Why Pro-Family Groups are Losing the Marriage Debate

Brian Camenker is a rabble-rouser from Massachusetts who founded something contentiously called MassResistance, a state-based pro-family group that takes perhaps the most aggressive stance in the country against the homosexual agenda.

In a recent column published on his website, Camenker offers no quarter to the national pro-family groups that he says have botched the fight against same-sex “marriage.” In fact, he says “the pro-family movement helped spread ‘gay marriage’ across America.”

Camenker is especially annoyed at the legal case put on by marriage defenders in the Prop 8 and DOMA cases. Camenker describes the well-funded and well-planned assault by LGBT activists including skilled attorneys, shrewd judge shopping, emotionally compelling legal arguments, a media juggernaut, training judges, and psychological manipulation. Even so, he says this could have been overcome except for “the terrible incompetence of the lawyers on our side.”

He says our lawyers put on weak defenses, with hardly any witnesses and used arguments that tended to go no further than “this is not about homosexuality but that children need both a mother and a father.” He says these “soft arguments” would have no effect, and they didn’t.

Besides soft arguments, most people don’t know that the lead witness for our side in the Prop 8 trial—David Blankenhorn of the Institute for American Values—actually said on the stand that America would be better on the day after we allowed for gay marriage. This was our witness.

No surprise not long after that Blankenhorn formally joined the movement for homosexual “marriage.” As he went out the door he said he was leaving because our side was mean—this after we adopted his softer messaging strategy.

Not enough people on our side know that the lead attorney in the Prop 8 case, Charles Cooper, was not on our side either. He was at that moment helping to plan the wedding of his stepdaughter to another woman. Sure, your lawyer does not need to know that you are guilty of murder, but in a case like this, he at least needs to agree with the arguments. Cooper didn’t and it showed abundantly.

Camenker traces these legal arguments to what he sees as the surrender of the mainstream pro-family movement, led by people like Blankenhorn, to certain assumptions of the LGBT movement including tolerance of homosexual behavior, believing that homosexuality is not immoral but natural, that loving homosexual couples are a legitimate part of society, allowing for gay civil unions, and much else.

He points to two heroes of the marriage movement and mistakes he says they’ve made. Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage went into the home of the odious Dan Savage, in the presence of Savage’s gay lover, over glasses of wine debated same-sex “marriage.” I have watched that film and I think Brown did a terrific job. Camenker says it was a huge mistake.

He also criticizes Maggie Gallagher, someone I have praised regularly, because she went to the Boston College law school and said, “It’s possible that gay couples could on average be much better parents than opposite-sex couples because they don’t have children as a result of sexual passion.” She prefaced that by saying it was reasonable to conclude that having gay parents was better than being in an orphanage or foster care.

He says the theme of the 2014 March for Marriage was “tolerance and that we’re ‘not haters.’” Camenker knows of no national pro-family group conference that has included speakers on “homosexual medical issues or the homosexual agenda in schools.”

And these are the nub of the issue for Camenker. Those two issues—the medical reality of homosexual behavior and what happens in schools—are the issues most national groups shy away from and are the ones Camenker believes are most effective.

The thing to know about Camenker is that he was radicalized on this issue because of what happened in the Massachusetts school system. In 1992 his neighbor showed him a teaching guide from the public school that depicted information about gross homosexual behavior. This was foisted upon kids without warning or parental approval. Camenker tried to get a bill passed by the legislature that would require teachers to inform parents when such subjects were to be taught and allow parents to remove their children. Camenker says the final bill was gutted.

In a quite remarkable documentary about what happened in Massachusetts after same-sex “marriage” was judicially imposed on that state, Camenker describes how rapidly the homosexual ethos was forced even upon kindergartners.

Though very rough and poorly made, the film makes the strong case that once same-sex “marriage” is allowed, certain things inexorably follow, things that are impossible to resist. The film was shown recently on national television in Finland and is credited with stopping their Parliament from allowing same-sex “marriage.” I recently invited Camenker to show the film at a conference for UN diplomats and the result was electric. When he showed a picture of two brothers, no more than boys, with one of them dressed as a girl, jaws dropped all over the room.

Besides what happens in schools, Camenker says the medical evidence about homosexuality is very powerful but left unused by the national groups. In fact, even after years of safe sex education recent data from the Center for Disease Control shows homosexual activity is profoundly dangerous. The infection rate for HIV continues to rise and is due almost exclusively to the homosexual community. So vast and interconnected are the health risks associated with gay sex—disease, drug/alcohol abuse, neuroses, violence—that researcher Dale O’Leary says the medical community refers to it not as an epidemic or even a pandemic, but something most of us have never even heard of—a syndemic.

Camenker believes the mother and father arguments don’t convince anyone and the reliance on them demonstrates that pro-family leaders have fallen for human respect. He also believes the studies showing the importance of moms and dads are mostly ineffective, too. After all, we trot out a new study, and the other side trots out two more. And look what happened to Mark Regnerus and his study. He has been professionally and personally crucified.

I am not a legal expert and therefore cannot comment on whether these arguments would have been allowed in a court of law. They certainly would have advanced the claim of the other side that it is “animus” that compels our opposition. But, we got that anyway.

Where I think Camenker is right but perhaps too late is in the court of public opinion. Everyone should read Robert Oscar Lopez on the dangers of sodomy. Everyone should read ex-gays and what happened to them in the gay subculture. It is all so horrific and anyone reading such things would feel great revulsion and understand that we cannot accept gay relationships let alone same-sex “marriage.”

I applauded some years ago when Maggie Gallagher and others came up with the new messaging about how this is not about homosexuality but what children need, more than anything a mother and father, something two men or two women cannot provide. It seemed brilliant to me then. But, this alone has not convinced, and the result is we have left behind other—perhaps more unpleasant—but possibly more effective arguments.

Austin Ruse


Austin Ruse is president of C-FAM (Center for Family & Human Rights), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute. He is the author of Fake Science: Exposing the Left’s Skewed Statistics, Fuzzy Facts, and Dodgy Data published by Regnery and Little Suffering Souls: Children Whose Short Lives Point Us to Christ published by Tan Books. His forthcoming book from Tan Books, written with His Eminence Raymond Cardinal Burke, is expected this spring. The views expressed here are solely his own.

  • vishmehr24

    There are no gay unions, no gay couples and no gay pairings.
    Homosexual relations do not produce union between two persons so it is high term we stop using THEIR terms.

    • 33 states disagree with you. If two gays have a marriage license and wed then they are married, regardless of what you or the Church think about the validity of their union. This is not about you. They neither seek nor require your approval.

      • Augustus

        No. A few states and a handful of federal judges disagree with us. We are not being allowed to exercise our democratic rights explicitly secured in the constitution because a small group of elites want to force a newly invented “right” down our throats. At least the Sixth Circuit finally put the breaks on it this week with a rational and constitutional ruling. Let’s see if their colleagues in the judiciary reconsider their lawlessness. You are right about one thing. The tyrannical judiciary doesn’t give a fig about our rights.

      • St JD George

        Many are called but few are chosen, and many are slowly boiled (apt here) in stripping them of their humanity. And, you are a liar to boot. If you don’t require approval then don’t ask others to share in these immoral celebration by mandating those who disagree make you a cake, or sew you 2 gowns, or use our private property including churches. No, there is a militancy that screams to be recognized and now has a sympathetic government to force coercion. Only people of this world would use an argument about 33 states. Our government also sanctions the murder of children in the name of choice so what does that mean about the laws of men? Committing the act of sodomy is a behavioral choice made of free will and against God.

      • Austin Ruse

        Well, of course, that is not entirely accurate. 33 states have not “decided”. A few states have allowed it. 32 states officially named man woman marriage in law. Most of the states you refer to were imposed by activist judges.

        • St JD George

          Most, I thought all were imposed by activist judges. To my knowledge no state has voted to recognize SSM.

          • Augustus

            There is a difference between state legislatures deciding and the people deciding directly through referenda. A hand full of state legislatures decided in favor (in the Northeast), but when the people are asked, they usually say no.

            • torrentprime

              Voters in 3 states did so “yes”, though.

          • Austin Ruse

            That’s right. Only judges and two legislatures.

            Sent from my iPad

            • torrentprime

              No. Washington, Maryland, and Maine did it by direct voter ballot in 2012.

              • Austin Ruse

                Yep, that’s three! Out of how many who voted the other way? So, the popular vote is 32-3 in favor of traditional marriage?

                • torrentprime

                  So you admit you were wrong when you said it was only judges and two legislatures did it. Cool. And it was eight states, not two, that did it by legislature. So that is 11 done not by court cases.
                  And want to bet how many states would vote differently now? The electorate is changing on this issue, and a lot more blue and purple states would vote for it than when these votes started ten years ago.

                  • Austin Ruse

                    The fact is that 32 states voted for man woman marriage. Moreover, only a tiny teacup of countries allow it. Hardly any of the Council of Europe allow it It is hardly sweeping either this country or the world. Heck, hardly any gays really want it. It’s a joke even to them.
                    Sent from my iPad

                  • Chris Cloutier

                    I don’t care how many states vote for it, or how many judges injudiciously mandate it. It is not marriage and never will be. I will never acknowledge it as such. I find the misuse of the term gay to be offensive as well. There is nothing gay about that lifestyle. It is a perverted and abnormal way to live.

                    • John200

                      “Live?” These boys don’t live all that long.

                      It is a perverted and abnormal way to destroy your body, as well as that of your “partner” (ha, ha, ha, I am reminded of the irony — homo”sex”ual activity kills the one you “love” as well as yourself), and there is no need to go much further.

                      But I could say a lot more….

                    • Chris Cloutier


                    • Cap America

                      This is my response, too, which puts me, for the time being at least, contre temps.

                      But even the evil of sodomite marriage can be changed; we can reverse the law. It’s work, but it’s doable in a democracy.

                  • Paddy

                    The Nazis imposed their rule through an elective government, too.
                    Come to think of it, the colonies and then the USA endorsed slavery. All of it was corrupt.

              • Paddy

                So what? They contradict the natural law at their own peril.

            • Paddy

              “I now pronounce you wife and wife?”

              It’s theater of the absurd.

            • TrollopeReader

              As usual, your hatred ignores actual facts. You are incorrect.

            • Vlad50

              so true Austin and in those states the legislatures rammed through the bill under pressure for the radical homosexual lobby against the wishes of most citizens.

          • torrentprime

            No. Washington, Maryland, and Maine, the voters directly, all voted to legalize same-sex marriage in 2012.

          • Paddy

            Marxist judges are ruling the United States, now, by decree.

            They aim to destroy it.

            • TrollopeReader

              Do you even know or understand what “Marxist” actually means?

              No, I didn’t think you did.

              • Paddy

                Keep answering your own questions. Do you understand the separation of powers? I didn’t think so.

              • I do and I note that Marx was very clear in his desire to destroy the family.

          • Akira88

            Some did. Here in NYS, legislatures lied and said they would uphold marriage, but when it came to the vote they sided with the gay groups stating they were voting their “conscience”. And it was by a very slim margin that it passed.

          • Maine, Maryland, Washington, Minnesota come to mind as having voted to recognize same-sex marriage. In several other states (eg New York and Vermont) the people’s elected representatives voted to recognize same-sex marriage.

          • TrollopeReader

            You might want to do some actual, you know, research. Stupidity is not a trait you should be happy to have.

            • Disagreement with homosexual militancy is not hate. The contemptuous term “breeder” is hate . Try and keep that straight in your mind.

            • St JD George

              Your brilliance and wit and overwhelming, I’m speechless.

      • How many states allowed slavery? Any false god will do to buttress a vacant argument. The Supreme Court dispensed with justice in the case of the grievous wrong of involuntary sterilization witt “three generations of imbeciles are enough”. What state opposed FDR’s incarceration of ethnic Japanese and Italians for the crime of being Japanese and Italian.

        By the way, can’t you get a new hobby besides trolling?

      • cestusdei

        They demand our approval. The 6th circuit just ruled against the homosexuals. A piece of paper doesn’t make a marriage. It isn’t real.

      • BFlizo

        Then why do Homosexual activists feel compelled to force business or places of worship to acknowledge their “unions” even though it contrasts their religious beliefs?

      • fredx2

        And Pope Francis disagrees with you. He recently said that gay marriages were not marriages.

        • Akira88

          The homosexual groups aren’t about “truth.” They are not about tolerance with anyone who disagrees with them.

        • Pope Francis’ opinion on the matter is irrelevant. In fact that is the very point. The Church will never recognize same-sex marriage. That’s just fine with me.

          It is quite clear, however, that US law regarding civil marriage has nothing to do with the teachings of the Church. It’s no different than the Church of Scientology influencing legislation to restrict certain prescription drugs — something that they have tried to do. Their objection isn’t based on reputable science (although they claim that it is). They object because the teachings of their church prohibit the use of antidepressants. “No Prozac for you!”

          As a matter of law, the legal status of the Church of Scientology and the Roman Catholic Church are exactly the same.

          • BPS

            slowlyboiledfrog.com wrote “The Church will never recognize same-sex marriage. That’s just fine with me”. I call bulls**t on that. As soon as they feel the opportunity is right, they will forcefully push for removal of tax exempt status on all church property, collections of tithes, schools, hospitals, etc. He may deny it now, but in a few years he’ll be on the barricades.

          • All hail god state!

      • Akira88

        Most of those states defied the will of the people.

        • You could make the same comment regarding Brown v. Board of Education and it would be just as irrelevant.

          • Akira88

            Why do you guys perpetrate the conversation. What is it, a perverse entertainment? It’s obvious you exist for your agenda. Forwarding the agenda of the Frankfurt School?

    • torrentprime

      Are you saying that 2 gay people married to each other aren’t in a union, aren’t a couple, and aren’t paired? How does that work? They are legally married. Isn’t that a legal union?

      • St JD George

        Calling it something which it is not does not make it what it can not be.

      • fredx2

        Pope Francis says it is not a marriage

    • Cap America

      Good point. Let’s talk straight and open here.

  • Tom

    //Besides what happens in schools, Camenker says the medical evidence about homosexuality is very powerful but left unused by the national groups.//

    I am skeptical that this argument would have held much sway with the US population. After all, look at the way anti-cannabis campaigners focus on the health consequences of cannabis, yet there is fairly widespread support for cannabis legalization. Or, look at the opposition to the banning of trans-fats, even among conservatives.

    The fundamental problem with the healthism argument is that it is still runs up against the same libertarian/liberal opposition that partly fuels same-sex marriage support, namely radical personal autonomy and individualism. Against those beliefs, “the dangers of sodomy” are no more persuasive than “the dangers of alcohol”, or “the dangers of cannabis”.

    • Austin Ruse

      Yes, that is a very good point.

      • Tom

        Thank you.

        Have you got that link for me to an article you have written where you condemn the Ugandan anti-gay law?

        • Austin Ruse

          Somewhere in 300 columns and 100 news articles…not sure where…

          • Tom

            Strange, because it appears in none of the articles I have read that you have written that mention the law, including on Brietbart and this site. I am inclined to think that no such condemnation exists.

            • Austin Ruse

              You have it right here. I oppose the extreme portions of the Ugandan law. There. Take it to the bank.

              • Tom

                Thank you. Perhaps if no such condemnation exists in an article you have written in such prominent publications or websites, it was not unreasonable to assume you supported it?

                So, which parts do you consider “extreme”? Is it the imprisoning of people for consensual sodomy, for criminalizing pro-gay speech or associations, for banning pro-gay marches and parades? Which bit specifically do you oppose?

                • Austin Ruse

                  Look, Tom, I am not going to jump through hoops for you.if you’d like to talk about the column above, great. Otherwise, move along. I will not answer any more of your queries about anything else…

                  • Tom

                    Okay, I didn’t realize I was putting up hoops for you. Just asking a question, because I know that you don’t, in principle, have a problem with imprisoning people for sodomy, and I know that you think that it is acceptable to strictly limit pro-gay marches and demonstrations (as in Russia). So I was just genuinely curious about which parts of the law you thought were extreme. But I’m sure that detail exists in the vast corpus of your work, right?

                    • Maria

                      Now your fangs are showing.

                    • Interesting observation. “Guest” cloaks him or herself like a vampire in the dark and you make the fang connection. Quite good.

                    • Tamsin

                      Imprisonment is quite a bit less than drowning by millstone.

                  • Tom


                    Well, my point about healthism was made above, but as someone from the opposing side of this argument, I would say that even the bad experiences of “ex-gays” in the gay subculture are not particularly a problem for my side. I would firstly point out that an individual negative experience does not mean that an entire sub-culture is rancid, then I would analogize with how “ex-Muslims” have some horrendous stories about mistreatment, but we generally don’t determine that that means that all Muslims are evil, or even (necessarily) that all Islam is evil.

                    I actually think that the argument your side has advanced is one of the better and more easily accessible ones from a public campaign perspective. Its failure is more to do with the fact that it is false, it does not comport with reality or people’s experience, rather than it being weaker than all others.

                    Finally, I found it amusing that Camenker lists making intellectual arguments a failing of the anti-SSM side, yet also lists using natural law as a strength. In order to advocate for “Natural Law” at the same time as condemning intellectualism, I suspect he has a very poor understanding of the former.

                    • Thomas Mellon

                      I don’t suspect, I’m certain Tom that you have a poor understanding of the natural law.

                    • GG

                      Here is the bottom line for you. No argument will convince a person who refuses to be convinced. The truth will only be accepted to the degree a person is open to receiving the truth.

                      Those who understand the truth of the inherent evilness of homosexual acts have on their side, right reason, science, history, logic, experience, and thousands of years of teaching.

                      In short, it is not about any particular argument, as there are many that can and should be made. It is about corrupt minds that refuse to accept the truth.

                      That may sound harsh to post modern ears, but it is true.

                      People do not want to stop doing what they are doing.

                    • Paddy

                      The same nonsense occurred in Berlin between the wars as society crumbled under a Leftist regime attempting to glide Germany into communism. It’s the same old stuff that leads to the demise of Western Civilization….the greatest experiment in history.

                    • Cap America

                      Oh this is nuts. Go ahead and try to explain how sadomasochism is a good thing. Puh-leeze! This is juvenile rambling.

              • TrollopeReader

                but you think it’s okay to shoot university administrators and professors who are leftists? ok…….

                • Austin Ruse

                  I win!

        • JP

          Why stop with the Ugandans? Uganda removed its death penalty (it is now a 14 year sentence). However, it is still a crime in 37 other African nations, and in Niger, Sudan, and Mauritania the reserve the death penalty for such acts.

          In Iran and Saudi Arabia there are also strict penalties for homosexual acts.

          • Paddy

            Plus, Islam frowns on usury by our banksters, while they pay off the DNC not to prosecute them for the methodical theft of trillions.
            The former West is putrid, now.

      • Maria

        It is not a good point, Austin. We have been brainwashed by 20th century ideals of romance and personal “freedom” into even “seeing” this point. The irony of all this is that the progressivist modern vision of social order disdains marriage as an antiquated and obsolete encumbrance to its vision of the supremacy of man. Why are the visionaries of the left demanding marriage be termed a right and a right that is not biologically related to human procreation? Because they want to destroy the meaning of marriage. Scientism wants us to believe that human reproduction can be well-relegated to the laboratory and that every modern good depends on it. Women and men are being disgendered and “equalised” to the confused applause of the western intelligentsia. Parasexual behaviour is being romanticised and normalised. Sterility through “medication” is treated as a basic health intervention. Fertility is treated as a disease. The human identity of unborn children is obscured in order to provide a failsafe to elective sterility. Unborn children are calculatedly dehumanised and callously exterminated and the sick, disabled and elderly are increasingly viewed as disposable. The strong, natural association of human beings that is the basis for human community that we call the family is a threat to this radical vision. Marriage is the protected platform for the family, so it must go. I am writing things obvious to you, but the order of obviousness is the real point. The obscurity, confusion and disassociation that we are experiencing are intentional. Confusion is truly from the devil.

        • Austin Ruse

          The good point is that is it hard to advance your cause using health arguments. Gays, for instance, know that anal sex is bad for them, but they continue to do it. Even so, i think it is important to continue making these arguments.

          • Maria

            My first comment to “Tom” dealt with that. My comment on why it is not a good point is about the legal concept of marriage as a “right” being a red herring here.

            • Austin Ruse

              Im confused. When you said “not a good point Austin” what were you referring to? I said he had a good point about health arguments. You said, not a good point.

              • Maria

                The distinction between allowing adults to inflict harm on themselves consensually in our individualist society and the enshrining of that harm as a privileged and protected institution supported by the society has nothing to do with the “nanny state”. Tom was leading us all away from the point.

          • torrentprime

            What about straight people? They keep doing anal sex too, you know. Are you going to continue to argue that straight people should stop having anal sex as loudly as you complain about gay people doing it? And what about the 1/3 of gay men and huge number of gay women who never do it anyway?

            • Austin Ruse

              It is not a significant problem among normal people.

        • MJ anderson

          Excellent points, Maria.

          Also, while practicing homosexuals often are not dissuaded by the health statistics most prevalent in their community, heterosexuals are dissuaded by the same statistics and then their attitude toward homosexuality as a benign “equality” issue reverses.

          • torrentprime

            Any proof of this reversal you claim you see?

    • justanotherlittlesoul

      I’m not sure I agree. From eleven years of experience teaching religion, I have found that using the medical evidence does work, at least for swaying the opinions of teens and parents. When I break out the statistics on life expectancy, disease, number of partners in a lifetime… the tide of opinion turns. Nonetheless,It does take courage to use those facts, because no one else is using them, and every time you speak in anyway against the homosexual movement you die a white martyrdom.

      • Tom

        Okay, fair enough. Your experience with reactions to healthism differs from mine. Still, since Camenker is talking about the campaign in wider society, not in fairly narrow situations, I think my parallels with the pro-cannnabis campaign, and the campaign against trans-fats and ‘big gulp’ sodas, does show a resistance to health nannyism (which is essentially what this is).

        • Maria

          There is a not so subtle difference between the legal right of an adult to choose to risk injury or infection of their own body (for instance, smoking, promiscuous sex) and the enshrining of risky behaviour to the level of a protected and privileged institution i.e. “marriage”. Marriage has not historically been deemed a right but a social responsibilty and a duty demanded by society. Because sexual reproduction undergirds the formation of society, the care and well being of children is a common and essential social concern. Marriage is the hook that is placed into the recognition and support of relationships between men and women. That recognition and support is granted pursuant to the public oaths that those individuals make and the contract they enter to care for offspring that result from their sexual union. The care they provide is a recognised benefit to social health, well-being and order. What parallel can be made between this and other consensual relationship behaviour? If we want to economically and socially support homosexual relationships regardless of the health risks, we should not irrationally and confusingly call it marriage. The homosexual agenda is to interject children into an activity that has no logical connection to human reproduction in order to validate unhealthy relationships. We must say no. Children are at risk.

          • torrentprime

            “Marriage has not historically been deemed a right”
            Actually, no. The Supreme Court has declared marriage a right over a dozen times over the last hundred and fifty years. There are social and religious aspects to it too, of course, but we can’t pretend laws don’t matter.

            • GG

              Unjust laws do not matter.

              • torrentprime

                An example of the cases I am talking about was a case that said the laws that said blacks couldn’t marry whites were no longer in force. I am pretty sure that court case mattered.

            • Maria

              The dozen+times when marriage was approached as a “right” by the courts would be very significant in telling us how marriage has been treated by litigants in our society. I would guess that those cases are mostly about inheritance, and later, racial discrimination. I am not pretending law does not matter, just that it not the why of this argument. What I alluded to as society’s interest in marriage is in terms of the reasons for its historical existence as a social institution. Pointing to legal disputes and terms will keep leading us away from grappling with the social nature of marriage. That is what is going on in this whole debate. We could write tomes and cite legal peculiarities. The reason why the UN is stepping on the African and Muslim nations and sneering at them is because they retain a more basic human community context for marriage, not the post Judaeo-Christian individualist concept of marriage as a celebrated romantic, sexual relationship with economic benefits. Non-western societies insist on marriage as the responsibility of reproductive members to the community. People should be asking themselves why marriage is being made into an issue of equality here when it is not even a necessary institution to society if that were the major consideration. Other legal avenues exist for individuals to designate economic beneficiaries or to choose individuals to make healthcare choices for them if they are not competent. That is basically what civil unions are. Let’s not quibble. Marriage really is about children. There are many other issues related to marriage, but if marriage itself is the topic, we should focus on that. It is not a right, it is a responsibility with tremendous consequence. Leftist visionaries and sexual revolutionaries have worked towards the eradication of marriage. They don’t want it as a responsibility or as a right because they seek to reorganise society and the family is an obstacle. Romantic and sentimental homosexuals are being played upon as well as the rest of us. Read other comments.

              • torrentprime

                ” I would guess that those cases are mostly about inheritance, and later, racial discrimination. ” You can guess whatever you want, but you would be missing the point. What those cases are about is that the government needs a very strong reason to restrict a free citizen’s right to his or her choice of partner. “I find gays icky” is as useless as a reason as “I find interracial couples icky.”
                If marriage is about children, full stop nothing else matters, then why do we let people past child-bearing age or infertile people marry?
                And for all of your imagined evil of leftists who want to destroy marriage – why do they keep trying to gain access to it? Gays aren’t trying to shoulder it aside; they respect it so much that they want to be part of it.

                • Maria

                  Until you cite your legal references, I can only try to relate to the comment you made. This article is not on the level of “gay is icky”. Equating the irrational prejudice of miscegenation to not recognising homosexuals as capable of “marriage” is refusing to acknowledge basic human biology. Allowing marriage to the elderly or sterile is about the spirit of the social contract. Both of those cases retain the iconic nature if not the reproductive capacity for marriage. They possess the male and female complementarity that would normally result in offspring if not the capacity. The level of confusion you attempt to add to the discussion shows that you are grasping at straws. I do not “imagine” leftists and sexual revolutionaries as desirous of destroying the social foundation of the marriage; the Marxist vision of society clearly and specifically calls marriage an outmoded institution that should be eradicated. The sexual revolution also produced several manifestos that list the “death of marriage” as their first objective. I do not doubt that there are sincere and personally motivated homosexuals who think that achieving legal recognition and celebrating their relationship publicly would gain them equivalent status with married male/female couples, but that is a legal fiction and that is what we are discussing here. Carrying that legal fiction into our culture to its logical consequences is what so many are seriously concerned about. They are concerned with the welfare of children. Romantic relationships, even abiding friendship, and sexual pleasure are not the substance of the social institution we name marriage. When a couple contracts marriage, society asks them to pledge fidelity to one another, provide mutual support and make the acknowledgement public for the sake of children, not to protect their personal sensitivities.

    • Mike Smith

      Let’s also not forget the anti-vaccination movement.

  • Rod Murphy

    Brian Camenker, by the way not a Catholic but a Jew, has long been the almost lonely voice against the homosexualist agenda here in Mass. And he is not just a talker and a writer. He is a doer. Go Brian!

    • GG

      He is dead on correct. The problem is our culture of death sees subjective “tone” and self defined “civility” as gods to be worshiped more than Truth.

      • Chris Cloutier

        “Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society.”

    • Vlad50

      I know Brian well and he is a good man, faithful and a fighter. He puts us Christians to shame when it comes to standing for righteousness.

      • Really? Does he keep kosher? I know for a fact that he has attended anti-gay events between sundown on Friday and sundown on Saturday. Just how “faithful” is he?

        Most Reform and Conservative synagogues perform same-sex weddings. Even some orthodox temples. Camenker’s reaction to all things gay has nothing to do with religious beliefs. He has a personality disorder.

        • Vlad50

          conservative synagogues performing sodomite marriages? Where?

          • Paddy

            David makes absurd tangential statements to dodge the question of morality and the law with respect to men being legally declared “wives”.

            • Paddy

              “The Tao, which others may call Natural Law or Traditional Morality or the First Principles of Practical Reason or the First Platitudes, is not one among a series of possible systems of value. It is the sole source of all value judgments. If it is rejected, all value is rejected. If any value is retained, it is retained. The effort to refute it and raise a new system of value in its place is self-contradictory. There has never been, and never will be, a radically new judgment of value in the history of the world. What purport to be new systems or…ideologies…all consist of fragments from the Tao itself, arbitrarily wrenched from their context in the whole and then swollen to madness in their isolation, yet still owing to the Tao and to it alone such validity as they posses.”
              ― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

          • HA
            • Thank you!

              • Objectivetruth

                Is getting your earthly jollies in sodomy worth possible eternal damnation, David?

                Think about it David: there is a hell, whether you believe it or not. And it is eternal fire. Try a little experiment today: see if you can hold a lighted match to your finger for three seconds. Then imagine your whole body and soul engulfed in fire for eternity.

                Stop the selfish nonsense David while you can. Repent. Jesus Christ is a better option than any our mortal sins, including your “gay” lifestyle.

                Repent, David. This world is short, eternity is forever.

            • Objectivetruth

              And lo…..6,000 years after the Mosaic laws were divinely given, the Jews (and all of us) will turn from their God to the golden calf.

              For your consumption, from Exodus 32. As my grandmother always warned me, “if everyone started jumping off the bridge into the chasm below, don’t make it right”:

              “And the LORD said to Moses, “Go, get down! For your people whom you brought out of the land of Egypt have corrupted themselves. They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them. They have made themselves a molded calf, and worshiped it and sacrificed to it, and said, “This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!”‘ And the LORD said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and indeed it is a stiff-necked people! Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation.”

  • Guest_august

    the simple answer is that homosexuality represents
    the mark of the Beast described in Revelation 13 v 16-18).
    It is as serious as that

  • joelfago

    Scripture teaches us that homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity. Our Catechism teaches us that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. Our Pope does not teach us that.

    • Scripture does not form law. The Establishment Clause sort of sees to that.

      • The establishment clause does no such thing.

      • Austin Ruse

        Tell that to Martin Luther King…

  • St JD George

    I think it’s important to think of this in a bigger picture of the anti-Christ, and one head of a multi-headed Hydra. Satan is quite cunning and deceitful in luring away sheep from the flock. He doesn’t do it with a hammer to the head, at first anyway, because that would be too obvious and people (some) take notice of the obvious. This is more than just trying to gain acceptance for this immoral act by trying to seduce people into believing that loving people should be able to live as they wish. Once he feels comfortable that he has made ample success he will attack on another, and not necessarily sequentially. There are already those who are pushing for acceptance of multiple partner families, pedophilia, incest, and on. Not necessarily the same group, and still more of a fringe element, but the common element is the constant rebellion against Christ and his Church. Those who claim that homosexuality is a civil right like race are evil. People are born with skin color, people who commit acts of sodomy do so out of free will and choice. The difference with this subject is that there is a militancy to it as they feel they have the chance to gain a broad foothold, and they have willing accomplices now in government to force compliance through coercion. There will always be sin in the world and this is one of many, but we don’t celebrate it in the public square with ceremonies or recognize what is unnatural, and we should try to help those understand God’s natural law and love for them.

  • coffeecup

    I don’t believe arguments from health would be effective. After all, there are all sorts of bad health effects (as well as bad societal effects) from heterosexual promiscuity, too: STDs, cervical cancers (often a result of been exposed to HPV through sex), oral and throat cancers (on the rise in the hetero population due to the prevalance of oral sex, violence (jealousy, crimes of passion, etc.) Yet we don’t propose banning heterosexual marriage because of these issues. In fact, society tends to see it as somewhat curative (although we certainly know that many people are not faithful to their marriage vows, so it’s hardly a 100% cure for these ills and never will be).

    I suspect the retort to such an argument would simply be that health dangers of homosexual promiscuity are precisely why we should welcome and encourage homosexual marriage, rather than being an argument against it.

    Besides, most people don’t believe that banning homosexual marriage stops homosexual activity anymore than banning heterosexual marriage would stop heterosexual activity. People are still going to engage in it. If anything, the general attitude is that marriage is likely to help stem some of the problems of promiscuity, not make them worse.

    You’d be making an argument the other side would use to its benefit.

    • Paul

      Banning homosexual marriage will definitely not stop homosexual activities just as taboos on incest, pedophilia and other forms of human sexuality. However, society has the responsibility to say that homosexuality is wrong, and SSM as well as gay adoption are just means of normalizing sin.
      Moreover, who says heterosexual promiscuity is right ? Two wrongs do make make a right. We must remind ourselves that the Church has always advocate sexual abstinence till marriage.

    • Homosexual activity is dangerous to the body, the mind (see the furious obsession of the militant prairie dogs that , heterosexual activity, properly regulated is live-giving.

  • Alexander

    I don’t think the “children need a mother and father” argument failed. I think no one effectively promoted that argument for years, instead relying on vague invocations of tradition or “organic bodily union” (Professor Robert George et al.) that were unlikely to get any traction in today’s environment. Only recently did the mother-father argument get promoted, and by then it was too late.
    The anti-SSM advocates should have co-opted the “diversity” and “rights” language of the Left — arguing that only a male-female family provides a child with the diverse perspectives of both a man and woman, and that children have a right to such a relationship with their biological parents. I still have yet to see an effective rejoinder to the little girl who asked legislators, “which parent don’t I need — my mom or my dad?”

    • Cap America

      I agree with the diversity theme use: one enormously valuable thing we get growing up with a mother and a father is deep knowledge of the opposite sex. . . growing and developing our understanding of what it means to be human.

      Homosexuals can’t do this.

      • Where is the connection to marriage? Even if gay parents are inferior (which would contradict all of the research) can you make a case that gay couples would not be raising the same children with or without marriage recognition? Can you make a fact-based case that marriage gay couples raise more children?

        • Cap America

          Read your “research” again; this was a TINY and HIGHLY SELECTIVE set of buddies that responded to their friend’s questionnaire! “Gay Science” is enormously flawed and fraudulent.

          Give it up, boy.

          • You still haven’t answered the question. What is the connection to marriage?

            • Please, don’t pretend that you’ll evaluate any answer with an open mind. We all know the difference between a skeptic who demands proof, and a cynic who accepts none.
              You are here to be an annoyance, for no other purpose. We should just flag your comments.

              • Paddy

                Dogs have heart worm, we have Hart. The worms follow natural law, David won’t.

              • In other words you are unable to answer the question.

                • In other words, I’m not going a fool’s errand. Everything you say is male fide.

            • Paddy

              Natural law is immutable; therefore, gay marriage is an abomination. May as well legalize “marriage” to an animal, theft, and rape, too. they all contradict natural law.

              • Uh huh. Now try to answer the simple question. BTW, “natural law” is a meaningless phrase. It is an amorphous concept that was used to defend slavery — and then segregation. It is used as an excuse for anti-Semitism. It is a rhetorical refuge for people without critical thinking skills.

                That aside, answer the question.

                • BPS

                  That is a lie. Natural Law concepts were NEVER used to defend slavery, segregation or anti-Semitism. Actually, Darwinist concepts like eugenics were used to defend slavery and segregation as “good”. The framers of our constitution, who were all informed by natural law principals, were so ashamed of slavery that the words “slave” or “slavery” appear nowhere in the constitution. After Darwinist concepts became more familiar in the 1850s, the Confederate constitution had no such qualms. And I’ve never heard a natural law argument for anti-Semitism. Perhaps you are not familiar with natural law as we use it? I recommend reading “10 Philosophical Mistakes” by Mortimer Adler.

                  • Tom

                    Aristotle argued that the Natural Law allowed for certain groups of humans to be enslaved, that their natural state was one of servitude. It would be absurd to think that no slavery proponents used this reasoning.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      And they applied the natural law incorrectly. The same way “gay” advocates are redefining “marriage” incorrectly.

                    • BPS

                      While Aristotle was a starting point for natural law concepts, it’s fruition came with St. Thomas Aquinas and other Christian theologians in the middle ages. For a layman’s view (I’m neither lawyer or theologian) I suggest Adler’s “10 Philosophical Mistakes”. The greatest of our founding philosophers, Thomas Jefferson, a slaveholder, but highly informed by natural law wrote our Declaration of Independence, a natural law document. He wrote of slavery “It is not true that some men are born saddled and others booted and spurred” and “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just”

                    • Tom

                      My point was that to say that natural law was NEVER use to justify slavery is likely incorrect.

                      And Aquinas thought it was acceptable to execute heretics. Some “fruition”.

                • Objectivetruth

                  Your tirades and rants remind me of a five year olds birthday party I was at last year. One spoiled brat child kept throwing tantrums and screaming “I WANT CAKE NOWWWW!!!” The entire party. Through gritted teeth every parent wanted to take ten hard smacks to that bratty child’s bare hindquarters.

                  You, and the gay community exhibit such an incredibly selfish, immature, childish disposition. Grow up, David. You’re living a life of mortal sin.

      • torrentprime

        One problem with this.
        Even if someone accepts your arguments, the reality is that gay people will be raising children. Some gay people have biological kids from previous heterosexual relationships, and some gay couples adopt children. If we deny marriage to these gay people, you are guaranteeing kids will grow up in unmarried households. Is that the kind of message you want to send?
        And even if you want to deny all gay people the ability to adopt, a) it doesn’t handle the situation where gay people have bio kids from previous heterosexual relationships and b) do you think the American people will be with you on that? Do you think that when you say, “I’d rather see homeless children stay in an orphanage than be adopted by loving gay parents” that you’ll have majority support?

        • John200

          Dear TP,
          Thank you for, “…the reality is that gay people will be raising children.”

          No, homo”sex”uals will be destroying children and teaching them to grow into willing partners for homo”sex”ual activity. This will come to fruition in the teenage years for some, earlier for others.

          A chicken farm!

          I know you see. Anyone can do their own search, the information is readily available.

          • torrentprime

            Despite what some hetero”sex”uals like to think and lie about, gays don’t groom their kids for sex. It’s just one more disgusting lie that proves the animus behind the anti-gay movement in America (and the world).

            • Objectivetruth

              The “gay” movement is just one big disgusting lie, period.

              • torrentprime

                OK. I fully support your right to have that opinion. What you’re not entitled to is the right to have no one disagree with you.

                • Objectivetruth


                  You do realize your on a Catholic website intended for faithful Catholics?

                  And that your “gay” lifestyle is considered immoral, gravely sinful, and disordered by the Catholic Church? And therefore, your lifestyle is a lie?

                  Here below, for your edification, from the Catholic Catechism. And understand this teaching has always been, and not some recent knee jerk reaction to the “gay” mafia infestation:

                  2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

                  • mitch64

                    Then I would suggest that you and other posters on this website stick to what the Church teaches about homosexuality. Once you start bringing in such ridiculous unsupported statements such as gay people grooming their children for sexual relations…and a “chicken farm,” (Good God how old are you that you would use that old term, that’s even older then me…) then you will get people who will come on to refute those things and express their opinion. I don’t read, or have ever heard of the Church calling gay people homo”sex,” uals (the emphasis on sex is in the mind of the poster and probably says quite a bit about him or her) or discussing “Chicken Farms.” But please, keep talking that way as it totally turns off the rest of the rational world.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      No one wants you or anyone to end up in hell, Mitch. But with your sodomic lifestyle, you’re playing with fire. Repent from your mortal sins, Mitch, before it’s too late.

              • kilbirt42

                Take the reportage of the last St Patrick’s Day parade in New York as an example of the difficulties we face in defending marriage.
                The March 18 New York Daily News featured a huge rainbow banner decrying “homophobia” across the top of a two page spread that also celebrated Guinness for withdrawing its sponsorship of the NBC broadcast of the Saint Patrick’s Day parade.
                That night the local NBC station featured, you guessed it, the big banner.

                The extent of the coverage was remarkable; it was as if the Russians had landed at Coney Island during the height of the Cold War.
                But, when I marched by this protesting group, less than two hours later, the banner was no longer there though the parade goes on for hours. It had already done its work.

                This was an example of “press release” or “drive by” journalism that we used to decry in the old days at ABC NEWS.

                They had the banner out for a photo op when the cops marched by, and then they rolled it up. Its work was done with the cooperation of a compliant media.

                The group had small numbers and a few pathetic little hand written signs that denounced the Church for mistreating some fellow named Galileo, who I believe is from Brooklyn.

                They had a pathetic little sign that offered a partial homonym for a joke; it said there is “gae” in gaelic.

                You’d have to do better than that to “epater la bourgeoisie.”

                They could have e-mailed or photo-shopped those excellent pix for the News and NBC. They did not have to be there long to put out a “strong” message.

                Imagine if the demonstrators at that bridge in Birmingham during the Civil Rights era had “mailed it in.”

                I wonder if the female impersonator, “Panti Blisss” will return to shake Mayor DeBlasio’s hand as he did this year at the “inclusive” Sunnyside parade? Will he also shake the “Grand Marshal’s” hand in New York.

                I guess the “inclusive parade” will end now. It was founded by some Queens Democrats to give Hillary Clinton a venue to prove her worth as a supporter of gay rights, after she had accomplished her main objective which was to be seen by thousands in the erstwhile “discriminatory” or “non-inclusive” parade.

                Good news for my old stomping grounds in Sunnyside, the raison d’etre for its existence, has ceased to exist!

                Still, we must recognize the equal protection argument. If a state regulates “marriage” as the union of one man and one woman as it had always been in every country, clime and civilization that is illegal.

                To analogize, if a city or state issues licenses to dog owners; it must also issue them to gorilla pet owners and crocodile pet owners it is only just.
                Humpty Dumpty’s rumored fall is wrong; he is very much in power as Alice was to learn:

                “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said,
                in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

                “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
                “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that’s all.”

              • John200

                This is a reply to torrentprime. I dunno why Crisismag does not allow a direct reply.

                Homo”sex”ual activity is not sex. It is masturbation, sometimes forced, sometimes mutual, and always destructive of:
                1) the homo”sex”ual,
                2) his victim (the man he is destroying),
                3) both “partners” and
                4) all who would have benefited if these dolts had done better, and
                5) society as a whole who pays the expenses of these sexdumbbells.

                I can give the dissertation on the disastrous effects of homo”sex”uality, with particular reference to lifespan and the effects of a broken and cancerous bumhole (looks like cauifower) . T’ain’t necessary here.

            • Paddy

              Luckily, the Church is finally weeding active homosexuals from membership in the clergy…for obvious reasons, including pedophilia.

            • kilbirt42

              You could have fooled me. I saw some proselytizers in action as a young adolescent. We could have all the liquor we wanted if we went to the party. Fortunately, manliness had not yet been disallowed by the Supreme Court.

        • MJ Anderson

          Where children grow up in households with homosexual pairs, in states that permit such, those children are still raised in unmarried households. Even when legally recognized, homosexuals are not -cannot- be married. To whatever extent that a state temporarily experiments with permission to parody marriage, the definition of marriage remains one man and one woman. The state lacks the authority to redefine marriage in its actuality. You might as well redefine sunrise as sunset.

          Marriage is not confined to the complementarity of genitalia; the entirety of a person is male or female, including cognition and emotion. True marriage unites in one flesh both halves of humanity in which each is afforded a full, unified response to reality. Their children, (adopted or biological) thus are raised in an integrated environment where early development tasks can be completed by observation of the full range of human response. Where children are deprived of this nature-intended model for the developing child, essential cognitive and emotional tasks are incomplete at best and more often, permanently damaging

          • torrentprime

            You’re welcome to believe that a legal and binding marriage isn’t a real marriage. You can deny that the sun is in the sky, but that doesn’t make it not so. An ever-increasing majority of our country believes that SSM is “real” marriage. You’re welcome to your opinions otherwise, but your wishes don’t make it so.

            “the entirety of a person is male or female, including cognition and emotion.” Are you saying all men’s and all women’s cognition and emotion are alike? What about very masculine women and very feminine men? We all know they exist, and a super-masculine, butch, alpha-male man brings something very different to his marriage than a fussy, feminine, light-in-the-loafers man does; same with masculine and feminine women. A marriage is a mix of the two unique individuals who happen to be in it, not a combination of two pre-defined ingredients.

            • MJ Anderson

              No, torrentprime, it isn’t “the sun is in the sky” it’s that sunrise and sunset are not interchangeable, and your wishes won’t make it so. Marriage is beyond the authority of any court to redefine, though courts may assign legally binding terminology and conditions to mutual habitation.

              You are mistaken that an increasing majority *believe* that gay pairs constitute “real”marriage. Hardly. What we have is an increasing majority who have grown weary of the fight and have submitted to a gay agenda ‘s juggernaut through the institutions. But social science, medical science and demographics, if not political fortitude, will administer a corrective.

              • torrentprime

                “though courts may assign legally binding terminology and conditions” I think we’ve actually found a point on which we agree (though you left out the facts that voters and legislatures have done this too). I completely support your right to think that some legal, valid marriages don’t count while other legal, valid marriages do. You’re welcome to think that marriages between Jews and Christians don’t count, or marriages between blacks and whites. Heck, you can think that marriages between Red Sox and Yankees fans don’t count if you want, but all that matters is what the law says.
                If you want to read minds and say that the people who poll in favor of gay marriage don’t actually support it even though they say they do, you’re entitled to make up whatever you want, but you have no basis for that opinion but hope.

                • MJ anderson

                  TP, you’re straining now. The old black / white marriage analogy ( or Red sox/Yankees) is silly. As a refresher: Yankee and Red Sox allegiances are chosen, not inherent. Black and white skin tone is inherent, not chosen. Skin tone is not germane to sexual union. Skin is required, sex is optional. But I’m certain you know this is a failed argument. Homosexual pairs cannot marry. It does not matter what the law says–for now. Elsewhere in the threads, Maria notes that the true goal is to destroy the institution of the family, even if some well meaning homosexual pairs are unaware of this agenda. Worldwide citizens are becoming aware of this danger as well as the tragic and horrifying statistics of disease, addiction, physical abuse and suicide within the homosexual subculture.

                  Hundreds of laws have been overturned. As you and others have debated, homosexual unions were not legalized in even a half a dozen states by the people. Courts and legislatures will be overturned because the people do not agree.

                  • torrentprime

                    Maria invented a true goal of SSM to be destroying marriage and the family, but she has no proof of this. Neither do you. As you admit, gay people themselves don’t even think this. Worldwide, citizens are becoming more and more pro-gay, even if it happens faster in Western countries than others, such as Muslim ones.

                    • BPS

                      I call bulls**t on homosexuals not wanting to destroy marriage. You have, no doubt, heard the term, much beloved by homosexuals, “camp”. For those reading who do not know it, it means taking something beloved of the bourgeois and holding it up to ridicule. This is how homosexuals view marriage. It is no coincidence that the HBO series “Big Love” which was a paean to polygamy was create by a pair of homosexuals. One of the big name homosexual activist, Andrew Sullivan wrote that homosexuals can teach normal people to “redefine” faithfulness in marriage by embracing extramarital sexual relationships with the knowledge and approval of the other “spouse”.

                    • Paddy

                      Once the destructive “religion” of Marxism dies, gay marriage will go the way of the dinosaurs.

                  • Tamsin

                    Skin is required, sex is optional. Well said! thanks. To “express” my skin tone, so to speak, I neither do, nor refrain from doing, anything to anyone else.

                  • Same-sex marriage isn’t going anywhere but national. I have read every brief in every marriage case. No one who opposes same-sex marriage has ever made an argument that starts with “In Massachusetts … ” The simple fact of the matter is that the roughly 2% of all marriages in this country that will be same-sex are not going to result in the “horribles” that Ryan Anderson or Tony Perkins promise will occur.

                    In civil law the purpose for marriage over many centuries has been to create a marital estate. It creates an organization of assets and revenues. The estate provides for a surviving spouse and children in the event that one spouse dies. It is recognized by law for things like a defined benefit pension plan.

                    When a gay couple is raising a child he or she is intentionally disadvantaged by the state if same-sex marriage is not recognized. The child is deprived of financial and emotional benefits. There is no benefit to the state in doing so — at least none that has ever been advanced.

                    • Paddy

                      So, you adhere to the Unnatural Law. Bet you like abortion and a 50% illegitimacy too, as one foundation of Western civilization after another is destroyed willy-nilly.

                    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                      “In civil law the purpose for marriage over many centuries has been to create a marital estate.”

                      No. The Civil Code contains no definition of marriage, but Article 312 “The child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father” has been treated as a functional definition by jurists, including the three most authoritative commentators on the Civil Code, Demolombe (1804–1887), Guillouard (1845-1925) and Gaudemet (1908-2001), long before the question of same-sex marriage was agitated. This led one of the greatest modern commentators on the Civil Code (Carbonnier) to remark that “The heart of marriage is not the couple, but the presumption of paternity.”

                      This goes back to the earliest sources of the Civil Law. In the Digest, Paulus says, “pater vero is est, quem nuptiae demonstrant” – Marriage points out the father [Dig. 2.4.5 Paulus 4 ad ed.] Marriage is the ordinary means of establishing the juridical bond of father and child All the other legal incidents peculiar to marriage flow from this principle. It enlists the couple in a parental alliance and affords the child an indivisible filiation. This special nature of marriage is the basis for the existence of rules governing its conditions, its effects and its dissolution.

                    • R. Doyle

                      This man get it. Kudos Michael! Well informed.

                    • R. Doyle

                      you need to do some fact checking. Legal or civil marriage is not a centuries old thing. Until the 20th century, the majority of ALL civilizations left Marriage to religious leaders. Simply that. Check when the 1st State in the union, actually made civil marriage a real objective thing. Be careful to not confuse simply Recording of a marriage performed by Clergy. Do your home work and report back.

                    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                      I believe mandatory civil marriage was first introduced during the French Revolution by the Legislative Assembly by the law of the 9 November 1791. It remains an offence in that country for a minister of religion habitually to conduct marriages for couples not already legally (i.e civilly) married.[Code Pénal Art 433-21] “Habitually” permits deathbed marriages and marriages of conscience, but they have no legal effect.

                      In Scotland, by contrast, until 1 July 1940, marriage required no notice, no formality and no record of any kind. In consequence, actions for declarator of marriage remained commonplace until the 1980s, as did actions of declarator of freedom and putting to silence.

                • BPS

                  torrentprime, you write “all that matters is what the law says”. When the laws said blacks and whites couldn’t marry, were the laws right or wrong? Why?

                • Paddy

                  In a decaying society, the eradication of morality is the first victim.
                  America denies God and then morality at its peril, while Gays fiddle.

                  • James

                    The Roman Catholic Church is denying Christ by its current stance in opposition to marriage equality. Eventually, the Church will change, just as the church has changed its position on many issues over the centuries. When the Roman Catholic Church accepts and embraces marriage equality, it will have become closer to the ideal that Jesus taught – the Golden Rule.

                • Fred

                  At least you got the part about Yankees/Red Sox right. Like team loyalty, sexual behavior is a decision.

            • You’re welcome to believe that a legal and binding marriage isn’t a real marriage.
              Ah hail the true god, state and its pronouncements.

              • Paddy

                A judge can declare a dog is a cat, too. Is the dog then, a cat?

                • kilbirt42

                  Abraham Lincoln once asked a question of himself which he then answered for his audience: How many legs does a dog have, if you call his tail a leg?
                  Four. Calling a dog’s tail a leg, doesn’t make it so.

                • GG

                  Apparently to “gays” it is.

                  • Paddy

                    They lack reason as well as the concept of the natural law.

                    They want what they want…”because”.

              • R. Doyle

                learn how to argue properly….

          • Marriage is a legal construct. It supersedes religion. Your approval is neither sought nor required. The only thing that matters to gay couples, particularly those with kids, is the legal recognition of marriage. It permits those families to form a marital estate. The Church’s position (and apparently yours) is only relevant with respect to which marriages it chooses to consecrate. The Church can attempt to instruct gay adherents not to enter into same-sex marriages just as it instructs Catholics not to use birth control.

            If a gay man has, for example, a defined benefit pension plan, it passes to his spouse upon his demise. If that spouse is legally recognized as another man (as is the case in about two-thirds of the country) then it will pass to him for the benefit of the surviving spouse and their children. The Church has no say over that.

            You can deny that the two were married just as you can deny that the Earth orbits the sun. It really doesn’t matter nor does it make it so.

            • R. Doyle

              you nailed the real issue. Which ideal super cedes the other. Until 1962, in the USA Marriage was only acted upon by religious motivation and recognized as such. The County Clerk only recorded the License, which was Granted by Whom,,,, the Church. Do your homework. And facts.

              Most American, by vote and poll, do not support Authority of the State over Religious Ministers. Hopefully force will not the response to the intolerant position of SSM. Stop oppressing the majority.

              • Tiataka

                That is nonsense, marriage law is civil law.
                The church does not marry you civilly, they are acting as agents of the state for the civil marriage. The sacrament is between you and the church, the state does not care, Besides if you want a civil divorce you do not go to the church, you go to the legal authority of the state. The churches never issued state marriage licenses. Many individuals are married with zero religious involvement. I was married at a city office in a foreign country, the marriage was then recognized on the same day by the local US Embassy. They passed the marriage record to the INS and they gave my wife a green card a few weeks later. We never got married again once we moved back to the US. This is not a theocracy.
                How does the marriage of others “oppress”you?

        • fredx2

          Wrong, The question for adoption agencies is not whether a kid should be adopted but whether they should wait a few months to get a man and woman pair, rather than giving the kid immediately to a gay pair. It is never a matter of no adoption at all

          • HomerTh

            Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage was over in Russia lobbying legislators who then went on to pass a law that prevents Russian orphans from being adopted by people who live in countries where same sex marriage has been legalized. So many children who would have been adopted by straight or gay couples are now condemned to spend their childhood years trapped in orphanages. The National Organization for Marriage is largely funded by the Catholic Church.

            • Fred

              I know several people who grew up in orphanages and they are fine people. Why are you prejudiced against them?

              • HomerTh

                Oh yes, I’m convinced you know people who spent their entire childhood in a Russian orphanage…

                • Paddy

                  Your point is irrelevant to the article. Abortion violates the natural law and results in increased illegitimacy which violates the natural law. The supposition that gay marriage is “natural” adds to your preposterous argument and disappears into the Leftist rabbit hole.
                  No wonder you’re left in the dark.

                • Paddy

                  You have the best interests of gay couples at heart, not the best interests of the child. Shame on you.

                  • HomerTh

                    Gay couples make great parents. A lot of straight couples make terrible parents. You pass judgment on me without knowing anything about me. How Christ-like of you.

                    • GG

                      No they are not parents. They are play acting. It is moral violence.

                    • Tiataka

                      Why would they care what you think? Your side has lost. They will soon be able to completely ignore religious bigots in all fifty states. There is virtually no chance if your side reversing this outcome.

                    • BPS

                      It may take a while, but homosexual marriage will go the way of American slavery, which, when the Dred Scott decision was pronounced, appeared to be winning. Homosexual marriage is a lie, and like ALL lies, is destined to lose.

                • Fred

                  Just as I’m sure you have an idea what it’s like in a Russian orphanage.

            • Paddy

              Obviously, the Russians care about the moral environment for their orphans. Thank you for that information. There is Hope.

              • kilbirt42

                I think we should invade Iraq again to bring American values like same-sex marriage and abortion on demand for any reason or none to that poor country. NOT!

            • Augustus

              More lies. But we have grown to expect this from the pelvic left.

              • HomerTh

                Google “Brian Brown Russia Marriage” and numerous news articles come up discussing his efforts in Russia.

                Before you call someone a liar, maybe you should spent a minute or two looking up the facts. Of course, that would be too difficult, right>

                • Augustus

                  If you think People for the American Way is an accurate source of information about anything, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you. It would not surprise me at all if Mr. Brown encouraged the Russians to ban adoption to gay couples nor would such a policy be wrong. It is entirely consistent with the organization’s mission. Regardless, your claims about Mr. Brown’s Russian visit and the source of funding of his organization are unsubstantiated and unreliable. I prefer to rely on accurate sources, not leftist propaganda.

                • Mme_Chantal

                  Look up “US Australian citizen sentenced to 40 years for buying boy” and “The story behind Russia’s gay adoption ban”.

          • Paddy

            Government has removed the Church from adoption services because it mandates gay adoption of the innocents. Of course, it also is forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor, Notre Dame etc to violate Faith principles. So, the government is now the active enemy of Christianity, when rooted in the pernicious Democratic Party..

        • Objectivetruth

          “the reality is that gay people will be raising children. ”

          And those children will grow up screwed up. Two men adopting (or now a days, manufacturing a child through IVF) are child abusers, not parents. They willingly, narcissicistically deny a child a mother.

    • redfish

      Yes, actually La Manif Pour Tous had a big impact on the French debate, it just ended up being too little, too late. The party which wanted same-sex marriage had already been put in power, no matter how public opinion was shifting. And contrary to what Camenker would promote, it relied on an inclusive message, where gays joined the social conservative side and spoke in favor of traditional marriage. Even though Camenker’s arguments weren’t in court, it isn’t as if people weren’t aware MassResistance existed, and his approach did add to the impression of animus in the opposition to same-sex marriage. So, he’s partly to blame for that.

      Though, in fact, I remember Robert George submitting an amicus brief about how being gay wasn’t an inborn condition, which I thought was irrelevant to the legal case, and didn’t add anything except the impression that the opposition was making this about gay people.

      I’d agree in the end, that the arguments in court tended to be weak, but not for the reasons Camenker is giving. There wasn’t much examination of why this issue was being made about gays at all, when any two people who were same-sex weren’t able to marry, no matter if they wanted to. Why it was being assumed child bearing was not a necessity to marriage, but having sex was.

    • torrentprime

      And if a child has two mothers, and you asked him/her, “Which mom don’t you need?” what would the answer be? “I have two, so take one; I don’t care”?
      Kids love their parents, not their parents’ gender diversity.

      • GG

        No one has two mothers. That is a fiction like a square circle. What some want is to confuse and corrupt children.

        • torrentprime

          What about when a child with 2 biological parents sees those parents divorce and then remarry other people? A child could then have 4 parents – two moms and two dads. It happens all the time.

          So, in this case, a child can have a birth mother and then, if that birth mother marries a woman, get adopted by her mom’s new wife. So the child has two parents, 2 moms but only one is a biological parent. The child would then have two mothers.

          • John200

            ’tis splendid to have another of your offerings. Satan agrees with me on that.

            Rather than take your drolleries one by one, I will remark that you show unusual and probably unsurpassable scorn for your own mind.

            • torrentprime

              I guess the insults were easier for you to type than actually answer my argument.

            • PaulOfTarsus

              Ah, you are intimate with satan – that explains your foolish self-righteous arrogance & pride. Take a communion wafer and put your head back in the hole where the sun doesn’t shine.

              • John200

                Go back to Crux, the Boston Globe’s idea of a Catholic website, where you are one of the leading trolls.

                We have a trollerama here whenever the homo”sex”uals think there is reason to troll.

          • fredx2

            Do you know what a mother is?

          • jacobhalo

            The child still has one mother and one dad. The others are not.

          • jacobhalo

            The child cannot have two mothers. Gays really want to confuse children. Children in a gay H/H see two females or two males as the “parents” and then they look at 99.9% of other children who have a mother and a father in the H/H. What are they to think?

          • Fred

            That is a fiction too. They still have one mother and father, plus step parents.
            Your language obfuscates reality rather than enlightens.

          • GG

            Why compare unequal items?

      • jacobhalo

        A child cannot have two mothers. The child could not have been delivered by two mothers.

      • Guest

        How could you possibly know how kids feel? Are you speaking for kids now?

    • Jdonnell

      Idiots think the argument didn’t fail; the judges thought it made sense. Wake up.

  • elarga

    Utilitarian or functional arguments — kids are better off with dad and mom, homosexual sex is unhealthy — aren’t convincing because they depend on empirical evidentiary claims that are permanently open to dispute. The truth that evidently not even Camenker hasn’t uttered (judging by Austin’s summary) is that men may not marry men for the simple reason that homosexual acts are morally depraved because they contradict nature’s laws. If such unions are permitted, of course it will follow that not just the public schools but countless other public venues as well will begin, inexorably, to mirror the plausibility of this new norm. So even pointing out that our children will be taught the wrong lessons in public schools isn’t an argument against homosexual union, because you have to say why you oppose homosexual unions in the first place. We oppose them because they are intrinsically evil. Until we START with that claim, whatever else we talk about won’t be very convincing. I realize of course that most people these days reject any notion that a natural moral order actually exists, and so that won’t convince them either. Yet it is, I think, the only logical starting place, and so if we have any hope of victory, fighting on that ground is our only hope of victory. After all, that is exactly what finally turned around the abortion debate — insisting not that abortions were somehow unhealthy but that they are murder.

    • RufusChoate

      I have long noted that Homosexual acts are merely the canary in the coal mine of the person rapidly filling with gas that will kill everything around it.

      Most people I have encountered who are openly practicing homosexual are morally deprave on a wide spectrum of sins: theft, deception, lying, indolence, drug and alcohol abuse, vindictiveness, dishonesty, hatred and malicious inclination in every realm of their lives.

      It is a choice and a willed behavior.

  • Cap America

    Three cheers for Mr. Camenker! By God, let’s find his compatriots in every state in the Union!

    Change goes both ways. Reversal of this stupidity is possible.

  • Paddy

    The ‘best interests of the child” advocated by Anna Freud has been discarded by our Leftists. The judges, all Leftists appointed by Democrats, too, aim to destroy the building block of the late Western Civilization and are almost done with this grand plan. We have tens of millions of abortions, talk of post-birth abortion, a 50% illegitimacy rate and general depravity permeating a Leftist-led “culture”. Sane Americans and Europeans just sit on their rockers watching TV. Go figure.

    • TrollopeReader

      you are aware that many of the judges who have ruled for gay marriage were appointed by Republican presidents? Even Judge Posner, who recently used the “go figure” retort in his 7th Circuit opinion.

      • Paddy

        A Leftist is a Leftist. Republicans often appoint judges who have communist tendencies. Both abortion and homosexual civil rights should have been decided by constitutional amendments.

      • And “go figure” isn’t jurisprudence, it’s contempt and edict.
        I could care less about who appointed judges; I care about their reasoning.
        “go figure” is as much legal reasoning as “three generations of imbeciles is enough”.

        • Rosey

          And to top it off, Posner is clearly a closet misogynist. Reagan not so much.

  • publiusnj

    The truth that has to be told is that heterosexual conception is totally different from either gay efforts at reproduction or most politicians’ favorite form of supposedly selfless love, adoption (by anybody as along as they will take the kid out of the DYFS System). The difference is that heterosexual natural conception brings people out of their radical selfishness by creating a parent’s “mini-me” who at the same time is also “mini-mes” of the other parent too. Neither “adoptive parenting” nor gay ersatz conception efforts can bring that about.

    The divine thing about heterosexual intercourse and the conception that can follow (ceteris paribus) is that any child produced by their congress is truly “one flesh” out of two, as Jesus so creatively put it (Mark 10:7-8 (“a man will…be united to his wife…and the two will become one flesh”)). As a result, when a married man looks at his child he sees (ceteris paribus) himself and he sees his wife, the woman with whom he created this life. How god-like that process is. Of course, if a guy heterosexually copulated with a woman without knowing her beyond one or two dates, the child’s resemblance to the “beloved” may not mean all that much.

    I use “ceteris paribus”–“other things equal”–to eliminate the “bad parent” phenomenon. There are bad natural parents,of course, just as their will be bad “gay parents” particularly if the “gay parents” have no actual genetic relationship to the conception product they contract for. Just as their are bad adoptive and step-parents now. Since anybody can now have sex with anybody else under our laws with no consequences (absent a paternity case) and no requirements for a wedding ring, there are likely to be more “bad natural parents” since natural conception has no “barriers to entry” any more, and the “sex partner” may be no more than a casual acquaintance. Bottom line, though, heterosexual sex between two fecund and nubile people of the opposite sex will lead to conception if undertaken on a regular enough basis.

    That recognition of the mini-mes of both the one parent and his/her beloved in their “product of conception” (a/k/a the child) just can’t happen in gay efforts at reproduction since the opposite sex genetic material supplier is neither “gay parent’s” “beloved.” Nor in adoptive parents’ “parenting by legal fiat” because the child is entirely the product of two other people’s love-making (or at least sexual congress).

    And the other thing is, if we produce a whole bunch of children whose “progenitors” didn’t even know one another or only met to negotiate the surrogacy contract, most of them will go around all their lives not knowing who or what they really are. Like the recent news stories show, the life of one woman found as an abandoned baby in 1965 in a phone booth on the Upper West Side of Manhattan is now haunted by her not knowing who her parents really were. Moral? love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage just as they did when the song was written.

  • Austin, you really should be embarrassed using Camenker as a source for anything. His merry little band of bigots (and that’s what they are) have never enjoyed success in any of their anti-gay endeavors throughout New England. Now Camenker would lecture everyone else? Please.

    By the way, Mr. Camenker is not Christian. He doesn’t seem to have a religious objection to same-sex anything. He is the classic homophobic whack job.

    • Objectivetruth

      The fact that Camenker annoys you so greatly tells me the man might possibly be on the road to sainthood.

      “Homophobic whack job”……when one has no defense to an argument always pull the personal attack nine iron out of your bag.

    • Austin Ruse

      Who cares if he’s not Christian? Really? We are only supposed to work with those who are Christian or have religious objections to faux marriage? Never heard that one…

      • Objectivetruth

        The natural law is written on every human’s heart. It doesn’t matter what faith one is, even if you’re atheist. The “gay” lifestyle is disordered against the order nature intended for sexuality.

  • thebigdog

    In countries where gay marriage has been legal for many years, fewer less than 5% of the homosexual population has gotten “married” My suggestion would be to stop chasing their disingenuous arguments, avoid playing their rigged PC rhetorical games and start predicting that the whole “gay marriage” thing is a Trojan horse ushering in the recruitment and corruption of children. In a few years, when this prediction turns out to be accurate, we will then have credibility in claiming that same sex attraction is intrinsically disordered, homosexual activity is gravely sinful, there is no gay gene and the entire culture is consistent with mental illness.

  • JP

    Two of the most cultured and advanced societies of antiquity were very gay friendly. But, then again, Rome and Greece practiced slavery, crucifixions, matricide and infanticide. As one Hollywood female star opined a few days ago, Gay men are some of the biggest misogynists she knows.

    • Tamsin

      They may style your hair fabulously and decorate your house fabulously and design your clothes fabulously, but ladies: they are just not that into you. Metaphysically speaking.

      They are competitors. They are Narcissus.

  • Mike Smith

    People try to brush it off as a “slippery slope” argument, but there is zero reason incestuous relationships should not be made legal if gay marriage is acceptable. The gay marriage movement has defined marriage as simply being about “love between two consenting adults.” There are a lot of relationships that fit that same definition, let alone the fact that stopping at two now seems arbitrary. They cannot then claim that there are dangers in reproduction between close relations as a reason to oppose it, because their very own definition of marriage has stricken reproduction entirely from the books as integral part of what the term means.

    It’s probably the libertarian in me, but one must also ask the question as to whether the state should be “licensing” marriage anyway in the first place, but that’s a different matter.

    • BPS

      Know what else is arbitrary? Age of consent laws! Know what homosexuals value more than youth? Nothing!
      As soon as the homosexual groups like the Human Rights Campaign (= sign folks)have sufficiently destroyed the Catholic Church by stripping it and its schools, hospitals etc of it tax exempt status, they’ll welcome NAMBLA back into the fold, get Hollywood to make a few movies, TV shows, pop songs, etc about the glories of underage love with older people (they’ll think up a really cool name for it) and will get to the serious work of making age of consent laws go the way of sodomy laws.

      • Mike Smith

        Exactly. It is a one-step transformation of natural law into arbitrary societal rules.

        • Tamsin

          As noted elsewhere in the combox, a scientistic sense has taken hold of our society. We think we are rich enough to throw enough money at medical research to clean up any physical and mental problems we create by letting go of natural law.

    • “but there is zero reason incestuous relationships should not be made legal if gay marriage is acceptable.”
      Baby step taken in New York. Repellant to us, incestuous marriage at least offers a fig leaf of historicity.

      Forget the libertrarian in you; the CATHOLIC in you should be asking why the state licenses marriages; why should I have to submit to the religious dictums of Martin Luther and Henry Tudor. It was a waste of time and nothing but a money grab for me to go to the REGISTER OF WILLS (or was it the Prothonatory) to answer a few ceremonial questions, and hand over what I think was fifty bucks for five minutes “work” on the part of the little parasitic cog we sat before.

      • Mike Smith

        I shall await the gay lobby cheering that step in marriage equality, then. They should be overjoyed as their historic leap forward frees marriage up for all!

        And fair enough. It is a habit of mine to not dive right into the religious argument as a first step because of numerous conversations with atheistic friends. It bleeds through even though the forum has switched…

  • Mike

    Of course homosexuality is not natural at all. No one is “born” gay. It is almost always a product of a lack of good male role models and/or not having a father in ones life. In the case of women, a bad relationship with ones mother or abuse/rejection by men. Sexual deviancy  (another epidemic in our society) also leads people to experiment with homosexuality.  

    The former often happens at a very young age and is essentially IRREVERSIBLE making gay people “feel” like they are born that way and anyone who questions them a bigot. Homosexualist propaganda, now starting as early as kinagarden makes matters that much worse. The media does a phenomonal job at glorifying homosexuals and making Christians look like intolerant ignorant boobs, which helps to solidify public opinion. 

    Christians need to start considering WHO is doing this and WHY.  If you follow the money, you will find that the planned destruction of traditional values and the social engenering of our children has been orchastrated by the satanic world elite. This diabolical agenda serves the dual purpose of both population control along with making people less reliant on traditional means of support (family/community) and more reliant ON THEM, through their banks, monopolies and controlled goverment. 

    Until Christians (and all people) stop falling for red herring traps and come to a common 
    realization that the devil rules the world THROUGH MONEY and that the ONLY way he can be stopped is through monetary reform, then satans diabolical aganda for the world will continue with no end in sight. This is the ONLY issue that we should be concerned with, temporarily dropping all other divisive issues and uniting with people from all over the political spectrum to get this accomplished.

    Enough of these “culture wars” articles that play right into the rigged left/right paridigm and ignore the man pulling the strings behind the curtain. 

    • mitch64

      Well, this post is a good example of why the anti gay marriage side is loosing, you use a lot of your own opinion on the issue with no facts to back it up. Come on this cliche again….”It is almost always a product of a lack of good male role models and/or not having a father in ones life. In the case of women, a bad relationship with ones mother or abuse/rejection by men.” Really, almost “always!” You can argue your point by using facts, as soon as you pull up this kind of thing you loose everyone but people who already agree with you. You end up preaching to the choir. You also insult the parents of gay people with the old trope that it is “all their fault.” (though I do have to hand it to you, you left out the “over bearing mother,” of the gay guy trope.) I was very close to my father as was my partner. Believe, those poor guys had nothing to do with us being gay.

      • Objectivetruth

        You still coming around here spouting your propaganda?

        Here’s a little insecticide:

        2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

        • mitch64

          Once again your response to me has nothing to do with my response to the poster above me. Also, having a different opinion is “propaganda?” and responding with insults..seems you have more in common with the far left then you realize.

          • Objectivetruth

            Living an unrepentant lifestyle of mortal sin Mitch (such as the “gay” lifestyle”) does echo through eternity, were you aware of that?

            For your consumption and meditation, the Catholic teaching on Hell. Think very carefully what your doing with your life, Mitch. As we all do, you still have a chance at repentance and turning your life around:

            1034 Jesus often speaks of “Gehenna” of “the unquenchable fire” reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.614 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he “will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,”615 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!”616

            1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.”617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

            1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”618

            Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where “men will weep and gnash their teeth.”619
            1037 God predestines no one to go to hell;620 for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”:621

  • clintoncps

    Homosexual practitioners “adopting” children, or creating children using artificial reproductive technologies, is a human rights violation. Why? Because children have a primordial right to be raised by their natural mother and father, or, if that is impossible, to be raised by an adoptive mother and father who alone can model an authentically human family environment for them.

    Under what circumstances would a society permit a child to be deliberately taken from the custody of his or her natural parents? For something as arbitrary as sexual preferences, or the living-out of a deluded concept of “family”? This is obscene, and yet, in the name of homosexual “inclusion”, children are robbed of their most basic connection to their natural father and mother, or to an adoptive father and mother.

    Taken in this light, the needs of a child for father and mother role models is extended and brought to its proper focal point: the inviolable connection between a natural father and mother and their child, and the right of adoptive children to be raised by a father and mother who alone can model human familial life for them, so they might learn how to be human in their turn. Other approaches are attacks on the human family as such.

  • St JD George

    It’s as simple as this, when you reject Christ in large part by putting yourself at the center of your universe, accept sodomy as natural and not morally offensive, then there is a place to go to be to slowly boiled.
    When I come home at my night my dog is always their to greet me with excitement, his tail wagging like as fast as it will go. I’m pretty sure he loves me too, though I have to interpret that through his actions, so what does the argument of “love” have to do with anything. I don’t doubt in our lifetime the advancement in robot technology coupled with artificial intelligence will lead to objects that can care for many human material needs. People will want to marry those too, and make the same arguments that they can raise children together to be “happy” and “function in society” and “aren’t ax murderers” and “are above average in intelligence”. All of it is at the root of rejecting Christ.

  • “He also criticizes Maggie Gallagher, someone I have praised regularly, because she went to the Boston College law school and said, “It’s possible that gay couples could on average be much better parents than opposite-sex couples because they don’t have children as a result of sexual passion.” She prefaced that by saying it was reasonable to conclude that having gay parents was better than being in an orphanage or foster care.”

    But who is she to judge?

  • lazypadawan

    I’m going to throw out a different argument. It’s hard to argue against any redefinition or alternative version of marriage when marriage has been cheapened for decades and this cheapening largely went uncontested by churches or society as a whole. Nobody cared about children’s rights to a mom or dad when no fault divorce left millions of children in single parent households. Nobody cared about the physical and mental unhealthiness of promiscuity among heterosexuals…everybody forgot about the huge herpes epidemic that preceded the AIDS epidemic in the ’80s. You can thank the ’70s for the reason why we see Valtrex commercials on t.v. today. Nobody cared when the Pill became a party drug to avoid babies and marriage. Nobody cared when cohabitation became everyone’s idea of “settling down” or a “commitment.” Marriage got downgraded to an expensive party you can’t really afford to celebrate a successful round of dates and six years of cohabitation. When marriage is only about fulfilling the needs of the adults in the relationship, not about building a family, sacrifice, and being part of that cornerstone of civilization, how could one possibly successfully argue it’s not meant for gay relationships, polyamory, or whatever else anyone thinks of?

  • Mary Trani

    The work of Catholic sociologist Mary Eberstadt (Adam and
    Eve After the Pill http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ObPcaJE-8Q) and “How
    the West Really Lost God” should make us realize that the real goal of
    promoting gay families is to destroy religion.

    Read a critique here of her book “How the West Really Lost God.”

    In this magisterial work, leading cultural critic Mary Eberstadt delivers a
    powerful new theory about the decline of religion in the Western world. The
    conventional wisdom is that the West first experienced religious decline,
    followed by the decline of the family. Eberstadt turns this standard account on
    its head. Marshalling an impressive array of research, from fascinating
    historical data on family decline in pre-Revolutionary France to contemporary
    popular culture both in the United States and Europe, Eberstadt shows that the
    reverse has also been true: the undermining of the family has further
    undermined Christianity itself.

    • St JD George

      All in the name of “progress” and “liberation”, how truly sad for the bodies and souls destroyed in it’s wake. Looks like a great book.

  • Mike L

    Camenker is absolutely right. No one cares about abstract, highly theoretical, pseudo-Catholic theories about the “nature of marriage”. I’ve said for a long time that if people regard homosexuality as analogous to left-handedness, then gay marriage is inevitable, but if they regard it as analogous to bulimia or pica, it can be stopped. Our opinion leaders in the fight against gay marriage surrendered on that point, and therefore had no compelling response to the assertion that straight marriages are in no way harmed by extending recognition to gay marriages. We should have been saying all along that homosexuality itself is dysfunctional and sub-optimal, and that it makes no more sense to recognize gay marriage than it does to have the USDA publish a food pyramid for pica sufferers (“two servings of dirt, one and a half servings of woodchips…”).

    • torrentprime

      Isn’t that the problem the anti-gays are facing, though? More and people in this country view homosexuality as left-handedness. From teaching to adoption to military service, where are the voters in this country? Answer: they are all on the side of gay equality. It’s a problem for the other side.

      • Mike L

        I would argue that the public’s movement on those questions over the past 25 years was entirely preventable if there had been a critical mass of public figures forcefully arguing for the “bulimia” position (which, after all, accords with both scientific reality (as informed by evolutionary biology) and with people’s own innate and ingrained prejudices).

  • RufusChoate

    This article is an enlightening read on many points but I was unaware that there was any meaningful or serious debate about Homosexual Marriage under way. It has been only illogical and irrational hectoring followed by a collapse of will when anyone bothers to put up a defense for what is comically called “traditional” Marriage instead of true Marriage as opposed to counterfeit. The idea that being “nice” is the ultimate virtue in today’s Western World because being honest a little too much to ask.

    I heard early on from people close to the event that the Proposition 8 legal team was ambivalent at best and incompetent from the start. David Blankenhorn should never had been put on the stand because he was unreliable on a wide variety of issues as a self defined Liberal Democrat. The first and foremost virtue for the left is social coherence and political identity validation.

    Blankenhorn and his fellow travellers will leap aboard any program embraced by the Left even if it included the mandatory consumption of children by their parents in the model of Croesus the Titan. His opinion was always irrelevant.

    What I have trouble believing is how we arrived at this state. The etiology of the Homosexual rights movement owes much to the submersion of any deleterious impact of the practice because sympathy was demanded of men suffering from the AIDS a venereal disease and their “suffering”. As a Doctor who was a friend pointed out after listening to the sexual histories of many of his AIDS patients ” With a history of hundreds of sexual encounters, How did they think this was going to work out in the long run?”

    A Venereal Disease suddenly became a mysterious plague of innocent naifs.

    But that was only part of the story, our devaluation of sexual love to be merely a sterile pleasurable event disassociated by lasting love. value, family and children made homosxual acts a logical outcome not just for incarcerated criminals and broken sybarites. .

    Homosexuality is the ultimate is narcissistic sterile sexual congress which appeals to the puerile and degenerate minds of the Left as being environmental friendly, childless, selfish but most importantly debilitating of the moral will. An immoral corrupted person in a corrupt society is an easily enslaved person.

  • Radiating

    While I agree with Brian Camenker about the gruesome underbelly of homosexual lifestyles, I don’t know why we can’t also include in reasoning about marriage that “love’ traditionally and religiously understood is directed towards the “good” manifested to the other. Where oh, where is the “good” of sex when aside from sensual pleasure,it can only produce HIV and hundreds of other nefarious unsuitable to be printed,medical problems? And how can any child be mentally and emotionally balanced by same sex partners? There is no supportable nor credible study which demonstrates healthy lifestyles are transmitted by this unbalanced situation for the child of same sex couples. The child, after all is said and done, is the subject of marriage after all , isn’t it. So the Catholic Church’s view that sex holds a two pronged effect: the enhancement of love and the procreation of children. Therein lies the stability of civilization and no other lifestyle can compete with a mother and father.

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    Maybe Mr. Ruse knows what he has done here, now that the Anchoress is plugging Ms. Eve T.’s book on being “gay” and Catholic. I thought that *other* book on being gay in America ha settled the issue. Looks like not!


    1. The pro-life folks lost the bottle when they chose to sideline (bracket out) any conversation about homosexuality as a psychological disorder and a social pathology: conditions that have measurable effects on the individual person and society. The pro-life movement has confined itself to addressing the acceptance of “gay unions”. This was frightfully demonstrated at the Synod on the Family. No need to repeat the how and why.

    2. The pro-life folks lost the battle when they refused to address the backside of the gay activists’ greatest conceptual and propaganda victory (the front end being their attachment of “gay unions” to marriage). The homosexual agenda severed (almost utterly) homosexuality’s link to all other sexual deviancy. By no countering the notion, the pro-life movement uplifted the Gay Agenda banner that homosexuality is simply an unfolding of a wrinkle of human love which – until our enlightened age – had remained, well, folded under, hidden from the balm of mercy (until Ms. Eve T. wrote her book).

    Homosexuality’s linkage to all other sexual pathologies CANNOT be snipped. Its psychological and moral character is nurtured from the same pathological taproot as all the other sexual perversions. Homosexuality is not a special wrinkle of human love.

    To give the Gay Agenda – and its Bully Boys – a pass on bracketing itself from the other sexual pathologies was the great white flag of surrender. As a surrender term, we have framed a picture of two men (or two women) crawling between the sheets mirroring the fidelity and affection of the married pair of one man and one woman. We framed and hung that image in the House of the Lord – almost.

    We have (for the sake of amity and fellow-feeling) have conveniently forgotten that, bottom moral line, there is not difference between gay anal intercourse and BDSM fetishes, for instance; Which, by the way, will be the next acceptance craze now that that have chalked up a big win over transsexualism (all in a matter of months, no less). To sat nothing of the next renaming binge: turning pedophilia into “child-attracted adult/adult-attracted child”.

    Which brings us to observation #3: The pro-life lost the battle when they refused to do battle against the encroachment of Queer Theory in our institutions, distorting, redirecting their natural character and functions. Queer Theory has even settled down comfortably into the conversation of “gay” Catholics who are celiabate and faithful to the teaching of the Church. We go along. We praise such Catholics for their so-called heroics – call them “brave” – think of them as allies, when, actually – in a self-deluding manner – all along, Queer Theory has been using them as stealth vanguard commandos within the Church.

    By yielding to the utterly damaging notion that a “gay identity” is an honest-to-goodness God blessed one – one that is authorized to authentically described the human person (let alone the human condition or Hegel’s world-spirit), the pro-life folks have allowed the emergence of a counter (gnostic) spirituality.

    Thank the Lord for their celibacy and obedience – honest-to-goodness, I mean that – but such is not (and never will be) at the service of a spiritual life contrary to the Natural Law and its primeval habitation, Creation. It is urgent that we scrutinize and (contra Pope Francis) judge every notion and concept put out by celibate, faithful Catholics who refuse to relinquish (convert) their so-called “gay identity”. Yes, Catholics who are tempted by the betting sin of homosexuality are certainly heroic in their “no” to sin, in their refusal to be identified with it, but that does not devolve into a special, unique, privileged spirituality. Men are received into the presence of God – their natures perfected – as male and female, but never as “gay”. That is a sin category, not one of Creation or Redemption.

    Listen carefully to their wording, these celibate faithful Catholics besotted by Queer Theory. When they speak to you of the heroics of their “gay identity”, as Catholics, they are saying that being “gay” – they rarely use the term homosexual – is more than about anal intercourse, oral population, “fisting”, and the snuggling up after the exhaustion. Being “Queer”, they are telling you, is a human condition that participates in the very ground of Being. Being “Queer” reveals Being (Personhood) in ways not known by non-Queer persons. Being “Queer” may even weigh in in our human grasp of the Trinity, and its Triune Love.

    See how the talk goes! Be on your guard to the Queer Elites – even within the Body of Christ.

    In the world at large, let alone the Church, we have allowed Queer Theory to confiscate ever increasing swaths of human experience. There is nothing that the spiritual sate of “Queer/Gayness” has not touched or spoken to; until Queer Theory pronounces nothing is truly, fully known. To the partisans of Queerness anal intercourse and oral copulation is never enough. That is the word out there. The question is, are celibate, faithful “gay” Catholics listening to it?

    Unfortunately, the language of the articulate celibate, faithful “gay” Catholic “community” is infected with the same deceit – better yet, near heresy.

    Slowly, the Church is giving place to spiritualities based on all sorts of sexual behaviors. And, mark my word, “behavior” is the proper term. Homosexuality, for instance, is nothing if not acted out; its comfort, surety as a pole of human “identity” is pointless if not exercised. So, what else is out there, by which our caving in on homosexuality – that great dead silence we have imposed on speaking of homosexuality as a pathology – has paved the way?

    The day may come soon enough when the Vatican will need to hold a synod – not on the family, for we are beyond that, it seems – but about the other noisome clamor at the Portals of the Lord. At the door, demanding un-repenant, unconverted entry, are sexual minority “communities” whose primary sexual identity is not male and female – or any mixture, thereof; not “gender”, but whose sexual “identity” is in the giving and receiving of pain, of consenting to be whipped, tied-up and held in bandage.

    Oh, brother an sister, the BD/S&M “community” already has its toe in the narthex, looking for the penny pamphlet on their privileged spirituality, on their God blessed sexual identity as BD/S&M Catholics. The gays got theirs, why not them?

    There’s a kind of worldly logic to their shrilling, isn’t there? We permitted the spiritualizing of homosexuality; we allowed Queer Theory to play the squatter in all our language, conceptual, theological, and institutional domiciles, did we not? How is a BD/S&M Catholic any less heroic than a “gay” Catholic?

    And, on it goes.

    How are we ever to say no to a “bisexual” Catholic: the heroism on their part must be mind-boggling. The same argument: What you did for the homosexual Catholic, you cam do . . .

    On it goes.

    Now that we have removed the stigma, and decreased the pathological categorization, of homosexuality, the Sex Gates of Hell have burst wide open. The perversions are cascading, flooding through the Portals of the Lord.

    [From the BANKRUPT Diocese of Stockton]

    • GG

      Wow. Amen x 100

    • Tamsin

      2. not a special wrinkle My thought experiment would be that, until the day comes when we can “check under the tail” at birth, to see if the new human person is a boy or girl or gay, and commence to teach the Christian sexual ethos of self-control appropriate to their “orientation”: that they should find one person to whom they are “oriented” to know and to love, and to be faithful to as witness to God’s faithfulness to us… we can do no other than simply note who is a boy and who is a girl and proceed as in the past 2000 years. To tell the youngest child that we don’t know whether he will pair with a boy or a girl for life, is to teach him that his sexual satisfaction comes before faithfulness; that satisfaction is more important than faith. Which ain’t Christian.

      3. Homosexuality, for instance, is nothing if not acted out; its comfort, surety as a pole of human “identity” is pointless if not exercised. As
      MJ Anderson stated it so well in another comment, “Skin is required, sex is optional.” Faithfulness is required, sexual satisfaction is optional, for Christians.

      As you say, homosexuality is like a gateway drug. The first drink for a boozy species.

      It is urgent that we scrutinize and (contra Pope Francis) judge every notion and concept put out by celibate, faithful Catholics who refuse to relinquish (convert) their so-called “gay identity”. Yes, Catholics who are tempted by the betting sin of homosexuality are certainly heroic in their “no” to sin, in their refusal to be identified with it, but that does not devolve into a special, unique, privileged spirituality. = the “broken-windows” theory of policing, yes. Related to common-sense theories of parenting children, too, I might add. Which is where a lot of our Queer Elites and their Prelate Protectors go wrong: they have no experience with teaching young humans right from wrong. They focus on what are really secondary adult discontents.

  • gigi4747

    I like the work of Mass Resistance, but disagree completely with Brian Camenker that opposition to redefining marriage has aught to do with what one thinks about homosexuals or their behavior. I think tactically putting this issue in terms of how defective, degenerate, etc, are homosexuals would win pretty much no one to our side who’s not already here, and would, rightfully perhaps, engender little but scorn. Seems to me that the great success of La Manif Pour Tous in France has been largely due to their emphasis on the natural family and children’s rights.

    That said, come on, Austin Ruse, “ex-gays”? Would you be so confident that one can be a “former” homosexual that you would be okay with your own daughter marrying one? Anyone who answers yes to that question is either stupid, insane, or lying.

    • Tamsin

      I think the argument put forward by La Manif Pour Tous was not tried, is working, and may yet bear fruit. Women can be convinced to support the right of the mother to be present for a child; men can be convinced to support the right of the father to be present for a child. Until babies are grown outside the womb. At which point I’m guessing Jesus comes again to judge the living and the dead.

  • Paddy

    When pro-family Catholics had 5-12 kids, they ran much of this country. Now, they’re less than pro-family and manage 1 or 2 kids. We’ve done it to ourselves, folks. It’s why we need tens of millions of immigrants from strange lands, too, you know.

  • bonaventure

    6th Circuit ruled in favor of natural marriage.
    Soon, possibly the 5th and 11th circuits may follow.

    When calling on federal judges to impose their bankrupt agenda, the homosexuals (so full of themselves) did not calculate that a backlash may be coming…

    • Sam_Handwich

      Too late, bozo. Scotus has already rejected all the anti-gays’ arguments in rejecting to hear various appeals on October 6th.

      The anti-gays (so poorly informed) have no idea that full defeat is imminent

      • BPS

        Just as in the Dred Scott supreme court decision, the truth always wins in the end. The case for homosexual marriage will go the way of the lie that humans can hold other humans as slaves. It may take time and a lot of suffering, but the lie of homosexual marriage with end up on the ash heap of history.

        • Sam_Handwich

          yeah…because two adults consenting to establish kinship ties is just like owning slaves!

          this is why you keep getting laughed out of court

          • GG

            Consenting to perversion is not true consent.

  • Sam_Handwich

    Austin Ruse says that college professors should be murdered


    Lookin good, bigots!

    • CadaveraVeroInnumero


      Where did you (from which did you) come (crawl) from?

      • Sam_Handwich

        are you attempting to refute the fact that Austin Ruse is a homicidal maniac?

        • mitch64

          Ruse seems to have many issues..his obsession with sex and homosexuality and his anger about how the “times have changed,” come from someplace..(well, his paycheck is one of them, a big one….) but homicidal maniac is I am sure, not one of them. He did get caught up in his own rant and showed just how angry he is, but he didn’t mean it literally. “Taken out and shot,” is an old time phrase my grandparents would use about someone that annoyed them (this was before people were actually getting shot on a daily basis) which goes to show you that Ruse’s mindset is outdated..

  • ftlbchman2002

    Like Maggie it’s not what you put into your argument. It’s what you fail to include in it.
    Brown and others make the same mistake..
    Maggie states in her latest post: “Marriage is about bringing together the two great halves of humanity, male and female, so children have the love and care of their
    mom and dad.”
    What marriage is ABOUT does not equal what marriage IS.
    Quite recently my 90 year old Aunt married her 87 year old male fiance.
    Collectively you present a version of what YOU believe marriage is but it is nothing more than intellectual poppycock:
    Speaking of intellectual poppycock: Robert Oscar Lopez? Seriously? He seemingly suffers from emotional issues that transcend any gay/ex gay pathology.
    Regarding health related issues, heterosexuals are not immune from STDs.

    In Florida, the highest STD rate in the state of Florida is located in the Central Florida fashionable and expensive heterosexually populated retirement enclave The Villages.
    Collectively you especially misrepresent the legal purpose of civil marriage.
    That is why your arguments fail.
    This is the bottom line:
    The basis of Civil Marriage is contract law:

    Contract law was not established for the exclusive use by heterosexuals.

  • Tempest

    Courts don’t serve as forums for debate, they settle them. The debate has been had for over two decades. There is nothing left but reversing the laws of 15 states. There is a very slim chance the SCOTUS will uphold the remaining state restrictions. This is the terminal phase, not the debate phase. SSM has been going on in MA for over ten years. Nothing has happened there to cause a groundswell against equality, instead support for equality grows.

  • HomerTh

    So why haven’t Brian Cameker, Austin Ruse, Brian Brown, and Maggie Gallagher got on the witness stand and testified against same sex marriage. If these four are such awesome experts on why gays and lesbians shouldn’t be married, why aren’t they testifying under oath utilizing their “expertise.” Of course with Brown and Gallagher don’t want to be cross-examined, since whatever testimony they give would likely damage their highly lucrative careers. But surely Cameker could be called to testify?

    • Sam_Handwich

      Maggie avoids the witness chair because she’s afraid she’ll get stuck.

      But seriously, folks…. you’re correct, they would be torn apart on cross exam. Look how Tam and Blankenhorn got beaten up, and Regnerus in Michigan…the judge basically dismissed him as a conman in his ruling.

      • GG

        Oh yes, because those judges and lawyers have so much intellectual wattage. Too funny. The pro “gay” arguement is nothing but pure relativism and silly emotionalism. You have been winning only because the corrupt are in power.

  • HA

    I would think that issues regarding “the medical reality of homosexual behavior and what happens in schools” are actually more about preventing gay parenting than they are about preventing marriage. After all, we do not prohibit other groups that are statistically prone to domestic violence and pathology (say, convicts, alcoholics, those afflicted with mental disorders, the divorced, etc.) from having children. Nor do we refuse to recognize their marriages. In fact, we implicitly encourage such at-risk people to have more children through our welfare policies, through allowing conjugal visits in prisons, etc. And regardless of whether gays are allowed to marry, they are still allowed under our legal system to have children, and they will continue to do that.

    That being said, such medical/school arguments would indeed be relevant in the matter of gay adoption, since we do restrict adoptions to those in any of those at-risk categories I mentioned. And, to the extent that they work in Finland, or Russia, or wherever, so much the better.

  • ForChristAlone

    It’s time for Jorge to resign…retire to a monastery and enter into a life of prayer and meditation on the teachings and tradition of the Holy Catholic Church.

  • Anon

    Gay marriage/rights etc is a front to justify gruesome sex ed to destroy/corrupt children. Mysteriously absent in the media univ of Toronto education professor Ben Levin trial coming up for multiple counts of pedophilia. Common core a headfake to hide replacement of all curriculum materials with sexual memes… ( as well as others). Another minority used as a bludgeon on majority culture.


  • Sam_Handwich

    Please note that John M. Vella , the ‘editor’ of this insane online Vatican Rag, fully supports the murderous rants of Austin Ruse.

  • What is the source of all this confusion? We all know that the Catholic Church does not approve of same-sex marriage. Nor do non-liturgical protestants and orthodox Jews. Nevertheless, at issue is civil marriage. Denying that a legal marriage exists, when licensed by the state, because you don’t like the composition of the participants is absurd. If you want people to respect the Church then some of you have to show some respect for what is the law in about two-thirds of the country. Pretending that two people aren’t married when they are is obtuse. The legal status of marriage is what makes it a marriage. The religious status of a marriage is voluntary.

    Sometimes you would think that people object to gay marriage because they think that they are going to be forced to gay marry. Seriously. The Church doesn’t approve of divorce either. Yet, when two people receive a divorce decree from family court they are legally unmarried. Would you pretend otherwise?

    What is this obsession with trying to impose the teachings of the Church on everyone else? If someone could ever demonstrate that anyone’s same-sex marriage has any effect on the marriages of opposite-sex couples I would be less inclined to advocacy. Yet, regardless of which gay marriages take place the same heterosexuals are going to unite in precisely the same marriages, crank out the same kids and sue for the same divorces. Is there any evidence to the contrary? In fact, doesn’t common sense declare that statement to be true?

    • ForChristAlone

      It is impossible for two men to effect a marriage. Case closed.

    • CadaveraVeroInnumero

      When the the courts legally bind the “marriage” of three or more person (whatever the mixture), your response will be?

      When the courts bind the “marriage” of a 13 year-old boy to a 50 year old man, your response will be? (Your unfolded reasoning would compel you to accept this.)

      When the courts refuse to accept the prosecution of an individual who kept another in chains and bondage (or whipped the tar from such0 because the aspect of “consent” was involved, your response will be? (Your unfolded reasoning would compel you to accept this, since the only sexual norm your reasoning can acknowledge is that of “consent”.)

      When the courts refuse to accept the prosecution of an individual who performed grooming behaviors towards (upon) another in order to break down resistance, your response will be? (Your unfolded reasoning would compel you to accept this, since your reasoning ‘s fundamental norm (premise) is the autonomous individual’s “right” to determine and (most dangerously) define his own sexuality. If the act – the arts of “grooming” is an integral part of one’s self-defined sexual identity, it must be protected as a right. Why not, since the “professional” word out there is that 13 year-olds who are groomed are actually seeking it, desiring sexual contact with 50 year-olds. This dovetails the logic of multiculturalism (as an ideology) when it refuses to pass judgment of cultures in which the “grooming” and sexual use of persons outside their (ethnic/religious) communities is accepted and encouraged (i.e. the Rotherdam scandal in Great Britain).

      Once more: homosexual behavior and the legal recognition of homosexual “marriages” is a marijuana of sexual personal & societal disorders, disfunctions, disintegrations – and all species of old-fashion perversions.

      • … if what happens in a court-of-law is irrelevant to this issue, or if the court, issuing legal decisions, is the final determiner of what constitutes the very nature of sexuality.

        What happens in courts is most certainly relevant. The courts have not weighed in on sexuality any more than they have drawn conclusions about the sexual practices of heterosexuals — which are quite varied.

        … the “professional” word out there is that 13 year-olds who are groomed are actually seeking it, desiring sexual contact with 50 year-olds.

        Preposterous! There is no professional opinion that is inconsistent with age of consent laws. That applies to heterosexuals as well. The suggestion that gay men are pedophiles, per se, is not only offensive but highly inaccurate. It is extremely rare for an openly gay man to have sex with minors. The incidence rate is actually lower than it is for heterosexual men according to the FBI.

        Same-sex marriage is merely a “gateway” to greater emotional and financial security for gay couples and their children. It doesn’t affect you in any way whatsoever. Are those “perversions” happening in Massachusetts?

        The amount of money and energy spent on opposing same-sex marriage is staggering. Particularly when you consider that none of those who are opposed are affected either way. The Church’s obsession has taken that money and energy away from things that really do matter.

        • CadaveraVeroInnumero

          I did not say that “per se” (by definition) homosexual males are pedophiles. Preposterous, indeed!

          There’s a buildup within the professional community – related to the quite open campaign to downgrade (the significance of) of concept of age of consent laws – to push the narrative that prepubescent youngsters can be sexually attracted to adults, that this attraction is “educative”, “mentoring”. Witness the mountainous piles of “I knew I was gay when I was a child” stories. It is a very brittle fine line separating those stories from the effort to discover some “right” suggested (embedded as a penumbra) by such tales. That just maybe, just maybe, it may be “educative”, nurturing if . . .

          You tell me. Will the Gay Community let out a yell and a yelp if the age of consent dropped from 18 to . . . 16? What about 13? Will they shout how awful, how wrong, how immoral? Will the Gay Bully Advocates insist that “gay youths” must be absolutely affirmed in their gay identity yet restricted in their (Casey vs Planned Parenthood) rights integral to said identity? You tell me.

          The above is only a logical unfolding of the aggressive campaign to burrow deep into the lower school grades to order to identity those children who may by “gay”: and to affirm, to affirm,. and,, again, to affirm said youths in their newly discovered “gay student” status. In California, as in a few other states, it is now iillegal NOT to affirm, or to assist any youngster who seeks to remove or reduce his same-sex attractions. (And, youngsters do find them disturbing, even as they are told – aggressively – otherwise.)

          Then, there was that recent nasty business of the APA attempting to redefine pedophilia (in its Diagnostic Manual) to downgrade the sigma attached to it.

          What the point of all this gay evangelizing, if it is not for the promotion of an active homosexual lifestyle?

          You tell me. 13 year-old “gay” youths – who our advocacy culture has been so assiduous in tagging – should only be having sex with whom? Maybe Gay Activists hold a strong conviction that 17 year-old “gay youths” should never be engaging in sex; that 16 year-old “gay youths” should never be having sex with anyone; that 15 year-old “gay youths” should new be engaging; the same for 14 year-olds. Do gay advocacy spokes-persons and organizations preach abstinence to all these “gay children” they are so eager to identify and affirm?

          Why are gay advocates so enthused to evangelize the “normalcy” and “rights” of homosexuality (and homosexual parenting) down even into the 1st Grade and lower? You mean to tell me, that they do all this and still hold onto a firm conviction that the age of consent should always be at age 18? Always?

          I’ll make a prediction; within the next 24 months some state legislature sub-committee will begin hearing testimony (from both “gay youths” and adults grieving over their lost years as a “gay youth”) of how they have (had) definite attraction to folks older than themselves. That they see an advantage for engaging in such sex: that it is somehow more protective, Then, a line of psychologists, researchers, and social workers, will sit down and describe to the senators that just maybe the safest place for a 13 year-old “gay youth” to discover, learn, and affirm his sexual identity is in a caring, experienced relationship with an “older partner” (they will avoid uing the word “adult”).

          Far-fetched? Don’t think so. It’s coming to a capitol city near you.

          First, the sub-committee will hear from a 16 year-old “gay youth” giving testimony of how he wishes to live openly, and without legal penalty, with his 27 year-old BF. Any objections here, senators? Then, they will hear the said, grave story from a gay adult bemoaning how his life had been thwarted because, decades before, he had a caring, “instructing” relationship with an older man which was interfered with, with disabling consequences. After that, the senators will hear from a 15 year-old, then a 14 year-old, and so on. After the above line of professionals are through speaking, any senatorial resistance will have weakened.

          And, lo and behold, the state’s age of consent laws will, at the very least, be sent down (or is it up) for review.

          Why not? The logic of our poor demented age requires it.

          The benefit for adult gay males? By lowering the age of consent to 16, or 15, or 14, or 13, they can still hold onto the moniker that gay men are never pedophiles (or at a much lower rates than heterosexual adult men) and still enjoy the most valued asset of the homosexual life – youth.

          Any takers? Will the age of consent laws remain at age 18 forever, and ever, and ever? With all this nation’s gay evangelizing in the schools, deep into kindergarten with their “Jack has Two Daddies” stories, I don’t think so.

  • Phloont Manphredsing

    We’re not losing the debate. We’re losing the shouting and scolding match.

  • MJ Anderson

    David hart and all others here who engaged the discussion–what is really being communicated is the the desire to belong to another in a meaningful way, to be respected by the wider world as the same as heterosexuals. In some cases your desire springs from your own orientation, others may be parents or siblings of those with same sex attraction.

    The question posed above, How does it harm heterosexual marriages? Is clear to all– it devalues the institution of marriage because it dilutes the meaning and intent of marriage. If any coupling can de facto be declared a. Marriage , marriage loses its original intent. This means homosexual pairs –who cannot actually be married, because their union does not join the two halves of humanity into a unified “one flesh”–will have helped to destroy what they claim to seek. Very sad.

    Part of your frustration is awareness that even if the SCOTUS were to declare SSU constitutional, it is still homosexuality. The lifestyle will still contain all the sorrow and danger, the abuses and betrayals, the disease and addictions that are part of the subculture. All that a legality will create is another fiction, because SCOTUS cannot protect you from nature.

    There is another way. The Church is not trying to impose anything on you. she invites you to cooperate with creation as it is, not as you would remold it. She does not impose, but the Church also knows that living within a fiction is ultimately not charitable, not compassionate. Please keep in mind that worldwide it the Church who cares for the most AIDS patients. Why not take the time to study what the Church does teach? Meaningful lives and meaningful relationships do not require sexual activity. Deep bonds of friendship don’t depend on sexualizing the friendship–in fact it often destroys it. Sexualizing a relationship does not make it more valid unless and only if it is ordered toward procreation. There is another path to happy, fulfilled lives. Come and see.

  • MMC

    God bless Brian Camenker! I was wondering when people would wake up to the horrific reality of sodomy…and let’s start calling it that yes? We need to stop with the emo and start speaking the hard truth’s about this behavior…it is perversion…it is lube, blood, feces and semen…it is colons falling out, emotional addiction, violence, disease, and countless other destructive realities. Stop trying to be Mr. Nice guy and give a wake up call to this culture before it destroys itself with so called sodomite “marriage”. Reason, facts, Natural Law trump this…if anyone bothered to use their brains. The sodomites will throw a hissy fit when you start doing this but we don’t live our lives by their emotional neurosis…and hatred of evil is a GOOD thing. God bless~

  • The best argument we have is based on Natural Law. I make a case against homosexual marriage on this basis here: http://prolife365.com/homosexual-marriage-and-natural-law/

  • The reason why “Pro-Family” groups have lost the debate over marriage equality is simple: Most people have friends, family members, and co-workers who are Gay, and they simply tend to be much more accepting and supportive. 30 years ago most people were not aware of anyone close to them who were Gay. Today most ARE. It’s not that the number of Gay people has increased, it’s just that most Gay people today are living their lives openly, productively, and with humility and integrity. It also goes without saying that social networking sites like Facebook have made the proverbial “closet” pretty much obsolete.

    If ALL Gay people were the disease-ridden sexual predators you like to portray us as, do you really things we would have so many Straight friends?

    • ForChristAlone

      No such thing as “gay people” what one does with one’s genitals does not define one’s identity.

      • Tell that to all the Straight people who have lots of Gay friends.

        • GG

          Straight and Gay are silly made up terms.

      • GG

        Correct, unless one is confused or corrupted.

  • bender

    So this Camenker guy would present a utilitarian argument which essentially accepts the premise of the “same-sex marriage” crowd that this is a utilitarian issue.
    Look, the issue is NOT whether “gays” make better or worse parents, or whether two guys having sex together is gross or beautiful. That is all irrelevant.
    The issue is simply — What is marriage? And then the related question of why should there be legal protections for marriage? Or, if you want to approach it from the other direction — Whatever term you want to use to describe the male-female relationship, which by its very nature has the unique potential for procreation, why should that relationship be protected?
    Following Camenker’s approach is a recipe for failure, and rightly so.

    • “Whatever term you want to use to describe the male-female relationship, which by its very nature has the unique potential for procreation, why should that relationship be protected?”

      This begs the question: Protected from WHAT, exactly?

      The marriage equality movement was never some sinister effort to make homosexuality compulsory. Straight people aren’t being told to marry persons of the same sex. No married Straight couple ever got a divorce because the Gay couple down the street decided to get hitched. And any Straight person is free to decline invitations to Gay weddings (although sending a tasteful gift would be a gracious move).

      As Judge Vaughn Walker said in the decision on California’s Prop. 8 Case: “Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages.” It was a view shared by the courts in the Golinski case against DOMA, where a Bush appointee in the Northern District of California concurred: “The exclusion of same-sex couples from the federal definition of marriage does nothing to encourage or strengthen opposite-sex marriages.”

      If the opponents of marriage equality have a case to make, they’ve done a piss-poor job of making it.

      • GG

        The corrupt cannot reason well. The absurd idea that marriage means whatever you want it to mean only makes marriage nonsense.

        Not unlike calling those with same sex attraction disorder “gay”. It is obfuscation and an attempt to mis-define reality.

  • Librarian50

    The “children need a mother and father” argument failed decades ago when being a single mom became a badge of honor. Heterosexuals destroyed the institution of marriage. I actually remember as a young person a priest telling us during a retreat that cohabitation wasn’t a sin. The rejection of Humanae Vitae gave us all permission to just follow our own consciences. You can’t have two sets of rules–one for gays and one for heterosexuals. Heterosexuals do not really believe there is anything gravely wrong or harmful about raising kids without a father.

    • ForChristAlone

      and your point is?

  • Randall Ward

    Great article. Wonder how many know we have a homosexual president, with the attendent behavior being on display every day.

  • Kim58

    Instead of singling out homosexual acts as dangerous to humans, why didn’t the pro-family groups also point out the dangers of contracepted sexual acts by heterosexuals? Once sex has been sterilized, and a man and woman view sexual activity as nothing more than a contact sport, is it so crazy to assume this view (of the other person as something to be used for one’s own pleasure) wouldn’t be a healthy way to approach human sexuality? The uber conservative Catholics love to chant that sodomy is a sin that cries out to heaven, and that certainly may be the case, but that sin is grown in soil prepped by the sins of millions of heterosexuals! I’ll know the pro-family groups are populated more by people who don’t see sex as a contact sport when they are able to connect the dots with courage between contraception and homosexual acts!

  • Ohso

    I submitted an Amicus (friend of the Court) Legal Brief in both the CA Supreme and now former judge Walker’s Federal Prop-8 cases, and sat in the front row of the court gallery during Examination / Cross Exam of Blankenhorn.

    To call the proceedings ‘Circus Like’ would be to insult the professionalism of carnival workers, although Walker certainly seemed to enjoy playing ringmaster.

    Few people realize the level of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ going on in the Court and Media that surrounded the case, particularly given that Governor ‘Der Arnold’ was being Blackmailed (over his allegedly ‘secret’ Extra Son, amongst other items) by the same Gaystapo thought Police; who made sure the bought and paid for ‘free press’ stayed away from the subject of Walkers own huge Personal Conflict of Interest.

    Questions regarding Manipulation of both Judges Assigned (few realize how Powerful & Partisan the Court Legal Clerks can be) – and decisions denying status to those who would best Defend the Constitution of the State – including their own high quality witnesses and empirical evidence never allowed in the Walker case – remain open to this day.

    Truly – those who enjoy sausage or respect the ‘law’ – should never watch either being made – particularly in ‘our’ Turkey Baster Creationist ‘justice’ system.

  • Ohso

    Pander or Perish = the ‘gospel’ of the Gaystapo
    “Rick Santorum: We’re losing on gay ‘marriage’ because the Church has been silenced

    Former senator and presidential contender Rick Santorum has a theory about why supporters of true marriage are losing ground in the fight against marital redefinition – increasingly, they’re being banned from the debate entirely.

    “The arguments are being won among young people,” Santorum, a Republican, told Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council in a recent interview.

    “We are losing in this particular area among young people not because we’re out there and competing, it’s because they have effectively silenced the church on a lot of those issues and young people don’t even know what the opposing view is on these issues.”

    “I really believe in this subject matter at hand with the gay community that a Judeo-Christian worldview cannot survive with a worldview that is as rabidly secular as this movement is,” Santorum continued.

    “One is going to battle the other and I can tell you that the statists, these secular statists, do not want the competition that comes from the church and so they are going to do everything they can to marginalize them, to force them out of the public square to be quiet.”

    “They’re going to use, as they have, the Johnson amendment, try to use the IRS and the tax code to do so, they’re going to use every lever of power the government has to keep this competition of ideas silent so they can win the argument,” he added.

  • stage9

    The Pro-family movement HAS BOTCHED IT! They have used silly defenses for marriage that have failed everywhere they’ve tried them. Rather than taking the advice of someone like Kevin Jennings who WARNED YOU HOW YOU COULD DEFEAT the homofascist agenda, you went your own way and lost time and time again.

    Jennings said the following in 1995:

    “If the Radical Right can succeed in portraying us as preying on children, we will lose. Their language — “promoting homosexuality” is one example — is laced with subtle and not-so- subtle innuendo that we are “after their kids.” We must learn from the abortion struggle, where the clever claiming of the term “pro-life” allowed those who opposed abortion on demand to frame the issue to their advantage, to make sure that we do not allow ourselves to be painted into a corner before the debate even begins.”

    Besides the fact that Jennings was right, are they “preying on children”? YES! They are!

    As soon as counterfeit marriage was legalized in MA, the homofascist movement went to work bringing their agenda into schools. handing out books like “The Little Black Book” which describes in graphic detail the disgusting practices of the homosexual lifestyle to children. I suppose Mr Ruse has no problem with that. Or what about the State not allowing parents to opt their children out of such indoctrination programs? I supposed r Ruse has no problem with that. Or what about the homosexual movement indoctrinating children into transvestism.I suppose Ruse has no problem with that.

    THIS and SO MUCH more was brought in once the door was opened to the homofascist agenda through counterfeit marriage. Why would Mr Ruse condone that?

  • David van Gend

    Austin, here at the Australian Marriage Forum our TV ad “Marriage equality? What about equality for the child?” has certainly got traction. Over half a million views in four days. We launched it at the time of the Sydney Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras – a tactic I know Brian Camenker would approve. Link here http://youtu.be/s80wL5al5NA The ad is solely concerned with that primal bond between mother/father/child. I agree with Alexander, in comments below, that perhaps it is not so much an argument that has been tried and failed, but perhaps never “effectively promoted”. It is, after all, the heart of the matter, all tactical considerations aside. Best wishes, David van Gend, President AMF ( http://www.AustralianMarriage.org )

  • givelifeachance2

    The real nub of the mother-father argument hasn’t been tried. It is that the homosexual couple actually *discriminates* against the other sex in marriage, by denying access to the marriage of both sexes. This is sex discrimination of the purest sort. Put that on your wedding cake and smoke it.