Christians Must Go on the Offensive Against Gay Mafia

The controversy about the Indiana religious liberty statute is a textbook example of the increasing timidity of leading Republican politicians in the face of the homosexualist movement. It is an exposè of how they just can’t get past the politics of the moment—which they often poorly analyze—to see the civilizational questions that confront us in these times.

Governor Mike Pence of Indiana quickly stepped back after supporting and signing the law as soon as the crescendo of criticism from the homosexualists and their media allies began and concerns about hurting the Indianapolis tourist trade were raised. After consulting with homosexualist organizations, he pushed through the state legislature a “clarification” of the law that supposedly would insure that it wouldn’t be used to “discriminate” against homosexuals. By doing that, the law was essentially gutted and the homosexualist organizations scored a major victory by securing specific protection for sexual “orientation” and “identity” for the first time in Indiana law. In effect, a law that was supposed to be passed to protect persons from legal attacks for refusing to do things like provide services for same-sex “weddings” and the like because of religious and moral objections now potentially opens the door wide for such attacks.

A quick examination of the 3-page original statute—one wishes that Congress would limit itself to bills of such length—shows that it essentially did nothing more than to affirm that a person’s religious liberty could not be infringed upon by the state, except when there is a compelling public interest. This essentially has been the standard of American law, even though it was done by statute for most of our history. Change came when the Supreme Court elevated it to the level of a constitutionally mandated test for the validity of governmental action vis-á-vis religion in the 1960s. It is also the position of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that applies to federal action. Congress passed RFRA in response to the Court’s abandoning of the constitutional test in 1990 (effectively making it a matter for statutory law again). Congress intended that RFRA would apply to state as well as federal action, but the Supreme Court disallowed that on federalism grounds. If the states wanted to employ a compelling public interest standard, they would have to enact it into law. So, we see the current push, especially in the wake of the publicized cases where religious liberty and homosexualism are colliding around the country, for state religious liberty statutes.

There are no absolute rights. Even though religious liberty was a fundamental right in the understanding of our Founding and enshrined into the First Amendment, one may not do anything and everything in the name of it. For example, the right to religious liberty does not mean that one may engage in human sacrifice as part of some religion. There is clearly a compelling reason for the state to stop murder, mayhem, or genuine social disruption in the name of religion. Even in the relativistic world of the homosexualist movement and the rest of the left, however, it’s hard to make the claim that the “need” to facilitate sodomy is on the same plain as these things. Since what they are demanding, at bottom, is universal approbation—even acclaim—for gross sexual immorality and perversion and a compelling public interest standard is an obstacle that must be eliminated, as with the Indiana statute.

Chai Feldblum, a Georgetown law professor and Obama appointee to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, claims that in almost all cases sexual liberties trump religious liberty. Her view increasingly seems to be the position of the left. As far as she is concerned, the First Amendment was washed away by the sexual revolution. It almost goes without saying that there is no basis for such a position in the American constitutional tradition. Of course, that does not trouble homosexualist advocates like Feldblum who believe, like leftist constitutional scholars and judges generally, that the Constitution is a “living document.” So, it can be changed, just like morality, in accordance with and to accommodate one’s desires. In truth, it’s preposterous to claim that facilitating sodomy is a compelling public interest that overpowers the right to religious liberty. At bottom, requiring Christians and other unwilling religious believers to take part in same-sex “marriages” means that they are being forced to give social approval to the state’s action of officially recognizing immoral sexual activity.

When legal protection against discrimination and the like is accorded to homosexuals what’s being done, for all practical purposes, is protecting a behavior. There is no proof that homosexuality is an innate, inborn state or “orientation.” In fact, the evidence is increasingly suggesting that same-sex attraction for many is a transitory phenomenon at a certain point in their lives—in some cases prompted by sexual experimentation. The homosexualist movement seeks to suppress such evidence with a vengeance, because it undercuts its ideology and agenda. The protection of behavior is a convolution of the notion of civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, which aim to stop unjust treatment of groups of people either on the grounds of unchangeable characteristics such as race or ethnicity, or because of religious belief pursuant to the historic principle of religious liberty—the very thing that the homosexualist juggernaut is jeopardizing.

Fundamentally, what stands behind the notion of civil rights laws is the securing of human dignity for groups of people who have been denied it. It is hard to make that case to protect a behavior that—in light of the abundant physical, psychological, moral, and spiritual consequences—so undercuts human dignity. To legally mandate that Christians and other believers serve such people in a way that furthers and legitimizes such behavior is the same as telling them that they must help someone to engage in lying or cheating behavior. If there is a civil right to have people accept and even assist in one kind of immoral behavior, why not any other? Isn’t it just because this particular behavior has gained the support of the opinion-makers and culture-shapers, whose viewpoint reflects a predominant ideology that flies in the face of reality?

One European Catholic scholar spoke about the deepening totalitarian mindset of the LGBT—homosexualist—movement. One prominent American entertainer, not unsympathetic to their cause, made an objective assessment and termed the movement with its relentless pressure tactics a “gay mafia.” Homosexualist activists and organizations are deft at portraying the people they claim to represent as victims while they are really the victimizers, and many politicians and bureaucrats are their enablers (some for reasons of ideology and others, like in Indiana, because they lack courage and place a narrow notion of public prosperity above truth). Their victims are people like the elderly florist in Washington State who nasty state officials want to render penniless, the baker in Colorado who was ordered to undergo “sensitivity training” (a less severe version of what used to happen to dissidents in the Soviet insane asylums), the Mozilla co-founder ousted for contributing money to the Proposition 8 campaign, and the pizzeria owner in Indiana who had to temporarily close his business in the face of savage online attacks and threats.

What should Christians and other believers do in the face of this heightening repression? They must go on the offensive—charitably but vigorously—and fight the battle on several levels. When leaders fade into the woodwork—even when the stakes are basic constitutional liberties and civilized norms—the people have no choice but to step up. First, they must persistently speak up about the realities of homosexual behavior, the coming consequences for our culture, and especially the totalitarian mindset and repressiveness of the homosexualist movement. Next, they must constantly let cowering public officials know how they oppose their buckling to pressure and will remember it at the next election. Third, continued and intensified legal resistance is necessary. The organizations providing legal defense are crucial, but others must be formed to take an offensive posture. The lame discrimination complaints by homosexualist organizations against believers in human rights commissions and the pressuring of corporations to dump executives and employees who dissent at all from the homosexualist agenda should should be met consistently with lawsuits for abuse of process and defamation. That would put financial pressure on the well-heeled homosexualist organizations.

Fourth, they should organize well-targeted boycotts of companies that buckle under to the homosexualists and well-publicized showings of support for those who won’t. The Chick-Fil-A episode of a few years ago showed what’s possible in this regard. Weak-kneed, utilitarian-minded corporate leaders might then get the message that religiously oriented citizens are more of a force to be reckoned with than a small cadre of well-placed homosexual activists. Fifth, it’s time for frequent, perfectly legal public rallies against the totalitarian schemes of the homosexualist movement and the state bureaucrats who run interference for them. There’s a need to take to the streets to clamor against tyranny and for religious liberty. The religious liberty rallies of June 2012 occasioned by the HHS mandate need to be a regular occurrence in state capitals and big cities around the country. The rallies against same-sex “marriage” in France are a model of what can be done. Finally, they must couple all these efforts with much prayer.

The rank-and-file now must show courage and boldness that contrasts with current leaders, always keeping Burke’s famous dictum in mind: “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

(Photo credit: Anti-RFRA Demonstration in Indiana / Reuters)

Stephen M. Krason

By

Stephen M. Krason's "Neither Left nor Right, but Catholic" column appears monthly (sometimes bi-monthly) in Crisis Magazine. He is Professor of Political Science and Legal Studies and associate director of the Veritas Center for Ethics in Public Life at Franciscan University of Steubenville. He is also co-founder and president of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists. He is the author, most recently, of The Transformation of the American Democratic Republic (Transaction Publishers, 2012), and editor of three volumes: Child Abuse, Family Rights, and the Child Protective System (Scarecrow Press, 2013) and The Crisis of Religious Liberty (Rowman and Littlefield, 2014); and most recently, Challenging the Secular Culture: A Call to Christians (Franciscan University Press). His next book is Catholicism and American Political Ideologies (forthcoming this fall from Hamilton Books). He is also the author of a new novel, American Cincinnatus.

  • A christian

    I don’t understand why anyone would want to stop homosexuals from getting basic human rights. There is no arguements against love.

    • Blaise Pascal

      Go away troll. I doubt you ever opened the Bible.

      • Scott W.

        I doubt he even read the article.

        • Asmondius

          It’s instructive to see the latest mode of argument – note how this post coincides with the current ‘you can’t discriminate against people based on who they love’ theme.

          • fredx2

            And so this applies with equal force to those who “love” horses.

            • Asmondius

              The word ‘love’, like the word ‘hate’, has become a meaningless term in our times.

    • GG

      Deviant acts are never loving.

    • There’s no right to state sanctioned perversion. The state may bend itself to evil, of course, but that’s not in the interest of human flourishing. The state cannot create rights.

    • Homosexuals do not love, they only join together in hate. Indiana just proved that beyond any shadow of doubt.

      • Secundius

        @ Theodore Seeber.

        That’s lke saying “All Southern Baptists” that Hate, are members of the Klu Klux Klan…

        • It is more like saying that heterosexual it intends good for the spouse when done correctly because procreation is good. Homosexuality and other less procrative forms of heterosexuality, do not intend good, and therefore are not love.

    • mugger malcolmridge

      Have you given any thought to exactly how homosexuals consumate their “marriage”? The homosexual lifestyle has been described as more dangerous than cigarette smoking.

      By the way, is anyone else surprised to learn that pizza is a staple feature of homosexual “wedding” receptions?

      • AnneM040359

        The homosexual lifestyle is a “sinful lifestyle choice.”

    • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

      I commend your honesty in putting “Christian” with a small “c.” That is indeed your concept of Christianity.

      • Jim in Pittsburgh

        Touché!

    • Glenn M. Ricketts

      What “basic human rights” are you talking about? Where do they come from? Can you identify some of them? How do they stack up against the very clear First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom in the United States?

    • Asmondius

      The path to ‘love’ is not found via the excretory system.

      • John200

        …nor by destroying the south end of the person “loved” in homo”sex”ual activity.

        You should see 1-2 of the pictures, that’s all you need. They will make you as sick as the pitiful “lover.”

        • Asmondius

          I can discern the sickness just from some of the comments from supporters.

    • fredx2

      You call it love. Why do you call it that? It is a good PR word, but does it reflect reality? Google “gay marriage” and “monogamy”. You will find that that “love” seems to get spread around an awful lot.

    • Alexandra

      @ A christian: homosexual persons already have their basic rights as human beings, as persons of their real gender, either a female or a male from birth. But this is not enough for them, as you must know, they want their immoral behavior to be made lawful and normal.

    • mollysdad

      If you leave sodomites at liberty, then at least some of them will agitate for homosexualism to become the official religion of the State.

      Christianity and sodomy can’t coexist indefinitely in the same society.

    • Nonny

      Friends who commented below, let’s assume that “a christian”s question is sincere. My reply is:
      Homosexual people may truly feel love for one another, just like best friends of the same sex can feel real love for each other. But in their case it is confused and mixed up with a disordered sexuality, leading to acts that are not the reasonable use of the human body parts, and which are against God’s law–he didn’t make us for that. Sodomy especially is not what those parts were made for, at all. In fact, people who engage in it for years end up with serious damage to their bodies. It’s revolting to any reasonable person. That’s why if a man rapes a woman and sodomizes her, we all react with even more horror than to other rapes…because we all know that it is a terrible invasion of the body. We must have COMPASSION for people who have a disorder, but that does not mean that it is right use of the parts. So we are all for real human rights – no one should be bullied, attacked, denied housing, etc… but it is not a human right to force everyone to say your behavior is real marriage when it is not.
      Basic common sense, if you look at the bodies of men and women, and their psychological makeup, and the purpose of sex (to reproduce the species), you can see that men are not designed to go with men, nor women with women. Rather, clearly men and women go together, for the furthering of the human race in a loving permanent commitment of marriage.
      Not all loves that people feel are right. For example, some people are attracted to children. And there are actually groups that even promote this in our country, and say there’s nothing wrong with it. They are wrong, as any normal person can see!! But if everything is just based on your “feelings,” who can say they’re wrong? You have to use reason to see what is correct.
      Now, it’s one thing for people to say that we should not bother people who are gay. We are all against laws that would put them in jail or something like that, that’s not appropriate at all. But it’s something else to try to force all of us to pretend that their ways are normal, and to fine and attack us and even threaten us with jail (Illinois couple who owns a chapel) just because we can see that this is not the same as real marriage and can’t support it because it’s against our religion, which teaches true marriage and sexual purity.
      Does that make sense?
      I apologize for anyone attacking you below.

      • Nonny

        And I want to add, that to anyone who is dealing with same sex attraction: God loves you. Even so, He didn’t make you for those kinds of acts, and you can overcome that to be the pure and holy person he wants you to be…just like the rest of us can, by His grace, overcome our temptations, even the ones that seem the most overpowering, even the ones we just don’t think we should have to give up. He is worth it, He will sustain you. Some people, not just those with homosexual attraction, but some other people too, have desires that are not God’s will, and that may make it necessary for them to live a chaste life. If you are faithful, He will fill your life with strength and peace, even if you remain single and chaste – don’t be afraid. There are others out there who can walk with you – the group Courage, for example. God made you for true love, His love!!!

  • Vinny

    With the success of the crowd sourcing funding for that Indiana pizza parlor, why not get Christians and others to support those businesses which stand for their faith?

    The pizza place doesn’t need all that has been pledged but people are voting with their dollars. If business owners know that standing for their faith will not deprive them of their income or cost them legal expenses, then they can be more courageous, and more will speak out, and we’ll have a snowball effect.

    What we need though to avoid fraud is to have the business and owners vetted. We need a trusted Christian organization to take the reins in this regard.

    • Scott W.

      Excellent point. I’ve been saying that Christians need to be creative in finding ways to resist the pervertarian juggernaut, but it does need a vetting system to separate the wheat from the chaff.

  • Scott W.

    Great pic. Pass it on:

  • The problem is not homosexuality. The problem is that a civilization that denies tradition is not sustainable. Homosexuality, contraception, abortion, and divorce, the fruits of the sexual revolution, are mere symptoms of the underlying problem of the inability of dysfunctional families to pass on civilization, including the faith.

    • Watosh

      This is the underlying problem, the source. Change is a fact associated with living, but this should not blind us to the fact that this does not mean that things that are forbidden are subject to change. Why was there a forbidden fruit in the garden of eden? I believe it was to tell us that while we can do many things, some things we must not do, or we will ruin our existence.

  • Steve Frank

    “There is no proof that homosexuality is an innate, inborn state or “orientation.”

    This is my only quibble with this otherwise excellent article. While I agree with this statement, I think we are playing into the hands of the left when we make this the main argument. The left has convinced the public that “science” has declared homosexuality to be innate. With all of the media and academia echoing this myth, it’s next to impossible to win this debate by getting sidetracked on the question of whether homosexuality is innate or not. What we have to make people realize is that it is unimportant whether homosexuality is inborn. All kinds of impulses toward destructive behavior can be the result of innate genetic characteristics….anger, agressiveness that can lead to violence, drug abuse. What about other sexual perversions like pedophelia…what if that were somehow proven to be innate? The point is that whether impulses toward behavior are “chosen” or not tells us NOTHING about whether they are good, healthy and helpful for human flourishing. We need to call a spade and spade and make it clear to people that these assaults on religious liberty are anti-constitutional and anti-Christian. People are free to agitate for whatever totalitarian laws or measures they wish, but they have no right to claim that they are acting the historic tradition of American freedom or Christian morality. The fact is they are trying to undermine both.

    • Davis

      It’s true that the innate-ness theory has dominated the public sphere. This means that as Christians, it’s our responsibility to push back and offer examples of persons who have altered their sexual orientation as a choice. Two examples that immediately come to mind: Rosaria Butterfield (see “My Train-Wreck Conversion” in Christianity Today), and the author of the book Orange Is The New Black.

      • Steve Frank

        Fair point, although I didn’t mean to imply we should never argue against the innate-ness theory. I just don’t see how it’s relevant to the author’s overall point in this particular article about the totalitarian tactics of the gay mafia. I felt that the author was shifting the debate to an argument the left is much more comfortable with, namely whether homosexuality is innate. Even if it could be proven 100% that it is indeed innate, it would not change the author’s main point at all. The constitutionality of an act is not dependent on whether the human impulse toward such an act is innate or not, it is dependent on what the constitution actually says.

      • Never mind that a handful of people make this claim which is unsupported by any research. Never mind the fact that every professional medical, counseling and sociological organization has concluded that sexual orientation is innate and unalterable. That all goes out the window because a couple of people claim to have prayed away the gay. Sure.

        • Hesychast

          Please post a link to a professional study that has concluded that sexual orientation is innate and unalterable. Thanks.

          • Asmondius

            Rip Van Winkle here – still waiting…..

        • Steve Frank

          “Never mind the fact that every professional medical, counseling and sociological organization has concluded that sexual orientation is innate and unalterable”

          That’s like saying “every” citizen of the Soviet Union voted for the Communist party candidate prior to Glasnost. It’s funny how punishment and ostracism for dissent have a way of creating unanimity isn’t it?

          When you start with the premise that any “professional” organization that doesn’t support the pro-homosexual agenda is not truly a professional organization, then it’s pretty easy to argue that 100% of the professionals are on your side. It’s the same trick used in many other debates and it works: if you don’t believe in Darwinian evolution you are not a “real” scientist. If you don’t believe in global warming dogma then you are not a “real” meteorologist. Using these tricks of course you can easily argue that 100% of the real experts are on your side. What else can be expected when anyone who dissents to the prevailing orthodoxy is declared a “non-expert” by his very dissension. It’s heads I win tails you lose.

          • disqus_qkOcYNTXOW

            Ah yes….Recently saw a meteorologist being criticized on Twitter because someone found out he wasn’t sure about anthropogenic global warming.

        • maineman

          Dear Boiled, as a clinical psychologist with 30 years of experience and a history of membership in such organizations, now revoked because of their accumulating insanity, and with full knowledge of said literature, I regret to inform you that you are full of baloney.

          • Tony

            PONTICOLAE NON PASCENDI: Don’t feed the trolls.

            We need to discuss among ourselves what course to take to bring back to sanity a mad and increasingly helpless nation.

            Stay on topic. Bridge-dwellers are not to be fed. Don’t feed the trolls.

          • ForChristAlone

            FYI, Dr Edward Hanin, a psychiatrist and practicing homosexual who trained at a Catholic hospital in NYC was instrumental in having the diagnosis of homosexuality removed from the DSM. See: American Psychiatry and Homosexuality: An Oral History
            edited by Jack Drescher, Joseph P. Merlino

        • AnneM040359

          In truth, it is a “sinful lifestyle choice”.

        • Asmondius

          Scares the daylight out of you, doesn’t it?

    • Nonny

      The fact is, it doesn’t matter if it is inborn. Not everything people are born with is normal. People are born with all kinds of disorders. That is not a license to force everyone in the world to call their disorder “normal.”

  • AcceptingReality

    Good, clear, common sense article Mr. Krason! I told a friend last week that I personally don’t buy into “so-called” gay marriage. He argued that I had to accept it because it’s the law of the land. I replied that I was, and would remain, Catholic first, American second. He told me if I couldn’t subordinate my Catholic faith the prevailing attitudes in American culture I should leave the country. He said I had no right to stay if I was going to observe my faith instead of adopt cultural attitudes…..The fact is that this is not about “gay rights”. It’s about attacking Christians, making them pay and driving them out of the public square. Think about it. Why aren’t they targeting Muslim owned businesses and asking them to bake wedding cakes or provide flowers?

    • Seamrog

      “He told …I should leave the country. He said I had no right to stay…”

      Remarkably, I see this quite often. This is nothing short of tyranny.

      These people literally have no comprehension of our Constitution or our history.

      • Siwash

        Right. There is a lack of understanding of our political history as Americans and a careless view of the Constitution.

        • Veritas

          The public education system, controlled by progressives for the last century, has had a long head start laying the groundwork.

      • FrankW

        Short of dividing our current nation into two nations, and allowing religious conservatives our own place to practice our faith without government harassment, I’m starting to think there might be better places to live. I do not see an end to this persecution. Of course, this sounds familiar for those of us who know history.

        We know a family which left the US for a South American nation to start over about two years ago. One of the reasons they gave was that abortion and homosexuality were illegal there, and they wouldn’t have so much trouble raising their children in a societal cesspool that the US has become. Maybe they are ahead the curve on this.

        • Nonny

          This isn’t persecution yet, but harassment…but it will be persecution, and we need to prepare. Are we ready to poor, to go to jail, to be hated, to be attacked by mobs if we speak the truth…and even to go to our graves without ever being vindicated on this earth? Because it’s coming. People who are this vicious on social media and in news comboxes are not going to be nice and peaceful to us when they have the legal upper hand.
          Which South American nation was that?
          I was just thinking this morning that if I didn’t have a family reason to stay here, I would seriously be thinking of moving away. On the other hand, why should we abandon our fellow believers (those of us who are Christian) for safety elsewhere?

          • mollysdad

            Are we prepared to respond to mob attacks with justified violence of our own? For we will be persecuted not for our faith as such, but for our determination to protect public goods of such vital importance that God decreed the death penalty for sodomy.

            • AnneM040359

              It will not surprise me that we could very well see a very violent angry backlash to come.

            • Akira88

              It seems you describe a coming Sodom & Gomorrah where homosexuals will demand to take the men from the home to sodomize them.

              Many years ago in the military in AIT lesbian women constantly harassed me, tried to crawl in my bed … it was horrible. Couldn’t tell the CO because she was lesbian as well. It was horrible.

          • FrankW

            As for staying or leaving, I leave that for each family to determine for themselves as to how they see their needs and priorities, hopefully after much prayer and guidance from the Holy Spirit. The answer will not be the same for everyone. The family I spoke of now lives in Chile.

          • AnneM040359

            I sense that with the purchease of arms over the last couple of years by Americans, including those who are Christian,and do not be surprise if a violent, angry backlash will come from all this harassment of Christians.

      • Nonny

        They don’t care. This is where sexual hedonism gets you – people become enslaved to sensual pleasure, and it destroys the ability to think clearly. Huge portions of our population are total slaves to sensuality and comfort…and I mean heterosexual people, not just those with same sex attraction. Sin dulls the intelligence, and addiction to sin leads to viciousness… the more perverse the sin, the more this is true. So you get angry people who are willing to hate and harm others for the sake of their desires, and who can no longer use reason to sort out the truth… These folks have nothing in common with MLK and true civil rights protestors, who used persuasion and peaceful civil disobedience, not oppression and tyranny and hateful, curse-filled filthy social media attacks.
        And the old “it’s the law” argument is totally bogus. Slavery was once the law. Segregation was once the law. In countries under Sharia Muslim law, killing people who leave Islam is the law. In Nazi Germany, killing the sick, disabled, terminally ill and otherwise unwanted was the law – all totally legal, the concentration camps, the murder of 11 million people including 6 million Jews. It was all “the law.” Laws can be wrong. That is why we have to use objective moral standards.

        • AnneM040359

          Got to remember that this is based on a very “sinful lifestyle choice.”

      • HigherCalling

        The legal impossibility of a Christian polity in America is formally declared in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The so-called ‘free speech’ and ‘free exercise’ clauses of the First Amendment are purely secular mandates. They are a rejection of the Catholic notion of the common good, mandating that there be no restraint whatsoever on things that damage souls and ultimately destroy the State itself. They grant as lawful precisely what many popes have called unlawful: unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, of writing, and of worship — as if these were so many rights given by nature to man. The language of the First Amendment reflects the Protestant-borne, Enlightenment-bred faith of the deistic Framers in the ability of unaided human reason to define and sustain liberty apart from Trinitarian Truth; that is, without a cooperative effort by the Church and the State. Thus, all manner of violations of natural and divine law, including the “right” to murder children in the womb, and the coming “right” to “marry” someone of the same sex, are found lurking in the secular mandates of the First Amendment. The true Church foresees these errors. Oddly enough, the Secular State itself will not be able to endure its own mandates.

        • Watosh

          Ah yes, it is rare to see someone delineate the Catholic position in this land where Liberty, Equality and Fraternity are the sacred secular trinity that Americans are taught to revere as sacred. Many, if not most Americans, Catholics included, look to the Constitution for their support, when they should realize that Catholic thought is the true solution.

          • HigherCalling

            Thanks, Watosh. This is indeed the Catholic position, and yet I read in this comment thread over a dozen “conservative” Catholics invoking and defending the Godless Constitution as if it were fully compatible with Catholic teaching or with the Social Kingship of Christ. The secular, Western democracies have accomplished what enemies of the Church could not achieve for centuries — the unwitting, if not willful, catalepsy of the Church before the Secular State. The First Amendment has trumped the First Commandment, effectively placing Americanist Catholics in the position of conceding the Catholic definition of liberty to the Secular definition — alleging that Secular liberty, based in error, is somehow an improvement on Catholic liberty, based in the Truth that makes and keeps us free.

            • Joseph

              How should one make legal arguments to non-Catholics? And speaking of legal arguments and Catholics, we have 6 Catholics on the Supreme Court (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor). Do any cite Catholic doctrine in their decisions?

          • Albert8184

            Theocracy is not the solution. As history has shown over and over and over again. Evil men merely become theocrats in that case… because they seek the easiest road to power.

            • Watosh

              I don’t believe that I ever said theocracy was the solution. It is not a Catholic position. Again it is interesting that people are led to believe that we only have two choices, the secular democratic state or a theocracy. Not true. There is a Catholic position that is neither, but holds that the state as well as persons are under God’s laws.

              • Albert8184

                You didn’t say it explicity, but in expressing your agreement with HigherCalling’s posts, you would seem to express support for what amounts to a theocracy in practice. I could be mistaken.

                My belief is that we have only two choices upon which to base any government framework: EIther a transcendant God as the source of rights and obligations, or a secular state that asserts itself in the place of God.

                Within either of these two basic choices is a host of options both good and bad.. But I don’t think the “secular trinity” you mentioned is understood today as it was perceived by the founders. Today’s is a counterfeit.

                • Watosh

                  Well when one limits their comments to a few sentences, one cannot always precisely qualify every statement. And people, I have noticed, often like to create straw men to knock down with their wisdom.

                  I am sorry, but I reread my remarks and the remarks of HigherCalling and I really didn’t see where either I or HigherCalling’s comments amounts to supporting a theocracy in practice. What I did get on rereading these comments was that what we said was largely in agreement with your comment above.

                  It is easy to read things into comments, in the desire to make a point, but I have to plead not guilty of implicitly supporting a theocracy just because I and HigherCalling expressed that the basing of any government framework on God rather than the secular state, is a Catholic position, without specifying any particular framework in the coupe of paragraphs that we had at our disposal, which is Largely your position too I gather. A government framework based on God does not necessarily amount to calling for a theocracy. Let us not argue when we essentially are in agreement.

                  • Albert8184

                    I agree. You and I can be of one accord.

        • This is excellent.

        • mtejklova

          I still think that separation of Church and State is necessary. You simply cannot force people to become Catholics.. The problem is not neutral secular state (respecting the natural law and human dignity), but ideological state, imposing its absurd ideas on everybody.

          • MarcAlcan

            But is that not precisely what is already happening now? An ideological secular state imposing its absurd ideas on everybody?

            • mtejklova

              Exactly (here in Europe, too). It is only more “visible” from Catholic point of view, because Catholics must oppose any false system. But I would say that the present ideology ultimately conflicts with the reason of any man.

          • HigherCalling

            Church–State separation is opposed to Catholic teaching. But the Church does not call for a Catholic theocracy in any sense. The question is whether the secular state and its resultant godless constitutions are, in fact, “neutral” at all, especially when its very godlessness is a violation of natural law and human dignity (natural law ultimately links human nature to its final cause: God). In the secular state the free exercise of religion is designed not so much for the expansion of religious liberty, but for the protection of the all-powerful state from religious influence. Thus all religions, regardless of their doctrinal and moral legitimacy, are neutralized before the State. Perhaps this will help (note its date of publication):

            http://ouronehope.blogspot.com/2014/03/catholicity-necessary-to-sustain.html

            • mtejklova

              Thank you for the reply. I think it depends on how you define “neutral state”, “religious liberty” or if somebody abuses these terms for their own goals. For example, the state should not force people to celebrate Christmas. But it must force people to do some things, like taking care of their children and so on.

            • Serviam

              I love your comments on here. So well articulated. Over the passed several years after reading and studying Church history such as the polity of the Holy Roman Empire as well as the multiple papal encyclicals denouncing the heresy of Americaism and Liberalism in general I’ve come to realize the same thing, which is that our democratic form of government is opposed to Church teaching.

              Most Americans and even practicing Catholics themselves have not been exposed to this point of view. As Americans we’ve been brainwashed since grade school to believe in Separation of Church and State and the other Enlightenment heresies of Liberty and Franternity which are also highly Masonic principles.

              The problem inherent in the Constitution is that it is based on Humanistic philosophy and puts the Rights of Man above the Rights of God. It was doomed from the start.

              I encourage all good Catholics to truly study the history of Catholic states such as the Holy Roman Empire of the Middle Ages as well as the Byzantine Empire prior to schism.

              Most people don’t realize that in both of these confessional states the king or emperor was not a Divine Right sort of tyrant. This is the propaganda that democracies have been spreading since the days of Oliver Cromwell. In the Holy Roman Empire the emperor was elected by the local princes and the princes of the Church ie Cardinals, it was not a hereditary office. The Pope had a veto over the election of the emperor as well. In this way it is similar to a republican form of government but without universal suffrage. An interesting fact of this is that the College of Cardinals, the princes of the Church, which was first instituted as a part of the Holy Roman Empire to both elect the Pope and along with the local princes elect the Emeror.

              The emperor only had power in matters of defense and to raise an army in defense of the temporal state. The local princes had complete jurisdiction over their small territories without interference from the higher government in accordance with our social teaching of Subsidiarity. If a prince or a emperor suppressed his subjects in an unjust way the local bishop or the Pope had the right to depose or excummincate the prince or emperor. This veto power of the bishops acted as a heck and balance over the regent, but the bishops did not govern the state as in a theocracy.

              This government formed what we call Christendom from the time of Constatine and the Eastern Roman Empire on through to Emperor Charlemagne in the west and the Holy Roman Emerors and ending with the last western emperor being overthrown by Napoleon in the early 19th century.

              What we look back fondly on as Catholics as the glory of Christendom was governed and ruled by this form of government which essentially puts the Rights Of God over the Rights of Man.

              Constitutional government did exist within the framework of Christendom though at the level of the Pricipality, ie local government. Examples of this would be the Swiss Cantons, Venice, and Florence.

              This form of government recognized that it’s rights and its laws were not above that of Gods laws. We must return to this philosophical idea and form of government if we ever want to Restore the glory days of Christendom. A democratic form of constitional government that doesn’t put Gods laws above itself in the form of His ordained bishops allows the devil an easy path to prey on the souls of the faithful and none faithful alike.

              One God, One Church, One Emperor.

              Mary Mother of God, PRAY FOR US!!

          • Albert8184

            Correct.

        • Albert8184

          I don’t buy your premise. The Constitution doesn’t necessitate the anarchic lawlessness we have in today’s society. The problem is that we have allowed ourselves to be hornswaggled into a corrupted interpretation of the Constitution, created incrementally by Marxists and progressive humanists as a means to an end.

          The biggest proof of your error lies in the efforts of the radical Left Wingers to destroy the Constitution. They realize the difficulties and obstacles it imposes on their dreams and aspirations for tyranny based in the rule of fallen men.

          • HigherCalling

            The Constitution itself has “utterly failed to safeguarded this nation’s founding vision,” precisely because it implicitly rejects the very means necessary to sustain liberty. We are not witnessing the corruption of the Constitution, but the fulfillment of it. To say that the Church, which was ridiculed by Enlightenment philosophers and loathed by the Founders, has failed the the secular founding vision of America is to call guilty the very thing rejected in the founding vision. Tax exemptions for the religious institutions are granted by the State in order to off-set

            • Albert8184

              I see your point. I agree with most of what you say, especially the implications of modern liberalism. But the Constitution is a piece of paper, written by fallible men. No human system can endure the corruption of humans themselves.

              • HigherCalling

                (Sorry for all the edits. For some reason it kept posting before I was finished). Yes, every man-made system has within it the seeds for its own destruction. But from a Catholic perspective, it seems that those destructive seeds will eventually and inevitably take firm root in a system that intentionally refuses to acknowledge a higher lawful authority from the get-go.

                • Albert8184

                  I don’t think they did fail to acknowledge God. But what I think is they failed to see the loopholes they created in a good document, and I definitely don’t think they foresaw the rise of the Left Wing and Marxist critical theory as being the greatest threat to Western Civilization in a thousand years.

    • Scott W.

      I’ve run into this “law of the land” nonsense before. In one discussion with a same-sex “marriage” advocate a hypothetical was posed: suppose in the name of “family diversity” a law was passed requiring heterosexual couples to give up babies to same-sex couples. Would he obey it? After lots of hemming and hawing and dodging the question, he finally answered that he would. The funny thing is that on the way to getting him to admit that he would obey that law, he said he would have returned an escaped slave to his master under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. He said he would tolerate the lesser injustice of returning the slave to the greater injustice of breaking the law. Now just how returning the slave was the “lesser” injustice wasn’t clear, but the insanity of absolute obedience to statutory law was. In the end it points to what progressivism is all about: we have no god but Caesar.

      • jimbo_jones

        Your associate’s convictions follow the doctrines of “positive law”. Those go hand-in-hand with the doctrines of utilitarianism. Both utilitarianism and positive law were championed by the Napoleonic era British lunatic Jeremy Bentham.

        Under the utilitarian/positive law combo, the fulfillment of one’s every whim is the ultimate good; and the will of the strong the ultimate law.

        • Mark

          Yes, jimbo_jones, all based on metaphysical absurdities. Philosophically founded in Nietzsche’s will to power dialectic and at once in utter defiance of the law of contradiction. These minions of Lucifer believe that somehow they can create law, at its essence, which can only lead one into subjugation to Lucifer. The entire premise is based in absurdity, as whenever Reality is jettisoned, only absurdity can manifest. They believe that “being” begets “non-being”, and that being and non-being then somehow combine to form “becoming”. This is the metaphysical foundation which underpins a so called “living” U.S. Constitution or a “progressive” Church doctrine. It is all the same absurdity proffered by the original Liar himself, Lucifer.

          • Albert8184

            Indeed Mark. Constructivism is the sand foundation of the Left Wing. “Truth is whatever we need it to be, at the moment”.

      • AnneM040359

        We are coming to a time when “civil disobedience” will be more of a reality in this society.

        • Jim in Pittsburgh

          I agree. But as Jesus said, we must be wise as serpents and gentle as doves (I didn’t look up the exact quote.

      • Akira88

        What a bizarre story. It’s so sad it’s true. The thinking on your friend’s part is so perverse! It’s like the whole country is turning into Pottersville. The Church in America has been silent too long. Bishops and priests need to throw caution to the wind. You’re story tells a bigger story – there is an inability to form the moral conscience that leads us to follow good laws. Just plain breaks my heart.

        • MarcAlcan

          We can’t wait for the Bishops for too many of them have sold out. Now is the time of the laity.

    • fredx2

      But it is NOT law of the land. Only a handful of states have passed such laws. in the main, they have been imposed on unwilling states by radical federal courts that are attempting to take over the powers of the legislature. Since this behavior is grossly unconstitutional, it is the courts that should be driven out of this country. No provision in the constitution gives them the power to decide public issues simply because someone files a lawsuit. That is an abuse of the (limited) powers that have been given to the courts.

      • Nonny

        In June, it will be, we can be 90% sure. In the Supreme Courts last decision on this matter, the majority made it clear that they think the only reason people oppose gay “marriage” is malice. Scalia pointed out how awful that was, but this is where the majority was. We need to fast and pray, because after June things are going to become very difficult for real believers, and others who can still use common sense, in this country.

        • Jacqueleen

          The only ones to gain are the lawyers who handle all of the lawsuits against churches who refuse to marry gays or polygamists or those who prefer bestiality…..The courts will be busy and perhaps that is why they are deciding these cases that way…..for more business if you will!

          • AnneM040359

            Sadly I seen a very, very, very violent angry backlash coming against those who push ssm.

            • Taussig

              what exactly are catholics and christians going to do?

          • michelle

            Jackie A. is that you? It is Michelle.

            • Jacqueleen

              No. However, I agree with your post.

        • Asmondius

          Some of the first issues will be where today the Church operates with government funds – religious exemptions will disappear from government grants and contracts. We have seen this already with the care of human trafficking victims and some adoption agencies.
          At some point the Church will most likely lose its authorization to validate marriage licenses for the state.
          .
          There will be increasing instances of Catholic institutions being sued or prosecuted or cited for not allowing or removing openly homosexual or ‘transsexual’ actors from their payrolls. Homosexual parents will present their children for admission to parochial school and the sacraments and demand that their role as valid parents be affirmed. Faithful post-secondary institutions may find their credentials challenged.
          .
          The worst is that the homosexual issue may just be the tip of the spear. Once the Church has been constrained in this regard, abortion, contraception, transsexualism and worse will be in play.
          .
          The trend of today is that sexual rights take precedent over religious rights, whether we like it or not. Society is in the process of sticking its head in the sand just as the Church did during the 50’s and 60’s, only the results will be of a much more horrific magnitude. As usual, it will be the children (born and unborn) who suffer the most.

    • Been hearing this about abortion for well nigh on 30 years now. It isn’t a sufficient excuse for bigotry.

    • AnneM040359

      They are not going to any Muslim-owned business because they know what the Muslim position towards gays are. Christians have to be firm in their faith. Faith first.

      • Jason

        There is another reason they target Christians and not Muslims, it is because they have a particular spite against Christians since it is the faith they rejected. They are fueled by spite that takes their minds back to being 12 and angry at everything that doesn’t affirm all the things their developing half functioning brains thought back then.

    • John O’Neill

      Catholic first, American second is a sound stand. However, back in 1960 the one and only allegedly Roman Catholic president John F. Kennedy appeared at a Baptist ministers’ convention and announced that he would always be an American first and a Catholic second. This was praised by the soi pensant press as the turning point for his victory. The Kennedy family then spent most of the decades following his election proving to the Americans that they would always put American political wisdom in the fore front of their beliefs. It must be understood that the American democrat who is Catholic will always side with the complete opposite of the Church. There are always the Joe Biden Catholics, the Nancy Pelosi Catholics, the Bob Casey Catholics, the Jerry Brown Catholics et al. who will gladly lead the charge on traditional Catholic morality and feel great about the opportunity to trash their so called religious beliefs.

    • Jude

      >>The fact is that this is not about “gay rights”. It’s about attacking Christians, making them pay and driving them out of the public square.<<

      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3276108/posts

      This article
      explains that "there two 'governments' which comprise the two main federal
      governmental powers of our one constitutional government."

      CONSTITUTIONAL LAW describes our inalienable GOD GIVEN HUMAN
      RIGHTS. These cannot be changed or challenged.

      The other laws are CORPORATE LAWS which are based on limited GOVERNMENT-GRANTED privileges. Corporations have NO RIGHTS. They only get to argue whether the way they are treated is beneficial to the federal government, or not. These federal statutes only apply to corporations , not individuals. In effect, they are corporate policies for the federal government. These federal policies may be changed at any time to suit the needs of the federal
      government. Right now, the federal government finds it beneficial to enforce corporate homosexual privileges over corporate Christian privileges. But this can change.

      CORPORATE LAW is the invisible secret weapon that the Left is using against Christians. We need to understand this in order to engage and win this battle.

      Please read this entire article by “Talisker” and ponder how we Christians can challenge these government granted privileges.

    • Albert8184

      Well, tell him that he sounds like a fascist. We knew all along the Left Wing is the true face of fascism – despite their assurances to the contrary blaming the Right Wing.

  • Pat Denzer

    JMJ The first Victim of the Homosexual Mafia is Psychiatry, by the forced removal of Homosexuality from the DSM II in 1973. That’s when it all began. Romans 1

  • publiusnj

    The Christian movement is split. First, by Protestantism. The traditional Protestant sects are discounted and balanced off by the ever more openly gay friendly protestant sects and those that purposely step away from the fight. Second, by Cataholicism. This Pope we have is dithering in hopes that the gays can be brought into the Church. Of course they can but only if the Church gives up on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Because the pope is dithering, his USCCB is dithering too. As a result, even Republican politicians see no reason to fight the Gay Agenda very hard. Why should they? The USCCB is even more likely to condemn Republicans on immigration issues than to condemn Democrats by name on Abortion, Gay Marriage or any of the other hostt of issues where Democrats have just abandoned traditional Morality.

    Politicians are bean-counters. A Christian Movement that accounts for 78% of the American populace counts for very little to the bean counters because it is split roughly evenly between Reps and Dems (maybe 3-4% plurality to the Republicans) The Christian Movement needs to stop being so split up if it is to have any role in American life. That takes leadership and there is none.

  • publiusnj

    Also: we need to be smarter in opposing Gay Marriage. The baker got nailed for refusing to bake a wedding cake AT ALL. Just recently, though, a Colorado baker who had been asked to bake a cake with an anti-Gay Marriage message was absolved of any bias by Colorado’s Discrimination Commission for refusing to go along because he was willing to sell a cake but not to decorate it. See http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/denvers-azucar-bakery-wins-right-to-refuse-to-make-anti-gay-cake

    That is precisely what I have proposed several times. The selling of a cake is a “public accommodation” issue, but its decoration is fraught with First Amendment Speech concerns. If anti-Gay Marriage bakers simply refused to decorate a gay wedding cake but were willing to sell a “generic undecorated cake,” they might be able to make their protest without legal exposure.

    No one should give up on opposition to Gay Marriage in the wake of the likely USSC decision in June, but we will need to come up with smarter strategies to show the USSC that its dictatorial dictates are no more likely to persuade the American Public than its dictatorial action in Roe v Wade and its “progeny.”

    • winslow

      The strategies have been spelled out by Professor Krason in his essay. What we need now is to organize and publicize. Perhaps someone who’s adept at that sort of thing could set up a website and get the word out. There is strength in numbers and if homosexuals can do it with a minority, Christians ought to be able to run them down.

    • Nonny

      Interesting about the selling vs. decorating, I didn’t know that… One can see how that could apply regarding florists as well – selling flowers is one thing. Being asked to do the flowers for a wedding, however, involves getting really involved in the event and lending a kind of support to it.
      On the other hand, the photographer in NM was fined for not being willing to photograph such an event, and that surely is an artistic/free speech issue too.

      • publiusnj

        It is a distinction I see between a “public accommodation” activity such as cake baking and activities fraught with speech content such as decoration or photographing. Would a court buy it? Most would struggle against doing so, but even the struggle is worth seeing. Judges are usually just parts of the Governing Machine and it is good to make the Machine commit itself to a theory.

        As far as the “doing the flowers for the wedding,” a Vendor can say: “I will provide you any flowers you order from me, if you just specify them. I do not think, though, that you would want to enter into any consulting arrrangement that requires me to provide creative support for your Gay Wedding. I am opposed to Gay Weddings and that opposition will be central to my decorating ideas for such a wedding. I got into weddings back when this state and all (or most of) this country stood firmly against Gay Marriage. The only positive wedding ideas I have are for heterosexual weddings. If I had to think about gay marriages, you might not like the ideas I would have. They would be, at a minimum, censorious of any such wedding.”

        Another thing is that when a buyer asks a Christian vendor to provide services to a Gay Wedding, why should the vendor take the risky step of refusing totally to provide the services? Why can’t the Christian Vendor say: “I’ll provide the services to the extent that they constitute a public accommodation, but you need to understand that I am opposed to Gay Marriage and will not take any steps that would seem to be an endorsement of the Gay Marriage, nor will I engage in any artistic activities in connection with the Marriage. Indeed, if you or any guest engage in conduct in front of me that I find offensive, I will let the offender know that I disapprove of the activities. If you want my service on those grounds, I will provide them.”

        If an affirmative response is still received, the Christian vendor should ask: ” I will ask you to sign a statement releasing me from any liability for my free speech activities and indemnifying me against any damages resulting therefrom.”

    • Jim in Pittsburgh

      What “likely USCC decision in June? I confess I’m ignorant on this one. Please enlighten me.

      • publiusnj

        Sorry. Typo: USSC.

        • Jim in Pittsburgh

          Thanks

  • somebigguy

    I’ve been appalled by the lack of character displayed by leaders in state and local governments, as well as in the US military. Does no one (save, perhaps, Bobby Jindal) have a backbone anymore?

    In 2011, the US Merchant Marine Academy became the last of the federal service academies to establish a so-called “unity club.” (Evidently, the military itself isn’t unifying enough for the social engineers of the Democrat Party, under whom all this has occurred; the unwritten purpose of such clubs is, of course, the normalization of homosexuality among the military’s future leadership.) My son, who was a plebe at the time, voiced his personal disapproval; he did so privately, yet was branded a bigot and hate monger. Around the same time, the school’s popular and accomplished superintendent was summarily dismissed after discovering that the second-in-command of the Maritime Administration– an Obama administration appointee and vocal homosexual– had been frequenting social events at the academy for the purpose of meeting young men. None of this, unsurprisingly, ever made the evening news.

    My son left the academy at the end of his plebe year and has never looked back.

    • fredx2

      These are the things that no longer may be voiced in our society. Question: what kind of society routinely hides truth? A fascist one.

      • somebigguy

        Which is exactly what the US is becoming, of course. We wouldn’t be discussing any of this if the new-age fascists of our dominant atheistic culture weren’t in power, violating the Constitution.

  • maineman

    This problem goes deeper (or higher) than the political and does not seem to lend itself to political interventions such as those being suggested, not that they shouldn’t be attempted.

    What we are dealing with is a cultural inversion that replaces general acceptance of the First Commandment with worship of the will, essentially a replication of the original sin. It will not be as easy to reorient the residue of western civilization, which has effectively elevated the self to divine status, as it was a pagan culture that already recognized the existence of something above and beyond itself.

    The mess we are in is just now becoming apparent, and from where I sit it looks like the prospect for reversal hinges entirely on the coming chastisement or perhaps less harsh, but apparently and sadly undeserved, divine intervention.

    • Nonny

      I think you are right, and one of our problems is that even many religious leaders make nice political arguments where zealous calls for conversion and repentance are in order. The root of all of these things is the spiritual battle. And that is why repentance and conversion is ultimately the only hope. People who know and believe and follow Jesus do not do, nor go along with, such sinful things as we have in this nation.
      Experience shows that people whose hearts have become really hard usually only repent if they hit rock bottom, or when they hear powerful, Spirit-filled preaching of the truth of Jesus Christ. Many, many souls are in grave peril, and the earthly peril we face is NOTHING compared to the eternal peril we all face if we don’t repent and turn from sin. Including us–our sins of omission are a big part of why people are so far from God.

    • Tamsin

      Yes. In the popular culture, self-reported sexual orientation is considered more real, and more worthy of government protection, than any self-reported religion. Pretty wild. The word “religion” itself has come into disrepute. Self-reported Catholic (and Supreme Court Justice of the United States) Anthony Kennedy famously reduced all of religion to an “irrational animus”.

      So the sexual revolution has taught us to believe that we are duty-bound to express our sexuality, our changing relationship to our individual sexual response, rather than duty-bound to a transcendent God. Individual sexual response has become the one omnipotent god each human animal must obey. And older humans are duty-bound to teach this duty to younger humans. Crazy!

      It is all so horrible, but I pray that we can still change hearts and minds by continuing to witness to the truth that man should not worship his sexual response. I think there is some running room to argue that gays are trying to establish their religion as the religion of the United States, in contravention of the clear words of the First Amendment.

  • Ann Hessenius

    Great article…..Your ending is perfect. (The rank-and-file now must show courage and boldness that contrasts with current leaders, always keeping Burke’s famous dictum in mind: “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”)

    Yes…My absolute favorite quote…It is SO true.
    A thought that I have not heard from anyone else: How about a business person who is asked to perform a service for a same-sex event
    advising the prospective customer that, “For the sake of full disclosure, a portion of the profits from my services are directed to the support of the Family Research Council” (or a similarly visible one; pick your favorite!…).
    Thoughts on this? 🙂

    • Pamela

      I love your idea and will try to put it into practice in my area. Spread it far and wide!

    • Alexandra

      Ann, I absolutely love your idea.

    • Jim in Pittsburgh

      Nice idea, but at this point isn’t it like spitting into the wind?

      • No,no, not really Jim. We should compile a database of bakers/photographers/wedding planers etc. We should inform them of how they can best respond to the injustice of whatever request happens to come through their door and the result will always be this: The LGBT crowd will take their business elsewhere. They want to make a point, they want sanction for their ceremonies; they want you to smile and say “yes”, they want to create a situation that will enable them to challenge existing laws if you say “no”. But more than that, they don’t want to know that you are serving them under duress and they certainly don’t want to know that their money is going towards a traditional family/pro life cause. I would call my bakery the traditional Catholic bakery. Make your faith obvious in your business practices. Put a crucifix on the wall, an image of the Virgin, a Divine Mercy image (they do that here in Spain) They will go elsewhere if they think their money is funding “the enemy”. No, this is a fine idea and like all small, fine ideas, it has within it the germ of “truth made constant and apparent”. All good, grand, large-hearted things begin in this way, small and seemingly insignificant. Christ made himself small, and died on a cross. Everyone abandoned him. No, this is more than just a good idea; it is an inspired one. God bless you Jim. Do not despair, Pray and do good works. God bless

        • Jim in Pittsburgh

          OK, Joe. I’m not saying it is a bad idea. In fact, Ann presented an EXCELLENT idea. My point, which I try to share whenever possible, e.g., in response to articles like Professor Karson’s, is that we NEED TO ORGANIZE! Ann’s idea, while excellent, involves a “Lone Ranger” approach. It needs to be part of a vey large organized movement. As I wrote elsewhe:

          “Professor Karson’s article is one of the best written on this sorry subject. ” Homosexualist activits … are deft at portraying the people they claim to represent as victims while they are really the victimizers…” BRILLIANT! His analysis is spot on. Likewise his solution. But we have a problem.

          This cancer in the body politic has been growing for years. It has been aided and abetted passively (secretly, or tacitly) by by so many leaders (including our shepherds) for years. Where on earth are we going to find the manpower, funds, and resources to reverse this? It would take a crusade mighter than the one that beat back the ERA, which was the ONLY successful social counterrevolution in recent years.

          Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for it. But how do we begin to organize such a new coalition? It would have to be a new civil rights movement, seeking a restoration of fundamental physical, and constitutional protection for the majority of Americans who are being denied their civil rights by a litigious, unscrupulous, well-funded minority masquerading a

          • Jim in Pittsburgh

            Sorry, I hit the post button before I was none. Here is the rest:

            …masquerading as victims.

            “Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for it. But how do we begin to organize such a new coalition? It would have to be a new civil rights movement, seeking a restoration of fundamental physical, and constitutional protection for the majority of Americans who are being denied their civil rights by a litigious, unscrupulous, well-funded minority masquerading as victims.”

            So, to summarize: individual actions, while brave, noble, and spiritually rewarding, are fine. They might even prove to be the catalysts for a movement. We need to be thinking BIG, as well as small. As a burnt out leader of one aspect of the pro-life movement, I do not see this happening. I pray it will. I will strive to make it happen. But it will take: 1) creative thinkers, like Ann, 2) strong leaders, 3) lots of money, 4) and an overall strategic plan, along with bold tactics to make it work. Above all, it will take love and prayer, for our battle is not against mere flesh and blood.

            • I understand your points and I share your frustration. I do. Your take on the situation is a sound one. Just keep in mind that the tools of the world are but only tools of the moment. It is a comfort to know that what is true remains so eternally. All will come out well in the end. Every ill bought victory is ultimately a defeat. If your question is: what is to be done? I should say that first and foremost we must pray. The rosary is the weapon. As our Lady says, pray more, talk less. Offer up our difficulties and hardships for reparation and conversion; in this way, personal suffering will mean something when united to the cross. It will change everything. When means are available, unite them and the actions they afford us to that stronger bulwark of prayer. Prayer is BIG, as big as God is BIG. I say this because prayer is both a mystery and privilege. It comes to us from God for the world. God bless, fight the good fight my friend.

        • Taussig

          Why dont christian business’ just post a sign saying we dont serve gays?

    • This is a brilliant idea. Have you read Faust by Goethe by any chance? When Dr. Faust inquires after the identity of Mephistopheles, he is responded to in this way: “I am a part of that power which forever seeks to do evil yet does forever good.”..you have suggested a course of action that makes the truth of this plain: We take what is evil and put it to some good end. God bless you.

      • Albert8184

        Brilliant would be an amendment to ban anti-discrimination protections extended to groups whose only unifying characteristic is a particular behavior.

      • Ann Hessenius

        Thank you, Joe! P.S.: I haven’t read Faust, in fact.
        God bless you, too!…and Jim in Pittsburgh is right…There should be a way to share good strategies to counter the growing (by leaps and bounds – daily it seems) onslaught of harassment, lawsuits, firings, suspensions, terminations, redefinitions of traditional terms, and other “pc” occurrences.

        • Why don’t we begin by creating a Facebook page as a kind of “hub” where like minded people can get all their arguments together. We should use one another. We can patiently plan and think. I think we should begin by directly challenging family and friends. Forward arguments to anyone who will read or listen, pull down the “theater curtain of their illusion”…address the claims of policy makers with well thought out articles and so on. We can brainstorm strategies for answering and fighting the injustice of those who suffer in the fight and build solidarity – to let them know they are not alone. Moreover, as a group dedicated to this debunking the silliness of LGBT claims, we can, more importantly commit ourselves to prayer, dedicate and offer up our sufferings “for conversion and a renewal of the culture”. Fight the good fight! God bless you.

          • Ann Hessenius

            That would be a fine idea. 🙂

            • Ann, I’m putting together a few ideas, an outline/proposal of sorts. If you can wait a week or so, I’ll forward my thoughts to you. I think there are a number of people here who might be interested.

              • Jim in Pittsburgh

                Include me in the “interested” category.

    • guest

      1. Excellent idea Ann. These creatures may then be discouraged in seeking the services of a Christian.

      2. RE “Since what they are demanding, at bottom, is universal approbation—even acclaim—for gross sexual immorality and perversion” … and
      Demanding, yes demanding “Christians and other unwilling religious believers to take part in same-sex “marriages” means that they are being forced to give social approval to the state’s action of officially recognizing immoral sexual activity”

      It is very interesting that “gays” themselves expose their own immense QUEST for fascist-like POWER in their HYPOCRISY and massive DECEIT about their (REAL) agenda – which is to “turn the culture on its head” and re-write history according to their own image…by:

      DESTROYING the sacred institution of (real) Marriage? … How? … Easy! …

      — by “TRIVIALISING the TITLE of “Marriage” – with their insistence of legally appropriating the “TITLE of Marriage” (which historically has ONLY ever belonged to a man and a woman in a public declaration of their love in the
      presence of God and before the community, and of their life-long commitment and fidelity in real Marriage and for the purpose of being responsible parents to
      off-spring).

      Here it must also be pointed out that if God is not acknowledged at the ceremony – then it does NOT qualify as a marriage… because:
      Most “gays” describe themselves as “NON-believers” and are “particularly HOSTILE to any idea of God” … therefore it is “gays’ themselves who relegate “gay” “marriage” to a distillation of satirical caricature of very bad taste.

      This is NOT “gay-bashing”. IT IS OUR RIGHT TO COMPLAIN against the willful,
      malicious DESTRUCTION of our very culture.

      It is no less destructive than if “gays” had set fire to our Parliament!!

      It is interesting to note that even though homosexual groups evidently “don’t
      see themselves as anything more than 1% of the population, and most saying
      that they are not even being remotely interested in marriage (because they “crave variety” in partnerships), a growing number of them now openly admit that what they actually REALLY want is the POWER (?? do I detect a smell of “fascism”?) — “to turn western culture on its head altogether” by “normalising“ their lifestyle:

      Why do they feel compelled to do this? Apparently they are desperate to eliminate the burdensome “cloud of guilt” which even non-religious “gays” appear to find particularly unsettling .

      How?

      1. “Being queer means PUSHING THE PARAMETERS of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society…” – Paula Ettelbrick, (ex-legal director of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund)

      2. “In the gay life, FIDELITY is almost IMpossible. Since part of the compulsion of homosexuality seems to be a craving on the part of the homophile to ‘absorb’ masculinity from his sexual partners, he must be constantly on the lookout for (new sex partners). Consequently the most successful homophile ‘marriages’ are those where there is an arrangement between the two and to have affairs on the side while maintaining the semblance of permanence’ in their living arrangement.” – Former Homosexual William Aaron (William Aaron, Straight (New York: Bantam Books, 1972)

      3. “Typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in ‘transactional’ relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months.” – research by University of Chicago Sociologist Edward Laumann (Adrian Brune, “City Gays Skip Long-term Relationships: Study Says”, Washington Blade – February 27, 2004)

      4. “FEW homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.” – Researcher M. Pollak (M. Pollak, “Male Homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times”, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster, New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985)

      5. It is even more alarming to note that “gays” themselves further expose their (REAL) agenda: “…to get the public to affirm their lifestyle” … “to see government and society affirm our lives” – (United States Congressional Record, June 29, 1989).

      (again, to lift that inconvenient “cloud of guilt”)

      But most disturbing is that part of the homosexual agenda seems to be to
      alienate people from Christianity – which they perceive as “the enemy“:
      “The teaching that only male-female sexual activity within the bounds and
      constraints of marriage is the only acceptable form – should be reason enough
      for any homosexual to denounce the Christian religion” – (Advocate, 1985).

      So what is their “Trojan Horse” strategy?

      Easy! “DESENSITIZING the public“:
      “The first order of business is “desensitization of the American public concerning gays”…..To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with INDIFFERENCE … Ideally, we would have “straights” register differences in sexual preferences the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games….At least – in the BEGINNING – we are seeking “public desensitization” … if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing…then your battle for [“equal rights”} is VIRTUALLY WON” – (“The Overhauling of Straight America.” Guide Magazine. November, 1987.)

      So the “gays” themselves – by THEIR OWN admissions about their (REAL) agenda – put the whole matter in a very different perspective.

      THEREFORE It is so important for us to defend WITHOUT DELAY what is worth defending – the very future of families and the defence of civilised customs and traditions which are slowly, insidiously being undermined and destroyed – even by short-sighted, ill-informed governments who have mindlessly “rolled-out-the-red-carpet” to selfish malicious destroyers of civilised cultures.

      The family has been under serious malicious attack for decades and also now by a very spiteful and destructive minority who would have us believe that that they do not ALREADY have legal rights (eg inheritance, superannuation, etc.) under the ALREADY available “legal unions” available to any two people, regardless of sex.

      The law ALREADY provides for “gays to have existing advantages of the above legal avenues … BUT civilized cultures MUST NOT allow such irresponsible bullies to (FALSELY) appropriate the TITLE of “Marriage”.

      Responsible citizens, who value their freedom of speech (yes, there are already increasing steps being taken in several countries to make any criticism of “gays” a punishable crime). Even Peter Hitchens (convert to Christianity and brother of the late atheist Christopher Hitchens) has commented emphatically: “It is important to speak out now (about an increasingly morally corrupt society). I am speaking out now – while I am STILL ABLE TO!”

      Therefore it is the inescapable duty of all Christians to take heed of the facts and to fight for values which are the truly admirable aspects of Christian culture and who do NOT want it reduced to such a noxious caricature. Even the designers Dolce and Gambanna have struck out in SUPPORT of traditional Marriage as an absolute Human Right for all children and as absolutely necessary for their proper psychological development.

      As for the truly stupid remark: “This will be a step towards a truly patient and
      inclusive society [for] the twenty-first century,” the behaviour of “gays” boils down to nothing more than the “TYRANNY and OPPRESSION of “political-correctness-gone-mad” and which defy common-sense and any civilized culture.

      It is our RIGHT and time to DEMAND of our politicians what we require of them in forming a truly democratic culture based on Christian values for a genunely civilised society. Take action NOW!

      It is time for the public in all nations to take serious note of this (admitted) sinister agenda of the 1% of self-serving culture-destroyers which would terrify even George Orwell himself.

      • Thank you for the information and the citations, Very helpful. I shall use this in future! God bless.

    • Taussig

      I dont think anyone cares what happens to their money once spent. Most dont give it a second thought.

      • Ann Hessenius

        The point is: Learning that their money will be going to support pro-traditional marriage may just dissuade them FROM spending it. It is most certainly an approach worth trying.

  • Jim in Pittsburgh

    Professor Karson’s article is one of the best written on this sorry subject. ” Homosexualist activits … are deft at portraying the people they claim to represent as victims while they are really the victimizers…” BRILLIANT! His analysis is spot on. Likewise his solution. But we have a problem.

    This cancer in the body politic has been growing for years. It has been aided and abetted passively (secretly, or tacitly) by by so many leaders (including our shepherds) for years. Where on earth are we going to find the manpower, funds, and resources to reverse this? It would take a crusade mighter than the one that beat back the ERA, which was the ONLY successful social counterrevolution in recent years.

    Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for it. But how do we begin to organize such a new coalition? It would have to be a new civil rights movement, seeking a restoration of fundamental physical, and constitutional protection for the majority of Americans who are being denied their civil rights by a litigious, unscrupulous, well-funded minority masquerading as victims.

    Any ideas?

  • Castilleon

    I have come to the conclusion some time ago that America’s very foundational documents and structure have facilitated the gradual decay in morals that have been evidenced throughout the history of the country, and is now reaching its crescendo with militant sodomites. If power is derived from the people, rather than from God, the whims and capricious favorings of the people, even for objectively atrocious acts like sodomy, contraception, or abortion become the law of the land sooner or later. We humans are very adept at taking ideas or rights to their logical conclusions, even when they reach the level of the absurd or the suicidal. The precedent of natural law or civilizational basics can be jettisoned; the people have their rights!

    God has made sinful behavior or ideas contain the seed of its own destruction. The American experiment is failing before our very eyes, and the inertia it’s picking up as it speeds into oblivion is becoming unstoppable.

    I feel that the place we’re at now, in historical terms, is where the frontiers of the Roman Empire are just beginning to buckle, as the rot from within it takes hold. St. Augustine warned in “The City of God” that the sins of the Roman Empire, not Christianity, were what was causing its fall. That lesson is becoming painfully clear to us as the Pax Americana crumbles like the Pax Romana.

    The Benedict Option is becoming more and more attractive by the day. The society in which we live won’t have us any longer. Therefore, we Catholics need to seriously think about surviving America and rebuilding society from its ruins, as we have done in the past.

    • littleeif

      A Republic can always commit suicide – vote itself out of existence. The only defense against that outcome is morality. A moral people will recognize self governance under law as the lesser of evils and will construct laws that honor and protect the natural law. But where does that leave us today?

    • Nonny

      I have had the same thoughts almost to the letter. In fact, I think the faithful monasteries we have need to think in terms of saving what is worth saving, and I mean in hard copy, not just digital, so that Catholics who survive and follow this collapse will have them, just like we only have these things today because the monks in the later Roman Empire/early Middle Ages copied and stored books. Because this ship is sinking…anyone can see it. Whether in our lifetimes or after, unless there is a massive repentance and conversion to Christ, this culture is doomed. Our job is to be faithful and forward thinking.
      Our founding fathers (some of them anyway) knew and said that only a moral people is fit for this kind of government, so even they didn’t think this was a way fit for corrupt peoples.
      And even the Romans who allowed homosexual behavior had the common sense not to claim that homosexuality was the same as true marriage.

  • “They should organize well-targeted boycotts of companies that buckle under to the homosexualists.”

    Yes, absolutely. You can start with Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook … not to mention just about every other tech-sector company you can name.

    • Asmondius

      And we all know that corporate sponsorship is the highest form of moral guidance.
      .
      You forgot to mention the great support for homosexuality by Kimberly-Clark – the maker of Depends.

      • Objectivetruth

        Hustler magazine supports “gay marriage.” Another arbiter of staunch moral thinking.

        • Asmondius

          Makes as much sense as the Yankees promoting ticket sales for the Red Sox.

      • Veritas

        “So many tech companies have embraced a mission that they say is larger than profits,” said Glenn Kelman, chief executive of Redfin, an online real estate firm. “Once you wrap yourself up in a moral flag, you have to carry it to the top of other hills.”
        A moral flag????

        • Asmondius

          Whatever makes a buck will do.

    • Objectivetruth

      I’m sure NAMBA and most major pornography businesses support “gay marriage” and have your back too, Chuck.

      • Vinny

        I think you missed THE MOST IMPORTANT letter – “L” NAMBLA – North American Man Boy LOVE Association. It’s all about Love – NO ONE can be against them. If you were you’d be against love.

        • Ruth Rocker

          This is why the gaystapo arguments gain ground against common sense. They do not ever make a logical appeal. It’s always emotional with them. You will notice that the kind of “love” they practice is never explicitly mentioned. That’s because most people would be completely grossed out if they actually stopped to think about HOW these cretins “love” each other.

  • Florian

    April 7th…let’s not forget that the mass extermination of human babies is legal. Mother Teresa of Calcutta often said that if we would kill the innocent baby in the womb, what would we not do? Next Priests will be told that they must perform homosexual weddings. If we do not stand strong now, soon it will be too late. The radical gay activists are few in number, very few…but they are loud and, of course, they have the main stream media with them…but we should not remain silent!!! When they demonstrate, we should go there and demonstrate also; when they demand that someone serve a gay wedding … we should stand by those who refuse for reason of faith…these radical gay activists are demanding that everyone accept and honor their way of life – or else!!! it’s time to stand against this – soon they will be in our elementary schools demanding that their way of sexual activity be taught to school children (this has already happened) … parents and grandparents – stand for your children and grandchildren now or it will soon be too late!

    • Nonny

      I fear for our poor country. I fear that it is already too late. The Lord gave us 40 years of hideous legalized murder of the preborn innocents, and we never turned away, but only embrace more and more sin, and most of the rest of us did nothing and do nothing and cooperate with all these evils in a lot of little ways…now those in power are actively harassing believers and anyone else who won’t go along. At a certain point, as we see repeatedly in salvation history, the Lord removes his protection when you show yourself obstinate in sin. We are not only obstinate in this country, but we wallow in it. It cannot bode well for the future. We all need to get right with Jesus and be willing to stay right with Him regardless of the cost, because we are going to be tested. And anyone who thinks this is just hysteria, remember this comment 5 years from now…

      • Nonny

        PS Above, I don’t mean that the Lord gave us abortion, but He gave us 40 years to repent and stop it, and we didn’t.

  • Michael

    The only Gay Mafia, I’m aware of was the “Purple Gang” of Detroit Michigan, from 1910 to 1932…

    • fredx2

      Try googling the “lavendar mafia” that existed in the church, as detailed by Andrew Greeley.
      And you have heard of the “Gay Lobby” in the Vatican, right?

      “Bill Maher used his HBO show on Friday to call out an element of the gay community that he says enforces political correctness like James Gandolfini’s Tony Soprano dished out mob justice.

      “I think there is a gay mafia,” the Real Time host said during a panel discussion. “I think if you cross them, you do get whacked.”

  • fredx2

    It is beyond sickening when the First Amendment is treated as if it can be thrown away at will, if it frustrates a progressive goal.

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    Let’s play a game: Name the first “leader: who has or will be nailed and jailed over this issue of homosexuality.

    For it is about homosexuality as much as it is about religious liberty: the utter enfolding of homosexuality – along with all its perverted siblings – into every nook and cranny of our society. The fight is doubled-sided: the liberty of religion to form our lives and culture AND the absolute defeat of Queer Theory from squatting on a square inch of the public square. The other side is correct in one aspect: true religion and Queerness (as an organizing principle of society) cannot coexist.

    Now back to our game! Name just one “leader” who has or will be bled and jailed over the issue of homosexuality (Queerdom):

    First, what about one of those fashionable New Homophiles? Nope!

    Republican Politician: None

    Conservative “cultural” celeb (athlete, writer, entertainer, White House visitor): Heaves, no!.

    Conservative/Traditional educator: None

    Conservative/Traditional magazine editor: [fill in the blank]

    Marian prayer group organizer: No.

    How about on of the established Pro-Life leaders? Maybe, but most likely not, since this is not about abortion; even as the upcoming Supreme Court decision (in June?) will a Roe vs Wade of all Roe vs. Wades.

    Evangelical religious leader: None

    President of a conservative/Catholic college or university: None.

    Catholic bishop: None. With all their recent PR over religious liberty, so far there has been no bleeding or imprisoned prelate.

    Catholic parish priest: Maybe. Let us know. Let us know is his bishop would permit it.

    Why not? Because homosexuality has become so fashionable. BECAUSE PICKING UP THE LANGUAGE OF GENDER/QUEER IS SO EASY, SO COMFORTING, SO MUCH A GESTURE OF EVANGELIC ISM, OF CULTURAL WITH-IT WITNESSING.

    So that leaves you and me to bleed, to be jailed, to be fired from our employments, to die, over the issue of homosexuality and the tyranny of Queer Theory
    :

    • Jim in Pittsburgh

      You are right. No “leader” has been jailed or had his or her blood shed for this cause in the USA. Not yet. But it will happen, sooner or later. We have only to look north to see it coming. Our neighbors in Canada, in their enforcement of “hate speech” laws, have jailed pastors for the crime of “homophobia”. We will be next.

      • AnneM040359

        Big difference though. Americans are armed to the teeth.

        • Jim in Pittsburgh

          What good will that do?

          • AnneM040359

            Why do you ask I am wondering?

            • Veritas

              Do you have a pink assault rifle, by any chance?

              • AnneM040359

                Why do ask?

                • Veritas

                  It’s ok. You added the “e” to your name, dear warrior.

            • Jim in Pittsburgh

              I asked that question because I would like to know what “difference” it would make.

            • Jim in Pittsburgh

              I ask because I do not see the “Big difference” you refer to.

  • Elat

    Amen.

  • BillinJax

    It is a challenge to unmask the heavily armed and media protected Gay Agenda but this is a great effort. Another good one today can be found here.

    https://catholicmoxie.wordpress.com/2015/04/06/gay-is-the-new-anti-freedom-what-ive-learned-from-indianas-rfra/

  • Nonny

    Excellent article, just excellent. I think the major point you make, without mincing words (a rarity, which needs courage nowadays) is “it’s preposterous to claim that facilitating sodomy is a compelling public interest that overpowers the right to religious liberty.”

    This is the bottom line. For the crime of noticing that men do not go with men, nor women with women (which basic reason tells you, even without religion), now we are subject to fines, and even potential jail time as horrible bigots? In the USA? This nation’s soul has died. But in a nation that tolerates the continual murder of innocent human beings in their mothers’ wombs, should we be surprised that it has come to this?

  • Cradle Convert

    I call it the Gaystapo.

    • Atilla The Possum

      Good one!

  • Mr. Krason is misquoting Ms. Feldblum — and without a link to the source. But I digress.

    Mr. Krason fails to note that the RFRA, as originally enacted, would have made Indianapolis’ non-discrimination law unenforceable. But there is more to this.

    As Mr. Krason correctly observes, religious liberty is not unlimited. Justice Scalia made this perfectly clear in his opinion (for the majority) in Employment Division v. Smith. At its core, the law sought to change how discrimination was treated in public accommodations. With respect to public accommodations:

    We all pay for the roads and public transportation that bring customers to the door.
    We all pay for the police and fire departments that protect the business.
    We all pay for the infrastructure and government services that make it possible to open the business in the first place.

    • Veritas

      A bunch of Obamaian crap. “You didn’t create that business.” We all remember the backlash Mr. President took for making such an asinine comment like the one you’ve just made.

    • Asmondius

      Then you will not complain when I move into your house/condo/apt and take over the remote control?

    • Objectivetruth

      Dear slimy amphibian:

      “”Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV.
      In 2010, the estimated number of new HIV infections among MSM was 29,800, a significant 12% increase from the 26,700 new infections among MSM in 20082.
      Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States4, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections2. MSM accounted for 54% of all people living with HIV infection in 2011, the most recent year these data are available1.
      In 2010, white MSM continued to account for the largest number of new HIV infections (11,200), by transmission category, followed closely by black MSM (10,600)2.
      The estimated number of new HIV infections was greatest among MSM in the youngest age group. In 2010, the greatest number of new HIV infections (4,800) among MSM occurred in young black/African American MSM aged 13–24. Young black MSM accounted for 45% of new HIV infections among black MSM and 55% of new HIV infections among young MSM overall 2.
      Since the epidemic began, an estimated 311,087 MSM with an AIDS diagnosis have died, including an estimated 5,380 in 20123.”

  • littleeif

    The current homosexual legalization mirrors abortion legalization. In Rowe Vs. Wade the Supreme Court followed by legislatures illogically skipped the first question by avoiding the entire discussion of when life begins, thereby avoiding the entire discussion of abortion as infanticide and murder. In the instant case, as you have pointed out, the whole crucial question of genetics vs. behavior as the foundation of a class or group has been, to this point, avoided. As a result, by begging the crucial question, the entire homosexual movement becomes irrational and sensational. It is supreme irony its proponents continually lay claim to a higher reason in their advocacy.

    In the irrational world of things homosexual, businesses taking public stands in their favor such as Angie’s List are held up as icons of egalitarianism. The economic windfall created by the new found ability to lay aside the equity claims of the rather large group of Christians in exchange for the equity claims of the rather small group of homosexuals – well that’s not to be depicted as cynical economics.

    The only real question now is: does the homosexual movement have the same legs as the abortion nmovement?

    • Seamrog

      “The only real question now is: does the homosexual movement have the same legs as the abortion movement?”

      I appreciate this question.

      At their core, they are identical.

      Anti-life, anti-God, self serving, intrinsically evil.

      • John200

        One inspired by de Sade and Satan, the other by Moloch.

    • DEAR LITTLEIF:

      Comparing abortion rulings to marriage rulings is kind of ridiculous. They are different issues with COMPLETELY different dynamics. You can get people to hate abortion, but how are you going to get people to hate marriage equality?

      • littleeif

        Dear Chuck,
        In traditional morality, both abortion and marriage are first things. It does not, however, surprise me that the similarity escapes you and that you would predictably describe a rational argument as “ridiculous” and go on to pose silly rhetorical questions seeking emotional responses. You have precisely made my point: you and those who share your views are not making rational arguments while trying to portray yourselves as supremely rational. A hissy fit is not an argument, and the lack of rational arguments to support your position drives you to extremes.

        Let’s take, for example, your sudden affection for large companies that supported your view in the event of Indiana RFRA. If you were thinking clearly, you would see their support as a bottom line, P&L move having nothing whatever to do with an ideological agreement with you. You would understand that they have been able to exchange the interests of a large group of Christians for the interests of a small group of homosexuals – the maintenance of which is cheaper. That should slow your happy dance just a little, realizing the depth of their commitment to you is, well, transitory.

        Then at the end of the day, when you have sold out even your ideology for a few affirming happy words, just anything from anybody telling you what you do is normal … no I guess it has to be from everybody because how else can you counter the testimony of nature itself … where will you be? At 60?

      • Carl

        Completely IDENTICAL dynamics. It’s the continuation of the sexual revolution which started in 1930 at the Lambeth Conference (contraception) and has us here today.

        Everyone of your arguments can be used to support bigamy, polygamy, incest, pederasty, and anything else. And will be!

        It all started “innocently” with the argument, “why can’t married couples” use contraception? Then it was why can’t unmarried couples? Freedom right? It will stop back alley abortions right? Remove God from public schools is more freedom?……How about no-fault divorce? Ok, contraception isn’t working, “freedom to choice right?” Pornography is a first amendment right, correct? Sodomy is respected by SCOTUS, another new right, all Homosexuals want are civil unions, no wait, now we want marriage “equality,” still not enough, now we want Christians to bend there knees and respect and forcefully support our lifestyles!

        There’s no end to this madness.

        Reference: Humane Vitae

      • I’ve addressed the “equality argument” but here it is again…yawn…from a previous post. To the main point though. There is no such thing as “marriage equality” unless you are referring to “one man and woman” being equal to another “man and woman” in the state of wedlock….and we’re off!

        I must confess that I am confounded by the general choice of
        words used throughout by many in support of so called “gay marriage”. They generally range from: “hate”, “discriminate”, “bigotry” and so on…to
        what might be called the “hurt feelings/I’m indignant” class of comment with the usual suspects being: “insulting” “demeaning” “outraged” and so on. How tiring.

        It is also clear that there are many who believe that “cogent arguments” in support of traditional sexual norms, as exclusively correct, do not exist or that if they do they must be “extremely or shockingly wicked, cruel, or brutal or whatever else?” I would, at some point like to see those who think otherwise to present the kind of argumentation/epistemological ground work that “must necessarily underpin” their take on sexual morality, its social (private/public) ramifications, it’s moral import, the effect, if any, on the state, the judiciary et al…that is, if they want all their hurt feelings and indignation to be taken seriously. Now, a lesser point but an important one nonetheless: just because there are those who believe that any sexual practice is fair game for any consenting adult (and that everyone has to accept it regardless of whatever thoughts one might have on the matter simply because, God forbid we wouldn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings or discriminate against their “preference satisfiers”) does not make it so by de facto.

        Another tangential point is one that regards “Catholic teaching on sexual morality as “archaic” (a favorite word and often used, though, for the life of me, I fail to see how it diminishes the value of staid truth); we also see words like “mean” or “hurtful” or “not in touch” et al… All that can be said at present about this is: for those of you who hold to such a view, you are woefully misinformed. You should take a look at Aristotle’s metaphysics, Scholastic metaphysics, Natural law theory and if none of that is to your taste, at least lend yourself to a cursory examination of the basic rudiments of logic if you find yourself interested at all in “an understanding of just how reasonable an argument can be put forward for what many so glibly regard as retrograde (provided you actually show good faith and take the time to look at the arguments).

        It is also worth considering that if many of those among the
        LGBT crowd were to, right now, look up the word “bigotry” I’m certain they
        would clearly understand me when I say that, by virtue of much of what is said and insisted upon rhetorically, they might, to their great surprise, find
        themselves falling quite nicely under that pleasant appellation (it always pays to be careful about the words one bandies about).

        Here is some good reading: (and this is just for starters)
        “What is Marriage” by Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson and Robert P.George. There is also a very well thought out chapter called “The Church Opposes Same-sex marriage because of Bigotry: The Myth that there is no rational basis for limiting marriage to one man and one woman from “The Seven Big Myths about the Catholic Church” by Christopher Kaczor.

        Ultimately, I am not asking anyone person to concede any one
        point. I’m simply insisting that one ought to be better informed and be ready to substantiate one’s claims sans the the kind of rhetoric that is constantly bouncing off the walls rather than casually asserting some point or other as though it were settled fact, popular consensus notwithstanding…

        Moreover, a good answer to the general view that any moral
        objection to those acts which same sex attraction entails is simply another
        form of “negative discrimination” or “hatred” and so on, I
        will briefly discuss one (and there are many more) of the chief deficiencies
        grounding much of the LGBT narrative.

        Where LGBT people are concerned, the “minor principle”
        of pleasure (which they always call love when sex is on the cards) -talk about your ubiquitous term – is equal to or can be made to trump the “major principle” of procreation (and all of this is commonly and conveniently folded into a narrative of: “natural affection and “friendship”
        – the common ground as it were. Yet this is dishonest on its face. Speaking in this way is merely another way to “sneak sodomy into the house” under universally acceptable credentials. It is in this way, the LGBT community look to “talk past the issue” of what their sex really is). Moreover, this assertion of course, like many “LGBT arguments” proves too much.

        What I mean by this is that it must, because of the
        principle upon which it rests its argument, include any kind of sexuality that
        one can “think of” and “indulge in” regardless of whom they
        “indulge in it with” or with “what” for that matter. (just think about that for a second). It is a reductio ad absurdum, a logical quandary. It’s interesting really. Permit me, by way of explanation, to flesh out what I have just said by means of the following analogy: I shall take “the eating of food” for my theme. Where food is concerned, would anyone seriously contend that “a healthy appetite” takes precedence over or is equal to “the need to nourish oneself” whilst maintaining the highly contentious back up argument: “well there is more to eating than just keeping you alive?”- Now, just because “a distinction” can be made (between “enjoying food” and “nourishing oneself”) it doesn’t necessarily follow that a “separation” is entailed (another logical fallacy). Yet, despite this, there are many who would like to believe or simply maintain (despite knowing better) that it does (against all logic) and by means of this assumed fallacy insist that both – “the appetite” and the “ends to which the appetite tend” – are equal and can be appealed to depending on one’s preference. Consequently, false choices are set up and promoted as something substantially valid (where “eating” is concerned) and yes, marriage.

        Now I must ask, how has it come to pass, even when “reason” and “logic” are at odds with such a proposition, that we have taken the narrative peddled by the LGBT community as a given? Called whatever they happen to insist upon, a right? Was it their force of rhetoric? Their appropriation of “rights language”? Media and hurt feelings? Moreover, why is it that wherever/whenever sex is concerned – and not any other part of the body – they are willing to entertain any mad idea that pops into their head as far as satisfying their “preference satisfiers” are concerned and to shout “bigotry”, “a violation of rights” and “discrimination” at anyone who reasonably/conscientiously objects, points out a false premise, demonstrates the use of ambiguous language
        or points out a logical contradiction? Heck, the very ground upon which their argument for equality stands is, by its very nature a logical contradiction.Madness.

        The argument from equality: “the equality argument”… another logical fallacy trumpeted triumphantly through the halls of public opinion.

        Here is a reasoned riposte: Perhaps the most common argument
        used by same-sex marriage advocates is the marriage equality argument. They believe it is wrong to oppose equal rights for everyone, including equal rights to marry whomever we love. Banning same-sex marriage opposes equal rights for everyone. Therefore, it is wrong to ban same-sex marriage.

        The major premise, in the italicized portion, is false: it is wrong to oppose equal rights for everyone including “equal rights to marry whomever we love”. Some people love those who are already married to someone else, or those who do not want to marry them, or their close blood relatives, or prepubescent children, or animals, or nonliving things. Denial of
        same-sex marriage does not undermine the equality before the law of people who desire it, any more than denial of bigamy, polygamy, HAM (human and animal marriage) undermines the basic equality of the people who desire these kinds of unions to be declared marriages. To say that banning same-sex marriage opposes equal rights for everyone again proves too much, since we could just as well say banning polygamist marriage, self marriage, human animal marriage, or human inanimate object marriage opposes equal rights for everyone. The principles
        invoked to justify same-sex marriage also justify kinds of marriages that
        virtually no one accepts, so these principles ought to be rejected.

        The minor premise of the equality argument is also problematic; banning same-sex marriage opposes equal rights for everyone. What does equal rights really mean? Equality does not treat every person or every group in exactly the same way. Equality treats persons or groups that are the
        same in the same way but not persons or groups that are significantly
        different. For example, an air marshal can carry a gun on the plane, a regular citizens cannot. A 16-year-old can drive a car but a 10-year-old cannot. Such limitations are justly made despite rare exceptions (example: the unusual 10-year-old who is more mature than the average 16-year-old; the regular citizen who is better suited to defend the innocent passengers on a plane than the air marshal.) The question is, are there any significant differences between same-sex couples and opposite sex couples that justify treating them differently? (I’ll let you all think on this for a while).

        One has got to love “reason” and “logic”. Down with emotionalism and rhetorical language. Down with “I’ve got a friend, a brother a sister and all those other emotional ties that crowd out sound reasoning and critical judgement. Down with all this knee-jerk- reaction slandering and ignorance that smacks too much of insecurity for it to be anything else.

  • There are 379 major corporations that have gone on record urging the Supreme Court to rule in favor of marriage equality for Gay couples:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/05/marriage-equality-amicus_n_6808260.html

    Let’s just put it this way: If you want to boycott all the companies that support fair treatment for LGBT Americans, best for you to live in the woods, off the grid, and be a hunter-gatherer.

    • Keith Cameron

      I don’t think we have to boycott them in any tangible sense. but, we can threaten them with a boycott to make them at the very least take a ‘Neutral’ stance on the issue.

      • Yeah, well, good luck with that.

        • eallen

          Doing the right thing only based off of its chances for success isn’t really doing the right thing after all.

        • Carl

          Darwinism, “rule of the strongest,” I thought you liberals just wanted the “freedom” to live as you see fit? Not enough for you is it? Only satisfied when Christians worship to your lifestyle. Will it ever be enough?

          • I wouldn’t expect anyone to worship another person’s “lifestyle.” That wouldn’t make it much of a “lifestyle,” would it?

            • Objectivetruth

              “Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV.
              In 2010, the estimated number of new HIV infections among MSM was 29,800, a significant 12% increase from the 26,700 new infections among MSM in 20082.
              Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States4, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections2. MSM accounted for 54% of all people living with HIV infection in 2011, the most recent year these data are available1.
              In 2010, white MSM continued to account for the largest number of new HIV infections (11,200), by transmission category, followed closely by black MSM (10,600)2.
              The estimated number of new HIV infections was greatest among MSM in the youngest age group. In 2010, the greatest number of new HIV infections (4,800) among MSM occurred in young black/African American MSM aged 13–24. Young black MSM accounted for 45% of new HIV infections among black MSM and 55% of new HIV infections among young MSM overall 2.
              Since the epidemic began, an estimated 311,087 MSM with an AIDS diagnosis have died, including an estimated 5,380 in 2012.”

    • Veritas

      You left a few off the list:
      Satan
      Lucifer
      Wormwood
      Screwtape
      Legion
      They don’t like you, Chuck. They just use you.

    • carl

      Congratulations, you can now claim your alliance with NAZI Germany and the hundreds of German corporations who supported the regime’s bullying tactics including persecution of Jews, homosexuals, and Christians!

      Mat 7:16 “By their fruits you will know them”

      • Jim in Pittsburgh

        Hmmm….Somewhere in this debate I think we need recourse to an official fruit inspector!

    • Steve Frank

      These corporations are worried about their bottom line. They fear the gay mafia more than they fear the religious right because they know the lengths your side will go to in order to punish dissent. The fact that many of these 379 corporations still do business in nations with far more draconian human rights violations against homosexuals than Indiana could ever dream of just goes to show this has NOTHING to do with corporations caring about gays or their faux marriages. They care about their bottom line financially and they fear your boycotts. That’s why they are sticking up for you.

      • disqus_qkOcYNTXOW

        Exactly. Tim Cook is now at the head of the pack, yet Apple deals with manufacturing companies who regularly violate human rights and pay their workers pennies on the dollar for 18+ hour work days. It’s nothing but smoke and mirrors. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

        • Wow, y’all were listenin’ to RUSH today!

          • John200

            Yes, while you were listening to de Sade (your philosopher and spiritual muse).

              • Objectivetruth

                Dear “cake boss” Chuck:

                “”Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV.
                In 2010, the estimated number of new HIV infections among MSM was 29,800, a significant 12% increase from the 26,700 new infections among MSM in 20082.
                Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States4, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections2. MSM accounted for 54% of all people living with HIV infection in 2011, the most recent year these data are available1.
                In 2010, white MSM continued to account for the largest number of new HIV infections (11,200), by transmission category, followed closely by black MSM (10,600)2.
                The estimated number of new HIV infections was greatest among MSM in the youngest age group. In 2010, the greatest number of new HIV infections (4,800) among MSM occurred in young black/African American MSM aged 13–24. Young black MSM accounted for 45% of new HIV infections among black MSM and 55% of new HIV infections among young MSM overall 2.
                Since the epidemic began, an estimated 311,087 MSM with an AIDS diagnosis have died, including an estimated 5,380 in 20123.”

    • maineman

      Marriage “equality”, now there’s a laugh an a half. A + A = A + B. That means that
      A = B. Think about that, just a little.

    • disqus_qkOcYNTXOW

      You’re absolutely right…Companies have flocked to adopting social norms and silencing anything that goes against it. But I’m not convinced, as I feel corporate activism is more about profits than it is about helping the world. Companies answer to shareholders, not to human rights groups.

      Apple, for instance, insists on human rights here in America, yet in China, they violate the human rights of citizens every day with their production methods. It’s a case of say one thing, do another. If Apple was serious about human rights for ALL, it would also be enforcing them elsewhere.

  • clintoncps

    Christ is Risen! He is Risen indeed!

    Great article by Mr. Krason. I’m pleased to note his consistent use of terms like “homosexualist” to make clear that homosexuality is not inborn, but a symptom of sexual disorientation that infects the minds of people and turns many of them into “true believers” of the sex-cult. LGBTQ virtual-reality is a sexual mythology that proposes what are, in fact, psycho-sexual disorders as “progressive” forms of people’s sexual “self-concept”.

    Christians will really have to stay focused on our Lord Jesus Christ, and clearly differentiate the person made in the image of God from any sexual persona that may captivate that person’s imagination. There is no other way to love in truth, and though it will cause suffering and persecution, our eternal souls are on the line here.

    If we forget that the spirit of homosexualism and all its LGBTQ outgrowth are ultimately from the devil, and NOT from the Holy Spirit, then we will probably end up marching in the “parade” ourselves.

    • Alexandra

      Please excuse my ignorance, but what means the letter Q in lgbtq?

      • clintoncps

        Dear Alexandra,

        Thanks for your question. The “Q” stands for “Queer”. The permutations of this sex-acronym are as endless as the escalating fetishism of the human imagination once it is unhinged from reality.

        Please pray for the victims — and the advocates — of this perverse doctrine, and especially for the children who are being indoctrinated in schools by pedophiles pretending to be educators.

        God be with you,

        Clinton

        • Alexandra

          Dear Clinton,
          Thank you for your answer and for asking for prayers.
          I do pray everyday for persons who are victims of this mentality and who try to impose their own ways to society. I once read that the late French cardinal Daniélou had a homosexual brother. This unhappy person was also an atheist and an advocate for their cause. The cardinal suffered much for his brother’s way of life and was compassionate in a very Catholic way: he offered daily secret Masses for their conversion and the forgiveness of their sins, for his brother and for all sins of immorality. Since reading this I am doing the same, and also for the innocent ,the children and the young people of this very confused world. God bless you,Alexandra

  • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

    Just wait till the bath houses close this evening. Then the real flaming of this excellent article will begin.

    • AnneM040359

      Question, will they be able to find this excellent article to flame to begin with?

      • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

        They always manage to find any voice of disapproval of the sodomite life.

        • AnneM040359

          Yep, and I am looking at another thread right now on another website and these radicals are going ballistic with their trolling. They are a very insecure group of folks.

          • ray

            Losing all the time stings, don’t it? 🙂

            • AnneM040359

              Rather, the real losers on that thread are the trolls themselves. They are showing their true colors and over a “sinful lifestyle choice.”

              • ray

                What are “my true colors”?

                • AnneM040359

                  I am not going to answer, simply putting you on “ignore”.

                • Akira88

                  Why are you so angry?

                • Jane

                  black and blue?

            • Michael S,

              I am sure all the victims of the holocaust and the gulags thought the same thing…..

              • ray

                Yeah yeah, skippy, you’re just like them. Idiot…

                • Michael S.

                  your lack of eloquence in dialogue on such an important and profound matter reflects you lack of depth of understanding. The holocaust of abortion results in believing that the base evil of the homosexual act is good. Your stance is the same as those who accepted the persecution of the Jews in Germany and the Christians in Russia as good. You are in good company. Who then is the real idiot?

                  • ray

                    Considering the fact that I’m a Russian Jew, merely referring to you as an “idiot” for comparing yourself to the victims of the Holocaust and the of the gulags takes considerable self-restraint. If you are desirous of the real “eloquence in dialogue” which such an idiotic statement deserves, I’d be more than glad to oblige. However, I feel that a nothing like you doesn’t deserve any more of my time, so this is the last post I will direct at you. Spending life as you must be a torture which I do not wish to make worse, and I understand that your statements are made merely because your brain is simply not developed enough to process adult human thoughts. Adios, idiot.

                    • Michael S.

                      as usual, your type avoid the argument that i put forth. The holocaust and the gulags were a result of your type of lack of reasoning. As the above article stated, if good men do not stand up for what is right, such evil historical realities will continue to occur. THAT is the basis of my argument of which you are unable or unwilling to address. Furthermore, as Golda Meir, the fourth prime minister of Israel so eloquently stated, just because one is Jewish does not make he/she right.

                    • Akira88

                      Why is it so many Jews voted for Obama?
                      Why are so many liberal?
                      It seems “ray” may be one of those “trolls”.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Spending life as you must be the torture or you won’t be so deranged with anger. What a horrible life you must lead. Bitter and enslaved in your perversion. Truly pathetic. And you would have had some intelligence too had not your enslavement to your perversion not corrupted that.

                  • Guest

                    Considering the fact that I’m a Russian Jew, merely referring to you as an “idiot” for comparing yourself to the victims of the Holocaust and the gulags requires significant self-restraint. You’re a nothing, and deserve no more of my time. Having to spend your life as yourself, and without a brain, is punishment enough. This is the last thing I’ll say to you.

                  • Guest

                    Considering the fact that I’m a Russian Jew, merely referring to you as an “idiot” for comparing yourself to the victims of the Holocaust and the gulags requires significant self-restraint. You’re a nothing, and deserve no more of my time. Having to spend your life as yourself, and without a brain, is punishment enough. This is the last thing I’ll say to you..

                • ray

                  Considering the fact that I’m a Russian Jew, merely referring to you as an “idiot” for comparing yourself to the victims of the Holocaust and the gulags requires significant self-restraint. You’re a nothing, and deserve no more of my time. Having to spend your life as yourself, and without a brain, is punishment enough. This is the last thing I’ll say to you.

                • Objectivetruth

                  When your arguments and responses have no substance, logic, or credibility, always resort to calling someone an “idiot.”

                • MarcAlcan

                  By your posts it is plain for everyone to see that you are the idiot.. And it seems revelling in being one

            • MarcAlcan

              You think being allowed to wallow in filth is a win? Only the deranged considers enslavement freedom.

    • AnneM040359

      I find their responses to be a sign of being very insecure and sense that those of Christian faith, putting their faith in the Lord and in His word is correct.

    • CadaveraVeroInnumero

      Here, Folsom Street never sleeps. Take an early morning constitutional, you’ll see the all night wet noodles shoulder bent staggering home

  • Ruth Rocker

    It’s absolutely shameful the way the gaystapo gets away with this nonsense. Getting protected status is at the top of their to-do list. The problem is that homosexuality is what they DO not what they ARE. You can abstain from sexual activity. You cannot abstain, for example, from being black, hispanic, man or woman, but sexual activity of any kind is optional and an act of will. It is not intrinsic to the person.

    They won’t be satisfied until every knee is forced to bend to celebrate their perversion. Unless the judicial system comes to its senses and stops pushing ideology over law, Christians are headed for a rough time of it.

    • M.J.A.

      We can even call it ‘Project Rainbow ‘ , have image of The Immaculate Conception, with the rays pouring out from her hands , in all hues , to represent all the graces She wants to pour in , She who was conceived Immaculate ,the Patroness of the land , thus to be invoked , in order to break the effects from fallen carnality and to reclaim His creation, to its rightful role !
      O Mary , conceived without sin, pray for us !

    • M.J.A.

      Apologies , placed the response in the wrong section ; it was meant to go with the previous one ,under M. J . A , on the recommendation to have the rallies !

  • M.J.A.

    ‘Husbands love your wives that your prayers may not be hindered ‘ and
    ‘ honor your mother and father that all may go well with you ‘ – powerful biblical promises that persons can practice, more intently , in order to aid in deliverance ministry ,that can be effective even for persons far away ; repenting of all wrong doing in such areas , along with works of reparation with spouses /children /parents , striving for the grace to forgive each other , to start anew , in the Holy Spirit power .
    The call to have rallies sound good but better to incorporate broader aims – how to purify neighborhoods , from crime , immorality , despair against life and all that comes with same ; have banners of Divine Mercy image ( of St.John Paul 11 also , inviting in the Holy Spirit that worked in him, to bring His massive cleansing of hearts and minds , by making His presence more palpable , by such means , possibly to help those who feel alienated , by such Fatherly love ) , invite in the homeless ,the housebound, serve a meal , may be in the format of those 5K runs etc ; and the money raised , to be for variety of good uses , including prayer support , 24 hours a day , for those who need same, to break free from enemy grips ; the prayer lines can be operated by retired nuns and priests , even from countries abroad , all trained in deliverance ministry ;
    would the ex Mozilla employer and others similarly afflicted be also interested !

  • John Mainhart

    I would ascertain that the homosexual program to make decent people be more like them is the same as any program that might come in the future to make Americans accept lying as a moral value.

  • ray

    Good luck with all that, Skippy.

  • St JD George

    Rev Graham seems to have no problem. Last night I heard a prominent conservative person talking about reaching out to the USCCB for a statement defending Gov Pence and RFRA, and said they declined to comment. What is so hard about calling evil what it is, acknowledging that we are all sinners, but then calling out the sin and asking to go and sin and persecute no more. Are our administrators cowards?
    People are falling for this deceptive and intentional line of obfuscation “well if they’re in love then so what”? Maybe a little more graphic depiction of the unnatural and disgusting act of sodomy (bigger issue than just people who feel they have SSA) would help people see through the smoke of the evil one. Somewhat akin to showing the corpses of human beings who have been mutilated in and torn from their mother’s womb in the sterile name of “it’s my choice”.

    • ray

      Or showing you a close-up video of your parents doing it. You know, just to drive home the point that your whole existence is disgusting and vile.

      • St JD George

        No, not your existence, just your sinful acts. Everyone is a gift from God delivered with free will and love. The devil however hates God’s gifts and is roaming on his belly looking for victims and to exploit weakness. Carry a sword and strike off the head of the serpent when he coils to bite you, or offers you forbidden fruit.

        • ray

          Do you always speak as if you’re trying to land an ugly girl at a Magic the Gathering convention?

          Again, if you want to see “disgusting acts”, why don’t you ask your dad to describe for you some of his favorite things that your mom did to him, and vice versa?

          • St JD George

            Did your mother and father abuse you Ray? If so, I am sorry for your pain. Whatever anguish you have, open your heart to Christ and come to know what true, unselfish love is. You don’t have to be miserable, you can chose not to be.

            • ray

              WTF, St George? I mean, I’m far, FAR less likely to have been abused by my parents than you were by your priest, but leaving that aside, you’re a stupid little dipshit, ain’tcha?

              But seriously, can’t you just imagine your dad ripping your mom’s bra off, licking ever so tenderly around her areolas and then moving to her nipples… you know, the nipples you used to suck on as a baby. Yeah, well, he sucked on them too. And then your mom would pull down you dad’s boxers, and slide his shaft all the way into her mouth… she would call it her “other rosary”. The hair of your dad’s balls would tickle your mom’s lips (after all, he’s too old for manscaping, right?), and she would try hard not to gag. Mmmmmm, your mom was a horny little housewife, wasn’t she?

              • ray

                Copy-paste is easy…

                • ray

                  Oh, and Georgie, I’ll remove my post if you remove yours. Don’t start things you can’t or don’t want to finish. You want to be a disgusting little puke on here, I’ll be your Huckleberry. You want to sound like a grownup? Then act like it.

          • GG

            You keep comparing the marital act with perverted acts. No comparison.

            • ray

              And if the gay people are married? Still “perverted”? LOL.

              Again, just because it’s icky to you doesn’t mean the rights of those people deserve to be violated.

              • GG

                Huh? “Gay” persons cannot marry the same sex. LOL.

                Icky is a childish term. The correct term is perverse. There is no right to be perverted. None.

        • Tony

          DON’T FEED THE TROLLS.

          They don’t understand the terms of the discussion … They are here only to be disruptive.

          • St JD George

            I believe they are here because deep in their souls they know something is intrinsically disordered in their lives. It gives me hope for their salvation.

            • Tony

              You’re probably right. I wish we could engage them one by one, personally … because they are very much in need of kindness.

              • St JD George

                Mortal sin is incideous and eats away at souls like a slow poison drip. Sadly it goes unnoticed in many who refuse to see the patrician who can heel them, or don’t know how. Many are possessed and will never open their eyes or hearts to be cured I know, but many will and I am hopeful for them.

          • ray

            Terms of the discussion: don’t disagree with anyone who’s a “good Catholic”. About anything. For any reason.

            Oh, and burn in hell.

            Do I have it right, Tony?

            • Tony

              No, you don’t have it right. The point is that you can’t have a discussion with people who don’t know what is at issue. I can’t have a discussion about the subtleties of tax law if I don’t know what the people are talking about. The discussion here concerns the Catholic (and Biblical) view of morality generally speaking, and sexual behavior in particular. Now, unless you know what that is (in something more than the form of a caricature), and why it is what it is, you don’t have anything to offer to the discussion.

              The whole of the sexual revolution is at issue here, not just one little part of it.

              It is also damnable to wish harm upon anyone’s soul. Please do not assume, as adolescents do, that if someone opposes you in some regard that you believe is important to your self-esteem, or important to your self-definition, then that someone must “hate” you. The person may love you. The person may have no feelings for you one way or another. There may be a hundred other concerns in play besides your own. There may be reasons you do not suspect.

              As for hell, I think the moonscape left by the sexual revolution is a good picture of it — broken homes, children who grow up without one or another of their parents, the dehumanizing heart-petrifying evil of porn ….

              • ray

                You can have whatever view of morality you want. The discussion here actually concerns as to how you enforce that view upon the rest of the population, which may not (and usually does not) want it. I don’t need to know what your peculiar sexual predilections are, I just need to know that you can’t use them to discriminate against people who don’t share them. Your personal preferences are yours. As soon as they start affecting the lives of others is when this stops being an academic discussion about what a made-up god would want were he real and becomes an issue of rights of people in a democratic society.

                • Asmondius

                  ‘I don’t need to know you what your particular sexual predilections are, I just need to know that you can’t use them to discriminate against people who don’t share them’.
                  – Jerry Sandusky

                  • ray

                    Wow. I guess you have never heard of “consent” or “rape”. Jeez, just when you’d think someone can’t possibly be any more ignorant…

                    • Asmondius

                      I am merely responding to that blanket statement you wrote – I don’t do your thinking for you.

                    • ray

                      You don’t seem to do much thinking for anyone, yourself included. Maybe it’s time to start.

                      I apologize for not realizing exactly how dumbed down you need this. I try not to assume that people are incredibly stupid until I’m forced to do so.

                    • Asmondius

                      So easy to out juvies. Even your insults are puerile.

                    • Ray, talk is good. I don’t think you have been disrespectful but you are talking to people who are fed up with “cowardice in the ranks”, with those whose will it is to do good and serve God, with those who have suffered persecution and been mocked at and marginalized. joseph_dawson@hotmail.com is my address. If you would like to give me a list of reasons for why you hold to your views, I would be glad to offer as thorough a rebuttal as is in my power to give.

                      God bless and keep you Ray. If in any of my post, I came across as a little hard, forgive. It is something I have to work on.

                • Seamrog

                  You completely validated what Tony was conveying:

                  “The point is that you can’t have a discussion with people who don’t know what is at issue.”

                  This is not the forum for your particular point of view. Participants here are interested in a Roman Catholic understanding of particular topics.

                  There are more avenues for you to express your resentment than can be counted…but this is not one.

                  I appreciate that the Light draws you here, but I also understand that the Light wounds your darkness.

                  Make a decision, and either come into the Light, or stay away from it, but do not keep throwing rocks from the sidelines.

                  It makes you look petty and childish.

                • Ray, even the crudest relativist must ground their “whose to say uncertainties” in one certain demonstrable thing “that can be known” in order for the “relativist view” to hold any water. It has never been a case of what one “can and can’t do” but rather a case of what “one ought to” or “ought not to” do. Nor should “wanting or not wanting” to hold to any one moral view impact on the validity of something being ” objectively true”, “objectively evil” or “objectively good”.

                  Look to an earlier post of mine – I touch on “discrimination” – a neutral term incidentally. However, if it is your desire to couch the word negatively, it will be incumbent upon you to explain how this is possible if you continue to hold to the erroneous idea that there is no such thing as “objectively good” or “objectively evil” actions.

            • Hey Ray, I think I understand your frustration. It’s hard to know how the other person properly thinks given the nature of forums. If you are looking for a meaningful and well thought out argumment for the existence of God or morality et al, I think I can be your go to guy for that. Just send me a message. Ultimately, you don’t have to agree but you many come to understand.

          • GG

            Yes, that is true. They cannot reason well.

      • Simon Platt

        You seem to think “it” disgusting, Ray. Why do you think faithful catholics would think likewise?

        • ray

          No, I am guessing (hoping?) that watching your parents do it, up close and personal, would be disgusting to anyone. I certainly would not enjoy watching my parents have sex. I’m guessing you, Simon Platt, would not want to sit there, eat popcorn and gawk while your dad puts it to your mom. Now, watching my parents have sex probably would not be disgusting to anyone other than myself, but to me it is. Is it to you?

          • disqus_qkOcYNTXOW

            Isn’t sex a beautiful thing? That’s why our Catholic faith has such strong views on sex, because it is such a beautiful God-given gift for a man and a woman to engage in. Praise God for allowing us to have a way to imitate divine love. Sexual love becomes an icon or earthly image in some sense of the inner life of the Trinity.

            • ray

              Hey, that’s fine! You can have your sex, and keep it as holy or unholy or whatever as you want. Good for you. I am certainly not going to tell you what views you are to have on sex. But, on the flip side, you don’t get to do that to anyone else either. And whether or not you think other people’s sex is “imitating divine love”, you don’t get to deny them services or rights. I happen to think Catholicism (and all other religion) is a whole bunch of hogwash. But I still won’t (and, legally, can’t) deny you rights that others get.

              • disqus_qkOcYNTXOW

                To be realistic though, how is talking to people about parents, sex, and nipples, going to raise a realistic discussion about the natural of God-designed sex and same sex relationships, and denial of services?

                • ray

                  disqus — the same way as accusing someone’s parents of abuse. I offered him a choice – he can remove his post, and I’ll remove mine.

                  My point was, by the way, that “it’s icky to me” is not really a good enough reason to deny rights to people (which was Georgie’s point with his inane argument that we should just go into more graphic detail about gay sex). So I used an example of something that’s icky to him (I hope) and yet is not only legal but is, apparently, celebrated by the very church he belongs to.

                  • disqus_qkOcYNTXOW

                    I can meet you on that point. I don’t condone those types of comments regarding abuse. It doesn’t help anything.

                    • ray

                      disqus – thank you. I want to assure you that I had no intention of getting… graphic, shall we say.

                      Care to address my other point? The one about not using your criteria for sexual holiness as criteria for allowing or denying rights to others?

                  • GG

                    Not icky. Perverted.

                    • ray

                      What’s your definition of “perverted”?

                    • Asmondius

                      Homosexual behavior.

                    • ray

                      OK. You’re entitled to your view. Now explain why their rights should be violated.

                    • Asmondius

                      They have the exact same rights as everyone else.

                    • The term “rights” is an outgrowth term from natural law philosophy. Now everyone uses the word for whatever they like because of the rhetorical force that remains to sans the intellectual muscle that had once lent it that force in the first place (can’t have anyone thinking to hard about what “rights” actually are from whence they flow). It makes sense that you should feel entitled to use it here. “Sodomy” is not “a right”, it is “licence”. There is a difference between “freedom” and “licence”. Whatever institution/law/or force for social change flow from the latter invariably authors great error and causes great harm to the former.

                      Rights flow from those conditions which accord with “reason” and “logic”. Now, before you get into a “type one” atheistic commentary…something I feel you are very nearly on the verge of doing http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com.es/2011/09/some-varieties-of-atheism.html … please look into the “preambulum fidei” that draw a direct line from “reason” to “God”. All truth is one my friend.

                      God bless and keep you.

                    • GG

                      The same one normal people understand.

                      Perversion is what goes away from the norm established by God and reason.

              • GG

                You do not know what a right is.

                • ray

                  ** You do not know what a right is **

                  Yes, I do. I’m educated. You should try it some year.

                  • GG

                    Your posts reveal otherwise.

              • A religious argument isn’t required. Sodomy is biologically as well as metaphysically absurd. Please, invite me to substantiate my claims…

          • GG

            One is an invasion of privacy and one is a perverted act. They do not compare.

            • ray

              And watching a gay couple have sex isn’t an invasion of privacy?

              Also, regardless of whether YOU think something is perverted, our laws don’t really take it into account. I happen to think making children religious is perverted. Again, your personal ickiness cannot be enforced on the rest of society.

              • GG

                It is your analogy, not mine. Watching the marital act would be unjust and immodest. Not “icky”. Whatever that is.

                Describing the deviants acts discussed here is not “icky” but serves to bluntly point out how perverse they are. There is no comparison between the two actions.

                The fact the “gay” acts are perverted is an objective finding, not a matter of personal taste.

              • Ray, read my posts above. It has nothing to do with the kind of “whose to say” argument you seem so find of. Rather, it has more to do with a “it is demonstrably perverse” regardless of whether you or I find it so.

                How can that be you ask? It’s simply this: Things have a nature “in and of themselves” and the perversion of that nature is just that, “a perversion”. Moreover, you have not considered “the final end” to which things like “formal, efficient, proportional causality” tend.

                Furthermore, how is it that you are missing or rather, misunderstanding the substance of so much of what has been said on the subject? There is no one here advocating “forced conversion”.

                There is a difference between “sound argumentation” and being “glib”. Try not to find your words belonging to the later category. You do yourself no favors. In future, please exercise a degree of intellectual honesty before posting.

      • GG

        Why compare unequal items? It is illogical? One is a normal act and one is perverted.

  • cestusdei

    He left out one other thing we must do: suffer. It is very likely that there will be martyrs. We must be willing to be imprisoned, lose property and businesses, and to be publicly harassed. The death threats will eventually escalate to actual deaths. This has happened before to Christians and will happen again. It may well be our turn. We must not flinch.

    • ray

      Keep hoping.

      • cestusdei

        I don’t hope for persecution, but it is coming.

        • Carl

          Ahh, its here, talk to the photographer and baker who lost there businesses.

          • cestusdei

            Yes, you are right. They start out with the little things and work their way up.

  • Paul

    Why not consult Jesus Christ on this matter? He advocated love of others, acceptance, outreach to the less fortunate and the marginalized. He never mentions homosexuality, doesn’t condemn it – not once. Christians clinging to dogma invented after the death of Jesus may one day regret their non Christ-like behavior.

    • JP

      Paul,
      Christ was a faithful Jew and rabbi. He didn’t need to condemn homosexuality, as it wasn’t an issue in Judea. Additionally, he said he didn’t come to destroy the Law but to fulfill it. But, Christ did condemn sexual impurity. And he was more orthodox concerning marriage than Mosaic Law. Homosexuality was considered terrible sin to Jews, and prohibitions against sodomy, adultery, and fornication continued in Christian dogma. It wasn’t invented.

      • Paul

        If fully in favor of Mosaic Law, then Christ must also have condoned murder for apostasy, as well as killing women who aren’t virgins on their wedding night.

        • Tony

          Don’t be obtuse. Read the New Testament, please. Jesus always RAISES the moral bar. He does not lower it. In His mercy He teaches us also to be merciful to sinners, because we are all sinners.

        • GG

          You must know the differences among the moral law, ceremonial law, and civil law? I mean do you think all the great minds through out history were as simple as you reveal here with such facile logic?

          • Paul

            Jesus: best magician and conjurer of his era, no doubt.

    • Scott W.

      Our Lord doesnt mention bestiality either, so we can easily dispense with this useless argument from silence. And Our Lord in fact does indirectly speak to it by affirming the punishment meted out to Sodom and Gemmora (which wasnt a punishment handed out for inhospitality btw).

      • Paul

        Jesus never condemns homosexuality, condones love not hatred.

        • Scott W.

          That’s non-responsive. That sexual contact belongs between only a man and a woman in a marriage is a true teaching that has nothing to do with hate any more than not recognizing used kitty-litter as a food source is hatred of cats.

        • Tantem Ergo

          Admonishing the sinner is an act of love, not hate.

        • GG

          Boy, is that false. He condemned all sin. He is unchanging. Sodomy is evil.

        • Asmondius

          All good parents know that ‘love’ does not mean that one acquiesces over all behavior.

        • Alexandra

          Jesus was a rabbi, an observant Jew, just as his holy Mother Mary and St. Joseph. The TORAH condemns homosexual acts and this condemnation is passed on to us in the Old Testament, for instance.

        • “The homosexual act”, Christ condemns, not “the homosexual”. These distinctions are important. It is the homosexual who condemns himself by his actions as do all those who persist in whatever sin they are caught up in or willfully pursue.
          .

          • Paul

            Do you have a quote from the Bible to back that up?

            • I am Catholic Paul. Read the new testament. Read the Catechism. Read what the Saints have to say. It will make the issue abundantly clear.

              Consider this: “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” – an appeal to “sola scriptura” has no force and is a protestant heresy. Our God is a living God. He did not write a love letter and then remove Himself to some remote time. Christ is alive now, today.

              Just to clarify what the quote means:”Binding and loosing” is a phrase which comes from the rabbis. It refers to the authority to make decisions binding on the people of God. This authority includes interpreting and applying the Word of God and admitting people to and excommunicating them from the community of faith. For the Jews this meant the community of Israel. For Christians this means the Church.

              In Matthew 16:19 Jesus gives this authority over his Church to Peter: “Whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in heaven.” In Matthew 18:18, he gives the power to all the apostles: “Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

              This singling out of Peter to bestow on him an authority which is later to be given to all the apostles shows Peter’s preeminence within the apostolic college. What the apostles as a whole possessed as leaders of the Church, Peter possessed as an individual. Of course, he, as the earthly head of the Church, also possessed powers which all the other apostles, even collectively, didn’t possess: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 16:19).

              Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law. (look to my most recent posts – they are a bit lengthy but they do the job and touch upon this issue extensively). If not, I can forward everything I have written thus far to a personal account of yours if you wish. Just ask.

              Let’s consider the following:

              Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.

              From the old testament:

              The rejection of homosexual behavior that is found in the Old Testament is well known. In Genesis 19, two angels in disguise visit the city of Sodom and are offered hospitality and shelter by Lot. During the night, the men of Sodom demand that Lot hand over his guests for homosexual intercourse. Lot refuses, and the angels blind the men of Sodom. Lot and his household escape, and the town is destroyed by fire “because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord” (Gen. 19:13).

              Throughout history, Jewish and Christian scholars have recognized that one of the chief sins involved in God’s destruction of Sodom was its people’s homosexual behavior. But today, certain homosexual activists promote the idea that the sin of Sodom was merely a lack of hospitality. Although inhospitality is a sin, it is clearly the homosexual behavior of the Sodomites that is singled out for special criticism in the account of their city’s destruction. We must look to Scripture’s own interpretation of the sin of Sodom.

              Jude 7 records that Sodom and Gomorrah “acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust.” Ezekiel says that Sodom committed “abominable things” (Ezek. 16:50), which could refer to homosexual and heterosexual acts of sin. Lot even offered his two virgin daughters in place of his guests, but the men of Sodom rejected the offer, preferring homosexual sex over heterosexual sex (Gen. 19:8–9). Ezekiel does allude to a lack of hospitality in saying that Sodom “did not aid the poor and needy” (Ezek. 16:49). So homosexual acts and a lack of hospitality both contributed to the destruction of Sodom, with the former being the far greater sin, the “abominable thing” that set off God’s wrath.

              From the New Testament:

              The following New Testament passages deal with homosexual actions:

              “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error” (Rom. 1:26–27).

              “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9–10).

              “Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:8–10).

              “Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire” (Jude 7).

              But God’s displeasure with acting out on homosexuality is depicted as early as Genesis 19 in the Old Testament. Also see Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

              Now the LGBT lobby is doing all it can to recast biblical teaching on homosexuality but if interpretation were left up to us as individuals, we could make the Bible say whatever we want it to say, and our sinful natures could gravitate toward interpretations that serve our passions. That is why, ultimately, the Church reserves the right to interpret Scripture to herself. “For all of that has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God” (Dei Verbum12).

              This brings us back round full circle with “”Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

              Please look at my extensive posts on why (using logic and reason alone) homosexuality can be demonstrated as both biologically and metaphysically absurd. The later I have dealt with chiefly, given that it requires greater degree of argumentation than the former which only requires the observations of a biologist. I believe if you set the page to “most recent posts” you will find what you are looking for readily enough. God bless

            • Furthermore, Christ does not condone love, he requires it. Calling out sin and encouraging people to live virtuous (virtue here is not a mere adjective, look up the Catholic virtues) lives is an act of mercy. Not condoning the homosexual narrative is a mercy. Indeed, it demonstrates love. One must conform oneself to Christ, must give oneself over to the cross.

              • Paul

                “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Sounds like many Catholics are ignoring this famous teaching of Christ.

                • Objectivetruth

                  Joe’s not casting stones at the sinner. He’s casting stones at their sins, which we’re all required to do. Christ also tossed stones at sin in the story of the woman caught in adultery, when He clearly teaches “Now go and sin no more.”

                • We are not casting stones. Christ said, “go forth and sin no more” immediately after that. This is an injunction. Nobody here wants to stone anyone. Please, don’t misunderstand. God bless you Paul.

                  • Paul

                    Hang on – where in the Bible does Jesus condemn “the homosexual act”? Chapter and verse, if you can.

                    • I’m sorry, I thought I had addressed this issue in another post to you…it could have been someone else. Forgive me if this were indeed not the case…

                      I am Catholic Paul. Read the new testament. Read the Catechism. Read what the Saints have to say. It will make the issue abundantly clear. If your contention is: because Christ did not explicitly say that “homosexuality is a moral evil” it follows that he did not “regard it as such”, then you are gravely mistaken. All one need do is look at what he required of his disciples to find the answer to that one.

                      John 21:25 – “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.” – that puts a cap on your “sola scriptura” requirement.

                      Moreover, to take an example from life (and to better show you how unreasonable your requirement is) please consider how much you yourself say that is pregnant “with implicit or explicit” meaning. How much of what can be said remains unspoken because the subtext is patently clear from “all that you have said thus far” given whatever subject matter you happen to have been entertaining at the moment? This kind of narrow interpretation is only ever employed by those who want to validate some personal caprice or other. Asking “if there is a quote from the Bible to back that up” is question begging in the extreme. He doesn’t directly talk about abortion, running red lights, whether one ought to have sex with animals or inanimate objects or downloading films illegally or…well, you get the picture.

                      I should very much like to see how such a policy outfits anyone for life.

                      Consider this: “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” – an appeal to “sola scriptura” has no force and is a heresy. Our God is a living God. He did not write a love letter and then remove Himself to some remote time. Christ is alive now, today in His church.

                      Just to clarify what the quote means:”Binding and loosing” is a phrase which comes from the rabbis. It refers to the authority to make decisions binding on the people of God. This authority includes interpreting and applying the Word of God and admitting people to and excommunicating them from the community of faith. For the Jews this meant the community of Israel. For Christians this means the Church.

                      In Matthew 16:19 Jesus gives this authority over his Church to Peter: “Whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in heaven.” In Matthew 18:18, he gives the power to all the apostles: “Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

                      This singling out of Peter to bestow on him an authority which is later to be given to all the apostles shows Peter’s preeminence within the apostolic college. What the apostles as a whole possessed as leaders of the Church, Peter possessed as an individual. Of course, he, as the earthly head of the Church, also possessed powers which all the other apostles, even collectively, didn’t possess: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 16:19).

                      Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law. (look to my most recent posts – they are a bit lengthy but they do the job and touch upon this issue extensively). If not, I can forward everything I have written thus far to a personal account of yours if you wish. Just ask.

                      Let’s consider the following:

                      Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.

                      From the old testament:

                      The rejection of homosexual behavior that is found in the Old Testament is well known. In Genesis 19, two angels in disguise visit the city of Sodom and are offered hospitality and shelter by Lot. During the night, the men of Sodom demand that Lot hand over his guests for homosexual intercourse. Lot refuses, and the angels blind the men of Sodom. Lot and his household escape, and the town is destroyed by fire “because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord” (Gen. 19:13).

                      Throughout history, Jewish and Christian scholars have recognized that one of the chief sins involved in God’s destruction of Sodom was its people’s homosexual behavior. But today, certain homosexual activists promote the idea that the sin of Sodom was merely a lack of hospitality. Although inhospitality is a sin, it is clearly the homosexual behavior of the Sodomites that is singled out for special criticism in the account of their city’s destruction. We must look to Scripture’s own interpretation of the sin of Sodom.

                      Jude 7 records that Sodom and Gomorrah “acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust.” Ezekiel says that Sodom committed “abominable things” (Ezek. 16:50), which could refer to homosexual and heterosexual acts of sin. Lot even offered his two virgin daughters in place of his guests, but the men of Sodom rejected the offer, preferring homosexual sex over heterosexual sex (Gen. 19:8–9). Ezekiel does allude to a lack of hospitality in saying that Sodom “did not aid the poor and needy” (Ezek. 16:49). So homosexual acts and a lack of hospitality both contributed to the destruction of Sodom, with the former being the far greater sin, the “abominable thing” that set off God’s wrath.

                      From the New Testament:

                      The following New Testament passages deal with homosexual actions:

                      “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error” (Rom. 1:26–27).

                      “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9–10).

                      “Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:8–10).

                      “Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire” (Jude 7).

                      But God’s displeasure with acting out on homosexuality is depicted as early as Genesis 19 in the Old Testament. Also see Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

                      Now the LGBT lobby is doing all it can to recast biblical teaching on homosexuality but if interpretation were left up to us as individuals, we could make the Bible say whatever we want it to say, and our sinful natures could gravitate toward interpretations that serve our passions. That is why, ultimately, the Church reserves the right to interpret Scripture to herself. “For all of that has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God” (Dei Verbum12).

                      This brings us back round full circle with “”Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

                      Please look at my extensive posts (on my own disqus profile page if you like) on how “using logic and reason alone” homosexuality can be demonstrated to be both biologically and metaphysically absurd. The later I have dealt with chiefly, given that it requires a greater degree of argumentation than the former which only requires the observations of a biologist. I believe if you set the page to “most recent posts” you will find what you are looking for readily enough. God bless

                    • Paul

                      The God of the OT advocates stoning women who are virgins on their wedding night. No interpretation required: this is evil.

                    • Two things you should do if you are really interested in biblical scholarship (both old testament and new): Speak to a rabbinical scholar concerning the Talmud (if you are interested in Mosaic law) and consult the New Jerome Biblical Commentary. This should help.

                      Now regarding “evil demanded by God” – that is not possible. You must not have proceeded very far in your scholarship. I would (for starters) refer you to the works of St.Thomas Aquinas when discussing biblical passages and “the attributes”. I should also like to add that your understanding of God and his works would be better served by “Deus sit ipsum essesubsistens” rather than the “straw man in the sky, third person” kind of God you seem to be leaning towards.

                      Paul: “They do not require an intermediary to understand them.” – That is contrary to Catholic teaching from the beginning. On what authority do you hold to this notion? It’s entirely protestant (Moreover, given the 10,000 plus 1 denominations flying their absurdities under the banner of the cross it follows that this claim cannot possibly hold.)

                      Concerning Mathew 18:19: Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven. – This follows on from what I have said in my previous post…The Christ also goes on to talk about His presence when two or more are gathered in His name before proceeding onto issues of forgiveness. Please consider who it is that Christ is addressing. He is speaking to those who are striving to conform themselves to Christ, who are striving to be perfect as their Father in heaven is perfect. – I am having difficulty understanding exactly what point you are trying to connect Mathew18:19 to.

                      God bless.

                    • Paul

                      Pardon me: I meant that in Matthew 5:17-19 Jesus affirms all of the savage OT Mosaic Laws. No scholars required to see how reprehensible these ideas are, yet Jesus endorses them.

                    • Ah, now I begin to understand how you are interpreting what He has said here. It is a wrong interpretation of course but I understand you now – you should read the whole of the passage with regards to what he is saying to those whom He loves and who love Him to better understand. I would also suggest that you pray and consult the necessary authorities as I have suggested.

                      Jesus doesn’t endorse ideas – as a friend might endorse the watching of a film or the reading of a good book. A sentence like this can easily mislead.

                      The Jewish people have a saying: “For the holy there is no law”. Think about that for a moment. Furthermore, consider why the Mosaic law was the standard for the Jewish people as “the chosen people of God” prior to the coming of the Hebrew Messiah. Moreover consider how Jesus regards the law when love is not present in the observance of it. The Jewish people were (and are) very hard on themselves because they were (and are) in preparation.

                      I should also like to say that you have done two notable things with your posts:

                      1. You have pivoted to the issue of an “alleged moral relativity” after having your first inquiry regarding the morality/immorality of certain sexual practices sufficiently answered. *The reasons for doing so are fairly obvious – the question now is whether or not you have the sufficient intellectual honesty/interest to pursue the subject seriously. My previous post offered you a good start.

                      2. It is also apparent that, prior to our discussion, you have worked out “your idea” or “opinion” prior to serious scholarship and are now appealing to what you understand to be evidence for your claims rather than giving yourself wholly over to the study of these issues before coming to an “informed opinion”. Essentially, my point centers around a need for one to be comprehensive; a good corollary can be had from the scientific disciplines: The best theory is that which takes into account all the information available.

                      Of course, you are free to ignore everything I have said thus far and continue on your merry way regarding these questions, insisting, with the aid of an all too narrow reading of “scripture alone”, that Hebraic law was indeed barbaric for “His chosen people” (but this is to entirely miss the point and to ignore a very important distinction). The law was not for the likes of us Paul- we were merely gentiles.

                      You might say that their law is like the preparatory fasting/observance and abstinence one does before Easter. It was hardship endured for the sake of the world. They were a people in preparation, a people who offered up their entire tribe to God and who needed to remain in steady preparation and holiness until the fulfillment of the covenant.

                      Please, if you are really interested in how deep this rich and interesting relationship between the Old and New testament is, begin to pursue it in earnest. This is a discussion I am certainly willing to have with you but it will prove to be “time consuming” in the extreme particularly if I am to be the chief (if not only source) of information on the issue, especially when all you need do is pick up any number of fine books on the subject. One can even appeal to the learning of good priests and the generosity of rabbinical scholars. I would encourage to you to “knock, so that the door may be open to you.” But more than this, I would encourage you to pray.

                      God bless Paul.

                    • Paul

                      You base your arguments on assumptions that require belief, not evidence – that Jesus was the son of a deity, that the god described in the Bible is the true one, among a variety of deities that claim equal importance and validity as yours. I think this is where we depart from one another, at base.

                    • Ah, yes, this is indeed the “heart of the matter” I think. Would you be interested in what distinguishes say “Thor” or “Shiva” from God? This can be a lengthy kind of conversation but if you are interested, I would be happy to answer any questions regarding clams made by the Catholic church. Here, my e-mail is joseph_dawson@hotmail.com…I should very much like to have the opportunity to convince you that “truth” does not necessarily follow on from “claim”. We can talk over time. There is no haste – at your leisure of course. God bless.

                    • Paul

                      It’s simple: how do you know your god is the one and only? Shouldn’t require a lengthy email exchange.

                    • It potentially could be. I do not know if you have a background in metaphysics and I do not wish to presume how much or how little you know on the subject. I do not wish to say something with myself laboring under the assumption that you know exactly what I am saying and why I am saying it. I could say: God is a logical necessity given the arguments x,y and z (what we can know) but then you would want me – and rightly so – to explain/demonstrate/make clear my claims. I would then have to discuss things like “act and potency”, “formal, efficient and final causation” as well as a number of other very interesting points belonging to formal logic – as they came up. In short, I would only be giving you the end of the equation without the equation (preambula fidei) and that would be unreasonable and irresponsible of me. I would not presume to take up your time on the matter in this way. You deserve to understand and understanding is always a good beginning. Nor would I ever think to push you into a discussion you may not be interested in having. I can, in lieu of that, recommend a book or two that might serve. I’ve always been of a mind that it is sound policy to “go to the source” where questions of God or “any discipline” for that matter is concerned. It certainly is a discussion worth having.

                      One of the other reasons that a conversation of this kind might come to more than a few e-mails exchanged is that it does take time and effort to write up and respond.

                      Consider this Paul, your question is a simple one. It is true. But it is pregnant with “intention, purpose and depth” and therein lies the reason for my invitation.

                      With all humility,

                      Joe

                      God bless

                    • Paul

                      The best primary source is the Bible, that tautological wellspring of transcendence and violence, intolerance and grace. The problem is the reader parses out of it what they will based on their beliefs. However, to have no simple response as to why Christianity the one true faith, that Jesus Christ presents the superior pathway, well then, I’ll have to call that god out for obfuscation (the god, mind you, not the believer).

                    • Paul, I answered the above post this morning but for some reason it is not showing here. Kindly let me know if you got it. If not, I’ll try and respond again a little later on. I’m scratching my head over why it’s not here. What a bother!

                    • Paul

                      Nope, nothing has shown up.

                    • Ah, all right, I’ll see what I can remember and put something together. Bear with me…

                    • Here we go!

                      The Bible certainly does contain “the simple response” you are looking for. However, if one looks to find that answer “sola scriptura”, it will never be found at least not
                      without prayer and help from the unity of Christ’s body (which is his church – “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me” – The Christ was referring here to his body (his people)…and that I think is a few steps down the road from what you would like in terms of “textual evidence”; so we cannot rightly begin with the Bible if it is the “Bible alone” in which you wish to draw exclusive claims regarding the claims of Roman Catholicism. Now, God is “the very nature of Being subsistent in and of itself”. Moreover, “God was” prior to “the text”. God is
                      not contained in the book. On this note, I’d like to say something regarding the Bible- it is a point that people seldom reflect upon – but the Bible is for those who already believe (I know that must strike you as strange but I will develop my point as we go along). It is not, nor has it ever been meant to be used as a tool for conversion, a kind of: “Here you go guys, t’is the word of God; take it from me, it’s all true.” – Why should anyone take our word for it? I certainly would not.

                      Just a brief aside, it is a Roman Catholic book. It is not a “whatever it might mean” kind of proposition in the hands of “whomever might happen to have it”. It has only come to be understood this way because of a Protestant insistence that “sola scriptura” is the only authority. It is a strange claim, unsupported textually and absurd in light of “God” as so understood above. This also naturally leads to a “sacrificium intellectus, something Roman Catholics do not hold to unless there is reason to. Allow me explain:

                      I shall take friendship for my theme:

                      We can only know a person if we invest the time. We want to see if they are faithful to their word, honest in their dealings with other people, affable , engaging, interested
                      in the world around them, interested in discussion etc before coming to the decision of friendship. From here, if we do become friends, this person might say something regarding some matter or other for which I have no knowledge or very little information. And so, unlike the word of a stranger, who might very well say the same thing, I will credit what my friend says over and above what the stranger has to say simply because “I know my friend” and this allows me to “believe what he says about something without me necessarily knowing anything about the subject under discussion.” Now, we do this all the time in life. My sister, for example, is a microbiologist
                      and there have been times when I would come to her with some question or other and she would kindly answer, not in the language of her discipline, but in such a way that I, already believing her to know what she is talking about, may understand. Of course, I would sometimes read something that would give me cause to probe and question what she had said regarding some point or other and she would always generously and patiently provide me with intelligible answers that corresponded to my level of knowledge and understanding. This is not to say that they would hold up in the same way among her peers whose depth of understanding far surpasses mine in matters microbiological – she would not have spoken false to me, she would just have to frame the point in a manner consistent with the expectations of her profession.

                      The Roman Catholic Bible is like that. We believe in God not because of the Bible, but rather because “God is” and the Bible is “his word with us” that has the potential to deepen our understanding.

                      Now, if you do not believe in God, or are uncertain or have
                      intimations…I won’t presume, I would advise you to begin with what you can know. Now, one can find God without any “God talk”. God can be found in “the germ” of beautiful music, great art, an act of simple kindness or silence. God can be found in Scholastic metaphysics, prayer and a game of football well played.
                      God can be found thus because God is “esse sum subsistemas esse”. Our God is a secret God, what the Greeks of Athens called the “unknown God”. When
                      The Christ says: “seek and you shall find”, He is simply saying, please put in the effort, and I will do the rest. When we get to know God, we come to have faith in God.
                      It’s like friendship really. God provides what our grasp alone (despite our valiant striving) cannot for itself achieve.

                      Now, just a note on “esse sum subsistemas esse”. This is a conclusion not a “point of view” It is arrived at in much the same way that the number four can be arrived at using mathematical models. Roman Catholics are not interested in this kind of intellectual pabulum: “what is God to me?”

                      Regarding the use of the word “obfuscation”, I certainly
                      understand you. Yet this has more to do
                      with the limitations of the individual looking at the material (and ones expectations and understanding concerning the material) than it does “the material proper”.

                      Now, let me see if I can explain myself. It is commonly understood that “Knowledge and understanding correspond to the level of the individual” (as I have stated ad nauseam) and it is known that when an individual sets up their varying “capacities for knowing and understanding as the measure” and sets up the
                      criteria by which knowledge and understanding can be attained, we have circumscribed, in this case, “The very nature of Being itself, subsistent in and of Itself” to “letters left behind” on the table, as it were.

                      Consider this, even something as banal as “public record”
                      has an “author” or “someone” that can be appealed to beyond and perhaps precisely because of what the scope of any one body of text suggests.

                      I suppose the next question now is: God, to be or not to
                      be…?

                      Incidentally, your last post was nicely phrased. I appreciated it. God bless

                    • Ah, now I begin to understand how you are interpreting what He has said here. It is a wrong interpretation of course but I understand you now – you should read the whole of the passage with regards to what came before it and what follows; to better understand what he is saying to those whom He loves and who love Him (context is paramount my friend). I would also suggest that consult the necessary authorities as I have suggested.

                      Jesus does not endorse ideas (as a friend might endorse the watching of a film or the reading of a good book). A sentence like this can easily mislead and cause others to misconstrue.

                      The Jewish people have a saying: “For the holy there is no law”. Think about that for a moment. Furthermore, consider why the Mosaic law was the standard for the Jewish people as “the chosen people of God” prior to the coming of the Hebrew Messiah. Moreover consider how Jesus regards the law when love is not present in the observance of it. The Jewish people were (and are) very hard on themselves because they were (and are) in preparation.

                      I should also like to point out that you have done two notable things with your posts:

                      1. You have pivoted to the issue of an “alleged moral relativity” after having your first inquiry regarding the morality/immorality of certain sexual practices sufficiently answered. *The reasons for doing so are fairly obvious – the question now is whether or not you have the sufficient intellectual honesty/interest to pursue the subject seriously. My previous post offered you a good start.

                      2. It is also apparent that, prior to our discussion, you have worked out “your idea” or “opinion” prior to serious scholarship and are now appealing to what you understand to be evidence for your claims rather than giving yourself wholly over to the study of these issues before coming to an “informed opinion”. Essentially, my point centers around a need for one to be comprehensive; a good corollary can be had from the scientific disciplines: The best theory is that which takes into account all the information available.

                      It strikes me (and I could be wrong – feel free to correct me on the matter) that you are looking for “sufficient reason” to “set biblical authority aside” having thus far been unable to find the “sufficient justification” you were fishing for regarding aberrant sexual practices. I say this because the progression and pivoting of your discourse points to it.

                      Of course, you are free to ignore everything I have said thus far and continue on your merry way regarding these questions, insisting, with the aid of an all too narrow reading of “scripture alone”, that Hebraic law was indeed barbaric for “His chosen people” (but this is to entirely miss the point and to ignore a very important distinction). The law was not for the likes of us Paul- we were merely gentiles.

                      You might say that their law is like the preparatory fasting/observance and abstinence one does before Easter. It was hardship endured for the sake of the world. They were a people in preparation, a people who offered up their entire tribe to God and who needed to remain in steady preparation and holiness until the fulfillment of the covenant.

                      Please, if you are really interested in how deep this rich and interesting relationship between the Old and New testament is, begin to pursue it in earnest. This is a discussion I am certainly willing to have with you but it will prove to be “time consuming” in the extreme particularly if I am to be the chief (if not only source) of information on the issue, especially when all you need do is pick up any number of fine books on the subject. One can even appeal to the learning of good priests and the generosity of rabbinical scholars. I would encourage to you to “knock, so that the door may be open to you.” But more than this, I would encourage you to pray.

                      God bless Paul.

    • Tony

      The Jesus who condemned DIVORCE — which was accepted under rather lenient conditions — is going to smile at sodomy?

      Jesus’ condemnation of DIVORCE does not refer to the feelings of the married couple. He refers to the CREATION of human beings, “in the beginning,” “male and female,” and it is for this reason, He says, citing the sacred author of Genesis, “that a man shall leave his mother and father and cleave unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.” He is saying to us that the new reality, the one-flesh reality of man and woman in marriage, is God’s original intention, “in the beginning,” before the Fall.

      “Therefore what God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”

      Jesus also numbers adultery and fornication and lewdness among those things that “come out of a man” and defile him, along with blasphemy, false witness, and so forth. The idea that Jesus was lackadaisical about sexual sin cannot be supported by the gospels, and indeed the early Christians insisted upon differentiating themselves from the pagans around them, in these regards. They did not divorce, they did not abort their children, they did not engage in deliberately barren sex, they condemned adultery and fornication for men as well as for women, and they condemned sodomy.

      The Sexual Revolution has been an unmitigated disaster, and has had much more to do with cruelty, selfishness, and hardheartedness, than with misplaced love.

    • GG

      This is a novel and false interpretation. No one but post modern rigid intolerent small minded people would accept such logic.

      • If it is logic you are looking for, read my above posts. There is no logic where the coupling of “sodomy” and “marriage” are concerned nor can there appear to be any without abandoning logic and willing one’s thoughts to be subordinate to one’s desires. Christ was concerned with divorce because it was permitted under Mosaic Law. Furthermore, it neither requires someone who is “intolerant” or for that matter “tolerant” (or any other adjective besides) to understand the validity of the point. In fact, it strikes me that you are far more concerned with how you “feel regarding this issue” than what you can “know regarding this issue”. Has it not occurred to you that The holy family is “itself the argument” and the model “exemplar” for what the true family is? That is the argument for the family right there, not this wishy-washy pablum and “verification by omission” kind of argument that can only ever hold court among the “sufficiently dumbed-down”.

      • Paul

        Just going by what Jesus said.

        • GG

          No, you are not.

    • disqus_qkOcYNTXOW

      He did:

      Matthew 5:17-18
      Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

      The law of the Old Testament was upheld by Jesus. He didn’t say it was over with His arrival.

    • Asmondius

      But He did define marriage as the union of a man to a woman.

    • Alexandra

      Paul, Jesus clearly condemned immorality. He also spoke of marriage between man and woman, do you really think He would ever condonne homosexuality?

  • Jacqueleen

    I totally agree with the author’s advice to go on the offensive. The gay agenda is LOUD, POWERFUL, ABUSIVE AND VULGAR, to say the least. We must be LOUDER, AND MORE POWERFUL WITH THE SPIRIT OF GOD LEADING THE WAY AND WITH CHARITY IN MIND, STAND FIRM ON THE WORD OF GOD. We must realize that the stats on the percentage of gays in this country are false. There are many more out there which includes bisexuals as well. The fact that there are so many resulting from the sexual revolution, it clearly indicates that the churches have failed to anchor the trend.
    However, it is never too late. Pray, pray, pray for God is the only One who can change hearts including the glassy eyed politicians who let greed blind them and their interpretation of the law. Come, Lord Jesus come….the sooner the better! Sr. Lucia (from Portugal-Fatima) told St. Pope John Paul II that many, many souls will be lost. Abstinence has to sound doable when the alternative is hell forever. Only a fool would prefer the few seconds of an orgasm in exchange for the burning fires and smell of sulfur forever and ever. Lord, have mercy.

  • allthebest

    By Larry L Beane II

    I don’t believe in religious freedom.

    Freedom should have nothing to do with one’s religious beliefs or
    lack thereof. The reason we intuitively have a concept like freedom is
    because we are individuals. We have different worldviews. We disagree
    about what we prefer and what we don’t like. We have different opinions.

    One person likes Coke. Another person likes Pepsi. In a free
    society, you buy what you want. In an authoritarian society, you get
    what someone else wants you to have. In a free society, you can
    discriminate (choose) between the two. In an authoritarian society, the
    discrimination (choice) is decided by someone else. In fact, in a free
    society, you can buy both, or neither. It’s really nobody’s business,
    so long as there is no aggression.

    And in a free society, if you have a business, you can choose to sell
    only Coke, only Pepsi, both, or none. In an authortiarian society, it
    is illegal to sell Coke, or Pepsi, or neither, or both. In a free
    society, a person may want to buy a Coke, but may walk into a store that
    sells only Pepsi – and he simply won’t do business there. There will
    be no lawsuit, no arrest, no thug demanding protection money, no
    extortion, no threats, no violence, and no moral outrage that
    Coke-drinkers are being discriminated against. He will simply find
    someone that sells Pepsi. The Coke-only seller misses out on a sale,
    and the market sends a signal that selling Pepsi is a good way to make
    money – which someone does. This is a system of voluntary and peaceful
    interaction. It is far superior to any alternative, which is inevitably
    violent or enforced with the threat of violence.

    That is how freedom works.

    I do believe in freedom, as opposed to freedom that is qualified by
    religion. For a lot of things go into what makes us different:
    worldview, tastes, priorities, religion (or lack thereof), intelligence,
    ability, physical stature, culture, etc. Religion is just one of those
    things that contribute to the diversity of the human race.

    Part of the current discussion about freedom has focused on religion,
    largely over the issue of whether or not people with traditional
    religious views have the right not to violate their consciences as they
    ply their trades, or are they rather compelled to act contrary to their
    worldviews in contracting business?

    What has sparked this controversy involves the question as to whether
    or not a Christian photographer has the right to refuse to accept a job
    photographing a ritual that is contrary to his faith, one that would be
    uncomfortable for him based on his ethical worldview.

    Here are some analogous questions:

    Should a lesbian photographer be compelled to accept a job taking
    pictures at a celebration of Fred Phelps at the Westboro Baptist Church?
    Or does this photographer have the right to either accept or decline
    this job based on her comfort level and freedom of choice? Does she
    have a choice, or is she under compulsion to go and be uncomfortable, to
    do a job against her will? Which option, choice or compulsion, would
    be considered “freedom” as opposed to “tyranny”?

    How about:

    a black photographer at a white supremacist ritual,

    a Jewish photographer at a neo-nazi political rally,

    a vegan at a slaughterhouse,

    a Mennonite at a pornography convention,

    a Muslim at a pig farm,

    a Jehovah’s Witness as a flag-raising ceremony,

    a Tibetan at a function honoring Chairman Mao?

    Should a photographer who does not believe in the death penalty be compelled to photograph executions?

    Do any of these photographers reserve the right to say “No, thank
    you,” or must every photographer be compelled to do business with every
    other person on demand, regardless of religion, worldview, or comfort
    level?What if a photographer suffers from an irrational fear of
    left-handed people? Could he only contract weddings for the
    right-handed? What if a photographer is afraid of heights? Could he
    refuse to shoot a wedding on the observation deck of the Empire State
    Building?

    What
    if an Atheist thinks religion is stupid, or even offensive, could be
    refuse to take pictures at a Christian ordination? What if a
    photographer suffered the effects of promiscuous parents and a broken
    family, could he turn down a job at a swinger’s party? How about a
    person whose father was beaten to death in an incident of police
    brutality, can he refuse jobs involving the police?

    Of course, this issue of freedom of association doesn’t only affect photographers.

    How about these:

    May a Christian ob/gyn refuse to perform abortions?

    May an all-women’s college refuse admission to men?

    May a merchant refuse to sell alcohol or pornography or marijuana
    (in states in which it is legal) if he finds these legal substances to
    be morally troubling?

    May a Muslim-owned convenience store sell eggs but not bacon?

    Must a sporting goods store sell weapons and ammunition, even if the owner is a pacifist?

    Must an animal rights activist who runs a pawn shop purchase a stuffed deer head for resale?

    May a Lutheran pastor refuse to conduct a wedding for two Methodists, two Unitarians, or two men?

    In a free society, we have the right to make choices. Others may
    agree with us or disagree with us. We can even be wrong. If I were to
    walk into a store, and the manager said, “In order to do business here,
    you must hop up and down on one foot while reciting a poem by Catullus,
    and agree with me that 2+2=5,” I could either comply, or choose to
    leave. And I would imagine the success of his business would reflect
    whether or not such practices are within the mainstream or not. I don’t
    think I would call the police on him, threaten him, or compel him to
    say “2+2=4″ and sell me a carburetor just because I feel entitled, or
    because I don’t like Latin poetry, or because his math is wrong, or
    because I think I would look like an idiot in complying with his rules.
    He has a choice of whether to sell; I have a choice of whether to buy.
    And we may choose to do business with each other, or either one of us
    may opt out and the transaction will not happen. Both parties are
    completely empowered. And neither party pulls a gun and compels a
    transaction. It’s all voluntary.

    That is how freedom works.

    Sad to say, both left and right have lost touch with what freedom is.
    The left talks the talk on tolerance, but is utterly illiberal when it
    comes to extending tolerance to those who disagree with them. The
    right talks the talk on freedom, but prefers to focus on religious
    freedom instead of seeing the bigger picture that freedom is freedom
    whether or not it has anything to do with religion. Both left and right
    are willing to throw liberty under the bus if the state has “a
    compelling interest” in taking away this or that freedom. And, of
    course, it is the state itself that decides whether the state has a
    “compelling interest” or not. How far we have fallen since 1776, when
    Jefferson opined about “inalienable rights” and the role of government
    being “to secure these rights.” Nowhere in the Declaration is King
    George allowed to violate the liberties of Americans based on his own
    “compelling interest.”

    Even the word “compelling” suggests “compulsion” – which is the
    antithesis of liberty. This kind of language is indicative of the
    controlling and tyrannical tendency of government by its very nature: a
    nature our forefathers sought to curtail through conscious limitation,
    institutional distrust, and eternal vigilance. Sad to say, the fact
    that we’re even having this discussion in the United States is
    indicative of our own failure to uphold the very principles of liberty
    and independence our ancestors attempted to secure for us, their
    posterity.

    And yet, even in its weakness (which seems to approach mortality in
    many cases), the ideal of freedom refuses to be snuffed out entirely.
    It lives in the hearts and minds of men who are not afraid to challenge
    the assertions of the ruling mob, whether personified by an elephant or
    by a donkey, by a red star or by a twisted cross.

    I don’t believe in religious freedom. I believe in freedom.
    Including freedom for people to associate with others or not, to
    conduct business or not, in accordance with their religion, or lack of
    religion.

    Maybe instead of Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, we should have Freedom Restoration Acts.

    • AnneM040359

      ….Or better yet, how about Christians being left alone for a change.

    • ray

      Or maybe you just brush up on the concept of a “society”. It would save you a LOT of typing…

    • LarryCicero

      Are the people of Maryland free to outlaw Catholicism? What about the people of San Francisco?
      Am I free to sell a hamburger to whites for $1, blacks for $2, Jews $3, and refuse to serve Catholic bigots?
      Am I free to kill my unborn child? Should an employer be free to not provide insurance so the employee can kill hers?
      I don’t believe in freedom.
      I believe in God.

      • 90Lew90

        Twat.

    • GG

      What is freedom ?

    • Tantem Ergo

      This is one of the best comments ever, I was laughing out loud to the jumping on one leg, 2 +2=5, thank you allthebest for a chuckle while reading about the most unfunny topic of our time.

  • Gary Miller

    Keep discrimination alive!

    • Asmondius

      Stay out of the Women’s room!

    • GG

      Yes, keep just discrimination alive!!

  • maggie galalgher
  • AnneM040359

    God Bless the writer of this excellent article!

  • Major914

    It is long past time to go on the offensive for thruth of God’s fundamental law in His Creation.

    Many of ourselves and our ancestors are gravely remiss for not having done so up to this late point in time…

    It is worth remembering that grace is the fulfillment of the law, and at the same time, “Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked.” (Proverbs 25:26)

  • Tantem Ergo

    I shudder at the thought of how the gay mafia will get worse before this offensive actually takes place. Still I see minor victories with major effects, like the raising of 800,000 $ for the pizzeria that stood up and said no. Our Lady of Sorrows, Ora Pro Nobis!

    • It will be interesting to see what they’ll do with that $800 thousand. Maybe expand into a regional chain. Or go on a lovely vacation in Russia. They would be welcomed with open arms.

      • Objectivetruth

        He’ll probably donate the money to Catholic HIV/AIDS hospices where members of the “gay” male community still continue to die by the thousands due to their insatiable sodomic activitities. Catholic hospices humbily, lovingly, and selflessly caring for dieing humanity abandoned by the homosexuals that infected them.

        • disqus_qkOcYNTXOW

          Amen! Faith based groups are providing up to 70% of the care in Africa!

          I find it so funny that the left is ‘freeing people from sexual suppression’, yet we’re the ones caring for them. Nobody ever talks about that part.

      • Objectivetruth

        “Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV.
        In 2010, the estimated number of new HIV infections among MSM was 29,800, a significant 12% increase from the 26,700 new infections among MSM in 20082.
        Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States4, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections2. MSM accounted for 54% of all people living with HIV infection in 2011, the most recent year these data are available1.
        In 2010, white MSM continued to account for the largest number of new HIV infections (11,200), by transmission category, followed closely by black MSM (10,600)2.
        The estimated number of new HIV infections was greatest among MSM in the youngest age group. In 2010, the greatest number of new HIV infections (4,800) among MSM occurred in young black/African American MSM aged 13–24. Young black MSM accounted for 45% of new HIV infections among black MSM and 55% of new HIV infections among young MSM overall 2.
        Since the epidemic began, an estimated 311,087 MSM with an AIDS diagnosis have died, including an estimated 5,380 in 20123.”

  • Zeke

    Just look at all these homofascist organisations and individuals who advocated a boycott of Indiana. They’re obviously all secretly gay and part of the gay mafia! Who knew?

    Accenture
    AFSCME Women’s Conference
    Angie’s List
    Disciples of Christ
    Ebay
    Eli Lilly
    Gen Con
    Indiana University
    Levi Strauss & Co.
    Nascar
    NBA, Indiana Pacers, Indiana Fever
    NCAA
    Salesforce
    Twitter
    Yelp
    Apple CEO Tim Cook
    Charles Barkley
    Cher
    Hillary Clinton
    Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
    Keith Olbermann
    Larry King
    Miley Cyrus
    New York Mayor Bill de Blasio
    Reggie Miller
    Stephen King

    • Asmondius

      Miley Cyrus – what a shocker!

      • Zeke

        No twerk for Hoosiers!

    • Carl

      Mark 5:9 He asked him, “What is your name?” He replied, “Legion is my name. There are many of us.”

  • Akira88

    I still think it’s time to surround the Capitol and the White House with Rosary warriors. 3 days at the walls of our modern Jericho.

  • Joe

    Is Mr. Krason suggesting, by contrast, that religion is inborn and unchangeable?

    • One chooses one’s own religion far easier than anyone ever chose his sexual orientation, I know that for a fact.

      • Objectivetruth

        One chooses to fight against a sinful proclivity or temptation, or one chooses to indulge a sinful proclivity or temptation. I know that for a fact.

      • Carl

        Today?, under the rule of the homosexual mafia? I think not. The hardest choice today is to choose to be and live as a Christian (actually always has). The easiest thing to do today is give in to sin and live a licentious lifestyle!(actually always has)
        As you so aptly described in an earlier post at least 379 corporations are sitting in wait to sell publications, clothing, lubrication, vacations, pornography, weddings, and so on in support for any lifestyle we choose!

  • Kim58

    “The protection of behavior is a convolution of the notion of civil
    rights and anti-discrimination laws, which aim to stop unjust treatment
    of groups of people either on the grounds of unchangeable
    characteristics such as race or ethnicity, or because of religious
    belief pursuant to the historic principle of religious liberty—the very
    thing that the homosexualist juggernaut is jeopardizing.”

    Given that most people don’t attend any religious services, I think it would be very helpful for Catholic websites to better explain how protecting religious liberty is not the same as protecting one’s choice to marry a person of the same gender (or more than one person or an animal, etc). Religious practice is a behavior and many people change religions so it is hard for young people raised on relativism to differentiate between protection of religious freedom and protection of sexual behavior. Many articles have discussed why same sex orientation is not in the same category as race, but a more useful article should compare and contrast sexual orientation and religious practice and why the latter should be protected and not the former..

    • Objectivetruth

      “Religious practice is a behavior and many people change religion.”

      No.

      Being Catholic is a full body and soul conversion to Christ. At our confirmation, we are marked by Christ as His very own.

    • Carl

      “The protection of behavior is a convolution of the notion of civil rights and anti-discrimination law” (1st Amendment)

      Let’s break it down:

      * “stop unjust treatment of groups of people either on the grounds of unchangeable characteristics such as race or ethnicity”

      * “religious belief pursuant to the historic principle of religious liberty”

      Not going to “religious services” is another belief under the principle of religious liberty. How would you like to be forced to attend a religious service or the government take your hard earned money and pay for someone else’s religious service? Or even shut down your business because you refuse to comply?

      That’s exactly what is happening today under the homosexual mafia!

      • Carl

        No one is arguing against homosexuals NOT being treated with dignity. (“should be protected”) Actually homosexuals have more rights and protections today.
        * there are no boycotts against homosexual businesses by a Christian mafia
        * No government has shut down a homosexual small business for not supporting a Christian
        * If someone yells @#$% %&$ you Papist as they beat down on me I have no “hate crime” protection.

        • Carl

          * If someone yells @#$% %&$ you Papist as they beat down on me I have no “hate crime” protection. (Actually I’m supposed to, but I’m not aware of this ever being enforced) I believe government coercion to comply to homosexual demands is a “hate crime” though.

        • Danny Boyle

          – Christians have regularly boycotted businesses who displayed even the slightest sympathy for gays, and they have been doing it for 30 years. Home Depot, Applebees, Disney, Apple, Ford, American Airlines, Amazon, Starbucks, these are just a few that come to mind.

          – No Christian business has been shut down either

          – Yes you do. Religion is a protected category in the federal hate crime law.

          You just don’t know what you are talking about.

  • I must confess that I am confounded by the general choice of words used throughout by many in support of so called “gay marriage”. They generally range from: “hate”, “discriminate”, “bigotry” and so on…to what might be called the “hurt feelings/I’m indignant” class of comment with the usual suspects being: “insulting” “demeaning” “outraged” and so on. How tiring.

    It is also clear that there are many who believe that “cogent arguments” in support of traditional sexual norms, as exclusively correct, do not exist or that if they do they must be “extremely or shockingly wicked, cruel, or brutal or whatever else? I would, at some point and at your leisure, very much like to see those who think otherwise to present the kind of argumentation/epistemological ground work that “must necessarily underpin” thier take on sexual morality, its social (private/public) ramifications, it’s moral import, the effect, if any, on the state, the judiciary et al…that is, if you want all your hurt feelings and indignation to be taken seriously. Now, a lesser point but an important one nonetheless: just because there are those who believe that any sexual practice is fair game for any consenting adult (and that everyone has to accept it regardless of whatever thoughts one might have on the matter simply because, God forbid we wouldn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings or discriminate against their “preference satisfiers”) does not make it so by de facto.

    Another tangential point is one that regards “Catholic teaching on sexual morality as “archaic” (a favorite word and often used, though, for the life of me, I fail to see how it diminishes the value of staid truth); we also see words like “mean” or “hurtful” or “not in touch” et al… All that can be said at present about this is: for those of you who hold to such a view, you are woefully misinformed. You should take a look at Aristotle’s metaphysics, Scholastic metaphysics, Natural law theory and if none of that is to your taste, at least lend yourself to a cursory examination of the basic rudiments of logic if you find yourself interested at all in “an understanding of just how reasonable an argument can be put forward for what many so glibly regard as retrograde (provided you actually show good faith and take the time to look at the arguments).

    It is also worth considering that if many of those among the LGBT crowd were to, right now, look up the word “bigotry” I’m certain they would clearly understand me when I say that, by virtue of much of what is said and insisted upon rhetorically, they might, to their great surprise, find themselves falling quite nicely under that pleasant appellation (it always pays to be careful about the words one bandies about).

    Here is some good reading: (and this is just for starters) “What is Marriage” by Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson and Robert P.George. There is also a very well thought out chapter called “The Church Opposes Same-sex marriage because of Bigotry: The Myth that there is no rational basis for limiting marriage to one man and one woman from “The Seven Big Myths about the Catholic Church” by Christopher Kaczor.

    Ultimately, I am not asking anyone person to concede any one point. I’m simply insisting that one ought to be better informed and be ready to substantiate one’s claims sans the the kind of rhetoric that is constantly bouncing off the walls rather than casually asserting some point or other as though it were settled fact, popular consensus notwithstanding…

    Moreover, a good answer to the general view that any moral objection to those acts which same sex attraction entails is simply another form of “negative discrimination” or “hatred” and so on, I will briefly discuss one (and there are many more) of the chief deficiencies grounding much of the LGBT narrative.

    Where LGBT people are concerned, the “minor principle” of pleasure (which they always call love when sex is on the cards) -talk about your ubiquitous term – is equal to or can be made to trump the “major principle” of procreation (and all of this is commonly and conveniently folded into a narrative of: “natural affection and “friendship” – the common ground as it were. Yet this is dishonest on its face. Speaking in this way is merely another way to “sneak sodomy into the house” under universally acceptable credentials. It is in this way, the LGBT community look to “talk past the issue” of what their sex really is). Moreover, this assertion of course, like many “LGBT arguments” proves too much.

    What I mean by this is that it must, because of the principle upon which it rests its argument, include any kind of sexuality that one can “think of” and “indulge in” regardless of whom they “indulge in it with” or with “what” for that matter. (just think about that for a second). It is a reductio ad absurdum, a logical quandary. It’s interesting really. Permit me, by way of explanation, to flesh out what I have just said by means of the following analogy: I shall take “the eating of food” for my theme. Where food is concerned, would anyone seriously contend that “a healthy appetite” takes precedence over or is equal to “the need to nourish oneself” whilst maintaining the highly contentious back up argument: “well there is more to eating than just keeping you alive?”- Now, just because “a distinction” can be made (between “enjoying food” and “nourishing oneself”) it doesn’t necessarily follow that a “separation” is entailed (another logical fallacy). Yet, despite this, there are many who would like to believe or simply maintain (despite knowing better) that it does (against all logic) and by means of this assumed fallacy insist that both – “the appetite” and the “ends to which the appetite tend” – are equal and can be appealed to depending on one’s preference. Consequently, false choices are set up and promoted as something substantially valid (where “eating” is concerned) and yes, marriage.

    Now I must ask, how has it come to pass, even when “reason” and “logic” are at odds with such a proposition, that we have taken the narrative peddled by the LGBT community as a given? Called whatever they happen to insist upon, a right? Was it their force of rhetoric? Their appropriation of “rights language”? Media and hurt feelings? Moreover, why is it that wherever/whenever sex is concerned – and not any other part of the body – they are willing to entertain any mad idea that pops into their head as far as satisfying their “preference satisfiers” are concerned and to shout “bigotry”, “a violation of rights” and “discrimination” at anyone who reasonably/conscientiously objects, points out a false premise, demonstrates the use of ambiguous language or points out a logical contradiction? Heck, the very ground upon which their argument for equality stands is, by its very nature a logical contradiction. Madness.

    The argument from equality:

    “the equality argument”… another logical fallacy trumpeted triumphantly through the halls of public opinion.

    Here is a reasoned riposte: Perhaps the most common argument used by same-sex marriage advocates is the marriage equalityargument. They believe it is wrong to oppose equal rights for everyone, including equal rights to marry whomever we love. Banning same-sex marriage opposes equal rights for everyone. Therefore, it is wrong to ban same-sex marriage.

    The major premise, in the italicized portion, is false: it is wrong to oppose equal rights for everyone including “equal rights to marry whomever we love”. Some people love those who are already married to someone else, or those who do not want to marry them, or their close blood relatives, or prepubescent children, or animals, or nonliving things. Denial of same-sex marriage does not undermine the equality before the law of people who desire it, any more than denial of bigamy, polygamy, HAM (human and animal marriage) undermines the basic equality of the people who desire these kinds of unions to be declared marriages. To say that banning same-sex marriage opposes equal rights for everyone again proves too much, since we could just as well say banning polygamist marriage, self marriage, human animal marriage, or human inanimate object marriage opposes equal rights for everyone. The principles invoked to justify same-sex marriage also justify kinds of marriages that virtually no one accepts, so these principles ought to be rejected.

    The minor premise of the equality argument is also problematic; banning same-sex marriage opposes equal rights for everyone. What does equal rights really mean? Equality does not treat every person or every group in exactly the same way. Equality treats persons or groups that are the same in the same way but not persons or groups that are significantly different. For example, an air marshal can carry a gun on the plane, a regular citizens cannot. A 16-year-old can drive a car but a 10-year-old cannot. Such limitations are justly made despite rare exceptions (example: the unusual 10-year-old who is more mature than the average 16-year-old; the regular citizen who is better suited to defend the innocent passengers on a plane than the air marshal.) The question is, are there any significant differences between same-sex couples and opposite sex couples that justify treating them differently? (I’ll let you all think on this for a while).

    One has got to love “reason” and “logic”. Down with emotionalism and rhetorical language. Down with “I’ve got a friend, a brother a sister and all those other emotional ties that crowd out sound reasoning and critical judgement. Down with all this knee-jerk- reaction slandering and ignorance that smacks too much of insecurity for it to be anything else.

  • Mike W

    You would think that anyone with even a modicum of rational thought and objectivity could see that we are (supposedly) not allowed to impose our morality on them but they are apparently, more than entitled to impose their immorality on us. The hypocrisy is astounding. Clearly the only possible rational view is that the intent is to promote immorality by any and all means possible.

    When we see business people losing their life savings and means of producing income simply for not being willing to produce a cake that cannot possibly be seen as even the rough justice of an eye for an eye. The lack of understanding of even basic principles of justice is truly mind blowing from people who are supposed to be experts in this area. Clearly they must have undergone an intense regime of indoctrination and have not had to face up to the reality of their views. Perhaps a quick look at pre-Christian Rome would remind them of the consequences.

    There is a basic untruth happening here when government agencies can force people to treat non-biological relationships as though they were in fact the same and equal to biological ones. The reality is that they have absolutely no right to use the weight of the law to force that view onto people in the first place.

  • I’m very much up for such a rally. It’s well-past time for millions to descend on the National Mall & their State capitols in defense of traditional values & religious liberty. Remember the March for Marriage coming up on the 25th (https://www.marraigemarch.org). But if anybody on here wants to organize something more local or specific to liberty, please let me know.

  • Objectivetruth

    An interesting and timely article below on Stanford University’s Anscombe Society (a student society dedicated for marriage only between a man and a woman) being forced by local LGBT activists to move their meeting this Saturday off campus. A real life example of the bullying of the “gay” mafia. The persecution is not coming, it is here:

    http://www.stanfordanscombe.org/april-1-2015.html

    • Yeah, no kidding. Yet, we can offer up our sufferings, uniting them with Christ, so that they may then have merit. In this way we can make reparation for those that persecute us as St.Stephen did, praying for the very people who where stoning him to death while St.Paul (who was at that time anything but a saint) looked on. “The church suffering” is an opportunity for the faithful and by uniting our suffering of the cross, we may participate in the salvation of many souls. Pray the rosary. Pray the novena of Divine Mercy. Fast, show mercy. This is what we are here for.

  • Chris Ferrara

    Appeals to “the American constitutional tradition” are ultimately useless. Why should anyone be bound to “the American constitutional tradition” in the first place? Merely because it is “the American constitutional tradition”? What gives it absolute normative force and prevents it from changing in the mode of a “living tradition” that develops over time? Exactly nothing, unless we appeal to the only absolute and objective standard for its interpretation: the law of God.

    This article contains not a single reference to the divine and natural law. If Christians want to fight back against the gay Mafia they must do so explicitly and fearlessly AS Christians, defending God’s law against the dictatorship of relativism. They must oppose the imposition of social acceptance of sodomy precisely on the grounds that sodomy is intrinsically evil, is contrary to God’s law, and invites divine retribution as one of the sins that cry out to heaven for punishment. If Christians are afraid to say this, they have already lost the war and the most they can expect is to win a skirmish or two before the final surrender.

    Political modernity has imposed a pact of silence respecting the true nature and destiny of man as an ensouled creature answerable to God both individually and collectively. If we continue to allow the gag to remain in place, we can only lose.

  • A J MacDonald Jr

    “Jewish leaders in the media are in large part responsible for American acceptance of gay marriage, Vice President Biden said Tuesday night.

    “I believe what affects the movements in America, what affects our attitudes in America are as much the culture and the arts as anything else,” he said at a Democratic National Committee reception for Jewish American Heritage Month. He cited social media and the sitcom “Will and Grace,” giving Jews a large part of the credit for both.

    “I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether it’s in Hollywood or social media are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry,” he said. “The influence is immense, the influence is immense. And, I might add, it is all to the good. ”

    The vice president also praised Jewish contributions to science, immigration reform, the civil-rights movement, the arts, the law and to feminism.

    “I think you vastly underestimate the impact you’ve had on the development of this nation,” he said. “We’re a great country because of the contributions and most importantly because of Jewish heritage and the values you brought.”

    Source: Washington Post (May 22, 2013) – Biden: Jewish leaders helped gay marriage succeed

  • jscholar

    Thank you for a well-written article. Several years back, I was part of the editorial team who worked on a book about same-sex marriage and religious liberty. At the time, I alerted a key online religious figure about Chai Feldblum’s position (because it was clearly articulated in the book) and reminded said person again when she was appointed to the EEOC. In no way, did this person ever report on the book, its contents, or Ms. Feldblum’s position. You are the first I have seen to articulate this. Sadly, we are seeing the face of a totalitarian society emerge. To me it all looks a lot like what happened to Jewish businesses in 1930’s Germany…

  • St Donatus

    One simple way of fighting this is to do more than boycott, do what the left does and protest. Protest outside Walmart stores with ‘Walmart, Destroying the Family’, ‘Walmart wants to take your Bible Away’ and ‘Walmart Hates Christians’ or some such thing to hit their bottom line. Unless we start presenting more of a ‘Victim’ rather than the ‘Oppressor’ to the world, the ‘Gay’stapo will take us all down and we MUST work together. This is a great way to get the little guy involved, it has worked well against Abortion Clinics who could care less about Christians, but when 80% of US citizens say they are Christian, they will turn around when they see a sign at the local Walmart (which helped gut the Arkansas Religious Freedom law). They might just think a little bit rather than listen to the drone of the Mass Media.

  • Stephen Sponsler

    “There is no proof that homosexuality is an innate, inborn state or “orientation.” In fact, the evidence is increasingly suggesting that same-sex attraction for many is a transitory phenomenon at a certain point in their lives—in some cases prompted by sexual experimentation. The homosexualist movement seeks to suppress such evidence with a vengeance, because it undercuts its ideology and agenda.” This is a half truth at best…I noticed it was written ‘for many’ . yet for the MAJORITY no one can choose their orientation any more than they can choose whether they were born male or female. There is no ‘homosexualitst movement’ by the way; that is a myth and they are not out to suppress any evidence. All they (or at least, the majority of them) want to suppress is the proliferation of lies. For every action there is a reaction. What we are seeing is a reaction to over 500 years of lies, condemnation, and guilt tripping people innocent lives.

    • The question is not whether or not one can change one’s “orientation”.

      A bit about natural law and doing the right thing…and how one’s orientation, public opinion et al have no force.

      The nature of the thing from an Aristotelian point of view is “the form or essence it instantiates”.

      Let us take the triangle as our example. It is of the essence, nature, or form of a triangle to have three perfectly straight sides. Notice that this remains true even if some particular triangle does not have three perfectly straight sides and indeed even though every material instance of a triangle has some defect or other. The point is that these are defects, failures to conform to the “nature” or “essence” of triangularity; the fact that such defective triangles exist in the natural world and in accordance with the laws of physics doesn’t make them any less unnatural in the relevant sense.

      When we get to biological organs we have things whose “nature” or “essences” more obviously involve certain final causes or purposes. So for example the “function” or “final cause” of eyeballs is to enable us to see. But suppose someone’s eyeballs are defective in some way, making his vision blurry. In that case, to wear eyeglasses isn’t contrary to the natural function of eyeballs; rather it quite obviously restores to the eyeballs their ability to carry out their natural function. On the other hand, bicycles don’t do this but they do extend rather than conflict with the ability of the legs to carry out their natural function of allowing us to move about.

      Finally, round out this initial reply to some standard bad objections to natural law theory, while it is true that some defenders and critics of traditional sexual morality seem to worry themselves endlessly about whether homosexuality has a genetic basis, the question is actually largely irrelevant, and they shouldn’t waste their time. For it is quite obvious that the existence of a genetic basis for some trait does not by itself prove anything about whether it is “natural” in the relevant sense. To take just one of many possible examples, that there is a genetic basis for clubfoot doesn’t show that having club feet is “natural”. Quite obviously it is unnatural certainly in the Aristotelian sense of failure perfectly to conform to the “essence” or “nature” of a thing. And no one who has a clubfoot would take offense at someone’s noting this obvious matter of fact, or find it convincing that the existence of a genetic basis for his affliction shows that it is something he should “embrace” and “celebrate”. Nor would it be possible to suggest that God made him that way any more than God makes people to be born blind, deaf, armless, legless, prone to alcoholism or autistic. God obviously allows these things, for whatever reason; but it doesn’t follow that he positively “wills” them, and it certainly doesn’t follow that they are “natural”. So, by the same token, the possibility of the genetic basis for homosexual desire doesn’t by itself show that such desire is natural. Homsexual activists often breathlessly cite this or that alleged “finding” that such a basis exists; someday they might even cite something plausible. “Whatever dude” as the kids say. Even if it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that there is such a basis with respect to the question of the “naturalness” of homosexuality this would prove exactly zip.

      Of course, that by itself does not show that homosexuality is immoral either. After all having a clubfoot is not immoral and neither is being born blind or with a predisposition for alcoholism. These are simply afflictions for which the sufferer is not at fault and can only call forth our sympathy. On the other hand if someone born with normal feet wanted to give himself a club foot through surgery, we would find this at the very least irrational; and if someone concluded from having a genetic predisposition for alcoholism that regularly drinking to excess would be a worthwhile “lifestyle” for him to pursue, then we would regard him as sorely mistaken even if he could do this in a way that allowed him to hold down a job, keep his friends and family and avoid car accidents. Even amid the depravity of modern civilization most people realize that the life of an alcoholic is simply not a good thing, even if the alcoholic himself thinks it is and even if he “doesn’t hurt anybody” else. We know in our bones that there is something ignoble and unfitting about it. In the same way should it turn out that the desire to molest children has a genetic basis, no one would conclude from this that sexual attraction toward children is a good thing even if the person who has it was able to satisfy his disgusting urges without actually touching any children. We all know in our bones that someone obsessed with masturbating to pictures of naked toddlers is sick and not living the way human being ought to live even if he never leaves the darkness of his own room or his own soul.

      Now I realize, of course, that many readers will acknowledge that we do in fact have these reactions but would nevertheless write them off as “mere reactions”. “Our tendency to find something personally disgusting” they will sniff “doesn’t show that there is anything objectively wrong with it.” This is the sort of stupidity masquerading-as-insight that absolutely pervades modern intellectual life, and it has the same source as so many other contemporary intellectual pathologies: in abandonment of the classical realism of the Greek and scholastic philosophers and especially of Aristotle’s doctrine of the four causes. For we need to ask “why” there is universal, or near universal, reaction of disgust to certain behaviors and why certain traits count is unnatural even though there is a genetic factor underlying them. And when the “evolutionary psychologists”, “rational choice theorists” and other such “Bright Young Things” and trendy’s have had their say there can still be no satisfying answer to these questions questions that does not make reference to Aristotelian final causes – even if only because there can be no satisfying explanation of almost anything that doesn’t make reference to final causes.

      Let’s back up then, see what morality in general looks like from a point of view informed by Aristotelian metaphysics, and then return later on to the question of sexual morality in particular. Like Plato, Aristotle takes a things “form, essence or nature” to determine the good for it. Hence, a good triangle is one that corresponds as closely as possible to the form of triangularity, its sides drawn is perfectly straight as possible etc. A good squirrel, for example, is one that has the typical marks of the species and successfully fulfills the characteristic activities of a squirrels life, e.g. by not having broken limbs, not gathering stones for its food rather than acorns etc. So far, this is obviously a non-moral sense of “good” – the claim isn’t that triangles and squirrels are deserving of moral praise or blame – and corresponds closely to the sense in which we might think of something as a “good specimen” or “good example” of some kind of class of things. but it is the foundation for the distinctively moral sense of goodness.

      But why should we choose to do what is good for us in this Aristotelian sense? The answer is implicit in what has been said already. The will, of its very nature, is oriented to pursuing what the intellect regards is good. You don’t even need to believe in Aristotelian final causes to see this; you know it from your own experience insofar as you only ever do something because you think it is in some way good. Of course you might also believe that what you are doing is morally evil – as a murderer or thief might – but that doesn’t conflict with what I’m saying. Even the murderer or thief who knows that murderer and stealing are wrong nevertheless thinks that what he’s doing will result in something he regards is good, e.g. the death of the person he hates or some money to pay for his drugs. I mean “good” here only in this thin sense, of being in some way desirable or providing some benefit. And that is all Aquinas means by it when he famously tells us that the first principle of the natural law is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil to be avoided”. This is not meant by itself to be terribly informative; it is meant only to call attention to the obvious fact that human action is of its nature directed toward what is “perceived to be good” in some way, whether it really is good or not.

      But when we add to this the consideration that the good for us is in fact whatever “tends to fulfill our nature or essence” in the sense of realizing the “natural ends or purposes” to which various natural capacities, then there can be no doubt as to why someone ought to do what is good in this sense. For you do by nature want to do what you “take to be good” for you; reason reveals that what is in fact good for you is acting in a way that is conducive to the fulfillment of the ends or purposes inherent in human nature; and so if you are rational, and thus open to seeing what is in fact good for you, you will take the fulfillment of those ends or purposes to be good for you and act accordingly. This may require a fight against one’s desires and such a fight might in some cases be so extremely difficult and unpleasant that one might not have the stomach for it. But that is a problem of will, not reason. It doesn’t show that the rational thing is not to struggle against one’s desires, but only that doing the rational thing can sometimes be extremely difficult and unpleasant.

  • Ex Nihilo

    Welcome to tolerance as defined by secular radicals. In their lexicon “tolerance” is “your right to agree with me.” Live and let live” means, “you have the right to live only where I say.” “Bigotry” applies only to the classes they say are oppressed. “Phobia” (as in Homophobia) applies only to those who oppose their  agenda. “Hate” only exists against the classes they I say who are “protected” and have defined as oppressed. It is never possible for religious or social conservatives to be the object of hate since hate only comes from social conservatives.
    Msg. Charles Pope

    • The word “homophobia” is no more than “slight of hand rhetoric” designed to politically alienate anyone who does not fall into line. It is there to make you feel bad should anything like “common sense” and “right reason” impact on your views of what is manifestly deviant sexuality.

  • Siwash

    For me, the pissy tone of the homosexuals really tells me all I need to know about the legitimacy of their cause. Now it’s “revenge”. . . one can see the whole edifice of “gay rights” is a cardboard construct, which will fall apart with any contact with reality.

  • James Boardman

    “the evidence is increasingly suggesting that same-sex attraction for many is a transitory phenomenon at a certain point in their lives—in some cases prompted by sexual experimentation.” Where is this supported by scientific evidence? I don’t support the gay agenda, but I think that God has given gay and lesbian folks an extra burden to witness to His Grace by remaining abstinent.

  • Albert8184

    Never before has the essential fascistic nature of behavioral-based identity politics been so apparent as now! Is there another movement like this one apparent in the historical record? Not since the days of Sodom and Gomorrah! A political movement centered around sexual perversion!

  • Be firmly convinced that the more the assaults of the enemy increase, the closer God is to the soul. Think of, and ponder well, this great and comforting truth. St. Padre Pio (Letters III, p. 417)

  • Damien Thalos

    Krason nicely bundles up just about every error that Christians have made over the past 38 years and then he urges us to repeat them. Name-calling, check. Warfare analogies, check. Quote-mining to support existing beliefs, check. Calls for boycotts and protests, check. Every single one of these things has been done in spades since 1977. It has been a total failure.

    The bottom line is that homosexuals are not a “mafia.” They are citizens. They are allowed to access the political and legal system just as we are. Krason can rant and wail and call them names, but so long as they are acting within the law, they have every right and no one is going to agree with him or anyone else who equates that with organized crime. BTW, the very same anti-discrimination laws that cover them also cover us. Chai Feldblum’s statement concerned a situation where the customer is gay and is facing discrimination from a religious business owner. In that case, sexual orientation wins because it is the customer, not the business owner, who is protected. In the reverse situation, where the customer is Christian and the business owner is an anti-Christian homosexual, then the Christian will win because it is the customer who gets the protection. The goal of these laws, which date back to the late 19th century, is to let citizens access public accommodations without having to navigate a minefield of racial, sexual, ethnic, and religious conflicts. We may not agree that the customer should be put ahead of the owner, but it isn’t some conspiracy hatched by a homosexual mafia. And anti-discrimination laws do indeed cover “behavior.” Everything from religious practice to jury service to whistle-blowing to pregnancy to military service to behavior-based disabilities have been and are covered federally and/or at the state level. Some states even protect against discrimination based on recreational activities, which includes gun ownership and smoking.

    One really has to wonder why Krason thinks that RFRA is “gutted” if one sentence is added to carve out discrimination laws. Every other scenario that RFRA would have covered would still be covered. So if Krason thinks that this one sentence “guts” the law, we can only conclude that his religion now means nothing more than the right to turn away homosexuals. By obsessing over this to the point of absurdity, he has not harmed the homosexuals, but he has diminished his own faith.

  • Parque_Hundido

    Worst. Advice. Ever.

    Rather than propose “defamation” lawsuits, why not consider the reasons that anti-gay religious extremists have been so resoundingly defeated in the Western world over the last twenty years?

  • I agree wholeheartedly. Go to war. Be incredibly vocal as you cling to the fading remnants of your bronze age fairy tales. Your ilk speaks with such derision about moral relativism. Except when you engage in it. Why was it again that this champion of the largest and most organized pedophile organisation in history said that human sacrifice wasn’t practiced? Or any of the COUNTLESS other clearly stated moral, legal, and social “commandments” (see, I can use sarcastic scare quotes too, isn’t it fun) that you thoughtless sheep ignore with casual ease? The more you bang on those bibles, the more attention you bring to them, and the harder it becomes for any sane person to take your vitriolic rantings about moral relativism seriously at all. You lose credibility faster than you can breed fear, and it’s very entertaining. Continue, please, by all means, to pull yourself ideologically closer and closer to the islamic state. Their “holy” text says all the same things yours does. Continue ALSO, to draw attention to this. You have no strength. No substance. You have nothing but spindly limbs, and a dream. Go to war. Sane, civil society will look on a moment in sadness as you all finally get the Armageddon you so badly lust after… then breathe a sigh of relief once the dust finally settles. Thanks for the laughs.
    Keep bleating, your imaginary zombie jew can ALLLLMOST hear you, I’m sure of it. In fact, it’s a “deeply held belief” of mine.
    “god bless”
    🙂

    • Wow, you really have no idea what you are talking about do you?

      • Hah. Evade and insult, just like most believers…
        I’ll bite… what is it, in your opinion, that I am I so far “off base” in regards to? I know precisely what I’m talking about, just because you don’t agree, or understand, doesn’t mean anything.
        I’ll wager that I know the bible better than you do, and if you want to engage, I’ll eschew the snarky invective.
        Frankly, I doubt you will. In my experience, your type often lacks the rhetorical capacity to actually defend your beliefs.
        The questions is… do you have any idea what you’re talking about?
        #NotHoldingMyBreath

        • Regarding my rhetorical skill and knowledge of the faith…well, you can make these determinations for yourself. Kindly go to my Disqus page and find some of what you are looking for there… no need to hold your breath. Furthermore, rhetorical skill is not “the suit that wears the man” as your words suggest. It is our capacity for reason, the foundation upon which we build our arguments, the knowledge and understanding which must invariably correspond to the level of the individual et al that helps shape whatever point we are trying to make. In short, we bring ourselves to “whatever happens to be under discussion” regardless of how “purple” one’s prose proves to be. Indeed without “substance”, all we have succeeded in doing is just what you yourself have suggested above: ” a rhetorical skill in defense…”

          If you would like to “engage” – by the by, an interesting choice of word – rather than “discuss” there can be no possible hope for a meeting of minds as it were. Moreover, no one who takes “any given issue” seriously would think it prudent to filter their efforts through such a murky lens. This isn’t a chess game.

          If you found my remark distasteful, my apologies. It wasn’t meant to be. I understand that it can be quite hard to get past the collocations/phrasal verbs/subordinate clauses or whatever other grammatical nicety is in play to “the man behind the keyboard”. Ought we not to practice a certain degree of “forbearance” given the nature of this medium?

          Why was my post so brief? The reason was simply this: You did not present anything “for discussion”. You provided us with a shopping list. Your prose was abrasive, lacking in discipline, thoughtfulness and scholarship. It was, to put it mildly, “violently glib”. In short, you were looking to pick a fight.

          Now, if it is a discussion you are looking to have, I would encourage you to present your chief point/grievance (it’s a good way to begin). Give me some argumentation. Show me how you ground your points. You cannot expect me to go into great depth all at once on every sore point you may or may not have regarding Roman Catholicism so a discussion between you and I – if you are at all interested – should progress in a way that attempts to address as comprehensively as possible our respective positions. Is this not agreeable?

          I like the donkey picture. My neighbor keeps them. It gave me cause to remember that it was donkey that carried the crucified One.

          Magnus,God bless and keep you. I mean you no ill will.

          • Intriguing. That, however, is a kangaroo. Which reminds me of a (rather banal) refutation of the biblical flood narrative… How did the kangaroos get to “the land down under” from Mt. Pretend?

          • Also, even in your lengthy response, I see little more than continued evasion, seasoned with a liberal does of craven dodgery. I repeat: What, in my original comment, led you to think me so ill-informed, HMM?

      • Jim in Pittsburgh

        Ignore him, Joe.

        • I almost did but…I thought some good might be done if I appealed to his “better angels”. Maybe he was having a really bad day. After all we all have our passions and problems (Some of us are just better at handling them). Well Jim, I just wanted to thank you for thinking of me. I appreciate it. God bless.

          • Jim in Pittsburgh

            Thank you, Joe. He does bless me every day, even though (rather, because) I don’t deserve it. My point about the above character is thus: yes, we all have bad days, but some utterances are so hateful and anti-God they are not worth the trouble of a response. I believe his reference to Our Lord as the “imaginary zombie Jew” falls in that category. If he as skilled as he claims he probably can muster Biblical quotes, and even Church doctrines, with skilled sophistry. We can never win a debate with such a person.

            Jesus said we shouldn’t “cast pearls before swine”. But we should pray for him.

            God bless you, too.

            • This is true Jim. We should keep him in our prayers. God knows he needs them (but then again so do we all!) – keep me in yours. I’ll do the same.

    • eddiestardust

      Bronze age viewpoint is what gave birth to you buddy:)

      • LOLWAT? Go home Eddie, you’re drunk.
        My mother gave birth to me, and I’m not your buddy, pal.

    • GG

      There is medication for your problem now. Really, there is help for you.

  • Jason

    Its time to separate from the secular world, much the way the Amish have. Do business with other Christians, do not send your children to state schools, do not let the media brainwash them, do not let your children grow up thinking there is anything legitimate to be found by listening to Hollywood by legitimizing them.

MENU