Unholy Week at the Supreme Court

Reuters Art Lien March 26 Supreme Court

Liberal activists respect neither natural law nor positive law. What God and the people have joined together, they feel perfectly free to put asunder. Marriage, by their lights, is a purely human institution that they can make and remake at will.

This unholy cause has been on display during Holy Week at the Supreme Court, where activists, such as Hillary Rosen, declared loudly that “procreation is not the point of marriage.”

Apparently Jesus Christ was mistaken on this point. He seemed to think that marriage had to do with the two sexes coming together and becoming “one flesh,” a biological impossibility for homosexual couples. Perhaps Scripture will have to be rewritten to reflect our superior understanding of things: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his boyfriend, and they become a family through assisted reproduction or the local adoption agency.”

Jesus Christ said that marriages take place on earth but not in heaven, a teaching which turns in part on marriage’s origin as procreative: mortal men need to reproduce; the immortal don’t. Perhaps that teaching will have to be revisited and doctoral dissertations will be written on why “gay marriage exists in heaven.”

Not that opposition to gay marriage is peculiar to Christianity. Almost all cultures and religions have opposed it. As Justice Samuel Alito noted this week, its origins are so novel that the cell phone and the Internet predate it.

Yet the culture grows more and more demanding of it, a demand which has now risen to the Supreme Court. According to press prognostications, DOMA is likely dead. The Supreme Court will almost certainly strike it down. Justice Elena Kagan drew “gasps” of horror when she pointed out on Wednesday that one of the reasons for the Defense of Marriage Act was to “express moral disapproval” of homosexuality. The press is calling this a “gotcha” moment in the hearing, as if Kagan had caught Congressmen out in an act of cannibalism.

Such gasps confirm what Justice Scalia had predicted in the court’s previous Lawrence v. Texas ruling. If “moral disapproval” of homosexual conduct is deemed by the court unconstitutional, he told Justice Anthony Kennedy, the right to gay marriage will become a certainty. Kennedy pooh-poohed that comment at the time. But it is coming true before our eyes.

Judicial activists like Kagan rule according to what they call the “living Constitution,” which is nothing more than a euphemism for sheer willfulness. There is no reason to suppose that they won’t eventually apply it to gay marriage.

Justice Scalia’s question on Tuesday to Ted Olson, the lawyer representing the side that seeks to overturn Proposition 8 (the other case the Court heard this week), captured the caprice of this position: “We don’t prescribe law for the future. We decide what the law is. I’m curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868? When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?”

Olson scrambled for an answer. He couldn’t give a precise date but suggested the right to gay marriage suddenly appeared within the document the moment enlightenment dawned on modern Americans: “It was constitutional when we as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control.”

“I see,” replied Scalia. “When did that happen?” Olson: “There’s no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle.”

It is hard to believe that such threadbare arguments could sway the Supreme Court to destroy the definition of marriage for all 50 states. But they might. The Court has shown itself capable of inventing rights out of thin air, drawing upon the very bogus “social science” and “evolving” consensus that Olson cited.

Previous cultures didn’t need teams of social scientists to tell them whether or not orphaning a child is bad for him.  They took it for granted that orphans were worse off than children born to a father and mother known to them. But this culture, in its vast wisdom, has “studied” the question and concluded that a deliberate policy of depriving children of mothers and fathers is wonderful for them. The experience is “equal” to all other experiences, we’re told. Two fathers or two mothers are just as good as a mother and a father.

One wonders how many of these children plucked from adoption homes or “assisted reproduction” labs and placed in the arms of gay couples will agree. What would once have been called child abuse is now considered the height of enlightenment. This has to be one of the first cultures in history to take outright pride in a planned policy of orphaning children and exposing them to immorality.

What a profoundly unserious and careless culture. It speaks of the “unconditional love of children” in the same breath as “abortion rights” and “genderless” marriage. Should the Supreme Court succumb to this culture’s lies and nationalize gay marriage, its authority, which is already shaky, will be completely shot.

 (Photo credit: Reuters/Art Lien, March 26.)

George Neumayr

By

George Neumayr is a contributing editor to The American Spectator, and a weekly columnist for Crisis Magazine. He is also co-author (with Phyllis Schlafly) of No Higher Power: Obama's War on Religious Freedom.

  • Deacon Ed Peitler

    At some point the Catholic Church is going to have to admit that Her notion of what marriage is holds nothing in common with that held by others – secular atheists and including even those who are theists. At some point the Church will be forced to end its recognition of all civil and non-Catholic religious “marriages” because these others
    are referring to an entity vastly different from what the Catholic Church holds marriage to actually be.

    Let me present a simple dilemma. Suppose the Episcopal church recognizes something they refer to as a same-sex “marriage.” The Episcopal Church effects “marriages” according to the precepts of what the Episcopal Church recognizes “marriage” to be – whether it is between a man and woman, two women or two men. Thus, they act in accord with the practices of that Church. Now suppose the Episcopal Church “marries” two men and at some later point they get a civil divorce. Now one of these men decides that he is no longer “gay” and falls in love with a Catholic woman and they decide to marry in the Catholic Church. In such a case, the Catholic Church would have always presumed the
    validity of the Episcopal Church “marriage” and so would require that the non-Catholic go through the annulment process if any consideration of a Catholic marriage were ever to proceed. Will the tribunal offices of the Catholic Church proceed with processing an appeal to annul a “marriage” that involved two men? If so, the Church is assuming the validity of a same-sex “marriage.” If not, the Catholic Church is saying that some marriages performed in the Episcopal Church are validly performed and some are not. In this case, the Catholic Church is setting down the particular parameters of marriage in others venues. Quite a headache, considering that we have trouble keeping our own house in order!

    The same holds true for two unbaptized males who get a civil “marriage” in the State of
    Massachusetts. These men then get a “divorce” in Massachusetts, and one of these men later on gets baptized and received into the Catholic Church and wants to marry a Catholic
    woman. Was his previous marriage to be construed as having been valid when he was unbaptized and conducted himself in a way that was to be expected of any unbaptized person?

    It seems to me that the Catholic Church is at some point going to have to “divorce” herself from any involvement with “marriages” performed by any institution secular or ecclesial simply because what they understand as “marriage” has nothing to do with ours. Thus all those so-called marriages are always presumed to be non-marriages and scenarios such as I presented above could proceed undeterred.

    • AcceptingReality

      Don’t look now but your train is derailed. The annulment process has to do with whether a marriage is “sacramentally” valid. Since the wholly Catholic sacrament of Holy Matrimony does not include “same sex whatever you want to call”. Clearly the Church would not have to annul. But if it chose to do so, it would not be acknowledging the “same sex whatever you want to call it” existed; it would be saying it did not. Better luck next time you try to use logic in an attempt to bastardize the Catholic Church.

      • Deacon Ed Peitler

        Tribunals make pronouncements on marriages other than those which are performed under the auspices of the Catholic Church. Are you a Canon lawyer? If so, I will defer to your expertise.

        • Michael Paterson-Seymour

          Yes, when a Catholic wishes to marry a non-Catholic or a convert who has a previous de facto marriage

      • Michael Paterson-Seymour

        Only a marriage between two baptized people can be “sacramental,” but the Church treats non-sacramental marriages as valid. Of course, such a marriage may be void on the grounds of some impediment (age, prohibited degrees, prior marriage bond, defective consent &c) Two people of the same sex lack the capacity to inter-marry and so such de facto marriages would be void.

        I fail to see that any change in the Church’s marriage jurisprudence is called for.The Church does not “annul” a marriage (whatever that means) but declares that a pretended marriage was from the beginning, is now, and in all time coming shall be, null and void,

      • Bono95

        Yeah, you don’t need an annulment or divorce of any sort for a same-sex marriage, because there is no marriage there to annul or otherwise break up.

    • UCFan79

      Return to the “Holy Marriage” label, and make it only of the Church, so “Holy Roman Catholic Marriage”. It says a couple of things. One, it is distinguished from “marriage” which is apparently a secular institution. Two, “matri” includes the idea of procreativity, and particularly the care of mothers and children. Third, it prevents it from being abused by homosexuals, polygamists, beastialists, etc.
      As to legality, who cares? The couple can be guided in drawing up separate contracts that cover all the other concerns of a procreative couple.

      • UCFan79

        Correction:
        Return to the “Holy Matrimony” label, and make it only of the Church, so “Holy Roman Catholic Matrimony”. It says a couple of things. One, it is distinguished from “marriage” which is apparently a secular institution. Two, “matri” includes the idea of procreativity, and particularly the care of mothers and children. Third, it prevents it from being abused by homosexuals, polygamists, beastialists, etc.

        As to legality, who cares? The couple can be guided in drawing up separate contracts that cover all the other concerns of a procreative couple.

      • tom

        The Church needs to regroup and plan something more than a few jokes for the Al Smith Dinner. Maybe channel St. Thomas More?

        • Bono95

          I’d invite him. :-D

      • Michael Paterson-Seymour

        Contracts will not work in the case of estate taxes, Social Security survivor benefits, employee health benefits and a whole range of state and federal taxes, not to mention certain inheritance rights under wills and settlements

  • Objectivetruth

    I found it important when Chief Justice Roberts pondered from the bench and essentially asked is it the label “marriage” that is so important to the gay community? His thinking went on the path that even if you want to call two men taking vows “marriage”, that doesn’t make it so. The problem for the gay community is that even though they might be successful in overturning the man made laws of the United States, none of their efforts will be successful in overturning the natural law. And the God given natural law written in all of our hearts and souls tells us marriage can only be between a man and a woman. I find it interesting when the secular cable news channels ask heterosexual married couples if gays should have the right to marry and they give the politically correct answer “oh……yes!” But I wonder if asked a follow up question to the same married couples if they believe that gay marriage is the same as their marriage I’d bet they’d answer “well…..ummmm……no, it’s not the same.” It’s similar to asking someone if a woman has the right to choose an abortion and they say “yes”, but if you ask them if a woman should have the right to kill her baby in the womb they would respond “well…..no! Of course not!” God’s natural laws in any court can not be overturned by man. Married heterosexual couples that took vows before God will be constantly fumbling to explain to their children that the two men that live next door really aren’t “married” in the same way that Mommy and Daddy are.

    • dch

      The fact that you can’t explain the relationship of the adults living next door to your children is not their problem, it is YOUR problem. Why do gay people have to care what religious conservatives think? Also you are asking these as hypothetical questions when there are plenty of real example couple’s to pose the questions and concerns. Why don’t you just go ask a SS couple about their lives instead of imagining all of this stuff. How your god may feel about gay people is not their problem.

      • Objectivetruth

        I always find fascinating the “your god” comments…….as if I choose not to believe in a supreme deity God ceases to somehow exist.

        I remember as a kid the margarine commercials that said “you can’t fight mother nature!” Gay marriage is not a battle for the gay community to win or lose, because there is no battle. They are trying to redefine something that cannot be redefined. I can stand in front of Mt Everest all day long for the rest of my life shouting ” this is not a mountain, it’s an elm tree!!” Does not make Mt. Everest an elm tree.

      • lifeknight

        Interesting. I am blogging as much as possible regarding this issue. I believe YOU are also trying to make the sodomite views heard?

        • Objectivetruth

          Agreed…I believe that at its core the “gay agenda” is to some how make moral and acceptable sodomy.

      • http://www.facebook.com/deborah.weber.129 Deborah Weber

        I don’t wish to know about the SS couple’s lifestyle; I don’t wish to know about the drug-dealer’s lifestyle. Neither lifestyle is moral, right, something created by my God.

      • Bono95

        What God thinks of anybody IS, to use your terminology, that person’s problem. God loves everybody and is always willing to forgive, but all sin, especially grave sins like sodomy, upset him greatly. And perhaps a better question is, why do religious conservatives have to care what gay people think?
        I’ll tell you.
        Religious conservatives have to care what gay people think, feel, and do because gay people are children of God too, and if they want to be with God in Heaven (as God wants them to be), they have to learn to live chastely, and religious conservatives can help them do that by praying for them, talking to them, helping them in their needs, and referring them to a good Catholic priest or outreach program. In doing so, not only does it help the gay people get to Heaven, it can help the religious conservatives get there too.

        • Hattmann

          Try telling a gay person you are praying for God to forgive their sins. I have found this when I said on Facebook that I think the Constitution requires gay marriage but the involvement in the gay sex act was immoral. That did not go well

          • John200

            You are telling them the truth. Say it again. And again. And again.

            They argue like two year olds who simply must get their way. They have no arguments to show us homo”sex”uals can get married to each other.
            So endless Alinsky repetition is their main tactic; you should adopt it, too.

            If it does not always go well, so what? You are building up treasure for yourself where it counts.

          • Bono95

            Well, you don’t have to tell the person that you’re praying for them (in this case, it may well be better if you don’t). Only God ever really needs to know.

      • sajetreh

        I am so sick of this argument revolving around religion. We don’t need religion to tell us that homosexual acts are not normal to nature’s purpose for the human reproductive system. It is simply “bad science”. I don’t care what any consenting adult does in the privacy of the bedroom. Where I have to draw the line is when they try and tell me it is normal and I need to accept it as such.

        Besides the act of homosexuality being abnormal the other glaring problem for the USA is constitutional. Same sex marriage can not coincide with the first amendments right to freely exercise ones faith or ones ability for free speech.

        My right to express the scientific truth that the act of homosexuality is abnormal to natures purpose behind the human reproductive system will be considered hate speech just as the religious persons right to say the act is sinful.

        Everyone must remember this. Even the homosexual knows the desire and act of homosexuality is not normal. No matter how many laws they pass to the contrary they can never escape the physical reality of the human reproductive system.

        • tom

          I care because their HIV drugs cost $250L/yr. I don’t like paying for burglars who get injured during a heist, either. we should never re-enforce their negative behavior.

          • http://twitter.com/pdmcguirelaw Paul McGuire

            Not everyone who engages in same sex sexual activity is going to get HIV. If two individuals are in a monogamous relationship and neither has HIV at the start then they will remain free from HIV. There is just as much risk for straight men who sleep around to get all sorts of STDs, that doesn’t mean that you attack all straight sex as negative.

            • tom

              Should unhealthy sexual practices be applauded? There is an HIV epidemic among gays; then, when they get sicker, they spread anti-biotic resistant TB to others. Gonorrhea’s also run amok amongst them Is this to be commended, McGuire? It all cost the taxpayer billions, you know.

              • Truth

                Same-sex sex is not unhealthy, sex without protection is. There is also an epidemic of HIV among African-American women; you want to not reinforce them having sex?

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tony-Esolen/1184164082 Tony Esolen

                  You are lying. It is by its nature unhealthy. There are all kinds of diseases that men who have sex with men are prone to, and no latex sheath is going to protect them against having their rectums compromised. Besides, you know quite well that what people say they may do, theoretically, is not what they actually do. If heterosexuals ever found out what homosexual men actually do, they’d have a lot to think about — they would be astonished.

                  • Mark

                    And you know this … how?

                    • Augustus

                      It’s called “reading” or, if you wish, consulting those who know. You don’t have to live in the gutter before coming to the conclusion that you don’t want to be there. You don’t have to experience something personally in order to know about it. To say otherwise is irrational. It is a tactic of feminists who say that men can’t talk about pregnancy and abortion because they can’t experience it.

                  • http://twitter.com/pdmcguirelaw Paul McGuire

                    And yet two men who have unprotected sex within the confines of a committed romantic relationship are not going to magically sprout diseases that didn’t exist in either of them at the start. If neither man had any STDs at the start, they will remain free from STDs as long as they are monogamous.

                    The problem is it seems all the arguments are based on a premise that gay men are by nature promiscuous. Yet even in areas where marriage is not an option, mature gay men couple off and form loving relationships because they desire love as much as anyone else. I would hope that people would recognize this and thus encourage monogamy instead of condemning all gay men as promiscuous.

                    • Bono95

                      You can still get STDs even if you don’t have any at the beginning. Our bodies are simply not designed for sex with multiple partners of the opposite sex or for any number of partners of the same sex. When that fact is violated, things go wrong. And if a person does have STDs at the beginning of a relationship, it means he or she got them from somewhere or someone else and is now passing them on to whoever he or she has sex with.

                    • Czech U. Fax

                      As the CDC reports, new HIV infections occur overwhelmingly, shockingly through homosexual practices:

                      http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#hivaidsexposure

                      The premise that men who engage in homosexual activity are promiscuous is simply a fact.

                    • http://twitter.com/pdmcguirelaw Paul McGuire

                      Most men in general are promiscuous. There are some gay men who are in committed monogamous relationships. It is possible, just as some men are able to settle down and marry without ever cheating on their wives. That being said, you didn’t provide any evidence that suggests that two gay men who have sex while committed to each other are somehow going to contract HIV. It doesn’t just magically appear because of gay sex. It has to come from somewhere. That was the point I was trying to make. My boyfriend and I are both committed to each other and not interested in casual sex. Thus, there is no heightened risk of contracting HIV for me to have sex with him any more than there would be if I was with a woman.

                  • Phil

                    Vaginal, Oral, and Anal sex all have their own risks and are performed by both Homosexual and Heterosexuals. Nobody is in the dark about what anybody actually does in bed.

            • schmenz

              No, but they certainly might contract hepatitis, which is common among sodomites.

          • Charles Cosimano

            Only 250 a year? Hah! My insulin costs that much in two months. Maybe I would have been better off being gay.

        • Truth

          You need to take a science class. Homosexuality occurs in almost all species on Earth. What you say now is already considered hate speech (and just pure ignorance) irregardless of how the Court rules.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tony-Esolen/1184164082 Tony Esolen

            That is not true. What you have, for instance, with dogs, is a dominance-display; it has nothing to do with sexual desire. It is also not relevant. You might have cannibalism among all species, and it still would not make cannibalism right.

          • Objectivetruth

            great….the old argument of tossing humans in to the same category as Yaks, chickens and Fido the golden retriever down the street. My dog eats its own vomit and deer poop in the backyard, but I’m not about to say that I do that also.

          • Caroline

            You are correct. At least 1500 species practice homosexual sex, so the argument that it is “against nature” falls down.

            • Bono95

              I don’t know about you, but personally, I ain’t taking no instructions and examples from lower life forms. What animals actually do this anyway?

      • tom

        With the latest pandemic in HIV with gay guys blossoming, it’s not like they’re going to be around forever. The idea that we have to pay for their drugs for their lifestyle for life is troubling. Catholics need to get a separate health program and hospital system that excludes non-practicing Catholics and all others of their ilk.

      • Hattmann

        Well in the end it will be

    • Mark

      “Objective” truth, give your children more credit. It’s extremely likely they will feel very differently about this issue than you do. In fact it’s very likely, given the trend toward support for marriage equality in the young, that they will be “constantly fumbling” to explain to their gay neighbors why “Mommy and Daddy” are a bit prejudiced.

      • Objectivetruth

        Nope, they won’t. My children will be taught the Truth of Christ. They will realize that moral Truths are not a product of popular opinion or the winds of secular atheism. They will learn that moral Truths are not to be bent, warped or perverted. My children will learn these truths come from a God that made them, and that we were not created to selfishly and narcissistically serve our earthly desires, wants and perversions. My children will learn that they were created for God, and His will be done. My children won’t care what attacks and name calling their parents are subjected to by those that wish to live in their sins. my children then in Christian charity and love will pray for that gay couple next door to repent from their sinful lifestyle. So that couple will someday be in the light, Prescence and glory of God.

        • cminca

          Because children always do exactly what their parents want them to…..

          • Objectivetruth

            It’s not a question of a child doing what their parents want. Once a child (or anyone) hears the fullness of the Truth of Christ, they thirst for that Truth and only want to follow it where it will take them.

            But what of you, cminca? Why do you spend so (and other followers of the gay lifestyle) much time on a very orthodox Catholic web-site? If you say that it is to correct ignorant, misinformed Catholics, I’m not sure I will believe you.

            Or is there something about Jesus Christ that intrigues you?

            • cminca

              It is the same sort of fascination of seeing a car wreck.

              • Objectivetruth

                OK. Sarcasm.

                So no interest in Christ? I’m sure in your life you’ve heard something about Him. He taught to love one another unconditionally. Always to forgive, even the slightest fault against you. To take care of the sick, feed the hungry, help the poor. To always put the other person first. To avoid sin, because there you will find great peace and joy. None of this interests you about the man? He walked on water, cured the sick, raised the dead, drove out demons. He Himself rose from the dead. These are incredible stories about anyone! Still…..no desire to explore this man? Reading and studying about how he lived and what he taught can’t hurt you. Because why spend so much time on a Catholic web-site, without even a slight interest? If you’re here just to attack and ridicule a faith you know nothing about or want to learn about, that’s kind of strange, cminca.

                • cminca

                  “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Gandhi

                  I can assure you the last place I would go to learn about Christ is a “Christian” or “Catholic” website.
                  Honestly–read through the postings and remarks on any ‘Christian” website objectively (if you can). You will be amazed at the firestorm of petulant, hypocritical, self-righteous bigotry.
                  Then try to imagine Christ saying or agreeing with any of the remarks.

                  • Objectivetruth

                    Agreed. St. Paul says “We hold these Truths in earthen vessels.” Essentially the Church and its teachings are perfect, because its head is Jesus Christ, but its earthly management is run by sinful, fallen, imperfect men and women (as in “earthen vessels” of clay that break easily and are fragile. ) that is why you should look to the doctrines (Truths) that are of Christ in the deposit of faith of the Church, not to the fallen members whose job is to protect and pass on these Truths, but that struggle and fail sometimes to live up to these Truths.

                    • cminca

                      Christ taught his disciples to pray saying “our father, who art in heaven”….

                      But he really didn’t. The word he used was “Abba”. The real translation is closer to “Daddy”.

                      What he also didn’t teach them was to pray was to say “our father, who must be reached according to the dictates of a multinational bureaucracy and as per the instructions of the chairman, the board, the regional vice presidents, and the branch managers, who art in heaven….”

                      In order to create an illusion a magician or a con man engages a “plausible diversion”. The incense, the rules, the hierarchy, the liturgy, the dogma, all the trappings–are merely a “plausible diversion” to–sorry–separate fools from their money.

                      Or–as Mark Twain put it–“Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool.”

                      Prayer, as Christ shows you, is the easiest, most direct thing in the world. For what child needs a bureaucracy to speak to a loving parent.

                      So I’d suggest I need less instruction than you seem to think.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      No. This shows me you really have no clue what you’re talking about. Seriously, your lack of knowledge of Catholicism in your posts are getting embarrassing to read.

                      And it’s useless to try and teach you what 2000 years of Catholicism is and what it means. Because you are not here for enlightment, only to attack an institution that calls out your lifestyle as gravely sinful.

                      Since you’re such a fan of the Lord’s Prayer, take some time to contemplate “Thy will be done.” Maybe you weren’t aware but it does say “Thy will be done”, not “MY will be done.”

                      I still don’t know why you are spending so much time on a Catholic website.

                    • John200

                      I’ll take a stab; cminca needs the truth and he knows he needs it. Truth is attractive, especially to confused people. But pride is in the way, and he will have to get over himself in order to make progress.

                      Just a stab at why cminca spends so much time here. I could be wrong.

                    • John200

                      You need instruction, cm, never doubt it. You are the 797,224th CrisisMag troll who has come here to show that he does not know the Catholic faith which he is ready to caricature and criticize.

                      Do you see? You are criticizing a caricature of the Catholic faith. Everybody here knows it, except you.

                      The way forward is RCIA. You are late for this year’s round, but there is always hope and, in your case, next year. Be sure to get a good priest, that is, a man who became a priest. NOT a silver ponytail “dissenting Catholic” type.

                      The silver ponytails have put many (too many) Catholics where you are.

                  • Objectivetruth

                    Also, cminca, if you want to meet good and holy Catholics that follow the teachings and try their best to live up to what Christ wants, go to your local Catholic Parish, they’re there. Talk to one of the parish priests, I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised that even though they are not perfect, they are good and holy men. Contact the parish RCIA director, he/she will welcome you with loving arms.We all fall on our journey to Christ, but what is important to Jesus is that we pick ourselves up and keep heading towards him.

                    • cminca

                      The head of my local cc is then next Scott O’Brien. A self-hating anti-homosexual closet queen.
                      Sorry if that doesn’t narrow the playing field enough for you to know where I live.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      No Catholic cminca is anti-homosexual. But homosexual sexual acts are grave and mortal sin. And Catholics hate sin. You can choose to believe this fact, or not.

                      But I beg of you to please, please repent of your mortal sins, cminca. I say this out of love for you. I’ve read and studied enough of hell that it is not a place you want your soul to end up in for eternity. It is everything they say it is: a very, very horrible place.

                      God bless, cminca.

          • Bono95

            riiiiight……….. and all the temper tantrums I threw, all the times I fought with my siblings or called them names, all the rules I brazenly flouted, all the chores I avoided, and all the times I was disrespectful in Church were just icing on the cake because even though Mom and Dad punished me and said “NO!” to all that, they really were secretly happy because they saw I had a mind of my own and was learning how to reach my full potential.

      • Objectivetruth

        Nope, they won’t. My children will be taught the Truth of Christ. They will realize that moral Truths are not a product of popular opinion or the winds of secular atheism. They will learn that moral Truths are not to be bent, warped or perverted. My children will learn these truths come from a God that made them, and that we were not created to selfishly and narcissistically serve our earthly desires, wants and perversions. My children will learn that they were created for God, and His will be done. My children won’t care what attacks and name calling their parents are subjected to by those that wish to live in their sins. my children then in Christian charity and love will pray for that gay couple next door to repent from their sinful lifestyle. So that couple will someday be in the light, Prescence and glory of God.

    • http://twitter.com/BarryBozz Barry Bozz

      The difficulty in convincing those who contend that same sex marriage is a right is due to a willful blindness to natural law and it’s self-evident character. For instance, imagine being held at gun point by a mugger and you say. “Please don’t steal my wallet?” he says :”Why?” You respond: “Because it is wrong”. The mugger says:” Why?” You say: ” Because taking what is not yours from another is unfair and unjust”. He says “Why?” You reply: Because property ownership is a natural right that comes from the natural law”. “Why”? Now, at this point it is futile to proceed. This mugger is blinded by his own desires for your wallet. Stealing is immoral and it’s self-evident,therefore, there is no longer any evidence you can offer to support the natural law that stealing is unjust. You can now only offer the social consequences of assenting to the proposition that stealing is OK. and the social chaos that must follow.

      Now, consider meeting a homosexual in the public square. You say. “same sex relations are wrong . “Why?” he asks. “Because it violates the natural PURPOSE of sex which is procreation.” Why?” Because the sex organs are ordered to, made for procreation. A man’s member inserted into another’s rectum violates the purposeful order of each organ and the purpose of the marital act and also, therefore, the MEANING of the act..love between the man and women. The act is meant to join two in Love . The purpose and the meaning ought not be separated. There is now longer any evidence one can present to someone who willfully wants the homosexual act to be equal to the natural law of heterosexual union. We can only try to show the social chaos that ensues if we give equal ontological status to both.

      The attempt to socially codify that perverse equality is a problem for Mommy and Daddy because they are charged with raising their children as moral people . If the children are taught in school that homosexual acts are morally good they must withdraw them from school and not participate in anyway to the moral corruption of their children. The homosexual will see this as hateful and bias because they assert that the two acts are equal. They insist that I must agree with them or then I am unjust, But in truth it is they who are unjust because they have reduced marriage to meaninglessness. It as if the mugger not only wants and gets my wallet but he insists I applaud his act!

      • Objectivetruth

        Agreed. And Catholics/Christians are called to white martyrdom on the issue of gay marriage. Regardless of what we’re called or how we’re attacked, we are to respond with Christ and His love. But never, never back down from Christ’s Truths. Christianity and martyrdom are never clean and easy. We only have to look to the saints and martyrs of the past, many of them going to their deaths defending Christ’s Truths. We are not to be “dead fish, floating down river.” with great love, give people the Truth that the gay lifestyle is an affront to God’s will and plan. It is an act of love to point out sin, not to let someone be justified in their sin and to say that their sin is, “OK.”

        • http://twitter.com/BarryBozz Barry Bozz

          You may have noticed that in my reply I didn’t refer to Christ and His Bride the Church, but only to natural law upon which God builds..But when one considers Christ’s images concerning marriage, one realizes the absolute central importance of marriage as the mirror of the Holy Trinity. I tremble “objectivetruth” when I see those souls being lost because of this terrible error, as well as fear the chastisement that must justly surely come. I pray we stand firm and suffer whatever with Christ if He so wills it. Please visit my website barrybozz.com for solace in music. PS. You know , of course that were we in Canada we’d be arrested for hate crimes..

          • Objectivetruth

            Thank you, Barry. Check my other posts, I’m a big natural law fan! God gave us two books: the book of holy scripture, but also the book of nature, which He wrote in our hearts and souls. I’ll definitely check out your web-site. Witnesses (martyrs) like yourself are called in Canada to defend Christ, you are in my prayers. Stand tall! Share the joy you’ve found in Christ! Remember Christ told us that if we are lukewarm about Him, He would “vomit us out!”

            • http://twitter.com/BarryBozz Barry Bozz

              Will do. You’re obviously are one attentive to Our Lord and the Holy R.C. Church. I;ll gladly be a “White Martyr” but it’s too much too ask or presume to be a “Red Martyr”. I’m not worthy but would welcome it if God thinks I could handle it. Stay close to the Sacraments, all will be provided. I’m not a Canadian, just offered the observation as to what is coming our way. “Oh, when degree is shake’d / which is the latter of all high designs/ then enterprise is sick/ Take but degree away, untune that string/ and hark what discord follows!” The Bard on subversion of natural law.

              • Bono95

                Yay for Mr. Shakespeare! What play’s that quote from?

                • http://twitter.com/BarryBozz Barry Bozz

                  That would be Troilus and Cresseda. Ullysess speech to Agamenon sorry for spelling.. I’ll get the whole speech if you like.

                  • Bono95

                    Gramercy, kind Master Bozz. Merrily, ‘twould be most excellent. :-D

                    • http://twitter.com/BarryBozz Barry Bozz

                      Here you go Bono. I’ve always loved this . This picture of a world. turned on its head. Sound familiar?

                      The specialty of rule hath been neglected.
                      * * * * *
                      The heavens themselves, the planets, and this centre,
                      Observe degree, priority, and place,
                      Insisture, course, proportion, season, form,
                      Office, and custom, in all line of order:
                      And therefore is the glorious planet, Sol,
                      In noble eminence, enthron’d and spher’d
                      Amidst the other, whose med’cinable eye
                      Corrects the ill aspects of planets evil,
                      And posts, like the commandment of a king,
                      Sans check, to good and bad. But, when the planets,
                      In evil mixture to disorder wander,
                      What plagues and what portents? what mutinies?
                      What raging of the sea? shaking of earth?
                      Commotion in the winds? frights, changes, horrors,
                      Divert and crack, rend and deracinate
                      The unity and married calm of states
                      Quite from their fixture! O, when degree is shaken,
                      (Which is the ladder to all high designs)
                      The enterprise is sick! How could communities,
                      Degrees in schools, and brotherhoods in cities,
                      Peaceful commerce from dividable shores,
                      The primogenitive and due of birth,
                      Prerogative of age, crowns, sceptres, laurels,
                      (But by degree) stand in authentic place?
                      Take but degree away, untune that string,
                      And hark what discord follows! each thing meets
                      In mere oppugnancy. The bounded waters
                      Would lift their bosoms higher than the shores,
                      And make a sop of all this solid globe:
                      Strength would be lord of imbecility,
                      And the rude son would strike his father dead:
                      Force would be right; or rather, right and wrong
                      (Between whose endless jar Justice resides)
                      Would lose their names, and so would Justice too.
                      Then everything includes itself in power,
                      Power into will, will into appetite;
                      And appetite (an universal wolf,
                      So doubly seconded with will and power)
                      Must make perforce an universal prey,
                      And last, eat up himself. Great Agamemnon,
                      This chaos, when degree is suffocate,
                      Follows the choking:
                      And this neglection of degree it is,
                      That by a pace goes backward, in a purpose
                      It hath to climb.

                    • Bono95

                      Whoa! It’s like he was psychic! I have never heard a better description of the modern world. Thanks, Mr. Bozz.

          • Objectivetruth

            St. Theresa of Avila’s prater is beautiful:

            “Christ has no body now, but yours.
            No hands, no feet on earth, but yours.
            Yours are the eyes through which Christ looks compassion into the world. Yours are the hands with which Christ blesses the world.”

          • Objectivetruth

            Keep in mind (and pray to) St. Charles Lwanga and Companions
            Martyrs of Uganda. In the mid 1800’s, Young Charles refused the homosexual advances of Chief Mwamba, and refused to deny the teachings of the Catholic Church. The Chief threw Charles and his companions in to a pit and burned them alive. Charles died standing for the Truth that homosexual sex is a sin. 160 years later, there are now over 180 million Catholics on the continent of Africa, and hundreds of thousands walk miles to attend the Mass for the martyrs on their feast day.

            • http://twitter.com/BarryBozz Barry Bozz

              Thanks” O.truth” I’ll look up this Saint. Never heard of him. I wonder why? If I were in Uganda , I’d certainly walk with them. Thanks again! You, too, are in my prayers on this holiest of days.

            • Bono95

              And don’t forget St. Therese the Little Flower. She’s the patron saint of AIDS caregivers and patients.

  • Phil

    You overlook that even Justice Scalia ridiculed the idea that marriage was based on procreation, in the “Prop 8″ debate.

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      The purpose of marriage is not procreation, which will take place, marriage or no marriage; the purpose of marriage is filiation. The Roman jurist Paulus says, “Marriage points out the father.” [is est pater quem nuptiae demonstrant " (Dig. 2, 4, 5; 1)], a rule that rests on the obligation of fidelity between spouses and reflects the commitment made by the husband during the celebration of marriage, to raise the couple’s children. Marriage establishes the legal bond between fathers and their children.

      No-one will deny that the state has a clear interest in the filiation of children being clear, certain and incontestable. It is central to its concern for the upbringing and welfare of the child, for protecting rights and enforcing obligations between family members and to the orderly succession to property. To date, no better, simpler, less intrusive means than marriage have been found for ensuring, as far as possible, that the legal, biological and social realities of paternity coincide.

      • Phil

        I agree that filiation goes hand-in-hand with marriage but it’s too much to say that its “the” purpose of marriage. It’s much too complex an institution to reduce to only one thing.

        • Michael Paterson-Seymour

          Why else does the law make death-bed marriages specially easy? Any definition of the purpose of civil marriage must take account of that.

  • Alecto

    I very much appreciate the insights here, and we’ve seen plenty of excellent articles on this topic which is a hallmark of Crisis. However, Congress is fast-tracking amnesty. If the homosexualist agenda is detrimental to the culture, why aren’t the effects of 30 years of an unchecked foreign invasion? While I am doing all that I can to prevent legislators from diluting the rights of Americans, the Catholic Establishment not only undermines me, but aids and abets a direct threat to our peace and prosperity. I hold the Catholic Church accountable for all of the crime and burdens of this other moral evil which is being promoted by the Church. Despite the lies to the contrary, it is creating massive financial and social burdens for American taxpayers. I’ve done the research, my diocese and others are directly funding lobbying and pro-invasion front groups. It is an outrage and the church is paying for it while many of us quietly stop contributing. Why isn’t Crisis addressing that?

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

      One thing at a time, alecto. It always riles me no end when someone says, “Oh, why are you concerned with this cause and not that one?” The obvious answer is: Because.

  • Dan

    Good title for the article. One never knows what to make of signs, such as the lightening that struck St. Peter’s on the day that Pope Benedict resigned/abdicated. Still it is striking that it is during Holy Week that the nation’s Supreme Court has revealed in oral argument that it will likely endorse the deep lie about marriage (although this is hardly a surprise). It reminds me of the Holy Week back in 2005, when our government authorized the killing of Teri Schiavo for the crime of being disabled.

  • publiusnj

    I liked Mr. Neumayr’s indignation at our “justices.” And the author, for the most part, showed an awareness that what is at stake here is fundamental stuff like the birds and the bees. One place he slipped up though is when he characterized the other side’s argument without factual correction as: “the experience is “equal” to all other experiences, we’re told. Two fathers or two mothers are just as good as a mother and a father.”
    The term “father” and mother should not be allowed to be used so loosely. No one has two fathers. No child is born of sexual congress between two males or between two females. “Gay Marriage” is different from “Straight Marriage” in that most “straight couples” can “generate” the necessary genetic material needed to procreate from the contributions of the two members of the marriage, while “gay couples” can NEVER generate the needed genetic material needed to procreate without “outsourcing” the needed “opposite sex genetic material” from a stranger to the soi-disant “marriage” (and in the case of a male-male couple, they would also require a brood female to carry the child).
    We should never let that plain and simple factual distinction to be brushed away by the other side or more importantly by the judiciary. Even if it is uncomfortable to talk about “ejaculation” “congress” “ova” and “sperm,” we need to do so repeatedly so that real differences don’t get elided away by legal fictions like “two fathers.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/catherine.lemek Catherine Lemek

    But we, as a culture, have not decided that sexual orientation is something that the individual cannot control. However, if, honestly, the lawyer believes that rights and dignity are afforded beyond what other individuals recognize is beyond the control of another individual, we must admit, as a culture, there are certain persons whose rights are trampled due to a situation truly beyond their control. Namely, the preborn child, who has absolutely no control over whether they are created wanted, within marriage, in a lab, via ASI, nor due they have control over what their DNA or ultrasound image might provide as information which may lead to being afforded the right to live – absence of disease and genetic abnormality, sex, male or female according to the parents desire, social and financial status of their family, or malice of forethought on the part of their parents and the society that surrounds them.

    • http://twitter.com/pdmcguirelaw Paul McGuire

      If you can’t recognize by now that sexual orientation is not something within the control of the individual you haven’t been paying attention. Perhaps one should ask you, when you chose to be straight? Oh right, you were perfectly naturally attracted to the opposite sex from as soon as that became obvious to you. For many gay men that same period in which every person around them is awakening to attraction to girls they feel attraction to boys. You can deny it as much as you want but that doesn’t change the fact that for the most part there is no choice involved. After all, who in their right mind would choose to be gay and face the negativity that society puts on them?

      • tom

        You’re right about inclinations; yet, marriage is as old as the natural law and involves procreation…or the potential for it. Gay sex, in contrast, violates the natural law. hence, “marriage” between two men or two women violates natural law, and mocks the concept of the sacrament of matrimony.

      • Objectivetruth

        You make it seem so clean and simple, but it is not. Why do many gay men claim to be sexually assaulted as children, possibly inclining them towards SSA? Why are many gay men bisexual? If there is some type of natural simplicity in homosexual attraction at puberty as there is with heterosexual development, how is someone inclined to be attracted to both men and women? Many gay men have similar developmental issues such as the lack of love from their father, your saying this does not somehow contribute to their mental and emotional state and development? A heterosexual young man can see a natural complimentariness of his sexual organs with that of a woman. To the young heterosexual boy, he naturally gets it: this is normal and in the right order. How does the young homosexual male see the use of his sexual organ in anal sex with another man as right ordered or natural?There has to be a conflict there.

        No, Paul. You try to do some type of “apples to apples” comparison with heterosexual and homosexual development, and you are wrong.

        • Michael Paterson-Seymour

          Nature and nurture can be functions of each other, with a genetic predisposition requiring an environmental trigger.

      • Objectivetruth

        If homosexuality is normal development, according to nature’s plan, then why is it such a small percentage of the population (less than 2% of the US population?) If homosexuality was pivotal and played a crucial role in nature’s master plan, shouldn’t there be a much larger population of “natural” homosexuals? And how does two men having anal sex together contribute to nature’s plans? The main plan of nature of the complimentary sexual organs between a man and woman is procreation and the continuation of the human species. Why didn’t nature equip two men having anal sex with the ability to procreate and therefore the continuation of man on this planet?

        • http://twitter.com/pdmcguirelaw Paul McGuire

          Yet if it is as you say less than 2% of the population (or if others are correct close to 5%) then why does it sound in every argument like if we allow gay marriage we will have everyone wanting to marry someone of the same sex? Since 95% or more of the population is straight then they are not going to change their attraction just because same sex marriage is allowed.

          Also, I think most gay men recognize the reality that the organs of men and women are complimentary. I doubt any would even dispute that. But that doesn’t change the fact that for many gay men the thought of being with a woman is abhorrent.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tony-Esolen/1184164082 Tony Esolen

            Paul, that I doubt — they could learn to love a woman. Why do they feel so compulsive a need for the male organ? That is a strange thing, something that normal men find hard to understand, because it is not the homosexual counterpart of what they feel for women. It is a compulsion.
            And it is only two percent. But here are the troubles. First, it need not be two percent. It could be four percent; and that would be calamitous for that additional two percent. Don’t try to breeze past me with the nonsense about “safe sex” — I have a top-rank specialist in infectious diseases in my family, who worked for a long time at an AIDS clinic, so I know better; and I’m not talking only or even primarily about AIDS. Second, the sexual revolution has battered the guts out of marriage and family life. We are hardly managing to stagger along as it is. What you are asking is that we deal the cripple his final blow. Be honest — the people who are fighting for marriage have a lot more on their docket than just this one thing that concerns you. We want to repudiate the whole sexual revolution — easy divorce, cohabitation, out-of-wedlock childbirth, a million abortions in the US every ten months, the public entertainment sewer, the feminism that has bred suspicion and antagonism between the sexes, the whole thing. How can we even begin to reconsider the mistakes of the last fifty years, if we allow this one?

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tony-Esolen/1184164082 Tony Esolen

              Also, Paul, the approval has made your comrades most aggressive in the schools, exposing children to things that within living memory would have been considered unutterably obscene; if a private person down the street talked like that to your child, he’d be facing a morals charge. I think that anybody who encourages a boy to join the male-male brigade, knowing about the diseases if nothing else, is no better than a pedophile. It is a wicked thing to do. But your comrades will not leave the kids alone.
              I knew several boys when I was growing up who had very poor relations with their fathers and with other boys. All of them could easily have been enticed into the same-sex life, if they were growing up these days. Most of them straightened themselves out, but that takes time, and it means that they have to be protected from people with agendas, pestering them or cheering them on to be noticed, maybe, for the first time in their lives.

      • http://www.facebook.com/catherine.lemek Catherine Lemek

        Paul, an inclination is not a right to act. Even Our Lord said that a man who looks at a woman with lust has committed adultery in his heart. If a man or woman has a compulsion to steal, we do not claim that the compulsion is something they should desire, and that the rest of the world is in error for reacting negatively towards their proclivity. Although heterosexual, my choice to be morally straight came with conversion to Christ. As a single woman, that means abstinence from sexual relations outside of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. This does go against the rest of the world that believes that the decision “not” to act in regards to sexual desire is some kind of anathema and an oppression of one’s freedom. Believe it or not, this decision “not” to act is an awesome freedom. There is a particular loneliness in society that neither men or women who profess to be “straight”, are unwilling to admit to in an increasingly promiscuous culture. It hurts to be had and left, and the wound does not feel like freedom. Reserving the use of sexual faculties among both men and women for the state of Holy Matrimony is a great help, not a hurt. Our entire society with its celebration of promiscuity, homosexuality and multiple marriages or no marriages at all, has become a socially awkward one. The neighborhood used to be a place of people and children playing, now we have manicured lawns and boxes we call homes from which we peek.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tony-Esolen/1184164082 Tony Esolen

        Not true, Paul, not true. The feelings of many boys, and I’d say most boys, are confused and various. What keeps a lot of them from falling on the wrong side of the fence is precisely the moral disapprobation. They make choices; they say, “That feeling is stupid, and I’m not going to indulge it”; they learn. What makes the gay man think he is special is that his longing for male affirmation has gotten sexualized, because he has been missing it in its normal manifestations all his young life. He does not understand that his need is universal, among all boys. Hence the feeling of compulsion, of not having had a choice. It is true that all boys need that affirmation; it is not true that the sexual feelings of the odd-boy-out are entirely different from the feelings of other boys.

        • Mark

          Tony Esolen writes, “What makes the gay man think he is special is that his longing for male affirmation has gotten sexualized, because he has been missing it in its normal manifestations all his young life. He does not understand that his need is universal, among all boys. ”

          Speak for yourself, Tony. I grew up with very little “male affirmation” (I saw very little of my father and grew up with my mom, two sisters, and no real male role model) and knew I was straight from a very early age. This was never confusing. I remember being attracted to a little girl when I was seven years old. There were never any confused homosexual feelings that I felt were “stupid” or that I had to resist “indulging.” For many people, sexual orientation is similarly uncomplicated. This has nothing to do with social experience — this is what I was born to be. Perhaps this makes it easy for me to accept that GLBTs are also uncomplicated about who they love. I have a gay friend who grew up in a very “normal”, traditional, and loving household with a large family — lots of “male affirmation” in the form of fishing trips with his father and brothers, Boy Scouts, masculine sports, etc., and no bad experiences of abuse or molestation. He says he knew, clear as day and as a young child, that he was gay. He reacted by trying to be hyper-masculine for many years and is still a “jock” kind of guy. His parents would brag that he was “all boy”. “Moral disapprobation”, far from helping him, almost drove him to suicide as a teen as he struggled to hide his inclinations. He feels about his partner the way I feel about my wife. You can’t take this away from him by telling him it’s wrong. It just is.

          • cminca

            Mark–you are a great ally and thank you.
            As for expecting to change anyone’s opinion here–you might as well yell at paint to dry faster.

            • Mark

              Thanks, cminca, and please don’t think the bigotry and thoughtlessness you might see among some Catholics is indicative of all of us. Here is an extract from another Catholic blog that I think illustrates the diversity of opinion within the Catholic Church:
              http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=26351

    • Scott Waddell

      No one involuntarily unzips their fly.

      • cminca

        Not even priests?

        • Bono95

          Not even priests. The bad priests who do do it always do so voluntarily.

        • Scott Waddell

          No, not even priests. And let me suggest that using “Priest abuse scandal rawr!” as a kind of freeze-tag totem in a discussion is overplaying your hand. Especially considering that society is in the process of lowering and perhaps eliminating the age of consent. To wit: The Church will one day be condemned as “hateful” and “backwards” for not signing on to this.

  • montanajack1948

    Putting aside all the fuss and bother on this issue (and my oh my, folks do seem to be all fussed and bothered about the gays and adoption and procreation and marriages in heaven and all that), let’s paraphrase Justice Scalia just a bit, and pretend he was on the Court in 1954: “We don’t prescribe law for the future. We decide what the law is. I’m curious, when did it become unconstitutional to have separate schools for black children and white children? 1891? 1923? When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?” Yep, that is iron-clad, irrefutable, razor-sharp legal reasoning alright; and I have no doubt that Scalia would have employed it in 1954 if he’d had the chance.

    • cminca

      He could ask the same question of his friend Clarence Thomas’ marriage to his wife.
      Or when Clarence Thomas went from being 3/5 of a person to a whole person.
      But that wouldn’t bolster his hubris and bigotry, so the questions go unasked.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tony-Esolen/1184164082 Tony Esolen

        Those are absurd arguments. We are about to do something entirely new in the history of the world: we are about to de-couple marriage from biology and the nature of man and woman. You may think this is a good thing, or you may think it is madness, as I do; but it surely cannot be a small thing. And, by the way, many of us have been “fussing” and “bothering” about the whole damned sexual revolution and the collapse of the family. We can hardly get up steam to beg people to reconsider no-fault divorce or palimony or cohabitation, when along comes this — and if the unnatural is sanctioned, what chance are we going to have, dealing with what is at least natural, but still not right?
        There is no evidence from any cultures, anywhere, that a man and a woman of different ethnic backgrounds could not feasibly marry. Here and there, on occasion, there have been legal attempts to prevent them from doing what they could do, but these restrictions have been a lot rarer than you suppose. They are not the norm in human affairs. Nobody knows about the ethnicity or even the race of Saint Augustine’s mother and father, because nobody really cared, then. The racist laws were drawn up to prevent people from doing what they could naturally do. Nobody doubted that Roy Campanella’s white father and black mother WERE married; nobody doubted that they COULD feasibly marry; what the racists wanted to do was to keep them from something that was perfectly natural.
        As for that crack about being 3/5 of a person — please learn some history. It was the northerners, particularly the antislavery northerners, who insisted on the fraction, because they did not want the southern slave-holding states to possess greater representation in Congress than they deserved. The slaveholders wanted the slaves to count as full persons; the antislavery people didn’t want them to count at all; so they settled on the compromise, which itself bore out the contradiction at the heart of the slaveholding position.
        The bigot is not the man who thinks he is right. The bigot is the man who cannot imagine how anybody can believe the opposite of what he himself believes. That is, the bigot cannot charitably adopt the point of view of his opponent, and come to see what reasonableness that point of view possesses. Antonin Scalia is not a bigot. He knows quite well what animates his opponents: a commitment to “equality” with regard to “lifestyles,” and a commitment to indifference with regard to man and woman. What is abundantly clear, though, is that Scalia’s opponents — opponents of the Catholic position — either cannot or will not so much as concede that people may have good reason to fear taking this step. They are the bigots.

        • cminca

          Actually–a bigot is someone who judges an entire group of people based on an inherent trait. A bigot is someone who judges a person NOT on what he says or does, but how he was born.
          In other words-I didn’t choose to be gay. You are choosing to be a bigot.
          You want to strengthen marriage? Then let gays marry. Tell me–has the divorce rate skyrocketed in those states or countries which have ssm? NO.
          But Catholics are all about faith–right? Belief in the unseen even in the face of contradictory evidence?

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tony-Esolen/1184164082 Tony Esolen

            One rant at a time.
            I do not agree that your trait is inherent. I believe that you are suffering from a syndrome that has both psychological and moral components. You are also not the mere victim of your sexual feelings.
            It is not possible to strengthen marriage while condoning fornication. It is not possible to condemn or even discourage fornication between a man and a woman, if you are going to condone or celebrate sodomy.
            The divorce rate has no more skyrocketing to do. It is almost as high as it can possibly be. But the MARRIAGE RATE has cratered in those countries that have allowed men to pretend that they can marry men, and women likewise. For marriage no longer means anything — it is associated with feelings and not with fundamental biology.
            I do not judge a group of people because they have this or that sexual feeling. I am judging a type of action. If we cannot judge actions, then all moral reasoning must be condemned. I do not judge a class of people when I say that stealing is wrong; that does not mean that I am “bigoted” against thieves or kleptomaniacs or Robin Hoods or redistributors of income. I am judging the action. I make no pretense to know what lies in the depths of any particular person’s heart.
            We Catholics believe because of the preponderance of the evidence, manifest to both reason and faith.

            • cminca

              You don’t agree the trait is inherent.

              OK–tell me when you choose to be straight.. Tell me about the pro/con list you put together, the advise you solicited, and the day/time you made the conscious decision to be attracted to the opposite sex.

              And if, after you can’t complete that exercise, you want to take it one step further here is a little test for you. If it is a choice as you think it is–make a conscious decision to have a gay experience–and then go out, find a partner, engage, and ENJOY IT. And if you can’t imagine that then explain to me how you can think it is somehow a choice.

              “I do not judge a class of people when I say that stealing is wrong; that does not mean that I am “bigoted” against thieves or kleptomaniacs or Robin Hoods or redistributors of income”

              All of those activities have perceived negative impacts on others. Being gay is not harmful to ourselves, our partners, or others.

              But what you’re really angry about is that the world is moving on and the cc isn’t in a position to dictate to society.

              • Objectivetruth

                your second and third paragraphs actually do confirm Tony’s point that you are suffering from psychological and moral components. Someone that is so deep in a life of sin does not realize that they are so deep in a moral quagmire. We all can justify our sins. Hitler and his Third Reich pals never thought what they were doing was wrong or harmful. The man cheating on his wife will always justify his actions by thinking that as long as his wife never finds out, no one’s getting hurt. The man cheating on his taxes feels that the government takes enough of his money, and therefore he is justified in his actions.

                But make no mistake, the gay lifestyle is sinful. And as much as you claim that this lifestyle is some type of nirvana, I’ll wager deep in your heart there is sadness and discomfort. As Tony says in other posts, we can’t judge your heart, but actions can be judged. But like the adulterous husband and the tax cheat, Satan and his minions have watched you, studied you, and found your weaknesses and an opening to lead you away from God and his love. Whether you choose to believe it or not, there is a horrible spiritual battle being waged for your soul.

            • dch

              FACT: The state of MA has the LOWEST divorce rate in the USA since the advent of SSM. Provide actual numbers for your assertions.
              How does gay people getting married disrupt the far more numerous straight couple’s marriages? What is the specific cause and effect?
              Name a single straight couple that got divorced (or not married) as a direct result of a SSM?

          • schmenz

            No, my friend, you were not born that way. You chose it despite all the mental gymnastics. No were not born a sodomite any more than you were born a felon, an adulterer or a safe cracker.

            And, more to the point, you can choose to get out of this self-destructive lifestyle, like alcoholics can. It starts with you.

          • Theorist

            “Actually–a bigot is someone who judges an entire group of people based on an inherent trait.”

            Women are weaker than men and have greater pain thresholds and this is due to them being women.

            Likewise children are smaller than adults (except midgets).

            So these two statements are judgements of whole groups based on an inherent (that is, physical) trait. Yet they are not bigoted. So what definitions are you using?

            • Theorist

              Or perhaps you meant “judges” to mean “making a moral judgment”. However, we know that at least some men are, by the fact of their being men, attracted to women. Does this make their attraction less voluntary or more voluntary? The answer to that question is ambiguous so I don’t think inherent traits necessarily disqualifies something from being voluntary. Homosexuality, if it is analogous to straightness, also shares in this ambiguity (are homosexuals as homosexuals more voluntarily homosexual or less?).

          • Dan

            This is not about whether gays can marry. They already can marry in any of the 50 states, and never have been prohibited from marrying. They simply don’t like marriage, because they do not find it sexually appealing. They therefore demand not marriage, but to radically alter the definition of marriage so that it no longer involves sex.

      • http://www.facebook.com/william.p.murphy William P Murphy

        Cminca are you equating black with sexual perversion? Antonio Scalia would not do that.

        • cminca

          Nothing at all about being homosexual is perverse. Different than the norm, yes. The same way being left handed is different than the norm.
          (And just like being left handed, we’re not exactly sure what causes it. And just like being left handed, trying to “cure” homosexuality can lead to psychological problems.)
          And yes, I can equate being black with being homosexual.
          Both are inherent traits.
          And both have been discriminated against in American civil society.
          So Scalia and you are just plain bigots.
          Don’t like being called a bigot? Stop being one.

          • Objectivetruth

            Left handedness as an analogy to homosexuality???? Sorry, but……that’s one of the weakest arguments I’ve ever heard.

            • cminca

              Then you aren’t thinking it through (surprise surprise)
              The percentage of the population is roughly the same
              We don’t know what causes it, but it is an inherent trait.
              There are severely right handed people, severely left handed people, and everywhere in between. There are severely same sex oriented people, severely opposite sex oriented people, and everywhere in between.
              If you try and force an born left hander to use his right hand, you may change the behavior but the person will always be left handed. And forcing someone to do so has been shown to lead to emotional problems–specifically learning disabilities. Exactly the same results as “gay reparative” therapy.
              Oh–and BTW–we can find bible verses questioning which lead to left handedness being stigmatized by society.
              So–“objectivetruth” it isn’t a weak argument. It is a very strong one.

              • Objectivetruth

                is there something about Jesus Christ cminca that captures your interest? What is it? I’d be happy to answer any questions you might have or to help you……

                • cminca

                  There is NOTHING that you or your church can offer me.

                  • Objectivetruth

                    My Church can offer you great love. Great peace and joy.

                    • cminca

                      “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Gandhi

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Like I said in the other posts I agree, all Catholics fall short of Christ’s teachings. The first pope, the apostle Peter, denied knowing Christ three times the night Christ needed Peter most! But Peter was sorrowful, repented, and got back up and followed Christ again. Christ knows we are going to fall ad not be able to imitate him perfectly, but is overjoyed when we keep getting up and try again.

                      But then, there are Mother Teresa, Pope, John Paul II, st. John, st. Therese of Liseux, etc…..none of them perfect but good examples of people that strived for Christ’s perfection.

                      That’s a great quote from Gandi, and he was a good and holy man, but understand that he was not perfect and sinned.

                  • Objectivetruth

                    The incredible irony cminca is that Christ really only wanted to hang out with sinners. And sinners were attracted to Christ and what He was saying. The reason sinners followed Christ is that he offered them something better than sin. He offered them mercy and love. Christ truly loves the sinner. He doesnt like the sinner’s sin. He embraces the sinner with an unconditional love.

                    And everyone in the Catholic Church is a sinner. Some of us are big time sinners! But What I have always noted cminca is that I never feel good when I sin. I don’t want to sin, but I do. And like those first followers of Jesus, I’m attracted to Him and His teachings because He offers something much better than sin. The Christ offers radical love. His love feels good, it brings peace. And once you’ve experienced Jesus’ love, you never want to go back to your old sinful ways that never felt good anyway.

                    Let’s put the whole homosexual issue on the shelf for right now, cminca. Are there other areas in your life that you don’t feel good about that you wish there was a better way? This is where I’d encourage anyone To explore the love of Jesus. Once you’ve experienced it, you never want to go back to your old ways.

          • Objectivetruth

            Sorry, but, there’s nothing perverse about a man putting his penis up another man’s rectum? Really? You do know what the natural use and end of the rectum is, don’t you?

            • cminca

              My you are fascinated with the mechanics.

              The meaning of the word perverse is “inexplicably irrational.”
              I can assure you that for homosexual men that enjoy anal sex, that meaning is far from the truth.
              It is pleasurable. It bring the participants closer together emotionally.
              In other words–we can receive the same gratification–physically and emotionally–from anal intercourse as straight people can from vaginal intercourse.

              • Objectivetruth

                Gay bowel syndrome
                Gay bowel syndrome refers to some combination of intestinal or anorectal infection/trauma among male homosexuals. Homosexuals do not like this phrase, and note that gay bowel syndrome “is neither gay-specific, confined to the bowel, nor a syndrome.”(1) However, this phrase was coined by some physicians in response to a “clinical pattern of anorectal and colon diseases encountered with unusual frequency” in homosexual men in New York City in 1976.(2, 3; see also: 4, 5) These authors noted that in a sample of 260 homosexual men, “The clinical diagnoses in decreasing order of frequency include condyloma acuminata, hemorrhoids, nonspecific proctitis, anal fistula, perirectal abscess, anal fissure, amebiasis, benign polyps, viral hepatitis, gonorrhea, syphilis, anorectal trauma and foreign bodies, shigellosis, rectal ulcers and lymphogranuloma venereum.”(2)

            • Bono95

              Someone commenting in another article said exactly that. The rectum is for getting rid of the body’s most dangerous waste product, and the rectal tissue is delicate and can be painfully torn. That’s not love. And it sure doesn’t sound pleasurable, either.

              • Objectivetruth

                In fact, the rectum tissue is very flexible and delicate. Read this: Gay bowel syndrome
                Gay bowel syndrome refers to some combination of intestinal or anorectal infection/trauma among male homosexuals. Homosexuals do not like this phrase, and note that gay bowel syndrome “is neither gay-specific, confined to the bowel, nor a syndrome.”(1) However, this phrase was coined by some physicians in response to a “clinical pattern of anorectal and colon diseases encountered with unusual frequency” in homosexual men in New York City in 1976.(2, 3; see also: 4, 5) These authors noted that in a sample of 260 homosexual men, “The clinical diagnoses in decreasing order of frequency include condyloma acuminata, hemorrhoids, nonspecific proctitis, anal fistula, perirectal abscess, anal fissure, amebiasis, benign polyps, viral hepatitis, gonorrhea, syphilis, anorectal trauma and foreign bodies, shigellosis, rectal ulcers and lymphogranuloma venereum.”(2)

                • Bono95

                  I’ll grant that the tissue damage part of the syndrome could come from anything shoved forcibly into the rectum, but I doubt anything else but male sodomy would produce STDs.

          • Bono95

            Being left-handed does not dramatically increase one’s risk of developing AIDS and other nasty STDs, it is not a mortal sin (or a sin of any sort), it does not increase the likelihood of the left-hander doing drugs, being promiscuous, or contemplating/committing suicide, and it does not trivialize and further destroy true, heterosexual marriage. I should know; the only things I do with my right hand are use a computer mouse and make the Sign of the Cross.

            • cminca

              When you list all the “horrors” of homosexuality do you ever stop and consider that those ailments aren’t related to being gay, but to the world’s response to us being gay…..
              Of course not. You’ve got your church and can wrap yourself up in hypocritical self-righteous bigotry while claiming your “love” of the sinner.

              • Bono95

                There are other mortal sins besides sodomy (including heterosexual adultery), heterosexual adultery can and does sometimes lead to AIDS and other STDs (and sometimes totally innocent people can get them too from infected blood donors or parents), and anyone can fall prey to suicidal thoughts and drugs if they aren’t careful. But people who practice sodomy are the most at risk for all of these awful things, and that’s why the Church points them out. Being chastised is never fun, but it’s for everyone’s good. All people sin in some way (I am not gay, but I am often tempted into laziness, anger issues, and self-absorption), and all must be chastised so that they can see how harmful their sin is (hopefully without having to see it the hard way through the evil consequences of the sin). But never forget that all people can be forgiven too if they are truly sorry and try their best not to sin again.

    • Gavin

      Brilliant, Montanajack! That is exactly the “logic” he is using.

    • Dan

      The answer to when it became unconstitutional to have separate schools for black children is simple: 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified. Between 1868 and 1954, when Brown was decided, the constitution was being violated. Many people understood in 1868 that the 14th Amendment was intended to outlaw racial discrimination in schools (which is why Plessy v. Ferguson got litigated). The same is not true of genderless marriage. No one conceived of it being a constitutional “right” until a few years ago, long after the constitution was last amended.

      • montanajack1948

        Dan: yes, it’s “simple” now to say that racial segregation was unconstitutional as of 1868, but since Plessy v. Ferguson sustained “separate but equal,” it apparently wasn’t so “simple” back then (or even for decades thereafter) for everyone to see that. Even in 1954, Brown v. Board of Education was not universally hailed as embracing a “simple” truth. I’m sure you’re correct that no one in 1868 thought of the 14th Amendment as having anything to do with marriage, but that doesn’t mean the implications weren’t there had people cared to look for them. The Law of Unintended Consequences is far-reaching…

      • montanajack1948

        Dan: yes, it’s “simple” now to say that racial segregation was unconstitutional as of 1868, but since Plessy v. Ferguson sustained “separate but equal,” it apparently wasn’t so “simple” back then (or even for decades thereafter) for everyone to see that. Even in 1954, Brown v. Board of Education was not universally hailed as embracing a “simple” truth. I’m sure you’re correct that no one in 1868 thought of the 14th Amendment as having anything to do with marriage, but that doesn’t mean the implications weren’t there had people cared to look for them. The Law of Unintended Consequences is far-reaching…

  • http://www.facebook.com/becky.chandler1 Becky Chandler

    This is why marriage should not be in the hands of the state.Government takeover of marriage began during
    the Reformation. Martin Luther declared marriage to be “a worldly thing .
    . . that belongs to the realm of government” rather than the church. http://bit.ly/VxfVjv The French Revolution completed the government takeover of the institution. http://bit.ly/178FXs Government social engineers, over the years, created an impressive number of incentives encouraging the institution. e.g. http://1.usa.gov/KZsJE
    (pdf file). However, government (in response to growing secularism and
    social liberalism) also began to make it easier to slip in and out of
    the institution. But, it began to lose even more popularity and
    respect. So then it was suggested that the definition of the declining
    institution be expanded, so that a whole different class of individuals
    would be provided with these governmental privileges. Marriage is too
    special to be demeaned by continuing to be just another function of the
    state—despite what statolatry conservatives and progressives believe.

    • publiusnj

      Ms. Chandler is quite correct. Politicians are way too corrupt to be have much say in such an important institution. We need to start talking about “State-defined Marriage” as an amoral and inferior substitute for “Christian Marriage.” That is no mere semantic distinction; rather it is a crisp way of delegitimizing what the politicians would now call marriage and it chides the State for all of its amorality that started off with Henry’s divorce and the bigamy of that duke who supported Luther and has gone on ever since, with such deviancies as no-fault divorce and now gay marriage.
      State-defined marriage may call itself marriage, but it is NOT “Holy Matrimony.” Nor is it “until death do us part.” Nor does it require the participants to “pledge their troths to one another.”
      Now, with the prevalent elimination of adultery laws it doesn’t even require the participants to be faithful to one another to ensure that chldren dammed by the woman in the marriage be the children of the father nor children sired by the man in the marriage be dammed by the woman. In fact in a “gay marriage” involving either sex, if the child is dammed by a woman who is a participant in the “marriage,” the other participant CANNOT have sired the child. Simply put, lesbians cannot sire children and only one of them can dam the child. If it is a “male-male gay marriage,” there isn’t even a woman to dam the child. The baby-carrier function cannot even be completed within the “marriage,” no matter how healthy and fertile both participants may be. “Curiouser and curiouser.”

      • tom

        Our “personally opposed” Catholic pols need to be excommunicated, yesterday or all is lost.

        • mikehorn

          Once the Church is seen as blatantly partisan, the influence is gone. But it is far more complicated than that. The Church opposes the GOP on their saber-rattling and hair-trigger wars, as well as their economic policies. The Church itself is openly critical of the GOP’s latest version of capitalism, which resembles the “laissez faire” from 100 years ago. One of the very few things the Church supports the GOP on are culture-war issues. The Church actively supports Democrats on their economic, social justice, and military restraint positions. A good Catholic would have to choose between party and religion no matter which party they align with. Paul Ryan was publicly rebuked for his budgets from the last 4 years, and his support of Objectivist philosophies should raise any good Catholic’s hackles.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tony-Esolen/1184164082 Tony Esolen

            Actually, if you troubled to read the social encyclicals of the popes, you will see that they are miles and miles away from everything that the statist Democrats say and do, also.

            • mikehorn

              The last two Popes have declared publicly that unregulated capitalism is a sin that does harm against the poor. The American Bishops formally rebuked Rep. Paul Ryan for his budgets, his support of Objectivist ideals of cutting necessary regulations and social safety nets. The Church is on record supporting things like education, welfare, social security, and even universal healthcare (though they disagree on contraception).

              Can you point to anything the Vatican has put out condemning the Democrat positions on education, social security, medicare, and welfare?

          • Bono95

            A good Catholic must support and vote for whichever politician most closely aligns him or herself with the Church’s teachings, whether that politician’s a Democrat, a Republican, or something else.

    • mikehorn

      I was not married in any Church, and proud of it.

      • John200

        I don’t blame you for being proud of it. I pity you.

        See? Witty one-liners often invite witty comebacks.

        • cminca

          That is assuming, of course, anyone would consider your remark “witty”.
          That, I’d say, is arguing facts NOT in evidence.

          • John200

            I don’t blame you for turning this thread into a trollerama.

            I pity you.

        • mikehorn

          I thought it was funny. My point is that the Church is far from being involved in all marriages. There are Protestant, atheist, hindu, and people who could care less about religion who get married without the Church or any church. From everything I’ve read, the Church really only stepped in to the marriage regulation thing during the Middle Ages as a sort of stabilizer and universal standard, very much acting in a civil capacity where the civil authorities were pretty unreliable. They also considered it a private matter for a while, with no clergy necessary. I remember being taught that matrimony is the only sacrament given from one lay person to another, with the priest only present to bless it, though I haven’t looked that one up.

          The Church also used to consider, and sometimes still does, marriage of Catholics to non-Catholics an illegitimate marriage.

  • Pingback: The Same-Sex 'Marriage' Debate - Big Pulpit

  • tom

    The Church needs to re-organize. It has strenghts, including Freedom of Religion and freedom of conscience….the later under particular attack. Before it disappears, the bishops need a more muscular conscientious objector program for Catholcis to avoid our serial “unjust” wars. That gives the Catholic Church “clout”. Gen. Martin Dempsey should be asked whether he’s a Catholic OR an American general. let him…make him…choose.

    We also need our own community health programs that we finance and that non-Catholics can’t use…same with our schools and colleges. In the end, we’ll finally stop gushing losses and begin seeking virtue, rather than political compromise with our society’s monsters.

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

      First of all, the Church needs to get rid of the fifth column within – all the “christers”, “liberal” Catholics, etc. She needs to become much smaller and much more principled. But I’m not holding my breath…

      • tom

        You bet. but with Catholics and fundamentalists making up most of the U.S. military, we have POWER if we apply the unjust war theories and commit to moving Catholics out of the military for its unjust wars. why the popes call our wars unjust and our bishops say nuthin’ is a a problem.

        • mikehorn

          Any Catholic service member who violated their Oath by refusing a deployment in time of war would be up against a charge of treason. If Catholics become known as people who think legally binding Oaths are good only as long as you personally agree with everything would soon become anathema all around the globe. If the Church sanctioned Oath-breaking, then no one would ever trust the Church or its members again, on anything.

          Also remember that any elected official is also under Oath to support and defend the Constitution, not any particular religion. Anyone under Oath has to reconcile any differences between those two as best they can, but the Church would do itself permanent damage by asking its adherents to break their Oaths.

          • schmenz

            There are higher oaths, sir. When these military men are standing before God at the time of their death I believe He will more concerned with how he lived his life, not how well he kept a military oath to fight a manifestly unjust war (which all of our current wars certainly are).

            • mikehorn

              This is a far more complicated subject than most people here seem to think it is. I, for one, agree with the Vatican and International Law that the right to self-defense is inherent and by definition gives justification for war. Our wars in Afghanistan and against Al Qaeda are in this category.

              Higher than what? If a person gives their word, then breaks it, they are liars and frauds, plain and simple. When a military person gives their Oath, they swear to obey the orders from those above them. Most, but not all, swear this to their god (Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, and more serve their country). Those above them are morally obligated and morally authorized to make the decisions of just and unjust. While I agree that some recent conflicts (at least one) we’ve had to fight were giant mistakes, neither the President nor the Pope declared them Unjust. I happen to disagree with them on that point. The Vatican recommended against it, but never went as far as you have. The Pope and the Church are supposed to be guided by a higher power, and the Pope has the option to “speak from the chair” and give divine pronouncements. What gives you that right? Are you willing to break your “higher oath” to your religion? That is a harder choice and deserves more thought and more knowledge than I think you gave it.

              Most soldiers can really see only their immediate actions, not the strategic scene, and it is true that at that level they are obligated both by morals and by their Oath to make just/unjust decisions. If Iraq were ever considered to be an unjust “war of aggression”, very few below the rank of general or admiral would be guilty of war crimes, mostly focused on civilian leadership in our country. Soldiers are taught the Laws of Armed Conflict, and are also under order to 1) not break them, 2) do their best to stop any war crimes in progress, and 3) report any violations or perceived violations they observe to the nearest competent authority (meaning they can bypass their chain of command if necessary).

              • schmenz

                Sir,

                If I understand you correctly, namely that you are saying the actions of the USA in Iraq and Afghanistan meet the just war doctrine, then there are apparently no limits of self-delusion some are willing to allow themselves.

                Under no circumstances can anyone say that these wars of aggression are just, and I needn’t quote John Paul II or Benedict to help the argument. Everyone, from the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem to the honest Leftists and Rightists, from the people of nearly every European nation who expressed themselves to the few courageous diplomats who dared to speak out were in utter shock and horror over the actions of the United States. Those wars, cheered on by the usual Israeli interests and financial oligarchial interests, were and are war crimes pure and simple, and the crimes continue to this day.

                I would suggest you stop reading military and/or US government propaganda and start listening to other voices, those of sanity.

                The current wars being waged by America are a stench in the nostrils of decent men and to defend them in the way you apparently are is sick-making.

                • mikehorn

                  That is either an April Fools post, or you have entered Tin Foil Hat land. If the first, well-played! If the second, good luck!

                  • schmenz

                    Pitiful. But I wasn’t expecting an intelligent reply anyway.

                    I will, of course, inform Michel Sabbah, the Latin Patriarch, that he has been named a member of the Tin Foil Hat brigade.

          • Bono95

            The Church commands its followers to faithfully uphold ALL the oaths they make UNLESS the oath is intrinsically immoral or was made under pressure. And frankly, very few elected officials these days are keeping their oaths to support and defend the Constitution, which is in part why many Catholic service men find themselves unable to swear to or uphold any oaths that come their way.

            • mikehorn

              So, is an Oath to US military service moral or not? Can’t quite follow you to a conclusion here.

              About elected officials, don’t confuse your ideology with faithful Constitutional service. The USA doesn’t and never should have one, single ideology or political thought. I’d argue we need more than two, but in practice there are more even if only under two major parties. The big split in the current GOP between old-timers like McCain and Boehner, not to mention Snowe and a few others that gave up the fight, vs the new Tea Party folk. The Tea Party seems to be a rebranding of the more radical elements. The Democrats have their factions, too, though the split isn’t as obvious right this instant.

              One thing to remember is that US officials and servicemembers uphold the US Constitution. They do not swear to uphold the Canon Law. They do not swear to uphold the KJ Bible. If they are sworn to US government service, I’d argue their first duty is to the Constitution when it conflicts with their individual religion. As members of the US Government, they give up certain rights when they swear the Oath. Military members are actually reminded of this from time to time, especially regarding free speech vs security. An elected official must serve a secular nation of many religions and none, and the Government is specifically forbidden from favoring one religion over any other, or even religion over no religion. The Government is made up of people as well as laws, and the people are not free to act according to their religion if that means the government will be acting according to their religion. I’ve known Baptists that didn’t consider Catholics to be Christian or even good Americans, and didn’t consider atheists to be worth putting in positions of trust, but a Baptist elected to Government is specifically forbidden from acting on those two beliefs due to Amendment I and Article VI. If they cannot do this, I’d suggest they find another profession.

              If you are suggesting a good Catholic is not free to take the US Oath, then you will succeed in setting back sectarian tensions 100 years, to the days when Al Smith was considered unelectable due to his Catholic faith.

              • Bono95

                What I meant was that a Catholic in the military may take any military oath that does not violate his faith, and if he takes a (moral) oath, he ABSOLUTELY MUST uphold it and fulfill it. If the oath in question is intrinsically immoral, he should not take it, because ignoring God’s commands is much more dangerous than ignoring any superior officer’s. God never commands us to do wrong, but a human leader very well may.

        • mikehorn

          I might point out that treason in a time of war is a capital offense. Their commander could order a summary execution, no trial. These are not games or ideological fantasies we are dealing with.

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

    Yes, we live in an age of criminal stupidity that presents itself as a great enlightenment. Whom gods want to destroy, they first make them mad.

    • tom

      Let’s just show Biden, Kerry, Durbin, Pelosi and Gillibrand the door! Feeding the Holy Communion causes indelible scandal.

      • mikehorn

        The USA currently has about 68 million registered Catholics, about a third of which are non-practicing. So, practicing Catholics are about 45 million. One in ten Americans are former Catholics, who consciously left the Church. 30 million Americans who actively said NO! to the Church. Drive more people away, lower the numbers further, have less clout, become more easily dismissed. Good plan.

        • schmenz

          Spoken like a true Protestant. The Church is not in the business of winning popularity contests among badly-instructed peoples. It is in the business of saving souls.

          • mikehorn

            How do you know I’m a Protestant or not? The Church will not save any souls if they cannot convince anyone they are correct. Bad arguments, hatred, lack of empathy for opposing arguments, are all incredibly bad ways to save souls. You poo-poo the “popularity contest”, but don’t discount its value for getting people on your side, for convincing them you are correct. If you are correct but then succeed only in angering other people, what have you accomplished? I’d say a big fat lot of nothing. If you are instructed to save souls and convert those who disagree with you, but not only fail to do that but by your choices actively work against it, didn’t you fail in your instruction to save souls?

            Seriously, convincing people through popularity is often the single and only most important first step. You have to be correct after that to keep them, but if you can’t even get them to listen to you, you are a complete failure.

            • Bono95

              So all the Catholic Church’s and Faith’s contributions to art (Michaelangelo, Raphael, Fra Angelico, Giotto, Velasquez, Byzantine Icons, Naturalistic Painting and Drawing, Sculpture, Church/Cathedral Architecture), music (Gregorian Chant, Baroque/Classical/Romantic Compositions, Hymns, Music Theory), literature (Shakespeare, Chaucer, Beowulf, the Song of Roland, Chesterton, the Bible), holidays and traditions (Christmas, Easter, Valentine’s Day, Halloween, All Saint’s Day, St. Patrick’s Day), etc. are all nothing then?

              • cminca

                OK–couple of thoughts for you.
                First–the WEALTH of the church paid for the art your claiming was the product of faith. The church was the entity with money. In order to survive, the artists sold what the money was buying.
                Second–I’d ask you to consider the irony of the cardinals selecting the latest anti-gay pope under a ceiling painted by a homosexual. In front of a painting of the last judgement painted by the same homosexual.
                Next–lets review you list–all the art and artists you listed were not JUST because of the CC. Michaelangelo, Raphael, Velasquez, Leonardo, etc., all worked for private patrons. Baroque music–NOT all for the church. Classical music–NOT all for the Church. Romantic music–NOT all for the church.
                Literature–you’re claiming Shakespeare, Chaucer and Beowulf for the Church? Really? (And glad to see you’re claiming the Bible is literature–ie. Fiction).
                Holiday and Traditions? Double check you list. Christmas, Easter, and Halloween traditions were all attached to Pagan holidays. Holly, Mistletoe, Christmas trees, Easter Eggs? You don’t get that? Wow.
                Like so many Catholics you claim everything good in the world came from Christianity, and it just isn’t true.
                But if you want to own those you get to own ALL of the faith contributions.
                Crusades, witch trials, the inquisition, burning heretics, killing indigenous populations in the name of “faith”. Not to forget excommunicating scientist that disagreed with the church and trying to censor anything that question the faith.
                Because remember–Science gave us the airplane. Religion turned it into a bomb.

                • Bono95

                  You’re right that a lot of holiday traditions were pagan in origin, but the Church saw value in them and incorporated them into the Christian celebrations as a way to help the pagans convert more comfortably. My apologies if I made it sound as if I considered the Bible fiction, which I don’t. Yes, not all the art, music, and literature examples are fully Catholic, but they all had roots in the Faith or in works done by religious communities. It was an unknown monk who composed Beowulf, and without the Church, Chaucer would have had no Canterbury or religious figures to write his tales about.
                  The Crusades were fought in defense of the Holy Land, which didn’t belong to the Turks, and the Inquisition was established to ensure that mob violence would be avoided and that people accused of subverting the Faith would be tried fairly. Innocent people were immediately released, most punishments for guilty people were not death (instead it was often a fine, imprisonment, maybe exile), and the total number of people executed makes up less than 2% of all the people tried under the Inquisition. And actually, it was Protestants who did more witch-hunting and killing of indigenous peoples. And when they got their hands on Catholics during the 1st century after the Reformation, they usually didn’t treat them with kid gloves.

                  • cminca

                    “the inquisition was established…..tried fairly”?
                    Are you kidding?
                    I’d done. I might as well talk to broccoli.

                    • John200

                      You can do that if broccoli knows how to use a mirror.

                    • Bono95

                      Think of it this way, would you rather be briefly detained, questioned, and most likely released by Catholic Inquisitors, or would you rather be seized, imprisoned indefinitely, tortured, and slowly and painfully executed by Anglican terrorists?

              • cminca

                Oh, and you might want to remember that the cardinals and popes that were paying for all this art were also the ones scheming and murdering others in order to become pope.
                Not because they were anxious to help the faithful, but because of the temporal power of the office.

                • Objectivetruth

                  “scheming and murdering others to become pope?”

                  False information, cminca.

                  Cminca….your posts are showing the same misinformed hatred, bigotry, predjudice and lies that you are accusing Catholics of on this website.

                  There are many uninformed false stereotypes and lies about the Catholic Church out there that it looks like you’d rather propagate than try and learn the truths of the Catholic Church.

                  The Church holds the fullness of the Truth of Christ. I still invite you to learn of this beautiful truth.

                  And the fact is, Christ loves you but hates your sins. Including your homosexual acts. By refusing to repent from that sin, you have pushed yourself far from God and His love. God has not condemned you, you have freely chosen to condemn yourself.

                  But it seems you are only here to attack the Church, even though you know nothing about it that is true. That is nothing less than the bigotry that you are accusing others of.

                • Bono95

                  Yes, there were and are bad and scheming cardinals, but there also are and were good, holy, humble cardinals who love God and the Church and desire only to do God’s will and obey the Church’s teachings, which are God’s teachings.

  • mikehorn

    “such threadbare arguments”

    Only the strawmen you described are threadbare. Basing your argument to defeat a strawman does your argument no good, because it is based on a fallacy. You attempt to represent your opponents’ arguments in a dishonest way by taking the substance out, and sometimes inserting completely false things in. This tarnishes your ability to argue the subject, and drives thoughtful people away.

  • Truth

    The question I have is why does the government’s definition of marriage have to match that of Christianity’s? Why can’t they be different. Why can’t a Christian accept that a government accepts a marriage but still politely say that is not recognized by God. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”.

    • Kevin McCormick

      Because then a Christian’s understanding of marriage would be in violation of the law. Believe the idea that the condescending progressives will allow for religious exemptions if you wish, but I for one do not believe that such exemptions will have any lasting protections for us. Anyone connected to the issue of marriage (and this means nearly everyone)
      will be subject to recognizing same-sex marriages as legitimate.

      • Phil

        In Canada same-sex marriages have been performed for eight years, and the only Christians who have been penalized have been civil marriage officiants.

        • Kevin McCormick

          Financial penalties are just one portion of the equation, but I will offer an example. In the US, precedent has already been set by a state, New Mexico, in which same-sex marriage is not allowed by law. However they do have a special non-discrimination law specifically aimed at same-sex issues. And so a wedding photographer who declined to cover a same-sex event was taken to court, fined heavily, and lost again on appeal for refusing to violate her conscience.

          But the issue includes a myriad of connections that require those engaged in commerce to acknowledge the spousal relationship as legitimate (anything regarding finance and property rights, insurance, inheritance and familial connections, et al). Thus while it won’t register as a “penalty,” many faithful yet law-abiding Christians will forced out of work for their beliefs which as recent as a decade ago were understood as a given by the vast majority of the country.

          Furthermore our schools are already battlegrounds for the culture wars and surely will be co-opted for the legal promotion of same-sex marriage as the legitimate “law of the land.” As with abortion and contraception, those seeking to overturn nature will be presented as “the law” and the “pro” and those striving to honor nature will be seen as the “anti” forces–hardly a balanced presentation of the issue even if we are to accept that there are differing beliefs.

          The end result is that this single issue would likely severely marginalize the Christian faithful. If codified as a civil rights law it would be impossible for this not to make the Christian belief illegal.

  • Charles Cosimano

    Of course they don’t respect natural law? Why would they, seeing as how it makes as much sense as basing phyics on N Rays and chemistry on phlogiston.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tony-Esolen/1184164082 Tony Esolen

      That is a silly thing to say, Mr. Cosimano. Natural law is a moral philosophy, and has nothing to do with physics or chemistry. You are mixing the categories. It involves reasoning from the obvious nature of the beings before you. It cannot be outdated, because the nature of mankind has not changed. A man is still that creature that bears within him the potential for fatherhood; bears it in his very loins, as a woman bears within her the potential for motherhood. When the sexes unite, precisely as sexes and not as individuals masturbating in clever ways, they do what obviously is the child-making thing; and therefore they should be ready to assume the responsibilities of taking care of the child they make.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tony-Esolen/1184164082 Tony Esolen

    A man CANNOT mate with another man; it is logically and biologically impossible. It is like arguing for a square circle. It is a contradiction in terms. To pretend that he can is to institutionalize a kind of madness. A government that can do such a thing is quite unlimited in its ambitions. No natural reality can withstand it.

    • Caroline

      Anyone who has experienced the fullness of a loving, sexual relationship understands that it involves far more than just “mating.” Please!

      • Deacon Ed Peitler

        Inserting your penis, Caroline, into another man’s rectum is just “mating” (albeit ineffective, unnatural, and risky mating at that). And there is nothing intrinsically loving about inserting your penis into another man’s rectum. Even the fornicating act of a man and woman outside of marriage isn’t intrinsically loving – although many insist that it is (at least until the next convenient vagina or penis comes along)

  • Deacon Ed Peitler

    So, the next time that you have your favorite homosexual couple over for dinner, here’s what I suggest everyone do: when you serve the roast beef, just say, “I hope you enjoy the lamb.” When they reply, “But this is roast beef,” you must quickly insist that “No, it is lamb.” They will look at you perplexed but you should remind them that you can re-define anything to conform to what you want to call it and, presto, it’s very meaning, identity and reality will change according to your personal dictates. With that explanation in place they, being a homosexual married couple, will implicitly understand. You can actually do with with any item: hand them a hammer, and call it a screwdriver explaining how you have arbitrarily redefined its functionality.
    The other suggestion I would have is that when someone mentions homosexual marriage, break out into riotous, uncontrollable laughter and simply walk away. Your humor will not go unnoticed.

    • mikehorn

      Your humor will lose you friends, though.

      • John200

        May I suggest keeping a count of the defections AND… of the new adherents.

        The good deacon might surprise all of us by gaining many more friends than he loses.

    • Objectivetruth

      If I may invite myself to your dinner party, Ed, I’d love to come. And in the spirit of the new age of enlightenment and redefinition, I’ll be bringing my “wife”, a 1974 Chevrolet El Camino. If I may, she prefers 10W30 motor oil on her salad………I love her so…..

  • Vivianne

    Scathing, but accurate article!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bob-Greenpoint/100002755784850 Bob Greenpoint

    Wow. Just wasted several minutes of my life in the cesspool of hate that is the comments here. Hate, hate, hate hate hate. Oh, and Jesus.

MENU