Cardinal George Opposes Proposed Illinois Law Legalizing Gay Marriage

Chicago, Ill., Jan 3, 2013 / 04:10 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Cardinal Francis George and the six auxiliary bishops of Chicago have warned that a proposal to recognize “gay marriage” in Illinois is against the common good and will force Illinoisans to “pretend to accept something that is contrary to the common sense of the human race.”

“Civil laws that establish ‘same-sex marriage’ create a legal fiction. The state has no power to create something that nature itself tells us is impossible,” the bishops said in a Jan. 1 letter.

Cardinal George has sent the letter to every priest in the Archdiocese of Chicago, asking that the letter be distributed in parish bulletins this weekend.

Illinois State Sen. Heather Steans and State Rep. Greg Harris, both Chicago Democrats, have said they will introduce the legislation before the Jan. 9 end of the legislative session. The bill, called
“The Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act,” would change the definition of marriage under Illinois law from “between a man and a woman” to “between two persons.”

Cardinal George, in a Jan. 6 column for the Catholic New World, said the mention of religious freedom in the proposed bill is “ironic if not disingenuous.”

“Those who know that marriage is a union between a man and a woman for the sake of family will carry a social opprobrium that will make them unwelcome on most university faculties and on the editorial boards of major newspapers,” the cardinal said. “They will be excluded from the entertainment industry. Their children and grandchildren will be taught in the government schools that their parents are unenlightened, the equivalent of misguided racists.”

“Laws teach; they express accepted social values and most people go along with societal trends, even when majority opinion espouses immoral causes,” Cardinal George noted. (Read more here.)

  • Bill S

    ” Their children and grandchildren will be taught in the government schools that their parents are unenlightened, the equivalent of misguided racists.”

    Well, at least their prejudices won’t be passed on to their great grandchildren. This is the MO of the Catholic Church. It takes a stand on something, mostly based on tradition. Then it finds that it can never change its position once it states it. Then it fights with all its being to not be ignored and made irrelevant. And all the while, it thinks it will not go extinct because it has been assured that “the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. So it demonizes its opponents.

    • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

      Except it isn’t a prejudice…it’s called reality. When you hear of a same-sex couple able to conceive a child naturally, get back to me. Marriage is about protecting children, and same-sex marriage is going to finish the job of demolishing marriage and obscuring that crucial fact (although with divorce and contraception have already brought us pretty far down this road)

    • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

      I wonder if you also think it is prejudiced to tell someone who has the condition “pica” (eating things that aren’t food) that it is not food they are eating. Maybe they will get a petition started to define dirt as food, so that they don’t have to bear the disapproval of society any longer.

      I do have sympathy with you to some extent though. The time to fight this battle would have been over contraception and divorce. Since the Church largely chose not to fight those battles, marriage has already been obscured to the point where most people think marriage is just about a romantic/emotional attachment and not about children. Though, even then, nobody seems to ask themselves why the government should be giving people tax benefits for having romantic attachments to each other.

  • FW Ken

    BillS -

    Malice and slander are a particularly toxic combination, and probably aren’t the best way to sell your wares. You demonstrate, again, why gay rights advocacy (like atheism) cannot be tolerated in a healthy society. You clearly hate us, and will tolerate no dissent. Why you think you have any credibility is beyond me.

  • Bill S

    Lets just say I have no tolerance for intolerance.

    • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

      Well, at least you admit it. The left’s supposed tolerance extends only to those who agree with them.

    • Ted Seeber

      And in so doing, you’ve become an unthinking bigot.

  • Bill S

    “When you hear of a same-sex couple able to conceive a child naturally, get back to me.”

    And this would be a problem to Catholics how?

    “Marriage is about protecting children, and same-sex marriage is going to finish the job of demolishing marriage and obscuring that crucial fact (although with divorce and contraception have already brought us pretty far down this road)”.

    You’re just saying that because the Church is against it not because there is any truth to the notion that gay marriage will have any effect on straight couples or their children. Institutional homophobia. Love it!

    • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

      Of course, it will have an effect on children. You even SAID that the education would have an effect on children (“at least the prejudices won’t be passed on”). Teaching that marriage is all about romantic attachments and not about children (which is what same-sex marriage implies) will definitely have an effect on straight couples and their children. Ideas change the world.

    • Ted Seeber

      Homophobia is an invented concept by a psychiatrist who was paid to have that opinion. The fact that you hold to it makes you complicit in his bribery. Who is paying you to claim that others are homophobic?

  • Bill S

    Keep arguing that gay marriage will impact straight couples and their children. What choice do you have? You can’t go against your Church and think for yourself so you have to come up with the lamest objections to defend your faith. You have to be homophobic because your Church requires it. Disgraceful.

    • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

      I do think for myself, and that’s why I became Catholic. I’m not homophobic any more than I’m picaphobic. I guess I’m errorphobic, though, since all errors in thinking and belief will harm society.

      It was a lot easier to be not Catholic, believe me. “A dead thing goes with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it.” ~ GK Chesterton

  • Bill S

    Now that you have become Catholic, you have forfeited the right to think for yourself. For example, you must be against gay marriage no matter what your personal feelings are about it. You probably know deep down inside that it is none of your business whether same sex couples marry or not. But you are obliged as a Catholic to speak out against it.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Bill, you know this is rot, sitting in the pew every weekend as you do. Catholics are far more tolerant of opposing viewpoints than the atheists I know. No one “forfeits the right to think” when they join the Church.

  • Bill S

    I think there are people who are taking a stand against gay marriage because that is what the Church is telling them that they should do. I think that some of them have given up the responsibility to make their own moral decisions in the matter. They all can’t be as bigoted as the Pope and bishops.

    • Dan

      Good grief, our view on the gay ‘marriage’ issue is founded in reality; it takes into account the intrinsic complementarity of the sexes which can bring about new life, as well as the unitive nature of the institution. Those are *essential* (as in, they are the very essence of) to marriage. When we talk about the degradation of marriage, we’re talking about the attitudes that you seem to hold; marriage is *not* simply a convenient institution founded on simple romantic emotions; there is far more to it than that, it is an institution that arises from our very nature.

      • Korou

        If that is so, then you should be opposed to any marriage which does not have the possibility of having children; which you are, presumably, not.
        You are also working to ensure that there are people who will never be able to legally and consensually marry the people they love.

        • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

          We ARE opposed to any marriage which does not have the possibility of having children. For example, if a couple is unable to consummate their marriage, they are not allowed to get married in the Catholic Church. If a man and a woman get together and the parts are in working order, there is no way for anyone to say with 100% certainty that a child could not be conceived.

          Speaking from the perspective of civil law, it makes sense to simply limit it to a man and a woman, since that pair can conceive new life. For the government to start some kind of fertility police would be ridiculous and is not 100% true anyway (I know lots of couples who were told that they couldn’t have children, and yet they did.)

    • Ted Seeber

      And I know that you’re taking a stand FOR gay marriage because you are an unthinking heterophobic bigot.

  • Harry S

    I just read the entire thread on this. There seems to be a misconception that the definition of marriage was defined by the Church, when in all actuality, it was defined in the Law, Torah, Tanach i.e. the Old Testament of the Holy Scriptures. Since that writing, there has been no amendment, change notice or transmittal redefining marriage. In fact, it is further defined as an abomination unto the LORD.

    Also, why step around the terminology used? Don’t call it gay marriage and leave out the other gender, or, don’t even call it same-sex marriage. Come right out and call it homosexual marriage!

  • Bill S

    ” marriage is *not* simply a convenient institution founded on simple romantic emotions”

    To people living in a free country, simple romantic emotions are more than enough to make for a legal marriage. Procreation is not a prerequisite for marriage in this country.

    • Ted Seeber

      We are no longer living in a free country when bigots like you can redefine the language.

      • Bill S

        Ted,

        It is the anti-gay movement that reeks of bigotry. No one is redefining the language. For straight people, the definition of marriage remains unchanged. Gay marriage has absolutely no deleterious effect on the straight world.

        • Dennis Mahon

          Gay marriage has absolutely no deleterious effect on the straight world.
          Then why did Catholic Charities have to give up adoption services in Massachusetts?

          • Bill S

            Because Catholic Charities chose to take a bigoted position of discriminating against gay couples. Therefore, they would have no longer qualified for federal aid. Instead of giving up the aid, they chose to drop adoption as one of their services. They could have opted to give up the federal funding. I don’t see prohibitting discrimination as a condition for federal funding as a deleterious effect or a violation of Catholic Charities’ religious freedom. I once volunteered for Catholic Charities, so I have nothing against them. But the conditions for receiving federal funding are clear, and they made their choice, primarily because of pressure from the Archbishop/Cardinal Sean O’Malley.