The Deep Hostility of the Homosexualist Movement…

The Deep Hostility of the Homosexualist Movement… August 17, 2013

to actual democracy is on full display in this carefully rigged “public hearing”. It has to be so since the entire movement is about forcing the will of a small minority on everybody else. It’s not about “tolerance” (they already have that). It’s about tyranny.

It’s also about massive hypocrisy. A couple of weeks ago, the majority of comments I got after posting a prayer request for Thom Peters after he broke his neck came from the Gay Legion of Menacing Visigoths for Tolerance, who showed up to gloat and to wish him death. Tell me again about how concerned gay culture is about “bullying.”

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • StraightGrandmother

    Dude, you don’t even realize it but you have jumped the shark.

    • Alias Clio

      Granny, you don’t even realise it, but you have signed away democracy in Massachusetts (or do you not care because you don’t live there?). As you’d see if you had actually read the article to which Mark linked.

      • W. Randolph Steele

        I read the article, TWICE and your reaction is BALONEY!!

        • OldWorldSwine

          Well, who can argue with airtight logic like that?

          • W. Randolph Steele

            Not meant to argue with anyone and logic would be lost on lot of posters here, so I wouldn’t bother. Just throwing my 2 cents worth in and given some responses, I’d like some change back.

            • enness

              You might be surprised. Shea’s commenters are, generally speaking, pretty sharp folks from what I can tell.

        • I see what you did there. You mimicked the legislators. Good job.

      • StraightGrandmother

        MassResistance IS a Certified HATE GROUP, certified by the Southern Poverty Law Center. I don’t blame the legislators for putting them and their HATE at the back of the line. I would have done the same thing.

        It is a credit TO Democracy that Minority Civil Rights (Gays) are at long last being recognized.

        • The Deuce

          LOL, they’ve been “certified” a hate group by an organization of far-left agitators like yourself. Well, that proves it then!

          • W. Randolph Steele

            The Southern Poverty Law Center is hardly an organization of far left agitators unless fighting the Klan and White Surpimicists makes them so. If that’s WHAT YOU believe then that tells me where YOU stand.

            • Chriss

              How about fighting Catholic Traditionalists in favor of the Tridentine Mass, which Mark Potok has done?

              • W. Randolph Steele

                WHO is Mark Potok and why do I care about him?

        • SteveP

          Grandmother – if you’ve not had a chance to read the news,
          apparently the Federal legislature was unable to accurately define “marriage.” What makes you confident that an NGO can define “hate”?

        • enness

          Ah yes, where the FRC shooter identified his “certified” targets.

        • Except, the only minority gays belong to is the same as me: the mentally ill.

          The Southern Poverty Law Center is a certified hate group.

    • The Deuce

      Actually, the ones jumping the shark are you overeager morons in the gay movement. You should take note of what’s happening in Russia, a far more secular nation than ours, if you doubt that things can turn against you right quick. You are a tiny minority, you aren’t some inevitable worldwide march of progress, and people are only willing to put up with so much crap from you.

      Has it not occurred to you that all the tolerance you have gained came by convincing people that homosexuals are cute and cuddly and harmless and friendly, and not a bunch of perverts at war with normalcy and especially prone to sexual assault?

      Most people are willing to live and let live, but most people would also prefer to force homosexuals back in the closet and see the return of gay-beatings than to have their daughters, wives, and selves forced to share locker rooms, bathrooms, and other private areas with any dude who happens to don a pair of high heels while being decried as bigots for objecting to the monstrosity. Keep it up. We’ll see how your “Minority Civil Rights” shake out when the reality is shoved in peoples’ faces.

      • JasperBuck

        While I don’t particularly care for the term overeager morons, The Deuce is correct. I work with Gay folk and have learned that many of them are good people. But they are a significant minority. The vast majority of people do not like where this is going and when it starts to affect them personally, there will be an outcry against the homosexual agenda. Tyranny is tyranny whether it is on the Left or the Right. Once the Republican Party finally Kevorkians itself, we will have one party rule in this country. The Democrats will then be able to jettison those factions they don’t need anymore. The Gay folk better hope they’re not one of those who are dumped…

      • kenofken

        Ah, yes, the old implicit threat that if minority groups get a little too full of themselves and their standing as citizens before the law, that can always be corrected with a bit of “street justice.” That was used against blacks here and Jews in Europe when it was felt they were getting a little too “uppity.” The thugs of those times also maintained their victims “brought it on themselves” and that their thuggery was all for the public virtue, and of course, the children. Unfortunately for you, most of our society is no longer on board with the hate and fear you hope will carry the day. The group of folks who are angry enough to consider such a thing are, shall we say, a bit underwhelming. Guys who have to be in bed by 10 p.m. don’t exactly have the makings of a good black arm band movement.

      • ahermit

        Stop whining you pathetic bigot. GLBTQ people have allies like me now; their straight friends and relatives who have woken up and seen the humanity of our brothers and sisters. You want Russian style tyranny move to Russia. Those of us who believe in democracy and liberty and human rights won;t miss you and we sure as hell won’t let lying ignorant hatemongers like you drag us back into the darkness.

      • ahermit

        By the way, the vicious anti-gay movement in Russia is not the
        product of secularism as you seem to be implying…quite the contrary in fact.

        The ex KGB Putin’s government has new allies in the Church. They are the ones behind the draconian new laws and the street violence.

    • enness

      LOL what?

    • newenglandsun

      Here’s the power of politics on display. I called a gay marriage advocate on an Amazon forum recently a “polygamaphobe” because he would not support polygamy. Afterwards, he quickly changed his position and now supports polygamy.

      The fact of the matter is that you are being used. If you’re bisexual, if you’re gay, if you’re lesbian, if you’re transgender. You are being used by the political system in order to foister an all-out war on people that actually respect you.

      I am a bisexual and I actually fell into the LGBT lobbying stuff and was quite proud to accuse religious fanatics of homophobia. Unfortunately, the majority of religious fanatics that I accused of homophobia turned out to be more respectful. Not that I appreciate Chik-Fil-A all of a sudden. Feed me chicken, not politics.

  • bob

    “Usually one hearing room is used. For this, they planned two adjoining rooms. But those immediately filled up, so they moved it to Gardner Auditorium (also in the State House), which was quickly packed.”

    So, recognizing great public interest, they went out of their way to find the biggest hearing room that hey could. Tyrants!

    “No time limit on speaking. If the normal three-minute time limit had been imposed, many, many more people would have been able to speak. But that was never implemented. … Often, committee members would ask questions and then let them go on even longer.”

    So, they let people say what hey had to say, and asked question! Despots!

    “The first four hours: Public officials (and their guests) only. … It’s actually a State House policy that public officials are more important than regular citizens at public hearings.”

    So, they followed the usual policy. Banana Republic!

    The order of speaking was not by bill or topic, but by liberal/conservative ideological position. When signing in, you were required to write the bills you would speak on and your position on them (for/against).The order of speaking was not by bill or topic, but by liberal/conservative ideological position. When signing in, you were required to write the bills you would speak on and your position on them (for/against).
    This is also policy: you hear first from the people for something, then from the people against it. So again they followed standard policy. Tinhorn dictators!

    • newenglandsun

      bob, care to link a source for these quotations?

      • moseynon

        Newenglandsun, the quotes are from the article which Mark Shea linked to.

    • Ken Crawford

      bob, 3 things:

      1. While you attack 3 separate things in isolation, you conveniently leave out how cumulatively the result is no opposition gets to speak until 10 PM. If you want to cover a lot of topics, then you have to restrict the time each topic gets. If you want to allow lots of time for each topic, then you need to split up into multiple meetings/sessions. Their desire to overlook that basic dichotomy because it ensure that by their standard policy they don’t have to hear any opposition until 10 PM can not be naively seen as an accident.

      2. Something being “usual policy” does not make it right. It seems to me it’s pretty stupid to hear the pros for 10 topics before you hear the cons for 10 topics. It would be wiser to hear the pros and cons for one topic before moving onto the next.

    • moseynon

      Bob, I think you did good in de-spinning the MassResistance article, but I also think one of their points is valid. You note that the standard policy is for a three-minute speech, and the standard policy is for the pro-side to testify first. However, given the large crowd, by changing the three minute rule to something more open-ended, the legislature effectively pushed the anti-side out of prime time and well into the evening. This does raise the question as to whether the change was calculated to do just that.

      If the three minute standard was revised, why not revise the order of the testimony as well? Alternating pro and anti would have provided balance in a more timely fashion.

  • newenglandsun

    It’s not really so much of as a hostile homosexualist movement as it is that most LGBT people haven’t figured out that they’re only being used for a political movement by an extremely low minority of LG’s that simply just want to dominate with power. That’s been my experience with the movement. I’m bisexual by the way.

    • Geoffrey Miller

      So are most people on planet Earth. 😛

      But yeah, good comment.

      • newenglandsun

        What, did you quote that from a group trying to erase bisexuality? Bisexuals actually consider this to be a form of bisexual erasure. I would encourage you to read up on what the majority of bisexuals feel about that “So are most people on planet Earth” comment before making it again.

        • LSpinelli

          I *think* what he meant is people don’t (or don’t want to) realize their privately held opinions and feelings are being twisted by very small interest groups who want power over public opinion.

          Doesn’t matter whether they’re progressive, conservative, whatever labels people stick on these movements.

          This is why I’m not interested in “making a difference”. My opinion is my own and isn’t for this kind of using.

          • newenglandsun

            Oh, I would hope it was that he meant then.

            • Geoffrey Miller

              Yes, that is indeed what I meant.

              • newenglandsun

                Then I misunderstood. My apologies.

                • Rachel K

                  If it makes you feel any better, I read it the same way and was also about to open a can of bisexual rage. 🙂 The thing that Geoffrey meant is absolutely true, however.

                  • newenglandsun

                    Yes. What he MEANT is true. What I interpreted was my mistake. I should have asked Geoffrey what he meant before I opened my can.

    • enness

      Yup, and when they cease being useful it’ll be hasta la vista.

      • kenofken

        That’s the core reality of politics and always has been and applies to every last person and group looking out for their own interests. LGBT folk know full well that nobody gets something for nothing. Politicians are as loyal to your cause to the exact degree your cause is indispensable to them, and not a hair more. The LGBT movement is winning because they understand this math. They made themselves indispensable first in their demographic enclaves in big cities, then made themselves indispensable to national politicians by making their case, effectively, to the larger culture. Nobody gave them anything for free. Obama, for example, didn’t do anything of substance or political capital for the LGBT causes until it was politically safe to do so in his second term, and until gays made it clear they were not going to continue their big dollar support without something in return.

  • moseynon

    The article which Mark Shea linked to was written by the lobbyist group, MassResistance. Like PETA, some of what they report is accurate, but they are prone to mixing in a great deal of hyperbole and spin, too. I would take the article with a grain of salt.

    Bob undoes some of the article’s spin elsewhere in this combox.

    • newenglandsun

      I just skimmed through the article. There was a lot of terminology that confused me. Like what does it mean to be pro-family? pro-life? pro-gay? pro-trans?

      As more of a moderate, or libertarian I would say is more accurate, I do often wonder if some of these terms are just thrown about to create a binary situation to paint a picture of “us” vs. “them”.

  • EV

    Um, what? I am SO making T-shirts that say: The Gay Legion of Menacing Visigoths for Tolerance…that is awesome! And that post up there says nothing.

  • kenofken

    If this hearing really rises to the level of “tyranny” for Christianity or whatever “pro-family” faction represented here, it’s not going to make it in this or any other system of government (not even Christian Democracy), and it doesn’t deserve a voice at the table.

    We started this week with “tyranny” exemplified by the Egyptian military murdering 600 men women and children for public demonstrations over the overthrow of a man who, tool though he was, was duly elected. Now, “tyranny” has been bid down to ….wait for it….having to listen to liberals in a public hearing and having to stay up past my bedtime.” Seriously? Please tell me this is an SNL skit or Borat schtick or that we’re being punked somehow here.

    “Finally, at 10 pm they allowed pro-family people and others still there to testify. By that time, just about all the pro-family people had given up and left….”

    Not tear gassed or fired upon in a public square or ushered out on pretext of “hooliganism.” Gave up and left. The pro-family position carries with it the very survival of Western civilization, but it’s not important enough to miss Leno and need an extra cup of coffee at work tomorrow? These folks aren’t victims or martyrs of oppression. They’re five-star schmoes and whiners who don’t understand the basics of how the legislative process works and don’t have the huevos to see a cause through even that, let alone real adversity.

    In my past life as a journalist, I sat through hundreds of legislative committee meetings. They are not held to provide an exhaustive airing of the opinion of everyone in the general public who wants to speak. They’re not town hall meetings. They’re held as information gathering sessions for the elected members who seek out whatever information they feel they need to make the public policy decision.

    They are, by definition, slanted “pro” for whatever bill is being considered, because only the majority party has the power in most cases to assign a bill to committee and have it called for a hearing. It also makes sense for them to hear out the full case for why the law should be changed before fielding opposition to that. Committees also accept written testimony, which is the only realistic way they can get all viewpoints in a realistic time frame. And yes, meetings often go very, very late. If the matter is that important, grown-ups see it through to the bitter end. I can’t think of any great social cause that was fought and won on business hours and only in friendly forums.

    As to the Thom Peters matter, we’re told that the presence of some angry sickos on the Internet is the real barometer of “gay culture” ie gay people generally. Some of Mark’s posts also have, at times, drawn lots of response from bizarre anti-Semitic “trad” Catholics and angry loons calling for civil war. Should we consider them the real face of “Catholic culture.” Why not? Is there a numerical cutoff where angry commenters can be held to represent an entire movement?

    • OldWorldSwine

      If the roles had been reversed, and the gay rights people had been shoved to the back of the agenda and had to wait until after 10 to testify, they’d have been shrieking about the injustice for months, would have coined a new slogan like, “After ten, suppressed again!” and had signs and t-shirts printed.

      • kenofken

        When the roles WERE reversed, as they were for centuries, gays had considerably larger problems than waiting till after 10 to testify, like getting murdered, arrested and institutionalized for being themselves and having their careers destroyed for the same reason (which was not centuries ago, but like two years ago under DADT).

        • enness

          And we’ve had martyrs who literally lost their heads over marriage. What’s your point? Just wait. It never starts with the scaffold…

          • kenofken

            Who, exactly, has been martyred for opposing gay marriage? The suffering experienced by gays versus those who’d rather not see them marry is not even in the same universe of magnitude.

            • LSpinelli

              Not gay marriage, the right to marry whoever you want. Enness is referring to St. Thomas More and Henry VIII.

    • The Deuce

      The fact that there are worse tyrannies doesn’t make this not a tyranny, and forcing women and girls everywhere to share their locker rooms with naked men (among other things being pushed here in the name of “equality”), while disregarding the vast majority of girls, women, husbands and fathers who object and decrying them as the equivalent of “racists” merely for being uncomfortable with it, is indeed tyranny.

      Besides, the Left just goes as far as it can get away with at any given time. Given the utter contempt for the majority and for any shred of normalcy shown by these perverts, I’ve got little doubt they’d have the ovens out for the benighted breeders if they could.

      • kenofken

        Where is this “majority” we keep hearing about? You claim to speak for the majority, and yet you can’t ever seem to produce those numbers where the rubber hits the road in polls and certainly not in elections. Where are these legions? Did Democrats seize power by armed force in Massachusetts? Were the general elections held after 10 p.m. and most of your supporters went home? If this is all some master plot by the Left, how do you explain the fact that Republicans are giving up on the anti-gay platform in droves? Where is the majority of the medical or psychological profession that supports your position on transgenderism? (In fact, where are ANY of any professional standing?)

        Oh, right, I forget. It’s the intimidation of the “homosexualists”, that 2 percent of 2 percent….

        • enness

          The Republicans are suicidal. I’m not sure they really want to win. Case in point: Mitt Romney.

          SSM in Connecticut was achieved by the court after it was defeated at the legislature for years.

      • LSpinelli

        I need to ask my 13 yo son about the transgender law that was recently passed in CA. How would he like sharing a locker room with someone who shouldn’t be there? What about his right to privacy and comfort?

        These were things I never had to worry about at 13.

        (BTW, when I pointed out some of the seedier aspects of the gay lifestyle (which I’m exposed to secondhand, thanks to an estranged gay family member) on another forum, a straight and wealthy white woman with kids tossed the “nastier aspects of the breeder culture” – her words! – back at me. I had to hold back from asking, aren’t you a card-carrying member of that which you despise?…but I held my tongue, er, keyboard.)

    • Ah, we don’t deserve a voice at the table because we use hyperbole.


      Running 200+ bills through a one day public hearing where the majority side gets all day and most of the evening to testify and the anti side is relegated to two hours at the tail end of a full day’s hearing is acceptable and a sign of a functioning democratic system.


      • kenofken

        Calling a late hearing night tyranny in light of what really goes on in most of the world goes beyond hyperbole into histrionics. That does not warrant denial of a place at the table, though it cast some doubt on the credibility of what might be said at that table. People who can’t be bothered to stick around at a meeting to advocate a deeply held belief don’t deserve a place at the table.

        • Were I playing from the liberal playbook, I would talk about the mother with the bad hip who was in too much pain to stay through to 10 PM and your heartless cruelty and insensitivity towards the disabled.

          But I’m not, so I won’t. Instead, I will offer you that it would be normal for a bill to have its advocates speak and then the opposition speak. Instead, the advocates spoke and then the advocates on the other 199 bills spoke and then the first opposition was heard on the first bill.

          And what if you were in favor of bill 20 and against bill 40? When would you speak? Were people who had mixed opinions silenced?

        • enness

          I participated in a public hearing that went until midnight on a weeknight. I was able to because I’m young, single, and healthy. A lot of people are simply not able to do that, because it’s not reasonable, and it severely hampers their ability to participate in their government. I really doubt it was ever intended to be so difficult.

          Another hearing on a very contentious issue was held on the same day as a well-publicized rally for religious freedom which drew about 500 of the same people who would have otherwise wanted to be present to testify. Even those who make it their job to know about these things found out about it only the day after, and certain legislators bragged to the press about how “easy” passage was. I cannot prove, but feel certain these kind of shenanigans are pulled knowingly. Split hairs about the wording if you want; whatever it is, it’s not representative democracy.

          • kenofken

            Representative democracy is specifically built around the premise that not everyone can be physically present and day to day governance cannot be realistically achieved by plebiscite. It’s a fact of life and geography that most people will not be able to attend most hearings, regardless of when they are held.

            When I worked in the statehouse news bureau in Springfield years ago, no committee meeting was farther than a five minute walk from my desk, it was my full time job to follow legislation and even I could not attend more than a fraction of hearings that were held, even the small subset of highly controversial issues.

            For that reason, there are many other avenues for public input, starting with elections. The Massachusetts legislators would not have gotten a bill assigned to a committee and called unless they felt they had the backing of their constituents. They answer to a hell of a lot more than 500 people, and nobody stakes their political careers on the activist turnout at a single hearing. They know to a certainty who provides the votes and money to keep their jobs, and your interest group either carries enough water to decide their position, or it does not. An impassioned showing at one hearing will not change that.

            Beyond elections, you have input at several other stages. Written testimony is accepted into the record at most hearings, and often has a more lasting impact. You can also write, call or email lawmakers offices anytime, including the much larger group who will be the real test once a bill clears committee. There are also social media campaigns, lobbying and any number of other avenues to express support or opposition.

      • newenglandsun

        From my understanding of Roman Catholicism which may not be as solid as Mark Shea’s, the Roman Catholic Church, is, in it’s own self, a religious state separate from any government and that the RCC wouldn’t even recognize a heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman occurring outside of it.

        So it does puzzle me a little bit when Roman Catholics speak out on a political controversy that seems so easily resolved for them being an altogether different state and all. I can understand them concerned about welfare in a given nation but not things like this.

        • You bring up two excellent questions. The Church recognizes two kinds of marriage: natural and sacramental. It has an interest in both since the former is foundational to society and is necessary for the latter.

          Your comment seems to confuse Vatican City, which is a small sovereign state, with the Catholic Church itself. The Church’s stake in public matters stems from its own understanding of its role as the guardian and interpreter of the natural law, which binds all people.

          • newenglandsun

            Oh, I see. Now I have another question though. The link on marriage reads: “The matrimonial covenant…is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring;”

            My question would be in regard to spouses who choose not to procreate. Would their marriage be acknowledged by the Catholic Church?

            • said she

              And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply” – Gensis 1:28 – the very first commandment from God to mankind.

              Catholic marriage presupposes a desire to be open to children, and, in fact, includes the priest asking the couple this question: “Will you accept children lovingly from God and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?” (This question may be omitted if the couple is advanced in years.)

              Children are a blessing. The Bible says that time and again! Why, oh why would you choose to say “No” to God who wishes to bless you???

              • newenglandsun

                It’s just that the type of marriage exception Brian was describing seems to me more of my type of ideal marriage.

                • It’s possible that God is calling you in that direction. However, such arrangements are very much an exception to the rule. I echo what others have said here, which is the Church’s normative teaching on marriage. The natural institution is primarily ordered toward the mutual good of the couple and the begetting and rearing of children. Sacramental matrimony builds upon natural marriage for both spouses’ sanctification.

                  I recommend studying Catholic teachings on the three states of life (married, consecrated religious life, and the priesthood). Pursuing vocational discernment will help considerably. God has a plan for each individual’s salvation that takes all our strengths, talents, weaknesses, and dispositions into account.

                  A good first step is to ask yourself why living in continence with a spouse appeals to you. If it’s just for worldly reasons, it’s probably not your true calling. Christ always calls us to deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Him. Contrary to what the world says, emptying oneself is the only way to true happiness.

                  • newenglandsun

                    Thanks. You guys really pose a way better case against same sex marriage that one hears from a Protestant argument. If I’m not mistaken, from what I’ve gathered, the primary purpose of a marriage is to accept the blessings that a healthy marriage gives. Which would be kids. Or, in rare exceptions, companionship between the two.

                    Know any good books on this subject?

                    • newenglandsun

                      Thanks. Out of curiosity, are there any books by Roman Catholics refuting the claims of the Eastern Orthodox Church? I mean, growing up as a Protestant and living in a Protestant household, there’s so much broken about it that I feel it’s quite obvious that it’s truth claims are unrealistic. And what about Anglicanism?

                    • chezami

                      What you tend to get in Catholic-Orthodox relations is something like the relationship of Americans and Canadians. Catholics write things like this: praising the glories of the Eastern Churches and saying “Hey! Look how much we have in common! Let’s be friends!” just as Americans basically see no difference between themselves and Canadians. The Orthodox, often like the Canadians, react with fear and suspicion. Catholics then respond with bafflement at what they said that was so offensive. It’s kind of funny to watch the cycle.

                    • newenglandsun

                      Oh, okay. What of the relation between Anglicans and Catholics? Is that similar?

                    • chezami

                      Similar to?…..

                    • newenglandsun

                      Is it seen as an offshoot Protestantism or as like Anglicanism? I read on the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia just now that the Anglican Church is a Protestant church.

                    • chezami

                      Right. Anglicanism began with the revolt of Henry VIII against the See of Peter for refusing to let Henry divorce and marry Ann Boleyn. He set himself up as head of the Church in England.

                    • You’re welcome. Removing obstacles to conversion is my duty and pleasure as a theologian. That said, I advise you to read John C. Wright’s universal apologetic, found here:
                      Since each point follows from the last, you should read them in order. In case you don’t know (and spending time on Mark’s blog, you soon will), Wright is an author, lawyer, and former atheist philosopher who converted to Christianity; then–after a long and intellectually rigorous search–Catholicism. His apology covers every major historical and theological controversy since the Church’s founding.
                      And since I don’t want this referral to feel like a brush-off, the short answer is that the Orthodox have no major doctrinal differences with Catholics (they are orthodox in truth). The few theological points of contention really boil down to semantics arising from cultural and linguistic differences.
                      The main issue dividing Catholics and Orthodox is the pope’s primacy. The west emphasizes the papacy’s supreme authority to teach, govern, and sanctify the whole Church. The east acknowledges Rome’s dignity as the first patriarchate but tends to emphasize the pope’s role as first among equals.
                      As for the Anglican Communion, Henry VIII asserted the ancient and long discredited right of temporal sovereigns to exercise supreme spiritual authority over their territories. His son Edward, influenced by Thomas Cranmer, introduced more Protestant doctrine. Mainstream Anglicanism has been drifting further away from orthodoxy (in the general sense) ever since.

                    • newenglandsun

                      You’re a theologian?

                      My plans for the future are to obtain a Ph.D. in religious studies. I’m currently working on my B.A. right now.

            • Sacramental marriage is always acknowledged by the Catholic Church. It would generally not be a good thing to close the door to procreation. That’s considered a gift from God and thus is bad form to refuse.

              That being said, if you have special circumstances, you really should not be hashing this out in the comments but rather seeking expert advice from the Church. By special circumstances, I mean health issues.

              Here’s an example If the husband is HIV positive and the wife is not, are they required to have unprotected sex to attempt to procreate with the very high likelihood that their behavior will pass the disease? During the many centuries of the Church’s existence, I’m sure there’s an applicable theology of plagues that got developed at some time or another but it’s not in the general education curriculum so far as I know.

              • I concur, with one small caveat. The Church has historically recognized sacramental marriages between couples who chose to live in continence (or as is sometimes said, as brother and sister in Christ). Such couples usually devoted the time, treasure, and talent normally reserved for raising and education children to prayer and charitable works. In this case, they sacrificed the good of procreation for selfless
                reasons, much as consecrated religious do.

                Though the practice was most common in the early Church, I’ve heard that some married Orthodox and eastern rite Catholic priests choose to live in continence with their wives.
                Still, this is not the ordinary form of marriage.

                • newenglandsun

                  Okay, so it sounds like there are a lot of views on the topic of heterosexual marriage then.

                  • To sum up, you really won’t find a canon lawyer or theologian in good standing who disagrees with the following requirements for valid marriage:

                    One man and one woman of marriageable age.

                    Mutual, informed consent.

                    Openness to bringing forth and fostering new life.

                    Absence of serious impediments (e.g. prior valid marriage still in effect, close blood relation, physical disorders that render the marital act impossible, gross immaturity, duress or coercion, etc.).

                • I don’t know why this would be a caveat to what I said. It is, however, a description of Eastern tradition that does not hit the mark very accurately.

                  Basically, Eastern priests both Catholic and Orthodox who are assigned parish work traditionally are married and they do have children if God choose to bless them. The ranks of the married may rise to the level of protopop (monsignor). The unmarried end up monks which is where the ranks of bishops are drawn from. Widowers may also rise to the episcopate.

                  The major exception to this trend was in the US in an unhappy episode that produced a schism in the 20th century and whose final grace note was John Paul II’s apology.

        • The UK has a reigning monarch, Elizabeth II as sovereign. She is also the head of the Church of England. The Pope is both the top official of the Catholic Church as well as being the sovereign of Vatican City. The two figures emphasize their secular and religious roles quite differently but these are matters of degree, not kind. Does this clarify?

          Catholics in the US are generally organized as 501(c)3 corporations with their bishop being the head of the corporation. If the corporation represents a western rite group, it’s called a diocese. If it’s an eastern rite (a small minority) it’s called an eparchy. In either case all officers and members are not citizens of the Vatican except for very specific cases (say a US Catholic is invited to take a position in the Vatican diplomatic corps) where, at that point, like any other circumstance, the individual generally applies for permission to hold dual citizenship (and that’s generally granted). This cropped up in several instances when the wall came down and prominent US ethnic figures from E. Europe sought the same permission and either served in elective or appointed high roles in their newly freed governments so it is not just a Catholic thing.

          You should be aware that this is a somewhat sensitive topic with anti-catholic bigots using the international nature of the Church to attempt to politically disadvantage Catholics and turn them into 2nd class citizens. You probably don’t fit in that category. Those guys are a dying breed. But like I said, it’s sensitive.

          You probably would understand Catholics better if you read the book of Matthew 5:13-16

          13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything, but is thrown out and trampled under foot.

          14 “You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid. 15 No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven

          • newenglandsun

            Oh, yeah. I didn’t mean to imply they were second-class citizens just rather was pondering if they were somehow more-so citizens than all the rest cause they have the Church authority and what-not. Not that anyone is required to respond to the Church of Rome but at the same time, that they also show their opinions while working peacefully to assimilate others into their Church peacefully.

            I’m just wondering because I used to be an anti-Catholic bigot myself and now am wondering about converting and I’m a little worried that some of my political views might have me being considered a heretic.

            • I’m not aware of any political views that can make you heretical that aren’t based on religious views that do it first. The Church very often has members on both sides of a lot of political questions. It’s only when one side embraces evil that you really need to line up on one side.

              Here is an example of what I’m talking about. Do you think there are such things as untermenschen? Do you think that some aren’t children of God? Those aren’t political beliefs of themselves but they have political consequences that grow out of them, among other things a predilection for eugenics. It isn’t the political fruit that’s the problem per se. It’s the religious roots that bear the branches and the poisonous fruit that is the part the Church is most concerned with. Fix those and the politics eventually takes care of itself as you work through the implications.

              Of course, sometimes things get just a bit more urgent than the norm (a Catholic convert whose day job is working the gas at Auschwitz comes to mind) but that’s relatively rare.

            • You are on the right track and asking good questions. I pray that God will guide your search for truth.

              In our hyper-politicized times, I strongly advise you to beware equating religion with politics. The Catholic Church generally isn’t in the business of endorsing particular political theories.

              As Mark has often said, there are far fewer mandatory Catholic doctrines than most people think, and they’re all theologically derived/oriented. As a matter of principle the Church only gets involved in politics when government policy has grave effects on human dignity, religious liberty, the family, and other matters in the Church’s wheelhouse.

              There’s a great Catholic saying that applies here: “Unity in necessary things, liberty in disputed things, and love in all things.”

        • enness

          It depends on what you mean by “recognize.” My understanding is that the Church presumes even a non-Christian man and woman to be married unless good evidence to the contrary can be presented.

          • newenglandsun

            “Recognize” as in “acknowledge”. And based on how the RCC defines marriage, good evidence to the contrary would be on display in a gay marriage.

  • Sven2547

    You’ve become awfully fond of hyperbole lately, haven’t you?

    • Maria

      Did you read the article. I thought Mark was restrained after reading about the antics of the Homosexualist extremists.

      • Sven2547

        What, would you say, was the most “tyrannical” thing about that meeting?

        • kenofken

          That’s the thing about the anti-SSM crowd (which overlaps nicely with the anti-transgender crowd. ANY government proceeding which does not defer to their position is, by their definition, tyranny. When a court rules against them, it’s “judicial activism” and is illegitimate. If elected officials vote against their agenda, it’s elite oppression against the “silent majority.” (So silent they can’t seem to turn up at elections or late night meetings).

          If the matter gets decided against them in a popular referendum or popular opinion, it’s still tyrannical because any citizens who find gay marriage persuasive as policy had to be brainwashed and/or intimidated by the mainstream media and some Illuminati-like cabal of “homosexualists”.

          If this Massachusetts committee had heard all of the opposition earlier in the evening, or even first, and then voted against their will in the end, it would have been a “rigged” public hearing, a Soviet-style showcase of sham democracy. Democracy itself is illegitimate in their eyes unless and until it accepts a theocratic power of veto from them on all social issues that are important to them.

      • Sven2547

        No examples?

        Let’s look at some real tyranny: banning millions of Americans from marrying or raising children for no good reason whatsoever.

        • chezami

          You mean besides the fact that there is no such thing as gay “marriage” and children deserve a father and a mother and are not accessories for some adult’s need to feel wanted.

          • Sven2547

            You mean besides the fact that there is no such thing as gay “marriage”

            False. Same-sex marriage exists in the state of Massachusetts, which is where this event happened. Your denial does not change that fact, much like earlier Catholic denials of Heliocentrism.

            and children deserve a father and a mother

            Are you calling for a BAN on single-parenthood? Yes or no? Explain to me how having two parents of the same sex is worse than having one?

            and are not accessories for some adult’s need to feel wanted.

            Nobody’s suggesting they are. What is wrong with you? Did you even read the article?

            You have neither given an example of “tyranny” here, nor have you refuted anything in the link I provided. Your slavish devotion to authoritarian talking-points is as disgraceful as it is predictable. I support the expansion of individual liberties. You oppose them. Who is the “tyrant” here?

            • chezami

              No. A law legislating the existence of a fantasy does not make the fantasy real.

              Don’t be silly about legislating a ban on single parenthood. Saying that we can’t fix every childhood tragedy is not saying we should make childhood harder by turning children into a property rights issue for gays who want to accessorize their lives with children.

              • Sven2547

                No. A law legislating the existence of a fantasy does not make the fantasy real.

                They’re married in the sight of law and man. If your religion refuses to acknowledge that, that’s fine.

                Don’t be silly about legislating a ban on single parenthood.

                I agree, it would be stupid to ban single-parenthood. Yet you seem to think it’s okay to ban dual-parenthood if they happen to be members of the same sex. Where’s the logic in that?

                make childhood harder by turning children into a property rights issue for gays who want to accessorize their lives with children.

                You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s not about property and “accessorizing”, it’s about starting a family. I thought you people were “pro family”?

              • kenofken

                “Don’t be silly about legislating a ban on single parenthood.”

                Why is that silly, if your true concern is as weighty as what’s good for children? We have Himalayan-sized mountains of evidence that children of single parents tend to have worse outcomes, or at least have much greater challenges in life than their matched peers in two-parent households. We have no such evidence that the sexual orientation of parents has such an impact (there is some junk science on the matter).

                There is also no evidence at all to support the idea that gays as a general matter have less noble motivation than the general population for having children ie “to accessorize their lives.” If something as fundamental and precious as the well being of children is really the goal, you’d think it wouldn’t be beyond the pale to do something, anything, to officially dis-incentivize or deter, if not bar, single parenthood, especially where it is done by deliberate choice. You’re basically saying we should only use state power to enforce children’s well-being where it is politically expedient to do so or when there is a demographic soft target minority group such as gays.

        • LSpinelli

          Tryanny? You got that one laughably wrong. Marriage and children aren’t rights. Try explaining that to infertile couples and singles who didn’t choose or want their lot.

          • Sven2547

            The government isn’t what made people infertile or single. Government barring people from equality, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is tyranny.

            STILL waiting for an example of “tyranny” in this meeting, by the way.

            • SteveP

              Equality: why do I pay a tax on my father’s estate? Did I not love him the right way? Liberty: why do I pay for Thea Spyer’s Social Security Survivor benefits to Edith Winsdor?

            • LSpinelli

              I’m not even sure why you’re responding to a bunch of Catholics, because Holy Mother Church is nothing but one big bastion of tyranny to you.

              • Sven2547

                Oh not always, just when they’re trying to take people’s freedoms away.

                I see you’re trying to change the subject and make this about me, as if it’s some kind of petty personal vendetta. It’s not about me or you, it’s about alleged “tyranny” versus actual tyranny.

                • LSpinelli

                  Um, but…to use obvious examples, the law takes away a criminal’s “right” to satisfy his impulses (theft, murder, etc.), a pedophile’s “‘right” to keep a child as his plaything, a polygamist’s “right” to marry multiple women and underage girls…

                  No freedom for them. The tyrants!

                  • Sven2547

                    I’m stunned you are making a comparison this poor.

                    Laws exist to protect people and secure their rights. Laws against murder protect people’s lives. Laws against pedophilia protect the well-being of children. Laws against polygamy protect women and children. This is basic legal theory 101.

                    Laws to ban same-sex marriage protect nobody. They serve nobody. They secure no rights. They serve no function other than to make millions of Americans into second-class citizens.

                    • LSpinelli

                      Because they can’t have what other people have?

                      That same estranged gay family member I mentioned before says gays are fools for buying this marriage stuff. Gays are made to exist outside the law (their words), and why are they buying the “breeder” notion of what happiness is. Says many in his circle feel that way. (They have a rotating number of partners.) Point is, this battle is lost on both sides. Why are we even arguing about something a good portion of this community doesn’t even really want?

                    • Sven2547

                      Just because SOME gays are against same-sex marriage doesn’t mean the idea is bunk or that those who do want it should be denied it. It’s a complete red herring.

                      Some Jews hate Israel. Some Catholics hate the Vatican. Some Americans hate America. So what?

                    • LSpinelli

                      But again, why do they want it now? I want what the big kids have, so I’ll cry until I’m blue in the face until they give me my way?

                    • Sven2547

                      I’m not sure I understand your question. Are you seriously asking why millions of Americans are asking for equal rights? And you think that makes them whiny? Was Martin Luther King Jr. a crybaby to you?

                    • LSpinelli

                      MLK Jr. was simply asking for the right to live in peace.

                      That doesn’t compare with wanting marriage because the straight people have it.

                      Apples and oranges.

                    • Sven2547

                      Are you kidding me? Desegregation was about more than “living in peace”, it was about having the same access to the same facilities and rights as whites. They wanted equality. Now homosexuals are asking for equality. Apples to apples.

                    • LSpinelli

                      The only ones who are going to be the winners when this is all over aren’t gays or straights. It’s divorce lawyers. People profiting off of it. Not people who wish to live their lives in some measure of peace.

                    • kenofken

                      If you’re not getting billed for someone else’s divorce, what does that matter to you?

                    • kenofken

                      The black civil rights struggle had nothing at all to do with “peace.” It had to do with dignity and justice. Black folks had peace under Jim Crow, IF they followed the rules, which were universally known and pretty consistent since Reconstruction. If you bowed and scraped and kept to the social contract and “kept your place”, you had peace, especially in the Deep South. The arguments used against black civil rights were, word for word, the same as you employ against gays. They only want rights they don’t need and don’t understand because they are envious and want to destroy what nature never intended them to have anyway.

                    • newenglandsun

                      Homosexuals largely want gay marriage to be recognized by the government on account of the benefits. I do not see any religious reasons to deny them of this right though I am a marriage privatization advocate. I would say two good compromises would be to allow the government to define marriage in its own way while also maintaining at an individual level that marriage is defined strictly religiously regardless of what secularists want to call it. Or to abolish the government’s position to declare a marriage and leave it to the religions and the people who declare themselves married. The way some marriage “equality” advocates portray marriage, makes it seem like a “civil union” is really all the government is declaring. Maybe having the government only declare civil unions and no marriages whatsoever is better. I am a libertarian politically speaking.

                    • kenofken

                      Government marriages have never been anything other than civil unions in this country. Marriage in the religious sense of the word is a sacrament, and our government does not perform sacraments, ever. Nor should religious organizations be administering civil law. Unfortunately, many defenders of religious marriage tried to insist our government act to enforce their religious doctrine in civil law. When that failed, the argument shifted to say that gay people must be pre-emptively denied civil law rights because they’re evil (by and large) and are scheming to impose civil law mandates on sacramental marriage. The same notion of “self-defense” employed by our domestic and military police state apparatus.

                    • newenglandsun

                      Yeah, that was what I was driving at. The error is with those trying to claim that government marriage is sacramental marriage in my opinion.

                    • kenofken

                      Marriage is vastly under-utilized among heterosexuals these days, with births out of wedlock and cohabitation the new norm in many demographics. Should we deny the option to all straight people as a result?

                • LSpinelli

                  You were the one who brought up “real tyranny”, and it segued into gay marriage. Compared with brutal examples of human rights violations and “real” tyranny, this cause is peanuts.

                  • LSpinelli

                    I didn’t even finish typing that, before the edit, and someone voted it down. For people who claim to be so tolerant of everyone’s viewpoints…

                    • Sven2547

                      “Intolerance” of your viewpoint would be an effort to ban it. I am doing no such thing.

                      And so you don’t misunderstand: I downvote only for the following reasons: dishonesty, fallacy, pettiness, and trolling. I never have, and never will downvote over mere disagreement with an honest point.

                    • LSpinelli

                      I didn’t say you did.

  • buildamoat

    No, I really just want to be able to live and worship without being insulted, spat upon, or beaten.

  • James H, London

    Don’t worry, folks. The US is on its way to breakup, the state of Mass. won’t even exist in 50-100 years’ time. And history like this will be held up as an example of the collapse.

    • Sven2547


  • Jonathan

    I live in Massachusetts and am not surprised by this (even if there is some hyperbole in the linked article). Members of the Legislature started chanting “Toga! Toga!” during one late night session. They refused to enact a law passed by popular referendum. The problem with Massachusetts politics is that all levels of government are overwhelmingly dominated by one party so there is little to competition. A candidate doesn’t have to run on anything other than the party line. This is what you get with one party rule.