Because I Don’t Hate Gays I am Voting AGAINST Gay Marriage…

… On May 8th North Carolinians will get to vote on the Marriage Amendment that defines marriage in the state of North Carolina between a man and a women as the only legally recognized union. You can drive through any neighborhood in Charlotte and see the topic has deeply divided neighbors, even churches. At my job I can look out my window at the Baptist church across the street and see their signs for the amendment and 4 blocks down the road is the Methodist church with signs urging it’s congregants to vote against it. You needn’t guess which sign was in my yard – the one in support of the amendment. I say “was” because it was stolen last week. So much for respecting differing opinions.

My support of the amendment means I believe in the sacramental nature of marriage. What it does not mean is that I hate homosexuals or am a bigot. Bishop Jugis wrote in his letter to the diocese “The Church believes that marriage is a faithful, exclusive and lifelong union between one man and one woman, joined as husband and wife in an intimate partnership of life and love.”

You can disagree with this, but that is what the Church teaches. The Church, that 2,000 year old institution founded by Jesus Christ himself. If I were going to take the word of an anyone over my own faulty understanding, I would have to say the Church would be the safest bet. In fact, when we come across any Church teaching we disagree with it would be prudent to ask what is wrong with my understanding instead of what is wrong with the Church. If we search the truth with humility it will be plain to see the error is our own.

Trying to emotionally hypothesize that Jesus would be for any two people in love marrying because Jesus is love and ate with sinners is, frankly, ludicrous and presumptuous. You don’t need to wonder “What would Jesus do”. Instead look at what He said and actually did. Go, and sin no more. Period. Sin no more.

And that is what the marriage amendment is. Supporting the sanctity of marriage and encouraging homosexuals to sin no more. Homosexual activity is always wrong, all the time, no matter what. If you support gay marriage you personally encourage the sin.

I encourage all North Carolinians to vote FOR the marriage amendment on May 8th.


Letter to the Diocese of Charlotte from Bishop Jugis

“The natural institution of marriage has been blessed and elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament. This means that Christian marriage is more than a contract between two persons. Because they are married in the Lord, the spouses acquire a special relationship to each other and to society. Their love becomes a living image of the manner in which the Lord personally loves His people and is united with them. Living a Christian sacramental marriage becomes a fundamental way of attaining salvation.

Because marriage offers benefits, unlike any other, to persons, to society and to the Church, the institution of marriage, as the union of one man and one woman, must be preserved and protected.”

The Bishop’s video message to the faithful

Vote FOR Marriage May 8th

When and Where to Vote – scroll down

"Pithy and so, so, true. If it were possible, I'd post a million of these ..."

#whyIstayed Why Women Stay In Domestically ..."
"All the best to you, Katrina! We'll miss you. Thanks for sharing your journey with ..."

Ten Years is a Long Run…
"Bon voyage on your new endeavours. And thank you."

Ten Years is a Long Run…
"I will miss your unique, funny, honest voice. Thank you for all the years of ..."

Ten Years is a Long Run…

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Mspollard

    Gay marriage is already illegal in North Carolina. This is just about kicking an unpopular group of people. The “we need to protect traditional marriage from activist judges” is nonsense, the amendment will be of no legal effect in the exceedingly unlikely event that a North Carolina judge decides the federal constitution requires the recognition of gay marriage. The bishops ought to be ashamed for spending their political capital on this wholly unnecessary sideshow. We have actual problems in North Carolina. I read yesterday that the church spent 100000 dollars advertising for the amendment. Shameful. There are children going to bed hungry in this state.

    • It took me 2 seconds to google the Diocese of Charlotte’s financial report of generous charitable giving in our Diocese…

      14, 499 people were fed by our food pantry in 2010… but yes, lets make blanket statements about shameful spending.

      And I am sure you have links and resources validating your claims about the monies spent for this campaign.

      • John K.

        How many more could have been fed with $100,000? Shameful.

        • still waiting on someone to produce evidence on the amount the campaign spent. And really even if they spent 1 million dollars what difference does it make. How much do you think a soul in mortal peril is worth, or do you not care about Christ’s command to sin no more? 


          • This article explains that the Charlotte and Raleigh Dioceses each spent $50,000 in donations to the “Vote for Marriage” campaign.  


          • I suspect the diocese spends that and more on pro-life materials. So again, I reiterate… 
            How much do you think a soul in mortal peril is worth, or do you not care about Christ’s command to sin no more? 

          • Perhaps the most relevant question to debate in the modern forum is “What is sin?”  It is precisely because I do care about Christ’s command that I cannot in good conscience vote for this amendment.

          • Sin is not relative. So the question is irrelevant. 

          •  Melonie – what is sin today is exactly the same stuff that was sin 2,000 years ago. When the Gentile converts were welcomed into the Church, the only requirements placed up on them (despite some local bishops’ wanting them to be circumcised and to be subject to the whole of Jewish Law) were that they not eat meat sacrificed to idols and that they abstain from all sexual immorality.

            Sexual immorality, according to the Law, was any sexual activity outside marriage, which was heterosexual by definition, and monogamous.

            Yes, there are characters in the Old Testament who broke the rules, but it’s made very clear that they broke the rules, that the rules hadn’t changed. And when Israel returned to God after periods of wandering from Him, the first things the kings are noted to have done was to have gotten rid of the trappings of the pagan “worship” that had infiltrated the Temple – including the pagan practices regarding male temple prostitutes.

            Our era has changed, and we have undreamed-of technologies now – but God does not change, and to suggest that He must change along with us is a terrible wrong.

        •  And how many could be fed if the Church sold off all it’s property, etc?  Probably quite a few, but where then would people go once the churches (and all the charitable organizations they support) are gone?  There’s a reason why the Church emphasizes both the corporal and SPIRITUAL works of mercy.

          Complaining about how much they spent on this campaign is like walking into my living room and telling me I spent too much money on icons when I could have bought toys for my kids.  That is, the spiritual is sometimes more important than the material.

        •  So – You don’t have a problem with the Replacements, Ltd. owner forking more than 2.5x that much into the opposition’s campaigning? He could’ve fed a whole helluva lot more people with all that money.

      • inwoodguy

        How much was spent settling lawsuits related to Catholic officials who repeatedly raped children and then covered it up?

        • Mary M.

           Perhaps you would also like to provide the statistics on all religious groups. It is not just the Catholic Church though one would think it was with all the media hype.

          • inwoodguy

            I know lots of gay people who are raising children, and know plenty of parents who would trust gay people to watch their children for an extended people. Most Catholics I know, in contrast, wouldn’t leave their children alone with a Catholic priest. I think that’s very telling.

          •  What it is, what is telling about it, is that it you know a lot of ignorant, foolhardy, an bigoted people.

            I’ve seen what gay parents do to their children – socializing them to be incapable of appreciating or respecting or being at ease in an orientation toward the opposite sex. I’ve seen them raise sons to be either gay themselves or to have trouble treating women with respect. I’ve seen sons hit on by their dad’s friends while Daddy just laughs at how “cute” it is. I’ve seen daughters scarred by their fathers’ homosexuality and contempt for women, unable to sustain friendships with other girls and developing attachments/attractions to gay guys (becoming “fag hags”).

            You want to hate Catholic priests? It’s your (very tragic) loss.

          • Michael

            For you to have seen these things you would have had to have been friends with these folks in their homes.  Explain yourself.

          • Garrett

            Exactly my thoughts. This person is either a social worker, an extremely nosy person who happens to have all this going on around them (which I guarantee isn’t very common since gay families aren’t to begin with), or just like to make sweeping statements. lol

          • inwoodguy

            Wow. A practicing Catholic is lecturing me on respecting people of the opposite sex?

            Your religion declares that women are de-facto inferior to men and can never be close to God.

          • Now, you are just being intentionally difficult. I thing the term is “troll”. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt bc no one can be that fundamentally ignorant.

            Your not even worth responding to anymore.  

          • Garrett

            Yikes. That was a very large sweeping statement. Have you seen gay parents do anything right per chance? 

            I’m gay…(shocker). Let’s take my parents for instance… They were (I say were because my dad came out before his death) straight, they were not perfect by your logic either, but I sure learned how to respect women and not hit on my dads friends, etc etc…Just like with any value we adhere to, we turn them off and on with emotion, like you’re doing here. Someone set you off, so you feel like making a sweeping statement against all gay parents which is ultimately bearing false witness. And you know what else? I wasn’t raised to be gay, in fact…my father suppressed being gay pretty well just for me. 😀  With that said, ALL parents of any sexuality have pros and cons. I’m more interested in the pro’s however.

        • We have a winner! It’s the laziest argument award, the Godwin’s Law for Catholics. When all else fails in a debate bring up the sex abuse scandals. 


          • inwoodguy

            Not really. The safety of children is a very relevant issue. Even most Catholics I know wouldn’t trust their children alone with a Catholic priest, which is why it’s so ironic that they’re running around talking about “what’s best for the children.” Really?!?

          • Public school teachers perpetuate more sexual crimes against children, statistically, compared to accused priests – many of whom have been found innocent and their accusers opportunistic fortune seekers. 

            So children should not go to public school based on your silliness… you know, for their safety.  

          • inwoodguy

            Public school teachers who commit crimes against children go to prison and their districts pay large damages to the victim.

            Catholic officials who commit crimes against children get promoted and protected, while their victims are warned not to go to the police. That is how the Catholic church grew into being the world’s largest trafficker in child sex (a status it retains to this very day, as it persists in defending and protecting perpetrators and providing them with fresh victims).

            The sheer chutzpah and arrogance of such a corrupt organization that targets our children having a public opinion on “morality” is breathtaking. Then again, so long as they have defenders like yourself ready to excuse the criminality, it seems they’ll be willing to continue.

          •  That is how the Catholic church grew into being the world’s largest trafficker in child sex ”

            I am afraid you will find no statistics supporting this wild emotionally charged logically unbalanced claim of yours. 

            It’s clear to see this is an emotionally charged topic but let’s not let our emotions get carried away to such an extent we confuse fact with fiction in an attempt to make any argument we make sound plausible or justified. 

            I cannot let your wild accusations against the Church stand so I offer you the true facts behind your wild claims of child sex trafficking which is a very real and horrible thing, one not to be taken lightly and one that has *nothing *to do with the Church. 


            I am going to assume you don’t know the difference between the crimes of sex trafficking and pedophilia. The provided link will help you so you can stop spreading falsehoods. 

            And again, yours is a straw man debate used to derail the discussion  from the original topic. I fell for it only because you are so clearly in error and need to be corrected . From here I will not address your attempts at changing the subject with lame accusations that you can not even provide evidence to back.

             behind your claims. 

          • inwoodguy

            Of course the facts are there.

            The confirmed child victims of the Church, worldwide, are over 2 million worldwide. They say that for every child that comes forward, there are five who don’t.

            That would put the confirmed victims at 12 million, worldwide. Of both genders (deflating your feeble attempt to blame your organization’s perversity on LGBT people).

            And you’re hunky dory with it — you support it. You even celebrate it. Wow.

          • There’s this thing called Google. If you use it looking profoundly, laughably stupid can be avoided. 


          •  Do you have kids in the public schools? Local soccer or other community sports? Protestant church youth groups?

            Each of those groups has significantly higher incidence of child abuse. I can tell you from personal observations, working in the schools, that offending teachers are allowed to quietly resign and move elsewhere, rather than facing the public revelations that go along with a firing, so a renegade teacher or librarian can bounce from system to system, seducing or molesting lots of children over the years, and basically get away with it.

            Also – irony of ironies – the victims of the big sex abuse scandal were pubescent boys of 12-15. That makes the issue one not of pedophilia or “child abuse” but of pederasty. And Pederasty is, by definition, homosexual. It was a gay problem in the Church, not a Church problem.


          • Steve Moiles

            Wow, Laura — your line of reasoning is truly disturbing.  When you read about adult men (men in their thirties, forties, fifties) having sex with 12 to 15 year old girls, do you think to yourself, “Oh, that’s not child abuse — that’s just typical heterosexuality in action.”   In case you’re wondering — MOST people would indeed regard that as child abuse, and for good reason. Yet you are, for some reason, saying it’s not child abuse when a boy of that age is abused.  You want to say, essentially, well, that’s homosexuality for you.

            Also, in case you are interested in the actual numbers (rather than your generalization about the numbers):  According to the John Jay study that was commissioned by the USCCB and released in May 2011, 73% of the victims of sexual abuse by priests were 14 or younger.  Twenty-two percent of those victims were ten or younger.  Ask any parent of a child 14 or younger whether their kid is a child or an adult, and whether people who abuse a child that age should be considered child abusers, and I bet you’ll find they see the issue quite differently than you.  Please do not blame the victims (which is, in effect, what you’ve done, arguing that those were homosexual relationships rather than sick adults preying on children — an evil situation no matter the sex of the offender).

            You’re suffering from tunnel vision if you are determined to exploit the church’s long-time cover-up of child molestation (yes, that’s indeed what it was) to argue against same-sex ADULT couples being able to enter into marriage. 

          • Steve Moiles

            Also, Laura, in case you’re thinking, “Those priests went for boys because the priests were evil homosexuals!”…. Ask yourself who (way back in the 1950s, ’60s, 70s, and yes, even the ’80s) priests had the easiest, most frequent access to.  Yes, boys — altar boys in particular.  If Fr. Smith had pulled girls out of class and spent long periods of unsupervised time with them, people would have talked.  Pull a boy out of class for a “special training session” (or supposed vocations talk, or some supposedly  fatherly advice for the fatherless boy) — and no one thought to question it.  That’s not homosexuality.  That’s a pedophile priest using the children who were readily and regularly available to him — boys. 

            May God have mercy on the bishops who enabled all of that and covered it up and lawyered up and, in many cases, lied right and left instead of picking up the phone and calling the police, as they should have.

          •  Wait a minute, Steve. There’s one additional factor in the equation here, that you’ve left out:

            The Bishops sought the counsel of SECULAR EXPERTS – Psychiatrists – on how to deal with the abuse situation.

            They were told by the psychiatrists that the priest should be sent to “therapy” for the disorder and then reassigned to a different location, away from the earlier temptation/incidence.

            That was the “conventional ‘wisdom'” of the 1970s and 1980s.

            And – I might add – much of that counsel came in the wake of the APA’s removal of “homosexuality” from the DSM – a political hijack from the gay mafia, not a scientific evidence-based decision. If the DSM had not been so altered, might we have had a different outcome? I expect so.

          • Mary

             Mental health professionals define pedophilia as sex with prepubescent children.  Ephobilia is sex with  adolescents.

            When you look at the statistics in these terms the vast majority of  abuse cases involved adolescent boys. The problem was definitely homosexuality!

            In fact the Church has spoken out about not admitting men to the Seminary with deep-seated homosexual tendencies. The Church very clearly realizes what the problem was.

            All of these cases are still child abuse and do not diminish in any the gravity of what took place, but it is extremely important to honest about identifying what the root cause was in the vast majority of cases.

          • inwoodguy

            Nope. Half the victims of the Catholic Church’s rape scandal were young girls. The victims’ advocacy groups have pointed that fact repeatedly.

    •  What? I thought feeding hungry children was now the sole responsibility of the federal government!!!

      Gay marriage is NOT illegal in NC – it is simply not recognized, no more than “common law” marriage. A Unitarian Universalist minister who serves at a commitment ceremony is not going to go to jail for doing so – she just can’t register the “commitment” (whatever the heck that means, any more) with the County Register of Deeds office.

      The money spent in supporting the Amendment is money invested in people’s moral and spiritual health, and as such is money well spent.

      I stand with my bishops (I’m kind of connected with both NC dioceses).

  • clarknt67

    Voting no on A1 does not support gay marriage.

    It’s already illegal.

    • “Unless North Carolina passes the marriage amendment, our present marriage laws are vulnerable to future legislative or judicial decisions overturning them and imposing same-sex “marriage” here. This is what occurred in several other states.

      For example, last October same-sex couples requested marriage licenses in Asheville, setting up a potential legal challenge to our existing state law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Additionally, without the amendment a same-sex couple “married” in another state could move to North Carolina and file suit, demanding to have state law recognize their “marriage” here.”

      • Mspollard

        I posted a link above to the Raleigh News and Observer story on funds given to pro and anti amendment organizations. The story is based on a review of campaign finance reform reports filed by the organizations. That is where I saw the 100000 number. I don’t think that number includes the cost of the mailer sent to every Catholic family in NC last week. I won’t change any minds here but Constitutions should not be amended lightly. they do things like protect our right to practice our faith.

      • W. Randolph Steele

        speedieg and Melissa  are right. CIVIL marriage is a CIVIL right. Marriage on it’s most basic level is a CONTRACT.  And two consenting adults should ahve the right to contract a civil marriage. i.e contract.

        At age 60 I have learned that human sexuality is extremely comlex and no one REALLY knows WHY people are the way they are.  My guess is that people are born with whatever sexuality  they have and as long they are consenting adults, I don’t care what they do or with whom they do it.
        Our Church is WAAYYY to obcessed with sex.  Agustin and Aquinas KNEW NOTHING about science and I fail to see how they could even be revelant to any discussion about human sexuality
        And yes, I DO have have gay friends and collegues and have for many years.

        • Yes, I see how having gay friends and your own personal life experiences trumps the teachings of Christ and gives you a solid argument. How silly of me to argue otherwise.   

        •  I have gay friends and colleagues, too.  What is that supposed to prove?  I can have a friend who has a different lifestyle, different political view, different religious belief and I can still like that person…even if I disagree with their particular behavior.

          Disagreeing with a behavior, even to the point of saying it is immoral, is not hatred.

          Our Church is not obsessed with sex.  Our Church is forced, time and again, to preach the truth of human sexuality to a culture that is obsessed with sex.  To a culture that has trashed and cheapened sex, marriage, and the dignity of the human person.

          Consent is not the sole criterion of the good.  I don’t know why people think it is.  If I consent to let someone strangle me to death because it’s my sexual preference, then that person shouldn’t be charged with homicide?

          • Blah

            i only can hope that someone as evil as you suffers as much as you wish to make gay people suffer with your hatred and bigotry towards them

          • And there it is… the love and tolerance oozing from the liberal left. 

            Ta da!

            Forget the glaring irony of someone preaching love wishing suffering and harm on someone who dares to have a differing opinion. Why I do believe that might just be,… dare I say it… hatred and bigotry.


          • Mary

             You’re right, Kat!

            It always amazes me how the Catholic Church is continually attacked as being bigoted, hateful and intolerant by gay activists. And yet, it is the gay activists themselves who are the least tolerant of anyone that differs from their point of view.

          • Stephanie Richer

            Blah, do you realize that by your statement you have abdicated your humanity?

          • Michael

            What do you and your gay friends like to do when you hang out with each other?

        • Stephanie Richer

          “Augustin and Aquinas knew nothing about science and I fail to see how they could even be relevant to any discussion about human sexuality.”

          You mean, they were not making babies back then?!  Tell that to Adeodatus, Augustine’s son with his lover, before he had a conversion of the soul.

  • Mary M.

    Kat, thank you for your courage in defending the amendment. 

    The Bishops are to be comended. How many “Catholics” actually know what the Church teaches about the sanctity of marriage? I dare say that the majority DO NOT.

    The Church has an obligation to teach and in particular teach those who are ignorant about Church teaching.  Anyone with a correctly formed Catholic conscience does not hate anyone; and that include anyone who identifies themselves as gay.

    What the Church cannot do is ignore and turn its back on behavior that is sinful in the eyes of God. The Church is responsible for preserving and transmitting what God has revealed and that is what she is doing in this case.

  • Speedieg1

    This is not about protecting marriage, it is about hurting gays. If it were about marriage only it would leave open the possibility of Domestic Partner arrangements, or civil unions. It is about religious bigotry toward a group of citizens and is shameful.  

    • Telling homosexuals their lifestyle is OK by voting against the amendment hurts gays more.  

      • Slohrba

         I’m sorry – but I think you have confused yourself with our Lord and Savior.  It is not up to YOU to judge other people – that is up to God.  Try to spread HIS LOVE around, instead of YOUR HATE.

        • I’m not judging, just upholding Church teaching and what the Bible clearing says. I *am* leaving the judging up to God… clearly; however, your own advice does not apply to yourself as you feel justified to judge me as a hater. 

          Yours is rabid nonsensical logic.  

        •  Telling you that God doesn’t care how you live or what you do, so long as you’re “happy” is a lie and a very hate-filled one at that. Why? Because it’s lazy. Telling you that God has laid out the blueprint for what it means to please Him as one of His people – in both the Old and New Testaments – is a lot more difficult and much more uncomfortable –

          But it’s the response that is true, and is the only loving possibility.

          Calling us “haters” is just a lazy way of trying to dismiss everyone who says something that doesn’t go along with what you want to hear.

    •  Except that where civil unions or domestic partner arrangements have been offered in lieu of marriage, those advocating for gay marriage refuse to accept it.  Which means this isn’t about “equal protection under the law” but about codifying something that people deeply disagree within in such a way that those people can be bullied using the weight of the state.

      It’s about making gay “marriage” legal so that gay rights groups have the grounds on which to sue churches, religious groups, Christian photographers, etc. into accepting and celebrating gay marriage.

  • Voting against Amendment 1 does not mean I don’t recognize and accept what the Church teaches concerning the sacramental nature of marriage between a man and a woman.  I voted against the amendment because it is nonsensical political grandstanding when what it seeks to oppose is already illegal in North Carolina.  I am firmly nauseated by the American Church’s recent campaigns and bishop-led initiatives concerning basic civil human rights and liberties in this country.  It is only because of the separation of Church and state that we even have protection under law to practice our faith;  what gives certain Catholics the idea that it is prudent or virtuous to “stand up for marriage” in a hot political climate where we do not, indeed, belong?  It’s fully ridiculous, and makes the Church look even less palatable to the people it is supposed to serve than it already does (thanks for much bigger scandals like sexual abuse by priests and this idiotic campaign to reform the American women religious.) This all makes the Church look ignorant, and I am ashamed of it.  These are very much First World Problems.  What a luxury we have such silly things to get all upset about!

    • Mary M.

       What gives “certain Catholics” the right to stand up for marriage?  Actually if someone is  Catholic and they have a properly formed conscience they should know that they should stand up for this very issue because there is a very organized effort to redefine marriage. 

      Many women religious in the United States have hijacked the faith.  The Vatican had every right to do this and it was long overdue! Enough of radical feminism and distorting what the Church teaches. 

      Anyone who understands what the Church teaches on these issues would not think the Church looks ridiculous; it is only misinformed that do.

      • Mary, my point is that Catholics who jump on this bandwagon are not really standing up for marriage (Matrimony, the Holy Sacrament of the Church) but for a discriminatory civil amendment to a secular law that has nothing to do with our sacraments.  The state, trust me, has no respect for our Catholic sacraments.  Even if this amendment is passed, which I’m fairly sure it will be, it is no reflection whatsoever on our beliefs about what marriage is.  The world already doesn’t understand what our sacrament is.  

        I suppose the next stop is campaigning to have non-Catholic churches recognize our Holy Eucharist as the only real one, and the only celebration of its kind that should be recognized by law?  And our Holy Orders?  Our Baptisms?  Why not go all the way and just make the United States a Catholic Monarchy?

        This is a matter of civil recognition.  Suppose you or I decided to get married, all within the Catholic Church, but didn’t register our marriage with the proper governmental authorities?  Would they recognize it as a legal marriage?  No.  So you see, they already don’t believe marriage is what Catholics think it is.  Standing up for this bill just furthers the secular idea of marriage as a contract between two people to share domicile and benefits.

    • Shawn

      It’s funny how you immediately complain about the sexual abuse by priest, but then you call the campaign when the Vatican tries to reform LCWR. You must be uninformed on the sexual abuse by the religious that are part of the LCWR, and that is part of the reason why the Vatican made the decision to clean them up. You’re two points contradict each other. Inform yourself,  

      If you are ashamed of the Catholic Church, for being actually Catholic, perhaps you should find a new faith that fits your “progressive”, liberal views.

    •  Wait a minute. Lumen Gentium (the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church) and Apostolicam Actuositatem (the Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity) from Vatican @clarknt67:disqus I both state that we have a twofold obligation: to take the Gospel into the World and to infuse the world with Gospel values. Political activism, including voting, is part of how we fulfill that obligation.

      There is also a problem when the Government presumes to overtake the work of the Church (social programs) – because the Government is not competent to take care of anyone.

      If we don’t belong in the “political climate,” then we don’t belong anywhere.

      What’s more, there has long been a tremendous need to reform America’s women religious, who’ve abandoned orthodox doctrine in favor of New Ageism and other heresies, who’ve abandoned Catholic moral teaching to support abortion rights (murder), contraception access, lesbianism and gay marriage, and other issues that flagrantly violate Catholic moral teaching – which does NOT CHANGE, regardless of the social climate.

      Those orders are dying out because the women willing to give their lives fully to Christ want the real thing, not something phony and pretentious like the liberal sisters are advocating. But while they’re in terminal stages, they continue to create a great deal of confusion (witness your own statements, here) and to cause a tremendous amount of damage both to souls and to society.

      These are NOT silly things – these are foundational to Eternal Life!

  • Mspollard
    • Thank you for the link. 

      • Garrett

        What is “ludicrous” is that this is even an issue for you like it affects ANY of the supporters of the ban when stories similar to that of this video are common place all over the world. Why would ANYONE feel that this type of attitude towards same sex couples is acceptable and Christian. Your harmless beliefs only reinforce the harsh beliefs of extreme individuals.   

        I have come to terms with the fact that most people don’t even know what they are fighting for anymore, they just do it because everyone else is…but put yourself in someones shoes who have had something to actually fight for and you’d change your tune really quick. 

        What if you woke one day and ACTUALLY had a legitimate  reason to protect the sanctity of marriage…where you were told you no longer had the right and just about everything in your life was affected by it. I don’t understand what is Christian about imposing your will on others whom you have nothing to do with. 

        Think about it. People who are in favor of same-sex marriage really aren’t imposing their will on anyone, they just want equality. Gay people being able to marry doesn’t make any marriage between a man and a woman any less sacred…It doesn’t turn people gay…it is merely the humane way to live. I’m sure my God would approve of this sentiment. 

        • I’m sure my God would approve of this sentiment. ”

          Luckily we don’t have to assume what God would think of same-sex “marriage” because He’s already made it clear in the Bible. 

  • Gina101

    The argument of separation of church and state means the Church can no longer hold a position publicly or financially against capital punishment, abortion, war, health care… any issue.  If the Church is to listen to Christ and be the salt and light of the earth — a city on a hill and not hidden under a bushel — it must make its stance known as commanded by Christ.  When Christ said “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s,” what is God’s is what is in alignment with the natural law.  We are not to aid what is evil in God’s eyes.  To not help advance this is to hide under a bushel.  The members of the Church, which include the clergy, are citizens individually and collectively,  and can therefore contribute financially as such.  There is nothing under the Constitution that prohibits this. 

    And there will always be the castigation of the Church to “spend money”  in  other ways,  usually to help the poor, when no one does more for the poor than the Church.  Just as Christ in His Church today is thrown this argument, so too was Christ 2,000 years ago thrown this argument:    Matt: 26:8When
    the disciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked. 9“This perfume could
    have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor. 10Aware
    of this, Jesus said to them, “Why are you bothering this
    woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 1110The
    poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me…”
    It is a beautiful thing to be compassionate towards our brothers and sisters with same-sex attraction and we are called to be so, but it is not love, charity, nor compassion to wish on them eternal death by legalizing, sanctifying, and giving them a  public “a-okay” in their mortal sins.  And when I face God when my judgment comes, I will not be responsible in helping to promote throughout the nation that which is sinful.  We are called to spread the Good News, not sin.  That wouldn’t be Christ-like.   It would be worldly.  

  • Slohrba

    Gay marriage is already illegal in North Carolina.  The amendment is unnecessary.   It truly is about HATE.  And if you are truly Christian, then you will know that God says to Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself.  It is not up to us to judge other people; it is up to God.  STOP THE HATE.  Vote AGAINST the amendment.

    • tcn

       So in order to love my neighbor, I have to wish he marches into hell? This argument is nonsensical in the true meaning of that word. It is not hate to correct someone who is falling into sin.

      Murder is illegal, too, but I don’t see just one statute about it, I see several, because there are lots of arguments that can set one free from prison even when they have committed murder. We don’t think people should be able to commit murder, so we pass several statutes to deal with the various ways the law can be circumvented. That isn’t hate–it is an attempt to prevent further sin.

    • caps lock off, please. You sound rabid.   

  • The bottom line is..most of us posting here are not denied rights in this country because of our sin!  Liars, adulterers, people who use the Lord’s name in vain, people who don’t honor their father and mother, coveters..all of these people still maintain freedom to fully participate in society.

    • You are attempting to redefine marriage. Marriage is not marriage between members of the same sex. So the “right” does not apply. 

      Voting against this amendment opens the door for religious persecution and lawsuits against persons and organizations who cannot recognize or officiate gay weddings. 


      • SomeDude382

        You’re right. Marriage is just a word. Get over it, both sides.

        • Shawn

          No it isn’t just a word, it is a sacrament or rather  a grace bestowed upon us by God.  Two people of the same sex, an animal and a person, etc. can never receive the sacrament of marriage, no matter how people try.

          •  Even in cultures where the judeo-christian view of sacrament or covenant do/did not exist, marriage has always been an important institution recognized and supported by the State. Marriage is what determined legitimacy of children and inheritance rights; it supported personal reputation and prosperity. Very practical and unromantic considerations, but important ones from a civil viewpoint.

            So calling marriage “just a word” is to be utterly detached from history and society.

          • SomeDude382

            It doesn’t have to be handled by the government at all. Inheritance can be replaced with wills and parent-to-child inheritance can stay the same. As for custody of the children, I am sure that does not have to be altered very much.

          • SomeDude382

            Then let the religion in question cover that. Sacred to you, not so sacred to someone else.

          • Shawn

            Then explain to me if marriage is just a word, then why isn’t a “civil union” good enough?

          • Zing!

          • SomeDude382

            I can settle for that if it only differs with marriage by being same-sex.

      • Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.

      • Garrett

        Do you honestly believe that there would be multiple cases of this when it’s been the religious organizations and figure heads keeping them from marrying in the first place? Harriet Tubman would be very proud if there were!  Frankly, I see more people favoring city hall and alternative churches over places that have made it clear they aren’t welcome for their choices of places to be married.

      • Johnmuir

        Words and concepts get redefined all the time as opinions change and society changes (and who has the power to define the word changes).  Words are really just what we call things.  Marriage exists in all cultures and religions – so the Catholic Church really has no monopoly on the concept.  It’s in their interest that the concept of marriage include God (the Catholic God) and apply to members of the same sex – but they have no monopoly on the word.  It’s certainly possible to imagine Buddhists or Muslims or Atheists getting married without the Catholic God, it’s certainly possible to imagine homosexuals wanting a lifelong commitment from each other … the Catholic Church has a lot of power and there’s a lot of stigma still against homosexuals so they may get their way for now …  but things can change, and words can change.

  • inwoodguy

    Voting to ban domestic partnerships and civil marriage licenses to “protect the Sacrament of Marriage” (an element of Catholic belief with no tie to government) makes about as much sense as banning practice of Catholicism to protect children from being sexually abused.

    • Johnmuir

      Is there also a “Sacrament of Divorce”?

    • Johnmuir

      It’s to protect the Church’s monopoly power over marriage.  The danger, from the Church’s perspective, is a State conferring marriages leaves them out of the picture.

  • SomeDude382

    Here is a wacky idea: abolish marriage as special status. Get the government out of marriage. It is an unnecessary facility that is not the area of government.

    •  Uh – you’re completely of the planet, here. The State – and I mean the governing body in charge, whether NC or ancient Greece or some other but obscure society in ancient history – has always had an interest in marriage. That’s as old as civilization itself.

      • SomeDude382

        Not a reason to not change it for me.

  • km

    Both sides are looking at this issue all wrong. Marriage should be defined by the couple and/or their church. As a Catholic, I do believe in the Church’s definition,  but I do not believe the Government has the right to define marriage. In the eyes of the State, every committed partnership should be a “civil union”. We shouldn’t have to pass laws that define the relationship between two people. I accept and value that I live in a country that has differing cultural and religious viewpoints. This debate has gotten out of control however and their must be a compromise of some sort. If your against it, your a hate-filled bigot, if your for it your anti-Christian leftist pig. I am so sick of this mudslinging.  

  • Stephanie Richer

    Kat, if I may?

    This post inspired me to give thought to this.  I note that the point about the difference between civil marriages and sacramental marriages was made here.  I admit, that is a struggle for me as a lawyerwho has sworn to uphold the Constitution – I agree with the commentator who said, better that the State get out of it.

    I wrote my own two cents here:  Feel free to send the hate.

    •  Stephanie – perhaps the Catholics err in defining marriage *only* as a sacrament? when other cultures and civilizations have recognized marriage – not as sacrament (that wasn’t part of their paradigm) but as a particular union which was of value and concern in the eyes of the State. In a postChristian era, maybe we need to “translate” – even though we’re right, but they don’t understand it because it’s not part of their paradigm?

  • Kat – this kind of attention means one thing: you’re doing something RIGHT. God bless you! 

  • Except, you see, this isn’t really a referendum on marriage as it exists between man and woman or man and man or woman and woman. It’s a referendum to keep employers from paying benefits to everyone OUTSIDE of a traditional marriage. The rich basically pit two sides against each other as a cloak for the truth. So congratulations, you voted on behalf of the rich and powerful.

    • Mary

       My employer (as do  many large corporations) already offers same sex benefits so the issue isn’t about this at all.

      If those of us (and this includes the Catholic Church) don’t speak out against what we believe is an affront to God, who will?

      • My employer does too. But you know, liberals don’t let facts stop them. 

  • Chefmichaelanthony81

    Less than 15 decades ago. North Carolina left the United States because they felt it was OK to OWN A NEGRO… last i checked, all men are created EQUAL.  And if that man be gay, straight, black or white makes no difference.  I wish you did win the civil war now so you could have religion run your country as it pleases, like the Taliban. 

  • Garrett

    So, there is this wonderful endeavor you can all utilize your energy on. It’s lead by Samaritans Purse and it’s sending your hard earned money to areas in need where it will be  helping families with less rights (and money) than you have. That should give you all something more wholesome to do with all of your time than worrying about your first world problems…which have somehow been made top priority. It’s a shame really.

  • Johnmuir

    Why do Christians always seem to get so worked up about other people’s sins?  Isn’t it just some sort of moral grandstanding to pick on the homosexual minority?  If you feel so strongly about marriage being a faithful, exclusive, lifelong union between man and woman …why wasn’t all of that in the Constitutional amendment?  You guys didn’t care about the faithful, exclusive, lifelong bit…you only cared about the man and woman bit.   Maybe because that’s a good chance to play “moral” while only affecting a small minority.  Let’s see your Constitutional amendment making divorce and adultery illegal – oh wait no – there’s isn’t one – perhaps because that might actually affect the majority of Christian sinners?

  • Johnmuir

    I’m also not sure what Christians expect adult homosexuals to do – go through life without a partner?  That’s a lonely road.  If God made men and women in his image, aren’t homosexuals still falling in love with someone made in God’s image?  If homosexuals are only attracted to their same sex, what is the harm in letting them marry other homosexuals?  Surely the greater harm is that they marry a heterosexual. They can still have a union with someone they love, they can still have God in that union – the only element that’s missing from gay marriage is sex for procreation.  But by nature or by design – they’re not built for procreation.  Surely homosexuals are a special case that God would not want condemned to a life alone and without love.  I think perhaps Christians have not really thought this issue through.  It also seems ironic that a religion whose prophet’s parents (Joseph and Mary) supposedly never had sex put so much emphasis on the necessity of sex for procreation for marriage.   If Joseph and Mary never had sex … what was their union?  Not a marriage under this Christian view…they never had sex, they never had any children of their own.  For all intents and purposes, Joseph could have been a woman (Josephina) and it would have changed nothing.  Consider as well that marriage is a legal property institution as well that protects the legal & inheritance rights of a partner when the other partner dies – it seems legally unfair that homosexuals have no legal rights when their life partner dies.

    • Not having sex doesn’t mean you’re lonely. Please see here,

      • Johnmuir

        Who said that?  Did you even read what I wrote?

        • Johnmuir

          Presumably homosexuals fall in love the same way as heterosexuals and presumably they have the same emotional needs for love and companionship.  It would seem to make the most sense to me (as an Outsider) to simply let them marry each other and that fulfills their emotional needs, sexual needs, and matches actual compatible people.  But the Church, with its sexual hangups, can’t stomach that so I’m left wondering what the Church expects homosexuals to do having denied them the easy & obvious solution to their needs.  A homosexual could marry a heterosexual for the friendship & companionship – but there would never be sexual attraction so that would be at best a sexually unfulfilling relationship.  Homosexuals could not marry at all – but that would be to go through life without a partner which would be lonely.  I’m just not sure what the Church’s answer to the homosexual dilemma is other than a cursory “we’re afraid of sex outside of procreation” so too bad homosexuals, you’re screwed.

          • Ah. You didn’t read the link I provided then.  As a single person, I am screwed too. Metaphorically, of course, because I practice chastity. Humor me, read the link. You will see neither myself nor the Church expect homosexuals to live miserable lonely lives.    

            Sex is not the only means to happiness and love. You can love someone without having sex with them. True story. 

          • Johnmuir

            You frustrate me.  My words “go through life without a partner?  That’s a lonely road” say nothing at all about sex.  I didn’t necessarily mean “sexual” partner which is what you read into it.  What I said is no less strong even if you’re just talking about romance.  My understanding (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that you/the Church would prohibit homosexuals not only from sex (abstinence) but also from romance, and leave them with only the outlet of platonic love/friendship for other people – which in my experience, is not enough for most people.

          • Johnmuir

             A lot of people who practice chastity still date, still fall in love, still have romance, still look forward to a day when they meet someone whom they want to marry, etc.  It’s not just chastity that you would impose on homosexuals, but denial of all romantic love.  Sure you have priests & nuns and people who feel a calling, but your average person is not suited to live life without romantic love.

          • Michael

            That you chose chastity was your choice.  But according to you, I have no choice and that I’d further have to avoid close relationships for fear of falling in love – and the sexual expression that goes along with that cuz we’re human.   Heaven’s gonna be a lonely place with just me and my fellow gay Christians there – because the rest of you are not motivated to walk a mile or two in our shoes, read the Word from cover to cover, and discover that it is silent on homosexuality.

        • You said that. 

          “I’m also not sure what Christians expect adult homosexuals to do – go through life without a partner?  That’s a lonely road.”

    •  John – If anyone chooses to be lonely, it’s his choice. No one is talking about criminalizing homosexuality. Moreover, the legal rights of inheritance, etc. are taken care of by a little volitional instrument called a Will.

      • Johnmuir

        I’m not sure what you mean by “it’s his choice (to be lonely)”.  Are you saying homosexuals can have unions if they want, you don’t care just so long as they’re not called marriages?  Heterosexuals use wills too, but they also have all sorts of statutory rights if those wills are found to be invalid or have paltry bequests etc., and they get all sorts of tax advantages on estate transfers by virtue of being spouses. 

  • Johnmuir

    I don’t understand how an author can write a moralizing piece on marriage and not at least add a disclaimer acknowledging her status (and the implied hypocrisy) that she is a divorcee.  “What God has joined together, let no man separate”, no?  Isn’t that the official religious position on marriage?  I of course don’t know the circumstances of the divorce and know by even mentioning this fact I’ve already made it too personal, but the irony that the author was in a marriage and it wasn’t a “lifelong one” as decreed by the definition she champions is not lost on me.  Presumably at some point she must have agreed to separate what God had joined together.  Perhaps the counterargument is that divorces are common nowadays and “lifelong” is a bit of a dated concept – but then that just begs the obvious question – maybe the concept is only as good as how up-to-date it actually is.

    • No you don’t know the circumstances unless you are a long time reader because I’ve openly discussed my divorce in the past. I am annulled and the situation called for literally fleeing. 

      You are perfectly within your rights to bring up my divorce because if I am going to openly discuss sin I need to be up front about my own.  It’s not too personal to bring up or suggest since I’ve made certain aspects of my life public forum.  

      Divorce is painful and I frankly write about if from time to time. Here are just a few posts from my archives you and anyone else are more than welcome to read. 

  • Johnmuir

    I watched the Bishop’s video message to the faithful and despite it being 4:39 long he doesn’t actually give an explicit reason why same-sex couples can’t marry.  He basically says traditional marriage is for 1. the mutual love of the spouses, and 2. for the procreation and education of children.  Obviously same-sex couples are capable of mutual love for their spouses, and they are capable of raising and educating children (many same sex couple adopt).  The only thing they’re not capable of doing is procreating their own children.  But the Bishop does not appear to be opposed to adoption or marriage between couples that are sterile.  I think when you realize he puts on a show of explaining the reasons for the opposition, but doesn’t actually give a real reason why not, it’s basically dishonesty.  I don’t know if it’s dishonest because it’s trying too hard to be politically correct, or if it’s dishonest because  the real reasons are unflattering to the Church.  I also have to note – if the Church does in fact believe that Christ “joins” the marriage in a Sacramental marriage – isn’t that basically saying all Catholic marriages are technically same-sex in the sense that Jesus is in all of them?  Creepy.

    • Johnmuir

      I mean, if the real reason the Church is opposed to same-sex marriage is because they believe homosexuality is a sin – than why is the Bishop unable to say that and why does he drone on for 4:29 pretending that he has some other reason?  That’s just lies – and I don’t like liars.

  • pittypat

    I can’t  STAND when people start talking about how our constitution is all about the separation between church and state – that’s a load of crap.  It’s a freedom OF religion not FROM religion.  We came her to get away from the government telling us we had to be one religion.  It’s not about separating it!

  • Billhoelscher

    You are simply wrong.  No amount of discussion will change the fact that the Church is misguided, as it has been on other issues.  Historical views does not mean that they are correct.  This is the same Church that believed it was appropriate to burn those who did not believe in certain doctrines at the stake.  The Bible has many rules, which the Church ignores because they are wrong.  An example is the stoning of the unclean woman. But the meaning will be argued and altered so that the faithful will not fill obligated to execute the unmarried pregnant girl by throwing rocks at her.  If marriage was only for procreating, then should not those who are infertile be denied the right?  You are wrong but your simple minded one sided belief system and deep seeded hatred keeps you from accepting that the Church is not infallible.