Marriage Is Not a Water Fountain

gay waterfountains

Some proponents of homosexual pseudogamy now assert that argument is no longer necessary. We do not argue with segregationists, they say. We ignore them, we scorn them. They are not worth our time. They are mad or wicked. So too is the courageous Ryan Anderson, who says that marriage by nature requires a man and a woman. “Shut up,” they explain.

I fear that our age is so enslaved to ideology that we can no longer notice what is obvious and natural, or think sensitively about history, or craft analogies that can stand a moment of analysis.

Slavery and Segregation: A Peculiar Institution
Consider the segregationist in Alabama, who wanted to keep one water fountain (the nice one in the middle of the hall) for whites, and another (the rusty one out back) for colored people. What can we say about that?

What the southern slaveholders themselves said about it, for one: it is a peculiar institution. It is not part of the universal human experience, this uncharitable preoccupation with race. Ancient Rome knew nothing of it. Does anyone know the color of Saint Augustine’s skin? He was born in Africa to a father with a Roman name and a mother with a Punic name. Was his blood Caucasian, Semitic, Berber, Ethiopian, or some combination thereof? No one knows, because no one thought it worth mentioning. After the first century, none of the emperors are specifically Roman, and very few are even Italian. No one cared.

The ancient Greeks, more prone to ethnic vanity, still knew nothing of racial obsession. They considered people who were not Greeks to be “barbarians,” literally those whose speech sounds like bibble-babble, but their vanity was not based upon race. They thought that people who did not live in a free, self-governing polis were to be pitied; they were missing the blessings of a vibrantly human life. Those Greeks were far more interested in the customs of Egyptians and Persians than the other way around. They were like Odysseus, passionate to learn the ways of men.

People will always find ways to distinguish themselves from their “lesser” brothers, but the bizarre racial touchiness that characterized the American South, or that hardened into the caste system in India, a mingled modus vivendi and modus odiendi, is uncommon in human affairs. It is certainly not universal.

Second: Jim Crow laws were based upon irrational “science.” A whole legal and cultural system had to support the tottering edifice of a lie. The lie was simply that the differences between Joe Louis and Max Baer were more than epidermal or physiognomic. Louis and Baer were to be considered wholly different kinds of human beings, with different kinds of lips and throat and stomach at their water fountains. That is nonsense.

Third: the separation violated the natural law. The water fountain is designed to meet the natural bodily needs of a human being. Everyone needs to drink. Thirst is far more distressing than hunger. Every traveler or stranger needs a place to sleep. Every sick person needs a bed and a doctor. The black man needs water, or food, or a bed, or medicine no more and no less than does the white man, and for the same reasons. The right to these things, without any encumbrance based upon the fantasy of race, flows from our common human nature. I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink.

Fourth: the whole purpose of maintaining separate water fountains was to maintain the racist culture. It did not touch upon the common good in any other respect. The discrimination was its own end. Now, a prudent statesman may have to discriminate according to nationality, but not for the sake of the discrimination. Let’s suppose that you shut off all immigration to the United States from Qatar. It need not be that you hate the Qatari people, or that you hate Muslims. You may be concerned that Qatar happens to be an oasis for terrorists in training. So your prohibition is aimed at a particular, specific end: preventing terrorists from entering the United States. In another decade, you might be glad to admit Qatari immigrants by the thousands. That was not the case with the southern segregationists, who wanted to extend their peculiarity forever.

Conjugal Marriage: Not Peculiar, But Universal
Now, none of these conditions characterizes our efforts to restore and protect the institution of marriage. If anything, they characterize some of our opponents in the debate. Let us see why.

First, the idea that marriage requires a man and a woman is not peculiar to us. It is universal in human culture. Its universality is based upon the obvious functions of the reproductive organs, and the obvious need to propagate the species. We may add, too, that in a multitude of manifestations, wide in variety but recognizably of the same kind, what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman are also universal in human culture. That too is observed and accepted as natural and good, most nobly embodied in the complementarity of marriage, man and woman.

What is peculiar? The idea that there are no such things as manhood and womanhood; that the sexes are empty of significance, except in the sole case of what must then be considered a mere irrational and inexplicable desire: that this particular male must have another male, and this particular female must have another female. We can pretend that a man can possibly marry another man, because we have shut our eyes to what marriage is, and what men and women are.

That means that we have to shore up a lie. Suppose I say, “A marriage by our bodily nature requires a man and a woman. If we think about it for a moment, it also requires a vow of permanence and exclusivity, because marriage involves the time-transcending act that brings a new generation into being.” What about that is not true? When a man and a woman unite in the congress of the sexes, that is exactly what they are doing, even if they try to thwart its natural result. Nothing in human reality is comparable to that act.

So clear it is that sodomy and sexual congress are different kinds of things, biologically and ontologically, that it takes tremendous pressure to pretend otherwise. We must engage in bad science (social “research” on the children of gay parents, with self-selected participants and no check on their veracity). We must engage in linguistic subterfuge (saying that it shouldn’t matter whom you “love,” finessing the meaning of “love” and diverting attention away from the issue, which is the nature of marriage and its current health). We must indoctrinate children, vilify ordinary people (“breeders”), put hesitant parents under suspicion, and concentrate the massive might of the State against normal and unremarkable cultural expression (trying to compel Irishmen in Boston to celebrate sodomy on Saint Patrick’s Day).

And what is this for? It is not for a universal need. Human beings do need friendships, but we do not register friendships with the State. Human beings do need a mother and a father; but the movement for homosexual pseudogamy, like the sexual revolution generally, cruelly denies that need. The person at the water fountain needs a drink. But no one needs sodomy, in part because no one, as an individual, needs any sexual activity at all. If you keep your clothes on, you are not going to shrivel up and die. You may want the activity. You may want it very much. But it is not a necessity. In fact, most of our noblest thinkers have cautioned against putting too much stock in the nether regions, arguing that what we really need in that regard is self-control, lest our lives become dissipated and debauched.

Of course sex is necessary, but for the human race, not the individual. And that leads me to my final point. The segregationist wanted his separate water fountain because he wanted his separate water fountain. He wanted segregation for the sake of segregation. Unless he was a deranged ideologue, he did not think any farther than that. The proponents of homosexual pseudogamy are like him not in odium but in single-minded heedlessness. They want their relationships to be recognized as marriages, and that is that. Unless they are deranged ideologues who say openly that they seek to destroy marriage, they do not think any farther.

And we beg them to think farther. We have been saying for years that the whole sexual revolution is at issue. We do not want a world of loneliness and alienation, in which 40 percent of all children are born out of wedlock, and many others grow up without a mother or a father in the home. We do not want a culture grown coarse and ugly. We do not believe in the right to snuff out the life of the child you have made but do not want. We do not want to enshrine forever the antisocial principle that sex is merely a private matter. We want to revisit the egregious injustice of no-fault divorce. We do not want to set a precedent for reversion to polygamy. We do not want to set a precedent for the manufacture of children. We do not want to pretend that the State has the power to define what a marriage is, because we uphold the prior reality and the prior rights of the family; families create the State, and not the other way around.

Ryan Anderson and his comrades are analogous to the patient, thoughtful, carefully arguing, natural-law-upholding Martin Luther King, appealing from Birmingham Jail to his fellow Christian pastors, begging them to think. There are more things at stake here than your comfort.

Editor’s note: This essay first appeared September 29, 2014 on Public Discourse, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute and is reprinted with permission.

Anthony Esolen

By

Professor Esolen teaches Renaissance English Literature and the Development of Western Civilization at Providence College. He is a regular contributor to Crisis Magazine and the author of many books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization (Regnery Press, 2008); Ten Ways to Destroy the Imagination of Your Child (ISI Books, 2010) and Reflections on the Christian Life (Sophia Institute Press, 2013). His most recent books are Reclaiming Catholic Social Teaching (Sophia Institute Press, 2014); Defending Marriage (Tan Books, 2014); and Life Under Compulsion (ISI Books, 2015).

  • Bedarz Iliaci

    As a non-American,I don’t understand why American are not repulsed by the necessity of getting a license to marry from the State.

    Why does not Prof Esolen think it servile that free people should have to get a license i.e. permission from the State in order to

    marry. It is not so in India and many other un-free nations.

    “He wanted segregation for the sake of segregation.”
    This seems rather limited view of segregationists. What they were after, in my opinion, is safety for their race and posterity

    • Trazymarch

      “As a non-American,I don’t understand why American are not repulsed by
      the necessity of getting a license to marry from the State.”

      You raise an interesting point. I think people got so much used to it that they don’t think it’s possible for marriages to be non-state. And state marriages are actually present only for about 200 years ( In case of Europe. No idea how it is in USA) which is quite short time.

    • Fred

      We shouldn’t, I agree. The only reason now other than the fees collected is because of our bizarre tax system which is designed to keep our politicians in office dolling out favors for votes. We need to move to some form of flat tax and get them out of the business of pandering. That’s kind of a side point to the good Professor’s point though.

    • DE-173

      “As a non-American,I don’t understand why American are not repulsed by the necessity of getting a license to marry from the State.”
      Of course not, your liong absence does nothing to remove the unpleasant memory of your Eurocentric statist rants here,

      As an American, I don’t understand why non-Americans feel compelled and qualified to comment on American sensibilities, real or imagined.
      There’s very GOOD reason to be repulsed by the need to get a license to marry from the state.

      1.) The idea of state regulation of marriage was an inventtion of Luther, practically implemented by Henry Tudor.

      2.) The first law to require state recognition of marriage was France 1792, a product of the odious French Revolution.

      3.) The requirements imposed by the state are superficial and ceremonial and little more than a way to finance the operations of some county official.

      Your excuse for regregationists is patheric and disturbing. If there was a danger to their “race and posterity” from the people working in the cotton fields, then they should have stopped importing, breeding and trading them, and given the number of incidents of the “massa” heading down to the slave shack that resulted in a birth nine months later, it’s not a defensible assertion.

      • JP

        Actually, the Roman Catholic Church here is not obligated to get permission from the State. However, Bishops have accommodated the State(s), and almost all priests have state credentials to be Officiants of Weddings. So, when a couple does get married in the Church, the priest not only witnesses the sacrament, but also signs the marriage certificates.

        Some people have argued that the Church should get out the business of being “officiants”. If a couple wishes to have their marriage recognized by the state, that will be their business and not the Church’s

        • Guest

          Because State marriage is now pridefully in the realm of untruth, perhaps married Catholics should legally dissolve their State marriages, abandoning all the State bennies, choosing instead to be married solely and entirely in the Sacramental Marriage of the Church.

          • Anthony Zarrella

            That would be a good idea, were it not for the fact that scandal is a sin – we Catholics would see it as a married couple simply refusing to ask permission from Caesar, but to everyone else, it would look just like cohabitation, and would set a very poor example.

        • DE-173

          “Bishops have accommodated the State(s), and almost all priests have state credentials to be Officiants of Weddings. ”

          I’m sure they have-how much of that accomodation was under duress?

      • Fred

        I’m actually happy to read that we have a forum that extends beyond our borders. However, as you so eloquently do, criticism is fair game to be responded to in kind. Even if we have a big breach below the water line, I’d still rather be on this ship than any other. I don’t think I’d call it the USS Barque of Peter though, but that’s the bigger one we should all really want to be on.

        • DE-173

          “I’m actually happy to read that we have a forum that extends beyond our borders.”

          So am I. It is after all the Great Commission to go and make disciples of all nations.

          However, I find that there’s a couple of posters who can barely contain their contempt for the U.S, when their own houses aren’t in order.

          My favorite example of this are the perennial lectures from Mexican Presidents regarding illegal immigration-which when sanctioned and encouraged by the Mexican government looks very much like an invasion. Of course when you read how they treat Guatamalens or Salvadorans crossing their border, you realize how much hypocrisy is involved.

          Left to their own devices, Europe’s effete, superstatist snobs would have condemned humanity to a choice between the godless Swastika and the Hammer and Sickle. The own a significant plurality of the death toll from statism, so in the finest American tradition, I’d like to tell to.. well you know.

          Given Kasper’s remarks about Africa, perhaps they just reserve contempt for anybody outside their reach.

      • Michael Paterson-Seymour

        In Scotland, until 1st July 1940, marriage required no notice, no formality, ecclesiastical or civil and no record of any kind.

        A person might go through a public ceremony, raise a family and, on their spouse’s death, someone comes forward claiming the estate on the strength of a secret marriage, entered into some 60 years earlier and relying for proof on some expressions in the one surviving side of a correspondence, which she (usually she) had preserved and which express or virtually imply marriage.

        The advantage of requiring all marriages to be recorded in an easily accessible public register are obvious; so that the claims of future generations by inheritance in the course of lawful descent, may be traced in the most certain and effectual manner.

        • Fred

          Complications. Another timeless example of God’s grace being rejected. I often wonder what he thinks when he looks down on us as a lot. Of course, in discussing that one can’t also reflect on the countless arranged marriages throughout history for consolidation of power and wealth. I’m thankful that never enters my head and I don’t have to think about that too much. Now, for my 2nd cup of coffee.

          • Michael Paterson-Seymour

            Fred

            Not all cases were without merit and I recall one in which I was engaged in the early 1970s.

            An old woman had to be taken into a local authority care home. There had been a rumour that in her youth the son of a neighbouring proprietor, an officer on leave from the trenches had promised to marry her, and she had had a child of which he was the father. She had never dreamt of claiming the rank of wife, and his family had paid her parents a sum of money in satisfaction of all claims.

            There were some letters amongst her effects, one in which the young man promised marriage and another in which he declared her his “wife before God.”

            Now, in 1234, the bishop of Le Mans put a question to Pope Gregory IX: If a man promise to marry a woman, and subsequently have intercourse with her, what is the legal position of the parties?” The Pope replied, “He who has pledged his faith to marry a woman, and afterwards has intercourse with her, although he marry another in face of the church and cohabit with her, is bound to return to the former woman. For although the first marriage appear merely presumable, yet against a presumption of this kind no evidence can be admitted. From which it follows that the marriage, which in fact came after, is not regarded as a genuine one, or indeed as any marriage at all.” [Decretales Gregorii IX c 30 X. IV. 1] This opinion became part of the law of Scotland.

            The local authority raised an action of declarator and, a proof being led, the old woman was declared the lawful wife of the laird, and her son the heir to his estate.

    • Isaac S.

      You are on to something here. I think the “libertarian” solution of moving marriage to private contract law is the only real solution in today’s world. Back in the “Christendom” era the Church alone regulated marriage; post-Reformation the State took up that role because the Protestant states (and even some Catholic states) wanted to diminish the power of the Church. Since States in our modern world have no universal moral authority, they’ve lost the right to regulate (and thus define) marriage entirely. Let each couple make their marriage a private contract with enforceable terms (perhaps drawing from some generic “templates” with the most common terns already defined). That way gay people can make their union whatever they want without having an all-powerful state redefining marriage by fiat. This would also be useful for those of us that believe in Covenant Marriage; those terms could be included in the contract as well. Basically each couple defines what their particular marriage will be in a private contract with each other; the State plays no role except in civil court if there is a dispute (and there the State would be guided by the letter of the couple’s contract, not by ideology).

      • DE-173

        “I think the “libertarian” solution of moving marriage to private contract law”

        The reason the marital union is public is because unlike a private contract which (generally) obligates the parties to it; a marriage obligates society at large.
        My marriage prescribes me to certain duties, rights and priviledges with my wife, and it proscribes those actions of others; and obligates them in other respects. By making sex exclusive, it ensured that children wouldn’t have their rights of affection or inheritance diluted. Yes, I know adultery has been around forever.

        By not having a clear and uniform definition of marriage, how do I know what I’m supposed to afford another married woman. I can hear it now: some single guy telling the police from a hospital bed but, but I thought she had an “open marriage”, how was I supposed to know she wasn’t supposed to be having sex with me? That’s when he shot me.

        Of course, anything other that total commitment is a counterfeit.
        I suggest you look up Russell Kirk’s “The Chirping Sectary” as an ancedote to, and prophylaxis from libertarianism.

        • Isaac S.

          You are failing to make a distinction between the “ideal” model and what is the “best politically reasonable” model in the world we live in. If we lived in a Catholic confessional state, or in a model like medieval Europe where the Church had powers over Civil Law, then I agree with you. In the current, real world, where the Catholic understanding of marriage is foreign, then getting the State out of marriage altogether is the best outcome Catholics are going to get. This is because any effort for the State to define marriage is going to result in a definition that doesn’t square with Catholic principles. Even without “gay marriage,” a modern, state-sponsored civil marriage can be broken at any time and has no penalties for adultery. Your “open marriage” scenario is the reality now, after 200+ years of allowing States to define marriage as they saw fit. Replacing this with a stricter civil contract would be an improvement.

          • Isaac S.

            I should note I am only talking about civil marriage. Church law on marriage should stay as it is, but from a civil perspective (protecting legal rights of children, etc) it seems to me a private civil contract is the best (or maybe least bad) option available currently.

            • DE-173

              A private civil contract is still subject to the state. As soon as there is the claim of a breach, there’s going to be litigation. Unless lawyers write these contracts, there will be endless arguing about the construction of the language.

              The fact is we’re already having private civil contracts-in the gorm of prenuptial agreements or more accurately prenuptial disagreements,

              • Isaac S.

                I don’t deny that there are flaws in this approach, but I don’t see any other practical way forward if you want any sort of legal protection/recognition for marriages from the State. Somehow our culture has bought into a view of marriage that is completely incompatible with the Church’s teachings, and in the current model of marriage law the State basically defines what marriage is. If you don’t fall in line with that definition, you leave yourself open to persecution. The only legal solutions for this I can see are 1) undo the damage of the last 50 years and have the State define and enforce a Catholic definition of marriage or 2) completely privatize the definition and let individuals/couples write the legal definitions for themselves. I realize #1 would be ideal but I see no realistic way to get there; #2 would sow confusion (but not necessarily more than the current situation), but at least would remove the heavy persecution of dissenters to conform.

                • DE-173

                  It’s not only not practical, it’s self defeating. It will invite MORE state action, because it will be less definite, more subject to construction and interpretation. I’m sorry you can understand this, but I’m getting tired of trying to make you think about it.

          • DE-173

            Replacing this with a stricter civil contract would be an improvement.

            Any time there’s a “civil contract”, the state by definition provides the forum for disputation and remediation, just as if I sign a contract to buy a bulldozer. This is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

  • orientstar

    Thank you for a very clear and cogent article. I couldn’t put it better myself and, as an academic, I would certainly like to have done! I really appreciate this.

  • Fred

    This is a good article, but there is a much larger issue at work that we should all be mindful of though. The battle of recognition of same sex marriage is just a move on the chess board, and the one with his hand on the rook is the prince of this world. His strategy is to continue to divide and destroy Christ’s mission and church. Do you really think that deceiving others into thinking that killing babies is a civil right, pregnancy is like a disease, and now endorsing sodomy and pornography as normal is the end game for him? He is very, very cunning and knows that he can advance only so much at a time to bend society without breaking, but oh how he howls from the gut when he dupes more with language of tolerance. The activists are carefully trying to control the narrative right now to make sure they continue to dupe society, but the wolves are scratching at their backs to advance the acceptance of pedophilia, multiple partner marriages, emasculating men, and pretty much anything goes sexually and otherwise. Do you really believe that the end game is not to force the Catholic church to recognize same sex marriage? Sadly, many of our confused brothers have fallen under the spell and look silly. Committing an act of sodomy is a choice of free will, as plane as the nose on your face, no sugar coating it. It may be a civil right to sodomize, but we should stand up for not sanctifying it in marriage.

  • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

    Gay marriage is a kind of Trojan horse. The assault on gender itself is the most terrifying fruit of the post-Christian West. This is an assault on our very humanity. It is truly Satanic as it ‘mutilates’ our minds and bodies. Intelligent Evil hates you as God made you and will eagerly help you to ‘change’.

  • pseudogamy : A form of parthenogenesis in which the male gamete is required to activate development of the egg but fertilization does not occur. Generally, the sperm or pollen is from a member of the same species, although in some cases, for example in the fish Poeciliopsis, egg development is triggered by the sperm of a closely related species. Pseudogamous plants require pollination, and the endosperm undergoes fertilization even though the diploid embryo develops without it.

    • R. K. Ich

      Impressive! Who would have thought fish and flowers could be the key to resolving this anthropological question? Is the “ergo” that “two (or more) same sexed humans can be truly married?” The reasoning is stellar!

  • Fact is, for people who are Straight (i.e. heterosexual) absolutely NOTHING is happening to marriage. Nothing is changing or being redefined. The human population will always be predominantly Straight, and they will continue to date, get engaged, marry, and build lives and families together as they always have. None of that will change whether or not Gay couples are allowed to do the same.

    As someone who believes very strongly in marriage equality for Gay couples, I need to point out that the federal government has complicated the issue more than anyone. While it is true that the Constitution says nothing about marriage, there are 1,138 legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities (according to the Government Accountability Office) that the federal government automatically bestows on married couples. Much of this has to do with tax law and Social Security. So it simply wouldn’t do for a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa to suddenly become UN-married if they move someplace else.

    Straight couples have never had to jump through these kinds of hoops. Thanks to the “Full Faith & Credit” clause, if any Straight couple flies off to Las Vegas for a drunken weekend and gets married by an Elvis impersonator, that marriage is automatically honored in all 50 states. Gay couples, however, are held to a different (and hence unconstitutional) legal standard.

    • Fred

      Common thread then – maybe our government should butt out of the pandering tax code business and implement some form of flat tax. That way they could get back to possibly only working (??) a few months a year on just the essentials defined for them in the Constitution rather than figuring out ways to draw us into dependency and pitting us against one another fighting at the trough of federal money, oops, redistributing our money, or continuously printing more.
      What in the heck is the purpose of talking to the fishes and the flowers? Some species eat their own excrement and are cannibals, I don’t recommend those life style either. Also, why exactly do you come here? I’ve always theorized that those who do must have deep seated conflicted feelings and are here because they know better. Most people self confident and assured in their beliefs don’t usually feel the need agitate others (or attempt to), it’s kind of juvenile.

      • “Why exactly do you come here? I’ve always theorized that those who do must have deep seated conflicted feelings and are here because they know better.”

        No, that’s not it. Crisis Magazine has a comment section; if a comment section was only for the benefit of those who wish to preach to the choir, why have a comment section to begin with?

        The topic of this commentary, marriage equality for Gay couples, is relevant to me. I’m offering my perspective. I’m not conflicted about it at all.

        • Fred

          I’m glad you do. Who knows, maybe someday the light bulb will go on for you too! Seriously, as long as the dialog stays civil we can communicate, and understand that there is no hate for people here.

          • I’m nothing if not diplomatic, Fred. I really do try to maintain a civil tone with those who are civil with me.

            • Fred

              I know. There are some who come here who I am convinced are typing literally from a computer in Hades. Even the language is vulgar, bizarre and foreign, and the moderator eventually has to cut the line.

            • DE-173

              It is not civil to post antagonistically and repetitively.

        • DE-173

          You can’t have “marriage equality” if you can’t have marriage, and no amount of trolling is ever going to change the fact that the anus is not a sex organ and it responds poorly to penetration.

          • R. K. Ich

            Yes, another one of those oft-abused, and propaganda-rich words: “equality”. Still trying to figure out why polygamists and intergenerational marriage proponents can’t claim the same thing. It used to be the sons of darkness were better sophists; now all semblance of reason has been chucked out the window. Slogans and punishment is all they understand — remarkably like the zealots they hypocritically decry.

            • DE-173

              And if something can mean anything, it soon means nothing.

              • John200

                In particular, equality now means many things, and therefore, nothing that can be specified. The whole “argument” for equality between marriage and homo”sex”ual disaster depends on conscious equivocation. These unfortunates hope the reader does not catch them in the act of equivocation.

                Once you see it that way, these unfortunates become ineffably boring. A quick one-question quiz —
                1. Homo”sex”ual activity is:
                a) Boring
                b) Unnatural; specifically, contrary to human nature
                c) Insane
                d) The least defensible topic on the comboxes
                e) All of the above.

                It’s e)

        • DE-173

          Have you read the masthead?

        • ForChristAlone

          #1 It’s a website for “fathful lay Catholics.” We really don’t mind being reaffirmed in our faith.

          #2 You write: “if a comment section was only for the benefit of those who wish to preach to the choir, why have a comment section to begin with?” It sounds like you’re here to do us a service. Don’t fret; we are fully aware of the alternatives to our truth claims.

    • GG

      Marriage only exists between male and female. There is no unfair treatment to not recognize faux unions. Unequals must be treated unequally as a matter of justice.

      • From a purely Constitutional standpoint, that’s a rather weak argument.

        • Guest

          That’s because from a purely moral standpoint, the Constitution is a rather weak document.

          • DE-173

            Especially when nobody is constrained by it.

        • GG

          The constitution mentions homosexuality? Some truths are self evident. There is no “right” for two men to pretend they are “married”. It is like saying the constitution supports square circles.

          • DE-173

            Any argument that leads to the absurd result of two men marrying needs to be re-examined.

            Now me, I’m a cynic. The so-called legal “profession” was on the forefront of advancing pseudonogamy; the big contributors to the state initiatives that failed included many “white show” law firms and many more insignificant ones. Of course now it’s mostly judicial fiat imposing this on us.

            My gut always tells me that the Bar is always on the make for the almighty dollar, and this was for them simply a recognition that they would have a rich new revenue stream from drafting and litigating pre-nups and divorces.

            That Theodore is worshipping mammon.

      • HigherCalling

        Wow, you actually brought up three virtues that Liberals claim totally to themselves: fairness, equality, and justice. Of course, they have no notion of their actual definitions, but since they deal mainly in platitudes, actual definitions don’t matter much. In their relativistic universe, tolerance has banished truth to oblivion. This is the first step in disordered thinking, for absent any regulatory truth, the virtues fail. We cannot enjoy fairness, equality, peace, liberty, etc unless we acknowledge the truth of things.

        Justice, for example, is completely reliant upon truth. Absent truth, no verdict can be reached which separates the innocent from the guilty or justice from injustice. The very word “verdict” (verum + dicere — to tell the truth) becomes meaningless jabber without acknowledgement of truth. Liberals don’t see the sad irony that they discard the very thing that is indispensable for generating what they so passionately desire. They reject truth and expect justice (or fairness, equality, etc) to flourish in barren soil.

    • Fred

      Regulars will groan at repeating myself, but since you only appear for select subjects may I suggest reading Skousen’s book from 1958, the Naked Communist? Mind you the 45 goals were from their manifesto. Short summary: to destroy western civilization from within infiltrate government and cultural organizations to twist people into thinking what is good is bad, and bad is good. Particularly relevant here are the goals of taking over modern Psychiatry to institutionalize disordered behavior including promoting homosexuality as normal and good. I think they’ve achieved a certain degree of success, wouldn’t you agree?

      • Guest

        It’s only fair to oblige you time to look it up and read, but I would like your thoughts on the goals in the future.

      • Fred

        It looks like there are fewer groans than I expected based on the number of up-votes so far. I guess it’s a timely message that still resonates. It would be easier to put a face to it (well, there is one) instead of a faceless foe, but on the positive side we are in a target rich environment … of opportunities, maybe like David felt against seemingly impossible odds.

      • DE-173

        He only appears for one subject. You can see from the limited scope and unlimited amount within that scope of his insane screeds that homosexuality is either a part of or causative of monomania.

        • Fred

          Monomania … is that a new WWE event? Does it involve a bear wrestling himself?

          • Vince McMahon

            Monomania … is that a new WWE event?
            Hmmmm..

    • Objectivetruth

      You do realize PB, because of your unrepentant “gay” lifestyle you are in a state of mortal sin and your soul could possibly end up in hell for all of eternity? Repent before it’s too late, PolishBear.

    • HenryBowers

      The state has no compelling interest to recognize SSM unions. On the other hand, the state has a strongly compelling interest to assess whence its next citizens will originate. Case closed. Trad Marriage wins.

    • Paul

      Since you believe homosexuals have the same right to marriage do you believe the same right should also be accorded to incests, pedophiles and any other forms of human sexuality ?

      • Fred
        • Martha

          Slippery slope!

          • Fred

            Indeed, and I feel sometimes like the water on the slide is now infused with a petroleum by-product additive (or vegetable based). So many more articles to site, like on the long history of the joint gay and pedophilia movement, currently underground. There is also a very, very dark underworld in the gay movement. We need not only focus on SSM here though as the broader issue really is the rapid disintegration of society and the confusion of what marriage is about – be it the shotgun wedding in Las Vegas by the Elvis impersonator (thanks PB) or the lack of out of emotional/spiritual preparedness and fear of commitment (thanks Ladasha). We have our work cut out for us to try and right the ship, all hands on deck.

            • DE-173

              You forgot the idiot “marrying” a roller coaster.

              • Fred

                Or the gal in the UK who married herself (how do you do that?), or the guy who wanted to marry his computer, or …

                • DE-173

                  I forgot that guy, apparently he had a quite a porn stash on that device; realized that the computer could be used to provide pleasure withoutthe difficulties involved in courting a woman.

                  Shades of the 2006 dystopic parody? “Idiocracy”, where a knock on the door could be greeted with “go a away, I’m ‘baitin” (and no that doesn’t mean preparing to go fishing).

        • Trish Browning

          Lovely…homosexuality amongst siblings….I feel ill.

          • Fred

            Made me absolutely sick to my stomach to read also.

    • Ladasha Smithson

      “The human population will always be predominantly Straight, and they
      will continue to date, get engaged, marry, and build lives and families
      together as they always have.”

      Um are you even paying attention to the news? Current estimates are that 1/4 of millennials won’t ever marry. Tons of them are cohabitating. Single adults now out number married adults. ( http://nypost.com/2014/09/09/single-adults-now-outnumber-married-adults/ )

      Marriage is very much dying and it is because of the cultural changes that is giving gay “marriage” advancement in the public opinion.

      • Fred

        Not where I live Ladasha, so maybe there is an underlying demographic or geographical dimension to study further and understand. Half kidding, it does make me sad to read those stories and I concur. We recently moved to a new state in the mid-west and in our parish we’ve met some wonderful people with really large families, multiple generations together, and I can tell you that it is a real joy to be among them and experience their blessings.

      • TomD

        Ladasha, it may be more accurate to say that the radical redefinition of marriage is a reflection of the decline of marriage in the United States and in the Western world rather than a “cause.”

        Whereas in 1960, 72% of adults in the US were married, in 2010 only 51% were. 43% of young adults between the ages of 18 and 29, according to a recent Pew study, say that marriage is “obsolete.” According to another Pew study, while 46% of Americans say that society is better off if children and marriage are a priority, 50% say that society is just as well off if people have other priorities. Marriage, especially among the young, is no longer as important.

        It is critical that we recognize that it is from this radically-changing attitude about marriage and the family, especially among the young and 50+ years in the making, that the radical redefinition of marriage has been possible. It is no coincidence that those who support the radical redefinition of marriage at the highest rates are young adults.

        See the Pew study here:

        http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/09/24/chapter-1-public-views-on-marriage/

      • Michael Paterson-Seymour

        In France in 2010, there were 250,000 marriages and 200,000 civil unions (PACS). There is even a new verb, « pacser » meaning to enter into a civil union with someone.

        These figures do not included unregulated cohabitation.

        A friend of mine remarked, rather sardonically, that soon the only people marrying will be the rich, Muslims and gays.

    • BPS

      “for people who are Straight (i.e. heterosexual) absolutely NOTHING is happening to marriage. Nothing is changing or being redefined”

      Not true. It’s not merely coincidental that the HBO series “Big Love” which celebrated polygamy was funded and produced by homosexuals. Now the characters in the show were Mormons, but the show basically portrayed them as just normal, everyday people, much like Hollywood has portrayed homosexuals in the past 20 years, and which they now admit was done in order to change public attitudes. The show had everyone live more or less together harmoniously. But here’s the thing to think about–why should a grown man or woman have to ask their spouse if they can legally marry someone else? As a hypothetical, my female lover and I have children and need the deductions and tax benefits of a married couple and I don’t want to divorce my current wife who can’t have children. What I and my female lover do is none of my current wife’s business right? I mean those divorce laws are just so arbitrary and old fashioned and don’t take into account current forms of love and won’t bestow equal benefit of law to these people who have been demonized and discriminated against… You know what else is arbitrary and discriminatory–age of consent laws! So that’s how the reasoning that allows homosexual marriage will destroy real marriage.

      BTW Urban Dictonary- Bear “A term used by homosexual men to describe a husky, large man with a lot of body hair. Ex “George’s sexual tastes run toward bears”.

      • Martha

        That BTW is now engrained in my brain. Thanks for that. :/

    • Matt

      The reference to the sleazy Vegas marriage is a cogent point in itself,
      and one that should be at the forefront of the debate, since the
      same-sex inroad was initiated by the traditionalists’ (for lack of a
      better term) degradation of the institution from within. Once the
      latter, Protestants first and then most Catholics, espoused
      contraceptive (i.e. homosexual) sex, the moral discipline of marriage
      atrophied and eroded.

    • Anthony Zarrella

      On the Full Faith and Credit issue (*alone*) I’ll back you up. It is absolutely unconstitutional for one state to refuse to recognize a civil marriage (or divorce) validated by another state.

      That says *nothing* about whether any state must or should *itself* validate any gay marriages, nor does it say anything against the “anti-marriage-tourism” laws that some states have (which say that the State of X will not allow a couple from the State of Y to get married in the State of X, unless that marriage would be legal in their home state of Y). For that matter, it says nothing about whether the *Federal* government must recognize any given marriage (because the FFaC Clause speaks only to the States).

  • RonCz

    Professor Esolen does not seem to address the fact that if a man and a women who can not have children marry and then adopt why can’t two guys who can not have children also marry and take on the life long time-transcending act that brings a new generation into being?

    Another words if a man and a women who have no biological connection to the adopted child why can’t homosexuals take on the same responsibility and also marry?

    • Tony

      That is because Professor Esolen has thought through the whole matter.

      When a man and woman marry, they DO that time-transcending act that brings a new generation into being. Whether it results in a new generation or not is another matter; sometimes debility thwarts it, or bad luck, or the deliberate actions of the couple. But the act is what it is. It is “sexual congress,” the union of the sexes as such. Even a barren couple are still exemplary causes of the new generation; they are causes by way of model or example. All children know this; all children look upon an elderly couple as a grandma and grandpa.

      A man CANNOT feasibly marry another man, because they CANNOT have sexual congress; they can only mimic it. A man CANNOT marry an animal, or an inanimate object. A man CANNOT have genuine sexual congress with a little girl. We are talking here about possibilities and not permissions.

      A man and woman should be allowed to adopt a child, who then will have both a mother and a father, as is his right. The man and woman DO engage in the life-giving act, although in their case the act may be ineffectual due to accidental circumstances. So the child is in a real way the manifestation of their sexual congress, man for woman and woman for man; and everyone will immediately recognize them as father and mother. No child should be adopted unless by a father and mother — but that is another issue.

      • RonCz

        Thanks, that is the argument we heard from homosexual (right for them why not me and my dorm buddy?) so your answer clears that up. Maybe it was in the article but I did not catch it.

      • R. K. Ich

        Exactly. The mind/body unity between the sexes is incarnate in the “mere plumbing” (as crassly described by one defender of pseudogamy I recently watched on YouTube), which is mere plumbing, anymore than the tender lips of my wife, her eyelashes, her beautiful neck, her gaze and smile, her embrace — all of these are under the umbrella of mystery and sacramentality. This hollow generation ought to read “The Abolition of Man”, but I fear it’s more and more like throwing pearls before swine. The Holy Ghost alone can make these bones live.

        • Tony

          Yes. It’s what Robby George calls “self-body dualism.” But let’s suppose you are the parent of a little boy. You already see the man’s body developing in him — his arms, his chest, his hair, his voice, his chin, his shoulders. You would be quite out of your mind not to do your part in ushering him gently into the manhood that his body shadows forth. NO father of a boy wants anything other than that the lad will grow up to be normal and healthy, attracted to women and attractive to them in turn.

          Meanwhile, from the time the child is old enough to wipe himself at the toilet, he knows that excrement is dirty, and later he will know that you can get sick if you fool around down there. That cannot be forgotten. It is the place of refuse and decay. What would we say about somebody — without specifying any other sexual attractions — who sought out opportunities to ingest excrement? We would say that the person was sick; and we would guess that only an obsession could override the natural revulsion. In other words, it would not be a mere idle preference; it would be a compulsion. Well then, why are we surprised to find otherwise inexplicable compulsions among the people of a group that is preoccupied with that place?

          • ForChristAlone

            Graphic but point well made. It’s why in homilies the “homosexual” thing can be circumvented by preaching about the sin of sodomy which is a sterile (if not putrid) act.

        • HigherCalling

          R.K. and Tony, I think you will find this article interesting:

          http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2007/dennehy_homoscontrac_aug07.asp

          • R. K. Ich

            Brilliant, cogent, and simple. Thank you–I shared this article with others.

      • Bonaventura!

        Insightful answer, Prof. Esolen. Another point for consideration: the point of adoption is to provide a child with a substitute mother and father having, by some circumstance, been deprived of their own. Providing such a child with two fathers, even actual fathers married separately to different women, would not do since the child has also been deprived of a mother. Somehow, in the insanity, it has been lost that everyone has a mother and a father. There are no children of homosexual couples.

    • GG

      Why would you compare two wholly unequal situations? There is nothing in common.

    • DE-173

      Because children aren’t inanimate posessions. They are persons with emotional and developmental needs; one of which is learning that both sexes are unique and ivaluable complements in creation.

    • CadaveraVeroInnumero

      Why not? E. D. E. N.

  • Fred

    Thanks Professor, good article. If I had chosen the picture though I would have swapped signs or fountains, with the straight fountain pointing right and the not-straight pointing left. That might be revealing to much about my leanings though (ha).

  • Cap America

    Nicely written. I am struck by how the whole reason for a public (state) interest in marriage stems wholly from a concern about how the next generation will be raised, via families.

    Instead, we get the whole “marriage = love” idea, which is mistaken about what marriage really is (it’s about family through the generations, across time), and also mistaken about what love is.

  • cestusdei

    Fine article. I recommend Dr. Esolen’s book.

    • Fred

      Is that a paid endorsement (ha)?

    • R. K. Ich

      My wife and I have read almost EVERYTHING by Dr. Esolen. His book on marriage is simply delicious and satifying.

  • publiusnj

    Some commenters are saying the Church should get out of the business of “officiating” at marriages for purposes of State Marriage laws. I disagree. That is just unleashing another dysfunctional side issue into the matter (“so now I have to go to City Hall as well as to Church. What is the Church doing?”)

    Instead, the Church should very publicly and plainly distinguish between its real marriages (indissoluble unions between man and woman) and the politically gerrymandered concept of easily dissoluble marriages between anyone and anyone else that the politicians and unelected judges are foisting on the culture through the dictatorial power of the Government and despite the clear preference of the people expressed in 32 referenda for real marriages. That, of course, would require some political courage and–given the wackiness of elements of the Roman HQ of our Church–some in-fighting within the Church. The upshot of that approach, though, is that Christ’s Holy Church would be proclaiming the gospel in a clarion way. This goofy government needs to be challenged and the best way to challenge its stupidity is to call it what it is.

    As Christ said: ” ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate. Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.””

  • Fred

    OK, this is the UK grant you – but don’t for a minute think that it’s not going to wash ashore here soon (actually, it’s already been discussed in the NJ state house). Famous last words “I’m still not getting what I want”. How long will the quadruple lock hold against the storm – anybody care to guess? Where will the breach occur first, CA?

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/17/Religious-venues-to-be-used-for-converting-civil-partnership-to-gay-marriage

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      In the UK, the question only affects the C of E, as it could be argued that the ministersof an established church are “public officials” within the meaning of the European Convention on Human Rights.

      In Scotland, the law is quite clear:as the Church of Scotland Act 1921declares that the Kirk’s ministers are not state officials – “This Church, as part of the Universal Church wherein the Lord Jesus Christ has appointed a government in the hands of Church office-bearers, receives from Him, its Divine King and Head, and from Him alone, the right and power subject to no civil authority to legislate, and to adjudicate finally, in all matters of doctrine, worship, government, and discipline in the Church… Recognition by civil authority of the separate and independent government and jurisdiction of this Church in matters spiritual, in whatever manner such recognition be expressed, does not in any way affect the character of this government and jurisdiction as derived from the Divine Head of the Church alone, or give to the civil authority any right of interference with the proceedings or judgments of the Church within the sphere of its spiritual government and jurisdiction.”

  • Tony

    One of the commenters below has repeated the tired old and reality-riddled argument of No Effect. Do this radical thing and NOTHING will happen.

    It reminds me of Chesterton’s saying that if you do not know the purpose of a fence, you are the last person who should recommend getting rid of it. Only if you DO know its purpose are you in a position to suggest a change.

    Suppose, to take a trivial example, you were to dispense with some little rule in baseball that seems arbitrary — for instance, the rule that a foul bunt with two strikes counts as a third strike, the ball is dead, and you are out. You say, “It won’t change ANYTHING, except that we might get a few more sacrifices from pitchers.” You say this because you have no idea why the rule was instituted in the first place. It SEEMS arbitrary to you. Well then, get rid of that one little rule and the whole game of baseball changes. You may like the change or not, but the change will come about, and it will be radical.

    That’s trivial, as I said, in comparison with the moral laws regarding sex. Let’s now look at the track record of the IT WON’T CHANGE ANYTHING FOR YOU crowd:

    1. They said that no-fault divorce would not result in a greater number of divorces. WRONG.

    2. They said that legalizing porn would not coarsen the general culture. WRONG.

    3. They said that allowing contraception for married couples would not have any effect upon unmarried people. WRONG.

    4. They said that introducing the Pill into general use would not result in MORE out of wedlock pregnancies. WRONG.

    5. They said that liberalizing the abortion laws would not result in MORE abortions. WRONG.

    6. They said that sex education in the schools would not sexualize children and make them more likely to act out. WRONG.

    7. They said that depriving boys of a father in the home would have NO effect on their growth as men. WRONG.

    But why should we argue? There are plenty of activists right now who say openly that they INTEND to change marriage utterly or to destroy the institution. I take them at their word. They are the clear-eyed Kevorkians. The others are useful fools.

  • Tony

    Rummaging about on the CDC website yesterday, for obvious reasons, I stumbled upon this bit of misery:

    Seventy five percent of all new cases of syphilis in the US involve male homosexuals.

    Let us do a little arithmetic.

    If there were the same numbers of male homosexuals as normal males, then the homosexual would be THREE times as likely as the normal male to contract syphilis.

    But homosexuals account for about two percent of the male population. That means there is one male homosexual for about 49 normal males. If we include men who go both ways, we might say that there is one male homosexual for about 25 normal males.

    Even with that more generous estimate, it would mean that the man doing things he shouldn’t be doing with other men is 75 TIMES MORE LIKELY to contract syphilis. That is not an increase of 75 percent — I have to say this because our schools don’t teach people to think numerically. It is an increase of 7400 percent!

    How is this possible? THINK. How can we say that John, who has slept with only one woman, has half the chance of contracting syphilis as Joe, who has slept with two? We say it because of the obvious difference in opportunity.

    WHAT then must we say about this portion of the population? Something that they don’t want to talk about openly to the useful fools among ordinary people. We must conclude that there is a degree of promiscuity and anonymous or impersonal sex that boggles the mind …

    • Rich in MN

      “useful fools among ordinary people” — I love your succinct expression. I cannot remember the exact Chesterton quotation — it might be in “Orthodoxy” — but Chesterton talks about how, when we lose sight of the whole picture, our vices run rampant and do terrible damage — but our virtues also run rampant and do even WORSE damage, for our virtues end up fighting against one another. I look back on my own life and see evils that I have done out of my own blindness or malevolent intent, but I also see evils that I have done out of the very best of intentions — promoting evils that I thought were goods. For all of these I ask God’s forgiveness and I pray that God make me a channel of healing and repair, or bring healing and repair through whatever means God chooses.

      There are two works that I regularly recommend in comboxes. The first is Chesterton’s “Father Brown” story entitled “The Chief Mourner of Marne.” Readers may find it a bit of a stretch as a detective story but it is an absolutely brilliant critique of the human condition. We misunderstand the notion of compassion when we misunderstand the concept of sin. (I must confess that I was sorely tempted to email the story to all of the participants of the Synod in Rome so that they could reacquaint themselves with the whole notion of “public perception” in a fallen world chock-full of misguided zealots and “useful fools”….) The second recommendation is the book “Family and Civilization” by Carle Zimmerman. Zimmerman’s original work (published 1947) was over 800 pages, but an abridged version (about 350 pages) was published about 10 years ago.

      • HigherCalling

        The Chesterton quote is from the beginning of Chapter III in Orthodoxy, ‘The Suicide of Thought’. It is quite a profound passage and could probably be expanded into an entire book. This gist of it, I think, is that the Christian virtues are both holistic and hierarchical. Yanking them piecemeal from the whole of Catholic teaching causes them to wander alone and lose the imperative balance of the whole. Elevating them to positions positions of primary importance, when those virtues are secondary to truth, is to cause them to lose the proper ordering imperative for their fruitfulness. This is precisely what the modern moralist does. He hijacks and then redefines the Christian virtues, removes truth from the equation entirely, and then expects them to work wonders isolated from their source.

        • Rich in MN

          Thank you!

          • R. K. Ich

            Hey, Rich, I’m in Minnesota too! Anywhere near St. Paul/Eagan?

            • Rich in MN

              We are in the same neck of the woods. Peace!

              • R. K. Ich

                Well, if you have no plans next Saturday, would love to meet you at my catholic literary/theology meet up:

                http://www.meetup.com/Discarded-Image-Society/

                http://minneapolis.craigslist.org/dak/grp/4721087147.html

                • Rich in MN

                  Hi R.K.,
                  Your links mention a meeting this Friday night but I did not see any meetings listed for Saturday. I am not sure if I can make it. However, the monthly meeting of the American Chesterton Society (http://www.chesterton.org/) is a week from today (Tuesday 10/28) 7-9 PM at the University Club which is in St Paul at the top of the Ramsey hill on Summit Ave. You do not need to be an “official” member to attend meetings. This month we do not have any assigned readings. Instead, there will be a reenactment of the 1935 debate between Chesterton and Bertrand Russell. John “Chuck” Chalberg (who plays Chesterton on the EWTN show, “The Apostle of Common Sense”) will be playing Chesterton. It should be fun and you are more than welcome to join us!

                  • R. K. Ich

                    I am there!

    • DE-173

      “Seventy five percent of all new cases of syphilis in the US involve male homosexuals.”

      One wonders how things like this contribute to the cost of healthcare that the left is always telling us is unacceptably high.

  • TERRY

    Recommended reading: ‘Father Elijah, an Apocalypse’ by Michael O’Brien.

    Ignatius Press

  • John Albertson

    Oh dear – yesterday in an interview in Rome Cardinal Dolan cheered the part of the Synod’s repudiated draft Relatio which spoke of homosexuals as “gifted:” “Hey, that’s great! We’re already welcoming them in New York!” This is after his other unfortunate interview in which he complimented the homosexual NBA draft pick Michael Sam, saying: “Bravo! God bless ya!” As long as we have these types leading the Church, we’re in for more and more trouble. Wait until the next St. Patrick’s parade in New York with Dolan waddling at the head as Grand Marshall..

    • Fred

      Read my reply in the other article today. I guess we can place Mr. Dolan among the 25%. Maybe this is why he was placed in NY.

      • DE-173

        I’m beginning to think he’s compromised in some way.

        • Fred

          There was a time when I thought I really liked him, maybe because I didn’t really know him well enough, and now I can’t figure him out for the life of me. I watched him the other night on YouTube giving a speech to seminarians in Miami last year comparing/contrasting the 3 Pope’s. Unfortunately it was over an hour. I have to say that he seemed like quite a “jolly good fellow”. Maybe he would have made a better monk making beer. Of course, he didn’t touch on anything controversial to stick his foot into.

          • ForChristAlone

            I wouldn’t let Dolan anywhere near my two male grandsons

        • ForChristAlone

          My experience with progressive clerics is that the ones always so eager to give others a pass on moral constraints are those who are morally compromised themselves. How can you sit in judgement of another’s BEHAVIOR when your own behavior is or has been sullied.

    • DE-173

      Have a link?

  • Fred

    Of course this caught my eye, though in typical journalism practice it was designed to grab. Once I got over the shock and thought about the numbers and the play with statistics, of course the US is going to have the most with the third largest population (and the top two not too Christian). Still, owning half of all the world’s annulments is not a happy thought.
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2554769

  • Fred

    Sorry Tony, this is a little off-topic except for a stretch of the imagination. File this comment under politicians say the darned things, when overseas, when they think nobody is paying attention, when they feel free to say what they really think. This comment might come as a surprise to some, affirmation to others. Who else feels what we are a Muslim nation? Should be really interesting time when after several more decades of killing children and not making any more we as a nation wake up and Sharia Law is imposed. People who don’t understand the concept Taqiyya (so peaceful) might just want to look it up. And to tie it into this article, I hate to tell you but not only won’t there be tolerance for SSM, there won’t be tolerance for your life either.

    http://www.libertynews.com/2014/10/video-in-france-obama-proclaims-america-a-muslim-country/

  • M.J.

    Was glad to read in another related article , how the issue is pretty much the same as in The Garden – woman as the life bearer is the target of the hatred , in a culture that has been taught to see children as aggressive intruders that need to be rid off and any means to do so , then becomes legitimate , including means of eliminating the role of women in families !
    Lust being the other side of hatred , a hatred that might have been taken in from attitudes that the afflicted came across , somewhere or other in their life span , from conception on down – thus , any means to help persons to be rid of that hatred , not feed into same would be the compassionate response .
    The Holy Father and others possibly have been trying to get that message across , even if it came through as muffled sounds that drowned out the real hope of The Church ,
    of seeing massive healing of the culture,enabling families to be all they can be , with motherhood sanctifying womanhood and in turn, all of the culture .
    Fact that The Pope and most higher ups are devotees of The Mother, the wellspring of the life givig waters of The Spirit , to bring healing love , into the depth of hearts – thank God The Church has known all along , what the Real Fountain is, that is open to all !

  • GaudeteMan

    Gentlemanly dialogue is a thing of the past. Courage to debate points of view honestly is gone. Isn’t it funny how even orthodox people preface their comments by saying , “in my opinion” even if they happen to be stating time tested incontestable truths. And as far as “respecting other’s opinions,” that comes from a secular gospel. If your opinion is errant or just plain lousy, to heck with it. “Its not you that I wish to defeat, its your ideas.”

  • Allieya

    Having
    quantified various criteria for gaining admission in the MBA programs, I
    would like to add that no single factor may secure an admission. On the other
    hand, a very poor showing on one or more components may be a deal-breaker.
    Ultimately it is the ‘right’ mix of above-mentioned factors that may work in
    one’s favor.

MENU