As I say, Gay “Marriage” is about Making War on the Church

As I say, Gay “Marriage” is about Making War on the Church April 24, 2012

So while Gay Brownshirts are interested in trying to muzzle political speech in Seattle, in Kansas they seek to force Church to perform gay “marriage”.

Expect more.

"So you're saying even photos of Peterson need to be taken "in context?""

Of Dogs, Fleas, and Jordan Peterson
""To be clear," your definition if "identity politics" is pure horsemuffins. Also, you're misusing the ..."

Of Dogs, Fleas, and Jordan Peterson
"Plausible? Yes. But what if it's truly not to cover Chickenhood or Foxhood, but people ..."

Of Dogs, Fleas, and Jordan Peterson
"It is heartening to see that there will be some ideal chickens with loft(y) ideals ..."

Of Dogs, Fleas, and Jordan Peterson

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Elizabeth Scalia

    Mark, I went to the link and got a viral threat warning that closed the page. JFI

  • Yes, I clicked on the link and promptly got nailed by a virus. Think it’s taken care of, but just saying.

  • Ditto here, too.

  • Irenist

    The proposed ordinance is wrongheaded, but not doesn’t affect churches the way your headline describes it. Religious groups (including churches) that rent out space to the general public would have to make that space available to gay groups, too. So a church might be forced to make its parish hall available, for example. If a church were renting its sanctuary out to people not in its denomination for weddings (something I doubt many Catholic parishes do) then they’d be forced to rent it for a gay wedding if asked. However, the ordinance would not force any Catholic or other orthodox Christian clergy to PERFORM said wedding. So, yeah, this ordinance is a bad idea. But not as bad as your headline implies. The second question in the FAQ linked by the article lays all this out.

    • May be, but it would force churches that have a separate parish hall or social hall for rental, not to mention the Knights of Columbus halls..

      • Irenist

        Agreed. Like I said, it’s a wrongheaded proposal. Just not in the way our host says it is.

    • Ted Seeber

      So basically, the same situation that the Knights of Columbus got nailed for in Vancouver, British Columbia.

      Suddenly, I’m glad for my new council that Supreme has cracked down on the building of new Knights of Columbus halls.

    • Nathan

      St. Mark Catholic Church in Westminster, Colorado rented out their parish hall to my baptised, protestant, twice divorced sister and allowed a protestant minister to “marry” her and her new husband. All this, even after notifying them that they would be providing material support for a potentially invalid marriage ceremony, and thus, material support to adultery.

  • It does not follow that gay marriage is about “making war on the Church” any more than a can of spray paint is about “making war on the Church” because some adolescent delinquent scrawled graffiti on the church’s front door. I don’t think most gay men and women are remotely interested bringing the Church to heel on the promotion of their relationships.

    That said, there is, among some, a certain activist mentality that DOES wish to make war upon the Church and it will use gay marriage to do it just as soon as it’ll use anything else. Legislation like this enables this perpetually unhappy mindset. That’s something that needs to be avoided.

    Notice, though, that this says less about gay marriage than it does about certain lawsuit-happy demagogues.

    • Ted Seeber

      “It does not follow that gay marriage is about “making war on the Church” any more than a can of spray paint is about “making war on the Church” because some adolescent delinquent scrawled graffiti on the church’s front door.”

      Uh, I for one would consider that an attack on the Church. Especially if encouraged by the police.

  • Palmetto Papist

    My prediction, and you heard it here first.
    First, the Church will be required to perform homosexual “marriages” or no civil marriages at all. The Church will choose to do none.
    Next, those marrying civilly (including Catholics) will be forced to sign a document acknowledging the legitimacy of homosexual “marriage.” Catholics refusing to do so will still marry in the Church but the State will consider them single.
    Next, the State will require all couples living together to be married by the State and to sign the document.
    Thus, the State, in order to impose homosexual “marriage” will outlaw cohabitation.

    • Richard Johnson

      I’m curious, Palmetto. Did any of these things happen after the Loving decision made inter-racial marriages legal?

    • Linda C.

      Palmetto—I seriously doubt the State would do anything to eliminate or control cohabitation, which has served their view of the culture so well for so long. As to your initial point, I think they are likely to emulate the system used in some other countries in which all legal marriages are purely civil, performed in a government facility by a JP or magistrate, and any religious ceremonies are separate and unrecognized by the State.

    • kenneth

      We didn’t hear it here first. It’s a tired bit of “sky is falling” hysteria unsupported by a decade or more of gay marriage and it’s just as ludicrous now as it was then. We’ve heard this all before: Gays are going to force churches to marry them. They’re going to force everyone’s kid to be dragged into government re-education camps and forcibly converted to homosexuals themselves. Gay marriage is going to lead to guys marrying their sister, or their horse, or “Men in Black” space aliens. None of it has happened or shown any signs of happening, but to the tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist, that lack of evidence is ironclad proof that something really, really dark is on horizon.
      The “story” serving as the springboard for this post has nothing at all to do with forcing anyone to sanction gay marriage. It’s a proposed ordinance regulating business activity. When a church decides to rent space to outsiders, they’re engaging in a business venture, and they’re no different at all than any private person or entity. Renting out banquet halls is not a religious activity. It is a business, and businesses have been subject to regulatory activity, including non-discrimination statutes, for a long long time. If a church owns some houses or apartments (as indeed some do), and they decide to lease them to the general public, they can’t draw up rental agreements or ads that say “whites only”. Not even if they hold sincere religious convictions along those lines. They have a much greater latitude to limit their sacraments and church membership, but that doesn’t give them blanket immunity from the law when they act in the public sphere as business entities.
      The fear mongering underlying “gay brownshirts” is the theory that if we give “these people” an inch of civil rights, they’ll take a mile of abusive excess. Well, that schtick has been done before. Watch “Birth of a Nation” sometime, if you never did in high school history class. The reasoning is the same used to deny blacks their freedom in this country and in places like South Africa much more recently. The conventional wisdom was, exactly the same. “If we give these people their freedom, they’ll use it to destroy us.”

      • Gregory B.

        No, we didn’t hear it here first. Anti-gay lunatics have been spewing this baseless garbage for decades.

  • bob

    First thing to do is compose a *special* wedding service. Takes no talent, Anglicans do it every few days. This service has to have texts determined to enrage anyone with a bent toward SS marriage. Include long boring prose about how absurd it is to fight against God’s will, various exhortations to chastity, monastic references. Franciscan things ignored by “gay Franciscans”. The sort of thing people would walk out of if they’re listening. Make sure no one would EVER come to your church for a gay “wedding” again. Let the state try and dictate the wording. Easily done, never have to worry about it again.

  • Lauran

    Homosexuals aren’t at war with the Church–they’re just at war with those teachings that are at odds with self-degradation.

    We get it.

  • Sandra Miesel

    Also, churches that won’t perform gay marriages will not only lose their tax exemptions, they’ll be listed as “hate groups” and harrassed as such on all levels of society. Muslims however, . . .won’t.

    • Gregory B.

      In what world lady?

  • Tom

    The State will indeed attempt to force the Church to perform homosexual marriages!! At Obama’s direction, his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated in a recent speech, that they want to codify homosexuality ( and abortion) and ensure any dissent is punishable under the law. They will promulgate this by enacting laws or more likely instituitng governmental policy to ensure that homosexual marriage is required under any circumstances. I can hardly wait to see the civil disobedience associated with this policy.

    • kenneth

      Can you produce a link to the full copy of said speech so we can read it in its full context and see if that’s what it indeed said, or is this one of those fourth-hand renditions of something sombody spun on an ultra-partisan blog someplace?

    • Gregory B.

      Um… I think Clinton was thinking more along the lines of torture and be-headings of gay people when she made that speech.

  • An Atheist

    A tiny, hated, and globally persecuted minority are the “brownshirts” while a powerful Church of over a billion members and untold wealth and influence are like the Jews of Nazi Germany. Uh huh. Whatever you say, Mark.

    • Bad example. The Nazis themselves were a tiny minority compared to the world population, and they darn near conquered the world.

      • kenneth

        The Nazis weren’t that much of a minority. Most of their racist and anti-Semitic ideology was in fact totally mainstream conventional wisdom in science and in Christianity in Europe and the West in general. Likening gays to the Nazis is absurd on every front. Nazi power took root in what was the most technologically advanced culture on the planet with enormous industrial capacity, grinding poverty, and a barely formed but deeply wounded sense of national identity. Gay America (whatever and whoever that mysterious monolith is), has not a single one of these factors.

        • Patrick

          @ kenneth:
          “Likening gays to the Nazis is absurd on every front.”

          Ok, I agree that a Nazi comparison is uncivil.

          Nevertheless: I think the comparison with “brownshirts” is about tactics, not relative numbers/industrial power/wounded identity. *Tactically* – and only tactically – speaking, it seems as if a lot of gay “marriage” proponents want to use every lever of power including legal to force people to legitimize their unions.

          Now: you may very well have a good point above, about anti-discrimination laws and whatnot. Nevertheless, the fact that a homosexual couple would rather go to court to *force* someone to rent to them, or go to court to *force*, with police power, an owner of a bed and breakfast to allow them to use the premises for a “wedding” reception (as happened last year) rather than just go somewhere else reveals that it isn’t “tolerance” or “leave us alone” that gay rights groups want – at least now.

          And so you can see that this is far from “tolerance” or “leave us alone” that we’re told the gay rights movement is after. Rather, they seem to increasingly use any means they can while brow-beating those who disagree no matter how respectfully.

          So yes: “brownshirts” is, in my opinion, needlessly inflammatory. But do you see how, just discussing *tactics*, that it comes off as trying to force people to accept something using courts and police power, all the while saying it’s their opponents who’re the “intolerant” ones? Which is sort of like, yes, the “brownshirts”, and unlike a lot of other organizations whose aim is to persuade with normal means?

          • kenneth

            In ANY situation involving an invocation of legitimate rights or political freedoms, someone will always push the bounds. Does that fact mean that no rights or freedoms must be recognized out of fear that someone, somewhere, will seek to abuse it and perhaps succeed? Plenty of people have tried to push the bounds of racial civil rights to absurd extremes either in legislation or court. Should we have allowed slavery or Jim Crow segregation to stand in order to head off such moves? I think most of us would agree that legal protections for disabled people were a good thing. On the other hand, there was the inevitable guy or several who tried to win disability payments or employer accommodation on the theory that being lazy or addicted to porn was a “disability.” Should we then infer that disabled people as a class are ill-motivated hustlers with an extreme agenda?
            Let’s take this to an even more basic level. The right to trial by jury and the presumption of innocence of the accused in our system of law. We can agree that no one on this Earth is more about playing the loophole and trying an absurd novel argument more than defense attorneys. They thrill in doing so and they’re sworn to try by the very ethics of their profession. Once in a while, they do in fact get a bad guy off on a screwy technicality. Given this obvious proclivity of lawyers and criminal defendants to game the system, shouldn’t we just to to a system of secret detentions and kangaroo courts or star chambers where people are guilty upon arrest?
            Speculative fear about what a tiny minority of extreme activists might do is a really poor reason to deny the rights of an entire class of people. No one here has even come close to demonstrating that gay people in the aggregate have some grand sinister intention and no bona fide interest in “live and let live tolerance.” Most gays have much better things to do than to mount bizarre court cases or indulge some Quixotic vendetta against some church. There are no documented cases of a church being forced to conduct or endorse gay marriage, and the handful of (very) tangential business law cases are from courts and bodies in other countries with very different legal systems.

            • Ted Seeber

              “In ANY situation involving an invocation of legitimate rights or political freedoms, someone will always push the bounds.”

              I remember the day this ceased to be about legitimate rights for me. March 2, 2002. The day Multnomah County in Oregon decided to defy State Law on this issue.

              Overnight I went from being a Liberal Hippy Endangering my Soul over Separation of Sacramental Marriage from State Control (in other words, I support Civil Unions and Registered Households for the State for whatever non-marriage arrangement people want to make, on the basis of sharing housing alone is good for society) to That Horrible Catholic Ultramontaine Prejudiced Holier Than The Pope Bigot who Hates Gay People.

              And all without changing a single idea on my part, and without even LIVING IN MULTNOMAH COUNTY!

              • kenneth

                May Almighty God spare us all from the depredations of Multnomah County (whatever they may be)!

  • An Atheist

    BTW, in the countries where gay marriage has been legalized for quite some time already has any Catholic parish been forced to perform a gay marriage? Canada? Spain? Argentina? Meanwhile there ARE countries where religious bigots want the death penalty for gays (including Christian Uganda).

    • Ted Seeber

      Yes. Look up Knights of Columbus, British Columbia, Lesbian Marriage.

      • An Atheist

        A Knights of Columbus Hall is not a parish.

        • Ted Seeber

          It’s on parish land (right next to a church) and post 1996, when the new orders came out from Supreme, all functions at the Knights of Columbus Hall have to be ok’s by the chaplain- who is usually the parish priest.

          But that isn’t the point. The point is that a Catholic was forced by the British Columbia Human Rights commission to support gay marriage and fined for not doing so- and then lost his job at Costco because his boss was friends with the lesbians.

      • An Atheist

        And they could easily avoid it by just not renting out the hall to outside groups at all.

        • It doesn’t matter…it’s a toe in the door and sets a precedent.

          • kenneth

            By that reasoning, the English and Ulster protestants should never have taken their boot off the neck of Catholics in Ireland and allowed them to open schools or own land, because, really, who knows what kind of evil they might hatch in the future given such freedom?

            • Who says they haven’t?

            • Hezekiah Garrett

              No, by that logic. Catholic Ireland should have been throwing everything that wasn’t nailed down at the first Englishman to stroll forth upon her emerald shores. For in Eire, the Angle’s the perverter.

              Just as the Cherokee should have never allowed Ft Loudon to be built, nor Bushyhead, the Stuart, to there reside.

              Honest to God, theft and/or oppression by incrementalist liars. You can’t deny these gay brownshirts are as American/British as apple/kidney pie.

              • Ted Seeber

                I have to reduce everything to local: And the Nez Pierce and the Clatsop should have killed Lewis and Clarke, thus making the Expedition of Discovery a failure.

  • Lisa

    Funny that in countries where GM is legal, it is not widely performed. Why? Why? Obviously, because it was never about getting married, but rather getting their lifestyles approved. Secondly, most gays are no where near monogomous, that’s a straight thing, don’t you know.

  • An Atheist

    Lisa, mixed sex couples don’t exactly cover themselves in glory in the monogamy department!

    • kenneth

      Ashley Madison, a dating site devoted to helping married people cheat, has something like 10 million members, and it’s probably only the tip of the iceberg in that phenomenon. In addition, barely half of adult hetero folks in this country marry anymore. But yeah, it’s gays who are making a mockery of the institution of marriage.

      • So two wrongs make it right.

        You’re smarter than that kenneth!

        • kenneth

          It’s not a matter of two wrongs equaling a right. If gay marriage opponents want to make the claim that gays are uniquely promiscuous and oriented towared cohabitation vs marriage, the facts reveal that to be patently absurd.

          • I don’t think it’s a matter of practice, so much, as of ideals. Nearly all heterosexual “traditional” marriages take as their acknowledged ideal the concept of lifelong faithfulness to that one partner. Of course people fail to live up to that ideal. That’s people for you, especially people in a society as sexually screwed up as ours is.

            This is vastly different from a situation in which a very significant percentage of people in the relationships have no intention at all of setting up any kind of lifelong, monogamous union.

            You can work with the first kind of people: call them to the ideal, support their own efforts to fulfill the ideal with programs, material aid, etc. But you can’t do anything for the people for whom marriage isn’t supposed to be lifelong. Helping them can only mean helping them to choose whether they want to stay for another period of time.

            • kenneth

              You have any hard data by mainstream scientists which shows that gay couples who marry have significantly less intention for monogamy than do hetero couples (matched for age, other socioeconomic indicators) etc.? I don’t. What I do have in the way of purely anecdotal observation argues against the idea that gays are inherently promiscuous and straight couples are not. Most of the gay couples I’ve met – married or living as such – are older and, at least outwardly, seem to hold very conventional attitudes about committment and monogamy. Of course I have no way of knowing what they behind closed doors. On the other hand, I’ve run across a hell of a lot of hetero couples who live in “open” marriages. I can’t tell you how many otherwise unremarkable middle class educated married people speak openly about their girlfriends or boyfriends or extracurricular dating. With friends or friends-of-friends in virtually every subculture, I can also tell you that most metro areas and even some backwaters these days are absolutely awash in “swingers clubs” and the like. I don’t know how the percentages truly compare gay vs straight, but it’s very clear that lots of hetero folk do not hold the ideal of lifelong monogamy. Nobody is proposing that we deny civil marriage to such people. In fact, looking back at my own civil marriage, I can’t recall any official or form which demanded assurances that my wife and I would even try to remain monogamous. If the civil marriage law can’t or won’t demand such fealty to monogamy from us, why should it be able to do so specifically for gay couples?

            • Ted Seeber

              So make it Civil Unions for everybody- and give the contract an expiration date.

              • kenneth

                It is civil unions for everybody, and it wouldn’t bother me a bit to call it such, for gay or hetero. The legally binding marriage each and every one of us enters into is a civil union, nothing more, nothing less. Religious traditionalists have tried to conflate it with “marriage” in the sacramental sense and succeeded enough so that “civil union” now has a lesser status. Split the difference and call it “civil marriage” for everyone. That’s what it is. It’s not a sacrament, as the state cannot and does not administer sacraments. Everyone who wants the legal protections (and burdens) of civil marriage gets it done before the state. Those of a religious bent can then go on to get it sanctified under the terms of their religion. The churches, etc., don’t have to change their theology or perform any ceremony they don’t want to. Everybody wins.

  • And this is wrong, they can’t force a church to do this. They wouldn’t certainly force a jew to eat non koesher food or a vegan to eat meat, so why would they do this to a church? Really, they are so annoying. The only reason they can even exist peacefully and inconsequentially is because of high population numbers.

  • An Atheist

    AgAgain anybody got any examples from the countries I named of Catholic parishes forced to perform same sex marriage? Anyone? ….Bueller?

      • Here’s the finish to that story:

        Then Ted Seeber’s reporting of the KofC hall in Canada….

        • An Atheist

          “Yeah, in that very article it says the government will write the law in such a way that it will not interfere with religious marriages. Hysterical shrieking about the sky falling is not the same as a Catholic parish being forced to perform a gay marriage.

          Please find JUST ONE real life example of a Catholic parish, anywhere where same-sex marriages are legal, being coerced into performing one.

          Just one. Not speculation. A real example.

          • Ted Seeber

            Gave you one, but you claimed “a Knights of Columbus Hall is not a Catholic Parish” It’s on parish land (right next to a church) and post 1996, when the new orders came out from Supreme, all functions at the Knights of Columbus Hall have to be ok’s by the chaplain- who is usually the parish priest.

            But that isn’t the point. The point is that a Catholic was forced by the British Columbia Human Rights commission to support gay marriage and fined for not doing so- and then lost his job at Costco because his boss was friends with the lesbians. That’s enough for me to say that the lesbians specifically targeted this parish and this man.

          • Gregory B.

            It’s never happened. Almost a decade of marriage equality in very-Catholic Massachusetts and yet not one Catholic church has been required to perform a wedding for a gay couple, a Muslim couple, a Jewish/Hindu couple, two divorced Wiccans….

      • An Atheist

        Uh, the UK doesn’t even have same-sex marriage yet, just civil unions. Pretty hard to force something that isn’t even legal. Try again, and try to get a better source than Wingnut Site News.

        • You must have missed the part of the article that says:

          “Neil Addison, the director of the Thomas More Legal Centre, said that the Prime Minister’s assurances to the Church that they would not be compelled to perform religious marriage for gay couples are worthless.

          He said two judgments by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg combined with a Court of Appeal ruling in 2010 clearly showed that the Government would be acting illegally if it legalised civil gay marriages without permitting them on religious premises too.

          It means that if the Coalition Government presses ahead with its plans to redefine marriage to include gay couples the Catholic Church could face prosecution under equality legislation for acting according with its teachings.”

          Honest mistake I am sure.

          • An Atheist

            aid two judgments by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg combined with a Court of Appeal ruling in 2010 clearly showed that the Government would be acting illegally if it legalised civil gay marriages without permitting them on religious premises too.

            o has this happened in any EU countries that have marriage equality?

            Also, Thomas Moore Legal Center? Quite objective and detached, I’m sure.

            This isn’t about Catholic parishes being forced to perform same-sex marriages, it’s about people finding pathetic excuses for their own hateful bigotry.

            • No, it’s not….but let’s be honest here; this is about a minority of homosexuals, who are very militant and anti-religious looking to stir the pudding and force a fight and their agenda into people’s and the Church’s faces. This is not the kind of attention most of them want….so again we’re talking a few bad apples here, that given the responce from the MSM and local and federal governments, feel emboldened to continue to do things like this.

    • I think it’s about prudence. If one goes back about thirty years, to the earlier days of the gay rights movement, one is at a loss to find too many advocates arguing that someday gay marriages will be the law of the land, and by goodness if these churches want to rent out their facilities, then they are going to rent it out to gay couples, too! It’s just not there. Such concerns were actually dismissed by gay rights activists as recently as earlier in the previous decade. But now, with lawsuits demanding that Christian business owners serve the needs of homosexuals even if it violates their religious beliefs, and now the suggestion that churches use of their facilities are contingent privileges rather than rights, it’s not hard to see how the wiggle room allowed for churches is getting smaller. Prudence, therefore, suggests taking note of it now, rather than waiting for it to go to the next – and final – step.

      • TimCA

        “But now, with lawsuits demanding that Christian business owners serve the needs of homosexuals even if it violates their religious beliefs”

        What happens if it violates someone’s religious beliefs to serve the needs of black people?

        No where in this country because of the 1964 Civil Rights Act are people allowed to deny public accomodations (ie a business service) etc to someone on the basis of their being a Catholic. But you think it’s OK for a church to be able to do that to someone because he or she were gay or lesbian?

        • Gregory B.

          Tim, that’s exactly what they think. Here’s their idea of religious freedom in a nutshell: The world must yield fully to their beliefs and accommodate them in every aspect of society while allowing them to refuse to do the same for others.

  • Lisa

    The gov will not, IMHO, force the church to take part in this. They might, however, force them to grant equal status in adoption cases, which would be shame, especially for those babies in need of a home.

    “Those who possess these deep seated inclinations are called to celebacy.” It’s very simple.

  • Paul Miller

    In Washington State at least, when legislation first came up granting more privileges to homosexual couples, we were asked “How can you be against that? Married couples still have more rights. This policy change is just about justice and ending discrimination.” Then when the everything-but-marriage bill was pushed through, we were asked “How can you be against that? We aren’t even calling it marriage. This policy change is just about justice and ending discrimination.” Then when same-sex marriage was pushed through, we were asked “How can you be against that? Churches won’t be forced to conduct these ceremonies. This policy change is just about justice and ending discrimination.” It’s not too hard to see where this is going…

    • Richard Johnson

      As others (and myself) have asked…when the Loving decision ended prohibitions against inter-racial marriages, did we see churches being forced to perform such ceremonies if it was against their teachings? No, we did not. Churches can, and do, still teach separation of the races and refuse to perform such marriages, without legal penalty. Yes, they are few in number, these churches, but they still practice their faith such as it is.

      • I’ve lived in many places, gone to many Catholic Churches, protestant houses of worship, and a synagogue….I can honestly say I’ve never heard any preaching against interracial marriage. Maybe they knew I was coming and changed the sermon, huh?

        • An Atheist

          I don’t know about Catholic Churches (it’s hard for me to believe they ever prohibited interracial marriage given how racially mixed Latin America is!), but I do know many protestant churches in the south were against interracial marriage up to the 1960s. Denying this is being disingenuous. Hell Jerry Falwell started his public career campaigning against racial integration.

        • An Atheist

          Here’s a nice quote, straight from the late and unlamented leader of the Baptist Vatican in Lynchburg, VA himself:

          “If Chief Justice [Earl] Warren and his associates had known God’s word and had desired to do the Lord’s will, I am quite confident that the 1954 decision would never have been made,’ Falwell boomed from above his congregation in Lynchburg. “When God has drawn a line of distinction, we should not attempt to cross that line,” Falwell thundered in Lynchburg, Virginia. He went on to say that integration “will destroy our race eventually and reported the shocking account he had received “from a pastor friend of mine [who] tells me that a couple of opposite race live next door to his church as man and wife.”

          • I’ve never really given any credence to Rev. Falwell. He wasn’t always kind to the Catholic faith either, so his remarks back then mean nothing to me other than he is or was a bigot.

            • An Atheist

              Well, he is a Protestant preacher who preached against same-sex marriage.

            • An Atheist

              Sorry, I meant to say “interracial marriage”.

              • You’re probably right about the former as well.

                • But, you cannot say this type of language has ever been used by a Catholic pontiff regarding gay (so-called) marriage….it ain’t there….anywhere.

  • Tom

    Yeah, and the government would never force the Church and its members to fund contraception….

  • An Atheist

    And anybody else find a Catholic calling another movement Fascist just a little ironic since the last “just war” the Vatican gave approval to was Franco violently overthrowing the Spanish Republic in the 1930s? (And with a Muslim mercenary army, no less!)

    • Paul Miller

      Not me. Then again, I’ve studied the actual facts regarding the Spanish Civil War (see Warren Carroll’s The Last Crusade – ) rather than swallowing the hysteric shouts of “fascism” from those overly-sympathetic with the anti-Catholic revolutionaries:

    • Ted Seeber

      The only references I could find to this came from those who murdered the priests and stole church lands that started Franco on his rampage to begin with. If it wasn’t for liberals, the Spanish Civil War would never have happened.

    • Lisa

      Well, lets not forget that the nastiest murderers of all time — Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot were atheists, and most likely Hitler, who had plans to use Chritianity as a tool of the Master Plan, was probably an at least anti-Christian in his secretive personal views. They killed scores of millions. Not that this means anything, but I thought you might respond better to a senseless argument that, well, is more suitable to your cognitive structure.

      You might respond that Joe Stalin was also pro-life.

      • An Atheist

        Hitler wasn’t an atheist, but he wasn’t a Christian either. He was pretty much a pagan with weird racial theories.

        • kenneth

          Hitler was formally a Catholic until he drew his last breath. He had some very bizarre and heterodox notions of what God and Christ and proper religion were all about. Not even his closest associates or biographers have ever really been able to neatly define Hitler’s religious beliefs. He gave widely varied and conflicting statements about his beliefs throughout his life. His beliefs clearly were grounded in Christian theology which he had modified extensively with elements of pagan myth, extreme German nationalism, racial theories, misogyny, you name it. He certainly was not an atheist, and neither were Stalin or any of the other so-called “godless” dictators. They all clearly believed that they were god-like beings in their own right and that they represented a divine order of sorts.

          • Colonel Klink

            In other words, Hitler, Stalin, Mao did not believe in any God, but they’re somehow not atheists. Right.

          • Ted Seeber

            Funny, I thought he was a Hindu given his worship of the Aryan race, which is the top caste in Hinduism.

    • dpt

      “And anybody else find a Catholic calling another movement Fascist just a little ironic since the last “just war” the Vatican gave approval to was Franco violently overthrowing the Spanish Republic in the 1930s? ”

      Well, it wasn’t Franco’s side that murdered thousands of clergy and vandalized churches.

  • Anybody out there seen any evidence of cats sleeping with dogs, cowboys and Indians playing marbles, Muslims and Jews sharing a table at Sonny’s Barbecue?

  • Not Catholic here, but there is a social backlash on the love ethic of Christ taking place.
    I believe that God has allowed it and is calling faithful to use it for His glory. This backlash is a response to both Catholic and Evangelical church scandals, the weak gospel proclaimed by most Mainline western churches and the bigotry, hypocrisy and pride displayed by many church leaders. Gay and lesbians in my experience tend to be the most spiritually interested people while treated like the scourge of the Earth. Most don’t have a clue why Mosaic and Levitical laws prohibit same sex activity. Once led and discipled many could become chaste ministers of the gospel and leaders in the Church. My thing is, what is the Spirit saying, not what is our legal system doing.

  • Tim

    “…the Hutchinson City Council is going to consider whether sexual orientation and gender identity should be added to the city’s human relations code.”

    In one sense, I find this disturbing, but in another sense I find it hilarious that a municipality has a “human relations code.” And it’s not even a California or New York municipality, but Kansas.

    Apparently, there is also a “Human Relations Commission” too. No wonder cities are going bankrupt.

    • MaryMargaret

      In California or New York, I’m not sure Hutch would even be considered a “city”. There are only about 40K people, and I would say it’s just a large town. (I am a Kansan, and have been to Hutchinson many times over the years.) Kind of an odd issue for a Kansas town that is west of I-135 to be considering, though.

      • Ted Seeber

        Really? I hail originally from the City of Silverton, which is 8k, and I yearly go to the City of Mt. Angel for Oktoberfest (2.5k when Oktoberfest isn’t in town- 46k when it is) and the only “Town” I’m aware of in the area is the town of St. Benedict, OR (which is basically the Abbey and the Convent).

    • kenneth

      You think it’s hilarious because you’ve never been in the position of being treated as a second-class citizen in your own town because of language barriers, cultural misunderstandings or malice. Even places like Kansas have lots of diversity in their populations these days, and human relations commissions are one way people try to address that reality with some forward thinking and decency. I have seen such commissions in towns of all sizes, and all that I have seen are made up of unpaid volunteers and operate with very modest to almost non-existent budgets.

      • Ted Seeber

        And almost universally are PC police and made up of the type of volunteers who volunteer because they are busybodies who want political power.

      • SteveP

        kenneth: If people are diverse, should I treat them all the same?

      • Hezekiah Garrett

        Hell, kid, I get that treatment from sea to shining sea and I STILL think its hilarious. And I have far greater claim that the land on which I walk is mine, than a Somali plumber in Kansas.

        So maybe you ought to question the hermenuetic you’re using? Its pretty myopic.

  • If that’s what you have to tell yourself Kenneth.

    Sure, Stalin wasn’t an atheist, he was divine.

    • kenneth

      If a man believes he is a god or the messiah of a divinity rooted in his nation’s identity or “the people”, he may be a megalomaniac and a nut, but he’s hardly an atheist in any real sense of the word. Any off-world archaeologists who studied Stalin and like dictators with a truly open mind and no preconceptions would reasonably conclude that their cults of power had a religious or at least quasi-religious dimension. In North Korea, the “glorious leader”, especially the last two “Kims” were revered as actual gods by much of the population.

      • dpt

        When there is no God, then that void is filled by something thus atheistic societies like the Soviet Union, N. Korea, Pol Pot, etc. become under the influence of a “cult of power.” Examing these atheistic societies with an open mind, one cannot deny the violent and bloodthirsty regimes are extremely hostile to religion, religious thought, and spiritual practices. It is a deceptive slight of hand to argue they are not atheistic but quasi-religious. I understand the atheists need to do so, but we are not deceived.

        • kenneth

          Anytime men are given (or take) the power to act as gods or in God’s name, whether in the traditional sense or quasi-religion of, say, Marxism, monstrous abuses WILL happen. Slaughters committed by “atheist” regimes are no different in kind than those perpetuated in the name of traditional religions. If Stalin and other modern proteges achieved higher body counts, it is solely a matter of technology. If a mere failure to adhere to Judeo-Christian traditionalism was the only necessary ingredient for bloodthirsty regimes, than Western Europe should be awash in blood right now. The Nordic countries in particular. We’re talking church attendance rates in the single digits. Not only are there no bloodthirsty regimes there, but their societies have a much higher standard of living and a tiny fraction of the violence we have here (Brievick’s rampage notwithstanding).
          And for the record, I’m not an atheist of any kind.

      • Hezekiah Garrett

        I get you’re game, Kenneth. You’re trying to claim all the megalomoniacs for Paganism!!!

        • kenneth

          We don’t need any more megalomaniacs in paganism! We’re full up! We have a project to unload them like Castro dumped his criminals in the Mariel boat lift. The New Age self help movement, a few unfortunate Yoga studios and a handful of “ex-witch” ministries are serving as our Miami in this scenario!

  • “Expect more.”

    Of course I expect more. Any day now the Right will be telling us that hundreds of millions of gay Americans will force the rest of us into divorcing our spouses and marrying someone of the same sex. Or that they will need more political donations. Stuff like that.

  • Gregory B.

    Please correct your headline. Claiming that gays and lesbians are seeking to force churches to perform gay weddings is a flat out lie. Assuming you half at least one half of a brain, you already know that. So why would you post such a blatant lie? We all know the answer – it’s because you’re desperate to find justification for your anti-gay bias. First off, same-sex marriage is illegal in Kansas, so it’s absurd to attempt to tie this to marriage equality. This is about public accommodation, not religious ceremony. The ordinance would add sexual orientation to it’s non discrimination policies. If a Catholic church owns a function all that they make available to the public, they cannot refuse to rent it to Jews. That doesn’t mean that Jews want to force Catholic churches to perform their weddings. A little bit of logic common sense would go a long way in the debate but it I recognize that it would leave the anti-gay lobby with very little to say.

    • Ted Seeber

      “Claiming that gays and lesbians are seeking to force churches to perform gay weddings is a flat out lie. ”

      Which is why it’s already happened in British Columbia, New Hampshire, and now Kansas.

      The lies are all on your side.