The GOP’s Complicity in the Spread of Gay Marriage

Proponents of gay marriage, as they eagerly anticipate the Supreme Court’s examination of the issue next week, are chortling over recent polls that suggest the American public’s resistance to it is fast eroding. They pointed this week to a Washington Post-ABC News poll in which 58 percent of Americans support gay marriage and 37 percent oppose it. This is an almost exact reversal from a decade ago, they say, when polls then showed 55 percent of Americans opposed gay marriage and 37 percent supported it.

Meanwhile, establishment Republicans, who have always been ambivalent about the issue, appear ready to wave the white flag. “Quite literally, the opposition to gay marriage is dying off,” claims columnist George Will. Columnist Michael Barone reports that “at the Conservative Political Action Conference, a panel sponsored by the Competitive Enterprise Institute drew a large and approving crowd for a discussion labeled ‘A Rainbow on the Right: Growing the Coalition, Bringing Tolerance Out of the Closet.’”

All of this holds great propaganda value for the Left, which always seeks to topple a taboo by emphasizing the “inevitability” of its elimination. The name of the game is to fool ordinary Americans into thinking that resistance is futile. Never mind that 30 states have managed to ban this “inevitable” change.

Yet it is true that the gay-marriage drive is picking up speed, even if that is overstated for propagandistic purposes. Why is this happening? Because of the intensity of the media and the Democrats? That is one reason. Another reason for it, which gets much less attention, is the weakness if not outright treachery of the Republicans.

The problem isn’t just that Republicans lack the courage of their convictions on gay marriage. The problem is that they don’t have any convictions—or hold the wrong ones. Recall that prominent Republicans, such as Dick Cheney and Laura Bush, endorsed gay marriage long before Obama and the Clintons did. It wasn’t until this week that Hillary Clinton formally announced her support for nationalized gay marriage.

“What was once a front-and-center issue for rank-and-file Republicans—the subject of many hotly worded House and Senate floor speeches—is virtually a dead issue,” Politico has reported.

Mitt Romney, the GOP’s presidential nominee last year, couldn’t even bring himself to defend Chick-fil-A against Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel, who said the restaurant’s opposition to gay marriage made it contrary to “Chicago values” and thus unworthy of a city permit. Romney didn’t bring the issue of gay marriage up a single time in any of the debates and generally made comments indistinguishable from Obama’s on gay rights (Romney endorsed gay adoption and told his campaign to remain mute on the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell).

This week, Rob Portman, one of Romney’s closest advisers and near-running mate (he almost selected him to be his vice presidential nominee but chose Paul Ryan instead), came out in support of gay marriage, citing his gay son whom he wishes to “have the same opportunities to pursue happiness and fulfillment as his brother and sister.”

According to Politico, Portman will pay almost no political price for this endorsement because the Republican leadership class agrees with him. Politico titled its story, “GOP elite embraces Portman gay marriage switch,” reporting: “The reality Portman’s flip-flop exposed is this: among the Republican political community, the people who actually run campaigns and operate super PACs, support for gay marriage is almost certainly a solid majority position. Among strategists born after the end of the Vietnam War, it’s not even a close call.”

Support for gay marriage within this influential GOP circle is so uncontroversial that in February, according to Politico, “a throng of top Republican politicos signed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to support a constitutional right to gay marriage. Among them were a half-dozen senior aides to Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign…”

Members of the Beltway GOP elite have been cynically manipulating social conservatives for years, seeking their votes while snickering at their views. They have long pretended to care about abortion and gay marriage, even as they undercut social conservatives at every turn and pushed the “Big Tent.”

Almost a decade ago social conservatives could barely convince George W. Bush’s White House to issue a proclamation in favor of marriage during “Marriage Protection Week.” One activist said: “Our leaders had to call the White House and say, ‘You won’t even do this?’” Bush strategist Karl Rove saw get-out-the-vote value in the issue, but nothing else. It came out later that the head of Bush’s 2004 reelection effort, Ken Mehlman, was gay. Mehlman went on to lobby for passage of gay marriage in New York state, persuading a handful of undecided GOP state senators to provide the clinching support for the bill.

At the political level, the culture war has been hopelessly one-sided, with Republicans secretly and now not-so-secretly fighting alongside the Democrats on many critical fronts. As on the issue of women in combat—for which GOP capitulations during the Bush years paved the way—gay marriage is spreading not in spite of the Republicans but because of them.

George Neumayr


George Neumayr is a contributing editor to The American Spectator, and a weekly columnist for Crisis Magazine. He is also co-author (with Phyllis Schlafly) of No Higher Power: Obama's War on Religious Freedom.

  • mally el

    Sadly, liberal
    politicians – left and right – are taking us down with them. These shallow-minded
    representatives feel quite confident that they will get votes from fellow
    believers and the cultural Catholics.
    I believe that there needs to be another party; one that cares about the two most
    critical environments in our lives, namely, the natural environment which
    provides us with nutrition and other necessities, and the family environment (husband,
    wife, father, mother, child, brother and sister) which provides the community
    with stability and continuity. And, of course, the economic environment is
    important for the workers and business people. Attention needs to be given to
    all these environments and, hence, a new party.

    • John

      Mally el,
      I too would like to see such a movement emerge, but what impact do you think it would have on electoral politics? My fear is that it will simply marginalize the issues we care about.

      • mally el

        In Australia, the Freens do not win ,any votes but they wield influence. In the UK, the Liberals are doing the same. However, if a group can focus on the natural environment as well as the family one then the citizens are made aware of the family. The way we have it now we – the family – lose no matter who wins the election,

    • Considering Obama was able to get re-elected while ignoring most if not all of the major catholic values you want to see in a candidate I sincerely doubt that this third party that supports traditional catholic family values as you want would have any chance of winning and getting into office.

      • musicacre

        The important thing is, wining Heaven. That is a permanent office. Christians have managed to live in pagan environments before and I guess will continue to do so until the end of time.

        • mally el

          Yes, what you say is important. However, looking at it from the Australian scene we see that the Greens, who do not win many seats, influence decisions because, at times, they hold the balance of power. Also, it is not just about Catholic values but about the emphasis on all the environments, including the family one.

      • TheodoreSeeber

        The purpose of such a third party is not to win elections. The purpose of such a third party is to save souls.

        • musicacre

          And to visibly try to be the party that steers people back to their conscience. Offsetting the two burnt out parties that ruled out conscience a long time ago…sold out.

        • ekaneti

          Wow save souls through the electoral process

          • mally el

            It is also important to save society from those who intentionally, or out of ingnorance, introduce laws such as SSM, unrestricted abortion and euthanasia which are destructive.

      • Rick DeLano

        Quite to the contrary, Paul.

        If 20-25% of Americans share our values, then we are the balance of power between the two wholly owned subsidiaries of Prince of Darkness Holdings.

  • Joe DeCarlo

    The republicans have to move left. 80% of those 30 years of age and under accept gay marriage. The church can’t move either way, because the doctrines can’t change.

    • Cha5678

      A self-destructive people don’t need another party helping them to the collapse

    • musicacre

      They’re already toast. When we ended up with 2 left parties in B.C. we started a new grassroots conservative movement and it worked! (It was so bad here in the 90’s that a good chunk of small business headed over the border, to United States) It was the Reform party and it ended up taking the banner of LIberal, to get voted in. Do it while you still have people feeling strongly that they shouldn’t have to give in on the most impt issues in life.

    • Oh I think the Church can change. There is no disconnect between the traditional church teaching that most men should marry women and raise children. There just needs to be a recognition that in a minority of cases some men are only attracted to men and raise children in that relationship. The way the Cardinals talk about it you would expect we were somehow going to try to discourage men and women from marrying or talking about it as the ideal. Yes that is the ideal but it is also not for everyone. The sooner the Church recognizes this and accepts it the less it will lose in relevancy.

      • musicacre

        You need to read history. The Church is not known for cowing to every heavy-handed ideology of each century. It remains “relevant” even if there is only one member….the purity of the the moral teachings never changes, anymore than we can change into tigers or dogs. The church is not a political institution, as so many Catholic writers have recently asserted recently with the Church on focus on the world -wide media again; but those who don’t believe cannot make sense of an organization that doesn’t behave politically. What you are proposing is obviously a massive leap into an abyss, not some little tweaking.

      • Ford Oxaal

        Truth is always relevant, even if a whole society covers its eyes and pretends its not there.

      • schmenz

        Thank you, Mr McGuire, for lecturing the Church on the need for relevancy. I’m quite certain all the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, the Saints and Apostles, the current Pope will be most grateful.

        But as for me, I find your remarks exceedingly tiresome.

  • ElizabethG

    Republicans should never give up the fight to defend marriage. America must have at least one party willing to defend the Truth!

    • What happens now that they have given it up? Serious question. What is your plan now that the GOP has betrayed you?

  • Ken Larson

    When writers, even Mr. Neumayr, succumb to the vernacular of the left and concede the field by using the terms of the left — gay marriage in this case — they reinforce something that they should be refuting from the get-go. Mr. Neumayr went to a college that talk him to start a discussion with the clarification of the terms. Sadly, in the rush to put words on paper or say something in as few seconds as possible (the sound bite), those who might have the chance to actually communicate something of relevance on this topic are shoved along and made to feel that they’d better hurry or they won’t get called on the next time. Sadly, their opposition is led by bullies who have no such qualms and for whom defining anything is out of the question. Moving targets are hard to hit.

    But that doesn’t mean we yield the field to them. Not now, not yet, not ever!

    • Ken Larson

      It would appear from my sentence above “Mr. Neumayr went to a college that talk him to start a discussion with the clarification of the terms,” wherein I meant to write “taught” that I also suffer from haste. Bring me the scourge.

  • Alecto

    Do you believe the TEA party movement began because the Republican leadership is so principled? Please, I’m busting a gut! Lying convincingly is the one quality all politicians share. The moment John Boehner became Speaker, I knew Republicans would sell their souls to Satan and so they have. John Boehner has come to represent American Catholicism to me: cowardly, duplicitous and covetous.

    There is a reason they’re ignoring the tsunami of crushing debt and deficits, destabilization of currency, creation of dependency cultures, and the collapse of the economy. Big Wall Street donors with billions, far removed from decent Americans, want gay marriage, and citizenship for the Mexican invasion force. It’s all about power and control of individuals. They are dismantling our sovereignty, both individual sovereignty and national sovereignty. When society is turned upside down and virtue becomes vice, we should all be prepared everyday for eternity. Perhaps the North Koreans will serve as God’s justice upon the cesspool of the United States? Or perhaps the Iranians will deliver the hand of God to this bankrupt society? . Does anyone believe Washington D.C. has any intention of protecting the American people? They hate us.

    I saw elsewhere that Nanny Pelosi and Joe Biden both presented themselves at the installation mass to receive the Eucharist? There was not one Roman Catholic clergy member who prevented them from committing blasphemy? If we’re going to call for adherence to principles, ought we not hold the cowardly Catholic clergy to a higher standard than politicians for abusing Christ?

    • Marie Ribeiro

      No wonder Jesus said that, when He comes back, will He find any of faith left. He will, but not many at that church!

      • Angelina Steiner

        The problem with gay “pretend” marriage and its destructive nature:

        1) Once gay “pretend” marriage becomes the law of the land, they (liberals) will go into the classrooms and teach kids sexual experimentations and sow sexual confusion. And we will be ripe for judgement just like Sodom. And STDs and AIDS will spread its destruction.

        2) The Homosexual elites who are 1%-3% in populations will reap all the benefits as traditional marriage couples, YET they won’t produce any TAX PAYERS.
        If the ELITES crowd do adopt (OR they may not adopt-most likely they won’t) children or give us their test tube babies, due to the VERY SMALL percentage of this people producing the next generation of TAX PAYERS, they should not get the benefits (tax breaks) as the Traditional marriage couples because they don’t produce enough tax payers to pay into the Social Security System.
        The elites crowd don’t care about the rest of the country.
        And SIN is NOT a civil right!

        • musicacre

          That’s been happening in Canada for a long time now. That’s why I started homeschooling 20 years ago!

    • musicacre

      Ahem…virtues HAVE become vice; at least according to every major news network. The New Agers or whatever you want to call them have been tearing the fabric of national sovereignty, visibly, for a very long time. But as a starting point, particularly visible at the French Revolution.

  • NH Catholic

    The Catholic Church is the United States is sadly lacking a principled, honest and brave episcopacy. Sadly, NONE of our Bishops spoke against the direct insult to Catholicism as well as our new Pope when Obama selected two outspoken, aggressive, supporters of a sick, twisted theology of state funded abortions, gay marriage and contraception – Biden and Pelosi – to represent the country in Rome. How pathetic does Catholicism appear when it can’t defend or respect its own moral codes.

    • Alecto

      Gee, d’ya think it may be because a good number of them are practicing homosexuals sympathetic to the “cause”? Maybe? Huh?

    • musicacre

      There are a few courageous and holy bishops in the U.S. that teach NFP and are ever-faithful. When they protest this stuff, no one listens. In their own dioceses they have been vocal. It’s tempting but don’t paint all the bishops with one brush!

      • schmenz

        Frankly, friend musicacre, they should not be teaching NFP either. Having more children will not only drive the Christ haters nuts, it gives to God more souls (if we raise them right). These enemies of civilization are dying off. There is no reason why we should die off ourselves by practicing NFP, which has become nothing more than “Catholic contraception”.

        • musicacre

          Not Catholic contraception unless it is taught that way. I happen to know these are Traditional bishops that are having it taught, in the context of Humanae Vitae. You have to be naive to think that everyone will have large families if they are ignorant. I happen to know the opposite. The vast majority of Catholics are on the pill and the ones we taught were willing to go off the pill once they understood the spiritual and physical harm of contraception, and the goodness of a family. Most of these couples went on to having babies. Also, we have tried to raise our 6 children right, but I have seen other Catholic families with more than they could handle go off the rails. There has to be discernment. ( The family I’m thinking of, two are drug dealers, and two of the daughters have had children out of wedlock. both parents were working and the kids were out of control from the get-go.) It’s easy to blow off a couple of sentences and make gross generalizations, but you need to be on the front line and find out what it’s really like. Priests in general (except the heroic ones) are definitely not telling couples what they need to hear to have a moral blueprint for their lives and marriage. It’s sad…and diabolical. They almost seem to enjoy keeping the new couples in the DARK.

          • schmenz

            With all due respect musicacre, I would like to recommend for your perusal a book by Dr Jay Boyd, which has just been released, on this delicate matter:

            This is a discussion that needs to be made among Catholics, in a charitable way.

            • musicacre

              I don’t know if you have digested what I’ve shared or if you just have a stubborn viewpoint that can’t be altered with facts. I have formerly recommended a book written by priests and bishops of N. America, desperate to get their pro-family pro-life message out, but the world is still tilting toward the the secular solution, the pill. This book is a treasure with all the essays of priests that have incorporated NFP into their sermons. They have broken the silence, but no seems to be listening. It is called A Preachable Message.

            • musicacre

              I looked at the link and read all the available pages. It has alot of really well-researched goodness and truth, but there is a extreme element that is troublesome, which I have seen in other people, particularly Pius X people. They think it is sinful if you don’t have as many children as you physically can produce! That’s actually not Catholic teaching…and it being proclaimed as teaching scares couples away. the Church teaching is to be GENEROUS with the size of family….the family has to figure out how many..with obviously…discernment and prayer, and trust in God. If you think this is true, then you are saying John Paul II was dead wrong. He promoted NFP, as did Mother Teresa. Obviously, taught, once again, the Catholic way, INCLUDING the phrase about serious reasons. If it is taught as contraception, then the teachers are taking that path, but the NFP in pure form is not wrong. I have seen some formerly Protestant Catholics go extreme on this for their own reasons, and judge families around them.

    • for the record, nancy and joe represent mainstream catholic America. My fellow Catholics support gay marriage and president Obama at higher rates than the country as a whole!

  • Spudnik

    The process of getting elected or re-elected to the White House or Congress seems to be one which favors those who put expedience over principle and weeds out those who stand on principle. We also need to be clear-headed enough to acknowledge the nexus of politics, big corporations and media without making the mistake that it’s socialist to recognize the danger that poses. In fact, the country has already drifted so far in the direction of corporatist fascism that political leaders’ paying attention to voters is a risible pretense. And it continues because voters, despite 20+ years of evidence to the contrary, still think that Tweedle Dee is a true alternative to Tweedle Dum.

    • musicacre

      Exactly. And the left has a major large tool called Hollywood.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

    In a mature democracy, it is inevitable that elections will be fought by two, and only two, parties, or coalitions of parties. One will consist of the friends of corruption and the other of the sowers of sedition; those who directly profit by abuses, and those who hope to profit by the disaffection which abuses naturally excite.

    • Ford Oxaal

      In your view, how far down will American society have to crumble before being able to right itself?

  • dch

    It is called reality. Get used to it.
    There is zero chance that SSM marriage will be re-banned in the nine states that presently have it and it will expand to at least two more by 2014. CA will flip either through the Prop 8 case OR it will go back on the ballot in 2016 and get affirmed (so it is over in CA either way). The GOP used this issue effectively to turn out voters in 2004 and 2008 (its is easy to vote against someone else’s rights and it costs you nothing).
    It stopped working for them in 2012.
    Its a loser issue now for the GOP that they OWN. I bet they hope to lose DOMA and the Prop 8 cases so they can pin the defeat on “activist judges” and claim their hands are tied.

    • Scott Waddell

      Depends on what you mean by get used to it. If you mean it is likely that same-sex “marriage” will become widespread, I understand. If you mean because it will become widespread, that we should affirm same-sex “marriage” as true, we can’t. Two guys formally declaring a barren mutual-masturbation arrangement given a legal rubberstamp by a State gone mad is no more a marriage than me putting on a funny general’s hat makes me Napoleon.

    • Alphonsus_Jr

      “It is called reality. Get used to it.”

      Thus speaks the infernal fiend. This defeatism must be rejected at all costs.

  • Cha5678

    Progressives infiltrated. It’s been a key tactic to every leftist movement.

  • We need to take another look at Ron Paul’s position on this issue. It is the only approach that has a chance of protecting us from the coming State persecution that will come if “gay marriage” is legalized and enforced. What we need to do it get the State completely out of the business of defining marriage at all. They need to stop issuing marriage licenses period, as if we need a license to marry. The principle of subsidiarity in my opinion dictates that the Churches and families have the responsibility of educating people as to what is marriage and what is not. Let the State remain silent simply issuing contracts couples may agree upon. In such a case, the Catholic Church could set up guidelines so practicing Catholics do not make a contractual agreement that contradicts our faith.

    • John

      Interesting idea.

    • Alecto

      While Ron Paul does not support same sex “marriage”, the Libertarian party supports the parade of horribles: abortion, same sex marriage, legalization of drugs, etc… I could never vote Libertarian. Can I offer one alternative: The Constitution Party.

      • Theorist

        The Mises Institute and Lew Rockwell libertarians don’t really like the Libertarian Party either, because it is basically a low-tax Democratic Party or Liberventionists. This alone betrays the whole idea of libertarianism, that is, the idea of voluntary law.

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      The difficulty with your suggestion is that marriage is not a contract—Two people may agree to marry each other, but they cannot agree what sort of marriage it shall be. If they take each other it is “for better, for worse.” They must accept all the consequences and incidents of marriage as it is fixed and determined by law. They could not, for example, agree to be married for ten years, or that the wife should be head of the house, or that the children should not have any rights of succession. All that they can do is to agree to marry. It is the law which lays down what are the rights of the husband, the rights of the wife, the rights of the children; whereas as a general rule in the making of contracts the parties may come to any terms they like.

      As an eminent judge observed, “private agreements cannot impede or embarrass the steady uniform course of the jus publicum, which, with regard to the rights and obligations of individuals affected by the three great domestic relations, enacts them from motives of political expediency and public morality and nowise confers them as private benefits resulting from agreements concerning meum et tuum, which are capable of being modified and renounced at pleasure.”

  • We need to take another look at Ron Paul’s position on this issue. It is the only approach that has a chance of protecting us from the coming State persecution that will come if “gay marriage” is legalized and enforced. What we need to do it get the state completely out of the business of defining marriage at all. They need to stop issuing marriage licenses period. The principle of subsidiarity in my opinion dictates that the Churches and families have the responsibility of education people as to what is marriage and what is not. Let the State remain silent. And for what it is worth, I’m a Catholic priest.

    • Jeanne Marie

      Joe Dorner,
      I am with you 1000%!!!! Ron Paul!

      Those of us that have any morals left, need to look in this direction! Red and Blue have shown their true colors.

      God Blesa

    • Father, I’d agree with you, and yet I wonder what can possibly justify the existence of a State at all, if it does not recognize the prior existence and the rights of a family. And the State does have to do those things. What becomes of parental rights, or inheritance law? What becomes of the common law immunity that protects a wife from testifying against her husband?

      • Michael Paterson-Seymour

        In Scotland, until 1st July 1940, the state did not regulate marriage. A marriage required no notice, no formality and no record of any kind.

        There were a considerable number of people who could not say off-hand whether they were married or not. It was only when the question has been decided in a court of law that their doubts could be removed. But although they do not know if they were married, and no one could tell them with certainty till the action was tried, it was nevertheless true that they must be either one or the other.

        Marriages solemnly entered into were sometimes declared void, on account of previous latent subsisting engagements, arising either from the fraud of one of the parties, or, more often, in consequence of uncertainty attending the legal effects resulting from previous conduct and correspondence many years earlier. Actions for declarator of marriage under the old law were still being raised in the 1980s. I have myself known cases, where bereaved families were harassed with claims, asserting a marriage to the deceased that were little better than blackmail and that families bought off, rather than face the hazard and expense of litigation.

    • Father, why are you so worried about your own persecution, and turn a blind eye to the persecution by the state of gods gay lesbian children? we have been arrested, harassed, beaten, fired, evicted, killed, and discriminated in shocking numbers, and you are too worried about your comfort to reach out to those of us who have been victimized! And you claim to follow Jesus….

  • Doug

    of party, gay marriage comes to us via the left. The whole gay issue has always
    had a civil rights framing side that appeals to many. It will grow as we become
    more secular. For years and years I have heard this from those of liberal persuasion,
    fairness, you know.

  • HigherCalling

    “… gay marriage is spreading not in spite of the Republicans but because of them.”

    The real link connecting the relentless advance of same-sex “marriage” with the so-called pro-family/pro-marriage/pro-life conservatives (who may or may not be Republicans) is that the vast majority of those conservatives also accept the use of artificial contraception. Once the contraceptive mentality is accepted, there is no intellectual or philosophical foundation on which to ultimately oppose same-sex “marriage.” The implicit denial of procreation as the primary purpose of sexual intercourse (and marriage) inevitably, if unwittingly, places the pro-contraception conservative on the road to accepting same-sex “marriage.” That sterile link, separating sex from procreation, places both sides of the debate in the same camp. The younger generation at some level recognizes (perhaps even subconsciously) that the sterile contraceptive lifestyle produces nothing different than the sterile lifestyle in same-sex relationships. Thus any principled argument against s-sm becomes instantly neutered, much like sterile sex itself. By the seemingly innocent and practical acceptance of contraception, pro-marriage conservatives have forfeited intellectual consistency and abandoned intellectual honesty on the issue of same-sex “marriage.” Ultimately, to be truly pro-life, pro-family, and pro-marriage, one must also oppose artificial contraception. These days, that leaves only a very small number of principled Catholics with the proper weapons to defend the family.

    • mollysdad

      What you’ve discovered is that control of human fertility is reserved to God on pain of idolatry. Together with artificial fertilisation, contraception is the highest form of worship Man can give to himself as his own false god.

    • Theorist

      How you act, eventually, determines how you think.

    • Lorraine

      Eloquently stated and tragically true.

    • I’m glad I read comments before posting. You said what I was thinking, only better.

    • The primary purpose of marriage is not procreation, but to aid man and woman in service to God. And God establishes explicitly, and it is made very clear in natural law, what that constitutes and what it can never consist of.

      It is better to be married, which can both enhance and distract from worship life and service, than it is to burn with desire. (1 Corinthians 7:9)

      Procreation is a secondary purpose for marriage, so that future disciples can be brought up to further the cause. This must be understood. Otherwise, you make it a sin to marry someone who is incapable of having children.

      So if an old man wishes to marry a widow who is too old to yield him any children from that marriage, you are to condemn the union? That’s not biblical.

      Even so, you raise a valid point. Artificial methods of procreating are not about letting God decide whom he has deemed essential for the role of parenting for his greater glory.

      Instead, they’re about the selfishness of mankind. “I want kids for my own social status’ sake!” And that is the wrong mentality. But when that’s deemed “okay,” it opens the floodgates for everything else. When human selfishness becomes a valid reason to cheat the way to childbearing, then sexual selfishness in general is validated.

      From there, it’s a very short, slippery slope to a GOP that aids and abets Crooked Pseudomarriage.

      • HigherCalling

        Yes, I would have restated that to read something like this: Natural law dictates that the primary purpose of sexual intercourse is procreation. The primary purpose of sexual behavior in marriage is an openness to new life.That openness serves the equally important unitive purpose of marriage in three ways — biologically, dynamically, and eternally. An individual’s infertility for any reason (age, medical conditions, etc) does not invalidate marriage at all, nor is it sinful. In principle a man and woman, the two being sexually complementary, can procreate. If a man or woman is infertile or past child-bearing years, that condition is incidental, and the principle is not violated. The infertility in same-sex “sexual” behavior is not incidental at all.

        The larger point is that the Church (and natural law) links sexual behavior to new life directly, and the proper environment for that behavior that best effects human flourishing is found only in marriage. Since openness to new life is organically linked to marriage itself, the deliberate sterility of heterosexual contraception and the inherent sterility of homosexual “sex” are substantially indistinguishable — both are utterly closed to new life, and neither can be called marriage.They can only be regarded as metaphysical absurdities. To be pro-contraception and claim to be pro-marriage is equally absurd. Life, Marriage, Family — they are part of a natural whole that when synthetically tinkered with for wrongly defined reasons like fairness, equality, tolerance, or even liberty, unbalance the natural system and only serve to advance the culture of death.

        • supineny

          ‘the deliberate sterility of heterosexual contraception and the inherent sterility of homosexual “sex”‘

          The reason this thinking does not resound outside Catholic theology is that copulation between intimate partners (of whatever combination of genders) is well known to do something besides occasional babies: it can enhance intimacy and love.

          Intimacy and love make people more empathetic to each other, they enables couples to live happier lives, to get along better, to participate in society with a secure emotional foundation.

          That’s hardly ‘sterile’ in the strictest sense — emotionally it is quite fruitful.

          I don’t expect the church to recognize this anytime soon. But I think that the article above is barking up all the wrong trees. It thinks that support for gay marriage is burgeoning because of a lack of political action or because of P.R. But I think that it is missing the point that same sex couples are becoming a familiar feature of modern life, and society as a whole is becoming aware that they too can be in love.

          To call those couples ‘sterile’ seems like a harsh technical critique based on a theory.

          It also seems a dubious theory. it attempts to give sex a moral basis it cannot have most of the time. Most incidences of sexual intercourse do not or can not result in pregnancy. So how vital can this theory possibly be?

          The other reasons to have sex — pleasure, intimacy, love. They have clear benefits for couples of any sort.

    • somebigguy

      Beautifully said. Of course, our vilified Paul VI warned that this would happen.

  • Scott Waddell

    Readers should know that the Church has already weighed in on this in the document, “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons” Read it here:

    Executive Summary: Whether they are called “marriage” or “civil unions”, the libertarian “get the State out of the marriage business” is not an option. Moreover:

    In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of
    such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

    • Theorist

      If the state got out of the marriage business it would probably be a great boon to traditional marriage. There would be no legal arguments for homosexual unions of any kind. If only the state got out of the legal business too, then Catholics would be free to politically disassociate from anyone wanting to do otherwise. Quite the contrary an extreme libertarian position will be necessary to end the constant battles over who should marry who and who has jurisdiction over what religion. If the Vatican would rather have the American congress support Church law, then it will be willing to allow Church law to be influenced by the crass stupidity of the latest opinion poll.

      • Scott Waddell

        Please read the document. Marriage is prior to the State and a fundamental building block of society and not just some arbitrary Church law. The state has a fundamental duty to protect true marriage.

        • Theorist

          But a political principle needs to be pursued practically. IMO, the defense of marriage by our present “state” (a name which our current band of irresponsible politicians hardly deserves) will merely undermine the long-run viability of Christianity in this country. Let me remind you , that a socialistic and atheistic totalitarianism that is also anti-gay is historically possible and a law which can only increase the power of the state, w/o increasing the intelligibility of the reasons for that power (Christianity) will only serve to anger liberals further and through defensiveness and ill-will, put us on the path to the above-mentioned total state. And indeed, the path to tyranny, once started on, is extremely difficult to turn back. Decentralization of the marriage question on the other hand, will give power to the Church and to Catholics to determine our own fate regardless of whether that fate is PC and it would provide the foundations for future evangelization.

          • Scott Waddell

            As St. Teresa would say, it’s our job to be faithful, not effective. The truth will anger people, but that’s not our problem.

  • Laura

    The problem did not being with the Republicans weakening, it began in the SCHOOLS, where the children have been indoctrinated. Well, they’re all grown up and voters, now, and having been taught about the “wonderful differences” of gays and “inclusiveness,” they are now voters, changing the face of United States politics. So talk all you want about the Republicans, but it was inevitable once the indoctrination began, and now it CANNOT be changed unless you change the schools. That is like changing a battleship in mid-course. Good luck with that. May God have mercy on our souls.

  • Pingback: Crisis Magazine: GOP Complicit in 'Gay Marriage' - Catholic Bandita()

  • publiusnj

    enator Portman’s “conversion” is not rational thinking but sentimentalism–or worse: a cynical calculation that he will never be able to defend his prior position as an author of DOMA, no less without seeming to be callous about his child (a la Dick Cheney). Rational thinking requires more rigor (or honesty) than Portman seems capable of.

    So: why are Christians seemingly losing the debate in 2013 after so many years of winning every referendum on the issue (31 up until 2012)? Because we are not unrelentingly making the point that gay intercourse is essentially recreational sex without gestational consequences. Gays rebut that by saying that gays are equal to straights and their love needs to be recognized as equal in rights and marriage has nothing to do with baby making. Rather, Marriage is just the state’s recognition of two people’s love. After all a lot of heterosexual couples can’t or won’t have issue either. Perhaps, but query: why should the state get involved in sanctioning the love of two individuals for one another if it is essentially a volitional act with no parental consequences? Why should the State endorse two person relationships of indeterminate sexuality rather than letting any kind of relationships stand that the parties want to enter into?

    The biggest error we Christians make on the Gay Marriage issue is that we accept the characterization of “marriage” as a “right.” Marriage is not a right; it is a relationship. Specifically one characterized by mutual responsibilities of each toward the other and toward the progeny of the relationship. The responsibilities of the male toward the female are of particular importance because it is the female that will produce the progeny resulting from the couple’s intercourse. She is the “partner of burden” who is stuck with the parental relationship unless–under the Supreme Court’s despicable dispensation–she chooses to abort the product of her intercourse. The male can walk away from that and often does when there is no marriage paper compelling his continued involvement.

    Now it is true that the connection between marriage and children has become somewhat attenuated in the wake of the (often state-supported) Nineteen Sixties and later “Sexual Revolution” which began with the Pill, Divorce “Reform” and Earned Income Credits/Head of Household Tax Filing Status. As a result, the “legitimacy rate” (if we are allowed still to use that term) is now substantially down and couples are often breaking up in rates that would have been unthinkable 50 years ago. Yet the fact remains that while Heterosexual couples marry less, stay together less and often don’t or can’t reproduce, the only couples that can produce progeny naturally are heterosexual couples. The simple truth of the matter is that Gays are no more capable of producing progeny from their intercourse than alchemists can produce gold from their foolishness.

    That should be the start of all defenses of Heterosexual Marriage. The State got involved in Marriage not to recognize “love” but to ensure that the products of the very serious act of Heterosexual Intercourse were regulated in away that ensured the best interest of the resulting Family.

    • musicacre

      I can’t help but think that Christians who will not weigh in on this or are agreeable to perversion have something sinful going on in their own life and feel too guilty to stand up and be counted.

    • g50

      Marriage is defined in US law not only as a right, but as a fundamental right. That is not a characterization, that’s reality.

  • Pingback: Anonymous()

  • Jeanne Marie

    Well I have HAD ENOUGH with this lame party GOP!!! This current article has now PUT me over the edge and I will be voting LIBERTARIAN. I will ALWAYS vote my values and since the Red and the Blue have lost theirs, they won’t get my support!

    AGENDA…….watch the D V D……’ the useful idiots are still asleep’ Are you one?

    God Bless,
    Jeanne M

    • Augustus

      Don’t forget that most Libertarians favor gay marriage too. In order to avoid wasting your vote, it would be best to consider each candidate on his/her own merits regardless of party. Not all Republicans are hypocrites. And not all Democrats and Libertarians defend marriage–quite the contrary. The fact is, the cultural elite is liberal. Party affiliation is less instructive regarding ideological commitment.

  • cestusdei

    As I have said before, the Republic is dead. The Left controls media, education, and entertainment. They have a perfect propaganda machine. Plus they hand out the goodies. That is a hard combination to beat. Soon enough we will be in the catacombs.

    • musicacre

      We felt that way in British Columbia when the New Democrats went so far as to start talking about implementing almost every UN initiative, branding every parent a bad parent, ALL of British Columbia voted them out when they were offered an alternative! ( and yet they had the whole media apparatus on their side cheerleading them onand predicting the NDP would win) The old party literally didn’t get one seat. It was awkward, because technically there should be an opposition….But it was beyond a landslide election. Unfortunately the media has had a decade to hammer away at the newly minted propagandized; the new graduates from public school. Instead of feeling like it’s the end of the world, (and being a skeptic) you need to take action!!

      • Music Acre: I would like to have a private (e-mail) discussion with you about these things; we live in Canada during the summer (Cape Breton). I had thought that BC was a lost cause, what with the misery of Vancouver. And Alecto, I do think that the TEA party people need to gather around the Constitution: the Constitutional Party. It is a document that Americans still have some misty reverence for, even when they don’t know a darned thing about what’s in it. I am ready to abandon the GOP entirely. Portman, Christie, Clint, the whole weaselly lot of them.

        • musicacre

          That would be great!

        • Ford Oxaal

          Portman pushed me over the edge.

      • Theorist

        Maybe this is possible in a multi-party system with proportional representation but is it possible in America? Its a point worth making that the constitution was designed to check even the popular will, so it will be difficult to make even our voices heard.

  • Anonymous

    The GOP is a joke! A true Conservative doesn’t support homosexuality because it goes against Nature Law & God.

    • musicacre

      Once again, every truly conservative person needs to ditch the Republicans and start a whole new party that will be free of the veteran, oldy corruption. If they all leave together and re-brand to attract the natural ideals of the younger generation you could re-capture the hearts and minds of people who really do want truth!

  • DerekS

    Not just republican powers that be, but many catholics did not vote yes where a yes vote was needed to define marriage as one-man one-woman. Republicans in 2 states got amendments offered on ballots, despite dioceson efforts to persuade voting yes, many catholics voted no. Yes, the republican leadership should make a litmus test on this issue to maintain their positions. It’s really sad that the leading attorney attacking the California amendment, Ted Olson, is a republican.

    • DerekS

      I suggest the litmus test because the Democrats apply a litmus test the favors gay marriage to their leadership. So bold are the democrats that they censor the few democrats who challenge gay marriage in the legislature, eg. Mike Gabbert of Hawaii’s legislature…The Democratic Party of Hawaii’s state central
      committee upheld a reprimand against Gabbard in 2009 for
      actively opposing a civil unions bill. Democrats in Minnesota. So hostile and unified democrats are against “leave the gay lifestyle” therapy that they have outlawed it for minors in California and proposed in New Jersey – hopefully a 1st amendment case can be made against it.

    • Alecto

      Ted Olson is funded and supported by the Koch Bros., who are very generous Republican donors and are big, fat Libertarians – which is essentially law without conscience, life without rules – abortion? Great! Drugs? Please help yourself. SSMarriage? Why not! Next time you buy:

      1. Brawny paper towels
      2. Angel Soft or Quilted Northern toilet paper
      3. Lycra products
      4. Dixie paper cups
      5. Stainmaster Carpet
      6. Coolmax fabrics (generally found in gym clothes)
      7. Antron fabrics

      Think about where your money goes.

  • StNikao

    Romney as governor rammed gay marriage past his legislature against the mandates of the MA constitution by executive order Obama-style. Romney’s governorship was the lab study for Obama’s presidency.

    In the last election, the GOP and such party elites as Christie, Coulter and Drudge insisted Romney is conservative and that was as irrational and farcical as any obscene and cronyist Obama spending policy. Romney’s candidacy as a Republican was the most revealing thing about the now largely Bush-run party – it’s a wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing progressivist party that changes administrations back and forth between the Democrats tacking our nation and the world toward its total capitulation toward tyrannical fascist totalitarianism.

    • publiusnj

      This isn’t true. Massachusetts Gay Marriage (first in the nation) was the product of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, not the Governor. The decision was: Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.

  • Uuncle Max

    So called ‘catholic’ politicians who support abortion, same-sex marriage and contraception have a favorite way of explaining their support – “I don’t want to impose my beliefs on others.” (I have heard joe biden say that at least 5 times.)

    W/O getting into the myriad of reasons why that is a b.s. statement, let me just say to them We are not asking you to impose your beliefs on others, but we DO think you should DEFEND them.

    But that, apparently, is asking too much.

    Catholics out there – with the holiest week on the Christian Calendar coming up, PLEASE pray for the grace of contrition for the Catholics who have betrayed their faith.

  • Theorist

    One of the main reasons why this happens is because establishment Republicans are basically Rockefeller’s men and Rockefeller is a ecumenical internationalist who supported things like the UN, CIA, and the Interchurch Council. His name is also associated with such greats as John Foster Dulles on the National Council of Churches. For what reason would such CIA RINOs be interested in religion except to render it lukewarm and worthy of being spat out of Jesus’s mouth?

    Historically, the secret to understanding why Republicans are so bad at defending conservatism is to note, that the Republican Party was always just a smaller Democratic Party post-Civil War. With Bryant’s speech on the cross of gold, the Democrats out-progressived the Republicans and since then, the Republican Party has always been Democrats-lite -and who would vote for half of what they want when the Democrats will give it all to them? The Republicans represent, not so much a different ideology, as a different timetable. Because they have always protested on mere practicality issues it was only a matter of time, before Democrats would succeed at destroying what Republicans at best only half-heatedly defended. Even regarding property, the republicans were the first to establish, in situ if not fully grown, the new deal, national healthcare, and bank nationalization.

  • Lorraine

    At first, the phrase “homosexual marriage” seemed impossibly shocking and shockingly impossible. Over time, the phrase has been deliberately drummed into our collective consciousness, and what is impossible is slowly becoming a bizarre kind of normal, reflected in the polls. Pope Francis got it right when he mentioned that homosexual “marriage” comes from “the father of lies,” the devil.

    • Did Pope Francis also get it right when he supported gay civil unions?

  • brigin

    Thirty years of republican treachery.

  • We would go a long way in defending marriage if those who are against its bastardization would never put the words gay and marriage together. This oxymoron is an ontological impossibility, because marriage has only existed, ever in the history of the world for one reason: That a man and woman can procreate. It has never existed, and does not exist now, because two people love one another and desire to express that through sex. Thus the debate is over the re-definition of marriage, and that is how we ought to refer to it, always.

  • As a (very happily gay-) married man, let me agree with you! Gay marriage is about to become the law of our shining nation on a hill thanks to strong support, at last, from Republican leaders and voters.

    This article would have been more interesting if it had asked where all the gay-haters will lend their political support now. Will you withdraw grumpily from public life In this land that has roundly rejected your beliefs? Swallow your pride and crawl back on your knees to continue servicing the party that betrayed you? Or maybe wake the heck up and wonder why no one else is so obsessed with using the tools of the state to demonize God’s gay-lesbian children?

    Pass the popcorn, I cannot wait to see how this turns out!

    • How will it turn out? Pretty much as for Sodom and Gomorrah. This society is in complete moral collapse. Once the Sodomites have their way, the fans of incest, polygamy and bestiality will follow.

    • schmenz

      I was going to say that remarks like yours make me sick to my stomach, but actually, I find them amusing. Amusing though they may be there is much evil in your gloating.

      But I’ll do my best to return good for evil: homosexuality is one of the mortal sins that cries to Heaven for vengeance. If, God forbid, you die in this state and do not confess your sins to a priest (which presupposes your conversion to Catholicism) you will never see God, you will spend eternity in unspeakable torments in Hell, a hereafter of total despair and hopelessness.

      If I see a blind man ready to fall off a cliff I will help him change direction. Please God you will change your direction.

      • dch

        Ok, now we have an actual case of an individual citizen in a SSM.
        Name a SINGLE harm to you that directly arises from Shum’s marriage or any of the other thousands of such arrangements that already exis

        • schmenz

          Dear Sir/Madam/It:

          Do I really need to laboriously take you by the hand and walk you through this? Presumably you have a sense of simple logic, and realize the principle of cause and effect.

          But if I really must enlighten you, I will try. If two homosexuals/queers/sodomites (you pick) move next to me not only my wife and I but my children will have to witness this perversion, and since sexual miscreants delight in prancing about and strutting their stuff we will have to witness these horrors. Who do we complain to if we see two degenerates kissing on their front lawns or God knows what else? And who do I go to if one of these sexually disordered people casts an eye on one of my adolescent sons…and maybe finds an opportunity to be alone with him? Will the cops say, “Well, that’s accepted now”. If I complain too loudly I may be slapped with a lawsuit, lose my house, be fired from my job. The Lavender Mafia, aka the gaystapo, is not shy about crushing their opponents.

          And when two homosexuals get to “marry”, the next thing, of course, is adoption of innocent children,whose lives will be ruined by living under such an arrangement. They may even become perverts themselves. Remember, homosexuals don’t reproduce; they recruit. And am I to sit idly by and watch the spiritual mental and physical destruction of an innocent child living with this kind of abuse? I guess so, since the cops would say, “Well that’s accepted now”.

          And when the USA and other nations end up as Carthage did (for the same or similar reasons), am I supposed to rejoice.

          Now, dch, have I enlightened you?

      • Wait, does this mean you are compromising? Because it sounds to me as if you now support gay divorce! Its not everything, but I appreciate your making an effort.

        Once we get gay divorced, perhaps you could suggest an orphanage we can drop our children off at?

        (As an aside, unless you have more than the four children I do, it seems I am doing a better job of both being fruitful and multiplying.)

        Love and kisses right on your angry mug,

        • schmenz

          You’re being “fruitful” all right. Or is that “fruity”?

          Your reply does validate once again what I have witnessed all my life: when homosexuals don’t leave their degrading lifestyle they begin to lose their reason. That’s evidenced by the fact that you’ve not addressed at all what I had to say and that you are willing to risk damnation to continue your unnatural manner of living. May God help you, and those poor children who are exposed to such things in your home.

          But as a Catholic I am bound to warn you about the wrong road you are taking. With my reply to above I’ve done that. The ball is now in your court.

  • Alphonsus_Jr

    The author writes:

    gay marriage

    instead of:

    gay “marriage”

    or even better:

    “gay marriage”

    Even better would have been:

    homosexual “marriage”

    And best would have been:

    sodomite “marriage”

    The continued cooption of the formerly cheerful word “gay” must be resisted, as this cooption is an attempt to make sodomy morally neutral and even positive.

    Moreover, quotes should be used around the word “marriage” to make it clear that sodomite “marriage” is utterly impossible, as impossible as correctly writing the following statement: “I am dead.” Or as impossible as hot ice.

    Finally, sodomite is the preferred word as it maximally preserves the stigma formerly attached to this abomination.

    • g50

      You have “good point”.

      • Alphonsus_Jr

        hahaha…. “good” one.

  • Alphonsus_Jr

    It’s absolutely crucial to spread around the following article which can be found via an internet search:

    Tactics of the Homosexual Movement by John Vennari

    Also see:

    • dch

      How does it feel to be on the losing side now? The tide has turned and the GOP is bailing on you. LOL.
      The GOP has dropped you and the Dems are quickly staking out the high ground on equality and fairness.

      • Alphonsus_Jr

        It’s true. The GOP is abandoning itself to the depravity and false compassion of the world. Happily, I’ve long since abandoned the GOP, as my page here indicates:

        • dch

          No I meant the culture itself is leaving this issue behind.

          1. Name a SINGLE material harm that as come to you personally as a result of a specific pair of adults being legally married?

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            Indeed, the race to the bottom is accelerating on all fronts. You’re quite right about this.

            As for the legitimacy of sodomite “marriage” having anything to do with personal harm, I reject this solipsism. The absurdity of sodomite “marriage” would remain even if it personally harmed no one and even if all the world applauded it.

            The Architect and the Triangle

            A triangle approached the architect and said:

            “I’m tired of being limited to three sides. I want four sides. Please give me another.”

            Architect: “Do you want to remain what you are, a triangle?”

            Triangle: “Yes. And I want four sides.”

            Architect: “You want to be a four-sided triangle?”

            Triangle: “I do.”

            Architect: “But you’ll cease being a triangle, as a triangle by definition has only three sides.”

            Triangle: “No. I’ll endure no more discrimination. I’m free. I’m
            tolerant. I’m flexible. I’m open-minded. I’m compassionate. I’m
            up-to-date. I’m enlightened. I’m not bound by your rigid, ignorant old
            dogmas. I shall be a four-sided triangle, the first four-sided triangle
            in the history of the world. And henceforth the class of triangles shall
            forever include the four-sided.”

            The architect shook his head and sighed.

            • dch

              So now its triangles. god luck with that You cannot come up with a SINGLE material harm, as no has been able to do in nearly ten years in MA.
              So you simply have no argument against equality and fairness under the civil law. No harm – no case – that is the way it goes in civil court.
              Times change. Society changes.

              • Alphonsus_Jr

                Reputable studies have shown that homosexual couplings indeed hurt any children involved. But as I reject homosexual “marriage” regardless of any such studies or harm, I’ll leave it at that and get to the real issues.

                Marriage isn’t something to be defined as one wishes. Its essence is entirely independent of your, or anybody else’s, point of view. I understand, however, where you and others are coming from. Processed by the myth of progress and its concomitant chronological snobbery, you accordingly see marriage as subject to evolution and thus “improvement.”

                But you’ll be delighted that as today’s race to the bottom accelerates, we’ll surely get to the point where homosexual “marriage” is held to be law. If not now, then a decade or two from now, just as Lawrence v. Texas overturned Bowers v.Hardwick.. Yet homosexual “marriage” will, in fact, be neither marriage nor law.

                As a triangle – to remain a triangle – is bound to be three-sided and not four, so marriage – to be marriage – is bound to involve only one man and one woman. The fact that this baffles so many today is yet another indication of today’s plunge into the darkest, most blinding abyss.

                Nor will it be law. As Aquinas makes clear (ST, Ia-IIae Q. 90) a law is 1) an ordinance of reason 2) made and promulgated for the common good 3) by one who has charge of a community or society. Homosexual “marriage” fails under the first two prongs, though failure under any one of them would be fatal.

                And so what you’re actually arguing for isn’t marriage or law, as
                marriage by definition involves one man and one woman, and law must
                be reasonable and for the common good. What you advocate is the
                redefinition of marriage; in other words, something that isn’t
                marriage, and can never be marriage, is to nevertheless be called
                “marriage.” On the purely natural level, this is thoroughly Orwellian. It’s also radically hypocritical, as those on your side never cease singing the praises of “authenticity” and “keepin’ it real.” On the supernatural level, it’s
                thoroughly diabolical.

                By the way, one may thoroughly reject homosexual “marriage” on Nietzschean grounds; i.e., based on the rejection of all decadence
                and every form of bestial tranquility.

                One may also reject it on purely Platonic grounds, as laid out in
                Book I of Plato’s Laws.

                In other words, homosexual “marriage” can be soundly rejected on purely naturalistic grounds, that is, without any resort whatsoever to religion.

                All of this can be explained much more extensively, but alas, I grow fatigued.

                P.S. In debate elsewhere today I learned that those who vigorously oppose homosexual “marriage” are surely closet homosexuals. Upon further questioning by me I then learned that those who vigorously support homosexual “marriage” are surely NOT closet heterosexuals. This revelation occurred not long after my interlocutor categorically rejected double-standards. Fascinating!

                • dch

                  What do you mean “someday”? Gay adults have getting legally married for about nine years in MA. No harm as arisen and none will. Gay people exist. Gay people form loving relationships. It does not matter that you reject it, its simply none of your business. The change is that society has moved on and will soon stop debating this subject and gay people will achieve equality under civil law. Nothing is being asked of you, you don’t have to change a thing, and you won’t even notice.

                  • Alphonsus_Jr

                    The unprocessed will never accept it. You’ll have to kill us.

  • Alphonsus_Jr

    I also recommend watching this, on false compassion, by Abp. Fulton Sheen:

  • Alphonsus_Jr

    Finally, I recommend searching the internet for this Amazon page:

    Reject Sham Conservatism

    It’s easiest to get to through Google. This way you don’t have to search all through Amazon.

  • ekaneti

    Go sodomizeyourself George

  • Pingback: The Marriage Question - Big Pulpit()

  • Anonymous

    These “republicans” are a joke. “Gay marriage” is an oxymoron—-anyone who knows what the definition of “marriage” is can tell you that. They are only hoping on the “gay train” for the votes. I’m tired of hearing about homosexuals, when are we going to start talking about the economy. BTW Nothings stopping homosexuals from marrying someone of the opposite sex. It’s a lifestyle choice, just like alcoholism, drug addictions, etc. Homosexual marriage is destructive

  • Pingback: Mobile Church Added to Russian Military | The Kuyperian Commentary()

  • Pingback: Mobile Church Added to Russian Military - Kuyperian Commentary()