Marriage Takes a Beating

shutterstock_Photo

Traditional marriage has been taking quite a beating ever since the U.S. Supreme Court, in its Windsor case handed down in June 2013, ruled that same-sex unions must be considered true marriages wherever they have been legally enacted as such, whether by legislative action, court action, or referendum. Since then it has been rapidly and steadily downhill for traditional marriage, both with regard to public opinion, and with regard to the number of states where the conjugal union of a man and a woman is no longer the exclusive form of what marriage has always been understood to be.

Even though the justices in their ruling invalidating parts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) specifically said that their ruling was to be considered limited—and nobody really knows how the high court will ultimately rule in the matter—it nevertheless seemed to be obvious to many on-lookers that there was now a 5 to 4 majority on the high court prepared to recognize so-called same-sex marriages where they had been legally enacted. Federal judges in various states thus quickly drew what they thought was the logical conclusion from the Windsor case and began to throw out existing laws restricting marriage to unions contracted between a man and a woman.

Just because gay marriage had not been enacted in some states did not deter these judges from seeing to it that it would now have to be enacted! They proceeded to throw out state marriage laws in no less than 13 straight cases, and lawsuits to the same effect are currently pending in nearly every other state where traditional marriage still holds sway. An unusual aspect of the whole situation has been that the attorneys general in a number of these states have simply declined to defend the laws in their states—as they are required by their offices to do.

In late May, 2014, Oregon and Pennsylvania became the 18th and 19th states where prohibitions of anything except true opposite-sex marriages were invalidated by judicial action. At the same time, a recent Gallup poll revealed that 55 percent of Americans now favor considering these same-sex unions as marriages, and among younger people the favorable rate goes up as high as 80 percent.

Quite suddenly, then, the demise of traditional marriage as the only legally sanctioned form of the institution now seems to have become virtually a foregone conclusion. The rapidity and extent with which what once had been universally taken for granted now seemed to have gotten turned on its head was surely unprecedented.

To characterize this turn as disconcerting for upholders of traditional marriage would be a considerable understatement. Until recently, support for traditional marriage had been widespread, solid, and growing, as witness the number of states that had enacted laws or even constitutional amendments limiting marriage to unions between a man and a woman. And at the time, these measures generally had strong support in public opinion. It was this on-going process shoring up traditional marriage that got rudely interrupted by the Windsor decision.

In no way, though, did Windsor provide any convincing facts or arguments showing that same-sex liaisons were marriages. The majority opinion, written by chameleon Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, did not deign even to consider the persuasive and indeed compelling arguments developed and expounded by defenders of traditional marriage to the effect that marriage is necessarily a complementary union of a male and a female ordered to the possible procreation of children and the formation of a natural human family.

But Justice Kennedy simply by-passed this argument and made no mention of it. He blandly declared instead that unnatural same-sex relationships which are necessarily sterile were nevertheless indeed marriages, offering no sort of reason or argument for this novel, indeed revolutionary, conclusion. Even while ignoring and leaving aside essential elements of marriage (sexual complementarity, ability to conceive new life), he nevertheless effectively did redefine marriage as far as the law is concerned.

And this is the redefinition that is henceforth likely to be enshrined in our law and practice generally—at least until enough Americans wake up to what is being perversely wrought here and find the courage to work to reverse it (as the former unwise constitutional amendment that once banned alcoholic beverages eventually got reversed).

Meanwhile, it is worth asking how we ever came to this pass. How did the organized homosexual rights movement ever manage to bring about such a stunning reversal in both law and practice? And in public opinion? And in so short a period of time?

All this was brought about in significant part because the organized homosexual rights movement proved able to enlist successfully in its cause the media, Hollywood, many courts, many legislatures, the universities, the professions, big business, and even some of the churches. Pretty hard to lose with that line-up behind you! But the basic question still remains: how did the organized homosexual rights movement manage to line up all of them in favor of its dubious cause?

The principal way in which the proponents of marriage redefinition succeeded in getting their cause accepted—and championed—by so many of society’s principal elements was by getting this cause of theirs identified with the civil rights revolution in American life. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed any discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, or sex. Later enactments added age and disability. The basic idea was that there was henceforth no longer to be any sort of discrimination. It was more than an idea; it quickly became a moral imperative.

And thus, just as American society officially and collectively found it to be gravely unjust to deny certain of the rights and privileges of citizenship to blacks on account of their race or color, so it came to seem equally unjust, once the question was posed, to deny persons of the same sex the right to marry (each other).

The fact that the relationship into which these persons of the same sex were proposing to enter was not, in fact, a marriage almost always got lost along the way (or never even got considered, as we saw in Justice Kennedy’s Windsor decision). The important thing was that there was no longer to be any discrimination or denial of “equal rights.” The language of the federal judges who would very soon be engaged in throwing out existing marriage laws typically reflected this same kind of thinking. Some of these judges actually professed an inability to see any reason whatsoever why the privileges accorded to marriages should be confined to opposite-sex partners.

Up to the present day the passage of the U.S. Civil Rights Act in 1965 has almost universally come to be seen in America as the great Moral Victory of the modern era. The idea that any discrimination or denial of equal rights could possibly be allowed or even tolerated today has become quite simply unthinkable. In this climate, by successfully equating the cause of so-called gay rights with equal rights generally, the advocates of gay marriage have been able to make their case almost without even having to argue it. Simply by stating that they wished to “marry” and regularize their relationships before the law, same-sex couples have succeeded in gaining almost automatic social approval. The importance of civil rights, the modern imperative of equality, and the contemporary horror of any discrimination have all conspired to insure that gay marriage is now seen as one of those famous “ideas whose time has come.”

We might once have thought that such a radical change in what marriage was now supposed to be would have given pause at least to some people, for this change had implications that went beyond marital unions as such. For example, legalizing same-sex unions also necessarily entails legalizing—and thus officially normalizing—what used to be considered (and condemned) as sexual deviancy. This is an aspect of the issue that is almost never debated or even mentioned by either the proponents or the opponents of same-sex marriage, and perhaps this is understandable today. Nevertheless, once same-sex marriage does get approved, sexual deviancy necessarily gets approved as well.

In this perspective, same-sex marriage can thus be taken to represent the ultimate victory of the sexual revolution. If sex acts between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, are okay, then any sex acts between consenting adults must be okay. Yet this remarkable result has been brought about almost without any debate or public discussion of any kind.

It is surely a measure of our current civilizational crisis that sexual deviancy could thus be normalized without any opposition or scarcely even any mention. A Vladimir Putin can speak out about it and deplore it, but we are now long past the time when any of our leaders would ever even think of doing so. We have long since ceased even to try to uphold the traditional personal moral code of the West.

However, this does not mean that we can also just cease to try to uphold the traditional definition of marriage as well. The old personal moral code went by the board gradually and piecemeal. At no point was anyone told that by law—and with possible legal penalties attached in case of failure to conform—society’s new, permissive moral code had to be accepted and adhered to by everybody. The case is different for marriage. We are being told that by law we must henceforth accept as a marriage something that is not a marriage

This, then, is where we are in American society at present. It is not yet an absolute certainty that the U.S. Supreme Court will legalize same-sex unions as true marriages throughout America, as it has already partially done in the Windsor case. But this is the most likely outcome. It is not at all clear, in fact, in what way this outcome could ever possibly be stopped in the present social climate.

What the champions of the Brave New World that will then supposedly be ushered in by according “equality” to all do not sufficiently appreciate, however, is that even if same-sex unions do come to be legally defined as marriages, the issue will still in no way be settled. It cannot be settled in this way for the simple reason that these unnatural unions are not marriages. This is a matter of truth. The Catholic Church, for example, could never accept that same-sex relationships could possibly be considered marriages, and the same thing is no doubt true for many other Christians who are serious about their faith—and not only Christians.

Jubilant over their current string of legal victories, those in favor of marriage redefinition do not seem to understand that what is being set up here is in no way any “settlement” of the contentious marriage issue, but rather it is a new situation of protracted and unending social conflict. The Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which was supposed to have “settled” the equally contentious abortion issue, instead succeeded only in bringing about some 40-plus years of continual agitation and strife, which still goes on today. The legalization of gay marriage is going to produce the same kind of result.

Legalizing gay marriage, in fact, may have an even greater potential for producing social conflict, since, as we are already seeing, treating gay unions as legitimate marriages requires that wedding planners, florists, photographers, bakers, and others who happen to oppose these ersatz relationships must now be legally coerced into supporting them. These incidents will only be increased and multiplied if and when gay marriage is legalized nationwide.

Thus, although traditional marriage in America may at the moment be quite far down, don’t count it out!

(Photo courtesy of Shutterstock.)

Kenneth D. Whitehead

By

Kenneth D. Whitehead is a former career diplomat who served in Rome and the Middle East and as the chief of the Arabic Service of the Voice of America. For eight years he served as executive vice president of Catholics United for the Faith. He also served as a United States Assistant Secretary of Education during the Reagan Administration. He is the author of The Renewed Church: The Second Vatican Council’s Enduring Teaching about the Church (Sapientia Press, 2009) and, most recently, Affirming Religious Freedom: How Vatican Council II Developed the Church’s Teaching to Meet Today’s Needs (St. Paul’s, 2010).

  • Bedarz Iliaci

    When the deviant marriage is considered as possible, the game is already lost.
    Since by participating in the political or judicial process, we acknowledge that the opponent’s position is not absurdly unreasonable or overly destructive to the common good.
    That is, in a political process, we are not allowed to impugn opponent’s intention but only his means to pursue the common good. We allow that his means may be defective but he desires essentially the same things as we do.
    But in this case, it no longer holds. And thus, the Christians must and will inevitably withdraw from the political process. Their opponents doubt Christians’ intention and will then not allow the Christians to effectively participate in the political process as equals.

    • Maggie 4NoH8

      It is not my job, nor my neighbor’s, nor your neighbor’s job, to conform to your faith/ideology in America, or its political process. It is incumbent upon you, each individual actually, to conform to and exist within a shared environment and political process.

      For that shared environment, respect and restraint is required. Marriage equality fits within the shared environment (a group of people are seeking to join a civil, shared status), while some, not all by any means, religious groups seek to exclude that group by redefining the civil status of marriage to mirror their very narrow faith-driven status of Holy Matrimony (note: LGBT are seeking to be married, not joined in holy matrimony in the Church).

      It’s easy to see why public sentiment now supports marriage equality: the golden rule – treat others as you wish to be treated – is being applied. People don’t want their relationships questioned, demeaned or denied by others, so they understand they must respect the relationships of others IF they want their own respected.

      • Sign

        A society requires just laws and those laws must be influenced by authentic morality. Simply claiming some deviant desire deserves affirmation in the law is immature and selfish.

        • Prof_Override

          Defining your opinion as “just” and “moral” is the core of the issue. You are the one who is selfish.

        • Louise

          They are influenced by morality, just not one narrow Catholic conservative morality. In case you haven’t noticed, we don’t live in a theocracy.

      • asmondius

        I could care less about ‘respect’ from your quarter. It is you who crave the ‘respect’. You’ll never get it.

        • Prof_Override

          Why would anyone give a damn about respect from a bigot.

        • Louise

          If you want to live in a secular society you must obey all laws. If this doesn’t suit you, please move to a theocracy. I am not interested in living by your religion’s rules or having our laws based on Christian conservative beliefs.

          • asmondius

            Since the majority of people in the society hold religious beliefs, it can not be a ‘secular’ society. Your laws are based upon Western Judeo-Christian beliefs, whether you like it or not.

  • Elaine Steffek

    What an abrupt and funky way to end an otherwise beautiful piece.

  • ForChristAlone

    The death knell for marriage began when divorce laws were liberalized. The bell rang louder with the widespread use of contraceptives. It struck even more somber tones when abortion was legalized. It became deafening as fornication became the way one conducted one’s courtship and adultery for the marrieds became commonplace. Marriage is over now that it no longer identified as between one man and one woman. Marriage has been robbed of its very meaning. It no longer exists outside the Catholic Church.

    The only hope is that the Catholic Church holds to the true meaning of marriage and refuses to recognize ANY marriage other than those performed under Her aegis because no where else is there a shared common definition of what constitutes a marriage.

    • Don Campbell

      It actually began with the Reformation, when Protestants denied there are any Sacraments, including marriage. Once the society at large no longer viewed marriage as a Sacrament, but rather a purely legal arrangement, we were already on the path to where we are today.

    • Louise

      Oh, please! Stop with the drama. Same-sex marriage does not threaten opposite sex marriage at all. Marriage is an institution that has and continues to evolve.

  • Sign

    Good piece. Once language is used as a propaganda tool you can deform minds and hearts. Calling perversion good and misusing terms like “equality” and “rights” you can brainwash those who lead an unexamined life and who think by emotionalism and not logic.

    • Thomas Sharpe

      Widespread contraception led to fornication, abortion, divorce and now the right for sodomite marriages. Sodomy is now equivalent to consummation; and with that there is a departure from language and reason itself.

      The only real means of substantive offense against this many headed hydra is to attack the root which is contraception.
      Will the Bishops Teach like successors of Apostles that they are, or will they allow to the Church in the US, and the country itself, to slide further down the path of perdition?

      • Sign

        Contraception is not the etiology but one more symptom.

        • Thomas Sharpe

          If the widespread acceptance of contraception is not at the root of sex without babies and bonding, abortion and sodomy, then what do you infer is at the root?

          • http://www.catholicsciencemonitor.com/ Matthew C. Masotti

            I think you found the root…

            “a departure from language and reason itself.”

            • Thomas Sharpe

              True. I think that once we started lying with our bodies, the lies spread and reason was compromised.

      • Divinemercy

        I agree with you. Recently I read an article that said when Catholics decided to break the rules of the church regarding chastity and indulge in sex before marriage etc. it then became more difficult for them to insist that others obey the rules of the church. With many people themselves not taking church rules seriously how could they with any sincerity require for eg. that gay men or women refrain from sexual activity. When it became widespread to ignore the church in matters relating to sex for the majority of straight people, it then would only be a matter of time before gay people could also do as they pleased.

        • Thomas Sharpe

          Yes, you have it.
          Recently I’ve been reflecting on the priestly scandals too.. Sexual immorality with clericalism and clergy looking the other way… Granted that molesting children, especially pre-teen boys is at an end (please God, please let it be so). But I really think that the root of the scandal, and indeed the scandal itself is still with us. There are no homilies where I live on all the sexual immorality around us, none at all. And there seems to be a strange clericalism that says “we don’t talk about this and we know best”. Very strange. I don’t buy the excuse of “we can talk about this in a homily”. There are things that could wisely be said, innuendos even, but there are faintly -none. We take our children to a Disney movie and we are likely to see innuendos reflecting a false culture, and when we go to Mass we here nothing of a teaching to adult ears.
          Agree?

          • Divinemercy

            I do agree with you and people who are interested in faith say this all the time. The culture is shouting loudly peddling its lies and we are straining to hear what the church has to say. The priests are probably afraid of losing what support they have within the community and definitely in Ireland they are castigated by the media continuously. It is not an easy time to be a priest or a catholic for that matter. We also see what happens in the US and Ireland when catholic teaching on sexual morality is talked about in the schools – uproar from the students and parents. Yet at the same time the culture is cheap trashy and throw away and I hope that it has bottomed out. I believe that we are all hungry for truth and goodness whether we know it or not and hope things have got so bad that we might actually know what that is now?

        • sandy james

          We don’t live by the rules of the church. It is fine for YOU to live by those rules but you can’t expect others to.

      • Louise

        Nonsense. There has always been contraception, sex outside marriage, abortion and divorce. Stop being so alarmist. If you don’t want to marry someone of the same sex, don’t. What business is it of yours what consenting adults do?

        • Thomas Sharpe

          A simple root cause analysis will tell, widespread contraception has led to widespread sexual immorality and with that the idea of moral relativism and a person “willing truth”.
          Two persons of the same sex can’t marry, not in this universe.

          • Louise

            They can and they do marry. My country has had legal same-sex marriage for a decade. Your country is finally, state by state, changing its laws. Just because you find it “icky” doesn’t negate reality.

            As for contraception: there has always been birth control methods. From herbs and teas to modern day barrier and hormonal methods, birth control has always existed. Your black and white view of life – no contraception//widespread sexual immorality” is nothing but dramatic ignorance. When sex is tied to procreation, and procreation only as the “use” of sexual intercourse a profound ignorance concerning human intimacy is evident.

            • Thomas Sharpe

              God, Designed Sex to be about babies and bonding, unitive and procreative. Sex can and is miss used often, and contraception has existed for thousands of years, but for the first time in 2000 year Christian History contraception is widespread and procreation for the first time has been separated from sex widespread.

              Before 1930 all Christian Church’s Taught against contraception, then in 1930 the Anglician Church broke Tradition. They have, now 80 years later, accepted so called same sex marriage and they’re going under.

              We’re in the Age when there will be One Church again. Hold on its going to be a bumpy ride.

              • Louise

                It will be a tiny “one church”. Thankfully, the rotten RCC will disappear into history.

                • Thomas Sharpe

                  It happened before, in fact many times before, at least six times in 2014 years. The Church has died, and Rise again. Jesus Knows the Way out of a Grave.

          • sandy james

            They already are marrying in this Universe Thomas

            • Thomas Sharpe

              It’s not a real marriage.!
              How is it consummated ?!

              • sandy james

                How is it consummated? Sexually Thomas.

        • sandy james

          Exactly Louise! They want a return to the dark ages!

      • sandy james

        How old are you? You prefer a return to the dark ages? Contraception prevents those abortions you all despise…

        • Thomas Sharpe

          Nope. Abortion comes from the demand to have sex without babies, and that is contraception .

          • sandy james

            So people only have sex to conceive? I am married and I never wanted kids but I still have sex.

            • Thomas Sharpe

              A woman is only fertile about 7 to 10 days a month.

              • sandy james

                so? Birth control is a blessing.

    • http://www.catholicsciencemonitor.com/ Matthew C. Masotti

      Exactly. The ‘Pied Piper’ has led young people not only into approving “gay marriage” but toward a complete disregard of sexual morality.

      A generation of children is drowning in the false teachings of unrepentant, promiscuous adults.

  • Don Campbell

    The defining cultural imperative in the West has become the trope that people should be allowed to do whatever they want (without criticism) so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else. Once that principle was established, creating “rights” became merely a process of denying that the subject activity has any direct adverse effects on others, or that such effects are so attenuated that they should not diminish the new “rights.” Hence, no-fault divorce, contraception, abortion, and finally “gay” marriage. And, of course, the “tolerance” police ensuring that criticism of any such “rights” is viewed as un-American and even in-humane.

    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

      The problem is that gay marriage is not the “finally”. Polygamy is next, followed by pedophilia.

      • Sign

        Polygamy is a set up.

        • publiusnj

          Judge Crabbe in her June 6 decision is already setting up polygamy. In a particularly snotty aside, she noted tha defenders of Traditional Marriage “overstate” their case when they contend that the opposite sex union of one man and one woman is what traditional marriage always has been. She contends that polygamy is much more the norm. Set up? Sure looks like one.

          • redfish

            Ironically, she shoots down the idea that marriage is about procreation, but polygamy, when it existed, was largely rationalized with procreation. If a man’s spouse turned out to be infertile, he could find someone else to have his children.

            • Sign

              Once faux marriage becomes the norm anything is possible. Anything.

          • Sign

            The irony is that polygamy is less morally grave than homosexual acts.

      • Michael Paterson-Seymour

        Courts in Europe have been dealing with polygamy for a long time

        When citizens of one country, say Algeria, enter into a marriage there that is actually or potentially polygamous and then come to settle in, say, France, where marriage is strictly monogamous, the courts have to ask themselves whether the relationship between a man and the ladies living under his protection in a polygamous union is sufficiently analogous to the relationship of husband and wife, as described in the Code Civil, to make it just to apply the same rules to them. Otherwise, there is a real danger of the courts creating obligations, rather than enforcing them.

        The same question can arise in relation to succession to moveable and immoveable property, the owners of which are citizens of and domiciled in a foreign country

        No jurist has suggested there is an easy answer to this and courts have tended to deal with it on an issue by issue basis. Politicians, of course, will not touch it.

        The analogy with Windsor is obvious enough

        • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

          Given the mess that Europe is in morally, I wouldn’t use then as an example of anything.

      • DE-173

        Zoophilia.

        • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

          And I’m sure there are places further down the slippery slope than that. When consensual is your only criteria; and consensual becomes unprovable, voluntary sex slavery becomes moral.

          • DE-173
          • Bob Greenpoint

            Exactly how do children and animals consent?

            • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

              Children and animals consent by failing to say no, or in the case of amorous dolphins, by actually being the aggressor.

              • Louise

                That is so repulsive and wrong I don’t know what to say. Shame on you.

                • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                  It is where we are obviously headed, once we remove all logic and understanding from the philosophy that clearly shows that heterosexual monogamy is normative and superior.

          • Louise

            Absolute nonsense. Children and animals CANNOT consent. You know this and our laws know this. Two men or two women wishing to have their loving, committed relationship formalized with a civil marriage has no negative effects on you or anyone else. In fact, if you are so gung ho about marriage, why wouldn’t you be supportive of gay peoples’ wish to have stable relationships with state sanctioned benefits such as power of attorney, hospital visiting rights (to see their partner), married tax benefits, etc, etc??

            • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

              ” Children and animals CANNOT consent.”

              You know this how? Our laws on consent are culturally based and have changed many times in the past.

              I don’t support state sanctioned benefits for heterosexual marriages, in fact, I’d prefer to see the government use civil unions for that structure, and leave marriage to the churches. Anything less is a violation of separation of Church and State.

              • Louise

                ADULTS can consent. Children do not have the emotional and psychological maturity to consent. Stop playing silly games. And animals? If I have to spell out why animals can’t consent to sex with humans….Well…then you are hopeless.

                • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                  What is your definition of an adult?

                  Adult is entirely culturally based. To Islamic nations, 7 or 9 is often considered Adult. To some American States, 21 is barely considered an adult.

                  There is no concrete definition of what is an adult. There isn’t even a good physiological definition of it.

                  And Peta would have much to say about your spiciest attitudes against animals, though I have a tendency to share those attitudes with you.

      • Louise

        Polygamy is not “next”. Read your bible. It has been with us for eons.

        • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

          It was back in Pagan days- and yes, Fr. Abraham was a pagan.

          Polygamy, like so many alternative family structures, was found to be unsound by the time the Christian era came around. Most of the time, it’s horribly sexist and has a tendency to create extremely violent and cruel cultures.

  • fredx2

    I think the people bringing these cases in the lower courts are playing games. Virtually all of the wins have been before very liberal judges, in one case even a gay judge. It looks like whenever a case gets assigned to a conservative judge who will rule against them, they drop the case.
    So only liberal judges are deciding this latest string of Federal District Court cases.
    The gay judge who approved of gay marriage wrote the typical freakishly lofty rhetoric that tried mightily to pretend that gay marriage was the world’s most important civil right. But even he realized that, under his reasonning, any group of people could claim the right to marry. 3 people, 4 people, any group of people, no matter what the circumstances are, have a constitutional right to get married under his reasoning. The only way he could think of to handle this problem is to ignore it:

    “”Where will this all lead? I know that many suggest we are going down a slippery slope that will have no moral boundaries. To those who truly harbor such fears, I can only say this: Let us look less to the sky to see what might fall; rather, let us look to each other…and rise.”

    In other words, yeah, I know the rationale of my decision will allow polygamy, perhaps human-beast marriage, etc. But well, let’s…let’s…look to the sky”

    If he wrote this on an essay in law school, he would have been flunked. Legal reasoning does not include “hope” as a legal reason for doing something.

    I expect the Supreme court to laugh at these cases when they get there.

    • DE-173

      “have been before very liberal judges”
      Even the most cursory persulal of the elite law journals of the past couple of decades shows that the predominate thinking of the elite law schools has been dominated by secularism and statism. Almost all are “liberal”.

      • Maggie 4NoH8

        Liberal = liberty. Very American.

        • John200

          Children think this equation is true. It isn’t.

          “Liberal” has developed the connotation of “immature” and outright “kookoo.” “Liberty” is “freedom properly ordered.” See if you can find out what proper ordering of freedom means.

          I am willing to explain it in 24 hours, 5:35 PM PST tomorrow. Perhaps someone else will beat me to it, and that’s OK.

          But you should try it yourself first.

          • John200

            HigherCalling’s comment explains the proper ordering of freedom.

        • HigherCalling

          Every sane human being seeks liberty. The age-old problem, which has been solved definitively, concerns the means by which genuine liberty is achieved. True and lasting liberty is impossible without a conscious and vigilant recognition of truth. There is no genuine liberty outside of the truth of things, because truth is the means by which things are properly ordered, and liberty demands order. Liberalism is that which seeks liberty apart from truth. By this definition, Liberalism is very American — we happen to agree on that. But that definition ends in the death of real liberty. This is why our secular Founding and our Godless Constitution cannot sustain genuine liberty. We are witnessing today all manner of violations of universal Natural and Moral law precisely because our nation was conceived under the god of Liberty and not the God of Truth. We are witnessing the chipping away of inalienable rights and fundamental liberties (to wit: religious liberty) because Liberty is a false god.

          Want justice? Work for truth. Want peace? Work for truth. Want equality? Work for truth. Want genuine fairness and compassion and love and every other wonderful virtue that contributes to human flourishing? You can’t have them apart from truth. We say quite literally that the truth makes us free. To fall away from truth is to fall into falsehood, which ends in various forms of enslavement. The theological conclusion of Liberalism is atheism. The cultural conclusion of Liberalism is the Culture of Death. The political conclusion of Liberalism is totalitarianism. Real and lasting freedom begins and ends in the Truth that makes and keeps us free. The fad of Relativism is the logical extension of Liberalism, allowing liberals to cleverly skirt the ever-present power that truth holds over all things. And it ends in the death of freedom. It is the inevitable outcome of deliberately rejecting truth in the pursuit of liberty. Love demands truth. Justice demands truth. Liberty demands truth. Liberalism is not the proper means to achieve liberty. Liberalism is a sin.

        • Sign

          Liberal = relativist which equals tyranny.

        • asmondius

          Actually two very different words – brush up your knowledge of the American language.

    • Don Campbell

      I wish you were right. But the S. Crt. is going to cram this down on the American people. What you are seeing now was the intended effect of Justice Kennedy’s opinion in the DOMA case. And so now it will seem all the more palatable when he writes the opinion validating these lower court judges’ decisions. And,in fact, in many states the Gov/ AG are not even appealing the decisions. It’s over. It was over the day the DOMA opinion was released. Anyone who could not see that was naive.

      • publiusnj

        It ain’t over until it is over. In the Early 1970s, everyone was sure that the Death Penalty was going away based on all kinds of decisions all going against the Death Penalty and striking down the existing federal death penalties. At the last minute in a mid Seventies USSC decision, the tide turned. The death penalty is still not over.

        • sandy james

          Marriage equality will be the norm soon. Get used to it!

          • sign

            How do you get used to cancer?

            • DE-173

              You don’t. You excise it or you succumb to it.

            • John200

              You get used to cancer if and when you give up on the cure.

              Is it not better to treat it in precisely the way lefty treats kids? That is,
              – sharp tools to cut him apart,
              – dull tools to pull him apart,
              – these strong chemicals to burn him,
              – those strong chemicals to poison him.

              You have some choices to make. Take your pick.

            • Louise

              You’re equating loving, committed relationships with a disease?? How Christian of you.

          • publiusnj

            I “got used to” Liberalized Divorce and the killing of babies by their mothers and I may have to get used to “marriage equality” as well. How do I compensate? I realize how utterly meaningless US justice has become. As though these things constitute “liberty”? Our judges shove amorality down the Public’s throat and call it “liberty” (and/or equal protection or due process). The boys who fought on Normandy Beach or at Inchon or Khe sanh or Kuwait, though, were not fighting for the right to copulate with or marry the boy-next- foxhole. Nor were they looking to protect the right of their girlfriends or wives to kill the product of their love-making.

            • Maggie 4NoH8

              That is part and parcel of living in America. The boys (and girls!) that fought for freedom and liberty? Well, “those things” are included right in there with every other freedom and liberty enjoyed by Americans. Sandy’s advice “to get used to it” is warranted.
              PS – “these things” may not constitute “liberty” for you, but for a material group, “these things” precisely constitute liberty. America has a tendency to defend ALL liberty, not just your version.

              • John200

                This is license, not liberty. Lefty gets the two confused, but I don’t.

              • publiusnj

                I suppose you think that Jefferson, Franklin and Washington would agree that gay marriage is what liberty is all about, whatever the boys on Normandy Beach might have thought. You can think so but your view is ahistorical.
                Even Bill Clinton and large majorities of the Democrat Congressional Caucus voted for DOMA just 18 years ago ( Democratic Senators voted for the bill 32 to 14, and Democratic Representatives voted for it 118 to 65). DOMA and 32 state referenda since thus rejected Gay Marriage as a part of American Liberty. Courts in utter disregard of the will of the People, though, would enshrine it. That is not liberty; that is Realpolitik Democrat style.

                • http://www.catholicsciencemonitor.com/ Matthew C. Masotti

                  Yes, but isn’t a “realpolitik” which increasingly supports judicial decisions that subvert the will of the majority in the process of losing touch with political reality?

                  Today’s Democrats aren’t properly discounting the real but short-term/sighted benefit of campaign contributions from the gay lobby.

                • Louise

                  I’m sure Jefferson,et al would be flabbergasted by women and people of colour getting the vote too. Maybe you should try and get those laws repealed?

                  • publiusnj

                    In fact, I doubt he would have been flabbergasted. More importantly, neither of those changes occurred without a constitutional amendment (3 in the case of the Reconstruction Amendments and one in the case of women’s suffrage). Jefferrson/Madison, of course, provided a way for the popular will to change the Constitution, but the Constitution does not make the amendment process an eaasy one. So, would Gay Marriage ever pass in a constitutional amendment? It has never had to because a lot of legal legerdemain has been orchestrated instead of an up or down vote.

              • asmondius

                ‘America has a tendency to defend ALL liberty, not just your version.’ Then by extension, do not expect Christians to bake wedding cakes for you.

                • Louise

                  Ah, no there is where you make an error. If you are running a business, you must abide by all laws, including ones you make not like. That is the deal if you want to live in a secular society. Otherwise, there are some theocracies you can choose from to move to.

                  • asmondius

                    Then you have just contradicted yourself – some animals are more equal than others, it seems.

            • sandy james

              Lots of people in the military are/were gay. Marriage equality is a plus for them too. And many of those “liberal” judges were appointed by Bush and one of the lawyers who fought prop 8 is a conservative republican. Marriage equality is not amoral, it’s about two people who love each other.

              • publiusnj

                As to the military’s prior sexuality, ms. james apparently doesn’t know about Section 8s. As to the liberalness of the judges: who brought that up? As to: “Marriage equality is not amoral.” Maybe not in the church of sandy james. In Christianity up until now homosexual sex had been deemed immoral.

                • sandy james

                  But America follows the constitution not the Christian church.

                  • publiusnj

                    My point exactly. As I said and you disputed without any support that their rulings involved any code of morality: “our judges shove amorality down the Public’s throat and call it “liberty” “

                    • sandy james

                      No, they have followed the constitution.

                    • publiusnj

                      No, they have “crafted” an amoral view of the purport of the Constitution. For 184 years, the Constitution did not require Abortion. For almost 225 years, the Constitution did not require Gay Marriage. Today, due to an interpretation that the Government cannot take moral issues into account, the government is shoving amoral rules down our throats. That is all “a-moral” means. The initial “a” is an alpha privative that negates the meaning of the following word.

          • asmondius

            It will never be ‘the norm’ – future generations will relegate it to the same drawer as lobotomies and shock treatment.

          • asmondius

            Snore.

    • publiusnj

      I am not so sure the USSC will laugh. Look at the legerdemain it engaged in in the two 2013 cases. The key problem we face is that the Supreme Court in the CA Prop 8 Case decided in June 2013 gave our totally cynical politicians an easy way out of defending their constitutions and laws prohibiting gay marriage. By ruling that no one could step in to defend a Gay Marriage Ban if the State officials didn’t want to defend it, the Supreme Court (joined in by Scalia of all people) gave the politicians carte blanche to ignore the will of the people expressed in 32 referenda that had enshrined Traditional Marriage (supposedly).

      Now, people like Scalia will say that “Standing” is too important a concept to ignore and that the People can always throw out the faithless servants if they don’t uphold the People’s Will, but that becomes less and less likely after the Court’s total ignoring of the People’s Will as stated in the referenda. Although the People came out 32 times before to strike down even the possibility of Gay Marriage, it has NOT done them any good . In effect, the State (that is the Courts and a few faithless attorneys general/governors aided by a very few state legislature recently) has effectively told the People “we don’t care what you have to say. We will use the federalism principle to strike down the will of the People of the US as expressed in the almost unanimous vote of the House and Senate in favor of DOMA, which was then signed into law by Bill Clinton. Moreover, if you do dare to try to overturn what we are doing by a referendum, we will use the standing principle to allow politicians to avoid the referendum’s results. IOW, you have been and will be ignored.”

      There are a few states where Republican AGs and/or governors may stand up for Traditional Marriage. that is our only hope of getting the matter in front of the USSC and MAYBE getting a fair hearing. Who knows, though, why an abomination like those two 2013 companion decisions on Gay Marriage really happened.

      • Maggie 4NoH8

        1) your understanding of the federalism principle isn’t the generally accepted version.
        2) States (all branches, including the meme “the will of the people”) laws are subservient to the constitution and federal government.
        3) you are correct, SCOTUS will not laugh at any of these cases. The plaintiffs have provided rational arguments, testimony and viable proof of their position, while defendants have offered none in the form of a) tradition (insufficient, obviously), b) “think of the children!” (that cuts both ways – think of the children being raised in a LGBT family – AND procreation has NEVER been a requirement of marriage) or c) a religious objection of some vague conjecture.
        and finally, 4) the minority never has been and never will be subject to the whim of the majority in the US (meaning – the “people” simply don’t get to vote on the equality of others).

        • publiusnj

          Re 1) If you notice the quotes in my earlier comment, I was not expressing a view on federalism, I was referring to the USSC’s ruling in Windsor.
          Re 2) Per Windsor, States are not subservient to the Federal Government on the issue of Marriage laws.

        • asmondius

          ‘think of the children being raised in a LGBT family ‘ I do, and pray for them often. Imagine the horror of being denied a Mother or Father on purpose, forever, simply so that the adults in your home can selfishly pretend to be something they are not.

  • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

    The next step is obvious. Having lost the culture war, it’s time to re-fight the religious liberty war. Get your government out of my sacrament! No to civil marriage, which is inherently discriminatory!

    • Louise

      Your religion can marry or not marry whomever it wishes to. No one is talking about holy matrimony (or whatever it is called). Civil marriage is OUTSIDE religions’ jurisdiction and rightly so. Do not try to impose your religious beliefs on others.

      • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

        “Your religion can marry or not marry whomever it wishes to. ”

        Yeah, right. Thought that when this passed in Canada too, but then the draconian “Human Rights Board” intervened, and that went out the window entirely.

        You can have civil unions- if you want the government in your union. Personally, I don’t.

        • Louise

          Marriage is not merely a “civil union”. And the word “marriage” does belong to secular law. “Matrimony” or marriage as a sacrament is what your church deals in. So stay out of the way of secular marriage laws. It is none of our business and none of the RCC’s business. You keep administering sacraments, no one is looking to take that away from you. Stay in your church. I’ll stay in the secular world, thank you;.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            Your entire paragraph above has no logic and only emotion. Please rewrite it with some logic and history behind your argument.

  • JP

    Someone once wrote recently, “What is not explicitly forbidden will soon become mandatory.” This is only the beginning. For we all know the endgame – forcing Churches to perform gay weddings. The Marriage Sacrament is in their cross hairs.
    And our Bishops either ignore the issue, or soft pedal it. But, the day will come where they will no longer be able to defend our Sacraments with arcane academic language couched in abstractions. They will either comply with State’s demands or be thrown in jail.

    • cpsho
    • Maggie 4NoH8

      It won’t be the State, but rather parishioners, that will change the heart of the Church.

      • http://www.catholicsciencemonitor.com/ Matthew C. Masotti

        Actually, Church history shows that a handful of false teachers in just a few smoke-filled vestibules can cloud many intellects.

      • Sign

        The Church is the Bride of Christ. There is no change possible. Any change would be false and contrary to the will of God.

      • asmondius

        Incorrect. The Church is not a democracy or a union where the members get to change the rules for themselves.

    • Louise

      Nonsense. If that were true you the RCC would have been forced to marry divorced persons long ago. Stop making up alarmist arguments.

  • publiusnj

    I read WI federal judge Barbara Crabbe’s June 6, 2014 decision knocking down the WI Constitution’s definition restricting marriage to the unions of one man and one woman with amazement. Confronted with the simple truth that a gay person can never procreate with another person of the same sex, Judge Crabbe just ignored that issue by engaging in legal legerdemain. She wrote: “gay persons have the same ability to procreate as anyone else and same-sex couples often raise children together, so there is no reason why a link between marriage and procreation should disqualify same-sex couples” (June 6, 2014 Sl. Opin. at 27).

    SAY WHAT? Doesn’t she understand Birds and Bees 101? Of course, fertile gays CAN procreate, but only so long as they do it with someone OUTSIDE their gay marriage. In other words, with an opposite sex copulation partner who supplies the complementary opposite sex genetic material. Thus, gays can only procreate the way opposite sex couples can procreate: with a person of the opposite sex. So Judge Crabbe, like all the other lower court judges in the wake of Windsor, is just ignoring the reason states have always limited marriages to opposite sex couples: because gay sex does NOT implicate the serious consequences that opposite sex coupling implicates: children and the continuation of the human race. No matter how many times a gay man copulates with another male, “ain’t gonna be no baby children issuing.”

    With all due respect to Judge Crabbe, she’s either Biology challenged or she is being disingenuous. Maybe that is why she didn’t go so far as to say that “same-sex couples can procreate together.” Instead, she engaged in the sleight of hand of equating procreation with “raising children together.”

    • DE-173

      “Judge Crabbe just ignored that issue by engaging in legal legerdemain”

      Judex est lex loquens.

    • Sign

      The law has become mostly arbitrary. It basically comes down to whatever some guy/gal in a black dress says it is at any one point in time.

      The logic of the judge you quoted above is a perfect example of this new thinking. It is not grounded in reason or sanity. It is mere relativism decorated with legalese. Junk.

      • Maggie 4NoH8

        Actually, Judge Crabb’s decision is stoically rooted in rational reason and I assure you, she is not insane. The difference is: I, and Judge Crabb, view the issue through a constitutional lens, not the Catholic Church’s lens (because, as I am sure you are aware, the US is not governed by the Vatican). On the issue of civil marriage, a constitutional lens is the correct lens.

        • RufusChoate

          Stoically rooted? Do have any idea about what you are talking about? No need to answer I understand.

        • clintoncps

          Dear Maggie,

          Whether one is a Catholic or not, or whether or not one even believes in God, the sad truth is that, to accommodate the pretensions of homosexual practitioners to marriage and family, the rights of children are trampled.

          Children have a primordial and inviolable right to be linked to and raised by their natural, biological parents. This is a most basic human right. The thought of deliberately and arbitrarily separating a child from his biological parents is obscene. But because of homosexual “marriage” and “adoption”, children are created with the specific intention that they will never be raised by their natural parents, but by, at most, one natural parent and that parent’s homosexual partner, or, in the case of homosexual “adoption”, by two fathers or two mothers, rather than a father and a mother, who would provide the basis for the rational understanding and modeling of a truly human family.

          There are many ways in which children are abused and stripped of their human rights by selfish heterosexual parents, but the absurd pretense that homosexual relationship are somehow “equivalent” to heterosexual marriages goes further: it causes psychological damage to children, impairing their ability to develop their powers of rational thought in the area of human sexuality and family life. Telling a child that 2 plus 2 equals five is not an act of love; it is an act of manipulation — of “double-think”.

          All of this is as artificial as the reproductive technologies that facilitate such abuses and injustices in the first place. How shameful, cowardly, and immoral that a child must be robbed of his human right to be raised by his natural parents (or, if adopted, to be raised by a mother and a father to model the reality of natural human family life) just so that homosexual partners can feel affirmed in a fantasy of marriage and family that conforms to their sexual obsessions. Such a travesty of justice will hardly be overturned until the root cause — the normalization of homosexuality — is rejected, and its practitioners given the love and help they need and deserve to decisively turn away from their homosexualized personas.

          Please think about this, consider the human rights of children, and stop listening to the propaganda that makes child abuse seem like inclusiveness and diversity.

          • Louise

            Simply wrong. Gay couples and gay singles can already have children through many means: previous relationships, IVF, adoption, surrogacy, etc. Whether or not same-sex marriages exist, these kinds of families ALREADY exist. Allowing gay couples to legitimize their relationship through marriage adds stability to the children and their family, just like straight marriages.

        • Sign

          No, you and the judge view the law through relativism and faulty reasoning.

        • publiusnj

          Oh yeah: the Constitution talks about the need for federal judges to overrule referenda of state citizens on a clearly state issue like Marriage. There was no gay marrriage in 1776 nor in 1787 at the time of the passing of the Constitution nor in the 1860s when the 14th Amendment was passed. And there was no gay marriage when the Defense of Marriage Act was passed by an overwhelming Congressional majority in 1996. And at the time of the Windsor Case in 2013, the USSC expressly negated the US Congress’s law because marriage supposedly was a state issue. Now, though, somehow the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses mandate an end to the traditional rule even though it is a lot older than this country or the even the Common Law. that isn’ a constitutional lens; that is arbitrary rule.

    • redfish

      Yea, the only way two persons of the same sex can raise a child is if the child is separated from the birth parents, which sometimes happens intentionally, through surrogacy, rather than unintentionally.

      That’s one of the more important legal distinctions between this issue and interracial marriage. An important part of the case to why restricting that was wrong was because it punished the children, and made it more likely for them to be separated from their natural parents.

      But, to be true to the point of her argument, she should have also argued that two straight, same-sex friends or family members can also procreate in an outside relationship and raise children, so should be allowed to marry. Where does “gay persons” even come into this from a legal standpoint? It really doesn’t; “gay persons” are used as a source of contention so some type of animus or harm towards a class of persons can be claimed.

      • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

        I consider divorce and remarriage when there are children involved to be almost as big of a sin as homosexuals raising children. Whenever adults put their selfish interests ahead of the well being of children, that’s abuse.

        • Louise

          Please go and tell that to a woman who was abused by her former husband. Tell her she should have stayed with the abuser (who likely was also abusing his children). Don’t forget to tell her she has no right to remarriage and a chance at happiness and stability for her children, the children she fled with when she couldn’t take the violence any longer.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            I say she should commit the abuser to an insane asylum. A man who would beat his wife and children will not stop at beating them- he’ll also beat the postman.

            Perhaps if that was the norm, we’d have a few less murder-suicides as the result of filing for divorce.

            But she took a vow to love him in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer. That’s part of the problem today, nobody understands vows anymore.

      • Louise

        Have you never heard of sperm banks, surrogacy, donor eggs? Straight couples also use these methods if they need to. No one “is separated from the birth parents”. The parents are the couple who have chosen to become parents through one of these means.

        • redfish

          Yes, I have. In those cases, the child is also separated from their biological parents, too. Doesn’t matter if the couple that’s raising them is straight or gay. Same truth.

    • Louise

      I’m confident she understands the birds & bees. I’m not confident you understand the reality of diverse living arrangements of 2014. Heterosexual couples unable to their own child can turn to IVF, adoption, fostering, and surrogacy. Guess what? So can same-sex couples! Additionally, like straight couples, same-sex couples often have children from previous marriages/relationships too! Thank you for joining the real world.

      • publiusnj

        As I have said, if she is not Biology challenged as you are confident she is not, then she is being disingenuous. None of your purported concern with my understanding changes that. A gay person only has the ability to procreate if he/she copulates with an opposite sex person or otherwise mixes his/her genetic material with opposite sex genetic material. A same sex couple cannot procreate by mixing just their own genetic material. It has always been that simple. It still is despite all the legal constructs the law is willing to entertain.

        One gay guy’s semen mixed with his “spouse’s” semen in a test tube or anywhere else cannot result in procreation without opposite sex genetic material, not even if an individual Presbyterian minister’s version of the Holy Spirit guides him to join the guys in Presbyterian matrimony.. Likewise, two lesbians’ eggs can be sliced, diced and emulsified in a blender or mixed any other way but no procreation will result without opposite sex genetic material.

  • Pingback: Paintings of the Saints & Popes by Clemens Fuchs - Big Pulpit

  • Marcelus

    A letter from Crdnl Bergolio to the Sisters a few years back..Buenos Aires , June 22, 2010 . Dearest Sisters I write these lines to each of you who are in the four monasteries of Buenos Aires. The Argentine people will face in the coming weeks, a situation whose outcome can seriously injure the family. This is about the bill on marriage between persons of the same sex . At stake here is the identity , and survival of the family: dad , mom and children. At stake is the lives of so many children who are discriminated against in advance depriving them of human growth that God would give them with a father and a mother. At stake is the frontal and total rejection to the law of God engraved in our hearts I remember a quote from St. Therese when talking about her childhood disease . Shee says the envy of the devil wanted her family charged for the entrance to the Carmel of her older sister. Here is also the envy of the devil , by which sin entered into the world, who cunningly seeks to destroy the image of God : man and woman who are mandated to grow , multiply and rule the earth . Do not be naive : it is not just a political struggle, is a destructive claim to God’s plan . It is not a mere legislative project ( this is only the instrument) but a ” move ” by the father of lies intended to confuse and deceive the children of God. Jesus tells us to defend ourselves against this lying accuser, we will send the Spirit of Truth. Today the country, in this situation , needs special assistance of the Holy Spirit to put the light of Truth in the midst of the darkness of error need this attorney to defend us against the enchantment of sophistry that seeks to justify this law project , and confuse and deceive even more the people of good will . For this I turn to You and I ask your prayer and sacrifice, the two weapons Theresa has confessed to be invincible . . Cry out to the Lord to send His Spirit to Senators who have to give their vote. That they do not vote based on error situations or circumstances but as the natural law and the law of God tells them to . Pray for them, for their families that the Lord wil visit them , strengthen them and comfort them. Pray for them to do much good for the country. The bill will be discussed in the Senate after July 13. Look to San José . Mary, the child and ask them fervently defend the Argentina family at this time . Let’s remind what God himself said to his people in a time of great anguish : ” This battle is not yours but God’s .” May they succor us , defend and may we join God in this war . Thanks for what you will do in this fight for the Fatherland. And please , I also ask you to pray for me. May Jesus bless you and the Holy Virgin take care of you . Sincerely, Jorge Mario Bergoglio SJ

    • http://www.catholicsciencemonitor.com/ Matthew C. Masotti

      Thank you and God bless you!

    • Maggie 4NoH8

      Utterly and completely meaningless in regards to civil marriage – both in Argentina as well as the US.

      • Marcelus

        Well you know, civil officials do not ask for the churches opinion on this matter usually. And this man happens to hold the office of Pope Now so it must count for something. What would in your learned opinion be useful in this circumstance?

        • RufusChoate

          Please do yourself a service and don’t try to engage the activists in sane argumentation. It is the mad dog principle. Do not discuss just blast away. Christian Charity is not but logical reaction maybe.

      • asmondius

        Ah, another expert on international law.

  • clintoncps

    The homosexualist attack on true marriage could not have happened if homosexuality had not been de-listed from the catalog of psychological disorders in 1973. It is that decision that needs to be reversed.

    • Sign

      That cannot be stressed enough.

    • mitchw7959

      You might have better luck with the Psychological Association of Uganda or Nigeria. Or you might just move there and enjoy yourself.

      • asmondius

        Or you could move to Greece.

  • Shaun G. Lynch

    I cannot, for the life of me, understand why this issue is generating such anxious handwringing. I have yet to hear a single valid, rational argument supporting the contention that legalization of homosexual marriage represents a threat to heterosexual marriage! Homosexuals still make up a tiny proportion of the overall population, and the proportion that want to get married is smaller still, so clearly, on the basis of numbers alone, there is no credible threat.

    The suggestion that legalization of homosexual marriage constitutes support for deviant sexual behaviour is similarly misplaced. While homosexual intimacy continues to be defined as “intrinsically disordered” by the Catholic Church, that position is noted in the Catechism as being based on tradition. Meanwhile, it is entirely divergent from the overwhelming weight of current psychiatric and psychological evidence.

    But, more to the point, what is the Big Deal?! Most reliable estimates place the incidence of homosexuality at well below 10%, and generally closer to 2 or 3%. Those are really small numbers. And we’re not even talking about regulation of sexual behaviour, only the civil status of individuals whose intimate actions together would not be expected to be altered whether or not their marriage was permitted. Further, there’s no reason that the civil definition of marriage needs to have any impact on the Catholic Church’s definition of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. No government will force us to begin performing same-sex marriages any more than Mormons were required to ordane black men as clergy before God told the LDS leaders it was okay to do so in 1978.

    Gay marriage is in no way, shape or form a threat to “traditional” heterosexual marriage. But the Catholic Church’s continued unnatural obsession with the issue is, without question, badly hurting our reputation among former parishioners we’re trying to bring back and current ones we desperately need to keep.

    For God’s sake (literally!), stop this pointless, quixotic crusade!

    • Sign

      What? You have totally and completely confused yourself here. The issue is children and the common good. At no point in history did any rational person accept deviant behavior as socially acceptable and wise to affirm.

      The State legitimizing what is illegitimate harms children and all of us. Children have rights.

      • Shaun G. Lynch

        What have children got to do with this? We’re talking about consenting adults!

        • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

          Marriage and family exists because of children, not because of adults.

        • Augustus

          Two homosexuals shacking up don’t need the endorsement of the state and the accompanying privileges. The state recognizes marriage between two adults of the opposite sex because raising a family is hard and every civilization needs to nurture and support its offspring if it is going to survive. Your position is based on a juvenile and selfish view of human relations, very much ushered in by the sexual revolution of the 1960s. It is that social disaster that made a self-centered pleasure-seeking ethic dominant among our cultural elites and imposed by the courts on the rest of us.

          • Shaun G. Lynch

            Civil recognition of a state of marriage between two people has implications beyond the raising of children. For instance, issues of shared ownership of property, insurance and succession all come into play. These were among the principal reasons why gay people began pushing for the right to be officially married.

            Issues relating to child rearing are increasingly coming into play as well. An unmarried “life partner” doesn’t necessarily have the same parental rights as a biological or formal adoptive parent.

            • Augustus

              This is one of the big lies of the gay lobby. There is no legal impediment to one person entering into a legally binding relationship with another party regarding property, succession,etc. All you need is a competent lawyer to accomplish these things. Now, there will be financial privileges bestowed by the government that are completely unjustified because homosexual relationships contribute nothing of value to society. So-called gay marriage is all about the ideological endorsement and approval of homosexuality–and it will be forced down our throats whether we like it or not. The so-called “victims” become the persecutors.

              • Patrick

                People have tried that, Augustus. They’ve tried repeatedly, since they’ve been told that for well over a decade now.
                And what happens?
                Their “legally binding relationship” gets thrown out the moment a family member challenges it because the state doesn’t willingly recognize the contracts, etc. because it’s too much like marriage, which isn’t allowed.
                In fact, some states included in their Defense of Marriage amendments specific prohibitions of providing the same legal effects as marriage to homosexual couples.

                Being on the right side of the issue is no excuse for using demonstrably false arguments.

                • Sign

                  Stop the propaganda. The legal issues are a smokescreen.

                  • Patrick

                    I didn’t bring up the legal issues, I was just making sure Augustus doesn’t get caught repeating misinformation and looking foolish in the future.

                    As I said, being on the right side of the issue is no excuse for making factually incorrect arguments.

                    • Sign

                      You are confusing your opinion with facts.

                • asmondius

                  Yet marriage is the most fragile contract of all.

            • asmondius

              Nor should they.

        • Sign

          No we are talking about children and the common good. Consent does not make pathology into health.

        • asmondius

          Ask an adult that you trust.

    • JP

      Shaun,
      Do you know the number of practicing homosexuals or bisexuals during the Roman and Greek Empires? Many estimates were as high as 30%. This kind of goes against the idea that homosexuality is hard wired. It is more than likely that homosexuality and bisexuality are 99% cultural. Less than 100 years after Constantine , homosexuality all but disappeared in the Empire. The point is that once homosexuality became tolerated, the numbers of bisexuals and homosexuals increased. And in our public schools it is not tolerated but advocated in many if not most school districts.

      I seriously doubt if you have even a clue at how difficult the road was to the institution of Christian marriage – or more precisely, the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. It didn’t come about overnight – or even in a few centuries. It took nearly 1500 years before the institution and all of its rubrics, obligations, privileges and protections were cemented into our cultural conscience. It took constant preaching, admonishments, failures, and eventually successes. The focus on Holy Matrimony is on mothers and their children. The Latin derivative was no coincidence. For it was only in Christianity that motherhood was lifted to something holy, and something desired. It demanded that Men re-order their sexuality – not towards freedom, but towards the Family. Just as Christ humbled himself into the Holy Family, so were men and women called into this holy bond.

      The fruits of this bond are children. The fruits of homosexuality and bisexuality are sodomy and mutual masturbation. Ultimately, the homosexual act is an act of violence and self destruction. It leads only to Sin and Death. The same holds true for adultery, as the adulterous act mocks both the Fiat of Mary and fidelity of Saint Joseph and to even the fidelity of Christ Himself. So, what took 2000 years to build, something that the entire world benefited from, we are destroying.

      Homosexual marriage is a big thing. It mocks both Christ and Matrimony, and teaches children that marriage is not a Sacrament.

      • Shaun G. Lynch

        But we’re not talking about the Catholic sacrament of Holy Matrimony. We’re talking about civil marriage and the civil rights and responsibilities that flow from it. The Church is under no obligation to recognize the legitimacy of marriages carried out beyond its jurisdiction, but neither does Catholic jurisdiction extend into the civil realm.

        And your comment still says absolutely nothing to explain how civil recognition of a state of marriage between two people of the same gender would have any negative impact on the institution of heterosexual marriage. Divorce rates in heterosexual unions are extremely high even where same-sex marriage is not recognized. Gay marriage had nothing whatsoever to do with that.

        • asmondius

          ‘The Church is under no obligation to recognize the legitimacy of marriages carried out beyond its jurisdiction…..’ Nonsense – there are a growing number of lawsuits being filed against the Church which are the result of homosexual unions (they are not marriages, by any means).

          • Shaun G. Lynch

            I’ve never heard of such lawsuits. Do you have any links to news coverage?

          • Louise

            Rubbish. We’ve had legal gay marriage (in every province and territory) here in Canada for a full decade now. The sky hasn’t fallen. Straight marriages (including my own) have continued, and the four horsemen haven’t darkened the Canadian borders.

            • asmondius

              A decade is not much more than a second in the life of a large society. You are whistling past the graveyard.

            • sandy james

              well, maybe a little with Rob Ford…!

    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

      “I have yet to hear a single valid, rational argument supporting the contention that legalization of homosexual marriage represents a threat to heterosexual marriage!”

      Here’s one:
      http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/2014/05/homosexuality-is-inherently-unjust.html

      • Shaun G. Lynch

        I read your blog entry, and I stand by my statement. I commented directly on your blog page.

        • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

          I responded on my blog page.

    • RufusChoate

      I posted else where the sheer silliness of your side’s contentions on Homosexuality and would have ignored your comment as the standard Homosexual activist line of attack but I amused by your “For God’s sake (literally!), stop this pointless, quixotic crusade!”

      Invoking the sake of God for ending the defense of normative
      Sexual behavior is epic hubris.

      You are deploying the same absurdist line of argument that the very
      “wise”, compassionate and understanding Bishops, Rectors of
      Seminaries, Psychologists (a laughable field of study that is as malleable as
      mud in the hands of absolutist Rights Activist) and eminent Theologians on the
      Progressive side of the church deployed in the 1970′s to give male sexual
      minorities access to priestly formation with the end result being the Sexual
      Abuse Scandal.

      I call it the “what harm could come of this?” defense and rational
      and I consider juvenile magical and wishful thinking.

      Before you venture into claiming that the Crisis in the Church was the oft
      claimed pedophilia, realize that none of the statistic supports you or the
      other Homosexual activist’s claims. Pedophilia with prepubescent males was
      statistically non-existent in the offense while Homosexual relations with
      Teenage, Young Men and other adults was the norm.

      In the 1970′s, the documentation repeats the same mantra that Homosexuals are
      special gifted and endowed with greater empathy because of the suffering they
      endured with their affliction and a small minority of potential candidate. The
      Church ended up with whole Seminary so bad that it was essential no Normal Man need apply and celibacy was for losers.

      2 Billion Dollars later, one scandal after another involving
      vile men in the Clergy who happen to also be active Homosexual, the
      Church considered morally bankrupt and impotent and you want the same for bed rock of Civilization.

      Your claim that Tradition is the only source that substantiate the description of Homosexuality being “Intrinsically Disorder” is comic. Honest self-awareness is not a common attribute of the Left because they are compelled to invest emotionally in so many ridiculous positions it blinds them. It is a simple matter of observation and an examination of all the “issues” that Homosexuals have. In my
      experience with Homosexuals, I have found that Homosexuality is only a symptom
      of a profoundly disordered narcissistic personality and have never encountered
      an active Homosexual who was a whole, sane or moral person not just in sexual
      preference but in every aspect of their Life.

      Homosexual Marriage isn’t a threat but a complete counterfeit which will corrupt the culture and moral order not just Catholic circles and you claims are absurd and silly nonsense invoked with faux authority that only a true Believer could muster without being laugh at.

      • John200

        Rufus, a friendly question: Why do you conclude that Shaun Lynch is not being laughed at?

        He loads the discussion with dead old arguments, repeatedly proposed and debunked, re-proposed without improvement, re-debunked, re-re-proposed, ad nauseam,…wash, rinse, repeat,… Here’s your cycle:
        1)True Believer picks up a point long ago defeated, then predictably and openly lies about it,
        2)close his ears, and scream “na, na, na, I can’t hear the truth,”
        3)repeat steps 1 and 2, for a while
        .
        .
        … until,

        n)repent,… well, he hasn’t got to repentance yet.

        Shaun is finding the trail, although he’s moseying along at an awful slow rate, and in multiple directions.

        But I join you in laughing at the pathetic arguments of True Believers in homo””sex”ual “marriage.” I have been doing so for about 10 years, along with many others. The True Believers are not growing as fast as one would like, but confrontation vs. the truth will help them. Prayers, too.

        • RufusChoate

          You’re correct but I couldn’t avoid the temptation to comment. It is a weakness of mine.

      • Louise

        “I have found that Homosexuality is only a symptom of a profoundly
        disordered narcissistic personality and have never encountered an active
        Homosexual who was a whole, sane or moral person not just in sexual
        preference but in every aspect of their Life.”

        Then you need to get out more.

    • msmischief

      Since homosexual activists have repeatedly stated that destroying marriage entirely is their purpose, the burden of proof has shifted.

      • Patrick

        Could you give some names, and explain how they speak for everybody in their community?

        Since I’ve gone out of my way to talk to them, and they generally express the exact opposite sentiment, that they were raised in a culture that said you are *supposed* to get married, and they were taught to desire it just like everyone else, and were hurt when they were told they aren’t allowed the thing they had been taught to desire (even though it wasn’t actually part of God’s vocation for them).

        In fact, I have never once heard a single homosexual activist say they wanted to destroy marriage entirely, much less that that was their purpose.

        • Sign

          Perhaps you should get out more?

      • Louise

        Who are these “activists”? Or is this just a figment of your paranoid imagination? Gays and lesbians, in large majority, are FOR marriage, including same-sex marriage. You sound very confused.

    • Scott W.

      We’ve already seen people fired from their jobs, have their academic education threatened, and in one case, having to flee the country for failing to approve the massive legalized lie that is same-sex “marriage”. In my own case I had a friend who was hauled before a committee of professors and threatened. His crime? When one of the professors announced in a meeting that he was going transgendered and everyone gave a standing ovation, he refused to stand or applaud. The same thing would have happened if the professor announced he was getting a same-sex marriage. Belief in traditional marriage is becoming a forbidden belief.

      • Shaun G. Lynch

        I teach at two universities, and find it implausible that someone would be subject to disciplinary action for simply failing to participate in a standing ovation. I suspect that there is much more to that story than what you are describing here.

        But my basic question remains: by what mechanism(s) can same-sex marriage threaten heterosexual marriage?

        • Scott W.

          My friend is not given to lying or embellishment, this is the reality. Homosexual “sex” is inherently sinful, and because of that, the mere existence of true Chastity is a sign of contradiction that must either be destroyed or silenced. There is nothing live-and-let-live about the homosexual movement. Never was, never will be. So instances like these are only going to get worse, not better.

          • Shaun G. Lynch

            What you call “the chilling ravages of Political Correctness,” I call mandating respectful acceptance of people who are different from the majority.

            There is nothing live-and-let live about the anti-gay movement. Never was, never will be.

            So unless rules are made and enforced to protect minorities from discrimination, the abuse and hatred will only get worse, not better.

            • Scott W.

              “What you call “the chilling ravages of Political Correctness,” I call mandating respectful acceptance of people who are different from the majority.”

              No you don’t. It is a program to quasi-criminalize thought.

              “There is nothing live-and-let live about the anti-gay movement. Never was, never will be.”

              This is a false characterization and I think you know that.

              • Louise

                If that is your position on sex, fine. I respect that. However, please don’t expect the rest of the world to abide by your beliefs.

                • Scott W.

                  It’s not just my position on sex like it is some kind of POTUS administration’s current policy; it’s built into the very fabric of Creation.

                  What I expect we’ll see from the rest of the world is currently kind of a milquetoast libertarian cheap virtue based on the phony doctrine of consent. This will give way to a kind of Leninist “keep it between your ears alone” policy (and we’ve already seen examples of that). Then I believe we will see a modern version of the Test Acts in which places of employment, acting as a kind of proxy agent for the State, will make employment conditional on the potential employee formally affirming that homosexual sex is good. As far as champions of evil acts are concerned, tolerance is not enough, all must be forced into approval.

            • asmondius

              ‘…the abuse and hatred will only get worse…, ‘
              Cue the violin music.

          • mitchw7959

            If you want to try and stop me and my husband from engaging in homosexual sex, you are welcome to come try and stop us. And be met at the front door by our standing our ground, whether you are a bishop in a pointy hat or just some run-of-the-mill anti-gay moron.

            • Scott W.

              My duty is to warn, not force. I only want to stop offenses against Divine Law and the virtue of Chastity in the sense of wanting to stop someone obliviously about to walk off a cliff unto their own eternal destruction. Same-sex “marriages” are legalized lies and are as offensive to truth and goodness as the Fugitive Slave Act.

      • Louise

        Sounds more like embellished anecdotal stories than anything real.

        • Scott W.

          I should clarify that he was told to go to a sensitivity training session OR face academic consequences. As he was young and intimidated, he went to the session so he could get on with his life. Ideally, he should have gone to the dean. As I said, my friend is not given to lying or embellishment, and I have had experience with the Star-chamber mentality that goes on at colleges.

    • asmondius

      Ho hum, this is simply the same old relativist theory of ‘no harm, no foul’. Right and wrong are not open to interpretation for your convenience. For example, I can’t see how it materially harms you if I let my dog urinate on your lawn at night – does that make it ‘right’?

      • Shaun G. Lynch

        That’s a spurious argument, but okay, I’ll bite.

        If your dog micturates on my lawn, then it is your property, for which you are responsible, performing an action that is detrimental to my lawn. Even if I’m not physically harmed, you have, through irresponsibility or malice, permitted damage to be done to my lawn.

        (Of course, you wouldn’t do such a thing, and, in any event, I doubt any amount of urine from your dog could do more damage to my lawn than has already been perpetrated by own dog.)

        In contrast, if two married gay men, in the privacy of their own home, engage in an act of physical intimacy, they are doing something that is neither illegal nor damaging in any way to anyone else, any more than if they had been playing Monopoly™ together. Furthermore, gay sex has not been considered deviant by the psychological community since 1978 (1973 in the case of the American Psychiatric Association).

        • asmondius

          ‘nor damaging in any way’ CDC statistics say otherwise.

          ‘gay sex has not been considered deviant by the psychological community since 1978 (1973 in the case of the American Psychiatric Association).’ Your statement is false – the APA is not the final arbiter of the psychological sciences and its decision regarding homosexuality was not based upon any new scientific evidence.

          It is deviant because it is a sociopathic habit which is also destructful to the individual.

        • asmondius

          ‘If your dog micturates on my lawn…’

          Glad to see that you are making use of that Thesauraus you received at Christmas.

  • Vinnie

    “…in no less than 13 straight cases,…” Not straight.

  • wc4mitt

    Please don’t blame the courts. IT”S THE PEOPLE, yes even many Catholics who agree w/same-sex marriage. Personally I am not among them but I do know of many who are daily communicants who believe ssm should be ok. Just as there are many who believe that contraception and even abortion should be ok. Courts are ruled by people and take their stance from masses.

    • msmischief

      The compliance of the people does not alleviate the guilt of those who actually did the deed.

      • Sign

        Exactly.

  • http://www.catholicsciencemonitor.com/ Matthew C. Masotti

    The legal profession is the problem: it’s practitioners have separated not only Church from State but common standards of morality or ethics from law.

    Why?

    “The love of money…”

    • Louise

      Do you want to live under a theocracy? What if it isn’t a (conservative Catholic) Christian one? Are you happy to live under a Sikh theocracy? Islamic? Hindu? Buddhist? See the problem with your argument?

  • Joe Mc Clure

    James Thornwell, a minister, wrote in 1860,
    “The parties in this conflict are not merely Abolitionists and
    slaveholders, they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red
    Republicans, Jacobins on the one side and the friends of order and
    regulated freedom on the other.”

    In Loving v. VA the judge wrote”Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference
    with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The
    fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the
    races to mix.”

    That the US Supreme Court overturned the conviction will certainly be seen as a violation of states rights and ignoring “people’s will”, or “cramming it down the throat of the American people”.

    The argument that this is not what our founding fathers intended is undermined by the fact that they did not end slavery when the Revolutionary War was supposed to free all Americans. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Yet, religious zealotry would seek to imagine doing a job for which they are paid is somehow a personal acknowledgement and approval of the person(s) who purchased said service. When I buy a doughnut, I don’t care if the cashier approves of my anything. Do you? All a baker should care about is the quality and beauty of the cake they create. That is the only thing in which they have a vested interest. Expecting a person to do the job for which they were hired is an unexpected definition of “coercion”.

    To say there is an assault on traditional marriage is disingenuous. That is what propaganda is. Stating something untrue or presenting opinion as fact. This statement implies that good, Christian heterosexuals cannot fall in love, get married, and have a lovely family. There is no impact on traditional marriage if homosexuals have a civil corollary. I fully appreciate the authors use of the word “ersatz”. Interesting choice of words. However, it is incorrect. It implies that women could replace their husbands with another woman and it would be somehow less satisfying. Actually, many women I know would say, some days that would be an improvement.

    The Bible says homosexuality is an abomination. So are fried clams, lobster, and bacon. Most of my churchgoing friends are ok with those things. If you’re not going to know other people, but take direction from a book, even the Holy Scripture, you’re doing God a disservice. By knowing other people directly is the true way to live the Word and the teachings of Christ, the Word made flesh on Earth. Or are you really trying to allow people a way to hate the sinner as well as the sin because, judging by the comment, that’s what you’re accomplishing. That is not what the new Commandment says. Lev. 18:4 says you should observe God’s regulations. It also says that you should shun the maimed and crippled and blemished.

    • http://www.catholicsciencemonitor.com/ Matthew C. Masotti

      cf. Romans 6:1-2

    • Sign

      The same old gay propaganda. No one believes it but the deceived.

      Two men cannot be married. Two women cannot be married. This is obvious to any uncorrupted 6 year old.

    • publiusnj

      Joe McClure argues that the constitution requires this nation to be utterly amoral. All of us who raise real families with children who are born of genetic material out of our (i.e., a man and his wife’s) loins and who raise our children with penises to be male and our children with vaginas to be female are being told that our ways cannot be expected to get any support from the State. We can hold onto our beliefs if we choose but they will be laughed at in our Schools and in the courts. Evey time anything is said about real marriage, some teacher will be permitted to opine, as Joe does, that many women would say that lesbian relationships would be an improvement.

      Indeed, the Constitution allegedly requires (despite the lack of any intent to do so by the founders) the State ito teach the children with penises (i.e., children formerly known as “boys”) that, contrary to what their parents may have told them they can consider themselves to be female if they choose, etc. Moreover, their parents’ outdated concepts of what constitutes a marriage has no place in the society because Joe McClure and his ilk have decided that marital issues are on a par with the Old Testament’s Kosher rules and can therefore be disregarded.

    • Louise

      Thank you ever so much for your lucid post! I feel outnumbered by hateful people on this site.

  • Art Deco

    Another trio from the Sororsphere. Sigh.

  • Pingback: Marriage Debate Far From Over | NOM Blog

  • Benjamin Warren

    Dear Mr. Whitehead,
    Thank you for your article. I would like to point out that it is not a coincidence that the statuette of the bride in the picture is immodestly dressed. We cannot credibly fight the sodomites unless we are strict about womens’ clothing. Furthermore, eventually either they will execute us, or we, in accordance with the rule of law, will execute them. There is no in between, and pretending otherwise is foolish. God will not be mocked.

  • Pingback: Mere Links 06.13.14 - Mere Comments

  • GUEST

    The HYPOCRITE who wrote this article should ask himself: WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE…. HOMOSEXUAL PREDATOR-PIRESTS WHO RAPE/ABUSE CHILDREN ARE ROUTINELY PROTECTED FROM ANGRY PARENTS OF THOSE WHOSE CHILDREN HAVE BEEN VICTIMS OF SAID PREDATORS….

  • Tony

    Wake up Americans… You are discriminating against the monkeys… They too should be allowed to be judges!

    • Tony

      They’d probably do a better job than your Kennedys et al

MENU