• Subscribe to Crisis

  • The Unseemly Campaign Directed at One Man

    by Austin Ruse

    Justice Kennedy

    Many years ago I sat with Justice Scalia at a Catholic prayer breakfast in New York City. As we ate, a waiter approached, leaned into Scalia and handed him a FedEx package. This was suspicious since FedEx does not deliver on Sunday.

    Scalia said, “Must be a bomb” and tossed it unopened into the middle of the table where it lay ticking for the length of the morning. Scalia said it was probably some message about a case, probably Roe v. Wade. You got the feeling he gets this kind of thing all the time.

    Scalia went on to say that in simpler times, members of the public likely did not know the names of the Supreme Court justices and that is the way it is supposed to be. The Court’s decisions should not be so intrusive into people’s lives that it would occur to them to learn their names let alone lobby them.

    The Supreme Court has likely never seen a campaign like the one unfolding around the twin Prop 8 and DOMA cases. One experienced court watcher thought maybe there was a comparable campaign around the Webster and Casey decisions on abortion a quarter century ago but even that is unlikely given the subsequent explosion of new media, Facebook, Twitter and so on.

    The avalanche of what flacks call “earned media” is impressive. Over the past month or more there has been a steady drumbeat growing louder and louder about all things “gay.” No gay matter is too trivial to report. Just yesterday it was announced the weekend anchor of the Today show came out as a lesbian. Ten bucks if you know her name without looking.

    A front page Style Section story on the day of the Prop 8 hearing is a time line of gay TV and movies,—“Yep, we’ve come a long way”—starting in 1993 with Tom Hanks’s Oscar winning role in the Aids movie Philadelphia all the way to the gay dad in Modern Family today.

    Full page ads in the Washington Post announced this week “America’s leading businesses agree: same-sex couples deserve to be treated equally” signed by Morgan Stanley, Verizon, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Mars, Google, Amazon, Levi Strauss, Walt Disney, Pfizer, Panasonic and on and on.

    It made big news as week by week new political or entertainment celebrities “came out” for homosexual marriage. Clint Eastwood did it. Apparently all has been forgiven for not supporting Barack Obama and comparing him to an empty chair. It was even bigger news when Senator Rob Portman announced his son was homosexual and his previous deeply held religious belief about man-woman marriage was out the window. Sorry God.

    On March 20 a group of NFL players and rappers what the Washington Post called “traditional tough guys” announced their support for same-sex marriage and this was dutifully reported nationally.

    It made big news on March 21 when the American Academy of Pediatrics announced for the first time their support for homosexual marriage. They cited studies that purport to show that children raised by homosexuals do just as well or better than children raised by moms and dads. Forget that among the 59 studies they cite, none of them, according to Loren Marks of LSU, are considered scientifically rigorous enough to make the case they’re supposed to make.

    Then there was the amicus brief by a gaggle of former Republican office holders, “consultants,” and “advisers.” More than 100 of them signed a brief saying, “It is precisely because marriage is so important in producing and protecting strong and stable family structures that amici do not agree that the government can rationally promote the goal of strengthening families by denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.” Do these GOP courtiers really suggest their former bosses, George Bush and Mitt Romney, are irrational?

    And let’s not forget Bill Clinton ceremoniously announcing he now opposed the Defense of Marriage Act which he signed 17 years ago, or the slick soft focus campaign commercial Hillary Clinton did for the incredibly wealthy Human Rights Campaign in which she said “Gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights.”

    You would think this was the only issue before the Court and that the wheels of Constitutional law ground to a halt during the period to deal with “marriage equality.” Bet you didn’t know the Court also dealt water run off, and the use of federal roads by lumberjacks. If they only were about, say, “water run off equality” or the use of roads by gay lumberjacks, folks might have noticed.

    It really was not supposed to be this way. The big decisions of America are to be decided not by nine unelected judges but by the people.

    Homosexuals compare their struggle to blacks. But no one suggests that blacks were not kept out of the political process and needed relief from the Court. But can anyone say with a straight face that homosexuals are similarly powerless? Has there ever been a 2% minority in this country that has had such political power that they have co-opted all the elite institutions to their cause? They were even able to convince the governments of California and the United States to abrogate their responsibilities to defend laws passed by the people of California and the US Congress.

    And the really troublesome aspect to all of this is that all of this is aimed less at the whole court than at one man, the swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy. It comes down to one guy. It really was not supposed to be this way.

    About that package at the prayer breakfast. It lay there for the whole morning making all of us nervous, particularly after Scalia’s bomb comment. Scalia finished speaking and left the room. A friend grabbed the mysterious package and ripped it open, rather abruptly for many of us. I was so worried it might be a bomb that I memorized the serial number on the package in case I survived the blast. My friend Dino said an Act of Contrition. Turns out it was a petition…on Roe.

    The views expressed by the authors and editorial staff are not necessarily the views of
    Sophia Institute, Holy Spirit College, or the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts.

    Subscribe to Crisis

    (It's Free)

    Go to Crisis homepage

    • anne

      it is a sad time in the unites states , satan has taken over the country and the world

    • tom

      A delightful article. Our bishops, our shepherds, talk a lot. Christ expects more, I suspect. Maybe for 3 hrs every Friday they could think of ways to stop “personally opposed ” hacks from intimidating them?

      Maybe they should stop encouraging American boys to go fight wars the Pope says are “unjust”? Maybe they should give charity to Catholics who agree with the magisterium and not some kid who wants to get into the NBA and become a Muslim? Maybe they should even have a “virtual” program to teach everyone just 10 major beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church and put them on the web, with discussions with sharp clergy and theologians? Maybe, they’ll just have a nice dinner, instead. Have a Good Friday and a Happy Easter.

    • Howard Kainz

      This is sad, but inevitable for two reasons: 1) All studies have failed to come up with a cause of homosexuality, so by default the public presumes gays are “born that way,” and it becomes a civil rights issue. 2) Contraception, which boils down to intentionally non-procreative sex, is so widely practiced, and it would be logically inconsistent for contraceptors to criticize sodomists, who are simply practicing another version of non-procreative sex.

      • jacobum

        Nothing is inevitable except death and taxes. Catholic Church has the answer and has had it forever. It’s called sin. Period. But then again so is contraception and the whole culture of death spawned by irresponsible sexual behavior. It’s nothing more than wanting the justification and public acceptance of immoral behavior so they can continue it with a numbed conscience. The real problem is lack of faith, humility, obedience and leadership at all levels of Church. We don’t believe, live or preach the Truth. Mix it with the “Church Nice” approach combined with vapid, weak, and wimp Bishops and Viiola!…you get the illogical becoming logical. For the latest Bishop induced disaster? See Bill Russell’s comment above on Dolan and Biden. And Dolan is the leading Cardinal in the US? Head of the USCCB? The man is an absolute walking, talking, backslapping, politician, dressed in Cardinals robes. He is an embarrassment to himself and a complete disaster for the Church in the USA. The media loves him. That’s all one needs to know. Is he the best we can do? Clearly not! Is he what we deserve? Clearly, YES! Can’t mock God and expect Him not to notice. There is one sure fire way to know if a Bishop is doing his job. Namely, the media is screaming at him for essentially, calling sin, Sin! If not, he’s a politician in robes. The silence in his diocese confirms it.

        • cminca

          First–what the CC defines as sin may, or may not, be what God thinks. But I will point out that, for sure, Catholics should stop worshiping the church and start thinking about the words of the man they profess to follow.
          Second–the CC doesn’t get to decide on the civil rights of citizens in a plural, secular, democratic republic.

          • http://twitter.com/4vines wc4mitt

            God calls homosexuality an abomination – perhaps you missed that when you read the whole Bible and just selectively.

            • Joe DeCarlo

              Yes, and the church softened by saying it is a disorder. People always quote Leviticus to me with all the laws that are no longer adhered to when I say that homosexuality is called an abomination. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I have never seen a reading at mass that come from Leviticus. The quote that I use is from the book of corinthians which calls homosexuality an abomination.

          • jacobum

            El wrongo you are. Christ was the Son of God. He established only one true faith and only one true Church aka the Roman Catholic Church. All Truth, Faith and Morals reside in he RCC protected by the Holy Spirit all based on Scripture, Tradition and the Magestirium of the Church. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ per “upon this rock I shall build my Church and the the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. plus specifically given direct power to.. “whatever you bind shall be bound in heaven, whatever you loose shall be loosed in heaven” Church cannot preach error on matters of faith and morals. Last time I checked morals is all about sin. It’s not worshiping the Church. It’s worshiping Christ in the Church he founded and His real presence in the Holy Eucharist (Check out John Chapter 6) together with the 6 other sacraments, all of which He instituted as a means to our salvation. . Add the inconvenient fact that the RCC is responsible for building Western Civilization as we know it, besides instituting myriad institutions we take for granted and it is a very convincing case for anyone who is interested in knowing the Truth. Finally, all law is ultimately based on natural law which is infused in us from God. Moral and Civil Law flow from it. It is no accident of history the RCC has outlasted all governments, dictators, wars

            and every other awful event and person in history (both within and without the RCC included). It will outlast the current mess as well. However, no one knows its, size, or influence etc. If one had to guess? It will shrink in size and probably undergo a persecution cycle before emerging much stronger.
            Finally, although it does not directly decide the civil rights in individual countries, it certainly does espouse, defend and protect the dignity of life and the individual rights that flow from it. To that extent, it is the only one that has always done it as evidenced by the fact that the RCC has never changed a single dogma of Faith since its founding by Jesus Christ.

            • tom

              Cminca has no concept of the relationship of the Church to Christ. Don’t waste your time with her nihilism and BIGOTRY against us.

              • jacobum

                Don’t disagree. But offsetting that is the obligation to speak Truth to Ignorance and Bigotry. At least they will never be able to say..”No one ever told me that”. The rest is in the hands of the Lord. A Happy and Holy Easter to you and yours

        • tom

          Well said, jacobum. Dolan will never be mistaken for St. Thomas More. He is Timothy Cardinal Weakling, steamrolled by dummies like Biden and Pelosi daily.

          • Bono95

            He won’t be mistaken for St. John Fisher either. Fisher shares More’s feast day because he was the only English bishop with the guts to oppose Henry VIII’s split with Rome and Catherine of Aragon. The pope made St. John a cardinal in the hope that that would turn back the king’s wrath. Instead, Henry remarked that Fisher would have to wear the cardinal’s hat on his shoulders because he’d have no head to put it on. Interesting side note, when St. John’s head was mounted on London Bridge after the execution, it remained surprisingly life-like until it was tossed into the Thames.

            • tom

              Well said, Bono! Now, we’ve got cardinals eager to praise the likes of Teddy Kennedy and feed the Sacred Host to Evil Joe Biden. Anyone else smell sulphur? Sadly, I do.

              • Bono95

                Thank you, Tom, and yes, (gag), I smell sulfur too. St. John Fisher, pray for us and all the bishops and cardinals.

      • Caroline

        and 3) Is marriage about life-long companionship or just about sex? This is related to (2) I suppose, but it’s not the same. For many male-female couples, sex just isn’t that big of a deal as you get older. What matters is being with the person you love. I imagine many gay couples just want the same thing — a loyal, dedicated, and life-long companion.

        • Mark

          Absolutely, Caroline! If people could just get their smutty little minds off sex for five minutes, they’d understand that’s not the only thing marriage is about! As you say, it’s about life-long companionship.

        • dover_beach

          Caroline, obviously marriage is not either/ or the other but BOTH unitive (a life-long union of body and mind) and procreative. But if, as you say, marriage just is about being with the person you love, and thus only a private, personal relationship – like friendship -, what business does the government have recognizing and regulating such a relationship? Why can it only be something that involves one other person and no more? Why must it be life-long?

          • tom

            Because you just said it was “unitive”? Duh.

            • dover_beach

              Yes, I know the answer is straightforward, but some people need to be gently taken by the hand.

              • tom

                You’re kind Dover.

          • Caroline

            Why should the government need to recognize and regulate any relationship between two consenting adults? It’s really up to each of us to decide who we want to marry. The government has no business being involved in choosing marriage partners or deciding whether or not we need to procreate within marriage. I don’t think any of us want “Big Brother” in our bedrooms.

            • tom

              A society that tears apart normal family life with illegitimacy and gay marriage is ready to collapse. You don’t get that? Look around. Go to a Gay Parade or visit Detroit. It ain’t pretty.

            • Bono95

              The Supreme Court case going on right now IS the government interfering with marriage. If DOMA is defeated, the government will be forcing everyone to support homosexuality and further degrade true marriage with their votes and tax dollars, whether they want to do that or not.

            • JoeDeCarlo

              Maybe because you need a license to marry. And that it is a legal document.

            • dover_beach

              Firstly, If you don’t want the government to regulate SSR why are you asking it to recognize gay ‘marriage’? Secondly, the government does not choose our particular marriage partner; it simply recognizes a class of relationship, marriage, as involving a man and a women. The choice of man or woman is all our own. Thirdly, procreation is not a requirement of each particular marriage, the point is simply that marriage is a relationship orientated towards the procreation of children. If a relationship as a class in and of itself is non-procreative than it is not marriage. This is not a difficult point to understand. And lastly, no, none of us want and none of us is advocating that.

            • http://twitter.com/Desertsunart Desert Sun Art

              Caroline, obviously you have no idea what the definition of marriage is. The government is concerned with supporting marriage, or it used to be rightly, because unions of men and women produce children; and stable, in tact families, children with their mother and father, are necessary for a stable society.
              We are seeing the fruits of the erosion of the family, absent fathers, single mothers, poverty, crime, etc.

        • tom

          Caroline, have you always been so dizzy?

          • tom

            p..s. Mark, did you get YOUR dizziness from Caroline?

            • Caroline

              What a dizzy response, Tom! Meaningless too.

              • tom

                You’re vacuous and morally unprincipled, that’s all.

      • HigherCalling

        Behind every “conservative” conversion to the same-sex “marriage” camp is a personal acceptance of artificial contraception — you can bet on that. You can bet that the growing cultural, legislative, and judicial acceptance of homosexualism has, at its source, an opposition to the Church’s unbending, non-negotiable, and absolutely correct teaching on contraception. At least the liberal pro-contraception crowd is consistent in its thinking. They accept the undeniable precursor to same-sex “marriage,” contraception, and then move consistently ahead and support its inevitable, logical conclusions — abortion and same-sex “marriage.” It is the “conservative” pro-contraception crowd that throws intellectual consistency to the wind. They accept contraception (ironically, one of the great lies of Liberalism) and then hypocritically take some moral high-ground in condemning same-sex “marriage,” and then they make the audacious non sequitur in laying claim to being pro-life, pro-marriage, and pro-family. My working term for this is Contraceptionism — the philosophy of contraception that blinds one to consistent thinking, particularly the blind acceptance of one of the defining elements of Liberalism: contraception.

        • tom

          With half of America’s new borns “bastards”, someone has to try to move to higher ground, HigherCalling. Babv steps for Christ?

    • Bill Russell

      And Cardinal Dolan on Palm Sunday – during the Liturgy of the Passion – has Joe Biden applauded from the altar of St.Patrick’s Cathedral.

      • tom

        Scandalous, Timmy.

    • Bono95

      Is Microsoft on the Washington Post list? :-/

    • d’oro

      ‘where it LAY ticking,’ not where it ‘LAID’ ticking. Where’s your proofreader?

      • Austin Ruse

        Want a job?

        • tom

          Best line of the day, Austin.

    • d’oro

      ‘to learn their names let along lobby them’ – let ALONE. Where’s your proofreader?

    • d’oro

      Bet you didn’t know the Court also dealt water run off – dealt with? Who killed the proofreader?

    • d’oro

      ‘Has there ever been a 2% minority in this country that has had such political power that they have co-opted all the elite institutions to their cause.’ Question mark missing.

      Really, I AM trying to read the article for what it says. Maybe I’ll try again. But clearly the proofreader is asleep at the keyboard here.

    • cestusdei

      Polygamy comes next. After that the Muslims will start mentioning that Muhammad married a 9 year old…

      • tom

        And Timothy Cardinal Weakling, after a few chuckles, will declare Mahomet founded the “religion of peace”. Our last war with them lasted until 9/11/1683 when a saint rose to defeat them. Now, we’ve got nuthin’.

        • jacobum

          Allow me to finish your sentence by adding the word..”yet” (that is apparent) plus add the following observation….The war never ended. It just went underground.

      • tom

        When more Muslims attend mosque on Friday than attend Mass on Sunday in Paris…we got problems.

        • Bono95

          The Eldest Daughter of the Church is rebelling against her parents.

    • Caroline

      It seems kind of sadistic and attention-getting to frighten one’s prayer breakfast guests with a bomb scare!

      • tom

        It’s Mr. Justice Tony’s good humor. He’s GREAT and needs our prayers.

        • tom

          p.s. Caroline just needs professional help. Perhaps they can cure her dizziness?

    • Caroline

      “It really was not supposed to be this way. The big decisions of America are to be decided not by nine unelected judges but by the people.”

      Over time and very clumsily, the big decisions of America ARE made by the people. The majority of people in the US now support marriage equality. The justices are a little behind the convictions of the present because many of them were appointed in times gone by, before the population reached its current majority perspective. The majority perspective is only going to grow stronger as older people die off and are replaced by those who see marriage equality as a given. Opinions on this issue have been moving very, very quickly and the momentum is clear. This isn’t a “2% minority” co-opting the rest of us; this is a majority — over 50% — who genuinely believe that marriage equality is a civil rights issue and that people should be free to choose their marriage partners without government interference.

      • Austin Ruse

        Caroline, Teh polls always show support for same sex marriage right up until it is time to step inside the voting booth and then an amazing thing happens, those same people vote overwhelmingly for man-woman marriage. It happens in conservative states, in liberal states, during Democratic primaries…nothing new here…

        • http://profiles.google.com/jkabala1980 James Kabala

          Unfortunately that wasn’t true last fall in Maine, Maryland, and Washington.

          • tom

            And the majority said, “Give us Barabas.” What’s your asinine point?

            • Augustus

              Note that James said “Unfortunately.” The point is that we need to work harder to win over the public. Knowing the truth isn’t enough. In a free society, people are free to be ignorant. We have to persuade them. Otherwise, it’s over.

        • tom

          You should hear Caroline sing, “Dizzy, I’m so dizzy.” A little off key…

      • Alecto

        That a majority supports a position is not a justification for the rightness of the cause. Days gone by? Do you mean 2005? As an observer of Gen Y and millenials, I see very morally confused youngins who engage is self-destructive behaviors like hook-ups, who have astronomically high suicide rates, binge drinking rates, drug addiction rates, etc… I wouldn’t exactly hold up this Generation Lost as the compass for the country honey.

      • tom

        Caroline….you’re sick. Go to a gay bar and celebrate Death.

        • Caro

          Tom, go to a bigotry bar and celebrate Hate.

          • Caro

            Tom is a stalker with nothing but ad hominems. He’s a wonderful example of a negative role model for his cause. No wonder Fox had to tell Bill O’Reilly to tone it down (O’Reilly has done a little switch on marriage equality.) Not the right is left with … how many times married? … Rush Limbaugh as its spokesman for traditional marriage:-O

            • tom

              Caroline, you’re just a varmint that’s been trapped in her own sick little mind. The Church opposes homosexual marriage, abortion, euthanasia and infanticide. You support all and are cast out…along with your filthy soul. Seek redemption or get ye behind us Satan. In short: Go to Hell.

              • Caroline

                Is this site monitored? Why is this Tom person allowed to insult and abuse other participants.

    • brigin

      Ppl are sick of this issue. The cultural, monied elites have been pushing this issue so hard for so long ppl just are not going to put up with much longer. The elitists know this and have pulled out all the stops for a last ditch effort. When it fails, it’s over. The American ppl will have beaten back yet another attempt to destroy the foundations of this great country So buck up. Victory is at hand.

      • John200

        Excellent point. The fervor of the perverts and their advocates tells all. They know they have lost the debate, they have no worthy reason to ruin marriage, they just want their way, and they will Alinsky us to death to get it.

        Two year olds, no better than two year olds. This issue is krappe, and so are their arguments” in favor of homo”sex”ual so-called “marriage.”

        • brigin

          If I’m wrong and America turns it’s back on Gods grace, look out. Herod executed John the Babtist for defending traditional marriage.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1306493603 Noreen McEnery DiDonato

        I hope and pray you are right.

      • tom

        We’ll win only if we take to the streets to face Big Sis down.

    • cminca

      “They were even able to convince the governments of California and the United States to abrogate their responsibilities to defend laws passed by the people of California and the US Congress.”

      I’d suggest you ALL be careful about defending the “right” of the people to vote on the ability of some people to have civil rights.

      Because next time, the “people” may be voting on YOURS.

      • John200

        Your threats don’t interest me; troll.

        • Bono95

          She’s not a troll. She’s a human being in need of prayer and guidance.

          • John200

            We are all human beings in need of prayer and guidance.

            She fits both definitions, a twofer if you want it.

      • Augustus

        Homosexuals already deprive people of their freedom in places where they have political clout. Consider the intentions and demands of the gay lobby before you accuse critics of denying others of freedom. There may be a time in the not too distant future when Christians will need to seek protection from the Court against gay persecutors.

        • Joe DeCarlo

          The gay lobby wants to deny gays who want to change their sexual orientation. They want doctors to stopped trying to convert them.

        • Mark

          If they ever tried to tell you that you could only marry a same sex partner, you might have a point, but think about it. As it is, you’re being illogical and self-contradictory. They are merely asking for what the rest of us already have — the desire to marry another consenting adult.

          • Mark

            Sorry, I meant the RIGHT to marry another consenting adult.

            • Alecto

              Interesting, but there is no “right” to marry. Even if there were, it is not an absolute right. Nothing is, or has ever been interpreted to be an absolute right including free speech, free exercise of one’s religion, gun rights, property rights, etc…. But here you come to tell us that marriage is somehow excepted from these rules? If we speak of marriage as such, then the counterargument is that we have ample evidence that many, many limitations have been placed on it: familial prohibitions, age prohibitions, capacity prohibitions and others. It is also an institution that predates our country, our culture, our beliefs, our traditions, and spans the history of man. To so lightly and with so little regard for consequences, for others’ beliefs and rights, rush into some brave new world belies a thoughtless, shallow intellect.

            • John200

              Pretending to be obtuse is not a good strategy if you would like to persuade anyone that you have a solid point.

              It is just a bad Alinsky-like habit.

          • tom

            The “pieces” don’t fit together unless you try it backwards. Isn’t that true Mark? Hmm!

          • Augustus

            That is not merely what they are asking for. They want to force the public to APPROVE of homosexuality. If members of the public do not they will be persecuted. They will be fined or closed down or silenced. This has already happened in the U.S. and other countries where the gays have gotten their way. If you disagree, you are a bigot and will be punished. What the gay lobby is demanding from the government are privileges and tax subsidies, the kind of thing that is provided for couples with children. It is in society’s interest to protect families and it is understood that marriage results in children. This is not possible with gay couples, unless they adopt or take extra-ordinary measures. Thus it is not “normal” but atypical. That is the definition of homosexuality and we are being asked to normalize what is obviously fringe behavior. If gays want to shake up, that’s their business. But to get government endorsement is a separate matter entirely. This yearning for public approval demonstrates that being gay has nothing to do with being happy.

      • tom

        Bring it on, boyo.

      • http://twitter.com/4vines wc4mitt

        Sexual preferences have nothing to do w/civil rights. Gov’t can’t regulate such activities which have zip to do w/the common good which is what gov’t is supposed to regulate for – the good of everyone not a select group of 2%.

      • Alecto

        I cannot ignore this. Your post highlights the danger of the current misconception (no doubt the result of public school indoctrination or a defective education) of the U.S. as a democracy. We are not. We are a federal constitutional republic. The Constitution lays out a framework of express and limited responsibilities for the federal government and prohibits it from engaging in other areas which are reserved to the states. It sets forth the concept that individuals are imbued and invested with rights that no government, no mob can eliminate.

        What the Court is attempting to decide is not within the purview of the Constitution. That decades of abuse of the Constitution, often in the name of very laudable goals, have resulted in an unrecognizable central authority exerting control over every aspect of our lives is understandable given our current sorry lack of understanding about the Constitution, our inalienable rights and our duties.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jambe-dArgent/100003865893919 Jambe d’Argent

      Whom gods want to destroy, they make them first mad.

    • tom

      Timothy Cardinal Weakling has become a joke. He needs to ask God for a backbone or move into a monastery. Biden mocking him and the Church by taking Holy Communion at St. Patrick’s? Dolan needs to lower the boom.

      • JoeDeCarlo

        The fruits of Vatican II- a mush-mouth clergy.

        • tom

          He’s turning into a hack with a red hat. I’m disappointed. Cardinals Cooke and O’Connor were powerful and respected. Eagan and Weakling have been faded reproductions of leadership.

          • Bono95

            At least bad cardinals in days of yore had initiative and leadership, and if not backbone, certainly nerve and gall.

    • http://twitter.com/roxwyfe Ruth Rocker

      If homosexual marriage becomes law, then why not any other sort of relationship? If marriage is not one man/one woman, why not one man/ten women or one woman/seven men or a 50-year old/child . . .

      People, we are standing on the brink of the sublime headed straight for the ridiculous!!

      • Joe DeCarlo

        Agreed! Why can’t adults have relations with children? Why can’t a woman have 5 husbands or vice-versa?

        • JoeDeCarlo

          of course, I’m being facetious.

          • tom

            Joe Biden isn’t being facetious as he receives Holy Communion in St. Peter’s and St. Patrick’s. Something’s wrong…badly on “TILT”.

            • JoeDeCarlo

              I blame the cleric who gave him communion.

              • tom

                Yeah, the priests are now pushing the grave, ongoing, sins of the politicians like Biden and Pelosi. The RCC supports the abortion Holocaust by feeding the sacred host to these moral cretins.

      • jacobum

        Exactly right. Speaking of ridiculous? Why can’t I marry my dog or favorite sheep? After all who the h*ll are you to deny me my personal sexual pleasure or preference? It’s none of your da*n business. Stay out of my bedroom or barn for that matter. So what if I am a little kinky and specialize in animal husbandry? Is it my fault I have developed an intimate attachment to my animal soul mates? I can’t help myself, nor explain it, so God must have made me this way. You don’t love animals and you’re just a bigot. So take that and on your way out would you please be a deer (pun intended) and put in a couple of 5 lbs bags of feed in the stalls? I’m feeling lonely about now. After all, it’s your Christian duty to do so. Besides, didn’t St Francis love the animals and birds? We even bless them every year on the feast of St Francis. He had to be right. My proof? New Pope just took his name. Hey if it’s good enough for the Big Guy, then who are you to say otherwise. Got it? Good night Gracie!

        • tom

          A professor at Princeton promotes bestiality and the so-called Jesuits at Fordham invite him to campus.

          It’s convenient because the Bronx Zoo is next door!

    • John Oneill

      catholic liberals like to say that if you are against homosexuality you are committing a “hate crime”; a new category of crime invented by American liberals. Then is it true if you speak out against adultery you are committing a hate crime against Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, et al?

      • Mark

        They are asking for the right to live monogamous, committed, faithful marriages. What has that to do with adultery? Breaking a vow is very different from making one, which is what they’re asking to be allowed to do.

        • tom

          Mark, are you really that naive? Ever hear of “fisting”?

    • Matteo

      “Unseemly,” yes. But the sodomite lobby knows this campaign will almost certainly get them what they want. They are accustomed to getting their desires gratified regardless of the cost to themselves or anyone else. The categories of what is seemly or unseemly have meaning only to those of us who recognize standards of personal conduct. This necessarily excludes the proponents of “gay marriage.”

      • tom

        Three woman justices and Breyer will (bare-) back them. All they need is the “Catholic” Kennedy or Roberts to WIN.

    • tom

      Wouldn’t it be nice BEFORE our next preventive war if the weakling bishops spoke about “Unjust War” judgments and the formation of conscience so that young CATHOLIC men can object to going to more evil killing fields to come back without legs? Aren’t these lads part of your flock, bishop? Hello? Bishop, where art thou?

    • Pingback: Same-Sex 'Marriage' and the Infertility Objection - Big Pulpit

    • Alecto

      I am certainly praying for each and every one of these justices today more than ever. I wish I had more confidence in those prayers being heard and answered.

      • Bono95

        God will hear your prayers, but whether he will answer them is not for me to say. Keep praying; I’ll be praying with you.

    • Dan Deeny

      Very good article. Howard Kainz has an excellent observation.

    • http://www.facebook.com/alejandro.mayer.5 Alejandro Mayer

      The Cardinal Bergoglio now Ss Francisco, said in the In occasion of the treatment of the law of same-sex unions.”……Here also is the envy of the devil, by which sin entered into the world, that cunningly seeks to destroy the image of God: man and woman who are mandated to grow, multiply and subdue the earth.

      Let’s not be naive: it is not just a political struggle is destructive claim to God’s plan. Not merely a bill (this is only the instrument) but a” move” the father of lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God. Jesus tells us to defend ourselves against this accuser a liar, we will send the Spirit of Truth…….

    • Justin

      I guess I don’t understand why we wring our hands and yearn for good ol’ democracy. We’re only a generation from gay marriage in virtually every state, via the ballot box. Is it suddenly okay then? Maybe we should start to entertain the idea, seriously, that traditional Catholicism and a state that serves the common good is incompatible with postmodern liberalism.

      • tom

        A fine point. We need to remove ourselves from a lot of this hatred directed at the Church. Start with proclaiming that unjust wars are evil. Catholic boys shouldn’t go to fight them anymore. Let the Harvard crowd and LGBT go to Korea or Iran. The Church needs a “conscientious objector” status for wars, abortions, euthanasia, gay rights, immoral debt etc. that pervades this rotting society. Stop feeding the maggots, too.

        • Bono95

          Amen!

    • Pingback: Don’t Like Hate? Don’t Hate! | Sacramento Pizza Man

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Sam-Sundberg/100000503691206 Sam Sundberg

      Male and female bodies were formed to fit each other – period. A key was formed to fit a lock – period. Manipulate all you want but don’t call it union and don’t call it marriage. And as for children adopted by gay men and exposed to men having sex with each other…is anyone checking on those kids. I will only mention one adopted boy by two gay men…that boy was a good kid but desperately wanted a family, any family. The ‘adoption’ did not work out and the boy subsequently raped a boy younger than himself…men with sexual desires for other men should not be permitted to adopt adolescent boys – or any boys for that matter. It is not natural for men to have sex with men or women with women…but a minority of a minority are demanding more and more and more and people are backing away from them and letting them have whatever they want for fear of being called names if they stand against these demands…stand up people before it’s too late!!! Research shows that the majority of homosexuals do not themselves want gay marriage…and don’t want to adopt children. But the minority of a minority screams bias loud enough and every runs…

    • montanajack1948

      Mr. Ruse: If marriage equality is in fact a civil rights issue–an issue, that is, about equal treatment under the laws–then of course it’s up to the courts to adjudicate it. Fundamental civil rights are precisely rights that aren’t to be denied or taken away, even by electoral majorities. And however people care to paint the Civil Rights movement of the Sixties in retrospect–I lived through it, and lots and lots of people did in fact suggest at the time that black people were not entitled to relief from the courts, or from the legislatures.

      I find it interesting that Justice Scalia seems dismayed that people know who he is; maybe he should stop promoting himself with speeches and appearances all around the country. I also find it interesting that you are dismayed that so much public pressure is being put on the court, and yet you also say that such momentous decisions should be made “by the people”–well, sir, there they are. And if that many people were to show up outside the Court imploring the Justices to overturn Roe–I doubt that you’d be complaining; rather, you’d be imploring Justice Kennedy and his colleagues to “listen to the voice of the people”.

      Finally, the supposedly threatening package was kind of a cheesy touch–even Scalia doesn’t have the chutzpah to sit there with a ticking Fed Ex package on the table. Think maybe he recognized the sender’s name?

    • FrankW

      I am astounded at the arrogance of our post-modern world today, and especially those who run our government.

      For starters, when did marriage become a “civil” right? Marriage is an institution that pre-dates every government or religious entity on the face of the earth today. No entity can legitimately claim to have created or defined marriage as we have known it for all of recorded history. Marriage is essentially a product of the natural law. Where does our government get the idea that they have the right to redefine an institution they had no role in defining in the first place?

      The aspect of this that seems the most lost on people is that when our government deigns for itself the right to define marriage as it sees fit, it automatically assumes for itself the right to determine who can and cannot get married. In doing so, this implies that the rights of citizens will now come not from God, but from government, a concept in direct violation of the founding documents of the United States. Any rights bestowed on citizens by a government are automatically at risk of being taken away by that government because the government becomes the source of human rights. That should scare the hell out of us, but for some reason, it doesn’t seem to bother most people.

      If the government believes it has the power to redefine an institution which is born of natural law, and which has been in place all of recorded history, what else can the government redefine at its whim? And what boundaries will this redefinition of marriage have? Certainly if gay marriage is legalized, our nation would have no basis for continuing to discriminate
      against polygamists. The only way to prevent discriminatory definition of marriage is to redefine it to mean whatever each citizen wants it to mean for himself. That’s crazy, but it is also where we are headed unless rational minds prevail.

      The laws of physics and mathematics can certainly be considered discriminatory since most citizens can’t understand the work of Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein. This lack of knowledge puts these citizens at a distinct economic disadvantage and severely limits their ability to earn the same kind of money earned by those who understand the work of these scientists. Should this discrimination be tolerated? Should we redefine these (natural) laws down to allow more access to the economic opportunity this knowledge offers? Is knowledge of mathematics and physics not a civil right as well?

      May God rescue us from this insanity.