Is the Nanny State a Lesbian?

An address by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on gay rights as a priority of U.S. policy deserves far more attention than it’s gotten up to now. As a statement of the views of the Obama administration, Clinton’s remarks were a remarkably candid—and remarkably chilling—exposition of official determination to make the world safe for LGBT at home as well as abroad.

Speaking last month at United Nations offices in Geneva, Clinton first sought to spin a muddled synthesis linking gay rights and religious faith. In part, this was how it came out:

Our commitments to protect the freedom of religion and to defend the dignity of LGBT people emanate from a common source. For many of us, religious belief and practice is a vital source of meaning and identity, and fundamental to who we are as people. And likewise, for most of us, the bonds of love and family that we forge are also vital sources of meaning and identity. And caring for others is an expression of what it means to be fully human. It is because the human experience is universal that human rights are universal and cut across all religions and cultures.

With all due respect—what on earth does that mean? The strikingly confused venture into reasoning in this passage would provide rich material for a logician’s intellectual scalpel. And just what is this common source from which the protection of religious freedom and the defense of LGBT people are said to proceed? One can favor both things, as I do, without succumbing to the sentimental fallacy of an unnamed “common source.”

But set that aside for now. What’s really troubling about Clinton’s text is what comes next: “While we are each free to believe whatever we choose, we cannot do whatever we choose, not in a world where we protect the human rights of all.” On the surface, that’s true to the point of banality. But what lies below the surface? The answer is: coercion on behalf of LGBT interests.

“Progress comes from changes in laws,” Clinton explains. “In many places, including my own country, legal protections have preceded, not followed, broader recognition of rights. Laws have a teaching effect…. It is often the case that laws must change before fears about change dissipate.”

Take that out of the realm of abstraction, and the classic case to illustrate the point is abortion, where the U.S. Supreme Court rammed legalization down the nation’s throat by an act of what one dissenting justice called raw judicial power.

And now it’s LGBT’s turn? Acting under the aegis of anti-discrimination laws, government agencies move to enforce the newly discovered right of same-sex couples to marry and adopt children, the right of gay partners to rent the local K of C hall for their wedding reception, the right to have pro-homosexual indoctrination inserted into public school textbooks, and on and on, as “rights” sprout like mushrooms in the fertile soil supplied by the state.

“The Obama administration defends the human rights of LGBT people as part of our comprehensive human rights policy,” Secretary Clinton affirms. And to those who object, remember: “laws have a teaching effect.”

Clinton and the administration she serves aren’t bad people. But they’re secularists at heart (though sometimes with a superficial religiosity) and committed to enactment and enforcement of an expansive program for the bestowal of rights upon causes they favor—abortion rights, LGBT rights, whatever. Woe betide those foolish enough to object in the face of the coercive power of the state.

Russell Shaw


Russell Shaw is the author of Catholic Laity in the Mission of the Church (Requiem Press), Nothing to Hide: Secrecy, Communication, and Communion in the Catholic Church (Ignatius Press), and other works.

  • “With all due respect—what on earth does that mean? ”

    Simple. You just take a chunk of standard garble such as you have quoted and dump “LGBT” in it anywhere and you have made to order meaningless blather. Perfect for Clinton.

  • G.

    Sixth paragraph: “Laws have a teaching effect…”

    Creepy. Therein lies the implication of laws imposed from above, not made in a government of, for, and by the people, but advanced in the most arrogant, condescending “Government knows best” sense. She’s all but saying outright that they want to foist an agenda on us to engineer society as they see fit, insisting we’ll thank them later.

    I don’t know who I’m going to vote for, except for a yet-unknown personage who is not Obama. If the Republican nominee is too repellent, I’ll be tempted to write in my cat. But this is reason #57938 that the current bunch needs to be a one-term administration.

  • Michael PS

    I imagine the common link between religious freedom and LBGT rights is being traced to the famous “mystery passage” in Planned Parenthood v Casey -“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,” based on personal autonomy

    • Nancy D.

      At the heart of our Right to Life, to Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness, is God’s intention for endowing us with our unalienable Rights to begin with, and the recognition that all persons, regardless of race or ancestry, from the moment they have been brought into being at their conception, have been created in The Image of God, equal in Dignity, while being complementary as male and female.

      All persons have the inherent unalienable Right to be treated with Dignity and respect. No State or person who recognizes our inherent Right to be treated with Dignity and respect would condone the engaging in or affirmation of any act, including any sexual act, that demeans our inherent Dignity as human persons.

      • Sarto

        I just don’t know if it is that simple. For instance, I knew a young woman who made suicide attempt after suicide attempt. I used to visit her in the mental ward. Then, finally, she admitted she was gay. She got into a relationship with another woman. She has never tried to suicide again. She plays a leadership role in her profession as a nurse and, having left the Catholic Church, is playing a major leadership role in the church where she now serves.

        I have to look at the difference between then and now and say something good happened that I have to recognize. She has found the happiness the Catholic Church could not offer.

        I am an old man now and I have seen a number of similar examples of people discovering wholeness after finally embracing their homosexual status. I can argue that it is all only a illusion, but I don’t see it in their lives. They are too busy being happy.

  • digdigby

    I say, go for it girl. The ‘progressive’ Islamic alliance is about to go beyond incongruity into surrealism and fall apart. In case Hillary hasn’t noticed, the Islamic world as a whole does not take kindly to ‘LGBTG’ rights – even the right to breathe.

  • Matt

    “Clinton’s remarks were a remarkably candid—and remarkably chilling—exposition of official determination to make the world safe for LGBT at home as well as abroad.”

    Why is this “chilling”? And what is wrong with “official determination” when it reflects the will of the majority? Isn’t government supposed to reflect the will of the people? Government is also supposed to defend minorities, even when the majority would like them lynched, but in this case there is now broad public support for the LGBT community. What is the alternative here? To oppose the will of the majority?

    One can disagree with Hillary Clinton, but the rhetoric in this piece just seems spiteful and petty.

    • Alecto

      We live in a republic, not a democracy. The will of the majority is bound by the limits of the Constitution. I emphatically dispute the will of the majority in this country supports LGBT “rights”, which exceed the rights of other individuals. Neither facts nor statistics bear out that Americans want rights conferred on an individual’s sexual orientation. Equal protection under the law does not grant one group rights which do not exist for all citizens.

    • Telemachus

      QFE Alecto. That’s why Clinton says: “It is often the case that laws must change before fears about change dissipate.”

      What she’s arguing is that she and like-minded “progressives” must force people to change through law so that people can be molded properly. This is pretty different from a traditional understanding of law.

      The traditional understanding of law is mostly negative, “you shouldn’t.” The progressive understanding of law is positive, “you will.” The former sets limits, the latter engineers society. Basically, this proves that liberals are hypocrites. They certainly do want to force people to do what they want.

      I’ll admit, though, that there is nothing inherently incompatible here with Christian thought on the matter of government, except as regards degree and form. We do believe that law teaches and should teach. Most political conservatives would agree with that. The problem is… it’s Hillary Clinton and her LGBTQI(etc.) thugs. They are filled with perversity and hate, and are willing to gut property- and speech-rights of any meaning in order to impose their vision on the world.

      So we fight, and we’ll lose, and the post-Western world will continue on its path to Hell. We deserve it. Put your faith in Christ and not in Man, and enjoy the ride.

      God bless,

      PS: Ron Paul 2012.

      • Alecto

        Excellent points, yours. Without sounding overconfident, if we truly put our faith in Christ, and trusted Him, we could never lose.

  • Alecto

    They’re not bad people? How so? How are such people good? Unlike others about whom we can make this cIaim, these people are not misguided. Everything they do, every agenda item is unconstitutionally or illegally brought about with glee, with passion, with full knowledge and intent.

    If we are to be known by our actions, and their actions seek to limit individual liberty, personal responsibility and any moral consequence, how can a reasoned person claim they’re not bad people? They’re the worst, most dangerous people on the face of the Earth! They seek to destroy all that we hold dear, all that we cherish, in the words of my parish priest, “all that is true, good and right”. I am only too happy to call them exactly what they are: evil minions who do the devil’s work.

    • John2

      @ Alecto and Matt – They are precisely bad people, as you (Alecto) demonstrated.

      You (Matt) need to know why this is chilling and how bad these people are. So, for example, Mrs. Clinton says: “It is often the case that laws must change before fears about change dissipate.”

      She means that the law must change in favor of LBGT pronto — before there is time for those normal people weigh in with their massive opposition.

      Perhaps you remember Mrs. Pelosi on Obamacare: “Clinton says: “It is often the case that laws must change before fears about change dissipate.”

      These people are the stuff of the lowest possible comedy, but then I note that they are unsmiling when they say these things; they are serious.

      • John2

        Oops, apologies for the error, I sent that note by slip of the finger. It should have said,

        “Perhaps you remember Mrs. Pelosi on Obamacare: ‘We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It.’ ”

        I hope the admins can fix the error and, again, my apologies.

  • Sarto

    A law instructs and people follow. I would agree. And I would agree with Mr. Shaw’s thought about the consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision on abortion. Suddenly, a whole lot of people who had trouble with abortion were troubled no more.

    But I also think about the end of slavery and the Civil Rights Act. I am old enough to remember when it was dangerous in certain parts of the country to proclaim you were a Catholic. I am old enough to remember when few priests dared preach from the pulpit that racial prejudice was wrong. I can remember a brick being thrown into a nun’s face as she marched through a Polish neighborhood in favor of civil rights for her black brothers and sisters. If the law had not been passed, we would still be where we were.

    So, it is a bad news good news sort of thing.

  • paris-dakar

    Equating sexual orientation with ethnicity is possibly one of the most fatuous canards ever.

  • digdigby

    I love the photo. I haven’t seen a chic lesbian like that in decades, I thought they were extinct. One hard look makes every guy in the room assume the ‘soccer penalty kick’ position.

    • Sarto

      Actually, the lady is a dead-ringer for my Aunt Mayme, cocktail and all, who had five children. We used to call her Mrs. Republican.

  • Thomas C. Coleman, Jr.

    Is there really anybody who is not deaf and blind who did not know all of this was coming? Who among the living did not know that the world-wide Left had made acceptance sexaul nihilism the sine qua non of their revolt against Christendom and that both the klliing of the unborn and sodomy were essential pillars of this new pagan temple at which all must make sacrifice. Our President has even sacrificed our national security on this altar. That man and his Secreatry of State and his equally insane VP could not be in the positions of power that they hold today without a large part of the Catholic vote, some of which came with urging from priests who told us that the immigration issue was as important as the abortion issue. And let us not deny the fact that many Cathoics do not know that opposition to abortion, homosexual unions, and embryonic stemcell research is obligatory for Catholics and that the reason they do not this is because that fact is withheld from them by leaders and educators who hold very un-Catholic views. Should we be surpised by this when only 45% of Catholics knows what the Church teaches about the Eucharist and many Catholics have never heard of Purgatory? Yes, there is good news here and there. Things do look good if you’re watching EWTN, but then you stop and remember that students at Catholic colleges are being told that those letters stand for Elderly Women Talking Nonsense. Some of our bishops balk at the Vatican’s directive to refuse Communion to pro-abort pols on the grounds that they don’t want to make the Sacrament a political tool, when it is the pro-aborts themselves who are making a crude political gesture out of the Sacrament and scandalizinig the faithful in the bargain. I wonder if any of the so-called LGBT Community realize how they are being used by the Left to paint the Catholic Church as a hate organization. BTW, do the rest of you know that as of this week public schools here in California must teach at all levels about the contributions to history of homosexuals? They say that everything starts here; being land-locked might have kept you free of the surfing craze, but nothing will protect from the onslaught of sexual nihilism coming your way.

    • Sarto

      Whew, Thomas! I hope you feel better after all that. A lot of my thinking comes from the American philosopher Josiah Royce. Among other concepts, he talks about “loyalty to loyalty.” By that he means the refusal to abuse and vilify the people with whom you disagree. Instead, you sit down with them and ask the deepest values they are seeking in the moral positions they take. Suddenly you discover that often you are seeking the same thing!

      For instance, take the concept “human flourishing.” I vote for that and so does the other person. Then come the questions, “how does this value you express contribute to human flourishing–to the individuals involved and for human life in general? If pushed to the extreme, where will your value lead? Can you think of any moment where your value would be at least repugnant, if not morally wrong? Can you think of any moment where your value becomes at least ambiguous. And so on. Not black and white thinking, Thomas. Cautious and respectful. And sometimes it gets somewhere.

  • Matt

    Polling data should not be used to address civil rights issues, but politicians are more likely to pass civil rights legislation when they receive public support. In a gallup poll taken about a year ago, 67% of Americans supported repealing DADT. 28% were opposed to the idea (presumably the remainder were undecided or had no opinion.) In many states, there is majority support for marriage equality. People are much more open to the idea today than they were even five years ago. So who exactly is being “coerced on behalf of LGBT interests” (as Russell Shaw puts it)?

    It seems that what is actually happening is that the minority opposed to LGBT rights is attempting to do the coercion. It is those who oppose LGBT rights that are trying, as Telemachus puts it, “want to force people to do what they want.”

    There is no charity is the article’s treatment of lesbians or of Hillary Clinton. As I said earlier, it’s full of spite.

    • Alecto

      Americans, by wide majorities, oppose homosexual marriage. That is indisputable. Where homosexual marriage has been legalized, it has not been as a result of any popular demand; it has ocurred as a result of judges misreading state constitutions or legislatures receiving bribes in exchange for votes (Mssrs Cliff Asness, Dan Loeb and Paul Singer ponied up big bucks to bribe Republicans there) supplanting the will of the people of NY with their own perverted vision of society.

      And as for your insinuation the article is full of spite, can I remind you that the homosexual community’s response to legitimate populist opposition by voters in California (Prop 8) was far more telling about the character of the gay community. I have long thought that homosexuals suffered from mental or emotional pathology. What gays in California did to those in opposition: stalking their children, breaking in to churches and desecrating the Eucharist, interfering with a constitutional right to free exercise of religion; wasn’t just spiteful, it was vicious.

      Any assertion that the Constitution elevates sodomites to the level of those who participate in a 5,000 yr. old tradtion that spans cultures, religious beliefs, geography and any number of other factors, is absurd and hate-filled. Repent, and you shall be forgiven.

      • Sarto

        When people change their mind, as I have done, it is because a relative or friend came out of the closet and I was dealing with a living person and not with some theory about natural law. Face to face with a living person, I could she that he/she had as much right to happiness as I do.

        My moment came after a close relative of mine stopped her suicide attempts. I used to visit her in the local hospital mental ward. She admitted she was gay, got into a lesbian relationship and a “marriage,” and has never been hospitalized again. She found a truth I could not deny.

        • paris-dakar

          All’s well that ends well. Utilitarian morality wins again.

        • Alecto

          @Sarto, happiness is elusive and what engenders happiness today, may not tomorrow. I find your post muddled. Are you suggesting we should set aside our values, our principles and beliefs when they are inconvenient or difficult for others? Clearly that can’t be too deeply held for you? Please don’t misunderstand me. I pity homosexuals but I also do not agree that homosexuality is just an alternative. I lament that this portrayal of sexuality is confusing and misleading many young people. It’s sinful and leads to profound unhappiness. How cany a behavior that separates us from God lead us to happiness? Just asking.

          Yes, I know many homosexuals. They are generally very unhappy, some suicidal. I believe this is because they’re denying God’s laws which is really what causes unhappiness and pain in this life. It’s right to show compassion and pray for people because we are all sinners, but I disagree that denying God’s teachings on sin to is the solution. It is possible to love the sinner but hate the sin.

  • Thomas C. Coleman, Jr.

    @Matt: The reason that attitudes towards homosexual behavior have greatly changed in a short time in a predominantly Christian country is clearly the result of a relentless bomabrdment of secuarlist propaganda aimed at convincing people that there can be no moral absoulte’s or norms and that those norms embraced in the past were based on a completelhy discredited relgious tradition which has served only to oppress people. The proscription against same gender relationships is common to all of the monotheistic traditions, so the promotion of the idea that such behavior is healthy and normal serves to further discredit religious belief.
    We now live in a society that is about to criminalize the normal human reaction to unhealthy, dysfuncgtional behavior. Does anyone deny that impotence is a sexual dysfunction? We now that it is because impotence prevents the male organ from performing its function, the function of erectile tissue throughout the animal kingdom being to place semen where it can meet with ova for the purpose of reproduction. I do not think that it is necessary to describe more graphically why behavior phenomena which frustrate this function are dysfunctional. Of course, it is difficult for moderns to accpet this after they have been indoctrinated for several generations with the belief that contraception does not violate nature and that human beings have no true nature in the first place. You spoke of charity. Is it charitable to mislead people involved in unhealthy behavior to coninue that behavior? Is it charitable, from a Catholic point of view, to lead others into frame mind in which even if they do not particpate in such behavior they encourage acceptance of is among others?
    For the time being Catholic military chaplains can refuse to perform same sex weddings, but it is only a matter of time before coercion is used againt those chaplains. It is really due to failurson the part of religious educators that people who support such coercion don’t know that they should stop calling themselves Catholics. Well, strictly speaking, incurring excommunication does not mean that one is no longer Catholic, but…I’ll invite any expert on canon law, preferrably one who is still a practicing Catholic, to clarify that matter.

    • John2

      Quite right, Mr. Coleman, about excommunication. Excommunicated Catholics are “out (ex) of communion” with the Catholic Church, although Baptism made them forever Catholic.

      A second important point about excommunication is that canon law tells us that many of our homo”sex”ual brethren are excommunicated by the act; the bishop does not excommunicate them. They do not remain safely in communion by waiting until a bishop decides and publicly announces that they are excommunicated. They excommunicated themselves with the actions. The bishop’s role is merely to announce that this excommunication has occurred. One hopes that the bishop will have the great pleasure of announcing that reconciliation has occurred through repentance.

      To pick two sets of the unwitting, those who promote abortion and homo”sex”ual activities are piling up their misfortunes. Deceiving others into taking part in these activities is the sin of scandal. My response is to pray that they wake up.

      Every point I made above is in the catechism. The widespread ignorance of these points is a longstanding problem. My guess is that the ultimate cause is the bishops’ failure to teach and promote the Catholic faith and its plainly stated beliefs. I cannot imagine why a bishop would fail to teach, but that is what I see from my little corner. My response is to pray that they, too, wake up.

  • Kathy

    Mr. Shaw never responded to Alecto’s question about evil. Hillary Clinton has been given Plan Parenthood’s highest honor “The Margaret Sanger Award” Please give an example of evil and how this administration does not fit the notion of evil.

  • Meggie

    Bear in mind the question of religious liberty. We’re all free to hold our own ideas. There are Christian denominations filled with people who sincerely believe that homosexuality is completely normal. This belief is growing and those who believe it, myself included, have as much right as those who disagree to express themselves. I consider myself a “straight ally” for LGBT rights.

    There are people starving to death in Somalia, people dying through lack of health care, and children being killed in military attacks. These are horrifying problems. I don’t think the issue of LGBT rights, even if you disagree with my views, deserves the attention it gets. Just because it’s about sex, everyone gets hysterical.

    • paris-dakar

      Why can’t homosexuals keep what could very easily be a private activity private? They’re the ones calling attention to themselves (and then turning around and quite hypocritically complaining about the attention).

  • Meggie

    “Why can’t homosexuals keep what could very easily be a private activity private? ‘

    Why can’t heterosexuals do the same? All LGBTs are asking for is the same treatment as straights.

    • paris-dakar

      Do you honestly believe that heterosexual couples demand the attention and approval of others in the same manner as most homosexuals seem to?

      The people doing the most to make homosexuality a public issue are homosexuals.

      And the ‘same treatment’ argument is a canard. The law doesn’t treat fathers the ‘same’ as mothers, minors the ‘same’ as adults, certain categories of public employees the ‘same’ as private citizens. There’s nothing inherently unreasonable about telling homosexual couples that they can’t be recognized as ‘married’.

      • Meggie

        “The people doing the most to make homosexuality a public issue are homosexuals.”

        Sadly, the people who did most to rid the South of Jim Crow laws were mostly black. I feel the mainstream should step in to help out minorities.

        “There’s nothing inherently unreasonable about telling homosexual couples that they can’t be recognized as ‘married’.”

        I understand you feel that way. My own underlying premises are that: a) there’s nothing inherently wrong with same sex marriage, and b) religious liberty prohibits your ethical beliefs from overriding those of others (please don’t bring up “ethical beliefs about murder,” etc. — one can’t compare a crime that includes an unwilling victim with a loving and committed relationship between two people of the same sex.)

    • John2

      @ Meggie – No, the unfortunate practitioners and advocates of homo”sex”ual actions are asking for special treatment, namely, that society approve their sin. We are supposed to value it as if it had positive aspects; it has none. I do not need to recite the well-known social costs, which we are all paying. That is to say, rIght now, as I write, you (and I and millions of others) are paying a heavy price for the results of homo”sex”ual activity.

      Thence to: “Just because it’s about sex, everyone gets hysterical.”
      No, just because it’s about throwing away your eternal life, everyone gets concerned. I do not feel hysterical at all; I am concerned and I would like to help these unfortunates come to the light. Furthermore, I would like them to stop committing the sin of scandal — trying to persuade others to participate in and support their sin. Christians who believe homo”sex”ual activity is OK are split off from their faith.

      Not a good move.

  • Meggie

    John2, I believe you are an entirely sincere, well-meaning, and kind person. However, what about those of us who are straight but feel very strongly that marriage equality is just and right? I go to the “Standing on the Side of Love” campaigns, along with my husband and children, because we believe strongly in this as a civil rights issue, and we don’t want GLBTs to feel alone or abandoned by mainstream society. So, no, this isn’t just about gays “wanting attention” — this is a broad sea change that many people, regardless of sexuality, feel very strongly about.

    • Carl

      It really bothers me one someone first offers platitudes and then basically excoriates the same person in the next sentence. Really, if you “stand for love” where is John2 standing? But, I digress.

      What “civil rights” are being violated?

      Anyone through legal processes already available today can set-up a marriage type contacts where two people are responsible for each other both financially or otherwise.

      Social Security and Pension Plans are the exception.

      Meggie said “this is a broad sea change that many people, regardless of sexuality, feel very strongly about”

      Highlight “regardless of sexuality”
      OK, what other life style or fad is next?

    • John2

      Meggie, Thank you for the kindness of your beliefs about me. Unfortunately, your point in this locution —

      “However, what about those of us who are straight but feel very strongly that marriage equality is just and right?”

      — is a mistake. There is no debate of marriage equality since homo”sex”uals cannot marry. Marriage equality is just a circumlocution that avoids the basic fact that homo”sex”ual activity is sin. It is deeply disordered and conduces to bad results for all involved. All this is well known and beyond serious dispute.

      That you believe, or believe strongly, or feel strongly, in homo”sex”ual “marriage” is a misfortune to you, not a broad sea change.

  • Meggie

    Alecto writes, “Neither facts nor statistics bear out that Americans want rights conferred on an individual’s sexual orientation.”

    Actually, most recent polls show that slightly more people support than oppose same sex marriage, and

    “Equal protection under the law does not grant one group rights which do not exist for all citizens.”

    GLBTs are not asking for rights which do not exist for all citizens — they just want the rights you and I have, viz. to marry someone they love.

    • Carl

      I believe Alecto was making a narrow point that the GLBT does not have the support of the average American. Meggie, you say you have newer more “accurate” polling numbers, well reconcile that with the fact that over 30 states have passed Marriage Amendments and only about 6 states have redefined marriage—about half of those are through the State Supreme Courts. This is clearly against the will of the people!

      But even further, when does truth need consensus? When does civil society through popularity define truth? By what authority?

      At various levels throughout American civil society laws have been passed legalizing murder through abortion, adultery through prostitution, made it illegal to honor God and worship false idols (Christian symbols and public schools), dishonor our parents through euthanasia and homosexuality, and have beared false witness through enacting these sins into laws!

      Is it no wonder that modern society doesn’t want the Ten Commandment Posted!

      By my count that leaves coveting, stealing, and the Sabbath; an argument could be made for these being “legal” also.

      • Carl

        Pornography is “free speech” = coveting
        Class warfare, the welfare state, and the public debt = stealing
        Can’t perform religious ceremonies on public facilities= not honoring the Sabbath

        • Carl

          Meggie said “GLBTs are not asking for rights which do not exist for all citizens — they just want the rights you and I have, viz. to marry someone they love.”

          First, marriage is not a right it is a privilege whether under God or State. Even if States did not have clear English language spelling out the definition of marriage as between one man and one women—licenses were narrowly procured and with restrictions.

          And you are opening a can of proverbial worms and actually creating a problem of “rights” that you say are being violate today! If the new definition of marriage is that you “marry someone you love” what about someone[s]. Why can’t three or more people marry? Today cousins, siblings, and other family members can’t get married—are “rights” being violated?

          States that allow same sex marriage label partners as A and B. What about C, D…

          • Carl

            LOL, I just realized something! Meggie says that the civil rights of GLBT are being violated! Set aside the G and L for a moment.

            How are the civil rights of bi-sexual people being violated? Unless of course the marriage argument does include a partner A, B, and C or more!

            Transgender? For the sake of argument of course, if my wife and I swap clothing is there some law I don’t know about that invalidates my marriage?

  • Tom


    From a libertarian point of view, what consenting adults do behind closed doors that is not imminently hurtful to them or others is up to them, not a nanny state or nosy neighbors to decide. But it is up to us to lead, by example and by reason.

    The problem is a question of language. People like the Clintons, Sibelius, Obama (and yourself, apparently) are imposing double speak on others, by re-defining the ancient word “marriage”. If a secular state decides that two adults living together for a long time can share certain legal rights, there is nothing one can or should do, imo. But if they don’t like the word “civil union”, they can call that what ever they want, just don’t call it “marriage” if a man and a women are not involved.

    What you are doing is imposing Orwellian redefinition of words and arbitrary “beliefs”.

    Same thing with abortion. People like the Clintons, in particular Bill Clinton with his “Millennium Network” charity fund, usurp genuine efforts, including efforts with Catholic roots, like the Greenbelt movement in Kenya, to impose their Post-WASP, ’60 style hippy “beliefs”, now that they have money and connections. They are imposing on the world their world view that “abortion is an adult right” that trumps theof right of children to live. Or that “adult gonadal rights” trump everything else.

    Now I am rather obese, but I am not advocating that the UN now declares that we obese people should be treated in a special way.

    We, as Catholics, imo, should be the ones to use the language of reason, of science to show that they are the ones that imposing arbitrary self serving dogmas.

    We should be the ones to show them that they are against empirical evidence.

    It takes a male and a female in a species to have a child… like it was for the last, oh…. 1/2 to 2/3 billion years, that sex was designed primarily for the purpose to have offsprings. It is not the other way around, children are not a “risk” of sex.

    We should be the ones that point to the fact that the Clintons are mass marketing the idea that free for all sex is a “right”, simply because that is where they get their money. They get money from industries and constituencies that profit from this “dogma”.

    Just follow the new “do-gooder’s” money.

    • Carl

      “We should be the ones to show them that they are against empirical evidence.”

      The onus is on them!! This is the trap, Tom, one that they set-up all the time. It’s a sting operation.

      Demonize, ridicule, and silence.

      The homosexual movement is not arguing empirical evidence or reason. Its set-up so we go on the defensive so they call us bigots, haters, mean, not loving, and homophobes.

      What their argument really boils down to is sentimentality, by manipulating people’s emotions and not having them address homosexuality with rational logic.

      An emotionally packaged false analogy is still a false analogy. Fornicators and co-habiting individuals are sinners no matter how cute their puppy dog eyes are or how many tears are shed.

      • Tom

        Carl, what I am saying is sure give them legal rights, heck even more rights than tradionnal couples if that makes them happy, but lets not give away the word “marriage”. Orwellian double speak is a very slippery slope.

        • Michael PS

          I have always been favourably impressed with the great French jurist, Carbonnier’s analysis that found favour with the highest courts in France, who endorsed it unanimously

          His conclusion: « le cœur du mariage, ce n’est pas le couple, c’est la présomption de paternité » [“The heart of marriage is not the couple, but the presumption of paternity.”] This is based on Article 312 of the Code Civil: « L’enfant conçu ou né pendant le mariage a pour père le mari.» (“The child conceived or born during the marriage has the husband for father”) The Civil Code contains only this “functional definition” of marriage.

          To summarize his argument, 1) Mandatory civil marriage, makes the institution a pillar of the secular Republic, standing clear of the religious (2) The institution of republican marriage is inconceivable, absent the idea of filiation, enshrined, not in Church dogma, but in the Civil Code (3) The sex difference is central to filiation.

          The Court of Cassation observed its “specific and non-discriminatory character was the result of the fact that nature had limited potential fertility to couples of different sexes… Clearly, same-sex couples whom nature had not made potentially fertile were consequently not concerned by the institution of marriage. This was differential legal treatment because their situation was not analogous”

          Of course, same-sex couples have enjoyed full civil rights, since the resolution of 25 September 1791 abolished the “crimes” of blasphemy, sodomy and witchcraft, without debate.

  • Meggie

    To Carl and others, look at this article. There is actually narrow majority support for marriage equality.

    Carl goes on to say, somewhere above, that “truth does not need consensus.” This is a very bullying stance. It means that he would deny the religious liberty of others and assert his own view (which he will, of course, claim is actually “God’s view,”) regardless of the views of the majority. Sorry, Carl. There are many good, kind people — people of high moral character and good will — who completely disagree with you. In fact, there are slightly more that would disagree than would agree. By all means argue that your premise is the correct one. I don’t think your side is helped by rhetoric that suggests those who support GLBT rights are bad people. The original article shows a picture of an unattractive woman. That and the title negatively stereotype GLBTs, which is just mean-spirited. Most people don’t want to be associated with that sort of ugliness or to poke fun at vulnerable people. They want to be fair and do what is right. Increasingly, the right to marriage equality is seen as one of the main civil rights issues of our time.

    • A Thinker

      Truth is an objective reality, regardless of whether a majority recognizes it. This statement is a refutation of moral relativism, and recognizes that simply because a majority ratifies a law that law is not automatically in line with divine law. It is not bullying to recognize this simple fact. Our duty as Catholic Christians is to vote in accordance with that truth, even if the majority opposes it.

      I like to quote St. Athanasius, who said: “If the world goes against Truth, then Athanasius goes against the world.” If the majority goes against the truth, then I go against the majority. Why do you think we march on the Capitol on January 23 each year? Because we recognize that there is a higher truth than that asserted, until quite recently, by the pro-“choice” majority. The same is true in our treatment of those who are trying to change the definition of marriage. We can recognize that such law may be the law of the land and people have a right to believe in such laws, but we cannot shirk our duty to speak the truth that these laws are morally bankrupt and not in accordance with reality as demonstrated by the natural law.

      The truth does not need consensus. There is nothing wrong with this statement, nothing bullying about it. The opposite implies “might is right,” that the more people you have on your side, the stronger your laws are. That is simply wrong, and is the logical end of moral relativism, as we are seeing with those who support marriage “equality.”

    • John2

      I am willing to risk repetition and perhaps to be a bore:

      Marriage equality is just a circumlocution that avoids the basic fact that homo”sex”ual activity is sin. It is deeply disordered and conduces to bad results for all involved. All this is well known and beyond serious dispute.

      That you believe in, or believe strongly in, or feel strongly about, homo”sex”ual “marriage” is a misfortune to you, not a broad sea change.

      Nor is it a sign that you and the few who agree with you are bad people; it is a sign that such people are willing to defend bad behavior.

      Not a good sign.

  • Meggie

    A Thinker writes, “Truth is an objective reality, regardless of whether a majority recognizes it. This statement is a refutation of moral relativism, and recognizes that simply because a majority ratifies a law that law is not automatically in line with divine law. It is not bullying to recognize this simple fact. Our duty as Catholic Christians is to vote in accordance with that truth, even if the majority opposes it.”

    I agree that you should follow your own beliefs. I believe that the Truth is that marriage equality should be recognized and that GLBTs deserve special nurture because of the prejudice they have to face in life. We have different opinions about what “Truth” is. What I found to be bullying in Carl’s tone was not that he was opposing marriage equality, but that he (or so it appeared to me) seemed to think his “Truth” gave him the right to determine the outcome of this debate in terms of legislation. If he were able to do that, it would give him an unfair amount of power relative to other people.

  • Mike

    The Truth of which “A Thinker” speaks is Eternal Truth. It is knowable to all because God has engraved it on every human heart. It is impervious to our opinions.

    One of the great fallacies of our age is that marriage is a civil right. Civil rights properly understood are a distinct, narrow category of rights that concern themselves only with voting. In this sense there is equality under the law, in that each citizen is entitled to one vote per election, regardless of their station in life. Anything that would abridge this, such as poll taxes or literacy tests, would violate civil rights. This was the understanding of civil rights in the US from the Founding until the mid-1950s. The fact that “civil right” has been conflated to include abortion on demand, contraception, etc. does not accord with truth/Truth.

    Marriage is at least a social institution binding a man and a woman that has held religious significance across time and cultures; for us Catholics it is a sacrament. If a majority did vote for “gay marriage” as the law of the land we would be in the unhappy position of having to fight it as we do abortion.

    One item that proponents of “gay marriage” must consider is the Ultimate Source of human rights. It is possible to have rights as a social contract, but they would not be inalienable. When the relative power of actors in society shift, the terms of the contract might change also. Without God, there is no coherent basis for our most cherished rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We cannot claim rights whilst subverting Divine Law.

  • Carl

    You are not arguing emperical evidence, reason, or more importantly the Catholic Faith.
    As mentioned above you are arguing an emotionally packaged false analogy.
    The institution of marriage is thousands of years old. A sensible person would think before changing such an old standard that a good reason to do so would be offered.
    Really, everyone should “follow their beliefs,” this is anarchy.

  • Carl

    Meggie said “We have different opinions about what “Truth is.”

    Why are you doing posting on a Catholic website if you are siding with Pontus Pilate’s “what is Truth” argument?