Obama Devolves

Both Vice-President Joseph Biden and President Barack Obama have said that their positions regarding same-sex marriage have evolved. When you are “evolving,” you should really watch your grammar. Otherwise, people might suspect you are devolving instead.

Take for instance, the hapless Joe Biden’s pronouncement of why he supports same-sex marriage. It’s all a matter of “who do you love.” His statement is both substantively and grammatically incorrect. It should, of course, be “whom do you love”. “You” is the subject and “whom” is the object of the verb “love.” Biden’s grammatical error reveals the problem with same-sex marriage. It has two subjects without an object.

What is the object of marriage? It is for two to become one flesh. Anatomically and morally, only a man and a woman can do this. Only spousal love is properly sexual for only it provides for the protection of that at which the marital act aims both in its unitive and procreative senses.

But what about “love”? Isn’t it a bit mean-spirited not to allow people who love each other to get married, even if they are of the same gender? Love always seeks the well-being of the loved one. This is true in all sorts of love, whether between parents and children, between children themselves, or between friends. Sexualizing the love in these relationships would be profoundly mistaken since none of these loving relationships is or could be spousal in character.

Therefore, sex between parents and children, between siblings, or between unmarried friends, or between friends of the same gender is objectively disordered and will inflict harm on the parties involved no matter how they “feel.” This is the opposite of seeking the loved one’s well-being.

Biden is now telling the country that this is not so – that if one man loves another man, sexualizing that love in the form of an act of sodomy is not only not harmful, but provides a sound moral basis for marriage. That is why Biden is in favour of sanctifying sodomy.

How does one evolve into this curious position? One undertakes what Nietzsche called the transvaluation of values. In other words, you take Christianity and dump it on its head and turn it into its opposite, while calling it the same thing. Let’s consider how President Obama “evolved” in this way. On September 25, 2004, Obama said:

“I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”

Indeed, that is what Christianity teaches. One wonders what in Christianity is inconsistent with his political views. How are his political views formed? Are they consistent with moral philosophy? Is the judgment of moral philosophy, as in a work like Aristotle’s The Ethics or in Socrates’ condemnation of sodomy, inconsistent with Christian teaching on same-sex marriage? Why doesn’t Obama’s moral reasoning lead him in the same direction as his Christian faith?

In his book The Audacity of Hope, Obama gives us a clue. He writes that:

“Implicit in [the Constitution’s] structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty, was a rejection of absolute truth, the infallibility of any idea or ideology or theology or ‘ism,’ and any tyrannical consistency that might block future generations into a single, unalterable course…”

In other words, truth leads to tyranny. Truth does not set you free; it imprisons. Moral relativism sets you free. Then you can do what you want.

But it is absurd for him to say that the Founders of the United States did not believe in absolute truths. Had this been so, there would have been no Declaration of Independence (“we hold these truths…”) and no Constitution. Obama is reading his own moral relativism back into the document and then trying to use it to legitimize the very opposite of what it proclaims.

Here is another example. On January 28, 2010, during a town hall meeting at the University of Tampa, Obama said:

“My belief is that a basic principle in our Constitution is that if you’re obeying the law, if you’re following the rules, that you should be treated the same, regardless of who you are. I think that principle applies to gay and lesbian couples.”

Only a moral relativist would or could read same-sex marriage back into the Constitution. What Obama is really proposing to do is change the rules so that those who are not following them can have their own special set of rules. So, in the name of equality before the law – a sound constitutional principle – he denies equality before the law.

This all leads to Obama’s striking statement on Wednesday, May 9. Here it is with the personal pronouns italicized:

I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbours when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I‘ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

Ten personal pronouns or the word “my” in one sentence. That is an impressive feat of solipsism that undergirds the moral relativism that authorizes what “is important for me” as the standard by which to judge what is right and wrong. Abraham Lincoln said that there is no right to do what is wrong.  Obama and Biden are complicit in making a wrong a “right.”

The transvaluation of values requires more than the denial of objective morality. It requires that the negation – the transvaluation – becomes the new religion. It is the sanctification of nihilism, the Church of Nada. It needs to be sacramentalized, as in same-sex marriage. That is why Obama and Biden insist upon it.

Listen to this final, breathtaking part of Obama’s rationalization. Just as he used the Constitution to justify its opposite, he now employs Christianity in the same way. Christianity, which has unambiguously condemned sodomy for more than 2000 years, is enlisted to endorse it:

“The thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the golden rule – you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids, and that’s what motivates me as president.”

After all, Christ died to make the world safe for sodomy…

In other words, if you would like your moral misbehaviour to be rationalized, you should be willing to rationalize the moral misbehaviour of others. That way, we are all equal. That’s equal opportunity. This is Obama’s new golden rule. The transvaluation of values is complete.

Fear for the Republic. For the truths for which it stands have been taken away by this president.

Robert R. Reilly


Robert R. Reilly is the author of The Closing of the Muslim Mind (ISI Books). He is writing a book on the natural law argument against homosexual marriage for Ignatius Press.

  • Clement_W

    Devolves? Possible only if he had evolved.

  • Pingback: Obama Devolves | Catholic Canada()

  • Paul Tran

    A regression to bestiality more likely.

  • Tiredofthechickenlittles

    Grammar and pronouns.  Nice. 

    I read about a recent survey in which  people were asked what was the first thing that came to their mind when they thougth of “Christians”.   It was over 90% that immediately thought

    judgemental, or “hate gays.”  

    Jesus broke a number of the RULES out of love for those who were being pushed to the margin by the rule followers and those who thought they had their lives all figured out.

    You go ahead, though. 

    The Catholic Church took 1800 years to officially ban slavery as an absolute evil. The scriptures blessed the practice.  I hope it won’t be another 1800 years before they officially change their view on human sexuality.  

    Our understanding of sexuality is nascent.  We are JUST beginning to study and understand our sexual natures as a race of people.  It is inevitable that the church will come with science as it deepens its understanding of this complex topic. 

    Those who won’t out of fear and bigotry will be on the wrong side of history, in myopinion.  Just look at photos of those in favor of Jim Crow laws today and see yourself there among them.

    • Bob

      The bottom line chicken little is sodomy is immoral and the perverted disorder of anal sex should not be somehow justified in any way, especially in marriage. The goal of Obama and the proponents of gay marriage is that there are no absolute truths and everything is relative, especially morality. Incest, beastiality, man-boy associations will all have a claim to sit at your morally relative sexual table. If there were photos of Emperor Caligua and the orgies of the Roman empire I guess we could see you among them. If marriage was so important amongst gays, then why in Canada (where same sex marriage has been legal for years) does only 17% of gays get married, versus 78 % of heterosexuals?

      • Tiredofthechickenlittles

        Have you noticed the numbers everywhere?  Marriage among ANYONE is becoming rarer all the time. LOTS of women are able to have children on their own now as marriage is not so much about property (women) anymore.  The number of single women who have children has never been higher.

        All the more reason I say that the church needs to broaden its understanding in this area. 

        The church does deepen its understanding on issues. It will one day in this area too.  Just because you like to use shocking terms like bestiality does not mean I believe the church will go that far.  I am no relativist. There is a truth, but we certainly do take our time getting the fullest sense. I feel that we need humility to understand this.  Judgemental attitudes dont help, and to me, seem quite unChristian.

        • Bob

          Sin is sin. Doctrinally, sodomy has always been for 2000 years a mortal sin. Do you think the pope is going to wake tomorrow and say “oh…..we’ve been wrong all along on this whole anal sex thing! It’s OK! We don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, lets change it from a mortal sin to a virtue. We want everyone to like us! And while I’m at it, the same goes for fornication, adultery, stealing and murder too……they’re all OK now too! The Ten Commandments…..let me change those to the Ten Suggestions!”


          This is whymroadmis narrow, my friend……..

          • Tiredofthechickenlittles

            You’re really stuck on the sodomy thing.   Really.

            Doctrine does develop, and teachings thus, change.  It wont happen tomorrow.  But it will happen. And it wont be sin. It isnt a sin now…you just choose to call it one.

            • Franktheman

              Catechism: 2357 “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered…..under no circumstances can they be approved of.” homosexual acts are also known as sodomy. Doctrine progresses and flowers. It doesn’t change, contradict itself, or go backwards.

              • Dismayed


                Leviticus 18: v22
                “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination”  (NASB)
                1 Corinthians 6 v 9-10 “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
                The ONLY way the Pope will change his mind is if God changes the Bible, and I don’t see that happening.  
                People are so busy trying to fit God around their lives (making it ok to do what they please) instead of fitting their lives around God and His word (living their lives according to God’s commands).

                If you really think that the Church will evolve (change it’s mind) you, chicken little, are delusional .

                • Smokescreek

                  Me want polygamy, next. Me want.

            • Matt

              Doctrines come from the study of scripture.  Clearly God intended marriage to be between a man and a woman.
              Because it came from God, it is unchangeable, not even by vote or by Caesar Obama’s declaration. Won’t
              change even if all of God’s creatures rebel against Him.

            • Jalter67

              You seem pretty sure that it is not a sin.  How can you be certain that slavery isn’t a sin now…that you just choose to call it one? 

            • Ken

              Catholic doctrine on faith and morals has not,  will not and can not change. Just because at some point in time the Church publicly defined a doctrine does not mean it just developed it. ” If you are my disciples and you keep my comands, then you will know the Truth and the Truth will set you free”

          • MichelleRN

            You are probably correct in that sodomy is and will always be considered a sin by the Christian faith. However, the fact of the matter is, there is supposed to be a separation of church and state. Jesus himself acknowledged that there is a difference between politics and religion, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” Sin should not be taken into account when laws are being created. Lying is also a sin, as is envy, and greed. Heck lets throw more in there. Lust, cursing, premarital sex, adultery, theft, murder. I suppose if we’re talking bible, we could also add women not allowing their head to be uncovered during prayer. Why are you so quick to single out homosexuals? I’m fairly certain lying cause more damage to others than who someone chooses to have sex with, provided its consensual. 

            You are using Christianity as a veil for your hatred. Envy is not against the law, yet I’m sure that you try to live your life avoiding that sin because it morally goes against what you believe. If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get gay-married.

            Romans 12:18 “If possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.”

            • Bob

              “give to Ceasar what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God’s”, agreed. And what belongs to God is marriage. “sin should not be taken into account when laws are being created.” really? So you are saying that moral law is not the basis of all laws? Laws against murder do not reflect the great Commandment “Thou shalt not kill?” no one is using Christianity as a veil for hatred. Love the sinner and hate the sin. And we should all detest sin, in every form, and point it out. And the difference between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple is in the sexual act. And as the Catechism discusses, homosexual acts (sodomy, for example) are disordered and against God’s plan and can never be condoned. Justifying homosexual marriage is a justification and condoning of homosexual acts, which is a sin. God’s plan for marriage is one man and one woman, like it or not.

            • MarkRutledge

              Living at peace with everyone likely involves refraining from unsubstantiated accusations of hatred. The reason we are discussing homosexuals here is because that is the topic of the article.

              But as to the separation of church and state, you have it backwards.  It keeps the state out of church, not the church out of the public square.  Why should the moral positions of non-believers trump those of believers?  That notion runs contrary to the American ideal.

            • Ken

              Politics determine our law, is not all law about morals? Murder, stealing, drunk driving etc. Religion binds us back to God, all moral laws come from God. So how can politics and religion be separate???

              • Shender

                You are quite right Sir.  In fact there are several countries out there that are non-secular that would fit your belief and values quite well.  I can name a few, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, North Korea.  Oh and by the way North Korea is officially Atheist you will have to worship Kim Il Jun.  Send a post card when you get there and don’t let the door of freedom and democracy hit you on the a$$ on the way out. 🙂

            • Paul Tran

              It’s not just sodomy but all the things you have mentioned that are sinful i.e. lust, cursing, premarital sex, adultery etc …
              We, who oppose homosexuality and homosexual marriage, are not using Christianity as “a veil for our hatred” as you say. We do NOT hate but we oppose sin and homosexuality is a sin if one considers oneself Christian. Moreover, if Obama is a Christian as he claims to be then he cannot legalize homosexual marriage.
              The separation of the church & state means that the church must always remain autonomous & free to criticize the state. This freedom is necessary to the church’s very existence. Unlike secular law, biblical law is about (a) the acceptance of God as a precept, and (b) choice i.e. don’t like it , don’t have to be a Christian.

            • Paul Tran

              As Christians , we do NOT single out or persecute any particular group, we all know what persecution is and all too well.
              That said, sin must be opposed and it makes NO difference to us what kind of sin it is. If consensual sex is the only criteria to sexual intercourse, do you object to incest or paedophilia if they are consensual ? And is it morally correct ?You have completely misunderstood Christianity or religion on the whole. We do NOT hate first & foremost but we deplore ALL sins. We also understand that mankind is inclined to sin but we strive to forgive. If anyting Christianity is about tolerance and acceptance of Man’s weakness but this does NOT mean there’s no moral rights.
              Proponents of anti religion or anti Christianity always misunderstand the practise of faith and judge religion from thesame perspective as they judge secualr or constitutional laws.
              To understand faith, one has to accept God as the precept without questioning and moral rights based on religion are NOT to be equated to secular or constitutional rights because God’s laws are greater.

        • msmischief

          It’s not as if we haven’t been warned that when sin is epidemic we are in grave danger of “broadening our understanding” and should resist it to the end.

        • Jalter67


          Just out of curiosity what are your definitions of “humility” and “judgemental”?  It seems your posts indicate you lack the former and possess the latter.

        • MarkRutledge

          People sin more, ergo the Church should change its definition of sin?  How absurd. 

          Instead of throwing in the towell, the Church should step up her efforts in proclaiming the Truth.

        • Paul Tran

          The decline of marriage merely shows the ills of society. Using this as a justification for legalizing homosexuality goes to show little understanding of the sacrament made in the eyes of God & the Church. It is not the Church that needs broadening its understanding, liberals need to realize that unrestrained freedom will cause the downfall of society.

    • Carlos

      We cannot evolve into what contradicts nature,  not only ‘our nature’, but the laws of nature.  even the proponents of evolution will agree with that. I’m afraid that ‘Tireof thechickenlittles’ is ready to be in the “right side” of history.  Who is it that replies “judgmental, or ‘hate gays’ when asked about Christians? Obviously not the Christians themselves.  According to the Wikipedia article “Religion in the United States” last updated on May 14, 2012 identifies 78.4% of Americans as Christians and I’m sure none of them would reply that.  The same article identifies 16.1% as ‘unaffiliated, meaning those who consider themselves agnostic, atheist or nothing in particular.  Probably those could answer in such a way.  Should the 78.4% fear or be concerned about what 16.1 or even the other 21.6% think about them? I don’t think so.
      Jesus never broke valid and transcendental rules, He actually re-affirmed them (Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill; Matthew 5:17).  Jesus acted against conventionalisms of the time.
      The letter of Paul to Philemon is the first document of Christianity against slavery and for centuries, members of the Church spent fortunes buying the freedom of slaves. The Church issued several documents on the respect of the inhabitants of the New World.  The Catholic position on slavery has been very clear at least form the 1500.
      Your understanding on sexuality might be nascent but that of the Church is been clear from the beginning.  Sexual nature is clear and defined and is not equivalent to race.  The Church’s position on this will never change because it has to do with the innermost part of being human.  Giving human right to all human races is a matter of justice and cannot be equated with the right to misuse your sexual faculties.
      It is very sad to see those that would compromise their beliefs for fear to criticism or of being label bigot as well of those who would sell their souls to be in good terms with modernism and the rule of relativism.

    • Bob

      You’re wrong on slavery, also. I have to ask, Chickenlittle. Do you do any studying or research on the teachings or truths of the Catholic Church before posting? It doesn’t seem that way. The interesting part is if you did, you might be surprised by the Truth!

      • Tiredofthechickenlittles

        This is simple.  The bible in exodus 21 says you can beat your slave within an inch of his life and it is not a sin if he is not killed, as he is your property. Even Paul says to be kind to your slaves, and does not condemn the practice.  It was not until the 1860s that we have a definitive statement from the Church on slavery.

        The Church deepend its understanding about the nature of human existence and will continue to do so.  Dignitatis Personae is another example.  As is marriage itself.  If you look at the nature of what marriage was…a contract of property exchange (wherein MULTIPLE SPOUSES were blessed and approved of by scripture), compared to what it is now, the free exchange of two independant people…much has changed.  The modern formulation using procreative and unitive is just that…modern.

        Finally, Ill leave you with this:

        A friend of mine posted this on FB: 

        When asked by The Barna Group what words or phrases best describe Christianity, the top response among Americans ages 16-29 was “antihomosexual.” For a staggering 91 percent of non-Christians, this was the first word that came to their mind when asked about the Christian faith. The same was true for 80 percent of young churchgoers. (The next most common negative images? : “judgmental,” “hypocritical,” and “too involved in politics.”) So my question for those evangelicals leading the charge in the culture wars is this: Is it worth it? You have not embraced life or love and you and your followers will die out as you should.

        Jesus and his love are fogotten and die on a hill for hatred of those you deeply misunderstand as sodomites.

        • Vishal Mehra

           Catholics do not quote Bible verses but the Church doctrine as laid out in Catechism.
          For the Bible does not authorize the Church but it is the Church that authorizes the Bible.

        • Jalter67

          It would seem these statistics only show that 91% of non-Christians are confused about human sexuality, which is probably no great shock to most of us.  It also would show that 80% of young churchgoers are judgmental and are hypocritical when it comes to being judgmental.  It may also prove that they’re young.

          But what is your point?  For the first three centuries, Christians were accused of much worse by the majority of the citizens of the Roman empire.  They weren’t exactly popular to the masses (except when it came to entertainment in the arena), and probably wouldn’t have done much better if pollsters had been around then.  Religion should be about truth.  When a religion starts to pander to public opinion, run like hell!

        • Bob

          So chikenlittle, the Judeo Christian teaching for thousands of years that homosexual acts are immortal and sinful has been wrong?

          No one here is being hateful of homosexuals. We’re all God’s children and we must love one another. But any action that is immorral and done by a homosexual or a heterosexual must be called what it is……sin. And condoning someone’s sins is not an act of love.

        • Bob

          Not so easy on slavery. Read this:


        • DustanChaff

          Arguing with an Internet Troll like yourself is like mud wrestling with a pig….you know the rest. You have your agenda and any discussion with you is pointless.

    • Paul Tran

      No, we do not HATE. However, this does NOT obviate what is morally right from what is morally wrong. Homosexuality is morally wrong and Christians must put God’s laws above all else.

      • Meggie

        But even if you DO believe homosexuality is morally wrong, why so much emphasis on this particular behavior? One would think divorce would be a much more serious problem. Christ said NOTHING about homosexuality, but did comment on divorce. Why not, at the very least, equal focus on trying to overturn divorce laws? 

        • Paul Tran

          The emphasis on homosexuality has always been continual and NOT just now. Moreover , it is a focus because of proponents of homosexuality are demanding homosexual marriage. The term marriage historically denotes a sacrament made in the yes of God & the church. And to legalize homosexual marriage therefore means same sex couples are allowed to be wedded in church. Thus if any church were to deny same sex couples of this right could entail the church being legally sued.
          The Bible does not forbid divorce, I believe the book of Leviticus clearly states so. However, marrying again the second time cannot take place in church.
          Christ may not have said anything on homosexuality BUT he did say “obey thy God” and in the Old Testament God clearly objects to the practise of homosexuality.

          • Meggie

            Leviticus and Deuteronomy say a lot of very disturbing things, like: A woman who tries to defend her husband should have her hand cut off (Deut 25:11-12); giving birth to a female child makes a woman “unclean” for 66 days (Lev. 12:5); men with wounded sexual organs should not be allowed in church (Deut. 23:1);non-virgins should be stoned (Deut 22: 20-21); anyone that “curseth” his father or mother should be put to death (Lev. 20:9); and so on …

            If you want to believe that the above statements are the inerrant word of God and should be followed today, be my guest. There are others who do. I prefer to believe that the OT is largely a history of the Jewish people, written from their own point of view, largely midrashic, and more descriptive of the history of the time than prescriptive. However, if you want to believe that divorce is sort of OK because Leviticus says so, then you have to reconcile that belief with the Gospel of Luke (and Luke is directly quoting Christ here): 

            “Whosoever putteth away his wife and marrieth another committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.” Luke 16:18

            • Bob

              But are you interpreting scripture correctly here Meggie? Scripture can be confusing, trying to interpret by ourselves leads to misinterpretations. We need to go to the institution that put the canon of scripture (the bible) together, the Catholic Church. Christ gave the Catholic Church the authority to “bind and loose” his teachings and proper interpretation. That’s the problem with sola scriptura and protest ism. You can put ten people in a room , have them read the same passage from scripture, and come up with ten different interpretations. Hence the constant dividing of Protestant groups so that there are now 30,000 groups all giving different interpretations of Christ’s word. Jesus did not want such confusion. The Catholic Church is the only church giving the authority guided by the Holy Spirit to properly interpret His Truth.

            • Paul Tran

              Leviticus actually makes a lot of common sense to me. I will get onto Deuteronomy at a later point and hope to respond to the charges you made.
              To understand Christianity is to accept the Bible as “gospel truth” and this where most anti religion & liberals have problems with. To judge the Bible purely from a secular or constitutional perspective is a non-starter as it is a failure to accept God as the precept to whichlife is governed. Moreover, liberals & atheists are revisionists of history and wish to change the past to suit their whims.
              I am sorry but I see NO contradiction between Leviticus & Luke from the passage you have quoted ? Mainly because you need to define for yourself the meaning of “putteth away” . To me, “putteth away” does not equate to divorce. I have to agree with Bob here as to how you interpret Luke.

          • Meggie

            Paul Tran writes, ” And to legalize homosexual marriage therefore means same sex couples are allowed to be wedded in church. ”
            No, that is not true unless the church allows them to do so. The separation of church and state dictates that churches should not be allowed to prevent same sex couples from marrying in civil court, while simultaneously not allowing the state to force churches to have to marry them.

            • Paul Tran

              No, I believe you are wrong that churches would be allowed to deny  same-sex couples to marry in church if homosexual marriage were to be granted legal constitutional rights. If churches were to deny this they could be legally prosecuted for discrimination.
              Getting wedded in civil court does NOT amount to marriage. This is the crux of the problem. The Church does not oppose to civil union cos that comes under secular/constitutional laws.
              Time will tell if churches will retain the right to refuse homosexual marriage and the very term “marriage” should be used in same-sex civil union. As said, marriage is solely connoted to the sacrament taken in the eyes of God & the church.

    • Mark

       Rich, is that you?

  • “What is the object of marriage? It is for two to become one flesh.”

    While that may sound poetic, it’s irrelevant. Ask any Straight couple why they choose to marry. Their answer will not be, “We want to get married so that we can become one flesh!” Nor will the answer be, “We want to marry so that we can have sex and make babies!” That would be absurd, since couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the ability of even desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.

    No, the reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration before friends and family members that they wish to make a commitment to one another’s happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows.

    THAT’S what makes marriage a good thing, whether the couple in question is Straight or Gay.

    Whether you consider compatible Gay couples to be “objectively disordered” is also irrelevant. From a purely Constitutional standpoint there is no justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits that Straight couples have always taken for granted.

    • Jalter67

      Polish Bear,

      From a purely Constitutional standpoint is there any justification for denying law-abiding, tax paying brothers and sisters from marrying each other?  Mother and son?  Father and son?  Son and dog?  Please be the first person to give me a logical argument on this one so I can stop being such a bigot!

      • Rebecca

        As soon as they change the law, my brother and I will marry immediately. 

    • MarkRutledge

      From a purely constitutional standpoint, there is no basis for enacting same-sex marriage either.    As an indivual right, homosexuals presently hold the same marital rights as anyone else.  A gay man is free to marry a woman, etc.   That their chosen lifestyles make this option unattractive is not a constitutional issue.

    • Bob

      But if two men want to profess their love and commitment to each other, make a solemn declaration to each other in front of friends and family, etc…. why does the state need to be involved at all? Can’t they just do that without hijacking and redefining the institution of marriage? Gay singer Elton John even asked the question why do gays need marriage. It doesn’t make sense. Unless there really is a “gay agenda” trying to justify their immoral behavior by having the state sanction it. And the civil rights argument does not float. Homosexuals are not being persecuted in this society. And how is sexual attraction/orientation deemed a civil rights issue? But there in lies the problem: people whose moral and religious beliefs say that homosexual acts are immoral are branded “haters” and therefore gays are persecuted. John the Baptist called out Herrod’s adulterous lifestyle as sinful, but never attacked the man, who was a fellow child of God that could repent. John did this out of love. When a Christian calls out a person living a gay lifestyle to repent for they are far from the kingdom of God, is this rather an act of love rather than an act of hate?

  • Sbvarenne

    To sum it all up–Christ died to make the world safe for sodomy.  Yup, that must be it.  And a prize goes to the first person who can find even one sentence that Jesus said to justify that take on his sacrificial death.  We must have misunderstood him when he said he would die to save is from our sins.  Instead, if you have it Obama’s way, he died to save us all from being politically incorrect.   –That is just how absurd the president sounded.

  • Scottshie

    Well said Mr Reilly, your analysis is effective.

    The current president while evolving,  is de-valuing the principals of our constitution and our estalished religions. The moral high ground for this adminsitrtsion, that employs several fake Roman  Catholics i.e. Biden,  Polosi,  Sibelius, continues to elude them. For what purpose had this de-volution occurred?  Could it be political and power posturing, for re-election?   

    And Polishbear, I did get married 25 yeas ago to have sex AND babies-  three…and believe I was doing God’s plan as a spouse and parent. YOU are redefining,  like the president, to your whims. 
     I care not what you call a same sex relationship, find your own de-volved terminolgy.  Just don’t call it or define it as marriage.  

  • Alecto

    Constitutional rights such as equality before the law are individual in nature and are applied by the individual against the federal government.  When does a private institution like the Catholic church or any private company constitute the government?  But we continually hear and read arguments against “hate-filled anti-gay bigots”  when we assert our rights in the private sphere.  It seems to be the result of a defective educational system that so many Americans construe “rights” as applying to everyone and anyone against anything insofar as it advances their agenda.  It actually has the effect of undermining the very rights the Constitution protects. 

    The one element of Obama’s coming out party with which I do agree is the Tenth Amendment argument in support of states.  Thirty-one states have enshrined the concept of marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman.  It should be ever thus for every social issue one can imagine as the Constitution’s framers intended this to be the realm of the states.

  • Pingback: Tribulation Times: Obama Devolves/The Moynihan Report | Deacon John's Space()

  • Meggie

    “Only spousal love is properly sexual for only it provides for the protection of that at which the marital act aims both in its unitive and procreative senses.”

    If sex that does not hold out the possibility of procreation is wrong, then gays are no worse than most. Contracepted sex or post-hysterectomy sex fall into the same category. I was reading a tragic article recently about the number of soldiers that have returned from Iraq or Afghanistan after losing their sexual organs. Should they also be forbidden from marrying? Even to suggest such a thing would be extraordinarily cruel. I find it equally cruel to tell two loving men or women that they cannot marry like the rest of us. 

    • Clement_W

      I think you misunderstand the role of sexuality in the context of the Christian Faith. Hysterectomy and the loss of sexual organs through no fault of one’s own do not and are not disqualifying for marriage. If you look at the history of ‘marriage’, marriage was determined by all religions throughout history to provide for procreation in the framework of a Father and Mother to nurture and educate their offspring. As to your contention about gays and gay marriage, the essential root for the very existence of marriage as an institution by belief in God, does not hold true.. It is the take over of the religious nature of the institution of ‘Marriage’ by the Government that has caused this problem.

      • Meggie

        Clement W. writes, “It is the take over of the religious nature of the institution of ‘Marriage’ by the Government that has caused this problem.”

        Clement W., don’t you think the reverse is true?  It is Government that has been preventing marriage equality. By removing itself from the equation, Government is merely allowing people the liberty to choose their own marriage partners without imposing its own preferences. It’s a libertarian move rather than a take over. 

        • MarkRutledge

          Governments have been preventing same-sex marriage?  I suppose so, but so has every other human institution of every culture throughout all time.  I don’t see how your statement carries any weight.  Further, it is the complete opposite of libertarianism to impose a new right (in this case, SSM) upon a free people by fiat or executive order.

          • Meggie

            Actually there are cultures, e.g., certain Native American cultures, that have sanctioned SSM in the past. “Rights’, by definition, may not justly be imposed or denied. They are “unalienable.” Your last sentence is equivalent to saying that convention or tradition overrides individual freedom when it comes to choosing a marriage partner. It is self-contradictory to suggest that this is a pro-libertarian position. Further, nobody is imposing any law by fiat or executive order. There have been very thoughtful attempts to decide this civil rights issue on the grounds of: a) public consensus, and b) constitutionality. Views in both areas are  trending in the direction of support for SSM. 

            • MarkRutledge

              Nobody imposing law by fiat or executive order?  Meggie, please.  The Iowa case is well known, as is the effort in California to overturn the will of the people (Prop. 8) by the judicial fiat.  As to executive order, the unprecedented move by Obama to instruct his Justice Department to ignore the law, DOMA, is a prime example. 
              But let’s cut to the chase.  The pro-SSM argument as you have articulated is fallacious.    To support an argument for a new right by claiming that it is already a right is begging the question.    Fallacies are fallacies, Meggie, no matter how thoughtful they might seem.
              Finally, as a note on the alleged growing acceptance of SSM, the polls showed the North Carolina vote too close to call, yet marriage prevailed by a substantial margin of 60-40.  In every poll that actually counts – elections – SSM fails, even in the most liberal of states.  

              • Meggie

                Mark Rutledge, certain judges believe marriage restrictions are unconstitutional. Unconstitutional laws may be overturned, regardless of public opinion, as has been seen with regards to slavery. My assertion that marriage equality is a right is no more begging the question that is your assertion that it isn’t. North Carolina is not representative of the US as a whole. Recent polls suggest clear majority support for either same sex marriage or civil unions. A majority of people under 40 favor lifting the ban on same sex marriages. If the issue is to be decided at the polls, it’s only a matter of time before demographics determine that the ban will be raised.

                • MarkRutledge

                  You have just affirmed my assertion of judicial activism.  Your comments necessarily rely on a belief that rights are being denied that have never existed.   Like it or not, it is begging the question, unless you can show where a right to homosexual marriage has existed in the past.  Redefining marriage to include some sort of crypto-right is most definitely judicial activism.

                  Like I said, the polls don’t reflect what happens at the ballot box, and in that regard North Carolina IS representative of the nation as a whole.  32 states, including California of all places, have voted against instituting SSM and not one has voted to pass it. Not one.   At what point, Meggie, do proponents of SSM wake up and realize the poll numbers they cling to are false?

                  • Meggie

                    Where in the constitution does it say that people do NOT have the right to choose their own partners. Many judges feel that the 14th Amendment ensures the rights of gays to marry. It is impossible to have “gay marriage imposed on one against one’s will” (as some appear to see it) because nobody is required to marry a person of the same sex. The right to SSM doesn’t take anything away from anybody. You assert that your understanding of marriage is normative. That understanding can continue to hold FOR YOU, but it doesn’t necessarily hold for others. They should have the right to make that decision for themselves.

                    Actually, the polls in NC predicted the  voting results fairly accurately. The outcome of the vote was a foregone conclusion based on polling. The most intriguing thing about the polls is: a) the trend toward acceptance of SSM, and b) the demographics of voter opinion. In 20 years, this will be as much of a non-issue as acceptance of interracial marriage. 

            • Bob

              Which”certain native American cultures” are you speaking of??? For example??

              • Meggie

                Bob, “berdaches” (who were thought to belong to third or fourth genders) have been documented in over 150 Native American tribes. Among the Crow, women”berdaches” often married other women. Among the Winnebago, Omaha, and Pona, berdaches sometimes married others of the same sex and even adopted children. Berdache were often considered to have special spiritual powers and to be shamanistic. There’s a lot of anthropological information out there if you’re interested. You might want to read “Changing Ones: Third and Fourth Genders in Native North America” by Will Roscoe. 

                • Paul Tran

                  No doubt you’re correct about other cultures but as this is a Catholic forum and for Christians, we need to ask ourselves is it morally right ? If one is a Christian, surely God’s laws must be greater than anything else ?

                  • Meggie

                    My responses were in answer to the statement “marriage was determined by all religions throughout history to provide for procreation in the framework of a Father and Mother to nurture and educate their offspring,” which is clearly not true of all religions throughout history. 

                    • Bob

                      Societies do go through different steps of moral development. These tribes existed on a low level, just trying to survive each day existence. Moral development was very low on the priority list.

                • Bob

                  I agree with Paul Tran, possibly if these tribes allowed it doesn’t necessarily make it morally right. Rather poor examples to use, Meggie. From what I know of the Crows, they were a vicious tribe that not only scalped their opponents but also ate their victims tongues. Many of these tribes also participated in human sacrifice. Hardly cultures to hold up as exemplorary.

                  • Sbvarenne

                    This is a good reply to “everyone from every culture is doing it.”  Jesus came to teach us the Way.  It is enlightened by God’s truth, beauty and goodness.  Remember the question that was put to Jesus about divorce?  It may have been allowed in the past, but NOT according to his Way.  Christianity does indeed teach that our new commandment is to love one another as He has loved us.  This means expecting the best for everyone, not indulging the worst.  Sin is a devious thing and the Devil is the father of lies whose goal is to corrupt our thoughts and blind us to the truth of the Gospel.  Even if you don’t believe in the Devil, you get the idea.

        • Clement_W

          Meggie, it is the Government which is by Abraham Lincoln’s “of the people, by the people, for the people” which causes a whole lot of problems by stretching its tentacles into each and every aspect of human life. If one believes that God exists, then God is the one who created life and his rules will always supercede any human rules. I personally believe that God created and life and has intervened in the evolution of life only when absolutely necessary. God, who is infinite by definition, can hardly be understood by us mere human beings who have evolved thus far.

          If you believe that evolution is taking place and God does not exist or is even necessary, then, you have to admit that we have not reached the pinnacle of evolution as yet and that pinnacle of evolution by our concept of the universe will stop with the cooling down of our sun sometime in about 7 or more Billion years and life on earth as we know it will be incinerated. Our current state of evolution means that we make mistakes but since it takes years for many of these mistakes to become evident to even dummies, by that time our progeny will have evolved further along the evolutionary ladder and will look back at their ancestors, which is us, and write scathing criticisms of the stupidity of the narrow and selfish decisions we are making in their history books. Let us be smart and let the Government recognize ‘Civil Unions’ and leave ‘Marriage’ to God.

  • Oneill

    It should be noted that Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Kathleen Sebelius who are the chief spokesmen for the Obama war against the Catholic Church in America are themselves graduates of Catholic schools.  Makes one wonder if all this investiment in Catholic education is worth it since it does not produce souls who are faithful to the Church but rather soldiers in the army of the modernists who want to destroy our Christian civilization.  Closing Catholic schools might not be such a terrible thing; we would do better by using the traditional parish as the centers of Catholic education.  Let the Americans have their godless public schools, we should emulate the Amish and withdraw from the government controlled schools.

    • Meggie

      Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Kathleen Sebelius are good Catholics. They are strong supporters of social justice and are committed to promoting the common good. What could be more Catholic than the support of universal health care? All three do their best to help the “least of His little ones.” They have servant hearts and are not too proud to wash the feet of others. Nancy Pelosi has said that she has been influenced throughout her life by the Gospel of Matthew. Perhaps this is why she is non-judgmental of belief systems different from her own. Rather than criticize others, she has rolled up her sleeves and gone out to make the world a kinder, safer place. There is something of the Francis of Assisi about her. Their Catholic schools should be proud of producing such good, kind, thoughtful leaders. 

      • Bob

        ……and none of them follow Catholic doctrinal teaching on birth control, abortion and gay marriage. They all put their political careers before their Catholicism. I wouldn’t even consider them Catholic anymore. Obviously, the bishops denying them the Eucharist agree.

      • Jalter67


         “They are strong
        supporters of social justice and are committed to promoting the common good”. Hitler
        and Stalin could have made the same argument about themselves—were they also
        good Catholics?

        “All three do their best to help the ‘least of His little
        ones’.”  I guess that depends on how
        least and how little.  All three seem to
        have no problem with snuffing out the lives of the very least and the very

        “They have servant hearts and are not too proud to wash the
        feet of others”.  I don’t know any of the
        three personally, so I can’t judge the truth of this statement.  I would say, however, that there is a BIG
        different between being a servant and forcing others to be servants.

        “Nancy Pelosi has said that she has been influenced
        throughout her life by the Gospel of Matthew.” 
        One wonders whether her copy of the Bible was missing entire chapters of
        this Gospel—like 16 or maybe 18.

         “There is something
        of the Francis of Assisi about her”.  Was
        there another fellow from Assisi by the name of Francis?  Certainly you don’t mean the saint by that
        name.  If so, what “something” would that
        be?  Perhaps his insistence on obedience?
        “Their Catholic schools should be proud of producing such good, kind, thoughtful leaders.”  And they probably are–which is whole other topic.

  • To the commenters below:

    1. Many ends are served by a single action.  There are essential ends, incidental ends, ends that are instrumental to further ends, and so forth.  No one requires that people who marry have, as the only thing in their minds, or even the principal thing in their minds, “I want us two to become one flesh.”  But that is in fact the essence of the marital act, right there.  I’m speaking both metaphysically and biologically.  Only in that act do those precious strands of human history, possessed in the bodies of each person, come together; only that act is the one that in its nature, if not always in its effect, transcends the generations.

    2. The morality of an act is determined by the type of act it is, and not by accidental consequences.  In the case of people who for some reason cannot conceive a child, the marital act remains a true marital act — it is a genuine act of sexual intercourse, the coming-together of the sexes as sexes; it is not sodomy, not masturbation.  That it cannot be effectual in this case is neither here nor there.  This is why the Church regards refusal to have children as grounds for nullity, and the incapacity, at the time of marriage, to perform the act — to consummate the marriage.

    3. A man and woman who marry and who do not seek to avoid having children, but who, because of some physical debility, cannot conceive children, are still an exemplary cause, if not an efficient cause, of reproduction.  They are doing the husband-wife thing; they stand to others as an example of what is natural and right to do.  Thus the Church encourages adoption; and little children readily look upon such people as a mother and a father.

    4. We are forgetting here about fornication, aren’t we?  If sodomy is all right, then fornication must be perfectly holy.  But if fornication is wrong, then don’t even talk to me about sodomy — in fact, sodomy is a learned behavior if there ever was one.  It has to be contrived, forced.

    • Tiredofthechickenlittles

      Number 4s is based on limited information.  There are MANY, and I do mean MANY…who disagree.

      • Meggie

        Agreed, Tired. Also, fornication is extramarital sex. Married gay couples aren’t fornicating. If fornication is the concern, why pick on gays only? How many straight people fornicate? 

        • Jalter67

          I didn’t realize fornicators were trying to redifine marriage.

  • Luke

    The word “sodomy” is used five times in this article–not out of necessity, I suspect, but because Mr. Reilly knows it’s a loaded and hateful way to refer to homosexual activity.  As a 26 year-old Catholic (who cares enough to read Crisis), I’m for same-sex marriage–and know very few young adults who aren’t, truth be told–but I also know that rants like this one will ultimately backfire on the Catholic Church and undermine the Christian love that is so often claimed as motivation for speaking up on a controversial issue.  Get red in the face all you want, but I guarantee that this type of holier-than-thou rhetoric won’t be changing any hearts.

    • Bob

      So as a Catholic, you disagree with and don’t follow the Church’s doctrinal teaching on homosexual acts being disordered? You feel that the successors to the apostles (the bishops) are wrong when they say gay marriage is immoral? Have you read the Catholic Catechism’s section on homosexuality?

    • Bob

      I tire of people who say they are Catholic but don’t know or study the Church’s doctrines or teachings and inform their conscience to the truth found in the Church, and subsequently dont follow the teaching. I tire of the “I’m Catholic and I think abortion and gay marriage are OK” crowd. You can’t pick and choose what teachings of Christ found in the Church that you want to follow and those you don’t, and still claim to be Catholic.

      Luke……..study the Church’s teaching on this subject and all of the Church’s doctrines. Start with the Catechism. Study the Church’s teaching on the natural law especially how it pertains to sexuality. Study the Church’s teachings found in Genesis and Romans. Study John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. Study, study, study the Church’s doctrines, encyclicals, and teachings. It takes effort, but here you will find the Truth of Christ. You will find that you will thirst for this truth and find beauty and Peace in the Catholic Church’s teaching.

    • Jalter67

      Please show me where in any authoritive teaching of Christian doctrine that the basis of morality should be popular opinon of young adults.  Please refer me to the scripture that has Christ teaching or demonstrating that love meant accepting behavior that is elsewhere discribed in scripture as being intrinsically evil.  Also give an example of how “rants” of faithful Catholics have ultimately backfired and undermined Christian love.  While you’re at it please give me a definition of Christian love (Aquinas may be of help).  And please find the humility, honesty and courage to answer these questions.

  • Several Google articles say it all:   “God to Same-Sexers: Hurry Up,” “Obama Fulfilling the Bible,” and “Islam will purify Jews and Christians.”

  • Paul Tran

    I totally agree with you, DuncanChaff. Misquoting from the Bible , like what Tiredofthechickenlittles has done, is rife and his sole agenda is to disinform. First, if he had read the Exodus in whole he would have found Exodus 21-(12 to 35) (Personal Injusrires) actually is about being quite equitable to “slaves” and nothing of the sort Tiredoflittlechickenlittles accuses the Bible of. Moreover, Leviticus 25 (39-43) explicitly teaches us to be treat “slaves” with fairness and just. 
    As for marriage, one only has to look at the history of marriage and see for oneself. Marriage is one of the sacraments (i.e. an oath taken in the watchful eyes of God & the church) which was created by a Benedictine monk in 12th C , prior to this folks used to be wedded for political alliances, or improving one’s social & economic status where personal vows may be exchanged but “marriage” is an institution belonging solely to the church.
    Crucially, one has to ask why do the gay community want to push for “marriage” while “civil partnership” accords them the same equal constitutional rights as that of “marriage” ? Shouldn’t there be a separation between constitutional rights & religious rights ?