If you Want to Read What Archbishop Cordileone Said at the March for Marriage Today, Here it Is.

If you Want to Read What Archbishop Cordileone Said at the March for Marriage Today, Here it Is. June 19, 2014

SJC photo resized

I am proud to be part of a Church that is not intimidated by politically-motivated bullying.

From what I’ve read, the pro-gay-marriage folks did manage to drive down attendance at the March for Marriage today. I am familiar with this sort of thing, on a much smaller level.

The photo at the top of Public Catholic’s page was taken of a demonstration against me, calling for my censorship by the Oklahoma Democratic Party. The reason was that I had passed a pro life bill over the veto of our Democratic Governor. That made me a big-time traitor in the eyes of many party members. In fact, it put a wedge between me and many of them that has never gone away, not to this day.

I learned about the demonstration in the photo only a few hours before it happened. The demonstrators showed up at a fundraiser I held to try to get funds for my re-election campaign. The minute I heard about the demonstration, I knew that donors were going to stay away from the fundraiser and the whole thing would be a big, embarrassing, bust.

I sent one email to a couple of close pro life friends who were not at all political, asking them to come just so I wouldn’t be left alone. When I got to the fundraiser, I was booed and to enter the building through a gauntlet of people chanting “Traitor!” at me in loud voices. I also had a few of them run at me, waving signs and yelling various things.

When I got inside the building, I discovered that my friends had forwarded that email to their friends, who in turn forwarded it to their friends. I specifically told my friends not to make a donation. All I wanted was for them to be there to give me emotional support. What I got was a group — not a huge crowd, but several dozen — pro life people who dropped everything and came to the fundraiser to support me.

These people were not political activists. They were just pro life citizens who felt called to keep me from being left alone. What totally surprised me is the amount of money they donated to my campaign. One of them told me that when he walked past the yelling demonstrators, he waved his check book and said, “I’m going in, and I’m giving money!”

These weren’t lobbyists — who, with two exceptions, ran away from me as fast as their little legs could carry them — but ordinary people, writing checks on their personal accounts.

It was a surreal experience for me all around. But I went home that evening feeling affirmed.

It was also interesting that a number of close friends of mine apologized to me later for not coming. They were really embarrassed, but they told me they were just too scared to come and be there during that demonstration.

I think this is what happened on a much larger scale at the March for Marriage today. People didn’t show up because they were scared to take a stand in a hostile world. They didn’t want to be called names.

I actually understand that, and I am not condemning anyone for it. But please folks. look into your hearts and see if you can find the courage to stand up in the future. We’ve got to start doing that.

It makes me proud that my Church was not among those who ran away. Archbishop Cordileone has been targeted for a bit of bullying over his plans to speak at this march. But he was there, and he gave a fine speech. At no time did he allow his comments to drop into the negativity and defamation that characterize what has been aimed at him and the organizers of this march.

Here is a link to a video of the Archbishop’s speech.

The sound quality on this video is less that stellar, so I’m putting the full text, which I found on the Archdiocese of San Francisco’s website, below.

Read it and be proud.

Building a Civilization of Truth and Love

  • June 19, 2014


Archbishop Cordileone’s Talk at the March for Marriage

June 19, 2014; Washington, D.C.

In our Catholic faith tradition, young people around the age of junior high school or high school receive the sacrament of Confirmation, normally administered by the bishop.  At a Confirmation ceremony I celebrated recently in a large, Hispanic parish, two of the young people shared some reflections on what their Confirmation meant to them.  They said that their Confirmation gave them the grace to go forth and “build a civilization of truth and love.”  I could not have said it better myself!  And that, my friends, is why we are here.  Both are necessary, both, together, if we wish to have a flourishing society: truth and love.

This is the legacy we have received from our ancestors in faith.  To my fellow believers in Jesus Christ I would call our attention to those first generations of Christians in the city of Rome, who were so often scapegoated by the powerful pagan Roman government.  But when a plague would strike the city and the well-to-do fled to the hills for safety until the plague subsided, it was the Christians who stayed behind to care for the sick, at great risk to their own health and very lives.  And not just the Christian sick: all the sick, regardless of religion, of how they lived their lives, or even what they thought of the Christians themselves.  The historian Eusebius noted about the Christians of his time, “All day long some of them tended to the dying and to their burial, countless numbers with no one to care for them.  Others gathered together from all parts of the city a multitude of those withered from famine and distributed bread to them all.”  Likewise, the Emperor Julian complained to one of his pagan priests, “[They] support not only their poor, but ours as well.”

It is this kind of love and compassion in the service of truth, especially the truth of the human person, that has marked the lives of the holy ones of our own faith tradition and others as well: hospitals, orphanages, schools, outreach to the poor and destitute – giving without concern for getting anything in return, seeing in each human being, especially in the poor and destitute, a priceless child beloved by God, whom God calls to turn away from sin and toward Him, so that they might be saved.  In1839 Jeanne Jugan met one such priceless child of God, a blind old crippled woman whom nobody cared for.  That night, Jeanne carried the woman home to her apartment, and put her to sleep in her own bed.  From this profound encounter was born the Little Sisters of the Poor, who even today are loving, caring for and providing homes for thousands of elderly who deserve dignity as well as care.  These are the very nuns who now face the possibility of being shut out of spreading the love of Jesus to the needy because of their refusal to comply with a healthcare mandate that violates their moral convictions, convictions which stand on the truth of basic human dignity.

Let us, then, take our cue from the best our predecessors in faith have inspired, and not humanity’s frequent failings and sins.  Like them, we now in our own time need to proclaim and live the truth with charity and compassion as it applies to us today: the truth of a united family based on the union of the children’s father and mother in marriage as the foundational good of society.  Every child comes from a man and a woman, and has a right, a natural human right, to know and be known by, to love and be loved by, their own mother and father.  This is the great public good that marriage is oriented towards and protects.  The question is then: does society need an institution that unites children to the mothers and fathers who bring them into the world, or doesn’t it?  If it does, that institution is marriage – nothing else provides this basic good to children.

Yes, this is a foundational truth, and one to which we must witness by lives lived in conformity to it, and which we must proclaim with love.  Love for those millions of loving single mothers and fathers who struggle to pick up the pieces of their lives and succeed in creating loving homes for their children – they need and deserve our love, affirmation and support.  Love for the husband struggling with fidelity, for the woman who feels abandoned and pressured into abortion, for the teenager struggling to believe in the heroic vision of love that makes sense of chastity, for the single person who cannot find a mate, for the childless couple trying to cope with infertility, for the wife who finds herself nursing a sick husband in her marriage bed, for the young person trying to navigate through sexual identity issues and may feel alienated from the Church because of it, maybe even because of the sort of treatment received from those who profess to be believers.  To all of you, I say: know that you are a child of God, that you are called to heroic love and that with God’s help you can do it, that we love you and want to support you in living your God-given call.

And let us not forget: we must also proclaim this truth especially with love for those who disagree with us on this issue, and most of all, for those who are hostile toward us.  We must be careful, though, not to paint our opponents on this issue with broad strokes.  There is a tendency in our culture to do this to groups of people the powerful don’t know and think they don’t like.  We must not do that.  We must recognize that there are people on the other side of this debate who are of good will and are sincerely trying to promote what they think is right and fair.  It is misdirected good will.  But even those from whom we suffer retribution – and I know some of you have suffered in very serious ways because of your stand for marriage – still, we must love them.  That is what our ancestors in faith did, and we must, too.  Yes, it is easy to become resentful when you are relentlessly and unfairly painted as a bigot and are punished for publicly standing by the basic truth of marriage as a foundational societal good; it is tempting to respond in kind.  Don’t.  For those of us who are Catholic, we just heard our Master command us in the gospel proclaimed at Mass the day before yesterday: “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Mt 5:44).  We must not allow the angry rhetoric to co-opt us into a culture of hate.

Yes, we must show love toward all of these and more.  Love is the answer.  But love in the truth.  The truth is that every child comes from a mother and a father, and to deliberately deprive a child of knowing and being loved by his or her mother and father is an outright injustice.  That is our very nature, and no law can change it.  Those with temporal power over us might choose to change the definition of marriage in the law even against all that we have accomplished through very generous participation in the democratic process, but our nature does not change.  If the law does not correspond to our nature, such that there is a conflict between the law and nature, guess which will prevail?  And people will figure it out.

We can take heart from what we see happening now in the pro-life movement.  Back in the early 1970’s, just before the Court issued its infamous Roe vs. Wade ruling, public support for abortion was growing rapidly.  And as with marriage redefinition today, a generation gap opened up in the polls, leading many to predict that opposition to abortion would literally die off.  That was the future; before long, it would not even be an issue.  Instead, something unexpected happened.  A relatively small band of faithful believers held the line on the sanctity of human life in the womb, and today, two generations later, the pro-life movement is flourishing like never before.  We now have the most pro-life generation of young adults since the infamous Roe decision.  People have figured out that it is a human life that is within the mother’s womb, and that abortion, yes, really does harm women; they’ve figured out that it’s good to cherish that human life and surround the mother with love and support so a truly happy choice can be made, the choice for life.

People, too, will figure out that a child comes from a father and a mother, and it’s good for the child to be connected to his or her father and mother.  These truths may seem obvious to us, but they aren’t to everyone while in the heat of controversy.  They will figure out this truth about marriage, though, because it, too, is in our nature, and it is a key to individual and societal flourishing.  All we have to do is look around and see that our society is broken and hurting in so many ways; there is so much work to do to fix it and bring healing.  Yes, it is very complex, and many different things need to be done: we need to fix our economy; we especially need to pay a living wage to working class families; we need to fix our broken immigration system; we need to improve our schools, especially those that are failing children from poorer families.  Yes, we need to do all this and more.  But none of these solutions will have a lasting effect if we do not rebuild a marriage culture, a culture which recognizes and supports the good of intact families, built on the marriage between a man and a woman committed to loving faithfulness to each other and to their children.  No justice, no peace, no end to poverty, without a strong culture of marriage and the family.  This noble cause is a call to love we cannot abandon, that we will not give up on, and that in the end we know will triumph.

So take heart: the truth spoken in love has a power over the human heart.  We are here today to March for Marriage, to pick up the torch, and pass on to a new generation the truth about marriage, not just the abstract truth, but the lived reality that makes a difference in children’s lives.  So, my friends, we must not give up: the truth will not go away, and we will not go away.  Let us take heart from the legacy we have received, let us place our trust in God, and let us go forth to build a civilization of truth and love.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

53 responses to “If you Want to Read What Archbishop Cordileone Said at the March for Marriage Today, Here it Is.”

  1. Believe because you are right, not because others tell you it’s right. Companions may be sincere or not but if you are right it doesn’t matter.

  2. ” Every child comes from a man and a woman, and has a right, a natural human right, to know and be known by, to love and be loved by, their own mother and father.”

    I agree. Not everyone making these babies fulfills their responsibility though. Why isn’t that the issue instead of railing against the gay people who want to get married?

    It may not be ideal, but two people (whether they are the same sex or not) adopting the children that heterosexuals made, but don’t take care of, is better than the situation of having no one to love them and take care of them.

    In my opinion, the Church is wrong on this. The energy fighting against gays getting married, is misspent. They should be teaching us to deal with it instead of fighting it. They should be railing against the hateful things that Christians say and do regarding the gays.

  3. Yesterday I met David Boies and Ted Olson at an event and asked them,
    “what is the best argument for excluding gay couples from civil marriage”? They answered: “there is no best argument, in fact there is NO argument. There is no reasonable argument for denying gay people access to this civil institution that has proved so beneficial to generations of Americans.”

  4. “There is no reasonable argument for denying gay people access to this civil institution that has proved so beneficial to generations of Americans.”

    I haven’t thought about it like that. Exactly right. If marriage is so great for society than why deny gay people.

    I don’t know anything about Ted Olson except I saw him on TV on 9/11. I remembering thinking if he could keep it together when his wife was on one of the planes, I could keep it together.

  5. Thanks for the text of the speech. Good words. Anyone finding this hateful is so wrapped up in their own propaganda there’s nothing anyone _could_ say that they wouldn’t consider “hating.” At any rate, I am glad he is living up to his surname, Lion Heart. And it does give me hope to think when the proverbial poo poo hits the fan, and people see the splatter of ruined lives, the next generation will begin to turn away from this madness, as has happened with abortion. What doesn’t thrill me is the millions more lives that will be shattered, mutilated, and shortened as this wretched, fetid tide runs its course. God give us the guts to do the right thing in the middle of it all, and do it with love as the A.B. said. It’s going to get a lot darker before dawn, I think.

  6. I agree with you Ken. No matter how many times people present reasonable arguments against the redefinition of marriage, the reply is a repeat of the same old stuff as if nothing was said. It does get tiresome.

  7. Right now, marriage DOES “continue to be between a man and a woman,” for straight couples. That hasn’t changed. Nothing has changed for straight married couples by including gay people in this time-honored institution.

  8. David Boies and Ted Olson are attorneys who have represented the pro gay marriage brigade. It is fair to call them strong pro gay marriage activists.
    If that is what they really said then they were just being glib. Because if they were speaking as lawyers, they would know very well what the arguments are against gay marriage

  9. Would your answer be different if it were discovered that married men and women create, in their bodies, a strong mixture of hormones and chemicals that act to bind them together for life?
    And that the same thing does not happen in gay marriages, simply because their are not two different sexes involved?

  10. Thanks for sharing Rebecca. I’ve been curious about the back story to your photo. Always love hearing about folks willing to take a stand when things are tough.

  11. Nobody is saying that they want to deny heterosexuals the right to get married. They are wanting to extend the right to homosexuals. This is necessary in many places where homosexuals serve as surrogate parents, adoptive parents, and so on. These protections will provide protection to children in those situations.

  12. Not true. To Redefine marriage to include homosexuals and call it a ‘marriage’ is objectively disorderd. it is called a Lie.

  13. If you honestly believed that a child had a RIGHT to live with its own mother and father, then you would be in favour of banning all abortion. You would be in favour of banning the divorce or separation of married couples with children (of course enforcement of that would be very difficult, since all government enforcement ultimately rests on the notion that you can be put in jail for disobedience, but that would separate the parents). And yet even if you consistently did all of that, there would be no reason to ban gay couples from getting married. When Alan marries Steven, no children are deprived of any of their rights, not even the right to live with their father and mother.

  14. Stating that people didn’t go because of intimidation or fear of being called names is ridiculous. Anyone who would invest themselves in a cause is not afraid of being called a bully. Nobody went to this because nobody wants to jump onto a sinking ship!

  15. Many of the couples getting married have been together for decades, in spite of all the societal pressures against their relationships. It is rather arrogant to say that they are missing a special relationship chemical.

  16. We need to reestablish the art and the expectation of civil disagreement. One of my favorite quotes is “If two people always agree, one of them is unnecessary.” Individually and as a society, we need to encourage multiple viewpoints.

    At the same time, when opinions become actions, others have a right to protect themselves – not by threatening but by making the consequences of certain beliefs known, blocking laws, etc.

    For example, gay families exist. They are raising children and maintaining relationships that last decades. The laws against gay marriage do not impact the number of gay families. These laws only manage to cause real harm to real people, by creating legal roadblocks to their safety and security. For example, if marriage is not recognized and a child is injured and needs emergeny medical care, there is a 50-50 chance the child will be with a legal stranger who cannot authorize medical care.

    There is a difference between believing something and passing laws to make other people follow your beliefs even if they disagree.

  17. intellectone: Your statement is merely a bumper sticker, not a reasoned argument for excluding gay couples from civil marriage.

  18. cajaquarius, while your statement rings true, that would more be a reasoned argument for excluding non-parenting gay couples from civil marriage and opening civil marriages only to those gay couples who parent children. we don’t require blacks or gays or jews or the elderly or str8 people to be parents before we issue them marriage licenses. at the end of the day, we require very little of our citizens to enter into this important and valuable civil institution. They only time we prevent it is when we have a compelling governmental interest that will be served by preventing it.

  19. Speaking of politics and marriage….Did you notice Obama’s move to extend federal benefits to unmarried same sex couples and that he does not appear to be extending them to opposite-sex couples? Doesn’t this smack of an unequal ss ‘right’ which incidently flies in the face of all the equality rulings of late?

    Now that marriage no longer means a real marriage, I’m actually glad to see him take this move because I think any co-habiting financially committed couple should be allowed to receive these benefits and it shouldn’t depend on whether they are sleeping together or not. I have 2 sisters who live together and plan to do so until death and they would benefit greatly from this. I would like to see the Church get behind this and begin pushing for an extension of federal benefits to family couples and any life-committed co-habiting adults regardless of their sexual coupling status.

  20. One doesn’t excuse the other. How can you ever solve the biological breakdown of the family if you legalize broken relationships from the get go? That’s (crazy) utilitarian thinking and it is a race to the bottom. You might as well say why not allow murder since murder happens. We’d “solve” many problems if we did. We’d just create many more as well, including more murders.

  21. Sus, I’m going to delete your reply to this. I think it may be more than you want to publish on the internet.

  22. Donalbain, you are getting into a bogus — but often used — line of argument, which is based on demanding absolute consistency from human beings and then saying they don’t believe what they believe because they don’t believe something else you have determined they must believe in order to be consistent.

    The whole line of reasoning is built around trying to challenge another person’s deeper sincerity, by creating false dichotomies and then claiming they are an absolute of some sort. It does not even address the issues but is aimed at discrediting the person’s arguments by discrediting the person’s sincerity based on arbitrary standards which the debater erects.

    This is a type of bullying. It is also nonsense on lots of levels.

  23. fredx2, that’s a great question. Would you be influenced in your thinking by such medical conclusions? And if so, are you currently influenced in your thinking by existing medical conclusions about homosexuality?

  24. FW Ken writes: …existing legal mechanisms exist to cover the various legal needs homosexuals say they have.

    The most complete legal framework to meet those needs is civil marriage! Why reinvent the wheel just because a significant minority of the population suffers from irrational discomfort thinking about what two people of the same gender might do with one another in moments of private intimacy?

  25. They know what the arguments are, but they are entirely correct in specifying that there are no reasonable arguments.

  26. respectfully speaking, gay marriage laws are not necessary to provide for power of attorney or custodial care. also power of attorney and custodial care laws do not interfere with the first amendment rights of private citizens. this issue is essentially a red herring.

  27. Thanks for posting the full text of the Archbishop Cordileone’s speech, Rep. Hamilton. I had been wanting to read it.

    I actually like the way the archbishop expressed himself, even as I disagree with the bulk of the content. But, putting aside my contention that all arguments against gay marriage are specious at best, and that the archbishop’s conflation of the gay marriage and abortion issues is spurious, there is, buried in this speech, a call to civility that deserves to be highlighted on its own merits.

    We must be careful, though, not to paint our opponents on this issue
    with broad strokes. There is a tendency in our culture to do this to
    groups of people the powerful don’t know and think they don’t like. We
    must not do that. We must recognize that there are people on the other
    side of this debate who are of good will and are sincerely trying to
    promote what they think is right and fair.

    Now, granted, the statements that follow this are essentially a patronizing variation on “be nice to the poor stupid people who can’t seem to understand our impeccable reasoning;” and it can easily be read as a self-serving message to his own very numerous and powerful detractors in San Francisco, calling upon them not to demonize him. The sentiment he is expressing is, nonetheless, a good message for us all to take to heart.

    I truly believe that everyone here is motivated by the best of intentions, and I also acknowledge that I have myself been guilty of overstepping the bounds of civility in online debates on this issue. This discussion thread appears to be, so far, relatively free of the vitriol that so often characterize such forums, and I hope it stays that way.

    …none of which changes the fact that I’m unable, for the life of me, to find any valid reasoning for opposition to gay civil marriage.

  28. What is the alternative to legalising broken relationships? Arresting people who separate from their spouse?

  29. Legalizing ssm makes marriage gender less, which has so many consequences for children and society!! I always think of the legal changes that will be made in public school curriculum. Teachers will need to teach my kids about how OK and GOOD it is to have a mommy and a mommy that can’t make babies together (why, mom?), but that’s ok! They can grow them in test tubes or buy them! The family of mom, dad, and kids will no longer be seen as ideal, which is the true tragedy. Welcome to the age of relativism, where absolute truths are out of fashion. The scariest thing for me is that most people don’t get it.

  30. My guess is that the christian opposition to gay marriage will end up in the same place as opposition to mixed race marriage, approval of segregation and slavery, and the temperance movement. Within five years various christian denominations will be patting themselves on the back for leading the march for equality.

  31. Let’s say I came up with seven reasonable arguments against catholics getting married. Let’s say these were the best arguments proposed for any idea since the dawn of time. I would still have absolutely no right to interfere with your right to determine for yourself and in your own life, who you will marry. I have no right to interfere in your decisions. And you have no right to interfere in the decisions of others.

  32. True, there are legal work arounds. But that doesn’t make the issue a red herring. The laws vary from state to state, as do the legal fees and court costs. One family has spent $10,000 to get the protections other families get with a $50 marriage license, and all the docs have to be renewed every six months.

    If you decided to take your family on ten state trip this summer to visit national parks, you would get some maps, reserve some hotel rooms, and go. A gay family would have research the laws of each state, get powers of attorney to cover each parent’s authority to authorize care for the other adult and each child, and make sure those documents are valid in each of ten states.

    Why? Why can’t we just say “these families exist and need legal protection just like my family” and “I do not understand the beliefs of that other family, but I respect their right to be safe and secure”?

  33. Marriage is a very private decision, made by hopefully 2 consenting adults. The only time it isn’t a private decision between 2 consenting adults, as far as I can tell, is in some societies where arranged marriages are made and the 2 folks involved have nothing to say about it. 2 folks can marry in a court house and be done with it. The only folks involved is the person authorized to perform it and the 2 folks getting married. It is amazing how many SS couples have come forth to marry in states that have legalized it, who have been together for 10, 20, 30 years or more. That is longer than many heterosexual marriages last. No one is harmed by this.

  34. Note: I don’t close posts to comments, but I’m going to start pruning the number of repetitive comments on the posts that concern gay marriage, that I let through, based entirely on boredom and stupidity. If something about gay marriage has already been said 10 times on this front page of Public Catholic, give a bit of thought to your comment and try to come up with a different idea.

  35. The solution to that is simple: Pass uniform laws. No reason to define marriage — which is draconian — to accomplish any of this.

  36. Same-sex attraction has been “normalized” for decades in the civil realm! The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 1973, and the American Psychological Association did the same in 1978. Today there are no North American laws that I’m aware of that restrict the right of a gay couple to live together. That ship has sailed and it’s never coming back.

    So, given that such relationships are clearly viewed as “normal” in the civil sphere, the issue is whether individuals in such relationships should be afforded the same civil rights and protections, and concomitant responsibilities, as people in identical heterosexual relationships. Courts across North America have been systematically ruling that they should, as to do otherwise would constitute unjustifiable discrimination.

    And I wasn’t trying to be insulting in my previous comment. What I wrote is the dictionary definition of homophobia. So what did you find insulting? The fact that I implied that people who oppose gay marriage are in fact primarily motivated by an aversion to gay sex? Or the fact that I implied that basing policy on such an aversion is irrational?

  37. But its not normal. No one pretends its normal. Not even gay people try to normalize being gay. It’s abnormal. Like being left-handed. Or a red-head. Contrary to the norm.

  38. That is an INCORRECT statement of the law that cannot lay here unchallenged. So incorrect, that a if a lawyer had stated it, he could be sued for malpractice. The truth is that the burden is on our GOVERNMENT to explain why they want to deny a right to a minority member, that they freely grant to the majority, whether the minority is Catholic or gay or immigrant, etc.

  39. Ummmm … pesq87 … lawmaking is not like a courtroom. There is no burden on the government to do anything of the sort. Also, lawyers aren’t sued for malpractice for saying that they disagree with someone. This is a discussion you’re engaging in here. You’re not talking to “the government.”

  40. Note: I’m calling this one off. I have read the replies here, (the ones the rest of you haven’t seen) and they are getting petulant and heading for a fight. This whole discussion has gotten circular, anyway.

  41. I understand that you closed comments, but I hope you post this since it’s neither circular nor personal, but closes a loop you and I have now opened. By my comments I meant that this issue isnt before the legislature; that ship has sailed. It’s now/has been before the courts. See CA, ID, ND, TX, KY, VA, OK, OH, PA, etc. That’s where the government has the burden to show these laws are just.

  42. I didn’t close comments pesq87. I just started deleting comments that were endlessly making the SAME comment, over and over.

  43. Jon Fermin: In theory, you would be correct about power of attorney and custodial care. However, there are hospitals that continue to refuse same sex partners all of the perks that a signed power of attorney dictate. Just recently the partner (27 years toghether) of a seriously ill man was EJECTED from the hospital for arguing that he had the right to be in the room. This was after he showed them the paperwork. The questionabililty would be far less arguable if in fact these two were allowed to be legally married.

  44. David, the guy had a lawsuit if he wanted to use it.

    Unless, of course, he was ejected the way that family often is, because the medical staff wants them out of the way while they’re working on a patient/doesn’t want them to faint/they are being a problem, etc.

    I can’t form an opinion of this situation, based on this information. And frankly, since, from the viewpoint of these com boxes, it’s all he-said/they-said, no one else can either.

  45. “For example, if marriage is not recognized and a child is injured and
    needs emergeny medical care, there is a 50-50 chance the child will be
    with a legal stranger who cannot authorize medical care.”

    For the most part, these medical/hospital examples ARE red herrings. Technically, you might be right but in practical terms no one checks birth certificates in the middle of a medical emergency. If you bring a child to the hospital and call yourself a parent no one is going to question you until much later, if ever. You’re more likely to have problems with the insurance company than the medical professionals.