal religion forbids it, other religions be damned.”

                      Well, no. I haven’t asked to abolish anything. Try again.

                      As to your question, There is no basis for a Catholic to refuse service to someone who is Jewish on religious grounds. But there you go again, assuming everything is equal in this World. Well, it isn’t.

                      And as to you not seeing lefties using homosexual epithets, you’ll start noticing it more now. It’s there. People tend to overlook such transgressions from their “friends.”

                    • Sven2547

                      Well, no. I haven’t asked to abolish anything. Try again.

                      My mistake. I confused you with the many commenters who think same-sex marriage should be unlawful in the US.

                    • Stu

                      I am someone who thinks that words and social contracts should not have their meanings changed to suit someone’s behavior.

                      It’s not me seeking to do anything. It is you are attempting to redefine all of society and humanity in your own image.

                    • Sven2547

                      It is you are attempting to redefine all of society and humanity in your own image.

                      You lost me. Do you honestly think same-sex marriage is an “attempt to redefine all of society and humanity in my image”?

                      In areas where same-sex marriage is lawful, they are free to marry as they choose and Catholics are free to have their own heterosexual marriages like they always have. What part of that don’t you understand? Society hasn’t been remade in my image in Connecticut or California or Iowa, that’s silly.

                      In stark contrast, if you want to marry someone in Texas, it must be a member of the opposite sex. Society is made into the Catholic ideal, other religious faiths be damned. It is YOU who wants to force society into YOUR image.

                    • SteveP

                      Sven2547: You are free to live person you “love” and call it
                      whatever you wanted. What you have done is demand Social Security Survivor benefits and that someone else to fund them. You want to pick my pocket and line your own. Most people understand this is wrong.

                  • SteveP

                    Again, be careful with “no, my example is different:” we
                    have heard that classical homosexual relationships were based on power differentials while contemporary homosexual relationships are based on mutual consent. That sounds to me very much like “my example is different.”

              • SteveP

                Doesn’t “taste” imply a choice? I thought the god Fate struck her with an immutable desire.

          • SteveP

            I thought we cleared it up earlier today that to speak of
            sex is to speak of gametes. How does one discriminate against a person’s gametes?

      • wlinden

        Would you say that churches are obliged to rent space for Satanist rituals ” if those rentals are being conducted with the general public as a business”?

        (No doubt you will, instead of answering, rant that I am “equating gays with Satanists.”)

        • kenofken

          If a church is renting space in the same open way that any regular business does so, than yes. If the law says you can’t discriminate against Satanists for their beliefs in a regular business, the same should hold true for a church-owned business operation. That said, there are probably legal ways to constrain things. If you don’t allow groups to conduct religious rituals on your property as a general matter, there’s no reason you’d have to do so for Satanists. Its possible that a church could also legally restrict space rental to groups that have a formal affiliation with the parish – Knights of Columbus, or a scout troop.

          • oregon catholic

            So maybe the best approach by business owners to public accomodation of activists who seek to patronize the businesses they know will be in moral opposition to them (usually for the sole purpose of creating a discrimination lawsuit) is to just give the worst possible service.

            I’m re-reading A Tree Grows in Brooklyn right now and there is a jewish shop owner of whom it is rumored that he “spat or did worse every day” in the vat of pickles he sells to the goyem who insult him. Of course he has another vat that he sells to his jewish customers. Just one old man’s religious protest.

      • B.E. Ward

        So, I’m not quite sure you answered my question. I asked:

        “Is it possible for an intelligent, thoughtful, respectable, kind-hearted individual to hold a view on this matter that differs from your own?”

        You answered:

        “Yes.”

        But, then:

        ” I support absolutely the right of anyone to hold contrary opinions and to express them free from state interference. I also support the right of any church or religious body to control their own theologies and sacraments and to forever withhold gay marriage as a sacrament if that’s what their theology calls for.”

        And then you went into concerns about Christian influence on the state level.

        But my question wasn’t “Should Christians *have the right* to ‘hold contrary opinions?’”. I’m not asking about political philosophy, I’m asking a much more ‘personal’ question.

        • kenofken

          I certainly know people who hold contrary opinions on this and many other issues who I consider to be very good people. I’m pagan down to the last fiber of my soul and one of the most ardent gay marriage supporters alive. One of my very best friends going back 30 years is a very, very devout Catholic. Nothing but respect for the guy. There are things we simply don’t talk about, but we know full well where the other stands, and we don’t demonize each other.

          • B.E. Ward

            I thank you for being straightforward about where you come from and what you stand for. Your non-strident and generally well-considered tone has been refreshing here.

    • Sven2547

      Is it possible for an intelligent, thoughtful, respectable, kind-hearted individual to hold a view on this matter that differs from your own?

      On this specific issue: yes, it can differ from my own, but not by much, maybe some finer details here or there. That said: I do not think an intelligent, thoughtful, respectable, kind-hearted individual can support a big-government ban of same-sex marriage any more than such a person could support racial segregation or oppose women’s suffrage. For me, it is the same category of basic civil liberties.

      Tell me, do you think an intelligent, thoughtful, respectable, kind-hearted individual can oppose interracial marriage?

      • B.E. Ward

        So, yes.. but, no?

        • Sven2547

          Yes, a reasonable person can have a difference of opinion, which is what you said.
          No, a reasonable person cannot have the opinion that SSM should be banned, which is what you meant.

          • B.E. Ward

            I’ll defer your presumptions for now…

            I just want to make sure I’m clear on this. You’re saying that pretty much any person is reasonable, no matter how wacky their opinions are….

            “Yes, a reasonable person can have a difference of opinion…”

            …until those opinions are carried into the public square? At that point, this person somehow becomes unreasonable if some in the public square (who? you?) deem them to be so?

            “No, a reasonable person cannot have the opinion that SSM should be banned…”

            • Sven2547

              No, re-read my first comment. It’s not about public/private. It’s about how big the difference is. There can be a reasonable difference of opinion on this issue, but when that opinion swings all the way to the extreme, totalitarian position of banning same-sex marriage, it’s completely unreasonable.

              • B.E. Ward

                But, what makes your opinion noble and enlightened while your opponents’ is “extreme” and “totalitarian”?

                • Sven2547

                  Because I’m supporting individual liberty on this issue and my opponents are against it. It really is as simple as that. I support equality on this issue, my opponents support inequality. I support religious freedom on this issue, my opponents support the supremacy of one religion.

                  Cries that “we’re being repressed because the government is FORCING us to treat people as equals” are the very height of ridiculousness. I’m not saying you’re guilty of this, but I can think of a few others.

                  • B.E. Ward

                    And are you hearing your opponents come from a completely different worldview? One that includes a transcendant, personal God and petty, fallen gods of our own creation, angels to guide us up and demons to drag us down, and an objective standard of right and wrong?

                    Your opponents believe that societal changes like this make living this worldview increasingly difficult, if not impossible in some circumstances. They feel mocked. They feel belittled. Hearing “if the shoe fits….” doesn’t help. Then who’s the totalitarian?

                    (As an aside, Christ himself repeatedly warned that life will not be easy for Christians, to put it mildly, so they shouldn’t be surprised.)

                    You’re free to reject the Christian’s (in our context here, specifically Catholic) worldview, but your rejection of it doesn’t change its objective truth, or as Christians would put it, Truth.

                    • Sven2547

                      Your opponents believe that societal changes like this make living this worldview increasingly difficult, if not impossible in some circumstances.

                      Christ himself repeatedly warned that life will not be easy for Christians, to put it mildly, so they shouldn’t be surprised.

                      This is the most confusing thing to me. How does same-sex marriage make life more difficult for Catholics, in any way? Any perceived “difficulties” arising from same-sex marriage are fabrications of a paranoid mind.

                    • oregon catholic

                      Here is an example which I’m sure you will dismiss as you dismiss any other pertinent analogies but it actually speaks to the point.

                      Let’s say I have a neighbor who abuses his wife in the course of sado-masochistic sex. The sex is completely consensual and private but I still know what is going on in the house because I see the results on her bruised and burned and torn flesh every single day. I know it is the result of a mental disturbance and the wife is being taken advantage of but since it’s legally ‘consensual’ they are free to engage in the behavior in the privacy of their bedroom.

                      Do you really think that’s not going to affect me? Do you think it doesn’t affect the innocence of my children when they notice and ask questions? Or heaven forbid, she tells my kids, or her kids tell my kids what goes on and how it’s perfectly normal? Do you really think I have no right to try and prevent something so perverted from being legally promoted and celebrated?

                      Now go ahead and tell us all why gay male sex isn’t in the same category. Remember that 50 years ago people were just as disgusted and morally offended by homosexuality before they became desensitized. And be sure you include an explanation of how all of the physical illnesses and injuries that come from consentually using a rectum for a purpose it wasn’t designed for is not the same as the masochist’s injuries.

                    • Sven2547

                      Safe anal sex does not cause significant injury or spread disease whatsoever. Such a stunningly bad example. Come on, man!

                      And again: sex isn’t marriage and marriage isn’t sex! Banning same-sex marriage isn’t a ban on homosexual intercourse, so trying to raise downsides to gay sex isn’t an argument against same-sex marriage. This is basic logic, and you’re failing badly.

                    • oregon catholic

                      Thank you for making my point. You could not address the analogy and my de-bunking of the stupid position that what other people legally do within marriage doesn’t have an effect on me and mine.

                      There is no safe anal sex. The rectum and anus were not designed for intercourse and trauma injury occurs virtually every time and has a cumulative effect over time. Or were you not aware that a goodly portion of gay men who receive anally over time experience chronic anal fissures and infections accompanied by fecal incontinence and prolapsed rectums that require the use of daily enemas, diapers, and even something called a rectal plug to keep their feces from leaking out? Think about that next time you call it normal.

                      No one is saying it’s a ban on homosexual intercourse. We are attempting to prevent the legally sanctioned perversion of marriage.

                    • Sven2547

                      I addressed the analogy in that it’s completely and utterly invalid. A bad analogy isn’t an argument. Physical abuse isn’t okay.

                      We are attempting to prevent the legally sanctioned perversion of marriage.

                      Your marriage isn’t being affected. Your marriage isn’t being “perverted”. It’s not doing anything to anyone else’s marriage. It doesn’t affect you. It’s not your problem. This is a situation where there is an upside to personal liberty and no downside whatsoever. You are trying to prevent liberty and the pursuit of happiness for millions of Americans for no reason other than you just don’t like it.

                      It’s like throwing away someone else’s ham sandwich because you don’t like ham. It’s not your sandwich! Eat your own sandwich and let him eat his!

                    • oregon catholic

                      Thank you again for making my point.

                      1. I clearly showed you how another person’s marriage can negatively affect others, especially children. We’re not hermits after all. And it’s one thing to know perverted and abusive marriages exist but quite another to have them legally enshrined and protected and taught as normal.
                      2. You have dismissed my analogy by calling the results of consentual sado-masochism “abuse” (even though that’s not how the participants define it) and therefore not relevant to the SSM argument. I have demonstrated how gay sex, especially as practiced by males, is consentual physical abuse as well (even though that’s not how the participants define it) and therefore the analogy is pertinent.

                    • Sven2547

                      1: You can not look at a person and determine is they’ve had homosexual intercourse. Your example is rubbish.
                      2: Safe homosexual intercourse is nothing close to especially-rough sado-masochism.

                      Again: banning same-sex marriage is like throwing away someone else’s ham sandwich because you don’t like ham. It’s not your sandwich! Eat your own sandwich and let him eat his!

                    • oregon catholic

                      1. I can be pretty sure that’s what is going on if gays are living together as a couple and share the info that they are a couple.

                      2. I doubt if you can even define what “safe homosexual intercourse” is or how it stacks up to “especially-rough sado-masochism”. In fact, you’re just making a subjective judgment call about the moral value of one vs the other aren’t you? Seems to me that’s no different than what I’m doing when I call gay sex a perversion as opposed to natural intercourse.

                    • Sven2547

                      In fact, you’re just making a subjective judgment call about the moral value of one vs the other aren’t you? Seems to me that’s no different than what I’m doing when I call gay sex a perversion as opposed to natural intercourse.

                      You don’t see me trying to ban sado-masochism. We all make moral judgments. You, like a 4-year-old, want to make your moral judgments into law; other people’s liberty and religions and morals be damned.

                    • oregon catholic

                      OK, now we’re back to your other fallacy. That I do not have the right, as a citizen, to live out my moral convictions (which happen to come from my religion) while you claim the right to live out your moral convictions (wherever they happen to come from). Get it through your head PLEASE that living out my conscience is not forcing anyone else to be Catholic! What a ridiculous notion – I wish we had such power. I have no more power to take away your liberty than you have to take away mine. We each have one vote and we each can make of our right of free speech what ever we wish. You want to take away my liberty to act according to my conscience but are just too hypocritical to recognize it!

                    • Sven2547

                      You want to take away my liberty to act according to my conscience

                      When “acting upon your conscience” is treating people like second-class citizens, then no, that’s not permissible. That’s how society works: you can freely do as you wish unless it hurts somebody.

                      Letting same-sex people marry harms no one. Banning same-sex marriage is an injustice to same-sex couples. Recognizing that simple fact isn’t hypocritical.

                    • oregon catholic

                      Have a good day. It is pointless to dialog with someone who cannot or will not recognize their own hypocrisy and bigotry. You would be quite willing to “hurt” and infringe MY rights and treat me like a second-class citizen – but then that’s your blindspot isn’t it?

                    • Sven2547

                      Requiring your business to play by the same rules as every other business isn’t hypocrisy, it isn’t bigotry, and it isn’t “infringing on your rights”.

                      Catholic-supremacy is fair but equality is persecution! Up is down, black is white, short is long!

                    • Wero

                      The funny part of it all is what is happening is another belief system is gaining traction and starting to impose its will the same way the old Christian belief system imposed on everyone in the past. The dogmas are different and different ideas are censored, but the concept is the same. The new dominant belief system is going to arbitrarily punish and ostracize behavior the conflicts with it just like the old system did. The old system was better in my opinion because it allowed for more personal freedom than the new one because it accepted very broad social rules and within those you could do whatever you want. The new system got rid of the big principles and like Chesterton said: when you get rid of the big laws you don’t get freedom, you don’t even get anarchy. You get the small laws. Which is what e have today. More and more government of daily affairs as the big laws are rejected that formerly allowed people to go ern themselves.

                    • Thomas

                      Sven2547: Are you Catholic?

                    • Sven2547

                      Nope. You?

                    • B.E. Ward

                      Hopefully you’ll actually see this reply amongst the barn-burning going on here today.

                      “This is the most confusing thing to me. How does same-
                      sex marriage make life more difficult for Catholics, in any way?”

                      Your question would be easy to answer if this was simply a change to the political and legal landscape in our country. In that case, it would be easy to say “You’re right! It doesn’t!” But, things aren’t so simple. I’m sure you’ve noticed that this isn’t just a political or legal issue, it’s a cultural issue. And we’ve reached an interesting time with the pendulum on this issue swinging so rapidly.

                      1) Our political and cultural conversation has been “Twitterized”. I’d say “sloganized”, but it’s slightly more sophisticated than that. There’s no room for reasoned, intelligent debate. Our media reflects this, being nothing more than a series of “Breaking News!!” and a bunch of ‘experts’ yelling at each other about it.

                      2) Our cultural conversation has taken on the tone brought to us by the political motives of Bush & Co. “You’re either with us or against us!” Obama promised something different. Alas….

                      So we’ve got a lot of hyperbole floating around in an atmosphere of extraordinarily little patience and reflection. Under these conditions, a new cultural impatience has developed.

                      Enter a debate where the rhetoric is so polarizing that literally no one can sit on the fence. It’s “love vs. hate”, “open-minded vs. bigot”, us vs. them, winner vs. loser. And that language was actually cast by one side. It isn’t just a bill or a law, a cultural chasm was created with words.

                      The umpteen millions of people in this country who aren’t affected by this issue are suddenly forced to make a choice, and the rhetorical chasm appears to make that choice an easy one. Anyone who doesn’t go along with progress is a hater, a bigot, and will be resigned to “the dustbin of history”. Sadly, we’ve heard this kind of language before and it normally doesn’t end well for someone.

                      Caught under the wheels of progress is that worldview I introduced earlier. There is the centuries old teaching that any act other than consensual, monogamous sexual activity between husband and wife is to be avoided as a part of walking in pursuit of and fidelity to God. Jews, Muslims, and Christians have all traditionally held it. Many Buddhists actually hold to an even more strict sexual prohibition.

                      But, specifically in a Christian context, another teaching from our Lord is that no authentic Christian should feel *any* malice or disdain for someone who feels attracted to someone of the same gender.. or even what they choose to do with that other person. Unless they’re a confessor or confidant, the appropriate response is “It’s none of my business.” In fact, there have been wholly consistent and sound arguments that Christians shouldn’t even care what the state chooses to do in this or any other matter.

                      Unfortunately, this attitude doesn’t appear to be good enough for those who have dug the cultural chasm. We see example after example of what Mark likes to call “You MUST approve!”, situations where people are punished for believing and living according to this teaching. As you even said yourself, “if the shoe fits…”

                      Returning for a short time to politics, it shouldn’t seem unreasonable for an individual to carry this belief into the ballot box and vote for or against people and measures that either embrace or contradict this teaching for the larger society. That’s, frankly, what every election is for. I hate our wars of imperialism, so I vote against the imperialists (no matter if there’s an R or a D next to their name). I want our natural resources protected, so I vote against the forces of destruction. Others want to encourage a society where married, monogamous, opposite-sex relationships are encouraged because they see it as an extension of their beliefs and a “right-ordering” of society. That they can do this is, frankly, the beauty of democracy.

                      But democracy is a political system and our culture is not democratic, despite our supposed ‘live and let live’ attitude. People that hold to traditional teachings of sexuality have apparently become worthy of every animus we can muster as a culture. This animus is more frequently resulting in escalating acts of verbal abuse, job discrimination, the defacing of churches (see St. James Cathedral in Seattle), and other acts. This escalation is what Catholics and other conservative Christians fear.

                    • Sven2547

                      I appreciate the thoughtful reply. You’re actually looking at the situation as a whole from a compassionate standpoint, which is unusual in this comments section.

                    • oregon catholic

                      ” Unless they’re a confessor or confidant, the appropriate response is “It’s none of my business.””

                      I have to take issue with this interpretation of Catholic teaching. We are very much charged with spreading the Gospel and protecting the Body of Christ which means helping our fellow man not to sin and die spritually. Catholics do not live in a spiritual hermitage.

                    • B.E. Ward

                      So, one can only assume you spend a lot of time helping our fellow man not to fall into other sins. Do you picket CEO offices to denounce their greed? Do you stand out front of the Golden Corral and beg people not to go in and be gluttonous? Do you attend celebrity awards ceremonies and admonish them for being prideful?

                      And that’s just three of a long list of possible sins.

                    • oregon catholic

                      You are free to express your personal opinion on this topic. Just don’t call it Catholic teaching.

                      Catholics don’t judge the state of another person’s soul. Catholics do make discriminating judgments about things, such as behavior, and whether such things are sinful. We also have a moral duty not to promote sin – and that can be through ommission (like letting laws get passed without objection) as well as commission. In God’s eyes you do not love your neighbor if you don’t care if he falls into sin.

                      And kinda seems like you were taking my inventory there – surprising for someone who was talking about how what others do is none of your business.

                    • B.E. Ward

                      I am vanquished by the Hammer of Truth!

                    • oregon catholic

                      If you think I ‘hammered’ you in error, you could always use the Catechism to defend your Catholic teaching ;-)

                    • Thomas

                      “This is the most confusing thing to me. How does same-
                      sex marriage make life more difficult for Catholics, in any way?”
                      I don’t see same sex unions as a difficulty for the Church, unless, the Church is forced to perform these immoral unions in denial of it’s freedom to practice it’s Sacraments as IT defines them, not the State.

                    • Thomas

                      It’s not a matter of having different opinion, it’s a matter of whether the differing opinion is intrinsically evil. Hatred of evil or opposition to it not a sin.

                    • Sven2547

                      I agree, making millions of Americans into second-class citizens is intrinsically evil.

                    • wlinden

                      Why do you hate the polyamorous? How dare you make them into second-class citizens?

                    • Sven2547

                      Why do you hate the polyamorous?

                      Google the “Lost Boys” of Mormon fundamentalism. They are people who were harmed by polygamy. Same-sex marriage, in stark contrast, harms no one.

                      Typical. Opponents of same-sex marriage are never able to debate the actual issue on its merits, so they desperately try to change the subject. Reproduction, polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality, incest, and on and on. Very dishonest.

      • Cambrai

        Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: “If only there were evil people
        somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to
        separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good
        and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to
        destroy a piece of his own heart?”

  • Zeke

    Yes, of course.
    Additionally, if any administration were to force the Catholic Church to perform gay marriages, I think it would be both unconstitutional and wrong.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Funny, the same thing was said when contraception and abortion became widely available, and Catholics were assured that they’d never be forced to fund either of those….

      • Zeke

        Ah yes, which would be a valid concern if this was actually the case. The accommodation does not force them to offer health care plans that cover these things, plain and simple. By this logic, Catholics are being forced to fund unjust wars and state executions by paying income tax. And of course there’s the uncomfortable fact that only a small vocal minority of Catholics agree with the Church on contraception anyways.

        • kcard82

          That’s not what she was talking about….

        • Morrie Chamberlain

          That’s the beauty of the Catholic Church. She proclaims Truth. She does not take polls to discover the truth. A Catholic Businessmen before Obamacare could offer insurance that did not offer abortifacients or sterilization which are both intrinsically evil. Now they must.

        • Daniel

          There is a distinction here that you completely miss. The Church has a right to offer health care plans to its employees; the government is effectively saying, “abandon your convictions or be punished” because the only alternative is to not offer health care. The Church does not claim a right to withhold taxes from the government because of government’s actions; it does claim a right to manage its own house, as it sees fit according to its religious doctrine. If Catholics disagree on contraception, that’s completely irrelevant to the Church’s management of its own house. By doing so the government is meddling in Church affairs, which it has been prohibited to do since the beginning.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X