The funniest thing about that article was the poll question.  That had to be the most biased poll I have ever seen.  Three options and not one of them were “The Archbishop was right.”  Wow, it must be great to live in such an ideological bubble.  I’d suggest that Lupica stick to writing about sports, but he’s pretty terrible at that as well.

It’s interesting to me that no one in the media is demonizing the one Democrat hold-out on the vote to legalize gay marriage. No one in the media is saying that HE is the one preventing the legislature from having the votes that it needs to pass (which is true, with his vote it would pass - they only need one more vote). This is, I guess, because he is black and Protestant. That somehow gives him a “right” that the bishop doesn’t have to be against same-sex “marriage”. The amazing thing is that this lone Democrat is a man directly responsible for blocking the actual vote from passing (God bless him!), and the bishop has no power to stop the bill from passing, yet he is attacked and the other is not.

Mike Lupica is a whiny jerk. Whenever he appears on the Sports Reporters on ESPN, my dial goes elsewhere. He’s not worth the time nor writing about.

The fact that Mike Lupica did not make a good argument, does not mean there is not a good argument to be made. His tactics are reprehensible, but that does not negate the rights of gays to marry

@ Posted by janetfernandez on Friday, Jun 24, 2011 8:02 AM

You clearly do not understand the concept of “rights.”

“Rights” come from somewhere.  Think about that for a while.  I don’t have time to teach a freshman philosophy seminar here.

Please teach me John Mills, I’m so stupid and uneducated! Have mercy on a poor ignorant soul! Your intellect is so vastly superior to mine, and yet you don’t have time to help me gain the wisdom you possess! Woe is me!

I liked Lupica a lot more when he was just a sportswriter, instead of trying to become the next Keith Olbermann.  To that end, the smart bet for him is to get out in front on this issue so that he is either ahead of his time (if gay “marriage” is legalized in NY) or he simply is more “tolerant” and “enlightened” than everyone else (and thus can look down his nose at the rest of us, a la Keith Olbermann).

Please teach me John Mills, I’m so stupid and uneducated!
Well, at least you’re self-aware.

I’ve been playing without my helmet again!

@Janet Fernandez, I’m sure you know you’re not helping yourself or anyone here by trying to bait the other commenters. Please stop. We know that there may be many seemingly wonderful arguments for gay marriage, but because we believe the Truth that the Church teaches, we don’t acknowledge them as valid arguments.

Suffice it to say, we acknowledge and respect the inherent dignity and worth in each gay person, but we believe that because they are having sex outside Christian marriage (making it neither unitive nor procreative), they are in sin. Because we do not want to legalize their “right” to sin, but rather wish to protect them from sinning, we oppose gay marriage and civil unions. We don’t oppose actual equality or human rights, just putting souls in danger.

Christina, that was very well said!

Christina, of course John Mills wasn’t baiting ME at all. I understand, believe it or not, about rights coming from God, and I totally agree. But if marriage laws should be patterned after the Bible, then a few changes will be necessary in America: No one can remarry after a divorce; ‘consenting’ age is around 13; marriages can be arranged by a girl’s father; polygamy is cool. I realize the Church has cleared up these matters. But still, if we then base marriage laws on the Church’s teaching, divorce & remarriage will also be illegal. Also according to Church law a man cannot contract a marriage if he suffers from impotence. Do you really think that should also be a civil law? I can give you the canon laws to look up if you like. I’m always, ALWAYS willing, even eager , to discuss this matter.

By the way, I would never ask or expect anyone to approve morally of homosexual relationships, any more than they would approve of a person being married six times. The issue here is the law, not the morality.

@Christina
Thank you for what you said!  I love the way you put this:

“Because we do not want to legalize their “right” to sin, but rather wish to protect them from sinning, we oppose gay marriage and civil unions. We don’t oppose actual equality or human rights, just putting souls in danger.”

Thank you so much.  I have a gay friend (lots actually) that is hurt because I can’t fully support and stand by here choice to live in a gay relationship.  I love her, but I won’t support someone doing something that is bad for them.  I don’t know how to elequently say this, and I thank you for how simply but also truthfully you put this into words.

Ps. Archbishop Dolan is awesome, I’ve met him. :)  If people are knocking him in the press, cool—it shows he’s doing his job at proclaiming what the Church teaches and getting attention from the media.

Any right is not universal. We don’t give six year olds driver’s licenses,
for example, so to insist that homosexuals have the right to marry forgets the fact that marriage is an institution of law designed for the protection and well-being of the children it normally produces. If same sex marriage is permissible then why can’t I marry my brother or sister or mother or to extend the logic-why can’t I marry myself? I could use the tax breaks. What about MY rights?

Homosexuals have the right to live as they wish, but they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for the rest of society.

Let the Archbishop and other prelates man-up and interdict some of these miscreants.  Until I see some meaningful action from the hierarchy, I’ll assume that all they do is posture and preen without really caring.

Don, Archbiship Dolan is taking on the homosexual lobby as a man of God would. That’s really “manning up.”

Today is the Feast Day of St. John the Baptist.  I was thinking that he got his head chopped off for preaching about the adulterous marriage of the king.

Would that more bishops like Archbishop Dolan would preach about the illnesses of our society to Catholics ESPECIALLY contraception and EVEN be willing to be martryed for it.

The homosexual lobby is oppressive and intimidating. I believe John the Baptist was under more pressure, though, and he didn’t cave.

God, please give us more prelates like Dolan and more lay people to SUPPORT them!

well said liseux! :)

@ janetfernandez – Please consider your comment “The issue here is the law, not the morality.”  Moral theology teaches that there are three orders of Law: Divine Law (God’s loving law for His Creation), Natural Law (which comes from man’s ability to discern God’s wisdom from the Divine Law as presented in nature) and Positive Law (a rule of behavior put into place by a lawful authority, e.g. a government).  So our civil laws must flow from Natural Law and ultimately from Divine Law.  Doesn’t the prohibition against killing flow from the Divine Law of “thou shalt not kill”?  I respectfully ask you to consider if you believe that morality and law can be separated without dire consequences. 

@Christina - I agree with @AmyNoel that your posting is a beautiful and simple expression of how we should relate to our brothers and sisters who experience homosexual atraction.  (In fact I’m going to cut-and-paste it for future reference!)

Two points:

1)  Milwaukee has a prominent gay population, even to the point of celebrating “PrideFest” on the Summerfest grounds.

2)  Janet:  this is about legitimizing the gay culture and .  Legislators elsewhere have proposed leaving the definition of marriage to the church and culture, and instead opening up unions/partnerships between any two individuals who might benefit(especially siblings and other family members).  Their proposals were rejected.  That in itself should say something.

@Kenny: I could throw the same line of questioning to you. If the Church is that concerned about the integrity of the family, where was the outcry when divorce-on-demand became legal? Has this not done more to destroy the family than same-sex couples might? And if we base all civil laws on the church’s rules, where do you draw the line? Shall we outlaw adultery? Pre-marital sex? Remarriage? Oral sex? Anal sex? Masturbation? All of these are mortal sins in the Catholic Church, not to mention contraception. Should these all be outlawed?
@Mark: I don’t think civil law and morality can be totally separated, because all laws are based on someone’s morality. For example, as you said, the law against murder. However, as I said to Kenny above, the line must be drawn somewhere. The government is supposed to protect us and keep us from violating one another’s rights, i.e., you have a right to live, therefore I must not murder you. The government does not exist to keep people from marrying one another, when they are violating no one’s rights. When someone does not follow your religion and its rules, that is not a violation of your rights.

Lupica talks like so many from NYC. They like to think they speak for the entire state! As a resident of Upstate NY, I like to remind him that not everyone in NYC thinks like him. And btw, Lupica is from New Hampshire.

As an educated person (apprently the only one according to this columnist)who is now finishing up his 7th year in Milwaukee, I have to commend our former shepherd’s great work he is doing in NYC.  He is really showing true guts standing up on this issue, and fighting for the dignity of marriage, which must be defended for our society’s well-being.

I thought the line about the Archbishop doing this just so he could become a cardinal was very interesting on two fronts.  The first being the fact that for owe a century plus or so (the numbers aren’t right in front of me) the Archbishop of New York has received that elevation, so it’s pretty much a done deal, and b) he was born and raised a Cardinal (as in St. Louis) and in obedience to God and the Church, left his beloved home, first for Rome for his education, the to Milwaukee, and now to NYC. 

Keep fighting your excellency!

Here’s a good essay on the dangers of so-called gay marriage:

http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp

There is not one - not one - sportswriter who is a Traditionalist or even a conservative.  They are all ripe-suck liberals who know that if they oppose the Christ-Hating Culture that is America then they will lose their jobs

@janetfernandez - Let me throw back the question to you: Where do you draw the line?  You are not expressing any way to define morality, only laws.  Your approach to morality seems to be “as long as someone wants it and it doesn’t violate someone else, it’s OK.”  The moral order of law which guides society must follow Divine Law, Natural Law and Positive (civil) law, just as the Church teaches.  This is not “my religion and its rules” but that which is defined by God and expressed through the Church.  The other point you make, and I don’t mean to be unkind, is ridiculous.  You are comparing the redefinition of marriage – a SACRAMENT ordained by God – with masturbation, contraception, pre-marital sex, etc.  Those sinful acts are condemned by God and the Church.  But to equate the lawfulness of those actions with the redefinition of marriage is a silly and shallow argument.

I knew it was Lupica without having to click the link.  He’s as boring and predictable as his use of Jay Anderson’s Law on p. 2.

@Matt, that is one of the most ridiculously transparent articles I have ever encountered, and that’s saying something. Of course the author is entitled to his (albeit laughable) opinions about homosexuals, but they should not drive public policy. Geez dude, that was hard to stomach

Well, “janetfernandez,” I’m disappointed, but not surprised, that you would react that way to something logical, thoughtful and well-researched. It just goes to show that apologists for the homosexualist agenda, like their abortion-supporting counterparts, are impervious to the moral law. And that, “dude,” is indeed hard to stomach.

This is typical; Roman Catholics using the power of the state to force observance of their doctrines on everyone else.  The Roman church cannot tolerate—has never tolerated dissent.  Happily, though, modern secular governments do not permit them their traditional response to difference:  torture and mass murder.  Do you need “evidence” to “substantiate” that, Matthew?

Janet, I think you’ve brought up an interesting point: there should be more said (and more often) about the evils of the other deviant sexual sins that are destroying our Republic, i.e., that there should be penalties for certain “sins” which destroy society - adultery, pre-marital sex (which, instead, is usually rewarded financially, if a child is born out of wed-lock), etc.  Divorce should be outlawed, except in the rare cases in which the Church has recognized its “utility”, e.g, abuse, physical or verbal; of course, the divorced have not “right” to remarry either, similar to the homosexual person, however, the KEY difference in this debate, which you may have overlooked by bringing up different sexual sins, is that homosexual acts are always and everywhere against nature, “contra naturam”, as the moralists used to say.  Yes, masturbation is too, but since it is not being publicly debated in courts of law, the situation is quite different.

“Do you need “evidence” to “substantiate” that, Matthew?”
___
You don’t know about her, but you’d hate to taste it.
___
Yes, evidence is needed to substantiate.  Oh, do you need a translation?  Sorry, I figured I’d just use my own definitions for certain words in my reply.  Marriage has forever meant a union of male and female, but you and others have decided it means something else.  So I used words I thought should maybe be redefined.  What I said, in your dated and hateful language was:
I don’t know about him, but I’d like to see it.
___
Of course if you didn’t get that right away it’s simply because you are a hateful biggot.
___
I have a fairly liberal Episcopalian friend.  He’s a very smart engineer with his own firm.  In his line of work words have to mean something, and they can’t change on a whim.  So what really bothers him about this is the simple fact that folks are taking a word that for thousands of years meant one thing, and now want to turn it on its head and make it mean something else.  My liberal buddy has a problem with that, and I do too.  Always have.

Christina,
Maybe you are too young to remember this (I am being kind, see), but you are lying about Roman Catholics favouring human rights and equality for homosexuals.  This is not hard to verify, since it has happened in your dioscese, wherever it is.  Certianly in mine, the Roman bishops heatedly opposed every single step in providing equality, at every level of jurisdiction, on grounds of doctrine.  Happily, you were defeated, here at least, and now you are able to claim grandly that “we don’t oppose, etc.”  (Perhaps I am being unkind:  your behaviour in this respect is compulsive, a mental illness you can’t control.)  In any case marriage is equality, too.  You have always had, and still have, the luxury of marrying (and ordaining and admitting even to membership)in your congregations who ever you wanted, and not.  Why is that not good enough?  Because you cannot tolerate anyone else thinking or behaving differently.

@VermontCrank - Actually, until yesterday, there WAS a conservative sports reporter.  He was just FIRED for his support of traditional marriage. (I guess it just reinforces your point: conservative sports reporters won’t survive in their industry.  Although I wouldn’t go so far as to say that there couldn’t be exceptions out there I don’t know about who haven’t been fired yet….) Read about it here: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/top-sports-anchor-fired-over-beliefs-on-marriage-this-can-happen-to-you

“This is typical; Roman Catholics using the power of the state to force observance of their doctrines on everyone else”

The Constitution failed to establish that positive law could only be arrived at through the ministrations of everybody but Catholics but that does not mean we should not try and enforce such a malign ideology as though it were in the Constitution.

@janet:

It seems you are arguing against your own position (“The issue here is the law, not the morality”).

As you acknowledge, law and morality are inextricably intertwined.  In fact, many of the things you cited were at one time illegal.  As morals loosened in certain areas (mainly sexual), so did the laws.  Essentially, law follows morality.

Yes, it is a question of where we draw the line, as well as a question of who gets to draw it.  Legally, the line gets drawn many ways; some more fair than others - eg, voting on a referendum vs. some judge cramming it down everyone’s throat, so to speak.

Chris Vogel, odd you don’t say it’s typical when the RCs lobby lawmakers to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. We’ve been in that business as well.

It’s a double standard to cry foul just when the RC’s actions go against your personal ideology.

You have always had, and still have, the luxury of marrying (and ordaining and admitting even to membership)in your congregations who ever you wanted, and not.  Why is that not good enough?  Because you cannot tolerate anyone else thinking or behaving differently.

Mr. Vogel, who is stopping you from doing the exact same thing with your same sex partner?  No one.  You can start your own church and can marry,  and admit to membership and orders in your congregation whomever you please (or join many of the existing ones that agree with your views).

  No, what YOU want to do is use the power of the state to FORCE the rest of us to recognize your charade as reality.  That is what this is all about, not equality, but power to force approval and recognition.

It is you and your ilk who cannot tolerate anyone else thinking or behaving differently (Can you identify any same sex supporters who have been fired from their jobs for holding their views?  Yeah, I didn’t think so.).

The Catholic Church has always recognised the truth that same sex attraction, homosexuality, is a sinkhole of perversity and that any man who has such an attraction is not to be admitted to a Seminary.

He may be competent for any number of professions, but if he has same sex attraction he is not fit to be Ordained as an Alter Christus.

There is an old traditionalist axiom - “Scratch a Liturgical Radial and reveal a homosexual” - and that is one very great reason to exclude homosexuals from Ordinations; they are subversives, from Abp Rembert Weakland to the local Pastor who has disfigured The Mass and trashed (renovated) all of the traditional architecture - from Communion Rail, To High Altar, from Ambo to Reredos. - they must destroy that which reminds them of the sin they will not repudiate.

And, of course, in Christian society it used to be a tautology that marriage is between a man and a woman and that any attempt by a man to marry another man was jeered at - See Juvenal.

All of that being true, it is not a surprise that a country which sends single mothers into combat 1000s of miles from home would and makes it legal to kill an innocent child in the womb would have little objection to formally recognising and “blessing” a sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance.

It is progress; a progress that is the wide and easy path to perdition.

But, remember Christian Catholics, keep voting for The Stupid Party and/or The Evil Party because both of them have your best interests in their hearts

@Chris Vogel - There is no law that says that a homosexual man or woman can’t get married.  But homosexuals, like everyone else, have restrictions on WHOM they can marry.  People can’t marry their children, their siblings, their parents, their aunts or uncles or granparents; they can’t marry people who are already married to other people; they can’t marry more than one person at a time; they can’t marry children; and they CAN’T MARRY SOMEONE OF THE SAME SEX.  There is no law that requires that people who get married have to be madly in love with each other (although that would be nice), and throughout history there have been many marriages in which at least one of the two people marrying have not been in love with the other.  So homosexuals CAN marry; they just have to marry people to whom they may not be sexually attracted. Now I’m in any way suggesting they get married to people of the opposite sex (although many people with homosexual attractions have successfully changed their “orientation” and are now happily married; I would suggest the ministry COURAGE in help with that). What I would suggest is what the Church suggests in these cases as well as in the cases in which people have sexual attraction to children or siblings or parents or many people at the same time or people who are not their spouses or even animals: chastity.

    BTW, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and you’ll find that official church teaching is that people with homosexual attraction are, as every person is, people who are created in the image and likeness of God who have inherent dignity and should be treated as such.  But whitewashing the truth of sexual sin (whether it be the truth about homosexuality or the truth about divorce & remarriage or premarital sex or polygamy or masturbation) is not respecting anyone’s dignity, just as allowing a child to eat only candy all day every day would be respecting that child’s dignity. On the contrary, it is a kindness to proclaim eternal truths even if such truths are not popular or politically correct. And, as Abp. Dolan knows, it is worth suffering persecution to proclaim Christ’s truth, no matter how much he’ll end up being hated by the media.

I thought Lupica’s article was entertaining and persuasive.  New York already has marriage equality.  It’s just that the original license for gay spouses is from another state—just as it is for any legal marriage of the 1000s of residents of NYS who move here from across the Hudson, continent or ocean.  In fact, this entire debate has only the practical effect of saving fuel [or not] for gay couples now forced to travel out of state to get a marriage license. 

Since marriage equality is already recognized in NYS, is there any evidence of harm here?  Too short a history, you say?  Where is the evidence of harm in Iowa, Massachusetts, Canada or Holland?  For that matter, where is the evidence of social harm for formerly barred marriages like between Richard and Mildred Loving, or Barak Obama’s parents? 

Mark M:  your refernce to moral theology has a flawed premise.  Most philosophers start with the premise that morality should be evaluated separate from theology, as theology has it’s own completely man made rules premised on unquestioned faith that tilt the scales of rational thought.

@Chris Vogel
I’m not saying that since its beginning the Church has not made mistakes. I’m not saying there haven’t been times she and her members have unfortunately failed to try to protect people in horrible situations to the fullest extent. However, you made very broad and vague claims about the Church’s attempts to deny gays human rights in the past. If you would provide examples and back them up, I’d greatly appreciate it.

With regards to marriage, Catholics do not consider it part and parcel of equality because of the belief that (because it always takes place outside Christian marriage) gay sex is a sin. It would be similar to a case in which someone wanted to marry their cousin. They may say that they have a “right” to be married because they’re in love, but that love is inherently disordered according to what Catholics hold as divinely inspired Scripture and Tradition. Even if the government legalized that marriage, it would not make Catholic teaching on the matter change.

I know that for people who believe the Church and her members take a “hateful”, “bigoted” response to the issue, no argument any of us makes, no matter how intelligent or articulate it is, will convince someone who is determined not to believe what we say. And indeed, there are poor arguments, and people who will not behave with the Christian charity we are all called to. I don’t like it any more than you do.

As to my youth, you are correct that I’m young, but I would very much appreciate it if you didn’t treat me as if I were a five-year-old throwing a tantrum. My youth makes me no less intelligent, and your unkindness will not provoke me to unChristian anger.

Here are my thoughts:

1. Marriage was established and defined by religion and not some government. If we use the logic of separation of church and state, why does the government now have to get involved in redefining? Then tell me why it is ok for the government to get involved in religious matters? Is the argument for separation of church and state only valid when the church is trying to uphold laws?

2. The Bible mentions that evils of homosexuliaty three times in the NEW Testament. Why do we recall all the Old Testament stuff and forget the New Testament stuff? No where in the Catholic Catechism does it state that homosexuals should loose their rights are be treated any differently. It does state that they are to be treated like eveyone else in the fact that they too are people of God. I am going to use the old saying “Love the sinner but hate the sin”.

3. When it comes to homosexuality, contraception, divorce, pre-martial sex etc, I think that you have to keep in mind that these things are all ways of “using” people. I want to have sex with people of the same sex, so I should be allowed. I want to have sex with my spouse anytime I want without worry of getting pregnant, I contracept. I want to be with someone else because the person I am with is no longer meeting my needs and/or I found someone else who is more fun, I want a divorce. I want to see if the “sex” is good before marriage, I will have pre-martial sex. When you have no respect for your fellow humans and you see them as only a means of getting what you want, I am sorry but that is called “using”. That is one of the reasons why the Church does not condone this kind of thing. I would like to finish this point by saying that I do not think a lot of people do this intentially but I think it is there subconsciencely.

When in American do we finally say that not everything is right. Why do we have to be “supportive” of everything that everyone does? We have a society where the traditional family is a minority and the sad thing is, it is not helping us one bit. Singles parents are struggling to raise their children because the father/mother has decided they do not want to be parents. Behavior of “glittering” someone is acceptable because it is done by a minority group but a person who stands up for what their faith is shouted down and/or abused. When did wrong become right and vice versa?

Marco, the evidence of harm is that even in Holland, where homosexuality is accepted, homosexuals still have higher rates of depression, suicide, and have shorter lives.

Take this CDC report from late 2010. Here in the US, MSM (men having sex with men) have higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases after DECADES of education on so-called safe sex.

This is proof that the homosexual lifestyle is not natural, and it leads to unnatural consequences for one’s body, ie., sickness:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf

From the CDC’s report: “Gay and bisexual men — referred to in CDC surveillance systems as men who have sex with men (MSM)1 — of all
races continue to be the risk group most severely affected by HIV. Additionally, this is the only risk group in the U.S. in
which the annual number of new HIV infections is increasing.”

This isn’t from a 1985 report, Marco, but from the latest governmental documents.

Marco, What is always left unsaid in these discussions is how most people come to homosexuality.  So many children denigrated into it, fed hatred or fear of the opposite sex or doubts about their own ability to be happily married to a member of the opposite sex, molested, plied with alcohol, struggling with issues with parents that are used to alienate them instead of being used as a jumping off point for healing, stereotyped.  Massachusetts has paid a price for gay marriage.  We were NEVER allowed to vote on this.  It was a judicial action that circumvented the will of the people.  Our children are being fed lies passed on as truth.  People who oppose homosexual unions are being harrassed and baited. It is very nasty stuff.

I guess it is hopeless to expect religious individuals to deal constructively with reality.  I should know better, but here goes.  In modern societies, with human rights proections, you get to believe and preach whatever you want.  I agree with that (evidently, Roman Catholics do not; if, suddenly, you have changed your views on freedom of, and from, religion, I’m glad to hear it, but I am not so foolish to expect it, or believe it when you pretend).  You continue to insist that the laws of the state (the State of New York, and every other jurisdiction for that matter)should require everyone to do what you want.  What you say you want, above, is the “right” to impose your beliefs, in law, on others. As for the technicalities of marriage, Amy, your assertions are just silly, but they prove my point that to you, and, I guess, other believers, that semantics,and the mindless convictions behind them, are more important than reality. As for “christian charity”, here is what you say about homosexuals (Benedict, you know, the guy doing the pontificating at the moment): a “tendency toward an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”  Added to that are the idiotic statements about homosexuality above.  These are not a recipe for charity or pastoral care or respect for dignity, they are, self-evidently, arrogant and condescending and, worst of all—not that this matters to you—factually wrong.  How about “marriage”?  The assertion that it has always and everywhere meant one-man-one-woman is simple- minded and wrong, it’s not even biblical; in fact, as admitted by the proponents of Proposition 8 in their trial in San Francisco is that the only thing that has been consistent (even in translation) is that it has been called “marriage”; the number and genders of participants has varied from time to time and place to place.  You will have to get used to the idea, painful and unaccustomed though you may be to it that, although in your church you get to decide what you want—however ridiculous—you are not entitled to decide for everyone else.  And, despite your historical inclination to do so, you are not entitled to destroy everyone who disagrees.  Speaking of which, ‘lisieux’ speaks of the church’s charity work.  Not the topic here, but there is the connection:  it turns out the Roman church immediately withdraws its services if they are needed by someone they don’t like, such as gay and lesbian couples.

“The assertion that it has always and everywhere meant one-man-one-woman is simple- minded and wrong, it’s not even biblical; in fact, as admitted by the proponents of Proposition 8 in their trial in San Francisco is that the only thing that has been consistent (even in translation) is that it has been called “marriage”; the number and genders of participants has varied from time to time and place to place.”

Can you show me where the number of genders has never been two?  The oldest documents I’ve seen have always started with the premise that a man marries a woman, a woman marries a man.  There may be more than one of each, but the second wife doesn’t marry the first wife, she marries the husband.

“Not the topic here, but there is the connection:  it turns out the Roman church immediately withdraws its services if they are needed by someone they don’t like, such as gay and lesbian couples.”

Tell me, can you name the largest provider of AIDS services in the world?  Please ponder that for a bit.

Look, it’s not news to you, but Catholics believe in a Heaven and Hell.  They believe there’s a God who created Heaven, and wants us all to live there with Him.  They simply want to help you get there.  They get nothing for doing this, they want to live there happily, and with you, if you can believe it.  Nothing would make them happier than that.  They’ll even be happy if God looks upon you with greater favor than them, they’ll be in Heaven, so who cares?  This does not come from hate, it comes from love.  You don’t have to believe what they say, but understand they are trying to help, not hurt.  And if they are indeed correct, and you are wrong, you lose big time.  But if they are correct and you join them, what do you lose?  Sexual license?  Whoop-dee-do!  Compared to Heaven that’s not even worth a thought.  I know neither I or anybody else can make you a believer, all I ask is you give Catholics the benefit of the doubt as regards their sincerity.  Sure, there’s bad ones, but don’t let them get in the way.  If a jerk of a cop pulls you over on the highway, do you assume all cops are jerks?  That would be foolish.  I can honestly say I view folks of other faiths and denominations as people who care about me.  I know they want me to join them for what they see as my own good, I do not hold that against them, not at all.

Ooh,ooh! I just noticed Christina’s request for substantiation about Roman Catholics always opposing equality rights for homosexuals.  I wouldn’t have thought it was necessary since it has been so universal.  But somebody up there repeated the church’s current lie that it believes in equal treatment.  For years (for the Council on Homosexuality and Relgion), I documented church responses to legislative initiatives to add sexual orientation to human rights legislation, on this continent and everywhere else.  The Roman position, expressed by its bishops—their views are the only ones that count in your episcopal heirarchy—always, always, always opposed this legislation.  They never, ever, supported it.  This applies in all of Canada’s ten Provinces and three Territories, and federally, and in all 50 US States, and in the hundreds of US municipalities that have considered such legslation and in every other country in the world.  What a record!  Endless, unvarying, mindless, slanderous, sanctimonious opposition to equal treatment for homosexuals. And so, Christina, when you wrote “We don’t oppose actual equality or human rights”, you lied.  This is your “Truth”, and it—all of it—is a ridiculous fabrication.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/the-sportswriter-vs.-the-archbishop/#ixzz1QF3r5z8J

There wasn’t a big uproar when no-fault divorce became legal?  Really?  As far as I know faithful Christians are still uproarious about it, and birth control.  These things have destroyed the culture of family and led to this whole gay marriage farce.  All anyone can seem to think of is themselves, what about the children?

And what is up with sports writers commenting on such things anyway, can’t even use sports as an escape from this insanity anymore….

Hello Chris Vogel,

You state, “
You continue to insist that the laws of the state (the State of New York, and every other jurisdiction for that matter)should require everyone to do what you want.  What you say you want, above, is the “right” to impose your beliefs, in law, on others.”

Yes, that is correct.

And it also applies to you, Chris. You too insist that the laws of the state should require all to do what you want. 

You too want to impose your beliefs, in law, on others.

One great difference between us though, Vogel, is that what you want to impose on society is unnatural and not fitting for the common good.

Ergo, for homosexual marriage to be approved in the beautiful land of ours would be to enshrine unnaturalness into law.

When we break the natural law, it comes back to break us. That’s why the homosexual community suffers as it does with depression, suicide, and physical ailments more than the community at large.

Society doesn’t need to enshrine unnatural acts in law and try to force them into acceptance.

@Chris Vogel
Sexual orientation is viewed by the Church and many others to be based merely on feelings, which is why the Church and many others do not think that adding it into human rights documents is such a good idea. This would be hypocritical, and say to the world that these behaviors are perfectly natural and moral, and that there is nothing wrong with them. Again, this all goes back to trying to save souls. We don’t oppose these things because we like seeing people harmed and killed, we oppose them because we are trying to reach out in other ways out of love. It is fallacious at best to assume any of this is done to purposely hurt people or make their lives harder.

And just out of curiosity, why is it that people who disagree with the Catholic stance on these issues come to Catholic websites to proclaim this disagreement? Often very unkind and ridiculous accusations are made, and Catholic commenters (some of whom are well meaning, others reacting out of annoyance) are treated badly. I suppose that you already know that by coming onto “our turf” and publicly insulting us and/or our views will only serve to make us more resolved in holding them. Therefore, it would make absolutely no sense to come here, say inflammatory things, and then expect us to react in a way that was anything other than unfavorable toward the opposing viewpoint.

Chris Vogel:  Name calling is not refuting the truth of what I said.  I have witnessed the damage of the sin of homosexuality and have heard the put downs of the opposite sex, seen the berating and coercion, seen the results of children abused and people taken advantage of when they were drunk.  This is much more a psychological issue than homosexuals are willing to admit. In our country we are founded on a belief in God.  The pilgrims who came here came for religious freedom.  Freedom to worship -not Freedom from God.  The young generation is following John Lennon and “Imagine"ing there is no God.  Well you can imagine all you want but I would ask you to love yourself enough to look into His existence more.  The number of witnesses to His action in their lives is vast.  Read the life of a Saint.  Don’t hide in ignorance.  There is nothing that is impossible to God.  Ask and you will receive if it is in accord with His will.  When two people of the same sex start having sexual relations societal relations are harmed. Two people of the same sex should be FRIENDS, not lovers. Society goes into defensive mode to protect children and young adults from unwanted sexual advances or predatory behavior. Life is altered so that trust is harmed.  What should be obviously a friendship relationship now can be perverted to something sexual. Special interest groups put their own interests above the interests of the rest of society. The Catholic Church has consistently recognized that it is objectively observable (even to children) that two penises do not compliment each other.  Neither do two vaginas.  Children can not be born of the sexual acts of two penises.  They can not be born of the sexual acts of two vaginas. Two people, by nature created to be friends, have crossed a line, felt a temptation, and sinned.  They have done the unnatural for their OWN need, despite its consequences to society.  Children raised by same sex couples are in an environment that purposefully deprives them of the complimentarity of a man and a woman. Creation is all around us.  The Creator has given man and woman a complimentarity that allows them to join in creating life and in raising the child.

Tolerance of bigotry is immoral. And Bishop Dolan, with his rabid hatred of gays, qualifies as an honorary member of the Ku Klux Clowns. Good thing he and his crew lost tonight. THis is a victory for freedom and a defeat for the perverts of the USCCB

I am wondering if in some cases if homosexuality is caused by a hormone imbalance during gestation resulting in the malformation of some areas of the brain. If this is the case, shouldn’t it be treated with pharmaceuticals like any other illness or disease? Wouldn’t this be the charitable thing for a government to do instead of pretending that homosexuals are not abnormal and allowing them to live out disordered lives? Maybe we should vote on the medical treatment approach instead.

Just a thought….

By the way if it wasn’t obvious, this wasn’t the same bob associating Abp. Dolan with the KKK.

Wow…forced treatment of people with drugs because you’re a bigot. Now THAT is a Nazi orientation…and no, that’s NOT breaking Godwin’s law. See what religion does!

I love the tone of the article by the way. Objecting to name calling while trying to characterize people as ‘morally disordered’ while some of you perverts suggest forcing drugs on gays! Talk about Orwellian. What’s next? Concentration camps for gays? Oh…wait…you guys already did that…never mind.

Bob, we don’t have to tolerate that which is unnatural or evil. Nature takes care of its own.

The only hate I see on here comes from those pushing the homosexual agenda.

Just because we disagree with you doesn’t equal hate, bob.

Same-sex orientation is defined as arrested development. Some people use their same-sex orientation as an excuse to abuse the natural law and impose their vitriol on the culture. Some agressively militant homosexual persons refuse to admit to their shortcomings and their disability. These same persons blame everybody for their misery as a way to take what they want. When everybody has either arrested development or believes he does, then the obvious will be hidden from the mind’s eye. Imagine a culture where people envy arrested development because they were taught in public school that it is enviable. Instead of loving the homosexual, people will now hate them for having something all people must have. The “have” homosexuals against the “have not” homosexuals. Class warfare. When man sins, man falls beneath the animals. Animals are innocent and have no need for a moral law. Animals’ souls die when the animal dies. Man becomes a demon when he rejects the God of creation and embraces the devil. Demonizing a demon is fair turnaround.

Mary, your pathological hatred of gays, dressed up in pseudo psychological language, is still hatred. Very Catholic of you. Gays aren’t miserable, however, look at your own perverted hatred of people who’ve done you no harm! Talk about arrested development and mental illness.

Liseux, you call hatred good? Is that your argument? Fine. Good argument. Glad to see that, in Catholic doctrine, hatred is a Cardinal virtue. Homosexuality is hardly unknown in the natural world. You Catholics are woefully ignorant of most things, so ignorance of science isn’t unexpected. Yes, your bigotry is evil. Pure evil

Same sex marriage is legal in the State of New York… PERIOD. That is all that matters. The whole Catholic church from the Pope on down to the ridiculous Mr. Dolan have been put in their place. The church can have whatever view it wants on homosexuality; love the sinner but hate the sin and all that nonsense. Marriage will never be the same and that is the good news. The church should focus on its own issues like pedophilia.

I am a gay man.  I’ve been in a committed monogamous relationship with the most wonderful man in the world for many years.  We had a religious (Jewish) wedding.  We now seek a civil marriage contract in order to protect our most important relationship. And I am therefore a very strong supporter of marriage equality for same-sex couples. All that said, I am more than a little reluctant to label anyone “intolerant” in this debate.  For one, name-calling rarely accomplishes much, and, well, as a gay person, I’ve been called FAR more than my fair share of terms of abuse by people who have never even met me.  But more importantly, I don’t think this is about “intolerance” for most people.  A better term might be something like “lack of consciousness and understanding.”  Not catchy bumper sticker slogans, I’ll grant you, but more accurate than “intolerance”.  It took me years just to accept the fact that I was gay and that, despite all my prayers and efforts to change my orientation, it wasn’t going to change.  Eventually, I not only came to accept who and what I was, but my consciousness was raised:  I began to see this as just part of the variation in the world, and in fact, part of who I was—and not a “bad” part.  It took still longer for me to even contemplate marriage for me and my partner.  Having had to hide the fact that I was gay for so many years, imagine me trying to get the state to recognize my relationship!  But I thought through all the arguments, and frankly, the arguments in favor of marriage equality win hands down.  I am willing to give Archbishop Dolan the benefit of the doubt—let him take his time.  In the meanwhile, my partner and I will marry, civilly, while praying that God grant individuals like the Archbishop the wisdom finally to reach the understanding it took me so long to reach.

@Rick, your comments are very well-thought-out and heartfelt. Thank you for your even-handedness and for not resorting to ad hominum arguments against those who disagree with you, attacking anyone who disagrees as automatically being a bigot, a Nazi, etc.  As a child of God, you have as much dignity and are as derserving of God’s love as anyone else on this planet, gay or straight.  (After all, none of us really *deserves* God’s love, but He’s gracious enough to give it to us anyway!)  But if we accept that God knows a lot more than any of us can, and that He, as our Creator, deserves our love, trust, and obedience, then let’s pray that God’s Truth prevail, whatever that Truth might be, instead of simply praying that Archbishop Dolan come to the same understanding that you have achieved.  God bless you.

Bob, you’re not logical. Please demonstrate where and how I call hatred “good.”

Michael, legal doesn’t mean that something is just or right.

Remember, slavery was once legal in America too. The United States Supreme Court ruled in Dred vs. Scott that African Americans were not human persons.  Thankfully, what was once false in law was undone by later courts.

Homosexuals have the right to live the way they wish, but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for the rest of society.

At everyone re the Chris Vogel comment: “In modern societies you get to believe whatever you want.”  DING,DING,DING,DING,DING!!!!!  Helloooooooooo! For this generation Truth does not exist.  Common sense does not exist.  Right and wrong does not exist.  Cooperation does not exist.  Faith does not exist.  Honor, integrity, character do not exist.  What poverty!

Rick:  “It took me years to accept that I was gay.”  That would be because you probably weren’t.  I have seen so many people groomed into the lifestyle. So many who didn’t have or use the sacraments to stay closer to God. I’m sorry you are performing homosexual acts and have not followed either the Jewish or Christian faiths.  Your conscience was deadened not awakened.

“That would be because you probably weren’t.  I have seen so many people groomed into the lifestyle.”

I guess I don’t know what that means.

I grew up in the 1960s, a time when no one discussed sexual orientation. I didn’t even know there was such as thing as “homosexuality”.  By the time I hit puberty, however, I certainly knew I was “different” from my peers, and was desperately trying to understand it.  I would go to the public library and try to find books that would explain what it was.  At the age of 14, I was able to write in my journal “I am a homosexual”—having finally made the connection between what I was feeling and what word fit it.

It would be years before I so much as met another gay person (or a person I knew to be gay) and even more years before I so much as held the hand of another gay person.

So it’s sort of difficult to say I was “groomed” into a “lifestyle.”  What “lifestyle” would that have been?  I was celibate—a “virgin” well into my 30s, while my heterosexual peers were, well, not.

It wasn’t until I accepted me as God made me that I truly felt close to Him. 

Peace.

“let’s pray that God’s Truth prevail, whatever that Truth might be, instead of simply praying that Archbishop Dolan come to the same understanding that you have achieved.”

Amy—

Agreed.  To clarify, my sense is that the Archbishop is simply accepting what he has been told to believe.

I struggled to understand who and what I was, only to discover it wasn’t at all what society writ large was saying—something that I assume the Archbishop, as a heterosexual, simply took for granted in his own life. That’s the difference, and all I meant by it.

Liseux calling homosexuality ‘evil’ is hatred. If you can’t see that, you need to educate yourself. Look at the gays posting here and tell me they’re evil. You can’t. They’re not evil…your beliefs are. It’s tragic to call gays ‘evil’ or to deny them equal rights based on some arbitrary rule of sexuality

Rick,  You never reached out to an adult it sounds like.  alot of young people especially at the young age you are talking about have attractions to the same sex but you kept it inside and let it fester.  You could have been helped to overcome this or more accurately pass through this with some guidance.  You gave up when you labelled yourself at the young age of 14 by diagnosing yourself and believing it was permanent.  You reinforced it over many years alienating yourself by your own labelling.  Very sad. The lifestyle is more drama than reality in your case it would seem.

Bob, Sin is evil. Hating sin is not evil. Give Lisieux the benefit of the doubt.  Don’t you think she was talking about the homosexual act, not the person?  Homosexual marriage is not an equal rights issue.  There are no rights to unnatural acts like incest or pedophilia or sex with people of the same sex.

“Rick,  You never reached out to an adult it sounds like. “

With respect, no, I did.  I sought “professional help”, dated women exclusively for years, and did absolutely everything they suggested in order to “change”.

If ever there were an individual who “chose” to be heterosexual in orientation, that would have been me.

Apparently, it doesn’t work that way.

Peace.

Pam you can define popcorn eating as a sin. It’s nonsense to pretend that being gay is a ‘sin’, given the reprehensible history of Christianity in defining what is/isn’t sin. Slavery was not a sin in the Catholic church until the 19th century, so spare me the lectures. And homosexuality is not pedophilia. THAT is MORE bigotry. It’s a disgrace to link the 2.

Folks, consider the source of this attack on Archbishop Dolan and it’ll help you breathe easier. Mike Lupica’s cheapshots and beanball column hurled at the Archbishop say more about the writer than anyone else.
  Small wonder that William Bulger, (yep, Whitey’s brother) long ago, long ago, called the sports pages of any paper, the equal to the toys n’ games department of any department store.
  Now, I happen to be a strong Yankees’ fan and I love New York City. On the other hand, it’s almost impossible to ignore, much less, tolerate the geographical parochialism many of New York’s chattering class are afflicted with. It’s as if they the only map of the United States they seem to recognize is the famous (or infamous) New Yorker front cover depicting a typical Manhattanite’s very constricted view of the nation looking westward beyond the Hudson. (Though I’m a Bronx Bombers’ fan, I’m also from New England and take some umbrage at this supreme insult, just as any self-respecting Midwestern Catholic or any kind of Midwesterner should take at Lupica’s sneering geo-snobbery.
  Heck, is this guy’s “understanding of theology” worth commenting on. Is there anything to comment on to begin with?
  Naaaaah, just close your eyes and picture this guy as the proverbial kid whose parents wouldn’t buy him a toy he had his eyes feasting on, even though he knew he had no chance in hell of his parents giving in to begin with. Now, if that doesn’t put a wide grin back on your face ... !
  Besides, since Lupica writes for the Daily News, we’re not even dealing with a kid whose parents would take him to Macys, much less FAO Schwarz for the embarrassment he’d cause them.
  Now just think of the embarrassment he caused his paper and city.
  Are ya’ smilin’ yet? I’m laughing like hell!

Hello bob,

Please demonstrate where I said that homosexuality is evil. That wasn’t from me.

I can tolerate homosexuals quite well, and I can also try to understand their point of view. Homosexual acts, however, is another matter.

Again, this issue is not about “marriage.” It’s about cramming acceptance of homosexual behavior down the throats of everyday Americans who through the natural law realize that homosexual acts are UNNATURAL.

Children from marriages, in families, have a right to have a mother and a father.

No law can change that.

Rick, I try to understand your point of view, but why marriage, when you and your partner cannot bear children for society?

Also, you and your partner cannot provide a feminine role model and presence for any child in the home.

Surely, if you are concerned about power of attorney, hospital visitations, insurance benefits, all of this could have been taken care of without calling what you will have marriage.

I do believe that you have the right to live as you wish, but not to redefine marriage for the rest of society.

OK Liseux, tell me how permitting gays to have equal rights affects you. You can’t. You’re simply defining another group of people as sub human. It’s pathetic. Un natural? That’s YOUR definition and you’re welcome to it. Keep it to yourself. I consider belief in god to be an abnormality, but can tolerate it. It’s unnatural but folks like you need it.

liseux,  Thank you for your question.  With respect, my response is:  we seek to protect our relationship for precisely the same reasons that opposite-sex couples want to protect theirs.  We had a religious marriage ceremony, I am guessing for much the same reason you did, if you did.  Now we seek civil protections for our relationship. Again, I am guessing that our reasons for seeking those civil protections are roughly the same reasons for which you have a civil marriage license.  Everything from who gets notified upon injury or death to how the law treats contested wills, who gets to make funeral arrangements and on and on and on.  We’ve already made multiple trips to a very expensive lawyer, but even the lawyer acknowledges the difficulty of recreating marital protections without a marriage certificate. The lawyer has had to think ahead to all manner of possible situations just to try to make sure they are covered—they would have been automatically by a single marriage certificate.  The problem is, you can’t predict everything. That’s why marriage contracts work so effectively—they cover the relationship, and thus you don’t have to be a seer. You are covered even in those unpredictable circumstances that the lawyer cannot help you with ahead of time. Indeed, one of the most startling things to me in connection with the lawyer visits has been that he is something of a collector of anecdotes, and uses them to guide what he thinks might end up being useful. But he doesn’t know which, if any, will end up being called upon in any particular case.  And so he goes on collecting anecdotes, hoping his experience will serve his clients

bob, homosexuals have the same rights as I do- to marry a person of the opposite sex.  They are on equal footing with me and you, not beneath, and not above. No fewer rights, no special rights.

This isn’t about equal rights-it’s about forcing society to accept homosexual acts as natural when they are not. And I shall not keep it to myself when ALL of nature cries out that homosexual acts are unnatural.

That’s why homosexuals have still have higher incidences of sexually transmitted diseases today, decades after learning about so-called safe-sex methods:

“Gay and bisexual men — referred to in CDC surveillance systems as men who have sex with men (MSM)1 — of all
races continue to be the risk group most severely affected by HIV. Additionally, this is the only risk group in the U.S. in
which the annual number of new HIV infections is increasing.”
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf

Marriage has always been limited in scope- two minors can’t marry, two people of the same sex cannot marry where I live, siblings cannot marry, nor can three or more people marry.

Do you think three people should be allowed to marry in this country if they love one another?

What about siblings who love one another? Should they be allowed to marry?

Hello Rick,

Will all respect as well, I think that you and your partner can protect your relationship and not have a marriage. After all, your union will not produce children for the building up of society.  Marriage is for the betterment of partners as well as for rearing children for the society.

That’s why Western society has protected marriage between a man and a woman. Civilization looks upon the raising of children to be for the common good.

If you want to live with your partner, fine. If you want acceptance from society, marriage has been a vehicle to cram it down our throats. NY has succeeded, for now.

However, where this has come up for vote, in all cases, it has been turned down, because the majority of people recognize that homosexual unions are not marriages.

I remember hearing of a couple of old maid sisters in England recently who had lived together all their lives and loved one another. They sued the govt. for the same benefits of homosexual couples and were turned down because they were not married.

I think that the couple of old maid women had much in common with you- they wanted benefits from the state, yet they did not have a union which garnered protecting from the state.

Rick, I try to understand your position, but I disagree that you should redefine marriage for the rest of society.

“Marriage is for the betterment of partners as well as for rearing children for the society.”

The two are not mutually exclusive.  Each is a worthy reason to marry. 

The reality is that gay couples form families.  They share mortgages, bills, incomes;  they make decisions as a couple;  they often raise children, either from previous opposite-sex marriages, or because of other circumstances. 

For what it’s worth, I don’t think I would evere argue for the destruction of something as vital as marriage.  I don’t think I am arguing for its destruction. In fact, I believe I am arguing that if it looks like a marriage, acts like a marriage and functions as a marriage, it ought to be treated as one. ;-)

Peace.

“If it looks like a marriage, acts like a marriage and functions as a marriage, it ought to be treated as one”...
This is the evidence, par excellance, that I’m expected not only to tolerate active homosexuality, but to approve of it—the purpose of same-sex “marriage”. One comes to a Catholic site and proposes that I jettison the stamp the Lord has placed upon man, and the obvious complementary nature of man and woman (as Pope John Paul II treats in depth in his discourse on the “theology of the body”), in favor of license mistaken for freedom. To put it bluntly, does one really believe that one man’s penis is intended for another man’s !@#$%, and hope to persuade Catholics of this disordered rationale, in order to redefine marriage?

Rick, It’s a pleasure to read your responses that seem to come from a place of immense calm and inner peace, despite the anguish that I can imagine you have gone through. As someone reading this in India, is there anywhere I can reach out to you and know more?

For all the griping and whining can anyone argue with nature? Humans were created male and female with complementary sex organs. Only one gender is made to gestate, birth and feed the offspring while the other gender is generally more suited for the labor of providing necessities. Because humans learn best by observing and interacting with more experienced humans, offspring need a parent of each gender in order to learn both how to be male or female and how to interact with the opposite sex. Nature has defined both marriage and family, and while there are cases of single parent families raising good and healthy children, we all acknowledge the special plight of a single parent. How can we so easily disregard our nature and try to make the unnatural ‘normal’?

The same groups who want homosexuality normalized by laws support and defend ecologically responsible behavior. We humans are a part of nature and it would do us all a bit of good to behave in a manner keeping with our created existence.

You have redefined marriage? Natural laws can be changed? What will you do next, change “Age of Consent” laws to include the age of nine or maybe you will decided on eight? There were anti-sodomy laws once in this country, didn’t politicians change them? Didn’t so called psychiatrists change the DSM guide to change homosexuality from a disorder?
In other words pedophilia is now morally objectionable, just as heterosexuals find sodomy morally objectionable; however, when you make morality subjective and there are no objective truths, then society is like quicksand with everyone’s individual moral beliefs shifting and changing.
If there are no objective truths according to nature like some believe, society shall descend into relativistic chaos. It already has because of relativists like homosexual activits. You side with disorder, you have sided with the rebellion. You have sided with the enemy of all things. You will laugh it off, mock TRUTH, and follow your real father, the Father of Lies and Disorder…

“This is the evidence, par excellance, that I’m expected not only to tolerate active homosexuality, but to approve of it—the purpose of same-sex “marriage.”

I try to live my life by the mantra that what you think of me is none of my business. ;-)

That includes what the Catholic Church thinks of my relationship.

It’s a different matter, however, how my government treats me.  And if you are able to protect the most important relationship in your life with a civil contract, then, with respect, I should be able to as well.

I won’t re-post my post of 11:20 PM last night (June 25), but in it I tried to delineate why this is an issue of equal treatment under the civil law for comparable circumstances rather than a debate over “natural law” or what one may or may not be doing with one’s private parts.

To Asia:

Thank you for your kind words.  I spent several years in India doing research for my profession, and found it an incredibly rich culture.

Re:  Inner peace

There is a discussion in the Talmud (in “Ethics of our Fathers”) that calls upon the individual to be “sameakh b’khelko”—content with one’s portion (in life). 

I take it to mean NOT that we shouldn’t strive to better ourselves, but that we should accept who we are and work within the parameters of those limits to achieve our best. 

Life has been extremely kind to me.  I had two wonderful, accepting parents, have an incredible brother and his family, and the best helpmate in life that God could ever have found for me.

While I would never have chosen to be gay, I have to say, now in the last third of my life, that I truly “lucked out.” 

What do I wish for you and for others reading this?  I wish for others to find as much love and commitment in their lives as I have in mine.

Will, you have a fiction about marriage. Polygamy was rampant in the OT as it is among Muslims. And romantic love is a fairly recent invention. Many girls were married at 13 or so in the middle ages. Marriage is a plastic institution…always has been. And your own church used to forbid marrying Jews because they said Jews were Christ killers. So get over this lie that marriage is being ‘redefined’. That’s simply a license for bigotry. I suggest you actually read the notes posted here from gays (I’m not gay.) Tell me honestly if they represent a threat to society like you guys once said the Jews did.

Hello Rick, thanks for the genial manner in which you post, even though we disagree on many points.

You state:
“The reality is that gay couples form families.  They share mortgages, bills, incomes;  they make decisions as a couple;  they often raise children, either from previous opposite-sex marriages, or because of other circumstances.”

All of what you just stated my brother and I could accompish living in the same household. We could share most things, raise our kids together, etc.

Yet I’m not expecting anyone to redefine marriage so that any unnatural, or natural if platonic, relationship would be recognized by society. 

Again, I don’t think this is about the benefits of marriage, but about forcing the acceptance of homosexuality upon society.

Would you have accepted a civil union, Rick?  It has the benefits of marriage, yes?

“Would you have accepted a civil union, Rick?  It has the benefits of marriage, yes?”

Yes, provided it really did what it set out to do.  My concerns about civil union are two-fold:

1. Portability:  Marriage is portable.  You can cross state lines (and even international ones) and know that your marriage will be understood to convey a set of rights and responsibilities.  The federal government as well acknowledges marriage as providing the specific legal status of family for a multitude of purposes.  And it’s also understood by businesses, by organizations, by insurance policies, by mortgage companies, and on and on.  Not sure how this would be accomplished by a new and different legal structure.  If it could be accomplished through civil unions, great.  2.  Case law/family law:  Marriage has a set of precedents that are binding—a history of how to treat married couples, how to interpret family law based on marriage contracts.  Would that very complicated but important set of precedents “count” in terms of this new entity called “civil union”?  My primary point is that it is NOT about the word “marriage” for me in terms of civil law.  My partner and I were married in a religious ceremony, binding under the terms of the tenets of our religious faith.  We have a religious marriage contract, and it holds the same meaning for me as the religious contract held for my parents.  I am satisfied that I am married in terms of my faith.  For civil purposes, I simply want the law to recognize that my partner and I are not legal strangers (as we are currently), but form a legally-recognized unit with all that that implies.

“Again, I don’t think this is about the benefits of marriage, but about forcing the acceptance of homosexuality upon society.”

Just a quick reply about this:  I am not sure what this means.  Some of us are gay.  We are citizens, which, in our wonderful system of governance, provides some pretty important assurances of equal protection under the law.  When you say “acceptance” of homosexuality, I react much as you might react if someone said “acceptance” of Catholicism.  I am not Catholic.  I don’t believe the dogma of the Catholic church at all.  It runs completely contrary to my faith and my understanding of the Universe and ultimately, of God.  But I would fight for your right to believe in Catholicism and to practice it.  You deserve that as a citizen of a free democratic Republic.  In my faith, same-sex orientation is neither sinful nor a sign of rejection of God.  It is a gift from God.  And under civil law, I expect my society to allow me to live my life as a gay person with the person I love and to protect that relationship just as I would expect it to allow you to protect yours.  If that’s what you mean by “acceptance,” then I suppose I do expect that.  What I don’t expect is for everyone to think as I think or even to like me or accept that being gay is morally neutral, which I believe it is.  It’s neither a goal of mine nor a possibility for everyone to understand it the way I do, and frankly, it’s kind of irrelevant to what I expect from society.

It is one thing to propose faith-based arguments, which are based soley on an affirmation of held confictions, rather than substantiated on fact.
For liseux, Pam, and Babs to state homosexuality is unnatural, and Mary DeVoe to think that homosexuality is distorted development is devoid of knowledge.  Homosexuality is present throughout the animal kingdom, including all mammals of which humans belong, in the same proportions.  Since homosexuality is so present, it is truly natural.  No one chooses heteterosexual or homosexual inclination. That preference is inherent to our nature.  Those who wish to change sexual preference do so from a personal inclination, not a scientific one. However, homosexuality is abnormal, in the same sense that high intelligence is abnormal…a matter of probability, percentage, or statistical standard deviation. No question that the church has a right to categorize homosexuality as an abomination, an intrinsic evil, objectively disorder etc., that would be an expression of standing of the church.  There is a big difference when the church goes from a proclamation of belief to obstructing the due course of gay individuals exercising their personal decisions to participate as all citizens in a choice of marrying. An absurdity is the multiple posts frozen on procreation. No one need to marry to procreate. Marrying for whatever rationale is personal.  Throughout history, not as some suggest one woman and one man, one need go no further than Soloman and count the number of his wifes and concubines. Much of marriage contentions had nothing to do with children, but with property, and woman for the most part were cosidered chattel. The church has been no better in that arena. To review the myriad posts on ad hominem discourses, or from the outset on Lupica, none was worse than the personal diatribe of the author and the repeating parrots to follow.  What Lupica stated was quite what many in the church have noted;  the bishops and cardinals are appointed for political reasons not spiritual, nor are they selected for particular accomplishments in theology.  Need one delve any further than seeing what a contrary opinion does to determine the career of any cleric.  There can never be any positive change without dissent. Church has no history in tolerating dissent, contructive or not…therein lies the shame.

So you do think Pedophelia is morally ok Bob? Is Polygamy the next front Bob? Why are you not admitting that you are homosexual Bob? Is in not ok for you to come out now?... To place the penis in the anal canal which is for fecal mater to come out after digestion is not natural, it is disordered. Do you think I have a right to freely think that homosexuality is not normal? To think that sodomy is morally objectionable?

Rick, jThe sixties were a very messed up time in our nation.  To me you are an example of the failure of love.  You had issues and were self-absorbed as teenagers often are but you locked alot inside.  Hormones are raging in kids and it’s too bad you didn’t reach out to a heterosexual man who knew and loved you to help you.  You put a roadblock between you and women by labelling yourself at 14 and had a destructive attraction you let grow in you.  That is how sin works.  You entertained the inclination for a long time. The bottom line is your priority is not God.  Your priority is your sex drive.  If God were your priority you would not be in an abnormal sexual relationship.  You would be celibate. You said you had a Jewish ceremony and yet in the Jewish faith homosexual relations are an abomination so not sure where you are coming from there.  You want to protect what you have but again it is wilful and selfish.  You don’t care about the destruction to children or society you care about your relationship.  I have seen so many people brought into this sin by having their weaknesses used against them.  I have seen many lives destroyed.  It is not a good.

Will, even comparing homosexuality to pedophilia is beneath contempt. And your concern for my sex life is, so to speak, touching. Nice to see your frustration and hatred out in the open. Praise Jesus! Your hatred is one of the best arguments for legalizing gay marriage and forcing people like you back under your rock.

Pam,

While I appreciate your concern, I must tell you that your analysis doesn’t square with my history or my life.  I did reach out, I did seek help, I was given help (including by professionals who shared your perspective) and the result wasn’t that I became heterosexual—it was that I remained celibate for many years.  Throughout, I had faith in God.  God didn’t fail me. He answered me with love., and eventually, I understood.  As for Judaism,  most branches of Judaism embrace its gay members, and support the full legal recognition of their relationships:  http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_jref.htm It is my belief that this is closer to God than the view that you espouse.  Peace.

No hatred, just logic. So you do think that pedophilia is wrong? Half the country or more thinks that sodomy is just as morally objectionable as pedophilia. Is it ok for people to think that sodomy is just as vile? Is that allowed in your new world? I have a real problem with your sodomy agenda. Is that ok, or will I not be allowed to object to this in the future?

Many animals eat their young, are we going to be pushing for infanticide next? The right to kill your child up to two years old, because in Africa, Lions kill their young, so it must be ok for humans now…

Will, many who read your “just logic” remain in waiting for a cogent reply not a venomous one…object as you wish, but refrain from interfering with another’s choice.

Since many straight, married people perform sodomy, Will, again you are letting ignorance trump logic. It’s really none of your business what people do in their sex lives, is it? You have a real problem, my friend. No wonder you’re homophobic. Apparently even straights aren’t moral enough for you, let alone gays!

Homophobic is just a BS word to stop debate. If heterosexuals are having sex in the annus, it is just as disordered… When the sodomy community is pushing their agenda all over the country to push their behavior as normal, then it becomes society’s business.

So your position, so to speak, is that people’s private sex lives should be the property of the government and should be regulated to make sure that they…gay and straight…are having sex the way you want them to. Gotcha.

Does the Government regulate if Bob wants to have sex with Susie the 13 year old? Should Bob be allowed to marry Susie if he wants to? Shoud he be allowed to have intercourse with her?

Is the anal canal meant for sex? Is it designed to take a male penis? Is it what it is meant for? Now the Government is going to force us to accept this as normal. Will I be required to go to re-education classes to see the greatness of sodomy?

Using your logic, every time someone walks into a bank and withdraws their money, they should be arrested for bank robbery. Trying to compare adult married people to pedophiles is typical of the religious fanatic mindset. What the !@#$% is ‘designed’ for is none of your business, quite frankly. This is ANOTHER reason why privacy is so important. Can you imagine Will and his ilk regulating people’s private sex lives?

That is such relativistic BS.

Well have to go but it is been interesting. There are Millions of Millions who will never agree with your sodomite agenda. We will just have to agree to disagree…

The difficulty, or at least one of them, is that ‘Will’ is preoccupied with sodomy.  One can only imagine why. Marriage is much more than the sexual activity. No one need to get married for sex. None of the Catholics in my acquaintance wait for marriage.  All the benefits bestowed upon a couple who marry are at issues…inheritance, health care proxy, health insurance, visitation rights, taxes, recognition as loving couple…yet ‘poor Will’ chooses to focus solely on his preoccupation.

Hello Jesuitical,

Regarding homosexual acts being unnatural, you proffer that homosexuality presents itself in the animal kingdom. Perhaps.

Yet in the animal kingdom we also see gang rape and savagery during sex. Surely, you don’t promote that among RATIONAl human beings?

You say that no on chooses homosexuality. I disagree. Visit any large city high school, and you will see factions of the populace CHOOSING homosexual acts today. Visit months later, and those same ones can switch back.

Remember Anne Heche? She was Ellen De Generes’s squeeze right before Anne ran off and married a cameraman. Surely, some today CHOOSE homosexuality.

And your biggest gaffe: “No one need marry to procreate.”

What a sad statement, as it gives the attitude of total noncommittal. No need to marry before sex because the CHILDREN that arise from that sex don’t need a mom and a father to take care of them and give them complentary role models.

If marrying is personal, would you allow sibling who love one another and have four children together marry?  That’s what a German couple have been petitioning their High Court over for years.

http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2007/03/08/incest/index.html

Hello Rick,

Thanks for your response on civil unions. As you would have no reservations on having a civil union provided that they provide the same legal aspects as a marriage, then I think that could be the route to go.

As homosexual unions are relativley new in the US, someone has to blaze the trail.

From my point of view, equating a male/male or female/female partnership as a marriage is a greater social experiment that deals with children and shouldn’t be attempted.

Yes, I keep saying that this is not about homosexual marriage but about forcing acceptance of homosexual acts upon society. I sincerely believe that. As for “equal protection,” and your being a citizen, Rick, you have the same rights as I do- to legally marry a person of the opposite sex, who is an adult, and who is not your brother or sister.

I do believe what homosexuals are gunning for across the nation is special rights, not the same rights.

Incredible as it may seem, I do “like” you. I have no reason not to, as you are a genial man. I simply disagree with some of your positions (!).

Now Liseux, having admitted that homosexuality is not ‘unnatural’, still seeks to criminalize being gay. Why not make the same argument about being straight? There’s heterosexuality in the animal world and gangrape. So is heterosexualit wrong? What nonsense! The problem you have, Liseux, is that you wish to deny to OTHERS what you yourself are not. Outlawing pedophilia makes sense because we’re ALL potential pedophiles. But we’re not all gay. When you stigmatize gays, as Catholics once did to Jews, you’re denying rights to OTHERS that you yourself already have. Grow up and start seeing homosexuality for what it is; a normal, healthy way for people to love each other.

liseux,it is always desirable to stay on topic. The issue you address is the ‘natural’ state of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Yet you digress to savagery and gang rape, which both occur amongst humans and by the way is deemed illegal. There is no scientist of objective standing who does not recognize that the nature of homosexuality is inherent. That during pupescence an individual is often in doubt in regards to preference does occur…and so eventually that preference becomes well recognized. As you might also acquaint yourself, e.g. Ann Heche, bisexuality is also well recognized, and becomes no counter argument here.  All of what you write regarding high school activity is absurd.  That you remain in such opposition to gay marriage is your choice. To block others from choosing for themselves is abhorrent and despite your self identification with that which is holy, it is not. None of what you state is god-like.

Bob
Please demonstrate where I’ve promoted criminalizing being gay.
That’s YOUR overreach.

Bob, if homosexual sex is so normal then why are homoseuxal men STILL not allowed by law to give blood in this country? “Safe sex” has been around for decades, what’s up?

If homosexual sex is normal, then why are children not the natural fruit?

BTW, bob, I won’t trade personal insults with you. If you continue, I’ll simply ignore you as a troll and deal with people such as Rick who can carry on a civil conversation.

Oh, not Jesuit, you brought up the animal kingdom as an example of naturalness, so do you say that gang rape is natural as well? That example falls flat unless you want to promote the homosexuality, gang rape, and violence all as fair game during sex.

So what is it?  Do we do as the animal kingdom?  Or do we do as rational beings?  I’ll pick the latter.

Please answer my question- do you think a brother and sister couple who love one another should be able to marry? 

As for the choosing sexuality in youth today, I see it all the time in the work I do. And as you say, it is absurd.

Liseux is correct that she only wishes to deny gays healthcare, and other human rights…not to kill them. I guess that’s progress. And it’s irrelevant that they are restricted from giving blood. That’s a non sequitur. And since homosexuality is seen in the natural world, it is, by definition, natural. You’ve lost this argument so time to try another tack for bigotry. You call me a troll? Great. That enables you to avoid dealing with the issue. I’m offended by your hatred of gays. Rick is gay and he’s civil. I’m straight and I’m angered by bigotry against Jews, gays, women, etc. Even Catholics. Your attitude is as offensive as any racist’s is of blacks.

Okay, Bob, that’s your last overreach.

Please DON’T demonstrate where I wish to deny homosexuals healthcare and other human rights, because you’d come up with an even gibber whopper bigger than that one….. lol

No, homosexual men not being able to give blood is relevant, bob, because it demonstrates the (lack of) HEALTH of the populace based upon their sexual activity. 

Another whopper- You’re offended that I “hate” gays. I don’t hate anyone, even trolls! 

If you can’t control your anger, you can’t reason well, and you obviously cannot hold a civil discourse. Please do not respond to my posts.  Time is short.

That should be bigger whopper than that one…

Liseux you want to deny them the right to marry. How many spouses are on family plans from their spouses who work? And there is NO relationship whatsoever between having the right to marry and some bizarre concept that homosexuality is unnatural. Sure you hate gays. Denying them equal rights is prima facie evidence of hatred. Yeah I’m angry. I’m angry with Muslim fanatics who deny women the right to vote. I’m angry with religious fanatics who deny gays equal rights. If YOU aren’t angry with injustice and hatred, then that’s YOUR problem.

Thanks, liseux.  Re: Children and marriage equality for gay couples—it is completely legal for gay couples to raise children today in every state of the union.  The only thing that denial of marriage rights does is sometimes make it difficult for both members of a same-sex couple to establish full parental status (depending on the state adoption laws).  I have seen first hand the problem with that—from the seemingly trivial (e.g., ability to sign a kid’s report card) to the life-threatening (e.g., ability to make a medical decision when the legally-recognized parent is unavailable).  Seems like a bad idea to me since it hurts kids who are being raised by a same-sex couple.  Re: Equal protection—that very argument was put forth when the anti-miscegenation laws were being challenged (that is, that a black person has the “same right” to marry [someone of his own race] as a white person does), and it was struck down by the Supreme Court.  What the plaintiffs in the anti-miscegenation case didn’t have was the right to marry whom they CHOSE to marry.  Unfair is unfair, and that’s the test.  “Special rights” implies to me that I demand something that YOU would also want, but can’t have.  That’s not the case:  you want to marry someone of the opposite sex, and can.  I want to marry someone of the same sex, and cannot.  (Incidentally, change the law and you can marry someone of the same sex as well!  We’d be “equal”.  ;-) ) Regardless, the law frequently acknowledges that people differ—it’s why we have laws that make curbs accessible to the handicapped and closed captioning required on every television set.  Our society belongs to everyone, and the goal should be to do what we can to include, not exclude, individuals when we evaluate equal protection issues.  (I like you, as well.)  Peace.

Nope, homosexuality in nature is seen when normal intercourse is not possible or an alpha is subduing a lesser male. Animals who mate for life are never homosexual. In other words homosexuality in nature is about satisfying an urge or humbling a competitor. Clearly that is not how humans ought to behave.

Meaningless distinction. Animals don’t mate for love, humans do. So, to use your analogy, love is unnatural! And YOUR view of what humans ‘ought’ to do is irrelevant. Absolutely irrelevant. No one cares WHAT your view is as long as you MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS AND LET OTHERS LIVE THEIR LIVES.

Rick, According to the law of Moses homosexual acts are an abomination.  Jesus Christ, God the Son, lived with the Apostles and they wrote letters, called Epistles, in the Bible.  According to all of them it is being tied to the world, bound in the flesh and it is grave sin.  So whatever denomination you belong to it is not faithful to the original teachings.  You listened to someone but it wasn’t God.  Like abortion this issue is dividing our nation.  It’s fruit is loss of the true faith, indoctrination of children to accept and experiment with immoral sexual activity, fear, distrust, anger, attacks on marriage and family, loss of sense of sin.  You are on a Catholic site trying to bring people to accept this behavior as blessed by God.  I have seen the abuses of gay celebrities attracting vulnerable young people. I have seen children of faith filled people emotionally and morally attacked.  I have seen ignorant parents offer their children up for a cause or stereotype rather than raise their child.  It is all a failure of love and it is all sin. You think you have it all but I would caution you that your focus is on this world.

Amazing how selective people are. In Ephesians 6:5 slaves are told to obey their masters. The book of Philemon is a story about Paul sending an escaped slave back to his owner. Don’t hear too much about THOSE parts of the bible. In the OT, death is prescribed for adulterers and blasphemers. In the book of Joshua, an entire town is slaughtered, including women and children, after it’s conquered by the Israelites. Pam, why focus on what the bible says about gays? You going to bring back slavery as well? And what are you even DOING here? Paul said women should stay silent! You going to follow THAT part of the bible?

Bob, You are right that for many years women were chattle (sp?) and in some nations they still are.  That is all part of the problem.  When men or women can cop out from growing in understanding of the opposite sex, when men can treat women badly, when men reject women and have sex with men or women reject men and have sex with women love is not at work.  Human nature is. The animal/flesh side of us is at work. Not the Spirit. The Love God is about is sacrificial.  It is dying to oneself.  A homosexual would never act on the sinful inclination if he/she knew God because they would understand his sacrifical love. He was spit on, scourged, mentally and physically abused, nailed on a cross and died and He asked us to TAKE UP our cross too!  The great gift of friendship has been destroyed by same sex unions.  Two people walking down the street together may well expect people wondering what the relationship they have is.  How sad.  We all have crosses.  For some it is a difficult childhood. For some an illness. For some a tragic loss or accident. The kinds and numbers are as endless as the number of human beings on the earth.  When we demand society eradicate our cross as the homosexual lobby is doing we are rejecting God’s way.  The fruit is destructive and divisive as this is.  Our nation is a nation under God, founded by people looking for freedom to PRACTICE their faith.  Yet NBC, in a move that some might call treasonous, tried to destroy that and redefine our nation by airing a pledge of allegiance where they edited out the words “one nation under God”.  We are offending GOD.  I pray it stops.  Additionally, God is all-powerful.  If they had faith the size of a mustard seed they would overcome all desire for sinful acts like this.  His grace is real.

You’re begging the question. How do you know being gay is immoral? The bible? That book, which endorses slavery, mass murder, and the dehumanization of women? Tradition, which has been wrong so often? What logical basis is there for saying being gay is immoral? I see none. It’s YOUR view the ‘homosexual lobby’ is rejecting God. This is NOT Saudi Arabia and YOUR view of God is irrelevant. This is NOT a nation under God at all. This is a secular, democratic republic, not a theocracy. Keep your God to yourself, OK?

All this over a sportswriter’s dumb remarks about the Archbishop. Don’t a lot of you have better things to do on your days off than to chew this over and over?  There are much bigger issues facing in the next few weeks to come, such as the debt ceiling brouhaha about to unfold putting our national creditworthiness on the line. When that goes pfffffft, imagine what that’ll do to the economy, not to mention the Church’s many charitable missions as a whole. And you guys want to pick this matter apart ever so finely; all the while you hardly take issue with Lupica’s ability to make the wild accusations he made in that column.
  Wasn’t the article originally about a sportswriter’s bum column about the Archbishop? Get a life folks, and soon.

Bob, You grew up saying Pledge of Allegiance unless you are twenty or under and most places even if you are twenty or under.  We are indeed a Nation under God.  Why exactly are you on this site?  You don’t believe in God?  You don’t believe in the historical verification of the life of Christ?  All the first century writers?  The fact that there is an AD and BC as a method of tracking time? Deep denial or rebellion. The pilgrims risked their lives to come to a land where they would be free to worship God.  Thomas Jefferson noted that the form of government established was dependent on people of good will believing in God. It is not just my view that the homosexual lobby is rejecting God. It is impossible to keep my God to myself. The secular thing is a new spin.  It began with Madeline Murray O’Hare.  It isn’t who we are as a nation.

Steven, Perhaps you don’t see what this is really about.

Oh Bob, you brought up homosexuality in nature to refute my point about nature dictating what marriage and family are. What you and I choose to do is irrelevant because marriage is what it is.

As for love, that is in fact a choice. It is a daily choice to act, speak and think lovingly to our friends, neighbors and family. I freely chose to love my husband, and sometimes that’s REALLY hard, even though he is an amazing man!  While attraction may not be a choice, action is. We all are attracted to sin. My temptations may not look like yours, but trust me my friend, they are as powerful and I was born with them. It is not an indictment of your personhood to say gay marriage is wrong. If you felt I was demeaning you dignity, I am sorry. I was speaking from a sociological and ecological perspective.

No, Babs, I brought up nature because you said homosexuality is unnatural. It’s not. Nature has no ‘marriage’. You’re welcome to say gay marriage is wrong. There’s just no logical reason to do so, so it must be bigotry.

Pam you’re welcome to assert that we’re a nation under God all you want. You go find where in the Constitution it says that and I’ll agree with you. Until you DO, we’re NOT a nation under God. God is not mentioned in the Constitution at all. And people did not risk their lives, generally, for religious freedom. They did so to ensure THEIR view of God was worshipped. Religious freedom was not common in the 13 colonies. In fact, S. Carolina had a provision in its constitution stating the official religion was Protestant Christianity. Is that what you want?

Bob, You are a revolutionary, I see.  Our money says “In God we Trust”.  Our Pledge of Allegiance says “One Nation under God.”  You may not want us to be but we are.  Our Constitution doesn’t give a right of privacy, but abortion advocates seem to have found one!  Would I like a Constitutional Amendment stating we are a nation under God?  Sure. We are founded by protestants but we have an amendment already protecting the free exercise of our faith.  You bring to mind the phrase, “Get behind me Satan.”  It isn’t the Spirit of love that is motivating your replies.

Well said Babs.

Pam you need to learn a bit about the law. Money is not law. The Pledge is not law. And the pledge, ORIGINALLY WRITTEN, did NOT contain ‘under God’. That was added in the 50’s. You really think fundamentalists will let Catholics practice freely? Good luck with that! You have more faith in them than I do.

Thomas Jefferson does more than “mention” God in the Declaration of Independence—he bases his whole argument on Divine law, i.e., he accuses King George III of violating Americans’ God-given human rights. John Adams, in a speech to Massachusetts Militia officers, says that the Constitution is designed for a moral and Godly people—“it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other,” I believe is a word-for-word quote. He would seem to be saying that if we ever became “any other” kind of people, the Republic itself must fall. A sobering assessment from a man who was there when they adopted the Constitution which Bob cites.

Bob, The issue was whether we are a nation under God.  When the people have an understanding to the point that they put it on their money and add it to their Pledge of Allegiance it has become who they are.  We freely chose to be a nation who recognizes, trusts, and is under God.  Fundamentalists already “let” us practice our faith freely.

I guess I don’t understand the debate over “one nation under God” in the context of marriage equality for same-sex couples. I am gay. I am Jewish.  My partner and I were married in a religious ceremony in a very mainstream, large Jewish temple, indeed, in the very same temple where my partner became bar mitzvah decades earlier. We were married before our families, our friends, congregants and before God.  It was wonderful.  We have a religious contract (a ketubah) framed and hanging on the wall of our house. So we are married, religiously. Now we are asking for the state to recognize our relationship in a binding civil contract.
As far as I can determine, religious support is NOT a prerequisite for a civil marriage contract.  You can go down to the Justice of the Peace and pay the fee and sign.  So again, what’s the relevance of the RELIGIOUS ceremony on the law?  If there were a direct connection, we’d be civilly married already.  Peace.

The ‘people’ don’t ‘understand’ anything. Money isn’t law. What people think about God is their own concern. Ever hear of the Constitution? You might try reading it sometime. THAT is the law. Not money. We are not a nation that ‘trusts’ God. If we WERE it would be in the Constitution. It’s not. The reason Fundamentalists ‘let’ you practice your religion is PRECISELY BECAUSE we’re not a nation under God. If we WERE such a nation you’d be in jail.

Larry, you have the DoI mixed up with the Constitution. The DoI is not a legal document. The Constitution is. Regardless of your DESIRE to scrap the Constitution, unfortunately it stands between your view of theocracy and freedom. The Founders were wise because they knew religion would destroy this country. And it almost has.

‘So it must be bigotry.’ This statement says so much more about you than me, Bob. I believe that you honestly think I a bigot, but I also know that you are so wrong. In the end all my words will fall on deaf ears, and admittedly yours too because I tend to shut down when namecalling begins. I will pray for you And ask you do the same for me.

“The Founders were wise because they knew religion would destroy this country.” John Adams didn’t know that. Thomas Jefferson didn’t know that.

Bob, You aren’t even trying to make a little sense.  There is more than one way to prove in a court of law a people’s understanding of their national character.  How they present themselves to the world by what they put on their money and the pledge all school children make to start each day are some of those ways.  You sir are bigoted and your bigotry is toward people of faith.

Hello Rick,

You ask,
“So again, what’s the relevance of the RELIGIOUS ceremony on the law?  If there were a direct connection, we’d be civilly married already.”

From my point of view, Pam brings this up because you stated you were “married” in a Jewish religious ceremony. Her very next post had to do with religion, and she related to you that according to Mosaic (Jewish) law homosexual acts are an abomination.

We all know that you can find a Jewish rabbi and I can find some renegade Catholic priest to marry all kinds of configurations. There is always a “church,” group, or pastor willing to tickle your ears with what you want to hear.  The truth reflected in human nature and the God who made it is barely recognizable in some of these groups and people.

That’s why religion was brought up- in reference to your situation.

You all have a blessed day.

Again, money is not law. I have never seen a Supreme Court decision that allowed the Constitution to be ignored in favor of “in God we trust”. You’re welcome to your signs and symbols all you want. But they’re NOT law. I don’t particularly care about your character and expect the same courtesy from you regarding mine. You religious types run around sticking your blue noses in areas where it’s NONE of your business. Yep, I think religion is a delusion. But, since I am NOT in favor of denying you your rights that YOU want to deny gays, your use of the term ‘bigotry’ is risible.

Larry, if you were correct, the FF’s would have made a simple statement in the Constitution: “America is a Christian country”. They didn’t. And, when asked WHY they didn’t, Adams quipped “we forgot”. The fact is, this is not a Christian country. And, in a way, I would be in favor of a state church because it would be PROTESTANT. That’s what our history shows. So when Catholics who are in favor of eliminating separation of church and state realize their church would disappear, I wonder how quickly they’d give up the idea!

I didn’t say they believed America was a Christian country. Clearly, they believed that America was, and in order to long survive must remain, a Godly country. In other words, although Americans must be allowed to worship God in whatever way they prefer, there must remain moral consensus across religious boundaries as to what constitutes God-given rights, duties and principles of right and wrong, or the republic—indeed orderly society itself cannot long stand. I’ll tell you a few other things that are not in the Constitution. “Separation of church and state” is not there. The 1st Amendment forbids laws favoring an “establishment” of religion—that is, A church, not churches or religion in general. Regarding the presidential oath of office, the words “so help me, God” are not there, nor does it specify the laying of one hand on a copy of the Bible. I understand George Washington started those traditions himself—another of the men who were there when both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written, approved and published.

The 1st amendment prohibits establishment of religion. Lest you forget, “God”, by definition, is religion. And I defy you to tell me of a single moral issue Christians have agreed on. You guys supported slavery…the most vile abomination in history…for 19 centuries. If you can swallow THAT log, gay marriage should be a piece of cake. No religious government in history was free. And ALL religious governments are oppressive. ALL of them. That’s why Jefferson changed his mind between the DoI in 1776 and the Constitution in 1787. In that interval he saw the destructive force of religion in Europe and was determined that it would not happen here. You Catholics are living in a dream world if you think Protestants will allow you to practice your religion. Only SECULAR states allow freedom of religion.

As usual, you are full of misinformation. The First Amendment does exactly what I said it does—no more, no less. Read it. As for slavery—well, to borrow a line from “Bad Day at Black Rock,” the movie starring Spencer Tracy: “you’re not only wrong, you’re wrong at the top of your voice.” Here is a line from Pope Leo XIII’s November 20, 1890 encyclical “Catholicae Ecclesiae,” on slavery in the missions: “As you know, venerable brother, the Church from the beginning sought to completely eliminate slavery, whose wretched yoke has oppressed many people.” As long ago as January 13, 1435 Pope Eugene IV condemned the enslaving of natives of the Canary Islands by so-called Christians, and ordered it to stop in these words: “And no less do We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands, and made captives since the time of their capture, and who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free, and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of money. If this is not done when the fifteen days have passed, they incur the sentence of excommunication by the act itself, from which they cannot be absolved, except at the point of death, even by the Holy See, or by any Spanish bishop, or by the aforementioned Ferdinand, unless they have first given freedom to these captive persons and restored their goods. We will that like sentence of excommunication be incurred by one and all who attempt to capture, sell, or subject to slavery, baptized residents of the Canary Islands, or those who are freely seeking Baptism, from which excommunication cannot be absolved except as was stated above.” So, there goes that argument. You’ll have to come up with more misstatements.

If you think the 1st amendment allows establishment of religion then, by all means, cite your case law. Otherwise there is no provision for allowing any church to be established in law. As to slavery, you’re correct. The first global condemnation came, as I said, in the 19th century. The condemnation in the Canary Islands was ONLY for the Islands. The Pope was explicit that slavery was acceptable in other areas conquered by Catholics. Read up on the history of slavery. It’s not as sanguine as you believe.

“...there is no provision for allowing any church to be established in law.” Well, the 1st Amendment goes on to say that Congress may not prohibit the free exercise of religion. That would certainly allow the “establishment” of churches. Until now, I’ve never heard anyone argue that the 1st Amendment prohibits churches from existing. I think you should cite YOUR case law. “As to slavery, you’re correct. The first global condemnation came, as I said, in the 19th century.” A nice distortion of Leo’s encyclical, since the pope himself said that “from the beginning” the church had sought to eradicate slavery. “The condemnation in the Canary Islands was ONLY for the Islands.” Wrong. The excommunications were specifically for the Canary Islands business, but not the moral condemnation. After all, why ban the slave trade anywhere if it were not immoral? “The Pope was explicit that slavery was acceptable in other areas…” Gee, I must have missed that part of the document. I guess Pope Leo missed it too, when he spoke over 400 years later.

Larry, the noted historian Dan Diner has pointed out that fundamentalist religious thinking compromises logical thought. You’re a good example of that. “Establishment” does NOT mean what you think it does. I suggest you read up on it, since it refers to GOVERNMENT churches. If you’re that illiterate on history, there’s little hope for a dialog. As to the Canary Islands, the very fact the EARLIEST condemnation you can find is from the FIFTEENTH century should tell you something. This was limited ONLY to the Canary Islands and did NOT include OTHER Catholic slave owners or traders. You yourself admit this when you say the Church condemned slavery in general ONLY in the NINETEENTH century….which is EXACTLY what I said.

@Pam, I do see what this is all about. The issue was originally about a sportswriter’s boorish remarks and the betraying of his own ignorance about the Church, the Archbishop’s duties as a pastoral leader and teacher; not to mention his complete lack of understanding of why the Church teaches what it teaches about homosexuality.
  I purposely mentioned the debt ceiling issue because how that issue is eventually handled is going to have an impact on every single American in this country; not gay marriage or how a sports columnist demeaned himself by hurling a beanball pitch and the Archbishop.
  Is it too much to ask some folks to gain some perspective around here? Gov. Cuomo signed the damn bill; the homosexuala and their supporters won. It’s time move on and really do something to protect our families. While I’m typing this, I’m also watching Vermont’s Independent Senator Bernie Sanders speaking on the Senate Floor; and in one moment he showed a relatively small building where thousands of companies keep their “headquarters” and where is this building located? Cayman Islands. And who’s paying their taxes? You, me and every body contributing to this commentary thread.
  Oh, and since the thread touched on our national motto and whether we live in a “Christian nation,” hate to say it, but while listening to Sanders, it sho’nuff doesn’t look like it if we allow today’s robber barons to continue plundering from those Jesus called “the least of my brethren.”
  I’m going to propose to my respective Senators/Congressman to change the motto to “In Mammon We Trust” because at least that’d be more honest and less offensive to God. As a nation we’re mocking Him in the way we treat our poor and most vulnerable.
  On to the “Christian nation” nonsense. THE UNITED STATES IS NOT AND HAS NEVER BEEN A “CHRISTIAN NATION”: PERIOD.
  Show me or anybody where it says “Christian nation” in the Constitution. C’mon all you “originialists,” and come forth with the evidence, concrete evidence that we indeed live in a land that is legally constituted or described as a “Christian nation.”
  Bob, you brought up excellent points, but I have to respectfully digress on a couple of points. Adams was out of the country representing us in Europe while the Constitution was being formed in the wake of the only genuine peoples’ revolt in the nascent nation’s post-Revolutionary History, Shay’s Rebellion. Ironically the Virginian Thomas Jefferson was more supportive of Daniel Shays and his fellow rebels than both John and especially Sam Adams. The older and previously more radical of the two Adamses actually wanted Shays hung for “treason” to Massachusetts.
  What brought the FF’s to Philadelphia that summer? A sudden religious fervor and “calling” (ala Rep. M. Bachmann, TP-MN). As historian Charles Beard correctly pointed out, the Constitution is and originally intended to be little more than an economic document. The Bill of Rights was an afterthought. The preservation of the economic order came first. Why? It’s simple: Our revolution is the only one ever lead by a colonial elite for the primary purpose of creating an orderly commercial nation, free of any interference from the mother country, the British Empire or other empires and nations abroad.
  When Shays and his fellow farmers successfully showed how crass, corrupt and selfish the merchants, legal establishment and courts were in the (predominately coastal cities/settlements) not only in Massachusetts, but throughout New England and the Northeast) the mostly wealthy FF’s moved like banshees out of hell to save their necks.
  It was Hamilton, I believe, who, when asked by one of his Presbyterian mentors from Princeton what happened to God, in so many words, who casually quipped “we forgot.” There’s no other FF I can imagine, save for Benjamin Franklin, who would’ve given such a cavalier ... for that period ... to a minister.) Hamilton became more pious later on, but he was all for the monied class and keeping them on top. (He’d be one hell of a Republican today, notwithstanding his differences with Thomas Jefferson on the proper relative size and scope of our government.)
  As for the benefits of having any specific established church, much less it be officially a specific Protestant denomination ... that would’ve been the worst possible outcome and surely paved the way for the newly independent, albeit predominately WASP, nation, to begin repeating the same bloody nonsensical intr-Protestant civil wars that nearly tore the then-young and growing British Empire, concluding with Culloden in 1746. That battle and the war of Bonnie Prince Charles (Stuart) were fresh in the minds James Madison who wisely saw to it that we didn’t allow for any state denomination. The Episcopalians as a result had to settle for a Presiding Bishop because in order for them to have an “Archbishop” such prelate would have to be directly consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury thus it was feared, potentially giving the Crown a back-door foothold in America’s religious affairs. (Their first PB had to be consecrated by a more independent Anglican bishop from Scotland.)
  Let’s not forget the Treaty of Tripoli, which clearly indicated then that the U.S. was not guided by any specific religious body; it was secular then as it is now.
  Whenever I hear that “Christian nation” stuff, automatic memories of visits to Antietam’s Cornfield, Gettysburg’s Little Round Top and the slave market of Charleston, SC. Some “Christian nation.”
  And let’s see how “Christian” this nation is when the final results of the debt ceiling issue are left for all to see. Believe me, if the President doesn’t stand up for the 98 percent of the population against those who’d be perfectly willing to toss our nation’s unblemished creditworthiness, maintain morally unconscionable tax breaks for those Pirates of the Caymans, not to mention individual billionaires, and allow for the gutting of so many necessary programs for defense, public safety, public transportation, environmental protection, consumer protection, new regulations keeping Wall Street honest, nutrition programs for Women Infants and Children, pregnant moms, schools, etc., and this is before even preserving the core components of the “safety net,” SS, Medicare/Medicaid/“Obamacare” ... every one of us had better get on his or her knees and start praying. The economic bloodletting won’t end with the budgetary matters; wait’ll the bond markets have to start making their adjustments. If you don’t have fixed mortgages; say lots of prayers, starting now. How dark a picture do I have to paint?
  How about whole towns looking like those patches of “under water homes” seen in places (mostly throughout the Sunbelt)... but this time in every region of the country; even previously “recession-safe” areas?
  This gay marriage issue is but a relatively small political skirmish to come if that debt ceiling isn’t raised, or even if it’s not raised without sticking it to the vast majority of working people and the poor in this country so the uber wealthy can keep on piling more of their “outward signs of grace” in what’ll truly have become a third world dumplike Temple dedicated to Mammon.
  Hell, I tried humor to wake people up. Obviously that didn’t work. And by the way, Bernie was excellent, as usual.

Thanks, liseux.  Still not sure I get why it’s relevant to civil marriage.

In response to your point, I am not sure I know how to identify a “renegade” religion.  After all, for a righteous Jew, Christianity represented a “renegade” religion—to such an extent that, over the course of history, many Jews perished rather than convert to Christianity at the point of a sword.  As for our congregation, it is actually very much in the mainstream of Judaism, and is part of the largest body of Jewish congregations in the United States—the Union of American Hebrew Congregations (UAHC).  Many rabbis now hold marriage ceremonies for gay couples.  Here’s the official statement of the UAHC on marriage equality for gay couples: “…THEREFORE, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations resolves to:  1.Support secular efforts to promote legislation which would provide through civil marriage equal opportunity for gay men and lesbians; 2. Encourage its constituent congregations to honor monogamous domestic relationships formed by gay men or lesbians; and 1. Support the efforts of the CCAR in its ongoing work as it studies the appropriateness of religious ceremonies for use in a celebration of commitment recognizing a monogamous domestic relationship between two Jewish gay men or two Jewish lesbians.” (Adopted by the General Assembly Union of American Hebrew Congregations, October 29-November 2, 1997, Dallas: Civil Marriage for Gay and Lesbian Jewish Couples) http://urj.org//about/union/governance/reso//?syspage=article&item_id=2000

“As to the Canary Islands, the very fact the EARLIEST condemnation you can find is from the FIFTEENTH century should tell you something.” Well Bob, it certainly torpedoes your argument that we supported slavery for nineteen, not thirteen centuries. Oh, well. As for the rest—I think people can read for themselves those documents of Eugene and Leo (they’re on the web), as well as the Declaration of Independence,the First Amendment and my own previous posts here, and come to their own conclusions about where the truth lies and what I said earlier on this thread.

Really? A SINGULAR comment about a business arrangement that neglected the ENTIRE WORLD is proof that the Pope condemned slavery? And there’s NO condemnation of slavery until the 19th century as you admit. Oh, by the way, the DoI is not a legal document. The Constitution is. But go ahead with your drive for a theocracy. I would welcome seeing the Catholic church wiped out by S. Baptists in the south.

Correction—line 3 in my above post should read “...not fifteen centuries.”

Bob,you just vindicated James Madison’s worst fears. Granted, his concerned the intr-Protestant wars that bled Britain white. Your hypothetical (I hope LOL) call for a Baptist jihad of sorts demonstrated the wisdom of Madison in far more ways than most people today can possibly appreciate.
  Now why aren’t more people taking shots at Mike Lupica, a product of Catholic schooling in New Hampshire and at Boston Collegel ... you’d like to think he’d know better than to have penned that cheap diatribe at Abp. Dolan. On the other hand, just living in New Hampshire does something to people. Maybe it’s the radon poisoning from being up in the Granite(head) State. Or perhaps the biggest clue is the fact he graduated from Boston College, the Jesuits’ lame attempt to give greater Boston’s Catholic kids the impression they were attending something like the more storied Ivy schools in the area, including the Kremlin on the Charles.
  Lupica had best stick to writing about golf, and stay away from hot-button theological issues. His BC training proves to be a far bigger handicap than he could ever pick up on the links.
  Now am I going to be the ONLY guy out there who’s taking on the original villain in this piece!

Apparently, Steven, you’re unaware that itc was illegal for Catholics to hold public office until 1826. That the official religion of S. Carolina was the “Protestant” religion, according to that state’s constitution. Ever read “Jack Chick” publications? Think they’re an isolated view of Catholics among fundamentalists? You’re more gullible than I thought possible. And your radical right paranoia regarding BC shows that Diner was right.

Correction…it was illegal in Maryland for Catholics to hold office until 1826

Steven…you are consumed in a chaotic world of nonsense.  Nothing but drivel in your post.

@Bob, hmmmm ... my “radical right paranoia regarding BC” ... with regards to Diner. That’s interesting Bob because usually I’m accused of writing nothing but left wing “drivel.” Sniff, sniff, sniffle. (I’m a lot more conservative than a lot you guys have managed to figure out by now. Well, that’s what you get when you believe conservatism has more to do with conserving the ideas of the past great scholars and theologians, musicians, literary greats and philosophers, not to mention doing whatever you can to uphold the dignity of all human beings. (Now, I’ll admit just using the word “all” is pretty risky business. That’s okay, I can take it.
  As for “state religions” ... I’m familiar with them in general. After all, Massachusetts was technically a theocracy until the 1830s, and the structural outlines of most of New England’s respective town governments happesn to be based on the Puritan/Congregationalist’s order of service and governing rules, etc.
  Now ... time for you to ‘fess up brother. Are YOU still reading Jack’s tracts? LOL
  I’m sure Jesuitical isn’t. But, Jesuitical, in all fairness, how can you confuse my writings with drivel when most Register commentary participants have trashed them as leftist rants on social/economic issues? Geeesh, that hurts. Calling them “rants” was more complimentary. Don’t worry, I’m not reaching for the bottle ... of prozac, nor Mr. Beam’s. 
  Methinks Jesuitical is really envious that a product of one of the Augustinian Order’s American universities got in a good zinger at Boston College. Well, am I glad that Biscayne College changed its name to St. Thomas University. It’d be a real bummer to have people in Miami think my alma mater was on its way to .. GASP! ...  becoming a second BC like the genuine second-rater on the Heights. STU restored Biscayne, and recreated its role as a purely liberal arts college within the larger university system. (Which is what it was 40 years ago.)
  Say now, how long DOES IT HAVE TO TAKE for a Jesuit university to fire a flaming feminist heretic like Mary Daly? While you’re scratching your head trying to figure that out, I’ll be content knowing one of my fellow alums, Dr. Miguel Diaz, is our present Ambassador to the Holy See. Dr. Diaz may not fit the bill for most conservative Catholic readers of the Register, but compared to the likes of one of BC’s more notable profs, Dr. Diaz is much more orthodox.

Yes, Steven, I can see how you’ve confused yourself. That’s no surprise. And state religions? How many were Catholic? Well….none except for Maryland, which soon was involved in a civil war because of religion. Willing to take that risk? And you object to me knowing a bit of history, it seems. No surprise there, either. Jesuitical was right, your posts are *kindly* described as drivel…filled with half truths, distortions and gross errors of history.

Steven, We won’t really live in the United States of America anymore if the liberal agenda keeps forcing itself on us.  Financial woes will be the least of our worries.  We won’t have to worry about our Christian actions because they will be criminalized. We are a nation that has been morally under attack for a long time.  Are you familiar with the vision of Pope Leo XIII?  Satan has had his hundred years and we are reeling.  Unleashing the sin of sodomy and homosexual relations on society is a major step in the wrong direction.  Archbishop Dolan was ignored.  I am waiting to see what actions he takes against the “Catholics” responsible for this becoming law.

Pam, what ‘liberal’ agenda? The one that demands equal rights for everyone? Yes, the right generally opposes that and insists on special rights for the powerful and religious. There is no ‘sin’ of sodomy or homosexuality except in your neurotic and perverted imagination. Grow up.

Bob, what the hell kind of uber protestanized redneck patch of this country are you from? Everything I wrote thus far was critical of the tendencies of certain Protestant denominations who were determined to ram their own form of Protestantism upon the ENTIRE NATION.
  Why don’t you stop being a deliberate instigator through your all too clever by a half twisting of historical facts just so you can get your jollies from interfering in a discussion about what some out of his league sports writer said about Archbishop Dolan concerning homosexual marriage.
  You’re a piece of work, buddy ... a real piece of work. Usually I’d stick to humor to make my point and let it go from there, but it’s one thing to go along with some give and take. After awhile, there comes a time when it comes to giving, especially when the intended receiver deserves it greatly.
  So, in plain English ... YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU’RE WRITING ABOUT and stop pretending you do when you sure as hell have a better than small grasp of the simple fact you really don’t have a clue about American Constitutional history, its development, our religious history and even the bare bones reasons for how and why the Constitution came into existence. IT’S ECONOMICS.

Steven, now let’s see. You want to foist YOUR view about marriage on the entire nation, yet object to others who would do the same. Oh, the IRONY! You obviously have never heard of the ‘know nothing’ movement, the campaign against Adlai Stevenson, the cliche of “Rum, and Romanism” to object to Catholics running for office, etc. You seem completely unaware of the LEGAL isolation of Catholics in the US as you insist that the US incorporate religion into political life. You really, seriously, need to learn some history. There’s a reason the US does not have an established church. It’s for YOUR protection!

Bob, The liberal agenda is not about equal rights at least not in this country at this time.  It is about lawlessness.  It is about killing the weak, the old, the unborn, the inconvenient. It is about glorifying sex and denying the spirit.  It is about mind games and materialism and power and control.  The readings this week at Mass are about Sodom and Gemorrah.  You see God reaches out to us even in our sin.  How timely that the Church give these readings this week.  Sodom and Gemorrah were destroyed for their sins of the flesh.  Are you listening?  St. Paul states as plainly as anyone can say it, “Do not be deceived.  No adulterer, fornicator, sodomite, boy prostitute etc. will enter the gates of heaven.”  Very clear.  No waffling.  May Archbishop Dolan be as clear as he excommunicates Governor Cuomo and the two republican Senators whose votes and actions passed this bill.  And don’t complain that I quote from the Bible or mention God.  You are on a Catholic website.

Pam, as soon as you enter ‘emotionally laden’ remarks such as ‘liberal agenda’ you lose the thrust of your comment. In fact there is no agenda at all, certainly not a conspiracy as that statement suggests. We all have our ‘value judgments’, but to enter them as fact instead of opinion renders the entire commentary as ridiculous. If Archbishop Dolan indeed excommunicates Governor Cuomo, he would be not only making a serious mistake but be in peril of justifying all accusations against the church.  It is out of touch, outdated, and remains forever sequestered in its arrogant world talking only amongst itself. With each passing moment the church is becoming less universal, restricting and limiting and isolating from many Catholics, certainly the disenfranchised Catholic…all that would remain in the pews would be the mindlessly obedient who willing checked their brains on the mantel…and as Tertullian taught;  don’t think or learn at all lest you might have questions.

Pam, since when have equal rights been lawlessness? Gays wish to be INCLUDED in the law! That’s the whole point to same sex marriage. This has nothing to do with abortion and your attempt to link these is circular logic since it assumes your position is correct from the outset. Sodom and Gomorrah? From a Church that once sanctioned slavery? You have a VERY selective view of the Bible! If you’re going to go that route, then bring back slavery, capital punishment for adulterers, etc. Is that what you’re recommending? Why do you have this cafeteria view of the Bible? I don’t care about your view of the Bible. What IS relevant is that you want this enacted into law. That’s Saudi Arabian theology, not America.

@Bob, brother, your act’s getting old. Sigh. I don’t know where you got the idea I’m trying to “foist” my idea of marriage on anybody. Okay, maybe you got it from interpreting my willingness to take on the topic of Mike Lupica’s trashing ot the Archbishop. But I was defending the right of Abp. Dolan to publicly state his views (which are the Catholic Church’s, because as a high member of the Church’s Teaching Magisterium, he is bound to teach what the Church teaches on topics of faith and morals and nothing but what the Church’s positions happen to be on them.
  The Archbishop did what he was supposed to do and what he has been Apostolically called to do by God as a priest, teacher and shepherd of his flock in the New York Archdiocese. If he didn’t say a word, he’d be hammered, and rightly so. On the other hand, do you think he suffers from a lack of sleep due to his willingness to speak out and pen guest columns explaining the Church’s position on this contentious issue? Of course not.
  Bob, you’re a hard guy to figure out. As for the Know Nothings, you can be sure I’m pretty familiar with them; just as I’m familiar with the Irish Brigade that was used by the WASP Union brass as convenient cannon fodder. I’m familiar also with the “No Irish, Catholics or Dogs Allowed” signs the ever so propah New England Yankees greeted the Irish with; not to mention the quotas used by the elite institutions of the nation at the time when the first large waves of Irish immigrants were arriving on our shores in their cholera/coffin boats. What a fine greeting they received at the hands of the same bunch who justified the continued callous policies of Her Majesty’s Government during the Great Hunger. The potato blight was the catalyst, but it was the official callousness of Westminster that sealed the fate of so many Irish. They’d determined there were too many Irish and the blight gave them all the “cover” they felt necessary to allow famine and laws of supply and demand do the rest of their dirty deeds. Hell’s bells, there was plenty of corn growing on Ireland but it wasn’t available for the rural Irish Catholics to eat unless they “took the soup” and placed themselves at the tender mercies of the Protestant Quaker “missionaries” running soup kitchens that were practically married (how ironic, eh?) to work-houses. No thanks to the Protestants in Dublin Castle and Westminster, County Mayo, normally a beautiful, but rugged part of northwest Ireland was turned in to a charnel house devoid of real hope and charity. But one thing the damn Protestants of that time who orchestrated that first modern GENOCIDE oould not wipe out completely…though they gave it their best through their false offers of “charity” through the soup-factories ... was to kill Catholicism in that and many other famine ravaged counties of western Ireland.
  I was wondering why you left out the “rebellion” in the long infamous “Rum, Romanism and Rebellion” phrase used by Senator Blaine, (R-ME). How could I’ve missed this lapse by you our thread’s esteemed religious historian? Perhaps you just didn’t want to take into consideration the sacrifices made by the thousands of Irish Catholics who donned Union Blue uniforms, some as substitutes for those ever brave WASPs who preferred to remain in the comforts of dear old home. Hey, they had the bucks and the Irish buckos needed ‘em, so here was an ideal arrangement that only Satan himself could’ve loved. Yes, there were Irish Catholics serving the Confederacy’s armies. But guess what happened after the war. When it came time to acknowledge the Irish uniformed presence during the Civil War, political amnesia set in and, and politicians being politicians, were more than happy to leave out some crucial distinguishing and mitigating facts ... just as pols do to day ... whenever it suits their purposes. It was very easy to rely on cheap stereotypes of the drunken Irish Catholics just as it is for any alcoholioc to rely on cheap booze when there’s nothing else affordable. Cheap poltics, cheap booze, and cheaper sloganeering…all made for a wonderful boomerang for Senator Blaine and the GOP.
  Yesterday it was stirring up anti-Catholic/Irish fears and prejudices; today’s the birtherist and anti-Muslim bigotry that’s doing the trick for the GOP and many of the biggest suckers in the Tea Party (created by the GOP for the sole sake of confusing the middle class and turning it against itself no thanks to a carefully crafted campaign of fear-mongering. Even Blaine would be doubly embarrassed by the antics of today’s hacks. BTW, I’m curious to know where Adlai Stevenson factored into your reply, Bob. Don’t tell me ... you’re next going to say all baldie Dems look alike. Pssst, Al Smith was kind of “hair challenged” wasn’t he, now?
  Finally, what on earth possessed you to believe I was insisting ” ... that the US incorporate religion into political life” ...? Are you trying to insinuate that because I believe that religiously devout members (of whatever faith) shouldn’t participate in public discussions? If so, you need new glasses, sir. I’m glad at least you didn’t go so far as to say I advocated making Catholicism the established faith of the land. You’re right, I would be advocating for the legal, social and whatever other kinds of “isolation” our foes would just love to have in store for us. Too bad for you, Bob, I’m not that dumb or blind to demographical statistics and a long-held, but ever so discretely implied bull-crappy notion that for Catholics to be accepted as full citizens, we have to bend over and say, “Please, smack us again” evertime some big issue comes up. Good heavens, why we’d never want to upset our predominately Protestant neighbors,even though the Catholic Church represents the largest religious body in the U.S.
  Are you implying we should fold up our universities? Allow the Protestants to change the names of St. Louis to “Riverdale,” San Francisco to “Bay City,” and our oldest city, Castleville? Good luck in getting us to change our parish names to resemble those rather bland suburbanite-sounding names megachurch founders and pastors are so fond of. How about Holy Redeemer Community Worship Facility sound to you? That “American enough” for you? Ooops, we’d better tell our Orthodox, Polish Catholic, Anglican, AME, Presbyterian, Lutheran separated brethren attendng their respective denominational worship facilities named after saints and/or sharing old fashioned names conveying some foreign (code for “popish”) elements in their worship facilities’ names.
  Looks like Archbishop Timothy Dolan will be Shepherd Tim.
  Geeesh, and I thought getting used to all those crazy Kumbaya-inspired changes was enough of a pain in the rear. No thanks, I’ll take the “isolation.”

Steven, your whining is so old that dinosaurs still ruled the earth when it was dragged out of its hole. Did you actually read what Dolan’s said? How can you argue that you’re not trying to ‘foist’ your ideas on anyone when that’s EXACTLY what Dolan is trying to do?? Don’t play coy, you’re too old and bald to get away with it. As to the history of Catholicism, you seem robustly ignorant of the fact that, if religion is returned to political life in this country, your church will go the way of the dodo. Those who want a ‘Christian’ American forget that there was never any such thing

WPRjr: There is nothing “emotionally laden” about the phrase liberal agenda. I didn’t coin the phrase.  Your indignation is silly.  Look at the democratic platform. It is what it is. Listen to the media and the liberals.  Look at the think tanks.  I didn’t mispeak.  As to Archbishop Dolan, it’s about souls and using the name Catholic in ways that seriously harm them.  Governor Cuomo evidently campaigned on the promise to fight for homosexual marriage.  He is certainly welcome to do that but not while holding himself out as a Catholic. Because it is clearly against Church teaching. Enough is enough.  If he doesn’t believe Church teaching, then he isn’t really a Catholic is he?  The Church isn’t behind the times or arcane or whatever you would like to label it.  It is incredibly relevant and rich.  Have you noticed how many untruths are spoken by people who oppose the Catholic position on these pages.  How they will say anything to win an argument.  What a way to live.  Life isn’t a competition.  It’s a cooperative effort.  But the homosexual lobby has now used the courts in Massachusetts and New York to force gay marriage on people where they know they would lose under the democratic process of a vote. (Same thing with forcing Americans to pay for abortion.  We don’t want it. The liberals don’t care.) You were made for greater things than gay marriage.  You were made for eternity and gay marriage is a stumbling block.  Perhaps a tempting one, but a stumbling block none the less.  Our Faith if you would take the time to learn about it is the fullness of truth.  We are created and we have a God.  He wants so much to give grace to overcome all unnatural inclinations and all sin.  People aren’t asking.  He works miracles and He gives us love every single day if we just open our eyes.
Bob, Homosexual relations are lawlessness, at least according to the natural law and the taboos that have been associated with it and the religious prohibitions down through the years.  And slavery wasn’t as offensive to God.  Paul wrote about slavery and about homosexuality.  He told the slave that the slave was a child of God and had the same dignity before God as his owner.  He didn’t think the freedom was as important as each accepting the role they were given and serving each other out of love.  The master was going to answer for how he treated the slave, He pointed out and He reminded masters that this was their brother in Christ. He expected among Christians there would be no one treated as a slave but only as a brother.  Many parts one body.  Homosexuals on the other hand were told they would never enter the gates of heaven. Homosexuals who reject celibacy are denying their cross.  I am not looking to make any state religion. I am looking to defend our nation under God.

The reason the Apb. of New York can be so pilloried in the public square is because the US bishops (of which Abp. Dolan is the head) have forfeited virtually all moral and theological credibility, largely at their own hands.  Until they deal fully with the “beam in their own eye” they will continue to be treated as a laughingstock of hypocrisy.

I love the term ‘homosexual lobby’, as if the USCCB isn’t a lobbying group! All they generally have to do is pick up the phone, call Santorum or some other puppet, and BINGO, their policies are introduced as law. You have yet to prove homosexuality DOESN’T exist in nature since it clearly does, among bonobos, dolphins, etc. So you’re wrong. Slavery wasn’t offensive to God? well, I have no response to that. If you think being gay is more offensive than slavery, well, you’re welcome to that genocidal view. 14M blacks were enslaved and 2M died during the slave trade but you think that’s OK. Because they weren’t gay. Amazing what a religious mind will believe! You’re in favor of mass murder, genocide and slavery. No doubt you think you’re prolife.

People p-l-e-a-s-e…

Isn’t it ‘obvious’ by now that our dear brother bob has (among other things) a very ‘serious’ discernment problem?

It might be more charitable (and much more effective) if you just prayed for him and stopped all this useless chatter. (Matthew 7:6)

He truly needs our prayers… not all these ‘long-winded’ arguments.

Let’s pray for bob and wish him well.

Bye bob…

I’ll give an Amen to that, brother Ed!

Amen as well.

Amen, ED.  I do believe that in this case, the “higher ups” can do much more than we shall.  Pam and Steve, fine points.

Agreed all… what a long one this has been. And an Amen! for prayers for Bob. He kept us on our toes, so to speak and deep inside, I think he’s got a good heart after all. Now somebody’s gotta get that Lupica to stop throwing beanball pitches at the Archbishop. Let’s leave that up to THE MANAGER!