Looking for a Faithful Catholic University? There’s a Guide for That!

Looking for a faithful Catholic university? The Cardinal Newman Society has a guide for that.

I am pleased to say that Oklahoma’s St Gregory University is on the list.

The Newman Guide to Choosing a Catholic College lists a variety of schools, with different educational emphasis and approaches. From my viewpoint, the major problem with all these schools is that they cost more than most Catholic young people can afford. This certainly is not unique to Catholic higher education.

One criterium that I personally hold is whether or not the school has joined the lawsuits against the HHS Mandate. At least one of these universities is a late-comer to the party on that. So far as I’m concerned, that would be an important factor in deciding where to put my tuition dollars. 

For now, remember that it’s important to read the guide carefully and use it as what it calls itself — a guide — to find a school that fits your goals and needs.

To order a copy of the guide, go here.

From the Cardinal Newman Society:

The Cardinal Newman Society recommends for your consideration all of the colleges and universities in this Guide, because of their commitment to providing a faithful Catholic education. The Newman Guide is a great first step in your college search, but no guide can identify the college that is the best fit for a particular student.

All of the fine institutions recommended in this Guide are unique, each with have their own special charism, approach to education, and campus culture. For instance, some of the colleges immerse students in every aspect of faithful Catholic life “from the classroom to the dorm room,” as we like to say. The students at these colleges tend to be mostly or entirely Catholic and motivated by their faith.

On the other hand, some of the other colleges, while fully and faithfully Catholic, serve a more diverse group of students. At these institutions the Catholic culture will tend to be less intense or overt. This is typically more apparent in student activities and dorm life than in the classroom.

Also, many of the Newman Guide colleges are liberal arts institutions, while several others offer a wide variety of majors. Some have extensive athletics and club activities; others favor a quiet atmosphere for contemplation and study. Some have a strong core curriculum that may run through all four years of an undergraduate program, while others offer students a choice of electives and encourage specialization. Some allow opposite sex visitation in dorms, while others do not. In general, one type of institution may not be better than the other. But one type may be better for your unique needs.

West Coast Walk for Life: Archbishop Cordileone Asks Young People to Defend Life and Marriage

SJC photo resized

Archbishop Cordileone called on young people at the West Coast March for Life to defend both the sanctity of human life and the sanctity of marriage.

His message is especially powerful, coming as it does from an area of the country in which much of the population appears to be hostile to traditional values.

I see Archbishop Cordileone’s statement as the first of what will grow into a movement in the future. Promoters of gay marriage often tell us that in a few years, people will look back on those of us who support traditional marriage and say that we were on the wrong side of history.

Not so, my friends.

In future years, the struggle for traditional marriage will still be on-going. Like the pro-life movement, it will grow stronger as the debacle we have brought on ourselves becomes more apparent.

The first step is for Christian people to reclaim the sanctity of marriage in their own lives. This means that Christian spouses should keep their vows to love and cherish one another, forsaking all others.

From The National Catholic Register:

SAN FRANCISCO — A massive crowd stretching out for a mile in sunny downtown San Francisco showed the growing momentum of the Walk for Life, which celebrated its 10th anniversary for participants from across California and neighboring states.

On Jan. 25, more than 50,000 people gathered in front of San Francisco City Hall, and the diverse crowd included a mix of ages and ethnic and religious groups, with songs and prayer in English and Spanish.

Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, during hishomily at the Mass proceeding the rally, congratulated the young people present for embracing the pro-life movement and for joining the hundreds of lay activists, priests, women and men religious and seminarians at St. Mary’s Cathedral.

“The steadily expanding presence of young people at the Walk for Life, he said, underscored a new generation’s awareness that abortion harms rather than helps women.

“Forty years and 58 million abortions later, the very painful truth has come to light: Yes, abortion does hurt women,” said Archbishop Cordileone.

The San Francisco Church leader credited an older generation of pro-life activists with helping to change the nation’s view of abortion and demonstrating “heroic virtue” during past decades when those who challenged the legalization of abortion were stigmatized. Now, he warned the students at the cathedral, they must help enlighten their own peers about the central role of marriage as the sanctuary of life.

“The pro-life movement is about more than saving the life of the baby,” said Archbishop Cordileone.

“It’s especially about connecting that baby to where he or she came from: the mother and the father. …There is no other institution that does that.”

… Archbishop Cordileone urged the young Catholics at the cathedral to stay “close to Christ” as they seek to present the truth about marriage.

“Future generations will understand that the natural truth of marriage benefits everyone and discriminates against no one,” he predicted.

“But prepare yourselves: It will require heroic virtue, for there is a lot of reverse bullying going on these days.”

 

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-cordileone-asks-young-pro-lifers-to-defend-life-and-marriage/#ixzz2riMUp6do

 

Oklahoma Lawmaker Files Bill to Ban Marriage

24543033 BG1

You gotta admit. I do have an interesting job. 

One of my colleagues in the Oklahoma House of Representatives has filed a bill that would make marriage illegal in Oklahoma. He says this is a way to keep gay marriage out of the state and satisfy the Constitution. 

I’m not going to comment about this right now. I may have to vote on it. And I definitely will be hearing about it in more detail in the next few days. 

In the meantime, I’m going to toss it out there for Public Catholic readers to chew on. Remember: No name-calling or verbal fisticuffs. 

Enjoy.

From Oklahoma’s Own News 9:

OKLAHOMA CITY -

State lawmakers are considering throwing out marriage in Oklahoma.

The idea stems from a bill filed by Rep. Mike Turner (R-Edmond). Turner says it’s an attempt to keep same-sex marriage illegal in Oklahoma while satisfying the U.S. Constitution. Critics are calling it a political stunt while supporters say it’s what Oklahomans want.

“[My constituents are] willing to have that discussion about whether marriage needs to be regulated by the state at all,” Turner said.

Other conservative lawmakers feel the same way, according to Turner.

“Would it be realistic for the State of Oklahoma to say, ‘We’re not going to do marriage period,’” asked News 9′s Michael Konopasek.

“That would definitely be a realistic opportunity, and it’s something that would be part of the discussion,” Turner answered.

Such a discussion will be made possible by a current shell bill — something that can be changed at almost any time to react to upcoming rulings on Oklahoma’s same-sex marriage ban.

“I think that, especially with issues like this, [these lawmakers are] out of touch with most Oklahomans,” said Ryan Kiesel, ACLU Oklahoma executive detector.

Cough. “Women’s Health” Looks a Lot Like the Old Double Standard.

MP900321069 300x214 1

Oklahoma is having a bit of a kerfluffle over the morning after pill.

On one side, we have a law that passed last session, simply requiring a prescription for the morning after pill for minors.

On the other side, we have the self-appointed, self-annointed arbiters of a narrow and monstrously patriarchal ideology of feminism that says that women’s human rights center entirely around the pelvic region. The whole purpose of “women’s health” and “women’s rights” as they are pushed by these people, is not the welfare of young girls. It is making them sexually available.

The pink-shirted spokespeople for this viewpoint hold that every girl needs to dose herself with dangerous chemical forms of birth control. If that fails, every girl must then avail herself of even more dangerous and higher dosages of chemicals in the form of the morning after pill. If that fails, well, then, it’s off to the abortion clinic.

And then, I suppose, back into the back seats of cars.

Because, you see, “everybody” has sex at 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, whether they want to or not. And “everybody” needs to make sure that this sex they’re having in this randomized, callous hook-up culture that deprives them of intimacy, tenderness and caring is “safe.” 

Safe, I wonder, from what? And safe for whom?

Anytime we talk about the “teen pregnancy problem” in this country, the talk is all about how to dose young girls with as many hormones as we can possibly get into their young bodies. While Oklahoma argues about niceties like required prescriptions, New York is passing these same drugs out to school girls like candy.

Because, you see, it is well-known that we have a “teen pregnancy problem,” and the cause of this problem is that young girls aren’t properly dosed up with hormones. It has nothing … I repeat; nothing … to do with the fact that young girls in our society no longer feel free to say “no” to sexual advances.

It also has nothing to do with the fact that young girls (and boys) are so Daddy deprived, so hungry for anything that passes for male approval, that they do not have enough self to stand against the tide of exhortations, “education,” peer pressure and constant drum beat of messages from the media to demand what they want.

And what do they want? I would guess that young girls want what every other person on this planet wants: To be valued for themselves. The sick sadness of teaching them that they should search for this in random sex is beyond comprehension. 

How is pushing dangerous chemicals on them anything other than an attack on young girls’ health? How is encouraging them to be sexually available and taking away their freedom to say no anything other than a blatant destruction of their developing sense of self? 

How does targeting young girls as the way to deal with the “teen pregnancy problem” as if it was their problem alone manage to become women’s rights? Isn’t it obviously … and I say again, obviously … just the old sexual double standard all dressed up in a money-making bonanza for the people who run the bogus sex education classes and make money off pushing chemical birth control with an abortion chaser on our school kids?

This is not “women’s health.” It is also not “women’s rights.” 

It’s the double standard, in all its dehumanizing, death-dealing force, come back around again. 

This article from a few months ago, describes the situation. From the Daily Mail:

Hooked on the morning after pill

It used to be a last resort. Now a generation of young women use it as their regular contraceptive – with potentially devastating consequences

 

By JULIA LLEWELLYN SMITH

 

Tania Mirmothari was worried sick. The previous night, the 19-year-old from Wakefield, West Yorkshire, had had yet another drunken one-night stand.

Carefree at the time, the following morning she’d woken with a thumping hangover, horrified at the realisation she might be pregnant.

There was only one thing for it: Tania went to her local walk-in health centre and asked for the morning-after pill.

 
Risk-takers: Tania Mirmothari (left) and Helen Tsingos regularly take the morning after pill
 
 

Risk-takers: Tania Mirmothari (left) and Helen Tsingos regularly take the morning after pill


As she sat in the waiting room, she cringed with humiliation. Shockingly, this was Tania’s fifth visit that year. Four other times in the past 12 months she’d found herself sitting, red-faced, in the same clinic, waiting for her prescription. 

 

‘I look back with shame,’ says Tania, who is now 22, and in a long-term relationship while training to be a social worker. ‘I was just out getting drunk, messing about and being stupid, having one-night stands with boys who did not mean anything to me.


‘But going to the walk-in centre, I started to feel really embarrassed. I saw the same lady each time and she recognised me. I dreaded having to ask for the prescription, but then, what could I do?’

Many might argue that, actually, there were quite a few things Tania could have done: not drinking herself into oblivion every weekend was one; not falling into bed with a stranger another; and using contraception a third.

Like a growing number of young girls in our binge-drinking culture, however, such precautions would be abandoned around the time of her fifth vodka and coke.


‘I have friends who’ve taken it three times in one month. There’s so much pressure on us to be sexually active’

And at the back of her inebriated mind was the knowledge that, whoever she woke up with the next day, she’d be able to get hold of the morning-after pill just as easily as a paracetamol — or the next round of drinks.


Not so long ago, the morning-after pill was viewed very much as a last resort, described by health professionals as ‘emergency contraception’. It was designed for use in the rare event of regular contraceptives failing. But since it was made readily available over the counter 11 years ago, not to mention being increasingly accessible online, young women like Tania are taking it not in emergencies, but whenever it suits them, as their preferred method of contraception.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2142089/Hooked-morning-pill-It-used-resort-Now-generation-young-women-use-regular-contraceptive–potentially-devastating-consequences.html#ixzz2rdDI9PuP 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Convos with My Three-Year-Old: The Leaves

I love these. They are so true.

YouTube Preview Image

My Drug Addict Family Member and the Witching Hour

Witchinghour32

I called it the Witching Hour.

Toddlers melt down at around 5pm every single day. This fact is well known to stay at home moms and other peculiar people who spend a great deal of time with little children.

Just about the time you are up to your elbows in getting supper on the table, the babies start cranking out tantrums, whines, arguments and fights. It’s as if someone put crazy drugs in their afternoon snackies.

Nobody told me about the Witching Hour. Like so much about raising little children, I had to learn it the hard way. But once I got it figured out and took the This-is-gonna-happen-so-put-your-foot-down-and-slide attitude, it became manageable.

I thought I was through with all that when my kids grew out of it.

But I find that I am once again caring for a toddler, and the Witching Hour is back. This particular toddler is approaching 90 years of age and has a random memory of having once been an independent, free-wheeling adult. She remembers that she once paid her bills, balanced her check book and fought all my battles.

She is my mother, and I love her so much it makes my teeth ache.

The Witching Hour evidently applies to elderly toddlers as much as it does baby toddlers. Every day at about 5 my mother melts down. She doesn’t roll on the floor and wail the way babies can do. Her tantrums take the form of hand-wringing anxiety and fear. If she doesn’t find something to hang this anxiety and fear on, I can distract her out of it. But thanks to the the occasional slip-up, or, more often, the family drug addict who has no conscience about ripping off her elderly grandmother, there are days this becomes impossible.

One day this week, my mother found a bill from her latest hospital stay. How she got it, I don’t know. Everyone in the family works at keeping anything that will set her off away from her. We censor her mail by lifting the bills and any advertising that looks like something she might think was a threat (she’s amazingly creative at interpreting advertising as threats) and only letting her see the harmless stuff.

For years, I wanted to end her subscription to the newspaper. Every time they said something nasty about me (there are spells where that can be an almost daily occurrence) she would warp out. I kept telling her that I didn’t care and it was fine, but she is my mother and … well … you know.

Somehow, despite our almost paranoid vigilance, she got her hands on this $35 bill from the hospital. And she warped out. It took forever for me to pry the fact that this was about a bill out of her.

We’re in a horrible mess, she kept repeating. They’re going to take everything. 

When I asked her who “they” was, she would say, I don’t know. 

When I asked her what she was talking about, she would say, I don’t know. 

She cried and begged me to take care of it. PLEASE take care of it. 

I finally figured out it was a bill. My son took it and tore it into tiny pieces, which is pretty much the way we all felt about the thing.

I was so shot by the experience I wanted to go somewhere and just curl up in a little ball. When my mother cries like that, it rips me into as many pieces as my son did that bill.

Then, yesterday, she came to me in tears, almost vibrating with fear. We’re in a horrible mess. 

The house (meaning her home where she no longer lives) is in a shambles. Those people (meaning my drug addict relative) have trashed it and now it’s on us to fix it or the government will tear it down. 

 She was crying as if her heart was broken, and scared out of what remains of her wits. We went through another round of 20 questions and I slowly pieced together that she’d gotten a call from a bill collector over yet another fraudulent bill that the family drug addict has run up in my mother’s name.

The house, so far as I could tell, was fine.

This bill-collector-calling-about-things-the family-drug-addict-has-done-in-my-elderly-mother’s-name-thing happens fairly often.

For instance, about a week ago, I got a call from the adult day care center where Mama goes while the rest of us are at work, telling me that she’d been on the phone, giving out information to somebody. When the staff person took the phone and said this lady has dementia, who are you the caller got snotty with them. I dropped everything and went to the day care center, took Mama’s phone and called the number back.

When I got the caller on the line, they wouldn’t tell me who they were, even though I have power of attorney where my mother is concerned. It’s been a long time since I’ve been that angry. I mean, these people called and hounded an elderly woman who obviously has dementia at her day care center, and then would not tell the responsible party who they were.

After a round of me losing my temper totally with them, it turned out that they were trying to collect a debt for thousands of dollars somebody has hung on my elderly mother. I don’t know for sure, but if this isn’t more handiwork by the family drug addict, I’ll be surprised.

The Witching Hour is so common that the people at the day care center have their own name for it. They call it “sun downing.”

I don’t know if it’s just about end-of-the-day tiredness, or if there’s some sort of hormonal change that occurs in our bodies at that time of day. All I know is that people at both ends of life get upset and bothered around 5pm.

If there is no call from a bill collector or threatening advertising or some paper bill that slipped into her hands by mistake, my mother just tends to spin webs at this time of day. She’s cranky and she wants what she wants, which is my attention. But she doesn’t fall apart on me.

However, if anything slips through the net we put around her, she goes out on us.

The family drug addict’s parasitical behavior is by far the most difficult for me to tolerate. Everyone else in the family works together to care for and protect my mother. Then we’ve got the family drug addict out there, trying to prey on her and actively hurting and upsetting her.

I don’t know exactly why I’m writing all this. Maybe because I am worn slick with it today (I’ve had two really emotional Witching Hours back to back.) and I need to talk about it.

I do know this, and it’s a surprise to me to learn it. Taking care of an elderly parent is, if it’s a family enterprise and you have wonderful services such as Adult Day Care, surprisingly do-able. But when one member of the family decides to become an extra burden, they can wreak havoc.

I am privileged to be able to take care of my mother. I am also blessed to have sons who, even as young men in their twenties, are completely willing to care for her, too. I see them do this, and I feel vindicated as a parent. I raised two wonderful, loving men.

As for the family drug addict, I am at my wit’s end.

Now Wait Just a Minute. If Chastity Applies to Nuns, It Also Applies to Priests.

I haven’t written about this particular story because it seemed like just one of those things.

You know. People fail.

Christianity, as I live it, is largely a matter of falling down and getting back up to try again. That’s why we have confession. It’s why we need to be kind to one another about our various weaknesses. Because we are all sinners who are bound to fail. None of us gets out of that.

So, when I read the story about the nun in Italy who had a baby, I basically just thought that she needed mercy and probably some help with her baby. I did not see it as the worst — or even close to the worst — thing that I had heard that day, much less ever in my life.

Then, today I was reading through some headlines and I saw that a local Italian bishop has called for the nun to “leave her convent in the North of Italy after breaking her vow of chastity.” (Emphasis mine.)

My reaction to that was an immediate and heartfelt Wait a minute buddy.

I agree that now that the sister is also a mother, her first responsibility is to her child. I think she should rejoin secular life (not be cast out, but helped to do this) so that she can devote herself to full-time motherhood. I also think it would be nice if dear old dad stepped up and took responsibility for his child, too.

Just for the record, and even though nobody has asked me, I want to say that priests and men religious who father children should also rejoin the secular world and take up their responsibility to their child. That includes marrying the mothers of their children and forming a Christian family in a stable, Christian home.

So I was ok with the idea that Sister/Mama needs to leave religious life and take care of her new baby.

But … kick her out because she has broken her vow of chastity????

The day Bishops start sending priests and men religious back to private life for breaking their vows of chastity, we can talk about that.

Not before.

I’m not going to go off on a rant about priests and men religious here. That’s really not the point.

What I am saying is drop the self-righteous, hypocritical double standard.

Chastity isn’t just for women. Men are called to chastity and are just as culpable when they violate it as the other half of humanity.  So long as priests are forgiven for violating their chastity and allowed to return to ministry, that same standard should apply to the sisters.

That’s just the way it is.

 

Gay Marriage, the Rights of Children, and Religious Liberty

I’ve received permission to reprint Ryan Anderson’s testimony concerning gay marriage in full. The video of his testimony is below the printed version of it.

I think Mr Anderson makes excellent points in this testimony.

Several commenters who responded to links to it in an earlier post made claims that gay marriage doesn’t change anything. In truth, wherever gay marriage has been legalized, there has been a concomitant attack on the conscience rights of small business people and individuals. We’ll explore that a bit next week.

In the meantime, the links Mr Anderson gives in the written version of his testimony also address those assertions.

From The Witherspoon Institute, courtesy of The Heritage Foundation:

I will be speaking today from the perspective of political science and philosophy to answer the question “What Is Marriage?” I’ve co-authored a book and an article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy with a classmate of mine from Princeton, Sherif Girgis, and with a professor of ours, Robert George. Justice Samuel Alito cited our book twice in his dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court case involving the Defense of Marriage Act.

The title of that book is “What Is Marriage?” An answer to that question is something we didn’t hear today from people on the other side. It’s interesting that we’ve had a three-hour conversation about marriage without much by way of answering that question.

Everyone in this room is in favor of marriage equality. We all want the law to treat all marriages equally. But the only way we can know whether any state law is treating marriages equally is if we know what a marriage is. Every state law will draw lines between what is a marriage and what isn’t a marriage. If those lines are to be drawn on principle, if those lines are to reflect the truth, we have to know what sort of relationship is marital, as contrasted with other forms of consenting adult relationships.

So, in the time I have today, I’ll answer three questions: what is marriage, why does marriage matter for public policy, and what are the consequences of redefining marriage?

Marriage exists to unite a man and a woman as husband and wife to then be equipped to be mother and father to any children that that union produces. It’s based on the anthropological truth that men and women are distinct and complementary. It’s based on the biological fact that reproduction requires a man and a woman. It’s based on the sociological reality that children deserve a mother and a father.

Whenever a child is born, a mother will always be close by. That’s a fact of biology. The question for culture and the question for law is whether a father will be close by. And if so, for how long? Marriage is the institution that different cultures and societies across time and place developed to maximize the likelihood that that man would commit to that woman and then the two of them would take responsibility to raise that child.

Part of this is based on the reality that there’s no such thing as parenting in the abstract: there’s mothering, and there’s fathering. Men and women bring different gifts to the parenting enterprise. Rutgers sociologist Professor David Popenoe writes, “the burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender-differentiated parenting is important for human development and the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable.” He then concludes:

We should disavow the notion that mommies can make good daddies, just as we should the popular notion that daddies can make good mommies. The two sexes are different to the core and each is necessary—culturally and biologically—for the optimal development of a human being.

This is why so many states continue to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, many doing so by amending their constitutions.

So why does marriage matter for public policy? Perhaps there is no better way to analyze this than by looking to our own president, President Barack Obama. Allow me to quote him:

We know the statistics: that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of school, and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.

There is a host of social science evidence. We go through the litany and cite the studies in our book, but President Obama sums it up pretty well. We’ve seen in the past fifty years, since the war on poverty began, that the family has collapsed. At one point in America, virtually every child was given the gift of a married mother and father. Today, 40 percent of all Americans, 50 percent of Hispanics, and 70 percent of African Americans are born to single moms—and the consequences for those children are quite serious.

The state’s interest in marriage is not that it cares about my love life, or your love life, or anyone’s love life just for the sake of romance. The state’s interest in marriage is ensuring that those kids have fathers who are involved in their lives.

But when this doesn’t happen, social costs run high. As the marriage culture collapses, child poverty rises. Crime rises. Social mobility decreases. And welfare spending—which bankrupts so many states and the federal government—takes off.

If you care about social justice and limited government, if you care about freedom and the poor, then you have to care about marriage. All of these ends are better served by having the state define marriage correctly rather than the state trying to pick up the pieces of a broken marriage culture. The state can encourage men and women to commit to each other and take responsibility for their children while leaving other consenting adults free to live and to love as they choose, all without redefining the fundamental institution of marriage.

On that note, we’ve heard concerns about hospital visitation rights (which the federal government has already addressed) and with inheritance laws. Every individual has those concerns. I am not married. When I get sick, I need somebody to visit me in the hospital. When I die, I need someone to inherit my wealth. That situation is not unique to a same-sex couple. That is a situation that matters for all of us. So we need not redefine marriage to craft policy that will serve all citizens.

Lastly, I’ll close with three ways in which redefining marriage will undermine the institution of marriage. We hear this question: “how does redefining marriage hurt you or your marriage?” I’ll just mention three in the remaining time that I have.

First, it fundamentally reorients the institution of marriage away from the needs of children toward the desires of adults. It no longer makes marriage about ensuring the type of family life that is ideal for kids; it makes it more about adult romance. If one of the biggest social problems we face right now in the United States is absentee dads, how will we insist that fathers are essential when the law redefines marriage to make fathers optional?

Much of the testimony we have heard today was special interest pleading from big business claiming that defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman would make it hard for them to appeal to the elite college graduates from the East and the West coasts. We heard no discussion about the common good of the citizens of Indiana—the children who need fathers involved in their lives. Redefining marriage will make it much harder for the law to teach that those fathers are essential.

Second, if you redefine marriage, so as to say that the male-female aspect is irrational and arbitrary, what principle for policy and for law will retain the other three historic components of marriage? In the United States, it’s always been a monogamous union, a sexually exclusive union, and a permanent union. We’ve already seen new words created to challenge each and every one of those items.

Throuple” is a three-person couple. New York Magazine reports about it. Here’s the question: if I were to sue and say that I demand marriage equality for my throuple, what principle would deny marriage equality to the throuple once you say that the male-female aspect of marriage is irrational and arbitrary? The way that we got to monogamy is that it’s one man and one woman who can unite in the type of action that can create new life and who can provide that new life with one mom and one dad. Once you say that the male-female aspect is irrational and arbitrary, you will have no principled reason to retain the number two.

Likewise, the term “wedlease” was introduced in the Washington Post in 2013. A wedlease is a play on the term wedlock. It’s for a temporary marriage. If marriage is primarily about adult romance, and romance can come, and it can go, why should the law presume it to be permanent? Why not issue expressly temporary marriage licenses?

And lastly, the term “monogamish.” Monogamish was introduced in the New York Times in 2011. The term suggests we should retain the number two, but that spouses should be free to have sexually open relationships. That it should be two people getting married, but they should be free to have sex outside of that marriage, provided there’s no coercion or deceit.

Now, whatever you think about group marriage, whatever you think about temporary marriage, whatever you think about sexually open marriage, as far as adults living and loving how they choose, think about the social consequences if that’s the future direction in which marriage redefinition would go. For every additional sexual partner a man has and the shorter-lived those relationships are, the greater the chances that a man creates children with multiple women without commitment either to those women or to those kids. It increases the likelihood of creating fragmented families, and then big government will step in to pick up the pieces with a host of welfare programs that truly drain the economic prospects of all of our states.

Finally, I’ll mention liberty concerns, religious liberty concerns in particular. After Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington, DC, either passed a civil union law or redefined marriage, Christian adoption agencies were forced to stop serving some of the neediest children in America: orphans. These agencies said they had no problem with same-sex couples adopting from other agencies, but that they wanted to place the children in their care with a married mom and dad. They had a religious liberty interest, and they had social science evidence that suggests that children do best with a married mom and dad. And yet in all three jurisdictions, they were told they could not do that.

We’ve also seen in different jurisdictions instances of photographers, bakers, florists, and innkeepers, people acting in the commercial sphere, saying we don’t want to be coerced. And that’s what redefining marriage would do. Redefining marriage would say that every institution has to treat two people of the same sex as if they’re married, even if those institutions don’t believe that they’re married. So the coercion works in the exact opposite direction of what we have heard.

Everyone right now is free to live and to love how they want. Two people of the same sex can work for a business that will give them marriage benefits, if the business chooses to. They can go to a liberal house of worship and have a marriage ceremony, if the house of worship chooses to. What is at stake with redefining marriage is whether the law would now coerce others into treating a same-sex relationship as if it’s a marriage, even when doing so violates the conscience and rights of those individuals and those institutions.

So, for all of these reasons, this state and all states have an interest in preserving the definition of marriage as the union—permanent and exclusive—of one man and one woman.

Ryan T. Anderson is the William E. Simon Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and the Editor of Public Discourse. He is co-author, with Sherif Girgis and Robert George, of the book What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, and is a doctoral candidate in political science at the University of Notre Dame.

 

YouTube Preview Image

Archbishop Coakley Issues Statement on Judge’s Decision Overturning Oklahoma’s Definition of Marriage

My personal religious leader, Archbishop Paul Coakley issued a statement this afternoon concerning yesterday’s decision by a federal judge to overturn Oklahoma’s definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

Here, without any dissembling from me, is Archbishop Coakley’s Statement.

Coakley statement ok marriage decision

Text of the message:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Archbishop Coakley on ruling on Oklahoma marriage amendment: “Neither church nor state can alter the basic meaning of marriage”

OKLAHOMA CITY (Jan. 15, 2014) – U.S. District Judge Terence Kern yesterday ruled that an Oklahoma constitutional amendment that defines marriage as “the union of one man and one woman” violates the U.S. constitution.

The Most Reverend Paul S. Coakley, Archbishop of Oklahoma City, today said he is profoundly disappointed by the decision.

“This ruling is cause for great concern,” the archbishop said. “It thwarts the common good, which depends upon the willingness of societal leaders to uphold basic truths about our humanity. The reality of marriage as ‘the union of one man and one woman’ is just such a basic truth. The majority of Oklahomans recognize this. That Judge Kern chooses to ignore it is deeply disappointing.

“Ultimately, neither church nor state can alter the reality of marriage – but we can delude ourselves about its definition. Maintaining the illusion that genderless marriage is possible comes at a cost to all of us, though. It obscures the facts that only the union between a man and a woman brings forth children and that every child has a father and a mother and deserves to know and relate to them, even though tragic circumstances sometimes render that impossible. That we would willingly deprive children of the opportunity to grow up with mother and father is especially troubling.

“Now more than ever, I will pray for a renewed respect for the reality and the authentic goods of marriage among the leaders of our nation.”

###

New York Judge Rules that “Close Friends” Can Legally Adopt Children

Tumblr maf41fBx2i1qbr5opo1 400

Surrogate Rita Mella

Let me repeat myself:

I try to be cynical, but I just can’t keep up. 

A New York judge has ruled, by way of a “new interpretation of intimate,” that close friends may now adopt a child together.

From the National Catholic Register:

NEW YORK — A New York state judge has delivered an unprecedented ruling that says close friends who live in separate households can legally adopt children together.

“KAL and LEL are two loving adults who are both functioning as G.’s parents and have a relationship with each other built on a solid, decade-plus friendship,” stated Surrogate Rita Mella in her Dec. 27, 2013, ruling from Manhattan surrogate court.

Surrogate Mella’s ruling, “The Matter of G.,” involves two friends, living in separate households, who decided to adopt a child from Ethiopia together in 2011. According to court papers, the woman, identified as KAL, first wanted to conceive a child via artificial insemination. She then told her wish for a child to her male friend, identified as LEL, who then offered to donate his own sperm. Both KAL and LEL have been friends since 2000, and LEL’s offer meant KAL would not have to use an anonymous sperm donor. After failed attempts at in vitro fertilization, KAL and LEL decided to adopt “G.,” a 2-year-old child from Ethiopia …

 

…  “It’s madness,” Ed Mechmann, director of the family life office for the Archdiocese of New York, told the Register. “It just shows how far our society has gone once we move away from marriage as the norm, and we leave these things up to judges. It really just shows there is no limit.”

While Mella’s ruling may be unprecedented, the judge outlines the legal basis for how she came to the conclusion that close friends could adopt under New York state law. Mella noted that the state’s domestic relations law was amended in 2010 to allow “any two unmarried adult intimate partners together” the ability to adopt, alongside single persons and married couples..

But Mella said it was “difficult to identify a definitive plain meaning of [the term] ‘intimate partners,’” since the New York Legislature did not bother to define the term.

She added, “It is a relatively new phrase, and one of many imprecise terms used to describe relationships along a continuum between ‘acquaintance’ or ‘friend’ and ‘sexual partner’ or ‘spouse.’”

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/close-friends-go-ahead-and-adopt-rules-n.y.-judge?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register#When:2014-01-15%2006:25:01#ixzz2qUYI8Sd8


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X