A reader wonders about gay “marriage”

She writes:

 I live in a state that just yesterday legalized gay marriage (IL). The law in question does protect religious institutions from having to perform or host gay weddings, but that’s all it does; some opponents say it is the weakest or worst in the nation in that regard (protecting conscience rights of those who object)

Aside from the spectacle of the Speaker of our House quoting Pope Francis’ “who am I to judge?” remark on the House floor as an argument in FAVOR of the bill (that’s a whole ‘nother story in itself)… my main concern is this.

You post frequently about the “Gay Legion of Menacing Visigoths for Tolerance” and how they insist “You. Must. Approve” of gay marriage. I am wondering whether passage of this law is likely to make an impact on my life as an Illinois citizen and a faithful Catholic, if I do not personally know anyone who is gay or likely to enter a gay marriage and am not involved in the wedding industry. Should I take this as a sign that people like myself are no longer welcome in this state and should consider moving out, or, is life probably going to go on pretty much as it did before once the initial hullaballoo dies down?

You live in a state that already has gay marriage, the “Soviet of Washington”. Has this law made YOUR life more difficult, or made it harder for you or anyone you know to make a living or to educate their children? Or, has your life, personally, gone on pretty much as it would have otherwise? Have you contemplated moving to another state because of these laws?

I’d also like to hear from readers of your blog who have lived in “blue states” that have had gay marriage and other anti-LGBT discrimination measures for at least 2 years. Have these laws really impacted them personally or not, apart from personal situations involving family members or friends that entered a same-sex union? Has anyone felt compelled as a faithful Catholic to try to move to a more hospitable location, or does that really matter, as long as you have a good parish community and family supportive of your faith?

Thanks again for all your encouragement and help!

I don’t anticipate much of an immediate impact on you.  The impact will likely be broader and more institutional—legal punishments for organizations that resist the PC pieties, such as revocation of tax exemptions, boycotts, tax penalities, that sort of thing.  Some work environments may make life very unpleasant for workers who will not participate in Goodthink.  But for the most part, think “Boy Scouts” peer pressure or “Chik Fil A” boycotts, not jackboots kicking in your door at midnight.  I don’t think there’s much you need to do and little you need to worry about personally.  The people who will have most to lose will be children, not adults.  The main impact will be felt by the next generation.

  • Renee

    And ‘Paternity Court’ is a TV hit, this season on day time TV.

    The issues of gangs connected to father absence. Oprah Winfrey had a TV series on the father less epidemic, but didn’t mention marriage.

    I live in Massachusetts, and you just tip toe around it. Don’t expect to participate in civic engagement that much. I can talk as much as I want about about the break down and weakening of the social capital that comes to having two parents, but the moment you reference as marriage you become a hateful bigot.

    “Tactics shifting on subject of ‘responsible fatherhood’ Focus on good mates, sustaining relationships  -Washington Times”

     

    “In her research, Ms. Edin found that inner-city fathers were often intensely loving with their children and desired to be committed, attentive fathers.

    But they also revealed that their passion was for the child, not necessarily the mother. Pregnancies occurred in whirlwind relationships, rebound relationships or with women who were “passed along” by a friend. “I got stuck with her for awhile,” one father said of his child’s mother.”

    —–

    We have a problem, and as a matter of public policy we are incapable of even acknowledging a solution with a concept, because ultimately it discriminates.

    In Massachusetts if you are conceived by sex, you have rights to both parents. If you are conceived by artificial means, you lose these rights.

    If we didn’t allow sperm donation, in which men would assume paternity if legally married, the redefinition of marriage wouldn’t of happened in Massachusetts.

    • Renee

      http://www.gayivf.com

      The link above is a business in Massachusetts that for 70 grand, a doctor with a medical license will create a baby for anyone. All legal.

      Say anything is hate speech, tip-toe… tip-toe…

  • Alias Clio

    You may not encounter much of a difference anywhere, but I’m not certain that the soundness of a law depends upon its immediate personal impact. It was always the long-term social changes that SSM would encourage (not create, because they began long before it was even a glimmer in anyone’s eye), and the impact upon one’s right to speak freely about it and related issues, that I and people like me feared.

    But you may feel the impact even at home if your family is divided on the issue. I got called a bigot at my own kitchen table by a smugly smiling relative.

    Alias Clio

  • Andy

    I live in a fairly liberal state that accepts “gay marriage” personally it has had no impact on my life or anyone in our family. LBGT protections have had no impact at all, and in some cases I am in favor of them, just as the church teaches all members of the human race have a right to dignity and the like. Some concern me, so I think that we need to separate those laws that go beyond basic dignity and human rights from those that impose burdens.

    • Renee

      Its more then being Catholic though, the well being of an individual depends greatly on the relationship between one’s mother and father. It doesn’t matter the religion or the sexual orientation of the person, their mother and father matters to them. Even Senator Obama back in 2006 sponsored a ‘Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fathers’ Bill to promote marriage in low-income families. The difference in poverty by a simply uptick in marriage rates in low income communities is dramatic, a recent study showed evidence that if a girl is raised by both biological parents her risk of sexual assault before the age of 18 dramatically decreases. Children being raised with both mother &father in a healthy relationship as one socio-economic unit, has been clearly supported research. This is how I stated it for a relative this way, “Adults rights end when they conflict with the rights of children. ” I don’t believe in ‘shot gun’ weddings, but we need to build a culture focused that heterosexual leads to an obligation to children. Our government is helping.

  • SteveP

    Reader: do not be fooled by the cries of “Equality! Equality!” The institution the barbarians target is public and private pension survivor rights. In short, one way or the other, you’ll pay. Think of the correlation between one of the compromises – “domestic partner benefits” – and “offshoring.”

  • Marion (Mael Muire)

    If you have ever come across photos from a Gay Pride parade, you will, as a Catholic, or even just as a civilized human being, have found them unspeakable. It’s no wonder that the MSM have tended not to publish these photos, knowing that the general public would find them extremely repellent, and that this popular reaction would work against the LGBT-rights cause.

    I get that the MSM has portrayed the average same-sex couple as no different than June and Ward Cleaver, except, you know, they’re the same sex, and therefore maybe just a tiny bit edgier, a tad more flamboyant, maybe, but that’s it, no substantive difference. And maybe some same-sex couples are just so. But then again, maybe not. I’m reserving my judgement. I do feel certain that as the gay marriage cause transforms our culture more and more, and with the blurring of lines about what is acceptable vs. otherwise in public, that the proponents of the really out-there LGBT-rights cause will become increasingly emboldened, and that we will find ever more vile and licentious apparel, behavior, gestures, advertising, music, and performances encroaching more and more into the public sphere. I think these developments will be incremental in nature, and the public reaction to them will be like that of the proverbial frog in the vat of water that grows increasingly warm. Will take years and years. As this process goes on, it would not surprise me if Mr. and Mrs. Average America will find themselves increasingly without the inner resources to resist or to fight this trend, and after experiencing some mixed results to their efforts, and finding themselves continually beleaguered on all fronts, will ultimately throw up their hands, and end by becoming desensitized to it all.

    And meanwhile, the next generation coming out – straight and SSA – will embrace all these developments as ways of carving new identities for themselves, and annoying their parents. It’ll be exciting; it’ll be hip! It’ll be trendy!

    And, of course, once Madison Avenue notices that that’s the direction in which the wind is blowing, there will be no stopping the hurricane force winds of change.

    Suggestive bus ads? Overly exposed lingerie models on the covers of magazines in the grocery store? The process of public sexualiztaion and pornification of our public culture was already well underway; the public acceptance of the gay rights will provide a turbo effect to it, I think.

    Fifty years from now, it’s not going to be pretty. Maybe thirty. Maybe less.

    • kenofken

      Why is it that people who claim to be reviled by homosexuality are always the ones who view, download and analyze the freakiest pictures from gay pride parades?

      If you think gay men are responsible for the “pornification” of American, you’ve obviously never seen photos from Mardi Gras, ANY college spring break destination, or any of the literally thousands of swinger events which are almost exlusively heterosexual (and which have been going on for decades before gay men dared show themselves in public).

      • chezami

        Stop seeing! – kenofken

      • Marion (Mael Muire)

        Why is it that people who claim to be reviled by homosexuality are always the ones who view, download and analyze the freakiest pictures from gay pride parades

        I did view them. Once. About ten years ago. Didn’t know what I was doing. Ignorant puppy.

        I do know now. The insides of my eyelids haven’t stopped hissing and popping ever since.

        Learned my lesson. Will never do that again.

        Never. Until Hell freezeth over.

        If you think gay men are responsible for the “pornification” of
        America, you’ve obviously never seen photos from Mardi Gras, ANY college spring break destination, or any of the literally thousands of swinger events which are almost exclusively heterosexual (and which have been going on for decades before gay men dared show themselves in public).

        What was I thinking? Of course, gay and transgendered men being further emboldened to go public, bringing added nudity, and sexual acting-out, combined with the already extant presence of Mardi Gras, Spring Break hetero culture, is going to help roll back the pornification process that has taken hold in the West, and bring our culture Back to the Garden.

        Why didn’t I understand that before? Thank you for clearing that up.

      • jaybird1951

        Many gays consider those ‘pride’ parades to be freak shows and know full well how obscene they can be. However, they pale in comparison with what the city of SF allows on some of its streets in the Castro district during the leather and S&M ‘festivities.’ Marion did not say that gays are responsible for the pornification of America. I think she made that clear. Her concern is that it will accelerate the trend and add another element that will be pushed in the faces of the unwilling.

      • Alias Clio

        Well, no one is actually saying that gay men are responsible for the pornificaton of the world (it IS the world now, not just America).

        What people are saying is that the movement that brought about the revolution in heterosexual culture is the one that also brought about the public, compulsory embrace of gay culture, in some cases gay culture at its most extreme.

        Aren’t mayors often called bigots nowadays if they refuse to take part in gay pride parades? I’ve certainly heard of several cases like that.

  • Guest

    I am a Canadian and we had same sex marriage legislation passed by a government who swore that they would not impose this legislation. Has it affected me personally? In different ways, once government approves this type of legislation it impacts speech laws and also education. Sexual educational materials, in class reading materials, mother’s day, father’s day, and of course gsa (gay straight alliance alliance clubs). Try telling anyone that we ought not to have clubs in schools formed around sexual preferences and you will be roundly criticised. I usually say that we don’t have clubs to support people who want to have sex with animals, or sex while dressed in furry costumes or bondage sex so why have clubs with the intent to dwell on same sex attraction. Beyond that is the insistence that anyone who is not keen to support same sex marriage is a bigot or misguided or homophobic. The name calling and social pressure is very intense. I do not think that this legislation will be repealed and we are conducting a social experiment with little regard to how this will impact the greater society. More and more you see people who refuse to reveal their children’s sex so that their children can decide what gender they are. I see people who make assumptions about young children being gay and then they raise them in a manner that re-enforces that assumption so the children will define themselves that way. We now have, in Quebec, an aggressively secular government who overtly wants to supress religious instruction or symbols in any institution that is government funded. The result being that a school run by Jesuits can’t offer catechisis but only teach the relativist and frankly anti religion program designed by the government. Nuns, religious Jews, religious Muslims will not be allowed to dress according to conscience in hospitals, schools or any government building. Furthermore, approval of same sex marriage has effective silenced any rational discussion of the serious health issues facing men who have sex with men. So we suppress knowledge and reason and faith.

  • kenofken

    As an Illinois resident myself, and one with some inside connections to the gay community, I can assure this reader that there are no kristallnacht type pogroms in the works to run Catholics out of the state. It would be a little bizarre if there was, inasmuch as many of the supporters of gay marriage in and outside of Springfield are Catholics themselves. If you must flee, do so for sound reasons, like our crappy economy and public pension crisis. If the jackboots do come, I promise I’ll hide you in my attic. I had reserved it for Julian Assange, but he doesn’t get out much these days, and Snowden, well, he’s taken care of and WAY too hot for me to shelter anyway.

    Look, unless you are a same sex couple, nothing has really materially changed since the passage of this law. Nobody has to approve of anything. All the law “forces” anyone to do is to not discriminate in commerce and government functions against people because of their orientation. Gay marriage didn’t introduce that. It’s been part of the Illinois Human Rights Act since at least 2006. It’s been the law in Chicago since the late 1980s.

    Unless you’re a wedding business owner determined to fight those laws, there is just no circumstance in which you will in legal jeopardy of any kind. If you do pick that fight, you’ll become the darling of conservative Christians everywhere and probably get pro-bono lawyers and heaps of paypal donations. As far as general workplace life goes, keep it professional and deal with people based on their performance and nothing else. Their is just no upside to discussions of divisive religious discussions or people’s individual sex lives in the workplace. That would be true even if gay folks didn’t exist.

    As for peer pressure, that’s just part of life. The majority public opinion about homosexuality is at odds with the theology of your faith. That was true before gay marriage passed in Springfield and will be true for the foreseeable future. If your faith and beliefs are worth anything, they can certainly withstand public opinion. This I know from experience.

    • Marion (Mael Muire)

      “All the law “forces” anyone to do is to not discriminate in commerce and
      government functions against people because of their orientation.

      This is so patently false, that it is difficult to imagine that it’s not intentionally misleading. Because the truth is very much the opposite.

      Perhaps much of what is written here is true for adults, . . . currently launched in lives and careers of their own, and solid in their faith.

      It is, however, emphatically not true for children and young people in our public schools, who are being taught counter to the religious training that they are receiving at home. Our children and teens are being taught, or soon will be taught, that same sex marriage is the law of the land, that anyone who has a problem with this is a bigot, a homophobe, and a troglodyte.

      They are being taught in our schools that homosexual acts are medically normal, and now thanks to these laws, legally permissible, (both of which our children are encouraged to believe trump morally objectionable and spiritually deleterious.)

      These laws normalizing homosexual acts, and raising them to the same public, legal status as marriage, have already begun and will continue to make it difficult for parents to train children up in the way that they should go. These laws will form for our children and grandchildren a world more and more at odds with the world God had in mind when He created it. In no way can this state of affairs be brushed aside or minimized by parents or grandparents who care about their progeny’s future or that of our country.

      • FrMichael

        Let the Church say Amen to this comment! Anybody who thinks that same sex marriage will have no effect on Catholics obviously doesn’t have their kids in public schools. As a parish priest, I have seen what happens when devout Catholic families send their kids to public schools where this sub-demonic propaganda is promulgated. Younger kids get puzzled by the conflicting messages between the Church and parents on one hand and the school on the other. Teens resolve the discrepancy by becoming pro-LGBTQ dissenting Catholics, assuming they don’t become amateur atheists.

  • Pharisee

    Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”

    Jesus never fought Caesar. He proposed an alternative.

  • Renee

    Sorry to add another comment, but I’ve been in Massachusetts my entire life and plan on staying here. .

    So when I wrote about living in Massachusetts and defending the concept behind the old definition of marriage, at times I would find those who would disagree with me actually agreeing with my moral premise. I even wrote to Senator Elizabeth Warren on the issues, without of course using the term marriage and received a positive response from her office.

    Defending Marriage in Massachusetts, here is a quote from someone I know personally but disagrees with me.

    ““You’re calling out a major societal problem that people are uncomfortable discussing, and that doesn’t lend itself to trendy bumper stickers, school clubs, or Hollywood-type backing.Talking about fatherless isn’t cool, or sexy, or exciting. As you said here in the post, it can lead you to be branded in some not-so-nice ways, because it veers into weighing in on the “social issues.”
    Still, it’s a major problem, and it’s tied to so many other social ills.
    I look at public speech as courageous when it goes against the grain, or makes people uncomfortable.
    Sometimes people work themselves up into righteous indignation regarding policies and issues, but if no one is really taking the other side, it’s hard to see the justification for that…even as someone who supports full equality for gays, I admit that’s not very courageous, because it’s very *easy* for me to say that where I live and work.”

    Even if people disagree with you, they will also defend you if they know not only where you stand but also why you hold it beyond just because you’re a Catholic.

    Remember marriage matters, and always will. It is just a matter of communication, we can not have a name for it in any discussion. So you just have explain yourself for a couple of minutes, instead of just saying I support marriage because no one will know what you are talking about or assume you are obsessing with hating homosexuals.

  • Elmwood

    in as much as homosexuality is unnatural, it will be unable to replace what is universally accepted as good and beautiful. same sex marriage looks totally silly–you can’t make something ugly and stupid into something beautiful and good.

    my bet is while the homosex lobby is well funded and loud, they can’t make everyone gay. it will always be a few percent of the population. the biggest problem is that they now will raise children. it’s really more of a symptom of a problem rather than the problem. That problem is that man has turned into himself because of a culture of death and selfishness.

  • SM

    Thanks Renee for posting this great quote: “You’re calling out a major societal problem that people are uncomfortable discussing, and that doesn’t lend itself to trendy bumper stickers, school clubs, or Hollywood-type backing. Talking about fatherless isn’t cool, or sexy, or exciting.”

    Unlike the gay “marriage” movement, people who decry
    fatherless have no poster children. I was a child of divorce (my father left
    the family when I was in Kindergarten), and we have no voice whatsoever.

    Children learn quickly that saying something along the lines
    of “I’m sad because other kids have their mom and dad and I don’t” will incite
    sadness or anger in their parents, the people responsible for their very survival.
    Even now, as a young adult, I am hesitant to speak publicly about the
    disastrous effects of divorce for fear of hurting my mother and pissing off my
    father. Rosie O’Donnell once stated that her young son told her he wanted a
    daddy. That poor child—how is that any less tragic than a kid in the ghetto who
    cries because he never gets to see his deadbeat dad?

    It is quite easy for my upper-middle class friends to proclaim that children do not need a married mother and father and that all kids need is
    love. Like fish can’t see water, they cannot understand the enormous benefits
    they had growing up with married parents, as they do not know any different. I live in the Chicago area, and used to volunteer on the South Side. The fatherless children certainly do not lack love. Many in fact lived in a same-sex household, with their mother, aunts,
    grandmother, etc. and had plenty of adults caring for them. But it is a tragedy
    that they do not live with their fathers, and, as social science has repeatedly
    shown, a major detriment in nearly every area of their lives. If a mother is in
    a sexual relationship with another woman living in the house (as opposed to
    living with a female relative), I am supposed to pretend it is okay the child
    is denied his or her father. I refuse to do that. It is evil. I think that is
    the biggest harm of SSM. The rich will continue to get married (and stay
    married) and then have children, as they know that is the smart thing to do.
    And as our elites continue claiming it is not that important for children to be
    raised by their mother and father, and that marriage has nothing to do with
    babies anyway (a message powerfully reinforced by SSM), the poor will continue
    to have their kids out of wedlock and experience low marriage rates and high
    divorce rates. And the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.

    • Renee

      Amen.

      A ‘kickstarter’ documentary, Daddy Don’t Go is in the works.

      Also right in the Seattle are ‘Father-Shift’ movement.

      “”People will need to jump on board [the Father-Shift movement] because the cost of not doing so is far too much to bare. We’ve already seen it in our communities, with gangs and the like,” Bambolo said.

      He added, “We are taking our eyes away from marriage as the prominent source for keeping health in our society. We want to get fathers back on board to fight for their family. We can flip this script so easily by getting fathers more engaged and back to point as to how important they are to the home. Not to dominate, but to make sure they are treating their wives and their children the right way.””

      There is definitely still a conversation out there on the other ‘marriage inequality.’ If you sift through a lot of public policy briefs from the child welfare administration run by the US government, it is all there just waiting for the law makers to utilize it.

      The underlying concern remains, and I won’t be dragged down with a pissing contest. I really care about my community and the impact of fragile homes. I can’t use the term, marriage. Well OK, I work under the radar to help stabilize families wherever I can.

    • kenofken

      The overwhelming majority of fatherless kids are in that state because their straight fathers either didn’t step up to the plate or got divorced. That will continue to be the case post gay marriage. The abandonment of marriage as an institution – forgoing it altogether – has nothing to do with homosexuals. They are the only demographic that shows any enthusiasm for it these days. I’m not sure how that will translate to more straight couples having kids out of wedlock. The rich, btw, are not especially good at staying married.

      In equating the plight of ghetto kids and Rosie O’Donnell’s kids, you are papering over the enormous factor of poverty in outcomes. These kids live in grinding poverty in no small part because their fathers don’t pay child support or hold jobs, not simply because they aren’t present in the house. The problems are compounded by the culture created by multi-generational poverty. We’re talking about a culture where girls are expected to get pregnant by 14 or 15, a culture which expects its boys to go to prison (or be shot) at young ages. We’re talking about school systems which graduate a bare majority from high school and in which even the most promising students are rarely prepared for college. Few, if any, of these factors are likely to be replicated by same sex couples, who are, on average, much more educated and higher earning than their straight counterparts, and usually worlds apart from single moms in Lawndale or Englewood.

      • Renee

        Why are are we using terms culturally that have no connection. Even if I accept two men who love one another, I wouldnt call it matrimony. ‘Matri-’ is Latin for mother. If we are to accept same-sex relationships, our culture should develop our own way to express it.

        The gay lobby is just that, a lobby. Take away the issue, they lobby acts like Monsanto. So weird when I see ‘Dupont’ come out in support of gay marriage. What is up with the evil corporate sponsorship for gay marriage?

        Back to the fatherless concerns when two women use a sperm donor, that child is fatherless. That was the case of Goodridge here in Massachusetts. The couple was divorced 800 days later. The law here in Massachusetts have has two standards for the rights of children. If naturally conceived though male/female sex, you have rights to both sides of kin. Even if a child ends up in foster care, rights to kin is a priority. Yes, even gay kin!

        But if you are conceived in a lab by contract, you have no rights. No matter who contracts out your existence. “Refund if you don’t take a baby home”, they advertise. Before we address our fatherless issues we need to ban sperm/egg donation first.

        Gay couples aren’t marrying or adopting, at the rates they seem to appear. Sorry. The media does a GREAT job with the false narrative. Here in Massachusetts, the children in foster care waiting for adoption are ‘gasp’ allowed to discriminate on the type of family they want. Many desire mom & dad, some older siblings, and some don’t care either.

        The child ultimately picks the family, not the other way around in these situations.

        • kenofken

          We should have different cultural terms for marriage, and we do. We have civil marriage, which is nothing more than a civil union, and which is not and never has been beholden to religious doctrine. We have sacramental marriage, which is according to the doctrine of the religion administering it, and which should have no connection to civil law.

          The gay lobby IS of course a lobby. So is NOM. So is any interest group purporting to represent anyone’s vote but the individual doing the lobbying. They advocate the interests of their constituent members or in the case of companies like Monsanto, their shareholders. Why do big corporations advocate for gay marriage or at least gay friendly human resource policies? Because it is in their interests to do so. It attracts and retains some of the best talent in many fields. That’s not evil. It’ smart.

          If there are issues that need to be addressed with artificial insemination/surrogacy, by all means, let’s address them. But let’s not pretend its an inherently gay issue. I very much doubt you’re ever going to see the hetero majority cave in to bans on egg/sperm donations.

          The rate at which gays marry or adopt is irrelevant to the underlying rights. There is clearly a degree of enthusiasm, but the rates don’t mean a thing. The implication is that gay marriage is just a political goal, not a real thing, so we should just cancel it. We don’t impose a “use it or lose it” minimum quota for any other group. Out of wedlock cohabitation and/or births are near universal in some segments of the population. Should we rescind legal recognition of marriage for certain income or ethnic demographics because they aren’t taking sufficient advantage of those rights?

          I guess it’s great that foster kids have a say in their situation. If kids should have a right to choose their parents, I should have held out for a family that summers in Marthas Vineyard and had a long Harvard legacy….

          • Marion (Mael Muire)

            “Marriage” – the union of one man and one woman, for the purpose of forming a home and an environment in which to beget and rear our country’s future citizens (among other purposes) is and should be very much of interest to the state, to the society, to the government. Marriage is the matrix in which our future develops and springs forth to carry our existence as a people forward.

            Just as the government has an interest in suitable and efficient agricultural practices on our country’s farmland so as to ensure that America can feed her people, so our government has (or should have) an interest in protecting and promoting marriage and stable home lives in which future Americans may grow up.

            We can argue all day about whether children do as well in same-sex arrangements or polyamorous environments, etc. as do children in a stable home with their own mother and father. This is not my point. My point is that society does have a profound interest in protecting and promoting the matrix in which the future generations come to be and to thrive, and that the expression of that interest does reasonably include legislation and other public policy initiatives to govern it.

            It surprises me no end that people understand the general reasoning behind the existence of OSHA regulations, and federal rules about the safety of food additives, the engineering of interstate highways, requirements for the thickness of the plastic wrapping in which cuts of beef are stored and shipped, but they don’t get why the state should be involved in marriage.

      • Renee

        Kenofken,

        What about fathers who leave the family to be with another man? Yes, I have that situation in my neighborhood. And yes the father came out in high school, but married a woman latee on. So there was no ‘closet’ issues. Great dad, except he sees his kids only on Sundays. Don’t make assumptions about orientation.

      • SteveP

        “. . . same sex couples, who are, on average, much more educated and higher earning than their straight counterparts . . .”

        In other words, Squealer’s words, “we are superior – self-separating but not equal.”

  • Gabriel Blanchard

    I live in Maryland, which has had gay marriage for a little while now, and have seen little impact on my own life. I know a handful of gay couples personally who are now legally married, but I don’t feel that my relation to them has been altered. I was frustrated and upset by DC’s implementation, which resulted in Catholic Charities closing down their adoption services; I don’t know whether or to what extent the same possibility is being faced in Maryland (I haven’t heard anything about it).

  • Marion (Mael Muire)

    The message that is sent by society embracing the concept of same-sex marriage, is that the roles of biological mothers and biological fathers are of no importance and that these roles are expendable in the lives of children and families. This is a lie: the roles of biological mother and of biological father are by no means expendable, but are of vital importance to the physical, intellectual, and spiritual development and well-being of children and teens.
    That many children lose access to the care and provision of a biological mother or a father – through death, through divorce, through promiscuity – is a fact, but a tragedy, and a tragedy which is a societal burden>/I> that is our responsibility to bear to the best of our ability so that the deleterious effects of the loss of a parent are ameliorated for these children, as much as possible.
    That the effects of a scenario featuring such a loss may be to some extent ameliorated for children, does not render the scenario in any way
    socially desirable to perpetuate where unnecessary merely to serve the wishes of individual adult couples who find themselves unable or unwilling to enter into a heterosexual marital relationship.
    Indeed, it is socially undesirable to perpetuate arrangements in which children lose access to a biological mother or a biological father, by promulgating laws which proclaim to our society at large (which laws do) that a biological mother or father is an expendable commodity in a child’s life. Such a definition must sooner or later undermine for men and for women the devotion and dedication they must bring to the responsibilities of parenthood.
    Such laws redefining marriage are going to prove nothing other than a pure disaster for our society.

    • Marion

      P.S. It might well be argued that laws making divorce for heterosexual married couples with children easy to obtain, also undermines the societal regard for the roles of mothers and of fathers. And this they do! And the Church has steadfastly opposed such divorce laws, but the larger culture has either supported them or at least tolerated them, so that now we have a fifty percent divorce rate among heterosexual married couples. And this has been a disaster, as well!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X