The Totalitarianism of Same-Sex “Marriage”

In November of 1996 First Things hosted a symposium titled “The Judicial Usurpation of Politics” in which contributors discussed the threat to American democracy posed by the Supreme Court instated imposition of abortion on America. Nothing rivals the sheer volume of innocent human beings killed by abortion and yet First Things saw fit to focus not on the babies themselves or the mothers and fathers, but on the threat to democracy and the American experiment posed by the judicial over-reach that legalized abortion.

The legalization of same-sex “marriage” does not bring with it the innocent blood which cries to heaven, though it is perhaps the single most audacious social engineering initiative in American history. But the way in which it has been imposed in state after state, as courts have seen fit to ignore ballot initiatives, sets the stage for a United States Supreme Court ruling on par with Roe vs. Wade. The Supreme Court has announced it will rule on same-sex “marriage” in this sitting—exactly ten years after Canada legalized same-sex “marriage.” It is important for Americans to look at what has happened in Canada.

On July 20, 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world to legalize same-sex “marriage.” On that day the sun rose as it always does, people went to work, daily Mass was celebrated in Catholic Churches and daily life continued to unfold as it normally does. In the days and months following there was no massive spike in the numbers of same-sex couples getting “married” (it had already been legal in 8 of 10 provinces since 2003), the speculated upon possibility of same-sex “marriage” tourism from the United States never really materialized and the Canadian flag was not changed from the maple leaf to the LGBT rainbow. But something very significant happened with the legalization of same-sex “marriage” in Canada and it wasn’t about the freedom of gay people to marry, and it wasn’t really about marriage.

July 20, 2005 marked a very significant step towards totalitarianism in Canada.

Free speech, the rights of parents, the right to preach and practise one’s religion and the worn and tattered fibers of normative decency were all deeply damaged. With the legalization of same-sex “marriage” what had been aberrant only a few years earlier became entrenched as a legal right, and what had been a normal and natural view of sexuality had been reduced to the retrograde thinking of hate crime dinosaurs.

Terrence Prendergast is the Catholic archbishop of Ottawa. Speaking at St. Thomas University in Minnesota in 2012, he outlined the consequences of same-sex “marriage” in Canada. His list included: restrictions on freedoms, forced sex education, sexually confused children, sexual experimentation among children, muzzling and debilitating the Church, more births out of wedlock, more in-vitro fertilizations, more abortions, more poverty, more misery, more disease, more addictions and higher health care costs.

Calgary bishop Frederick Henry was called before a Human Rights Commission Tribunal in 2005 for writing a letter defining Catholic teaching on same-sex “marriage.” During his speech, Archbishop Prendergast quoted Bishop Frederick Henry saying: “Human rights laws designed as a shield are now being used as a sword. The issue is rarely truth formation, but rather censorship, and applying a particular theology through threats, sanctions and punitive measures.” Archbishop Prendergast continued: “The Bible is being called hate literature. Clearly, the Church is in the crosshairs. There will be growing pressure for the Church to comply or be shut down.”

Collective madness is a term usually applied to the fevered frenzy of the mob, but there is a darker, more systematic and more enduring collective madness achieved by reducing obvious truths to elephants in the room. With the legalization of same-sex “marriage” we had a legal edict establishing the normative nature of same-sex “marriage” and thereby ruling out as discriminatory essential arguments about the complementarity of male and female or the procreative purpose of marriage.

Normally, the first thing we notice about a person is their sex, and the first thing we realize when thinking about the sexes is the obvious physical complementarity of male and female, but in the new SSM regime these simple and obvious truths must be appended with a caveat saying that there is no such thing as nature, human sexuality is plastic and there is nothing essentially organic, good and true. This is hugely significant for the psycho-sexual formation of the young and for the happiness and flourishing of individuals and society as a whole, but it is also a decisive step towards the destruction of critical intelligence, the cultivation of abject dependence, and then finally madness and totalitarianism.

Doug Mainwaring works with CanaVox, a project of the Witherspoon Institute. He is a self-described gay man who is abstinent. Mainwaring describes the efforts to redefine marriage as “a form of incremental totalitarianism.” According to Mainwaring “gays and lesbians have been used as pawns by progressives to bring about this wedge issue that I really feel strongly is meant to usher in incremental totalitarianism.”

Stockholm Syndrome was much talked about in the 1970’s when the wealthy heiress Patty Hearst was abducted and held for ransom, but was then shown joining in with her captors robbing a bank and brutalizing innocent people. Before being abducted there was no indication that Hearst was psychopathic, there was no suggestion of a latent criminality, rather the villainy of Patty Hearst was caused by the psychological manipulation of her captors.

For Hearst in captivity, her autonomous personhood was denied. Whether and when she could stand, sit, lie down, eat, drink, sleep, speak or be silent—control over all these things were denied her. She was denied any agency, rendered helpless, obliterated as a person. Then, once a complete breakdown was achieved, small kindnesses and the restoration of order and therefore the possibility of meaning reconstituted her universe. But Hearst’s new universe was created by and ordered around her captor who was now also her saviour.

The legalization of same-sex “marriage” is not about allowing something; same-sex “marriage” was already taking place. It was not about recognizing something; spousal and survivor benefits, family tax incentives and any other advantages to marriage were being or could have been granted without calling it marriage. The legalization of same-sex “marriage” was about prohibiting a definition of heterosexual marriage as normative. It was about the state denying the right to speak one of the most obvious truths about human nature. It was about a conspiracy to enforce collective madness, cultivate psychological dependence and achieve totalitarian control.

Of course it seemed anti-climactic to most, since we seldom see the significance of what is happening as it happens. Further, Canadians as a people pride themselves on their peace-loving agreeability to a fault. The vast majority of Canadians never utter opinions contrary to the spirit of the age, the vast majority of parents passively submit to educational professionals and popular entertainment as the primary educators of their children, a large majority of people no longer take religion seriously, and for those who did, a large majority of the clergy had long ago given up on preaching the more difficult teachings of Christianity.

The march to madness was long and over time there were more and more truths about which we could not speak. In public spaces conservatives had to live increasingly within their own minds, and for anybody, alone in your mind can be a dangerous place. In our Walter Mitty imaginations most of us had swooned in self-adulation at the thought of a glorious last stand that we would make if push ever came to shove. In our mind’s eye our personal Calvary would be heroic and unflinching. But the sad truth is that most of us die by the inch rather than the sword, and this we knew in our heart of hearts, and so many of us came to despise ourselves and give up. The legalization of same-sex “marriage” in Canada has decimated the social conservative movement.

The passage of the Civil Marriage Act was the formal registration of our collective divorce from natural law and sanity. It was a breathtaking example of political and cultural revolution. But at another level it was more than that. With the passage of the Civil Marriage Act we surrendering our right to teach our children about manhood and womanhood, husband and wife. Because the truth is, for the homosexual activists, all along it’s been about the children.

Virtually every homosexual is inordinately preoccupied with his own childhood. Childhood and puberty are the most dynamic periods of psycho-sexual development and all homosexuals puzzle over their sexuality. Unlike animals whose sexuality is purely instinctive, human sexuality is a combination of instinct and socialization. There are many contributors to a child’s socialization; family, peers, schools, culture, but all of these are overseen by the state that has the power of laws and punishments.

The sexual revolutionaries who lobbied for the legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” had already achieved every legal benefit or could have easily achieved every legal benefit enjoyed by heterosexual marriage through equal legal recognition of same-sex civil unions, but that would have fallen short of the prize most coveted, the power to deny heterosexuals any claim to distinctiveness and the right to indoctrinate children accordingly.

A revolution has taken place in Canada. It was a long time coming and all of its fruits have yet to ripen but the revolution has surely happened and the term for the new regime starts with a capital T.

Joe Bissonnette


Joe Bissonnette teaches religion and philosophy at Assumption College School in Brantford, Ontario where he lives with his wife and their seven children. He has written for Catholic Insight, The Human Life Review, The Interim, The Catholic Register and The Toronto Star.

  • Mary S.

    This is precisely what will happen if the Supreme Court legalizes so-called same-sex marriage in the US. Those of us who believe in the traditional definition of marriage and the family will be persecuted as haters. The Catholic Church especially will be targeted for persecution by liberal elites and gays, who have always hated the Church. The worst thing about all of this is that this decision could literally be made by five justices. This is not representative republic anymore.

    • St JD George

      Ask 100 people on the street what form of government we are and I doubt 1 would answer representative republic (maybe that’s because we aren’t anymore, ha). Maybe if you asked 1,000 you’d find 1.

      • De Jure: Representative Republic

        De Facto: Bureaucratic Despotism.

    • Glenn M. Ricketts

      Yes, and one wonders how many bishops and clergy will jump right in with the persecutors to join the fight against “anti-gay hate.” And I’m not asking rhetorically.

      • Captain America

        Right. This is the problem with letting your opponent set the rhetoric, or the terms being used.

        It’s not at all about hate. It’s about truth instead of lies.

        • Glenn M. Ricketts

          We need the likes of St. Thomas More or St. John Fisher in our current predicament. I don’t see any, so we’d better pray fervently to the two of them to assist us. Bad times we live in.

          • Notbuyingit3337

            We are the St. Thomas More or St. John Fisher of our time.

            • Glenn M. Ricketts

              Pray to them for guidance and strength.

      • I think Cardinal Wolsey is back, already,

        • Glenn M. Ricketts

          Right, he’s the archbishop of New York, isn’t he?

          • Are you clairvoyant?

            • Glenn M. Ricketts

              No, I just keep my eyes open.

      • Tim Danaher

        Unfortunately I think their are more angels dancing on a pinhead than couragous Catholic clery who are will to address this issue. Don’t want to sound too judgemental during the homily and lose donations from the 20% of Catholics who still attend Mass.

        • Glenn M. Ricketts

          Probably doesn’t matter anyway in many parishes. In my own, around 12% of those who attend Mass regularly provide about 75% of the revenue, and that’s no exaggeration.

    • fredx2

      It’s even worse than that. One judge, Anthony Kennedy’s vote may be the only one that is in play. It’s Justice Kennedy’s country, the rest of us just live in it.

      • Kennedy’s record is not promising, and we know Roberts can be coerced.

  • hopecrolius

    Really well argued piece. Everyone in my highly liberal college town marvels and puzzles when they learn that I cannot support SSM. When pressed for why, I am still trying to have those 2 Or 3 short, clear reasons that I can state with loving firmness and not have the person walk away with a bad taste about Catholics. Now I have a great reason: “The legalization of same-sex “marriage” was about prohibiting a definition of heterosexual marriage as normative. It was about the state denying the right to speak one of the most obvious truths about human nature.”

    And I weep at the truth of the image of how most of us die by the inch, not the sword…

    • Seamrog

      For those willing to stand for their faith, I think ‘dying by the inch’ will rapidly evolve in to ‘death by the sword.’

      The simmering hostility the homosexualists have towards the Truth proclaimed by the Church now has legal backbone to begin driving acceptance, compliance and enforcement – in western Europe and Canada now, coming soon to the US.

      The Fire Chief for the City of Atlanta can testify to this:

      • St JD George

        You can go Google as well, and to be sure there are hundreds more stories like this, but one that also gets under my skin is this administrations hell bent intent to socially re-engineer our military and the purging of dozens of top generals who wouldn’t accept his terms.

        • Chris Cloutier

          It will be interesting to see what repercussions Prof. Bissonnette faces in progressive Canada for writing such an article. This is such a cogent article. I will pray for the good professor, as we will all be forced in time to make a stand on this issue.

          • Glenn M. Ricketts

            Yes, the Canadian Human Rights Commission isn’t bound by anything like the First Amendment in the US. They’ve often seemed autonomous in their PC crusade on behalf of “human rights.”

          • Seamrog

            It is an intimidating proposition – Most don’t worry too much if feathers get ruffled, but we do worry about losing our job – the means by which we provide for our family.

            Being labeled a ‘bigot’ has serious consequences in this society, which as decayed to the point that deviant human behavior is now practiced by the majority of citizens: multiple marriages, multiple divorces, promiscuity, vulgarity, obstinate crassness are all commonplace, and widely accepted by our friends, our neighbors, our family members, those we work with and even those we sit among at Mass.

            They cannot and will not defend those making a stand lest the light be shined upon themselves, and so pariahs will be hung out to dry, and as you indicate, will face legal repercussions and the smugness of false social superiority.

            • Akira88

              So, it’s really intolerant Canada. It’s open and shut with no option for dialogue or the ability to express disagreement. It used to be a Catholic country. Wow. That’s gotta be good for a few inches …

          • St JD George

            A lot could be said for a great many authors who post here, and even those who comment because digital is forever, however, I’ve often had that same thought but more in the context of personal safety for William Kilpatrick.

        • Joseph Lammers

          I’ve noticed that most of our progressive-left types are very “courageous” when verbally attacking “intolerant” Christians, but any criticism of Islam, no matter how mild, is meet with shouts of “Islamaphobia”. Of course, strongly and publicly denouncing Islamic fascism can actually get you killed, so I guess it is best to be courageous in only denouncing those who won’t threaten you physically. and will get you kudos from elite opinion for your “courage”.

      • Not acceptance and compliance. Submission and servitude.

      • Akira88

        It’s scary because the politicians see it as a tool for more votes — just expanding the base. They don’t consider the underlying repercussions.

        • Kaiser Bill’s Robin

          It’s happening in the UK…

          • Akira88

            I read what’s going on in the UK and get absolutely frightened! I lived over in Germany years ago and visited the EU since, (sorry, never England), and always, always, loved it. Clean, historical, … hey! It’s Europe! It’s cool. Now? I feel sorry for the good folks in England, Germany, France …

            Is there a big difference between Farage and Cameron?

            • Kaiser Bill’s Robin

              The current UK Prime Minister, David Cameron of the Conservative Party, with his coalition partners the Liberal Democrats, shoved through legislation for SSM without it being part of their election manifesto in 2010.
              Nigel Farage (of the UK Independence Party) is AGAINST SSM – so, ou
              Again, in the UK, the actor who portrayed Alan Turing (Benedict Cumberbatch) in a recent film, is now calling on the Government to declare all men arrested and jailed for Sodomy in the years before it was de-criminalised in the late 1960’s be given Royal Pardons. Even Prince William and his wife, Kate, have been dragged into the frame to support this, though representatives of the Royal couple have declined to comment! I mean, come on! Enough’s enough!
              UKIP is the party of ‘enough’s enough!’

              • Akira88

                Maybe I’m nuts, but you’re guy is a Conservative, but the Lib Dems are running the show. Here, we have Repubs (I wouldn’t call them conservative), letting the Dems have their way whether or not they’re the majority. It’s stifling. It really is. Merkel in Germany — what’s going on w/her? Hollande in France? Okay, he’s a Marxist.

                These leaders all thwart the will of the people.

                Who’s really in charge? It’s happening all over the world

      • Anita Justice

        I happen to live in ATLANTA; where Mayor MOHAMMAD (it’s real, legal name) Reed fired that fire chief. What lamestream media won’t mention is that Mayor Reed actually tried to CENSOR a popular gossip web site of Afro-American women who were gossiping about him! Where ever Mayor MOHAMMAD Reed goes, CEN$OR$HIP FOLLOWS. BTW, a few years earlier, Mayor Reed was opposed to gay equality; that was before POTUS OBOLA.

    • Rock St. Elvis

      I’ve long put it this way: Gay marriage is not about equal rights or live-and-let-live but about the normalization of sodomy. Advocates for gay marriage seek official recognition that sodomy is equal to baby-making heterosexual sex. Once marriage is officially defined as any union between consenting adults, there might be a flurry of “gay” marriages for the novelty of it, but in just a few years, very few gays will bother getting married. They’ll just shack up as they had before, which is the way so many straights live now. The idea of gay marriage may even become passe, but it will be enshrined in law and those who persist in maintaining that sex has the principal purpose of uniting male and female for procreation will be branded as haters and misfits living outside the law.

    • St JD George

      Could this be our (society) modern day return of the golden calf, or perhaps a nostalgic return of the gilded age of Sodom and Gomorrah? I don’t know, but I see a breach on the front line attacking Christianity trying to force the acceptance of this mortal sin on everyone. Hardly the only battle as the perversion of God’s gift of sexuality is being waged along a wide territory. How long have we been complicit in putting up with pornography and adultery which has led us to the path where sexuality has no beauty or virtue, where for most it’s little more than a form of entertainment and children have no value.
      Richard Becker had a good perspective today. It might be time that we do more to heed the final mission statement we are all called to at the end of Mass. Our barque is taking on water faster than we are bailing it out it would seem.

      • Captain America

        I think it’s pretty clear that the Catholic Church is going to suffer more and more in the near future. Expect it.

        • St JD George

          Agreed. The era of in-tolerance (ha) has been slowly coming to an end for awhile but now recently accelerating. The lukewarm are going to find themselves in extreme discomfort.

    • St JD George

      I feel for you and others who are in the situation you are in, feeling like you an island fortress in a sea of non-believers. I don’t have that experience where I live as much as the area broadly is a faith based community. To be sure they are out there. As you personally experience these encounters know that there are those who pray for your strength and guiding hand of Christ to slowly melt harden hearts and open eyes to the truth, including that there is no truth in SSM no matter what a body of men (and women) decide.

    • FernieV

      In this time and age when the sophists are the only ones talking we need to equip ourselves with 2 or 3 or 4 or 5… good short powerful reasons for all our beliefs and based on common sense. This article gives us MANY reasons why SSM is such an aberration and why we cannot just seat by the road an watch the battle unfold. No, Sir, we all must get involved and become familiar with the deep reasons of why we are defending human dignity.

    • fredx2

      The simple answer is “Because it’s not the same thing”

    • Akira88

      Dying inch by inch can be more painful than falling on the sword but few have the stomach for a quick death. Guess it depends on how it’s perceived. Good post. This is the first time I’ve ever heard truly practical explanations of the activist homosexual agenda.

      A couple years ago this lesbian activist addressed a group during a gathering of LGTBs and stated the reasons for pushing gay legislation. She told them it wasn’t to get benefits but to destroy marriage. This article contains the argument to defend marriage.

      Here’s an article:

      It’s important to remember her name, her intent, and just as important to memorize the points in this article. It was excellent.

    • Susan

      It is putting Lies into our “Justice” System and forcing Vice into Virtue. It is removing Truth and Reason from Rule of Law—-and making Lies into truth.

      It is hard core Marxism—to eliminate Truth, Biology, Reason from the minds of little children so they will believe “Snow is Black” and any irrational thing the State Fascists tell them. If they can make children believe that males and females are interchangeable —they can make them believe in Up is Down, Slavery is Freedom and Vice is Virtue.

      To remove all Traditions and Wisdom of the Ages and Natural Law Theory—that which created the US Constitution and the Age of Reason and Modern Science—they can force an irrational tribal, serfdom on everyone—-and that is the nature of Power—-where everyone becomes “happy slaves” (Fichte 1810—by destroying Reason and Free Will and Freedom of Thought in children and forcing absurd ideas into them when forming their Worldview).

      • Sandy

        that is so well stated, Susan. thank you~

    • mollysdad

      The reason not to support same-sex marriage is that there is no public interest in giving special recognition and privilege to a group unit (whether of same sex or not) just because there are precisely two of them, they live together and they love each other. Such an arrangement is discriminatory against group units of other descriptions, which do not enjoy these privileges.

      There can be no public interest in supporting a privileged institution called ‘marriage’ unless the persons joined in it were committed to sexual activity together, and that sexual activity were normally capable of producing children. If there is no public interest even in that, then there is no public interest in human reproduction.

      • Yep, this removes the need for a father and/or a mother, which is necessary in the authentic definition of marriage. It is why a government is interested in marriage. Protection of its future! Protection of Children. Removing children from the question of marriage makes marriage a completely other thing than what it is in reality. This should disturb all rational persons!

    • guest 2

      are some criteria of ethics and morality that cannot be punctured or watered-down without also destroying civilisations.

      As though it were not difficult enough to grow a settled civilised culture
      through stability of the family, the family is now under attack from a new
      front. Families and are now also faced with another insidious enemy
      which has slowly been undermining the stability of the family – the insistence
      of about 1% of the population who are now ever-more strident in demanding the
      same kind of “rights” to Marriage, previously only afforded as a special
      privilege to (some) suitable couples. This group of individuals demand the
      right to appropriate the TITLE of Marriage as though everybody had automatic
      right to it.

      We must immediately recognise the DANGER: that if couples of the same sex were to somehow obtain this “right”, it would then legally justify and enable for
      other types of “marriages” to have similar legal “rights“, eg., multiple partners, father and daughter, close siblings, etc.)

      This would spell the end of our culture by completely over-turning it.

      It would destroy the sacredness of (true) Marriage.

      It would destroy the sacredness and stability of family to which children DO
      have every right.

      Ethics and morality (the most comprehensive of which are only provided by
      Catholicism) are like a Life-Saver’s inflatable Rescue Boat: once punctured it
      becomes a deadly trap for all the occupants.

      Most “gays” describe themselves as “non-believers” and are
      particularly hostile to any idea of God … therefore all that “gay” “marriage”
      becomes is merely a distillation of satirical caricature of very bad taste.

      This is NOT “gay-bashing”. It is our right to complain against the willful malicious destruction of our very culture. It is no less destructive than if they set fire to our

      It is interesting to note that even though homosexual groups evidently “don’t
      see themselves as anything more than 1 to 3% of the population, and most saying that they are not even being remotely interested in marriage (because they “crave variety” in partnerships), a growing number of them now openly admit that what they actually really want is “to turn western culture on its head altogether” by “normalising“ their lifestyle:

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


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

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

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

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

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

      But most disturbing is that part of the homosexual agenda seems to be to
      alienate people from Christianity – which they perceive as “the enemy“:

      “The teaching that only male-female sexual activity within the bounds and constraints of marriage is the only acceptable form – should be reason enough for any homosexual to denounce the Christian religion” – (Advocate, 1985).
      So what is their “Trojan Horse” strategy?

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

      — The “gays” own admissions about their (REAL) agenda – put the whole matter in a very differing perspective.

      It is so important for us to defend WITHOUT DELAY what is worth defending – the very future of families and the defence of civilised customs and traditions which are slowly, insidiously being undermined and destroyed.

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

      Therefore: Let “gays” take advantage of the above legal avenues … BUT do NOT allow such irresponsible people to (FALSELY) appropriate the TITLE of “Marriage”.

      It is time for the public to take note of this (admitted) sinister agenda that would terrify even George Orwell himself.

  • russell snow

    It would seem that the radical secular elites and the radical Islamic terrorists have a great deal in common: destroy Christianity, even though they hate each other and are already engaged in wars of extermination. Is the stage being set for a worldwide “anti-Christ culture and the appearance of the great deceiver who will promise peace on his terms? Who knows. I think the Holy Father knows that, regardless, he is trying to teach us how to live, work, and spread the good news, in whatever ways we can. It is no different now than it was during the period of great persecutions before Constantine changed everything. They hated Jesus and they hate us, but we must never lose our faith in God and His plans and purposes, even when they are difficult to fathom and to understand.

  • JERD2

    C.S. Lewis in “Abolition of Man” posited in 1944 that man’s “conquest of nature” would be followed by man’s “conquest of man.” We are seeing this today in the normalization of same sex marriage, sex and disability selective abortions, and fertilization outside the womb.

    Lewis knew that man’s conquest of man would be achieved by some powerful men (Controllers he called them) exerting power over the freedoms of future generations – the “Masters” of the present controlling the “Servants” of the future.

    Those men today who control the laws seek to conquer man, change man’s nature, and thereby shape the future.

    I dare say, Lewis was quite prophetic.

    • concern00

      For certain Lewis’s writings were prophetic…but unfortunately, such is also the case for Huxley and Orwell.

      • Lesser known: Pamela Sargent’s “Shore of Women”.

        • concern00

          Is that a recommend?

          • Yes, with a caveat. Because the subject matter is the ejection of a nonconformist from a regimented Sapphic dystopia, the language can be graphic.

        • Akira88

          Can you give a synopsis?

          • Its a world where women live inside city walls, in a regimented Sapphic culture. Men are excluded as soon as they are old enough to be separated from their mother and sent packing. Men are regarded as wild animals, tolerated only due to their necessity in propagating the species. One young women incurs the wrath of the “city mothers” and is exiled. She runs into a young man and confronts the expectations bred in a culture of misandry.

            • Glenn M. Ricketts

              At one time, this was dystopian fiction. Now it edges ever closer to reality.

              • I read it about 20 years ago. Even then, you could see a lot of the pieces on that chessboard. Welcome to the nascent gynarchy.

            • Akira88

              It almost sounds prophetic. It sounds like where we’re going.
              I don’t know about you, but sometimes in my career/s, it’s seemed women were donning this perceived hard-shelled quality appropriated to men. Truth be told, I’ve had better male boses than I’ve ever had female. I’ve found women to be especially cold and jealous to other women and totally pandering to male employees.

              If I went on with what I thought about the feminist movement and how it inverted true feminism I’d be excoriated.

              • Sin is present in both sexes.

                • Akira88

                  Yaaaaaa …. okay …. not sure of your point.

                  • Either men or women as bosses or coworkers bring problems, even if they differ.

                    • Akira88

                      Women are worse.

            • Akira88

              Thank you!

  • Dan

    In 1930, the Anglican Church broke with Christian tradition and allowed contraception to be practiced by married couples. What we are witnessing is the complete obliteration of all culture and decency that naturally follows. Separating sex from procreation in the privacy of one’s bedroom has universal consequences…
    1968: Humanae Vitae (saying nothing new) is widely rejected by clergy and laity
    1973: Roe v. Wade – 57.5 million lives lost
    1992: Planned Parenthood v. Casey – we need abortion because we have ordered our lives around contraception
    2012: HHS Mandate – forcing employers to provide contraception
    2015: Possible redefinition of marriage imposed on the nation
    We have seen widespread divorce, adultery, fornication, cohabitation, pornography, forced sterilization, IVF, artificial insemination, etc. as a result of a contraceptive mentality.
    What follows the legalization of “same-sex marriage” is the totalitarian imposition that everyone must accept and welcome every form of sexual perversion. The ones who suffer most are the children. If we erase the truth of the duality of the sexes, called to fruitful communion in marriage, we erase any memory of God. Removing God from the privacy of the bedroom naturally leads to (a mere 100 years later) removing God from culture and society.
    When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?

  • sayre

    This is a well argued piece. Thank you for it. I live in New York City. I live and work with many Jews. Can I make a friendly suggestion? The Nazi comparison is wearing very thin. Jews are offended by it. Moreover in popular culture many politicians are labeled Nazis greatly diluting the effect of the label. Could you use Stalin instead? It may be a better comparison since the Soviets tried to control the minds of their subjects perhaps to a greater degree than did Hitler.

    • Captain America

      Good stuff.

    • I know Jews who are offended by Christmas trees in public places.

      The reason people use Hitler is because the left is still trying to redeem and romanticize the Soviet Union. Hitler is the closest thing to an incontrovertably evil person, except in some parts of the Islamic world.

      • sayre

        So we concede defeat to the left on Stalin and not use him as an example of evil? I still maintain that the Hitler analogy is becoming overused. What the left is trying to do is re-educate us on homosexuality. I think the analogy to totalitarian communism is closer.

        Second, with respect to Jews, do you know these Jews personally or only know of them? I don’t know Jews who object to the greeting “Merry Christmas” or to Christmas trees. I know of atheists who do. I don’t know what their religion was before they became atheists. So I repeat – do you have Jewish friends who object to Christmas trees in public places?

        • St JD George

          I tend to agree with you. Hardly anybody today knows who Hitler was or stood for so he’s just become a “bad guy punching bag” to project whatever you dislike onto, whatever your beef. Hey, you cut in line in front of me, why you’re like … that Hitler guy. If you were to reply no, more like Stalin, or Pol Pot (thanks jonny), or Che, or Mao all you’d do is cause heads to explode or draw a blank expression. You can even find some on the streets wearing their likeness on T-Shirts as a form of pop art, or something.

        • I’m all for publicizing Stalin’s reign of terror, but here’s the problem. Too many Christians think Communists are really well-meaning, decent people. One of them recently acquired the name Francis.

          As somebody who is the recipent of first party accounts of relatives living under the hammer and sickle before the fall of the Berlin Wall, I can’t begin to tell you just how stupid and indefensible I find that comment to be.

          What part of “I know” was unclear? Yes, I know them personally as friends and acquaintances.

          • Glenn M. Ricketts

            I understand the reason why, but it’s still amazing, incredible that Holly wood has never made one – not ONE – single movie that even minimally depicts life under Stalin, the purges, mass arrests, deportations or his Devil’s deal with Hitler in 1939. Remember that it was the Nazi-Soviet invasion of Poland. They’ve never really moved beyond the level of Mission to Moscow , that 1943.bit of free propaganda Hollywood provided for Stalin. I’ve also listened to first-hand accounts from friends who experienced the joys of communism directly, only to ask with utter bewilderment why they’re likely to be dismissed as “McCarthyites” when they tell their stories to certain types of westerners. No matter how many times I hear this, I’m always amazed.

            • Walter Duranty is proud of them, I’m sure.

            • Kilo4/11

              Who could play him? Perhaps Olivier could have, but no one today. Who could write the screenplay? Pasternak might have been able to; Solzhenytsyn seemed more comfortable with events than personalities. Maybe Leon Uris could have, or William Manchester, but they had other obsessions. But what a movie it would be.

              • Glenn M. Ricketts

                Good suggestions. But my point is that even if one were get all of those ducks lined up in a row, Hollywood still would not budge, and such a movie would not be made. Even if you could provide evidence of hefty box office receipts.

    • jonnybeeski

      How about Pol Pot? Not too many defenders.

    • GG

      The Nazi comparison is very apt. Even the most superficially educated grasp that Nazism means forcing people against their will to do evil things. They understand it means oppression and silencing opposition.

      Yes, it fits the situation perfectly.

      • sayre

        Is selling a wedding cake to a gay couple the same level of evil as putting someone into a gas chamber and turning on the gas? I’m afraid that if we use these comparisons we will look like extremists. Whom are we trying to convince by comparing the Gay movement to Hitler?

        • Get it right. Its being forced to bake, decorate and sell a craft item to be used for a purpose you do not support at the direction of a judicial edict.

          • GG

            I know. What if the government forced someone to sell a Nazi cake to celebrate death camps? We have taken leave of our senses.

            • Or demanded an Islamic butcher supply bacon?

              What I find interesting is that its always been presumed in popular culture that totalitarianism arises from neophobia and xenophobia (see “Witchunt” by Rush) , but it seems to actually more to arise from neophilia and xenophilia, especially when mixed with statism.

        • GG

          See, by the time it gets to people being dragged off to jail or camps it is too late to call it what it is.

          Canada already persecutes Christians. Europe is on the same path. Forcing someone to violate their conscience is evil. The State forcing someone to celebrate evil is not only sickening but demonic.

          Perhaps the real issue is that you do not grasp how bad it really is.

        • Atilla The Possum

          In answer to your question: yes, it is.
          LGBT activists who bully and intimidate individuals in the public eye for speaking out and voting against their agenda.
          The ‘gas chamber’ and ‘turning on the gas’ in today’s case, sayre, is done to the individual’s hard-earned qualifications and achievements in their chosen career – choking the oxygen out of their livelihood, spending money they have worked hard for on hiring a solicitor and endure an ordeal they never thought they would ever experience – the inside of a courtroom, having their integrity and values held up for ridicule and venom. People who don’t wish to participate in your ‘Gay Parades’ are suspended from their jobs and are made to go on ‘diversity awareness’ training or be sacked.
          Funny, there are no ‘religious awareness’ courses for those who like to mock people of faith!
          Thing is, you don’t read about it in the usual press.
          So, yes – you can compare the LGBT movement to Hitler. Hitler crushed opposition, and many people were beheaded, tortured and sent to the gas chambers for issuing anti-Nazi pamphlets .. a great many of them included St. Maximilian Kolbe (lethal injection) and Blessed Mary Restituta Kafka (beheaded) … who refused to remove Crucifixes from above hospital beds…. hmmmm! Many people lost their jobs and went to court because they refused to remove their crucifixes! US courthouses removing the mention of God in just about everything, removing the 10 Commandments from their premises, church property vandalised … need I go on?
          At the time of writing, today is International Holocaust Memorial Day. 70 years on, no lessons learned – only to replay how the Nazi regime charmed, hypnotised, fooled and subsequently crushed people under their thumb like fleas.
          So, who is turning on the ”gas” now?

        • Exton

          There was more to Hitler than just gas chambers. However, obama’s mentor Bill Ayers talked about how to kill 25 MILLIONS Americans to make socialism easier.

        • michael susce

          Strictly speaking, you are correct. the gas chamber should be equated with the act of abortion (except in cases of threat to the life of the mother which is less than 1% of all abortions).

        • MarcAlcan

          Is selling a wedding cake to a gay couple the same level of evil as putting someone into a gas chamber and turning on the gas? I’m afraid that if we use these comparisons we will look like extremists. Whom are we trying to convince by comparing the Gay movement to Hitler?

          Well, in your earlier post you asked that we use Stalin instead. Are you not aware that Stalin and Lenin killed more people than Hitler?

          You are protesting about comparing the wedding cake issue to the gas chamber but it seems comparing this to the gulag and the torture chambers is quite okay.

          Are the Jews more special than any other people that are systematically killed and tortured?

        • asmondius

          We’re recognizing history.

    • seeking integrity

      read Diana West’s “The Death of the Grown-Up” or “The Betrayal of America” and you will find the huge extent of Stalin-damage compared to Hitler, though so very covert and subversive that not many noticed throughout the decades especially since the Great Depression era.

  • Captain America

    This is a good column. I’m an old Poli Sci guy, and one of the chief reasons I have been interested in the whole homosexual issue has been because of all the amazing politics associated with it: high levels of hysteric propaganda (and outright, conscious and shameless, antidemocratic duplicity), millions of bucks to candidates, a large and self-forming media assault, and of course, the abuses of democracy by both judges and elected officials.

    It is revolting to my sense of decency that the infamous judge Vaughn Walker in the California Prop 8 case did NOT recuse himself from the case. . . as a man living in sin with another man and having an obvious self-interest in how the case would be “decided.”

    Have courage. Have hope. In the long run, the people win. The important thing is to withstand the lies and continue to point to the truth.

  • Guest

    I have posted here before and feel the heat from the “accepting” Progressive Left. I am Gay but live absolutely according to my Catholic Faith. More and more I see articles and hear from other Catholics about how my opposition to Gay Marriage is nothing more than hate speech. When I remind them that their beliefs stop where my Catholic Faith and the door to my Church starts, I am often surprised by their response; that I am hateful and not hearing Pope Francis or the Synod of Bishops. I am not budging regarding my Catholic Faith! This article has given me some great new ideas of how to counter their arguments. Thank you!!

  • I don’t know, sometimes it all just sounds like a big fight over a word. Yes, it’s a little inconvenient that we must now say “sacramental marriage” when we used to be able to just say “marriage.” But in some ways, maybe it’s okay when the outward forms of government are allowed to conform with the mind of the population being governed. It’s more honest. I’m not sure I give two cents for the maintenance of a public language that doesn’t reflect where the people using it really are. Now definitely I would draw a very bright line at the issues raised here about freedom of religion and freedom of speech. But can mere language – when divorced from actual practice – teach our children anything but hypocrisy? Isn’t it better to let the truth of the matter appear in perfect clarity: that if we want our children to follow the ways of virtue — then WE’RE the ones who are going to have to teach it to them. Society — if it ever could — certainly not longer can. Unless I’m deluded about where the public actually stands on this?

  • Capgen

    Now I know that the pro-equality side is going win, when you resort to Calling you opponents Nazis you are finished.

    • GG

      When they act like Nazis then the name fits.

      • Capgen

        Really, the nazis committed mass industrialized murder of entire populations and destroyed the lives of millions. American asking for equal treatment under Civil law are not in anyway harming you or your religion. If you perceive it as such that is not their problem. Other Christian churches gladly marry gay people by the way.

        • Tim Danaher

          Do you honestly think that the militant homosexual organizations will stop once so-called SSM is legalized? They will not! They will use government might to force the Catholic Church to perform these invalid marriages. The real question is, will our bishops fold under this pressure or stand for the Truth?

          Keep in mind that the gay rights movement initially sought social acceptance, now they want cultural conquest. ThIs is what happens when and society compromises with evil.

          • CadaveraVeroInnumero

            And, how will they do that/

            By mustering the homophile fifth column already well entrenched within the Church. The temptation for them to go along – be armed by law and social pressure – will be irresistible. For the end game, for them, is that most intoxicating of wants – power.

            Look, upon the horizon, for the bonfires piled high with faggots. The glow you see is glowering upon us from 15th Century Florence. Savonarola was no tied to the stake for noting, So sad, though, that the fires will be stoked by Catholic homophiles (new and old).

          • Relentless ferocity, once ignited, is extremely difficult to extinguish until it consumes everything in its path.

        • GG

          The homofascists are murdering reputations, souls, and minds. They are imposing their immoral ideology on society.

          They are not asking for “equal” treatment. They have that now. They are demanding all call circles square and wrong as right.

        • You aren’t asking for “equal treatment”, you are asking to insist that the law enforce a delusion.

          • Capgen

            I am not gay by the way, I have been married for thirty five years to same woman and have raised children to adulthood. I know enough gay people and couples to know that this is about equal treatment under the civil law. What you call a delusion is a reality the fact that it offends you is not my problem, and of zero legal significance.

            • No one said you were gay. I couldn’t care less about your declarations, because internet assertions are unverifiable, especially when you emerge ex-nihilo and post under anonymity rather than pseudononymity.

              If you want to suspend judgment of reality because an echo chamber of tyrants says it is so, have at it. That same esteemed Court has a pretty lurid record of accomodating evil and stupid (Plessy V. Ferguson, Buck v. Bell, Korematsu, Roe, Kelo). They’ve held the position that insurance is not interstate commerce (Paul v. Virginia) and that it is the same (Southest(ERN?) Underwiters case).

              It is a delusion that sodomy and intercourse are equal, and your inability to distinguish the two IS your problem, since it betrays impaired judgement.

            • GG

              Unequals must be treated unequally as a matter of justice.

              We do not say circles are square just because we think it ought to be that way.

              The Civil law must be just and grounded in reason and truth not moral relativism and hedonism.

              • Capgen

                Your “unequals” are citizens of this country. Thanks for showing your true colors, you are indeed religious bigots. In June, this should be over for good, there will be no plausible political or legislative options left for the pro-ban if the SCOTUS upholds the overturning of the bans.

                • GG

                  Citizens who claim perversion is a right have no standing. Two men pretending to be “married” are in no possible way equal to a man and woman who are married. There is no “right” to a pretend marriage. Those are my true colors. I stand with our Lord and with right reason.

                  SCOTUS has been very wrong in the past and can be very wrong again. When men and women in black dresses who reason like brutes then we get the tyranny we have coming now.

                  Sin darkens our intellect and hardens our heart.

                • Kaiser Bill’s Robin

                  We’re not bigots. We’re Catholics.
                  Deal with it.

                • michael susce

                  Exactly, just like SCOTUS upheld segregation….oh wait….

            • Kaiser Bill’s Robin


            • Joan61

              You are courageous, Capgen. Thank you.

            • asmondius

              Men and women are equal?

          • GG

            Right, but the problem seems to be the delusional are not aware they are deluded.

        • Paul

          Do you think equal rights and treatment should also be accorded to the incests, the pedophiles and any other paraphiles ? Cos they too are just other forms of love, sexual attractions & preferences or orientations ?

        • michael susce

          Quote; “mass industrialized murder…….and destroyed the lives of millions”. Abortion. Equal treatment…..depending on location.
          “not in anyway harming you or your religion”….That is the point of the article…it is harming by loss of jobs and businesses.

        • asmondius

          Tell that to the former Fire Chief of Atlanta….

    • Jim D.

      The pro-equality side??? As Orwell has observed time and again, ” [I]n our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible.” Also, ” … if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” The “invasion of one’s mind by ready-made phrases can only be prevented if one is
      constantly on guard against them, and every such phrase anaesthetizes a portion of the brain.” And finally, [W]hoever tries to imagine perfection simply reveals his own emptiness.” The problem with the term equality is that it exists in the limited sense of equality before the law, or it doesn’t exist at all, or devolves into a form of coercion utterly devoid of content. Which is what has been the dominant trend in its use , equality for equality sake, without precedent, context or limitation. A euphemism, limited only by the limitless uses a legal positivist can make of it.

    • A new troll, and no animal pseudonym…

      • St JD George

        I was just wondering where the Frog and Bear were in coming to defend the contrarian view (maybe the populous view now).

    • JP

      If the shoe fits, wear it. Perhaps it would be more accurate to call the gay activists fascists.

    • Augustus

      So what do YOU call people who behave like Nazis?

      Actually, the author did not explicitly call gay activists “Nazis.” You would know that if you bothered to read the article. It’s clear you didn’t because the author addressed your claim about civil rights. That’s not the point. It’s about marginalizing and punishing opponents of homosexuality, or silencing opposition and compelling conformity to the homosexual agenda. You would know that if you bothered to read the article rather than just look at the graphic.

    • beyond partisan

      The terms “gaystapo” and “gay mafia” did not come about because the LGBT movement was tolerant of traditionalists.

      • Capgen

        Both are made up gibberish terms. They have simply overturned laws that directly, and specifically, were designed to limit their rights to equal treatment under the civil marriage laws. And yes thay are not tolerant of you because you go out of your way to limit their equality. They have now beaten you at there is nothing you can realistically do about it. In the end nothing changes for you, gay people have been getting msarried for a decade and your side has not provided any evidence if a larger harm in dozens of courtroom opportunities. It is all but over now. Come June, should the SCOTUS affirm the lower courts you will have zero options. And if you say society collapse has result, then that is just how it will be (not that it will). I actually met one of the judges who decided one these cases this year. He said the opponents in his court basically claimed that the “world would end” (his summation, not their actual words). He said, yeah right, and ruled in favor of lifting the ban.

        • GG

          The world no longer recognizes evil. Your post proves it.

          • Capgen

            It is simply true that if the SCOTUS rules in June to uphold the lower courts the entire matter is settled in terms of civil marriage. There is no realistic possibility of changing the US Constitution to change things back as you simply do not have the votes now, and support for SSM is only growing so it will only get harder. SSM has an issue fades quickly after it’s been around for awhile. The next generation of young adults strongly support marriage equality so the GOP has all but dropped it as a hot button issue.

            • asmondius

              Support is actually dwindling because the strident activists have overplayed their hand. Why do you think young people use the word ‘gay’ as a synonym for ‘dumb’?

        • asmondius

          They have not ‘beaten’ anyone.

          • Capgen

            Umm, they won thirty plus case in us courts in the last two years and overturned the marriage ban in dozens of states. As of today, gays are getting married in 35 states. In June, it is likely the SCOTUS will uphold the decisions of multiple Federal District courts and forever overturn state level bans on SSM. So they have indeed will completed defeated efforts to prevent SSM.
            Your only option will be to amend the US Constitution, which is next to impossible. Once the court rules, all local officials will have to comply, and will. So yes, you have been defeated in the sense that the religious right set off twenty years ago to proactively prevent gays from getting married. And now nearly 100% of the dozens of legal barriers erected in that cause are gone and cannot be brought back.

            • asmondius

              They have only fooled themselves – they can’t even consummate their so-called ‘marriages’.

    • Marcia Cohen

      I agree with you. Comparing everyone who disagrees with you to a Nazi greatly reduces credibility, as does using such a strident, apocalyptic, “the sky is falling” tone. As a Jewish woman, I also find the use of the swastika to illustrate the article extremely offensive.

      • asmondius

        How about ‘bigo’, ‘homophobe’, ‘hater’, ‘breeder’.

        Do those words maker you feel any better?

      • Augustus

        I should not have to remind you that Jews were not the only victims of Nazi violence. The effort by some Jews to claim ownership of the swastika is therefore unjustified. If the graphic had a hammer and sickle, gay activists would either accuse Crisis of McCarthyism or take it as a compliment. Might as well go with the most powerful image.

    • asmondius

      How about when you call them ‘phobes?

  • Sgt_Rock

    ‘For those willing to stand for their faith, I think ‘dying by the inch’ will rapidly evolve in to ‘death by the sword.

    An excellent point.

    As a good friend of mine put, ‘For now, the martyrdom is white.’ The Chik-fil-a kerfuffle, the CEO of Mozillabeing forced to resign etc…; these are the literally bloodless examples of martyrdom inflicted by the totalitarian Gestapo in their quest to not only
    normalize the abnormal, but control the very way the issue is (not) discussed
    and thought about. Screaming, invective laden outrage is the done thing at the very mention of a contrary opinion, which means that the holder of that opinion becomes the enemy to be eradicated in the eyes of their own society and their own children. With churches being vandalized and things like the City of Houston’s lesbian mayor demanding the sermons of pastors, Kristallnacht is already upon us. It’s not a far
    stretch once the ‘right’ legally enshrined and the indoctrination complete for
    the martyrdom to turn bloody. The veryperson lighting the fire under your stake may be your neighbor or God forbid, your own child.

    Hyperbole? Less and less so by the day.

  • Glenn M. Ricketts

    You also don’t really need to wonder where “Catholics” such as Pelosi, Biden, Cuomo or the Kennedy family will be when the going gets rough – they’re already there.

  • cestusdei

    Relativism is ALWAYS a dictatorship.

    • pescher

      In a democracy the government is afraid of the people; in totalitarianism the people fear the government. I would add that the profound changes in formerly normative beliefs shows that we should be afraid to-day. My own opinion is that we who profess to oppose these ideologies are too timid thus have allowed them to become the status quo and those who aren’t sure and have some questions but are too afraid to look into ‘the abyss’ thus have allowed them to become the status quo.

      • Guenther Wolegaz

        Not timid: impuissant. The Gramscians and their ilk (a TINY minority) have all the money and the power, and they practice nepotism to boot in hiring, thereby creating an endless intellectual and political incest that perpetuates and proliferates their agenda.

  • St JD George

    Hard to read this and not be touched in some way. What was said remains between them thankfully, but obviously our Pontiff was touched by Diego’s letter, and story.

    • GG

      Diego is a woman?

      • St JD George

        Is … was … something like that.

        • GG

          Yes, so one of the article I found says they want to start a “family” now. The relationship is so illicit that it defies reason.

          • St JD George

            I can’t get inside the mind of one who electively undergoes this procedure. I can’t get inside the mind of one who electively commits sodomy for that matter either. I don’t doubt that for some there are genuine demons battling for control of the mind and soul.

            • GG

              Perhaps the next Synod of the family will call for more formal exorcisms? One can wish.

              • St JD George

                That was a word that crossed my mind I’ll freely admit.

    • The real news will be when the Pope meets with a small business owner or an investment banker.

      • St JD George

        Any better than his address to the international association of accountants?

        • We’ll find out, if it ever happens.

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    QUOTE: “Virtually every homosexual is inordinately preoccupied with his own
    childhood. Childhood and puberty are the most dynamic periods of
    psycho-sexual development and all homosexuals puzzle over their

    Refreshing. Truth simply stated. Did Ms. Eve T. address this in her book briefing us on all things “gay” and all things Catholic, and the twinning of the two?

    Rarely – these days – in this discussion do we talk about the most fundamental fact about homosexuality: how one becomes one; how it enters into one’s life. Avoiding this question is a kindness to no one – let alone the truth.

    We do avoid such questions when discussing any other quirk and twist of mankind. How one becomes a pederast is very much a fundamental question in society’s “dealing wqith the issue”. And urgent. The professional literature answering that question is piled high; and, allowing room for perspectives from various disciplines, the answer firms around the positive – yes, we do know how pedophilia comes about, enters into one’s life. Now with the smashing movie thriller, “50 Shades of Grey”, soon upon us, one can say the same about B&D/S&M. The etiology of the sexual need to beat and to be beaten (to seek sexual bondage, and to give it) is (should be) a grave concern for us. So why not homosexuality? Why is (how did) homosexuality become a “privileged” expression of sex? (As if sex, as such, is play-dough to be pounded and shaped at will – a child’s will!)

    • Tim Danaher

      My father-in-law has a saying, “Since homosexuals can’t reproduce, they have to recruit”. Not very politically correct, but true with some impressionable adolescents.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

    The notion, entertained by its supporters, that SSM will produce a unisex institution of marriage, with identical rights and incidents for same-sex and opposite-sex couples is false in fact.

    Despite the recent efforts of the French National Assembly, a leading jurist has analysed the result of their labours as follows:

    “It is necessary, since the law of 19th May 2013 (2013-404) opening marriage to persons of the same sex, to distinguish two marriages:-

    1. The union freely agreed to, of a man and a woman in order to found a family. Only this marriage between a man and a woman affects filiation (Title VII of Book I of the Civil Code) [This is a reference to Art 314 of the Civil Code, “The child conceived or born during the marriage has the husband for father”]

    2. The union, freely agreed to, between two persons of the same sex, which permits them, within the limits of the appreciation of the interests of the child by the administration and then the judge, to adopt (Title VIII of Book I of the Civil Code) the child of one of them, or a ward of the State or, subject to what is permitted by conventions between states, a foreign child.”

    Marriage equality, even in the hands of its proponents, reveals itself to be an illusion.

    “Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret.”

  • Elat

    Very well written. The explosive intolerance displayed by adherents to this social engineering at the price of, of course, children, is off the rails. And when we already see religious freedom trampled as much as we see now, so fast, everywhere this is happening, what on earth is to come? We are truly living in the anti-Christ era.

  • 5768

    Thirty years ago we heard the outrage “Why would anyone CHOOSE to be a persecuted minority as are gays!” mainly in response to challenges by Jerry Falwell. This false logic (false as people choose all manner of destructive lifestyles such as remaining in abusive relationships or self-administration of drugs, etc) has currently come to lodge itself in pseudoscientific genetic and deterministic arguments seeking to align being irrevocably born female or born black with being irrevocably born as ‘gay.’ There are increasingly many who accept this flimsy notion as fact. That following up one’s childhood inclinations including cultivating them over time into an assembled jigsaw which constitutes a monolithic homosexual identity belies the multiple sociosexual behaviors and fragmented characteristics seen in any supposedly monolithic gay parade: dykes on bikes, leathermen, the B&D and S&M clubs, etc., ad infinitum, fragmented groups often repulsed by others claiming to belong to the group were it not for the secondary gain of spousal benefits. Identity politicking endemic to the gay movement has no civil rights basis in the historical sense of women’s rights, or black rights.

    There are a great many men who work hard to convince themselves they are heterosexual (men doing manly things at the gym, choosing manly professions, swaggering mannily…) just as there are a great many who work hard to convince themselves they are homosexual (gay bars, gay dances, repeated anonymous homosexual encounters). Similarly, there are a great many young men who have difficulty fitting into masculine roles who therefore “assume” they MUST be gay. Critical thinking on these matters has succumbed to popular politics.

    • Exton

      What? Your comment is rambling. There is no such thing as “There are a great many men who work hard to convince themselves they are heterosexual” BS that comment sounds more like Liberal Propaganda used to confuse the issue. There is also nothing as a “gay gene” if there were you would see the same number of gays in different races, you don’t. There are “0” homosexuals in Hasidic Jews. There are MANY cases of people who just stopped being homosexual.
      Turns out that something like 90% of homosexuals were molested by a same sex person at an early age.
      It appears that being homosexual is a life choice caused by confusion at an early age. So why should society change so that 0.033% of the population can feel good about their perversion?

      • 5768

        You won’t find mention of a gay gene in my post, although you try to put one there.

        And, yes, masculine insecurity does assume a great many forms as I indicate, including casting about to try out a variety of subject positions, be they heterosexual or homosexual, for a variety of highly individual reasons.

        • RufusChoate

          Ahh no.

          • 5768

            You are not a clinician, are you.

            • RufusChoate

              Neither are you. You’re barely literate.

              • 5768


  • Superimposing a Swastika over a Rainbow Flag seems a bit much. It’s not like Gay people were telling Straight people that THEY shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

    • Hezekiah Pipstraw

      It was Almighty God who made Adam and Eve (i.e. man and woman), not Adam and Steve.
      But, hey! I would not put it past Western legislators to abuse their positions by making it illegal for heterosexuals to marry, own property, vote in elections and referenda… don’t tell me that what I’ve just written is insane! It’ll happen if the lunatics keep their tight grip on the asylum.

      • Toadspittle

        Quite right, Hezekiah. You just go on raving like that. Does the “gay’ case the world of good. Makes it easy for “gays’ to say, “See? People who oppose us are spouting insane gibberish – take no notice of them.”

        • Joan61

          Mirror, mirror on the wall. Paranoid raving is the norm here.

          • Toadspittle

            Don’t be so hard on yourself, Joan. It’s only religion.

            • Joan61

              Thank you for your concern, but it’s not necessary.
              I am neither paranoid nor raving, but the relentless cultural tendency to misogynistic humiliation of women by calling us crazy, unbalanced, etc., calls for a strong response. Which I am glad to give. Somebody poked the bear, and they actually thought I would be humiliated and allow them to silence me.
              What is found here may be a form of religion, but I’ve seen very little evidence of spiritual wisdom, and less of faith.
              Don’t worry I will go away shortly, back to thinking people whose wisdom heals the heart.

          • Toadspittle

            Sorry Joan, my reply was too quick and too glib.
            It’s just when we are subjected to a barrage of head-holding and moaning hysteria about “gay” marriage – with large swastikas displayed – End Of Civilised Life As We Know It – and God knows what all else, it’s easy to start thinking the world is even madder than usual. And it was mad enough to start with.

            • Joan61

              Kudos. This place doesn’t include many people who share the overall perspective and demonstrate there are acceptable limits to crazy, which after all doesn’t win arguments.
              The world has always been mad. But the current madness is by design.

    • GG

      Makes no sense. It would be like telling sighted people to make themselves blind. It is nonsense.

      • Toadspittle

        No it’s not. All you have to do is close your eyes. Then try walking about without falling over the cat.

    • Augustus

      Chuck, here’s the difference. It’s one thing for the state to allow homosexuals to shack up for the rest of their lives–which it now does. And if they want civil accommodation on financial, medical matters, etc, that can be accomplished easily without COMPELLING people to APPROVE of that lifestyle. In Canada, dissenters are legally punished. It’s not enough to live and let live. Critics of homosexuality must approve of it, and facilitate it, or be forced into silence or bankruptcy. That is also happening here although the first amendment poses some obstacles to the gay agenda that Canadian activists need not worry about. It’s not about rights, its about having the state endorse homosexuality as normal and punish those who object. (I’m sure you think that homosexuality is “normal,” but in a free society you can’t compel people to agree with you.)


        I’m sure you’ll never consider homosexuality “normal,” and that’s OK. I’m not under any illusions that I could ever convince you otherwise.

        Nevertheless, law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples will soon be legally able to marry in all 50 states. I’m very confident that SCOTUS will determine that there is no Constitutional argument to be made for denying Gay couples the same legal benefits and opportunities that Straight couples have always taken for granted.

        But 10 years ago, when Gay couples were being forced to subsidize the benefits of marriage while being unable to take part in those same incentives to marry, you didn’t hear US screaming about Straight people shouldn’t be allowed to marry. Who DOESN’T support “traditional” (i.e. heterosexual) marriage? If any of my single Straight friends finds a compatible person of the opposite sex to marry, no one will be happier than me. The fact that I support marriage equality for Gay couples doesn’t mean I oppose “traditional” marriage for Straight couples.

        • asmondius

          You can’t support and undermine at the same time.

    • RufusChoate

      See above. The Nazis were very welcoming to Homosexuals before achieving power when the second in command Ernst Rohm was purged. Fascism has all had a significant Homosexual taint to it complete with a strong homoerotic mythos in its art and representation.

    • asmondius

      Calling people ‘homophobes’ seems ‘a bit much’ as well.

  • JRR

    Yes, Prof. Bissonnette, the fungus that is evil has seen explosive growth in the hothouse of technology-plagued middle earth. Evil spirits, disguised in the cloak of diversity have infiltrated our fortesses and are crawling about our public places, including well-intentioned websites such as this. The orks do appear poised to batter down the gates with their phallus-shaped rams. Your characterization is correct: it is all about the power to subjigate and enslave in sin. But we know that evil cannot be fully defeated this side of Heaven, until He comes again. We can only catch an occassional glimpse of the fiinal victory that he has already won for us. There is a happy ending. We do not fear death by the inch or by the sword because we know that death is a gift of God. We know the whole of human existence is a permanently recurring struggle against seemingly unconquerable evil. But, thanks to the “happy fault of Adam” we are spared the elvish existence of living the Long Defeat trapped in immortal bodies. Please continue to fight the Good Fight, Brave Knight. We pray for you and your family, especially your children: St. Michael the Archangel, protect them in battle against the snares and wickedness of the devil.

  • richado

    Once again, as Mussolini said:

    “The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its
    essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is
    absolute, individuals and groups relative.”

    “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”

    Sound familiar? Only the details have changed but essence is the same as to what is happening now.

  • thebigdog

    In countries where “gay marriage” has been legal for several years, fewer than 5% of the homosexual population has actually gotten married. All of the rhetoric about “love” and “committed relationships” is a ruse — these are emotionally damaged people who are a strange combination of unhappy and attention starved.

    • I see. So not only do you think that Gay people comprise only 2% of the population, only 5% of THEM have any desire to get married to begin with. And YET, that one-tenth of one percent of the population will be singlehandedly responsible for the downfall of human civilization.

      We must be blessed with superpowers or something.

      • RufusChoate

        That was all it took to debase the 2000 year old tradition of respect for the Catholic Priesthood in the West.

      • thebigdog

        “And YET, that one-tenth of one percent of the population will be
        single handedly responsible for the downfall of human civilization.”

        Where did I say that? When did I say anything even remotely close to that? The continuous disingenuous projections and straw man arguments along with the hyper sensitivity do not do you folks any favors.

        The burden of proof in on you… why all the hysteria from homosexuals for decades demanding the right to get married, when in fact, fewer than 5% of homosexuals will actually get “married” and of them, a significant percentage will only live in “monogamish” relationships? My belief is that the internal angst is so great that it must be addressed, and the easiest way to address it sans personal accountability, is through the prism of victimhood.

      • Joan61

        Sometimes I am completely amazed at our superpowers. If only it were true.

      • asmondius

        When you dismantle ancient societal institutions, the numbers involved are irrelevant. The levers of power are never controlled by multitudes.

  • suthulapee kolipee

    maybe they might legalize marriage between a man and his pig, or a woman and her dog, the effects of original sin

    • Toadspittle

      “A dog looks up to you, a cat looks down on you; but a pig treats you like an equal.” – Winston Churchill. There’s a comforting thought, Suthulapee.
      Not sure a pig would stoop so low as to marry a human being, though. Even a same-sex pig.

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    So now in the United States Gay (Multiple-Partner, Incestuous, Inter-Generational) Marriages will have their day in court – sometime this June – and win big.

    Unstoppable really. Which is why one doesn’t hear the tocsin bells ringing – for the mustering of the Catholic faithful to battle – in every city and hamlet.

    Gay (and all the rest) Marriage will, as the author suggested, have, in its own way, a more menacing effect on the culture than abortion. That day in in June will become its own Roe vs Wade.

    Now, will the pro-life forces do a second annual march on Washington, and assorted state population centers, to mark the anniversaries of its passage as they do for Roe? Will the Catholic bishops encourage this massing of the faithful?

    The first will try, the second won’t. But when the state demand that churches perform same-sex and multiple-partner marriages. Maybe then the Church hierarchy pour into the streets and man the barricades. Doubt it.

    In June, this year, it’s all over with, folks. The only question remaining is, How then should we live?

    I say, in rebellion. In deviance. Even if it means relinquishing parish buildings, of having our parish and diocesan accounts levied for payment of the inevitable fines and judgments, and, most gladly, even if it means handing back (it will simply be took) our tax-exempt status as religious organizations. Chuck it all.

    Most likely, for refusing to be politically correct about homosexuality [and, mind you, our upcoming final Family Synod memorandum of understanding will not satisfy, be enough red meat to satiate the jackbooted wolves[ it may mean that the new cathedral in Los Angeles will be put on the auction block. But, to rid ourselves of that ugliness, would be a blessing, and worth a Te Deum in the catacomb woods.

    How, then, shall we live? (Though the question was originally Lenin’s!) For starters . . .

    Bishops can take second jobs as abbots of property poor monasteries; priests and other religious can be housed in our spare bedrooms. Our children can be pulled from *all* public schooling. Dads and moms can be willing to relinquish all employment licensing where compromise is required to retain hem.

    The television and internet can be unplugged. (Sorry EWTN and Crisis.) We can go samizdat.

    Or, now that the Russian Parliament has picked up the habit of affirming Christianity in all its legislation, we can ask around for good realtors in Moscow! (Or, China, if the rumors are hinting correctly, that it may be soon give Christianity full reign to run rampant, turning China into the largest Christian nation in history!)

    As for Catholic schools and universities, most of them are goners anyway – or else they would have been erecting the barricades against the totalitarian state long ago. They didn’t (couldn’t) because they had refused to build barricades against the totalitarian (post-modernist) *culture* long time passing.

    Now, how does Franciscan Mercy come into play in all of this? It doesn’t, except for prayers for our persecutors.

    Where is Rome in all of this? What will Pope Francis do in September when he lands upon our shores?

    [As always, coming to you from the BANKRUPT Diocese of Stockton, the Mother Lode. Poor San Andreas.]

  • Akira88

    This fight the rabid homosexuals have is with God. More and more it becomes more apparent this is a fight between God and the nether world. I’m afraid if this passes and we are deterred from discussing it any further, if our priests and bishops will be forced into this silence, there isn’t anything that separates us from Sodom & Gomorrah.

    • Toadspittle

      ” This fight the rabid homosexuals have is with God.”
      Very well put, Akira88. The rest of us, including Mr. Bissonnette and his foolish swastika, would be wiser to keep our fat noses out of it. …And get on with something sensible.

      • asmondius

        All that is required for evil to thrive…..

  • Susan

    All Just Laws have to promote “public Virtue” and not immoral, vile use of the human body. Sodomy is a Vice and should never be promoted to children by forcing Evil into our “Justice” (virtue) System which is based on Natural Law and God’s Laws ONLY. No other “worldview is compatible with American Jurisprudence which requires Reason—not lies about human sexuality.

  • Rosemary58

    Last year 3,000 American renounced their citizenship, for various reasons – but that number is three times those who renounced in 2011. It’s a small number but a significant one. Clearly the advantages to having American citizenship are waning.

    This commentary highlights the censorship that comes from bias. It is dangerous, and it affects everyone. Britain and France have the same issues. Any Catholic could be charged with a hate crime for articulting Catholic teaching. In fact, this article, um, nevermind.

  • beyond partisan

    “but in the new SSM regime these simple and obvious truths must be appended with a caveat saying that there is no such thing as nature, human sexuality is plastic” – Correction: In a strange paradox, the LBGT lobby denies any such plasticity – according to them, being “gay” is something you are born with and cannot change, and being transgender is also something you are born with (even if it is in the “mind”) and also cannot change, which is why they push for sex changes instead of therapy. The “gaystapo” must make gay/transgenderism something that is not a choice in order to deny the free speech of people who believe it is a psychological issue (or just plain sin).

  • Toadspittle

    The irony of the swastika on the rainbow flag is that Hitler put gays (pink star) in concentration camps along with Jews (yellow star). No doubt Mr Bissonnette would approve.
    Not one word here, in the article or the replies, about tolerance. I’m not gay, and I don’t care what they do in private. And if they are mad enough to want to get “married,” that’s their hard luck. It’s easy to tolerate the things we approve of, isn’t it? Not so easy to do the same when we disapprove.
    But that’s what we must do, in the Open Society. Incidentally the Muslim lunatics (viz Charlie Hebdo) would agree with Mr Bissonnette and Hitler, for sure.

    • GG

      Among the many errors in your post one stands out especially. Children have rights! To offer license as freedom allows innocents to suffer greatly. It is unjust.

      • Toadspittle

        Where did I say children have no rights, GG? Of course they do. I did myself, when I was one.
        But so do “gays.”
        We must all learn to give and take a bit.

        • GG

          One children are placed with two men pretending to be married you have violated their rights.

          • Toadspittle

            Be pragmatic, GG.
            Maybe it’s better to be raised by two sober, abstemious, gay men than one drug-crazed, alcoholic single mother. Depends, doesn’t it? Like everything.

            • asmondius

              Got it:

              homosexual men = superior to women

              • Toadspittle

                That’s too imbecile to bother answering.

                • asmondius

                  Then my thought matched your sentiment exactly.

            • GG

              Nope. That is a false choice.

              • Toadspittle

                Well, then you must explain why, GG. Or it’s just silly. There are those who say when “gays” enter into a stable “marriage” situation, they are actually strengthening the institution of marriage.
                I don’t know, myself. Don’t much care, either. I just think people should, within reason, be allowed do what they choose.
                Of course, it then depends on each of our particular ideas of what constitutes “reason.” And whether plastering the joint with Nazi symbols was an appropriate reaction to the question of “gay marriage.”
                …I believe it was not.

    • RufusChoate

      The history of sexual Minorities in the parties of the fascistic Left is considerable more complex than you would have us believe.

      For your education: One example

      The SA was considered a collection of violent sociopaths and homosexuals within the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, NSDAP.

      Rohm’s purge on the night of the long knives had more to do with him being a threat to Hitler’s power and position within the NSDAP than anything about his or his Storm Trooper’s Homosexuality. Rohm the Homosexual completely controlled the SA as the paramilitary wing of the NSDAP.

      Had Rohm won the contest for party leadership, the outcome would have been the same with the final solution but the number of effeminate homosexuals spared.

      • Toadspittle

        Well, Rufus, I bow to your superior knowledge of Nazi nuance. Clearly some sort of absorbing hobby. And we must think ourselves (although not the effeminate homosexuals) lucky that Rohm got snuffed.
        “Had Rohm won the contest for party leadership, the outcome would have been the same with the final solution but the number of effeminate homosexuals spared.”

        …”Had” being the weasel word here.
        Had my Aunt Fanny possessed a set of male genitalia, she’d have been my Uncle Fred.
        And that kind of twaddle doesn’t excuse the nasty connotation of the swastika logo atop this comment. And the “gays’ in the death camps. Does it?

        • RufusChoate

          The term effeminate was directly from Himmler’s comments on the problem in the S.S. which had a very similar composition of homosexuals but he prefered the hyper-masculine type rather their effeminate/immature/boyish counterparts.

          Actually I have studied the left in all of its permutation not merely the National Socialists and found that the Bolsheviks and Italian Fascists have exactly the same line of development from early acceptance and integration of sexual minorities into the movement then either purges or submersion of them in power struggles.

          The salient point is Ernst Rohm was a mass murdering sociopath just like Hitler and would have engaged in the same eliminationist methods as Hitler but he might or might not have been more circumspect in the start of the war by invading Poland and later the Soviets.

          Did you read the Huffington post article? It details even contemporary Fascistic homosexual movements.

  • Toadspittle

    “Virtually every homosexual is inordinately preoccupied with his own childhood.”

    Well, that clearly depends on what we mean by “preoccupation,” doesn’t it? Not to mention what we mean by “inordinate.” Who’s to draw the line? Aren’t all “normal” people preoccupied somewhat with their childhood?
    Ultimately we, each of us, have got to put up with a lot of things which are not to our taste. That is liberal democracy. Object by all means. Vote like mad. That’s allowed too.

    • asmondius

      Like abortion?

  • Toadspittle

    “…same-sex “marriage” is… ….perhaps the single most audacious social engineering initiative in American history.” … tell that to Uncle Tom. He may suggest slavery’s abolition. How about Votes for Women? Chopped liver?

    • JGradGus

      I think your sarcasm is a bit misplaced here. The issue is ‘same-sex marriage’ and its effect on the country’s culture, not homosexuality per se. Slavery was also the abolishment of an evil, not the acceptance of one, so that does not qualify as social engineering. Giving women the right to vote was also doing away with an injustice, as opposed to the legal approval something that is intrinsically disordered. It all comes down to Biology 101. All behaviors are either intrinsic or learned. There is
      no ‘gay gene,’ so homosexuality is a learned behavior.

  • ansonia

    Mr Bissonnette,

    In the third paragraph, I think you meant to write….

    “……But something very significant happened with the legalization of same sex marriage in Canada….”

    You left out “same sex”, I think.

    Would you please correct that so that I can post your article on my Facebook page ?


  • James

    Yep. The State’s claim to dissolve marriages in secret courts against the wishes of one spouse is another trait of this diabolical development. Not only that, but to reward the deserter and persecute the objector by stealing his/her children, assets and finally if they don’t acquiesce, their freedom in sham courts bereft of all due process. Smells a bit like end times to me.

  • Bruno

    “But the sad truth is that most of us die by the inch rather than the
    sword, and this we knew in our heart of hearts, and so many of us came
    to despise ourselves and give up. The legalization of same-sex
    “marriage” in Canada has decimated the social conservative movement.”

    Sad indeed.

  • Scyptical Chymist

    “The legalization of same-sex “marriage” does not bring with it the innocent blood which cries to heaven”

    In the old catechism was there not a question ?

    “What are the four sins crying to heaven for vengeance?
    Ans: The four sins crying to heaven for vengeance are –

    Wilful murder
    — — — —–
    — I’lll leave you to complete (or look up)

    It seems our modern touchy-feely false ecumenical clergy are loth to remind us of this. No wonder the secular liberals are surprised when the “liberal” Pope starts backpedalling – the next thing he will be doing is restoring the Latin rite and reprinting the old catechism. Don’t hold your breath.

  • Miserere

    Cardinal George was lambasted for his remarks comparing gay rights activists to the KKK (for which he rightly apologized). While we can express legitimate concern about policy and its implications for religious freedom and for the rights of citizens, it seems terribly offensive to use the Nazi sign over a rainbow flag, given that we just celebrated the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. Crisis Magazine FAIL. Shame on them!

    • GG

      Failure to recognize evil today seems to be too prevalent.

    • The goal of the article is to show that the secular progressive rulers of this day are using homosexuals and the issue of same-sex marriage to eliminate the value and truth of traditional marriage as the core and stable center of healthy and prosperous cultures and societies. They seek to eliminate marriage altogether. In other words, they are controlling the narrative to fit their goals, truth be damned! This is exactly what the Nazi propagandists did in the 1930’s to the Jews. The swastika is spot on!

  • PJParks


  • “The legalization of same-sex “marriage” is not about allowing something; same-sex “marriage” was already taking place. It was not about recognizing something; spousal and survivor benefits, family tax incentives and any other advantages to marriage were being or could have been granted without calling it marriage.”

    So let’s say the Supreme Court ruled that Straight couples could get “married,” Gay couples could get “civil unions,” but other than the different terminology, both arrangements would have exactly the same legal benefit and protections, at all levels of government, as required under the 14th Amendment. And let’s say the Court also said the “Full Faith & Credit Clause” applied to marriages and civil unions equally and were honored in all 50 states. Would you have a problem with that?

    Remember, there would not be language police roaming around telling Gay couples in civil unions that they could not refer to one another as “married.” For all intents and purposes they WOULD be married, except for a purely legal designation. So I have to wonder: Is it really only the word “marriage” that matters to people?

    And if it’s just the word “marriage” that people are concerned about, why is it that “civil unions” are fought as viciously against by organizations like the Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage?

    • GG

      Civil union is simply aping marriage. That, too, should be opposed.

    • papagan

      “For all intents and purposes they WOULD be married, except for a purely legal designation.”

      I think that misses something important. To say that “[f]or all intents and purposes they WOULD be married” ignores the fact that the putative “marriage” would be nothing more than an illusion, to apply a name to a social arrangement which does not objectively warrant the designation. If I wear a chimpanzee suit, imitate the movements and sounds made by a chimpanzee, eat what a chimpanzee eats, encourage others to treat me like a chimpanzee, and I and others come to believe that I’m a chimpanzee, it does not follow that it would be objectively correct to maintain that I’m a chimpanzee. In such a case, to say that for all intents and purposes I WOULD be a chimpanzee, would be to miss something important.

      As a natural institution established by the divine Author of nature, marriage has its own proper nature. We cannot change that. Man-made laws cannot change that. No judicial fiat can change that. An objectively valid exchange of matrimonial vows is possible only between one man and one woman. Moreover, manhood and womanhood are not mere social constructs. They have a real, objective foundation in our psychosomatic constitutions. Modern medical technology cannot change that, despite attempts to bring about such changes. Hence, not even a “sex change” procedure can render a man and a man-to-“woman” capable of a valid exchange of matrimonial vows.

      Now, shifting to the realm of pure science fiction, if modern medical technology could so radically transform a male human person to the extent that (s)he could then be naturally impregnated, carry, and deliver a human child just like any other healthy woman, the resulting scenario would begin to appear quite confusing. As far as I can see, however, that is pure science fiction, and I don’t anticipate in the least that such a truly bizarre scenario would ever become fact.

      • joebissonnette

        Chuck you make a good point. My argument concedes everything short of the title “marriage” to same sex unions. And you’re also right that most opponents of same sex marriage (myself included) would continue to oppose same sex unions minus the title “marriage”. Papagan does an excellent job of replying to you as to why, and fleshing out what is an insufficiently developed point in my argument.
        I chose to make my argument against the appropriation of the term marriage rather than the normalization of homosexual relationships because it is the term marriage which will be at issue in the supreme court ruling and that is ground worth fighting for. It is important because the practical implication of including same sex relationships within marriage will be a foreclosing on the freedom to publicly discuss what marriage truly is and the true nature and purpose of sexuality.
        Be honest Chuck. The battle is not about your right to call your union marriage. It is about enacting laws that require that children be taught that homosexual unions are no different than heterosexual unions.

        • “The battle is not about your right to call your union marriage. It is about enacting laws that require that children be taught that homosexual unions are no different than heterosexual unions.”

          To what degree are children taught about heterosexual unions in school in the first place? Even when I was a public school student (circa 1964-1977), I was taught how to read, write, do math, etc. I don’t recall ever being taught about how heterosexual marriage was some kind of ideal.

          Kids these days don’t need to be taught such things. They’ll grow up having Gay friends, and as adults they socially interact with Gay couples. As a result they will simply know that, for people who ARE Gay, getting married to another compatible Gay person of the same sex is indeed normal.

          • papagan

            “To what degree are children taught about heterosexual unions in school in the first place? Even when I was a public school student (circa 1964-1977), I was taught how to read, write, do math, etc. I don’t recall ever being taught about how heterosexual marriage was some kind of ideal.”

            One of the problems today is that moral relativism is so pervasive in the public square. No true democracy can stand for very long on the shifting sands of moral relativism. Read Evangelium vitae

            “Kids these days don’t need to be taught such things. They’ll grow up having Gay friends, and as adults they socially interact with Gay couples. As a result they will simply know that, for people who ARE Gay, getting married to another compatible Gay person of the same sex is indeed normal.”

            First, kids need to be taught the difference between objective right and wrong, objective good and evil, not raised on the poison of moral relativism. Second, homoerotic acts are not “normal,” at least not in any moral sense of the term. Such acts are objectively disordered and contra naturam. They reflect an “anthropological regression,” if I may borrow a phrase from Pope Francis.

          • Kilo4/11

            “Cause we’re goin to the chapel
            and we’re gonna get married…”

            Number one for three weeks in 1964.

            Even in the ’70s Carly Simon had a huge hit with “That’s The Way I’ve Always Heard It Should Be”, (meaning getting married). Yeah, real marriage was taught as the ideal, and we aim to keep it that way.

          • asmondius

            Suggest you zoom forward from your childhood on this matter.

        • papagan

          “…it is the term marriage which will be at issue in the [SCOTUS] ruling and that is ground worth fighting for. It is important because the practical implication of including same[-]sex relationships within marriage will be a foreclosing on the freedom to publicly discuss what marriage truly is and the true nature and purpose of sexuality.”

          Even if SCOTUS rules in favor of modifying the traditional and proper meaning of the term “marriage,” the public discussion will not be entirely quashed. The Church will not stand by in silence.

          “The battle is not about your right to call your union marriage. It is about enacting laws that require that children be taught that homosexual unions are no different than heterosexual unions.”

          Indeed. If such totalitarian laws were to be enacted, this would constitute an unequivocal and unholy declaration of war. Make no mistake. There would most certainly be many Christians standing up to defend freedom of religion, including the freedom of Christian mothers and fathers to raise their own children in the truths of the Christian faith. That’s certainly a holy battle worth the price of martyrdom.

          • Capgen

            “The battle is not about your right to call your union marriage. It is about enacting laws that require that children be taught that homosexual unions are no different than heterosexual unions.”

            What does any of that have to do with civil marriage law? It’s not about a right to call something marriage, it is about the specific civil legal arrangement called marriage that automatically triggers all sorts of tax, benefits, obligations, visitation rights, etc. That is only thing at issue in US court.

            What you tell your kids about other people’s relationships is not at issue. People can teach their kids anything they want about marriage.

            You cannot stop marriage equality, the upcoming SCOTUS case is the endgame of a long struggle. If SCOTUS upholds the dozens of decisions of the majority of Federal District courts there will be no further legal battles possible. It will be cut a dry. All states will have to comply with the court’s decision immediately, and will.
            There is no plausible legal or legislative path to overturning such a SCOTUS decision as the only path is changing the Constitution itself. And you do not have the 2/3’s majority of congress.

            • papagan

              The problem is much more serious than you seem to recognize. Read Russell Hittinger, “The End of Democracy? A Crisis of Legitimacy” All believers should read Dr. Hittinger’s excellent essay. All believers need to wake up and understand the ideological whirlwind that will soon completely overturn our free society if we fail to change course very soon. Indeed, the swastika is an appropriate symbol to flag the present crisis.

            • papagan

              “[1] What you tell your kids about other people’s relationships is not at issue. [2] People can teach their kids anything they want about marriage.”

              Regarding 2, that is presently the case, for the most part. The majority of people today recognize the legitimacy of interracial marriage, and rightly so. Imagine some caucasian families teaching their children that caucasians cannot marry persons of color, because, according to these parents, persons of color are objectively inferior to caucasians. I suppose that you can also imagine the sort of intense pressure that would be applied to the parents in question for teaching their children such falsehoods. They would be labeled “racists.” They might even be legally prosecuted for hate speech.

              Now, imagine that SCOTUS redefines marriage in complete disregard for the natural moral law, and that the majority of citizens accept the redefinition in question. Imagine also that some parents continue to teach their children that homoerotic acts are gravely sinful, and that the children share this teaching with their friends. Perhaps you can imagine the sort of pressure, even legal pressure, that would be brought to bear on the parents in question.

              Regarding 1, see my comment on 2.

              • “Imagine also that some parents continue to teach their children that homoerotic acts are gravely sinful, and that the children share this teaching with their friends. Perhaps you can imagine the sort of pressure, even legal pressure, that would be brought to bear on the parents in question.”

                Legal pressure I doubt. Unless the parents are inciting violence against LGBT people, they have every right to preach whatever they want, and their kids have every right to share that with their friends. But those parents and their kids may find themselves losing friends in the community. Prejudice is not as fashionable as it used to be.

                • papagan

                  “Prejudice is not as fashionable as it used to be.”

                  You beg the question as to whether the claim that homoerotic acts are gravely sinful is an example of prejudice. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the natural law tradition, etc. There are other things I could say about the question of legal pressure, but I’ll leave it alone for now.

                • asmondius

                  ‘prejudice’ = common sense and knowledge of human bilogy

                  • papagan

                    “‘prejudice’ = common sense and knowledge of human bilogy”

                    Prejudice = Preconceived opinion not based on reason. I prefer to call a spade a spade. BTW, “bilogy” should read “biology.”

                    Playing the prejudice card in this context will not fly. Difference in skin color isn’t a moral question. The color of one’s skin is an accidental difference of no moral significance. How we choose to use or not use our sexual faculties, however, is clearly a moral question. We are free agents capable of abstinence, and in many cases abstinence, unlike a contraceptive act, is the right course.

                    • asmondius

                      Well, I tried to find an actual thought behind all the high-minded rhetoric in your response, but gave up after a while.

                      Incidentally, I put the misspelling in for the same reason a high school team winning by ten touchdowns puts the JV in for the 4th quarter.

                • papagan

                  “But those parents and their kids may find themselves losing friends in the community.”

                  What is friendship if it is based not on objective truth but on blind feelings and subjectivism? There can be no virtuous love/friendship without firm and honest commitment to the objective truth of things and their natures. Virtuous friendship–a vital aspect of healthy marriage–cannot stand on the quicksand of moral relativism or the will to power.

                  Caritas in veritate, 15:

                  «The Encyclical Humanae Vitae emphasizes both the unitive and the procreative meaning of sexuality, thereby locating at the foundation of society the married couple, man and woman, who accept one another mutually, in distinction and in complementarity: a couple, therefore, that is open to life[27]. This is not a question of purely individual morality: Humanae Vitae indicates the strong links between life ethics and social ethics, ushering in a new area of magisterial teaching that has gradually been articulated in a series of documents, most recently John Paul II’s Encyclical Evangelium Vitae[28]. The Church forcefully maintains this link between life ethics and social ethics, fully aware that “a society lacks solid foundations when, on the one hand, it asserts values such as the dignity of the person, justice and peace, but then, on the other hand, radically acts to the contrary by allowing or tolerating a variety of ways in which human life is devalued and violated, especially where it is weak or marginalized.”[29]»

                  Caritas in veritate, 44:

                  «The Church, in her concern for man’s authentic development, urges him to have full respect for human values in the exercise of his sexuality. It cannot be reduced merely to pleasure or entertainment, nor can sex education be reduced to technical instruction aimed solely at protecting the interested parties from possible disease or the “risk” of procreation. This would be to impoverish and disregard the deeper meaning of sexuality, a meaning which needs to be acknowledged and responsibly appropriated not only by individuals but also by the community. It is irresponsible to view sexuality merely as a source of pleasure, and likewise to regulate it through strategies of mandatory birth control. In either case materialistic ideas and policies are at work, and individuals are ultimately subjected to various forms of violence.»

                  Caritas in veritate, 51-52:

                  «In order to protect nature, it is not enough to intervene with economic incentives or deterrents; not even an apposite education is sufficient. These are important steps, but the decisive issue is the overall moral tenor of society. If there is a lack of respect for the right to life and to a natural death, if human conception, gestation and birth are made artificial, if human embryos are sacrificed to research, the conscience of society ends up losing the concept of human ecology and, along with it, that of environmental ecology. It is contradictory to insist that future generations respect the natural environment when our educational systems and laws do not help them to respect themselves. The book of nature is one and indivisible: it takes in not only the environment but also life, sexuality, marriage, the family, social relations: in a word, integral human development. Our duties towards the environment are linked to our duties towards the human person, considered in himself and in relation to others. It would be wrong to uphold one set of duties while trampling on the other. Herein lies a grave contradiction in our mentality and practice today: one which demeans the person, disrupts the environment and damages society.

                  «Truth, and the love which it reveals, cannot be produced: they can only be received as a gift. Their ultimate source is not, and cannot be, mankind, but only God, who is himself Truth and Love. This principle is extremely important for society and for development, since neither can be a purely human product; the vocation to development on the part of individuals and peoples is not based simply on human choice, but is an intrinsic part of a plan that is prior to us and constitutes for all of us a duty to be freely accepted. That which is prior to us and constitutes us — subsistent Love and Truth — shows us what goodness is, and in what our true happiness consists. It shows us the road to true development.» (Emphasis added.)

            • papagan

              “What does any of that have to do with civil marriage law? It’s not about a right to call something marriage, it is about the specific civil legal arrangement called marriage that automatically triggers all sorts of tax, benefits, obligations, visitation rights, etc. That is only thing at issue in US court.”

              Let’s be honest, please. Visitation rights, inheritance, insurance, etc., are political issues that could be addressed by legislatures without redefining marriage in opposition to the requirements of the natural moral law.

              If by judicial fiat SCOTUS redefines marriage, such an act should trigger a serious constitutional crisis. Freedom of religion would be compromised. In that case, it will be interesting to see which, if any, legislators stand up and actively oppose such judicial usurpation of legislative authority. In that scenario, those legislators who choose not to resist the imposition of an objectively warped redefinition of marriage will reveal quite clearly their lack of commitment to the objective moral law and to the divine Author of nature.

              • Capgen

                Federal law trumps state law. If the SCOTUS upholds the district courts prior ruling overturning the individual state laws there is no option for a legislature in a state. Judge Moore in AL can say anything he wants but he has no jurisdiction. He is just pandering.
                In 35 states gays are getting married right now, the legislatures of those states have done nothing material as they cannot pass laws that violate the US constitution, and they know it. All that will do is waste taxpayer money to defend against the lawsuits that will be filed immediately upon passage. In most cases the state would have to pay the plaintiffs costs as well. There wil be no constitutional crisis and nobody is going put up a fight over a civil marriage law.
                The fact that the SCOTUS took the case and as denied every request for stays is a clear indication that this is going to be over in June. Each passing week brings an ever larger number of married gay couples into the mix, each with legal standing to sue if their rights are violated.

            • papagan
  • Ruth Rocker

    The only tolerance any of the left are willing to engage in is the tolerance of only their viewpoint/opinion. Anything else is hate or bigotry or call it what you will. They’re not interested in dialogue, only compliance. Very sad. Lord protect your faithful.

  • papagan

    «…we had a legal edict establishing the normative nature of same-sex “marriage” and thereby ruling out as discriminatory essential arguments about the complementarity of male and female or the procreative purpose of marriage

    It appears that Canadian Bill C-150, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69, helped to prepare the way. Notice the trajectory of the barren logic of contraception, yet many adamantly refuse to admit the connection between contraception, which is now widely accepted, and subsequent attempts to redefine marriage.

    • barbieahayes

      “Barren logic” is an apt descriptor, papagan. I do understand very well the correlation of contraception to the destruction of the real meaning of marriage but only after I thoroughly got to know theology. Even as I always had faith, I was not always aware I had to apply my intellect/reason. The Church used to actively teach about the inner hierarchy which God gave us to interact with our world. First our intellect, then our will and finally our emotions (in that order). I was taught to never make decisions based on emotions. And a well-formed intellect must enlighten the will. The will has been explained to me as being like a muscle; it’s weak unless it’s exercised frequently. Our free will and intellect will only serve us if God is in the mix. We were made for God and if we deviate from how fearfully and wonderfully He made us then we will suffer. Those who “thoughtfully” and deliberately deviate from God’s plan choose their own ignorance but we, faithful Christians, must pay the price in this world, and sadly, if we are not diligent, in the next.

      The Catholic faith is a tightly woven skein of yarn. To ignore one tenet of truth, designed or decreed by God, which is natural law, starts the unraveling of the entire person who is designed and decreed by God and who must abide by His laws to thrive. The concept is a simple one but of course the execution is highly complex. If we had faith, we would follow God’s simple laws so that we would earn heaven. If we had reason we would understand the need to evangelize the world to the simplicity of God’s order. Faith and reason must be applied thoroughly and together, not incidentally.

      • papagan

        “”Barren logic” is an apt descriptor, papagan. I do understand very well the correlation of contraception to the destruction of the real meaning of marriage but only after I thoroughly got to know theology.”

        I’m delighted you understand the connection, and I’m glad you’ve had the opportunity to explore the inexhaustible treasure of theology. Among the various Catholic theologians worth following is the gifted Rev. Thomas Joseph White, O.P. I should also mention the highly distinguished Rev. Romanus Cessario, O.P. , , ,

        “Faith and reason must be applied thoroughly and together…”

        Absolutely. Have you read Pope St. John Paul II’s encyclical, Fides et ratio (Faith and Reason)? If so, there are other works I could recommend.

        • barbieahayes

          Thank you for adding to the wealth of references in my arsenal. I appreciation recommendations of those who have plowed through the works of the masters. God does provide when the student is ready, lol. Yes, please recommend a few more. Rather than reading entire papal encyclicals, I count on the “lesser” theologians to provide me with a snapshot. I am a busy wife and mother and not at all the intellectual who can read and comprehend with swiftness, or who can sit still for more than a few minutes, lol. I have been blessed with the Holy Spirit and thus am filled with wonder and awe which does make me a humble and avid student. I’m still trying to plow through the summaries of the works of Aristotle and Aquinas, lol. The next one would be Newman and then, yes, St. John Paul II. For help with spirituality, I do read our Pope Emeritus Benedict’s writings, a little at a time. His works are often prayers. God bless!

          • papagan

            You need not read Fides et ratio on one sitting, and it’s definitely worth reading. Some other works I’d recommend are by Rev. James V. Schall, S.J., The Life of the Mind: On the Joys and Travails of Thinking and The Mind That Is Catholic: Philosophical and Political Essays. Regarding Aristotle, I’d start with the Nicomachean Ethics.

  • isabel Kilian

    Thank you for such a well thought out argument and its presentation. I once invited an old High School friend to befriend me on Facebook. She wrote me saying,, “I live in Canada now and have many clients in Real estate who are gay. I am sorry that I can not be your friend because from your page you still believe in the Catholic faith.” We both attended a Catholic High School. So you see this issue is reaching deep into all kinds of relationships whether they be casual or familial. They can not be our friends or our relations. They must respect the law at any cost.

  • Randall Ward

    There is so much that has been done to lead us to a totaliarian government in the USA that it is depressing. It is a wave that is engulfing everything. The marriage lie of same sex attracted people is just a small part.
    obama is the same being as the devil tempting Jesus in the desert. Bush was not much better; he wanted to do “big things”, and he did.
    My wife and I decided to not go with the flow, no matter what; we homeschooled our children (now with their own children), and do everything we can to resist the mad march to insanity, by the USG.
    The article did a good job of reminding us all of what we knew was the truth.

    • Toadspittle

      You don’t “know” it’s the truth, Randall, although it might be. What you do know for “certain” is that you know that you believe it to be the truth. Which is not the same thing.
      But, sure go ahead and “homeschool” your children, and stuff their heads with the brand of nonsense you find acceptable to you.
      Otherwise,somebody else will stuff their heads with a brand of nonsense inimical to you.

      • Randall Ward

        If I thought as you thought, how could I have built all the beautiful homes I have built in the last 45 years? “Be sure you are right and then go ahead” – David Crocket.

  • Joan61

    Here’s the thing: the denial of the right to privacy, the right to freedom of conscience, the right to self-determination, the right to identity, and all the arguments against such rights, serve to limit the economic, political and religious freedom of everybody BUT a VERY limited self-serving group.
    You can claim to do this in the name of God, but it is selfishness personified, and when enforced by authoritarian systems, it can support the most horrendous forms of oppression.

    Let the accusations and slander begin.

    • GG

      Your hatred has deformed your ability to reason.

      • Joan61

        This is an example of the usual tactics the political and religious right uses to demean and silence those who dare to express thoughts contrary to their ideologies:

        Blatant and unrestrained disrespect for others manifested through use of
        derogatory labels to dismiss the humanity and perspective of others;

        • GG

          Talk about irony. Look in the mirror.

          • papagan

            “GG,” although I don’t share the moral perspective expressed by “Joan61,” I have to say that your ad hominem rhetoric is unhelpful. Your critical comments should focus on the message, not on the messenger. Perhaps I sometimes fall short in that regard. Mea culpa. It is important, however, to be respectful toward those who defend views or opinions we may find extremely repugnant.

            • GG

              Her extreme post deserves an extreme response. She is a propagandist.

              • Toadspittle

                …And you, GG are not. Why not? Biblical, I suppose, “An eye for an eye” “An insanity for an insanity?” (No need to answer that, by the way.)

                • GG

                  No propaganda from me. Absurdity requires absurdity.

                  • Toadspittle

                    No it doesn’t.
                    It requires reason.
                    Otherwise there’s no end to the absurdity.

            • asmondius

              Kissing your executioner is a revered tradition….

              • papagan

                “Kissing your executioner is a revered tradition….”

                Fallacy of weak analogy. 🙁

                • asmondius

                  Glad to see you’re using that Thesaurus Mom got you for Christmas.

            • GG

              The message was unsound and as stated appears crazy. If you want to call that “attacking” the messenger go ahead but it is not accurate.

              • papagan

                I would agree that there were various problems with the message, including moral relativism. If you find the message problematic, use reason to show why the message is rationally untenable. The ad hominem fallacy, however, remains a fallacy. Here is an example: “Your hatred has deformed your ability to reason.” That is directed against the messenger, not the (objectionable) message.

                • GG

                  I drew an obvious and sound conclusion based on the evidence. Let us not deny the obvious or pretend.

          • Joan61

            Oh, I do.
            My poor mirror cracked when I asked who was the fairest of them all.
            No sense of humor whatsoever.

        • asmondius

          ‘Blatant and unrestrained disrespect for others manifested through use of derogatory labels….’

          Like ‘haters’? Homophobes?

      • Joan61

        Is that an argument?

    • Kilo4/11

      “Here is the truth: cultures change, and the standards of
      what is acceptable between consenting adults has brought a consensus to expand rights to people you all consider inferior, needing to be contained and restricted.

      You can twist this reality into distorted mirrors, and you
      can claim to do this in the name of God …”

      Cultures change – except for the permanent things, such as
      the natures of man and woman – and the culture in America has not changed nearly as much as you claim. Then you try a bait and switch – acting as if the consensus at issue here is over the hoary old “what is acceptable between consenting adults” – when what we are talking
      about is what we are allowed to teach our children and proclaim from our
      pulpits. On this, consistent majorities in the states have said they don’t want to be forced to teach their children that homosexuality is normal. What has changed – to the extent of being revolutionized – is the ability of the judicial system to control the direction and expression of the majority’s culture, increasing its power to the extent where it can now legislate from the bench.

      There really is no need to claim God’s authority in this, although His teaching is clear enough. We have the votes, the numbers.
      Unfortunately, we are saddled with 500 or so cowards in Washington who
      will not call the bluff of the black-robed ones, so there is a very good chance your evil designs will be carried out.

      • Joan61

        At one time slavery and the conquest, of native peoples was “God’s teaching.”

        Our evil designs are indeed terrible, granting civil rights to our sisters, brothers, nephews, nieces, mothers, fathers, friends – who happen to be members of the LGBT.

        Rest assured no one will force you to marry a man.

        • Kilo4/11

          Hit the down arrow by mistake, on the way to hit reply.

          There is no need to grant any one any more civil rights. Firstly, these people already had all the rights they could ever want; secondly, we need a moratorium on proclaiming new rights until people learn how to take more responsibility for the rights they now enjoy.

          Your charge that “God’s teaching” was that slavery is OK is simplistic, village atheist stuff. From the earliest mention of slavery in Genesis, through Paul’s letter to Philemon, through Augustine, Thomas and into the Crusader era, imperfect men have tried to understand and interpret God’s will in regards to human bondage, while coming to grips with the fact that enslavement was, and still is, a deeply ingrained human habit. This excerpt will give you the perspective you seem to lack:

          A Harsh Reality

          It’s worth emphasizing here that the Christian teaching of
          the past was frequently otherworldly: It was first and foremost a religious message concerned with achieving salvation, and the ekklesia as “a gathering of those summoned” had the worship of God as its main purpose. The earliest Christians didn’t concern themselves overly with social issues.

          Consider Augustine: Theologically, the influential African
          was deeply aware of both the limitations of human freedom and the futility of worldly power and polities. He observed how deeply wounded human nature was by
          sin and taught (in terms sharpened by his polemics with the rigidly moralistic Pelagians) that there were limits on most Christians’ capacity for moral achievement. Taken together, this put a brake on too-ambitious efforts at
          social reform, which any program of the abolition of slavery would certainly have entailed. When Augustine reflected upon slavery as an institution, he saw
          it, like so much else in this life, as both the product of sin and a thing so thoroughly ingrained in social life as to be all but ineradicable.

          But while Augustine formulated his theology amid the
          collapse of the Roman Empire, Thomas Aquinas developed his ideas of a Christian
          polity and the place of slavery within it at a time when almost all of Europe was self-consciously Christian and the Church had great power.

          In 13th-century Europe, while slavery had not entirely
          disappeared, it was at low ebb. As a result, Thomas’s teaching on slavery reflects the exuberance of a medieval Christendom whose clergy and theologians
          rightly believed that they were in a position to regulate the social conduct of individuals and guide the development of society.

          Slavery, for Thomas, was a human amendment to the natural law, meant to benefit some at others’ expense. The limitations Thomas proposed sought to protect the personal bodily integrity of the slave, the right of the
          slave to marry or remain a virgin, and the slave’s relationship with his/her spouse. While his views on the rights of slaves have generally been considered
          naïve, they nevertheless reflect an attempt to synthesize Christianity with the best science of its day (Aristotelian philosophy) and a contemporary social reality in which slavery still retained a stubborn hold in Christian society.

          The Muslim Threat

          Theology worked hand-in-hand with Christendom’s strategic imperatives to expand slavery among Christians at the dawn of the modern era, and even led the papacy to grant religious approval to slave-taking.

          In the 15th century, Islam, spearheaded by the Ottoman
          Turks, expanded throughout the Mediterranean world. Militarily, the Ottomans were the strongest single power in the region—they employed cutting-edge technology, vast material resources, and brilliantly organized armies to wage jihad against Christendom. The soldiers, both ghazis (Muslim holy warriors) and janissaries (slave soldiers, many of whom were recruited in the 16th century by the devshirme, or tithe on Christian children who
          were then turned into soldiers and instilled with a fanatical devotion to Islam) provided a powerful backbone to the growing empire and confronted Christianity with a set of military, political, and economic dilemmas.

          The conquest and sack of Constantinople in 1453 was just one in a string of Ottoman victories that would continue for more than two centuries. They and their vassals landed in Italy, engaged in slave-taking raids from Gibraltar to Moscow, and smashed one Christian state after another.

          The Ottomans enjoyed a high degree of political and religious unity under the government of the House of Osman, whose leaders styled themselves “the shadow
          of God on Earth.” Dynastic rivalries and religious disunity in Christendom allowed the House of Osman to build temporary alliances with Christian states and successfully play one power against another. By successfully encircling much of Europe from the East, the Ottomans were in a position to restrict, tax, and regulate almost all of Christendom’s limited but important trade with the
          East—filling the coffers of “God’s shadow on earth” and enabling the Ottomans to continue to wage holy war.

          This is the context in which occurred the growth of slavery
          among Christians and the support granted it by the papacy.

          Portugal, led by a series of able Crusader kings beginning
          with Prince Henry the Navigator, recognized the danger of expanding Muslim power. In the face of this superior force, Christians had to find ways to both outflank the strength of their enemies and strike them unexpectedly. By
          voyaging along the coast of Africa, the Portuguese sought to circumvent (quite literally) the growing Ottoman monopoly on trade with the East and also to find the mythical Christian African king, Prester John, whom they hoped would be an ally against militant Islam.

          Throughout their travels the Portuguese engaged in
          trade—including slave trade. This new source of wealth provided by the exchanges enabled Prince Henry and his successors to fund further explorations and to support broader military efforts to fight Ottoman expansion. (A similar vision of gaining wealth to wage Cruzada against the Ottomans eventually fueled Columbus’s search for a shortcut to Asia.)

          The papacy endorsed Portuguese—and eventually
          Spanish—slave-taking out of cruel necessity. Popes Eugenius IV and a later successor, Sixtus IV, both condemned Portuguese raids in the Canary Islands in
          the mid-15th century in places where Christians already lived. But these condemnations came within the broader context of papal support for a Portuguese crusade in Africa that did include slave-taking.

          Eugenius IV and his immediate successor issued a series of bulls, including Illius Qui (1442), Dum Diversus (1452), and Romanus Pontificus (1455), that recognized the rights of the monarchs of Portugal and eventually Spain to engage in a wide-ranging slave trade in the
          Mediterranean and Africa-first under the guise of crusading, and then as a part of regular commerce. As Pope Nicholas authorized the Portuguese in Romanus

          We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with
          due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso—to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods
          whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the
          kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit….

          The occasional papal pronouncements against slavery earlier in the 15th century and later in the 16th century sought to regulate particular abuses, but they did not deny Spain and Portugal the right to engage in the trade itself. All of these bulls were issued just prior to and after the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople—a calamity so traumatic that, according to Crusade historian Jonathan Riley-Smith, it launched the papacy on a 70-year
          effort to retake the former capital of eastern Christendom. As Pope Pius II lamented in 1460, these attempts were rarely greeted with enthusiasm:

          If we send envoys to ask aid of sovereigns, they are laughed
          at. If we impose tithes on the clergy, they appeal to a future council. If we
          issue indulgences and encourage the contribution of money by spiritual gifts,
          we are accused of avarice. People think that our sole object is to amass gold.
          No one believes what we say. Like insolvent tradesmen we are without credit.

          The Ottomans’ advance on Europe, in addition to its general destructiveness, also saw Muslims taking thousands of Christian slaves each year through piracy, conquest, and the devshirme tithe. As a result, the pontiffs of the day were in no position to refuse Portugal and Spain—two of the few great Christian powers enthusiastic about crusading—the opportunity to
          develop their economic power in whatever way they saw fit.

          Far from being an innocent bystander, or merely silently
          complicit, the papacy fully participated in the expansion of the European slave trade. This was not a product of greed, but of a thoroughly rational and tangible
          fear of the consequences of not using every available means to defend a rapidly contracting 16th-century Christendom.

          Divorced from the context of a Europe under a tightening
          Ottoman siege, papal engagement with the slave trade would appear to confirm the worst prejudices of secular critics. Placed within its historical environment, however, what we confront is the lay faithful and their shepherds
          accepting a real evil—slavery—to avoid their own subjugation to militant Islam.

          Slavery in Context

          For the Christians of the 15th and 16th centuries, slavery
          was not an abstract issue. Portuguese, Spanish, and Italian Catholics had coped for centuries with Islamic aggression that had resulted in the enslavement of
          hundreds of thousands of Christians. Further, condemnations of slavery were not merely pro forma for a Catholic Church that had created two religious
          orders in the 13th century—the Trinitarians and the Mercederians—for the purpose of redeeming Christian captives. Nevertheless, tragically, slavery was part
          of the dirty war that Islam and Christianity waged against one another for centuries throughout the Mediterranean. In the 15th century it appeared that Islam, led by the Ottomans, was on the verge of final victory.

          • Joan61

            Of course slavery, like all cruelties human beings inflicted upon the powerless by the powerful, is contextual. And of course it hasn’t been universally lauded.
            But that doesn’t change the reality and legal status of slavery until very recently in human history.
            The deep study of history is useless if we do not continue to struggle to free the prisoner. Right here, right now.

            So your first point is the most relevant to this debate:
            “There is no need to grant any one any more civil rights. Firstly, these
            people already had all the rights they could ever want; secondly, we
            need a moratorium on proclaiming new rights until people learn how to
            take more responsibility for the rights they now enjoy.”
            That sounds to me like simplistic, village reactionary stuff.
            Sorry, you don’t get to decide what legal civil rights people may fight to gain, and you don’t get to judge their alleged misused their rights to deny those rights.

            • Kilo4/11

              “Of course slavery … is contextual”. Yet you tried to slip it past as simply “God’s teaching”. The difference is so great it amounts to a lie. And you wonder why people don’t want homosexuals near their children.

              • Joan61

                I wonder if they want fundamentalists near their children.

            • Kilo4/11

              Reaction is an honorable, active response to revolutionary
              destroyers. Outside of prayer, whose effects we may never know, it is the only effective tactic left against those who have subverted our politics, institutions and constitution to the point where only one vote on an unelected body may now make a mockery of an institution that has stood through the ages. It is also an eminently rational approach, focusing
              in on specific enemies of the good, the true, and the beautiful – that means you – and as such, is the best foil to the emotion driven wishful thinking of the marketers of utopias and the perfectibility of man.

              • Joan61

                you’re supposed to love your enemies.

            • papagan

              “The deep study of history is useless if we do not continue to struggle to free the prisoner.”

              It appears that you think that the struggle to free the prisoner is morally good. Now, if you embrace moral relativism, then what you mean by claiming that the struggle to free the prisoner is morally good is little more than this: the struggle to free the prisoner is merely a matter of very strong individual preference. In that case, why should one grant more weight to one very strong individual preference than to any other very strong individual preference? To what rule can you appeal, other than the rule of blind power? “Might makes right.” Socrates had something to say about this in a celebrated Platonic dialogue devoted to the question of justice, namely, The Republic

              • Joan61

                I don’t intend to further engage people who think same sex marriage is totalitarianism…….sorry, can’t give these rationalizat……….er, arguments, credibility, moral or otherwise.

                • papagan

                  “I don’t intend to further engage people who think same sex marriage is totalitarianism…”

                  Straw man fallacy. I never made the insanely idiotic claim that SSM = totalitarianism. I was making a point about moral relativism and the dishonest abuse of the language of rights. There can be no genuine right to do what is morally disordered (e.g, procured abortion, theft, perjury, human trafficking). The argument made in my previous post stands without refutation.

        • asmondius

          They already have civil rights.

          There is no civil right to be something that you are not.

          • Joan61

            Think about that. No civil right to be legally equal to whites? No civil right to be legally equal to males?

            • asmondius

              Homosexuality is not a race, a gender, or a sex.

            • Kilo4/11

              “Civil rights” did not make blacks “legally equal” to whites, it made them legally superior; just as no fault divorce laws, the changes in evidence and testimony requirements in rape cases, family law courts, Child “Protective Services”, etc., have made women legally superior to men.

              • Joan61

                I don’t intend to further engage people who think same sex marriage is totalitarianism or equal legal rights are special privileges. No credibility.

        • papagan

          There is certainly a grave moral problem when a government would have citizens believe that public officials, whether legislators or judges, have the authority to bestow upon citizens a “right” to do what is objectively disordered, for example, procured abortion or physician-assisted suicide or sodomitic acts, all of which are based on a distorted conception of human autonomy that is taken for granted by political partisans on both sides of the aisle. No man or group of men possesses such authority. The ultimate source of authority is the divine Creator, and He grants no man or group of men the authority or license to make morally good what is objectively evil, e.g., murder. The grave moral problem I mentioned above is rooted in the toxic soil of moral relativism.

          • Joan61

            And when the separation of church and state no longer applies, and we are governed by a theocracy (it will be interesting to see the protestant evangelicals and the RCC fight that out), a church’s authority to impose its condemnation of “objectively disordered” behavior upon civil society might matter, and this argument would have an effect, if not weight.
            As far as the claims that all ills deride from “moral relativism”, seems to me all human societies have exercised “morally relevance” in one way or another. Numerous church mothers and fathers, and many saints who suffering persecution during their lifetime, attempted to address that reality. Yet history has always been full of atrocity (and still is) with the imperial imposition of suffering by the powerful upon the powerless.

            Since we are not likely to agree on much, and we know where each one of us stands, have a blessed day.

            • papagan

              And when the separation of church and state no longer applies, and we are governed by a theocracy (it will be interesting to see the protestant evangelicals and the RCC fight that out), a church’s authority to impose its condemnation of “objectively disordered” behavior upon civil society might matter, and this argument would have an effect, if not weight.

              Red herring fallacy. One does not have to be a Christian or a Jew to appreciate rational arguments based on natural law. The failure to recognize natural law does not entail that there is no natural law. On the basis of natural law one can differentiate between objectively good and objectively evil acts.

              As far as the claims that all ills deride [sic] from “moral relativism”…

              Straw man fallacy. I was pointing out that some of your statements suggest that you endorse moral relativism.

              …seems to me all human societies have exercised “morally relevance” [sic] in one way or another.

              Moral relativism and “morally relevance” are not equivalent. A moral relativist does not grant that there are any objective and universal moral truths, e.g., an act of murder is always evil and never morally justifiable. Furthermore, even if every society included persons who accept moral relativism, it would not follow that moral relativism is consistent with reality.

              Yet history has always been full of atrocity (and still is) with the imperial imposition of suffering by the powerful upon the powerless.

              Is that morally evil objectively? If so, then there are objective and universal moral norms. If there were no objective and universal moral norms within the reach of human reason, your expression of moral indignation could bear no objective moral weight.

              The blind will to power is truly irrational and repugnant. It is truly repugnant precisely because it is opposed to our rational nature. The attempt to redefine marriage is not in accord with natural reason, no matter what one’s feeling may suggest to the contrary. One may have close friendships with persons of the same sex or of the opposite sex, but the exercise of our sexual faculties need to be regulated in conformity with the requirements of the natural moral law inscribed in human nature. The widespread acceptance of contraception, which separates the unitive and procreative meanings of the sexual act, reflects vincible ignorance of the natural moral law. On the topic of the natural moral law, I recommend the incisive writings of Russell Hittinger, a leading contemporary natural law theorist.

              • Zeke

                One does not have to be a Christian or a Jew to appreciate rational arguments based on natural law.

                Agreed. But when even Christians cannot agree on whether things
                like contraception are immoral, why are your rational arguments more compelling than secular ones?

                The failure to recognize natural law does not entail that there is no natural law.

                Logically correct, but since there is no arbiter of the correct interpretation of natural law, it’s specious reasoning to think that a
                few more centuries of poring over religious texts will reveal it. Catholic morality is as relative as mine, as evidenced by the ways the Church got it spectacularly wrong over the centuries and later reversed course.

                If there were (1) no objective and universal moral norms within the reach of human reason, (2) your expression of moral indignation could bear no objective moral weight.

                (1) And who verifies that our human reason has discovered a
                universal human norm? Let me guess – the Catholic Church, right? (2) Of course it could, if I base my moral indignation on simple human reason. The facts that the Church has engaged in moral behaviour that would make Hitler blush, while laying claim to true knowledge of objective morality, more than refutes silly claims that my indignation bears no moral weight. And why are those who don’t believe in divine objective morality able to create laws to govern society that are virtually identical to those you advocate? Blind coincidence?

                The attempt to redefine marriage is not in accord with natural reason, no matter what one’s feeling may suggest to the contrary.

                No, it’s not in accord with your personal religious dogma. There are no natural reasons, or constitutional reasons, to continue to deny
                rights to homosexuals that heterosexuals enjoy. You can object all you want, but history has moved on. And it affects you not one little bit, despite your unsubstantiated fear-mongering of religious persecution. Christian Canadians are not seeking refuge in the US.

                The widespread acceptance of contraception, which separates the unitive and procreative meanings of the sexual act, reflects
                vincible ignorance of the natural moral law.

                You can’t even get a sizeable majority of Catholics, let alone society at large, to agree with such garbage.

                • papagan

                  It is not possible within a brief space to address all of the flawed objections within your posted response. But I will say something about this:

                  (2) Of course it [your expression of moral indignation] could [bear objective moral weight], if I base my moral indignation on simple human reason.”

                  Prior to that statement you made this statement:

                  [1] “Catholic morality is as relative as mine…”

                  What you say in 1 suggests that you embrace moral relativism. What you say in 2, however, is not consistent with moral relativism. If there are no objective and universal moral norms, one moral opinion is no better or worse than any other moral opinion. Within the framework of moral relativism, “the imperial imposition of suffering by the powerful upon the powerless” cannot be said to be objectively good or evil. Some people may object to such impositions, but their objections have no basis other than their own individual and purely subjective preferences. Apart from an objective and universal moral law we did not invent, no purely subjective preference (e.g., pedophilia, incest, contraception, torture, theft, etc.) is better or worse than any other purely subjective preference (opposition to pedophilia, incest, contraception, torture, theft, etc.). For, within the framework of moral relativism, there is no objective moral weight or truth to be carried or conveyed. Moral relativism opens the gates to totalitarianism.

                  As regards your appeal to “simple human reason,” we don’t invent the objective and universal moral law (which prohibits things like murder and rape and theft), but we discover it using natural reason. Of course people sometimes (or often) ignore the natural moral law and pursue the will to power or the lust for money and domination. Some people allow their emotions to govern their lives, and this path doesn’t end well.

                  • Zeke

                    If there are no objective and universal moral norms, one moral opinion is no better or worse than any other moral opinion.

                    Nonsense. I’m amazed that religious types continue to trot out this tired claim that killing and raping can only be wrong if there is a God who says it’s so. As Sam Harris wrote “Otherwise, right and
                    wrong would be mere matters of social construction, and any society would be at liberty to decide that raping and killing children is actually a wholesome form of family fun. In the absence of God, John Wayne Gacy could be a better person than Albert Schweitzer, if only more people agreed with him.”

                    Let’s briefly examine the Church position that condom use is immoral, even where AIDS is rampant. Where condoms are
                    distributed and used, the spread of AIDS decreases. Where it is not, we continue to see countless deaths and millions of AIDS orphans. Lack of contraception also exacerbates Third World poverty and problems such as street children.

                    In what possible way is the Church’s moral opinion better than the secular opinion? I’d love to hear it.

                    What eludes those who imagine a religious objective morality are the following uncomfortable facts:

                    1 If a book like the Bible were a reliable source of moral guidance, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to criticize it in moral terms. But of course it’s remarkable easy to criticize the morality found in the Bible, most of it being vile and totally incompatible with civil society.

                    2 If religion was necessary for morality, there should be some evidence that atheists are less moral than faithful believers. But there isn’t, and in fact the opposite appears to be true, both
                    on an individual and societal level.

                    3 Finally, as I said before, there is no agreement on what these objective morals are, even among Christians, and interpreting
                    ancient texts and the writings of cloistered celibates yields widely varying results. Which means they are relative. Declaring that these objective laws exist may be fun for theologians to argue about, but this is just that – an argument. You have a compelling argument to make about contraception being immoral? Fine, make it. You feel we should not allow homosexuals to marry? Knock yourself out and shout it from the rooftops brother, but have a valid argument or at least a plausible alternative that deals with the reality that homosexuals have always existed, and always will, presumably as part of your God’s plan for humanity.

                    And of course, the Catholic Church long ago ceded the high ground on making judgements about morality. Input from such a disgraced and scandal filled institution should barely be acknowledged, let alone taken seriously.

                    • papagan

                      Your post contains too many flaws to address in a brief space. I do, however, wish to comment briefly on one or two points.

                      “…there is no agreement on what these objective morals are, even among Christians, and interpreting ancient texts … yields widely varying results. Which means they are relative.”

                      There we have a stale example of the non sequitur fallacy. In short, the reasoning runs as follows: (1) People disagree about what is truly morally good or evil (e.g., lying). Therefore (2) nothing is truly morally good or evil; a thing is morally good or evil only to the extent that, and only as long as, it is thought to be morally good or evil by some individual or group of individuals.

                      The problem with the foregoing reasoning is that the evident fact of moral disagreement doesn’t entail that there is no objective moral truth. If people disagree about whether serial polygamy or female genital mutilation (FGM) or human trafficking is evil, it doesn’t logically follow that serial polygamy or FGM or human trafficking is neither truly good nor truly evil. The truth of things, including moral claims, doesn’t depend on fallible human consensus. If there were no objective moral truth, there could be no real moral error. Moral relativism is philosophically untenable.

                      As regards the connection between religion and morality, that’s an important, but different, question. If one is an unbeliever, it clearly doesn’t follow that one is a moral relativist. One could be an unbeliever and a moral realist (e.g., Socrates, Plato) simultaneously. Moral realism, however, does point ultimately to the transcendent reality of God, who gave us the spiritual capacity to engage in serious, albeit fallible, moral reasoning, not simply egocentric cost-benefit calculations.

              • Joan61

                Natural law is baloney. Goodbye.

                • papagan

                  Moral relativism is an open invitation to tyranny. Adios.

          • $141453131

            You have every right to believe other people are “objectively disordered”.

            • papagan

              “You have every right to believe other people are ‘objectively disordered’.”

              Please don’t distort what I said. My statements were directed at human acts, not human agents. When human agents abuse their freedom of choice, they perform objectively disordered acts. If you deny that there are objectively disordered acts (e.g., rape), then your denial appears to entail moral relativism.

              • Zeke

                If you deny that the God of the Bible commanded and endorsed rape, then calling the act of rape objectively disordered appears to entail moral relativism.

                • papagan

                  “If you deny that the God of the Bible commanded and endorsed rape, then calling the act of rape objectively disordered appears to entail moral relativism.”

                  The act of rape violates the human person’s inherent dignity and the commandment to love one’s neighbor, a commandment which is in accord with the universal and objective natural law, by which we are rationally ordered to pursue the objective good and shun what is morally evil. The divine Author of nature, who is the eternal law, is the Giver of the natural law. God, who is Self-subsisting Goodness, cannot will what is morally evil (e.g., rape) without contradicting His very own nature.

                  Those who endorse moral relativism cannot consistently hold simultaneously that the act of rape is an objectively disordered human act. A moral relativist can condemn the act of rape, of course; within the theoretic context of moral relativism, however, his or her condemnation of rape would amount to nothing more than the expression of a strong personal dislike or individual aversion to such an act. An individual’s strong dislikes or preferences are not by themselves sufficient to establish how other citizens should or should not act. Indeed, within the theoretical framework of moral relativism, the very language of moral obligation means something very different than what moral realists (e.g., St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope St. John Paul II) intend to convey when they employ moral terms like “should” or “ought,” e.g., “One ought not murder.” See, for example, Pope John Paul II’s profound encyclical, Veritatis Splendor

                  I share the foregoing for the sake of believers who may desire a deeper understanding of such moral questions. This is not the proper forum to engage agnostics or atheists who are opposed to divine revelation or to the Christian religion. Those who embrace agnosticism or atheism should go elsewhere to find the disputation they seek.

                  • Zeke

                    The divine Author of nature, who is the eternal law, is the Giver of the natural law. God, who is
                    Self-subsisting Goodness, cannot will what is morally evil (e.g., rape) without contradicting His very own nature.

                    Assertions of what you, or the Catholic Church, profess require a great deal of mental gymnastics to deny that God frequently and specifically endorsed what secularists describe as evil. You can squint at your Bible as long as you care to, but divine orders and sanctions of genocide and rape are clearly part of God’s loving direction to his chosen people. That you agree that this is abysmal is moral relativism. Full stop.

                    A moral relativist can condemn the act of rape, of course; within the theoretic context of moral
                    relativism, however, his or her condemnation of rape would amount to nothing more than the expression of a strong personal dislike or individual aversion to such an act.

                    No, it’s an expression of the societal and evolutionary aversion to such an act. Do you know of any moral relativists that condone rape and genocide? At this very time in our world, there are religious groups that advocate these atrocities. Who are you to argue on rational terms that they’re delusional?

                    …moral obligation means something very different than what moral realists (e.g., St. Augustine,
                    St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope St. John Paul II) intend to convey when they employ moral terms like “should” or “ought,”

                    Yet we find that Augustine and Aquinas reasoned that heretics should be tortured and/or killed. What are we to make of these great moral objectivists and doctors of the Church? Is there a
                    chance that they didn’t study scripture closely enough?

                    This is not the proper forum to engage agnostics or atheists who are opposed to divine
                    revelation or to the Christian religion.

                    No, I believe that an essay that decries same sex marriage in Canada as “totalitarianism” is exactly the proper forum. That you purposely ignore the fact that your morals are distinct from the iron age morals you assert are “objective” suggests that you are either ignorant or purposely blind to them.

        • bonaventure

          But they will force me to participate at a homosexual “wedding,” and punish me if I refuse to participate int it.

          • Joan61

            Seems to me there is no governmental power that can force you to attend or preside at a wedding. The legal question of civil rights re. discriminatory restriction of access to public services may be another matter. I imagine some people felt quite put out when they had to open the lunch counter to black people.
            In any case, we will never agree. Have a blessed day.

            • Kilo4/11

              “quite put out when they had to open the lunch counter.” What a steaming crock! Now we see where she’s coming from – these are the ones who never had their faces smashed or wives assaulted because we had sell our houses and rent our apartments to the poor dears who couldn’t sit at our lunch counters. And all these years later she’s still looking down her snoot at those of us who dared to defend the right of free association and private property. And she still hasn’t caused enough sorrow and pain, but wants to force us to associate with perverts!

              • Joan61

                Associate with perverts or not, nobody cares.

    • asmondius

      ‘cultures change’

      Yes infanticide and cannibalism have arisen in various cultures throughout history. Change is not always beneficial.

      And there you go with the ol’ ‘hate’ word again.

      • Joan61

        Of course change is not always beneficial. It is merely one of the three realities. It doesn’t make the argument to focus so exclusively upon one aspect of contemporary life you consider sinful.

        • asmondius

          It’s also a reality that two men do not equal a man and a woman.

          • Joan61


  • St JD George
  • BillinJax

    should no longer be curious to our nature as American patriots with common
    sense or leave a shadow of doubt in our minds that today’s democratic party has
    been taken over by radical secular progressives who have turned it into a
    politically controlled religious cult bent on destroying our Republic and
    “transforming America” in preparation for the New World Order. They
    will soon be in position to have an electoral base to do as they wish under
    leadership such as we now have who intend to rule by dictate rather than within
    the confines of the Constitution and where Judeo Christian values will be
    measured by and subjected to the whims of the ruling class in Washington. God
    help us!

  • GeorgeMarshall65

    Bishop Prendergast outlines quite a list of evils that have increased in Canada since gay marriage, including births out of wedlock, more abortions and misery. Mr. Bissonnette simply repeats those items from the Bishop’s 2012 speech. No facts are cited to support these claims. I’m wondering how, in the wide wide world of sports, births out of wedlock and abortions are tied to gay marriage? In terms of misery, Canadians were ranked 5th in the world in happiness in 2012 and 6th in 2013. Both rankings above the US. The two countries are virtually tied in median income. On a measure of economic freedom, Canada ranks 6th while the US is 12th. In June 2013, 63% of Canadians supported SSM. 32% of those said their views strongly or somewhat changed in the past 5 years. Their support of SSM increased as they experienced it in their country. Mr. Bissonnette rages about the totalitarianism of SSM and cites one case that occurred in 2005 and which was at least partially dropped. Mr. Bissonnette says, “over time there were more and more truths about which we could not speak. ” Yet here he is speaking about what he thinks is the truth. Unfortunately, employees of some Catholic schools are not also allowed to do so, at least here in the US.

    • GG

      Those with eyes can see.

    • Parque_Hundido

      Perhaps it is Mr. Bisonette’s freedom to engage in delusional rants that makes him happy. He’s obviously on a roll. Why spoil it by requiring him to tether his argument to reason or reality?

      • GeorgeMarshall65

        Mr. Bisonnette can tether his argument to whatever he pleases. I do think that both sides in this argument have an obligation to look at facts and their own positions honestly. Equating SSM as totalitarian is false, for example, but there are people on both sides of this argument who are fearful of losing their jobs. It has been argued by some that SSM is an attack on Christianity, but there are many Christians, probably a majority, who support SSM. I don’t think either side should be delusional.

        • Parque_Hundido

          Nonsense. The number of anti-gay lunatics who fear losing their jobs is zero. The number of gay people who have already lost their jobs by reason of being gay dwarfs any concern about bigots who fear that they can’t burn crosses on lawns without being fired. This isn’t a “two sides” kind of issue. This is an angry bigot trying to use the cloak of faux victimhood to protect himself from social disapproval.

  • Jo

    Remember, every bad thing that happened in Canada since 2005 is because of gay marriage, bar none. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is the best form of logic known to man.

    • GG


  • JRR

    …….and your imagery is appropriately symbolic: totalitarianism is as totalitarianism does.

  • Piddingworth

    Brilliantly written. When William Wilberforce led the reforms toward the abolition of slavery and the cleansing of public life, aka, the ridding above the ‘streets’ of moral depravity and sending it back to the sewer, he restored a sense of ‘decency’ that some came to regard as a kind of ‘puritanism’. Still, the common law and the inherent rights and dignity of the individual person built upon a Christian foundation prevailed and the cultural norms from that ‘tree’ prevailed. The ‘progressivism’ of the present age has its’ source, not in the Tradition that built our civilisation but in an atheistic, antinomian subversion of our culture where ‘lies’ have become the norm both in the understanding and nature of ‘man’ but in the purpose of human society all wrapped in faux sentimentalism, e.g., political correctness. Those of us who remain unreconstructed citizens and Catholics will be, by all accounts and for generations to come, the ‘untouchables’ and enemies of the state.

  • Password9

    Sold as, “Live and let Live” in reality it becomes, “Comply or Die”. Play along or lose your livelihood. Honoring the obvious distinction becomes an act of discrimination, which the State must address and punish.

  • This can be the go with with a existing past or present student’s application form, which is filled with facts with regards to a existing past or present student’s classes success. Applications any kind of solar panel functions applying admittance operates to help evaluate different facets of your university student as an illustration his or her submitting ability, knowledge of several issue…

    • Kilo4/11

      You need a long rest.

  • bonaventure

    “We just want to decriminalize homosexuality.”
    “We just want civil unions.”
    “We just want marriage.”

    We want your children
    We want the destruction of the family
    We want the destruction of the Biblical faith

  • ChristianValuesInCommon

    This is a wonderful piece that overtly states what a Christian Conscience has been feeling for a while. Thank you Joe Bissonnette for finding the words that make safe stepping stones over the quagmire we find ourselves in. I’ll study your article with my teenage girls. Our children need as much anti-venom as we can find. God bless you with wisdom and strength. Orthodox mum.

  • R Rohan

    Superstitions will not make me and my relationship go away. Oh, no wait. It almost did when Catholic Church teachings depressed me so much, I attempted suicide.

    • Kilo4/11

      If at first…

  • Parque_Hundido

    LOL I genuinely enjoy the breathless, hysterical ranting of bigots. You’re welcome to your superstitions. You’re not entitled to use civil law to force your superstitions on others.

    It’s very simple: no special rights or privileges for bigots. No exceptions.

    • Sgt_Rock

      And yet you feel entitled to use civil law to force perversion on the populace at large. Hypocrisy much?

      • Parque_Hundido

        Oh, poor you. Now that you have to obey civil rights statutes, you have to be gay? Is that your excuse? You need help.

  • Parque_Hundido

    Ultimately, what this author wants is special rights and privileges for bigots. Why should everyone else have to follow the law except him and those who hate whatever group their crazed religion decides is worthy of hate?

    No special rights for bigots. No exceptions. Ever. Why is this so hard for you people to understand?

  • Localstudent

    Hmm… As a gay male, I disagree. I will obviously always support gay marriage. In regards to this article, I am not “preoccupied with my childhood” or in any way concerned about anything “Terrance Prendergast” mentions. I do believe everyone is entitled to the basic human rights of society.

  • Pray for Slovakia today! They are setting the standard for Marriage. “On Saturday, the people of Slovakia will vote in a nationwide referendum once more to define marriage as between one man and one woman—and also to deny same-sex couples the ability to adopt. The referendum would also give parents the right to keep their children from sex education classes in school.”

  • Are you humans?

    Horrible ideas. Horrible people,

  • Erik Olsen

    prejudices can be a powerful human drive, as in this case.

  • manderso

    Gosh, we’ve got to let Joe discriminate, he really, really, needs it.

  • manderso

    Of course you can be opposed to same sex marriage, can you do it without discrimination?