The Washington state governor has signed into law a bill that recognizes same-sex “marriage,” prompting those who support the traditional definition to file a referendum to challenge the law.
“Preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman is worth fighting for,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, Feb. 13.
“Marriage is a cornerstone of society that not only unites a couple to each other, but ensures that any children born of their union will have the best opportunity to be raised by their own mother and father. We’re committed to giving Washington voters the right to decide the definition of marriage in their state, just as voters in 31 other states have been able to do,” Brown said.
In response to same-sex “marriage” being legalized, the group Preserve Marriage Washington filed Referendum 73 on Feb. 13. It must collect 120,577 valid voter signatures by June 6 to put the new law on hold until the referendum faces a vote in November.
“I think, in the end, people are going to preserve marriage,” Joe Fulten, senior pastor at Cedar Park Church in Bothell, Wash., told The Associated Press.
The National Organization for Marriage has pledged to work with the state organization.
Gov. Chris Gregoire signed the bill into law on Feb. 13. She said it was “a day historians will mark as a milestone for equal rights, a day when we did what was right, we did what was just, and we did what was fair.”
The governor identifies herself as Catholic, but her decision undercuts the teaching and work of the Catholic Church.
Archbishop J. Peter Sartain of Seattle testified against the bill in January, saying the attempt to redefine marriage “ignores the origin, purpose and value of marriage to individuals, families and society.” He voiced concern that the redefinition would eliminate special laws that support and recognize the “irreplaceable contribution” married couples make to society by “bringing to life the next generation.”
He said, “Marriage makes a contribution to the common good of society unlike any other relationship, through the procreation, rearing and education of children.”
Feb. 16 update:
The Washington state House passed a bill on Feb. 13 that could mandate abortion coverage in insurance plans without any effective exemptions for religious groups and pro-life employers.
“We’d be the first state to mandate coverage for abortion, which is an avenue we certainly don’t want to be traveling down,” Sister Sharon Park, executive director of the Washington State Catholic Conference, told EWTN News.
“That really violates an awful lot of people’s consciences,” she said, noting that it will be a “very, very close vote” if the bill passes in the Senate on Feb. 16.
The legislation, which passed in the state House by a 52–46 vote, requires all insurance programs that cover maternity care to also provide abortion coverage. All health-care policies must cover maternity services under the 2010 federal health-care legislation known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
“It’s more than just a violation of religious liberty. It’s not just the Catholic Church or religious organizations,” Sister Sharon added. “Lots and lots of people recognize the value and the sanctity of human life, and this would violate their individual consciences, as well as the consciences of employers who believe life is sacred and don’t want to cover abortion.”
Archdiocese of Seattle spokesman Greg Magnoni told EWTN News that local Catholics are “very concerned about the bill” and says he sees a “direct connection” between the proposal and the HHS mandate that would force Catholic institutions to provide contraception and sterilization to employees.
“What we’re seeing is a multipronged attack on the religious liberties of all people of faith. We are finding more and more,” Magnoni added, “that this kind of legislation will tolerate religion as long as it confines itself to its own churches and does not speak out outside of those churches and really confines itself exclusively to worship.”
This is in direct conflict with the Catholic Church’s mission to reach out to the poor, the vulnerable, and those who need health care, he said. “We can’t violate our conscience, and yet we’re called to a ministry of service to poor and vulnerable populations.”
Gov. Chris Gregoire is concerned about whether the law violates the Hyde-Weldon Amendment, part of the annual federal Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services appropriations bill. That amendment bars mandatory abortion coverage in any health plan that receives federal funds.
Sister Sharon said that she believes the bill violates the federal rule. “I think it’s so clear, that if this law passes, federal funds will be cut off. Obviously, that is up to interpretation.”
The conference director also voiced concern about the direction of her state.
“What we heard when the Affordable Care Act was passed was that abortion would not be part of that. And, all of a sudden, we’re the first state to go in this direction and mandate abortion coverage. No state has ever mandated abortion coverage.”
While Washington state law protects religious freedom, both Magnoni and Sister Sharon think the protections are inadequate.
State law acknowledges a right to exercise conscience and religious liberty, Sister Sharon explained, but the second part of the same law also says that no one shall be denied access. The abortion-coverage bill, she said, does not have an adequate conscience clause.
“Just as we have a contraception mandate in Washington, we would end up with a mandate on abortion,” which would also violate Catholic teachings, she explained.
“We hold that all life is sacred,” she said. While the state has the duty to protect life, its laws are saying that “there is some life that is not worthy of protection.”
Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the U.S. bishops’ Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, said that the bill “suggests a belief that abortion is the moral equivalent of childbirth, that killing is the same as healing.”
He wrote in a Feb. 7 essay for National Review, “And that bizarre view must be imposed on everyone who offers, sponsors or buys insurance: They must provide and pay for abortion on demand as though they believed it too.”
Jimmy Akin: Should We Be Concerned About Pope Francis's Inaugural Mass?
Matthew Warner: Should the Church Preemptively Withdraw From the Civil Marriage Business?
Comments
Post a Comment
My Lord Archbishop, is it not clear what must be done to be right, just and fair? The governor is not much of a Catholic, so show her the door (and you might mention Starbucks along the way).
Ok so the RCC position is that marriage is for creating children.
So the Bishop should demand annual state tax department “fertility audits” of all fertile married couples of child bearing age to ensure that all marriages are serving the purpose as described by the Bishop.
If a couple goes more than say 24 months without evidence of a pregnancy (a baby or evidence of miscarriage) then they should incrementally lose the benefits that accrue from what is is described above as: special laws that support and recognize the “irreplaceable contribution” married couples make to society by “bringing to life the next generation.”
Obiviously use of contraception by fertile married couples is contrary to the above so it would have to be banned for married couples.
If Ref 73 comes to pass it will be challenged and end up in the 9th District court and be tossed as the marriage equality opponents have yet to come up with any logical reasoning that stands up to cross examination.
“I know that all times are perilous, and that in every time serious
and anxious minds, alive to the honor of God and the needs of man, are apt to consider no times as perilous as their own. At all times the enemy of souls assaults with fury the Church which is their true Mother…. Doubtless, but still admitting this, still I think that the trails which lie before us are such as would appall and make dizzy even such courageous hearts as St. Athanasius, St. Gregory I, or St. Gregory VII. And they would confess that dark as the prospect of their own day, ours has a darkness different in kind from any that has been before it.
The special peril of the time before us is the spread of that plague of infidelity, that the Apostles and our Lord Himself have predicted as the worst calamity of the last times of the Church…. I do not mean to presume to say that this is the last time, but that it has had the evil prerogative of being like that more terrible season, when it is said that the elect themselves will be in danger of falling away. Christianity has never yet had the experience of a world simply irreligious.
The Roman and Greek world when Christianity appeared was full of
superstition, not of infidelity…. Even among the skeptics of Athens, St. Paul could appeal to the Unknown God. But we are now coming to a time when the world does not acknowledge our first principles. As in the revolted kingdom of Israel, there will be a remnant. The history of Elias is here a great consolation for us, for he was told from heaven that even in that time of idolatrous apostasy, there were seven thousand men who had not bowed their knees to Baal.”
—Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman (1801-1890), Address on the Opening of a Seminary, 1873
@dch,
(What do you people do, troll for Christian sites that state the obvious?)
Try this on: “Interracial marriage AFFIRMS marriage, Gay marriage try’s to turn marriage into something it is not.”
50 states, 50 opportunities for Americans to war over this issue. yay…
dch - This is a red herring argument and it is dishonest. A marriage between an infertile is valid because of the natural possibility of children between a man and a woman. The state of infertility is not always absolute, so even with an infertile couple, the possibility however small, of children remains. How many times have we heard of a couple where one of the two was made infertile surgically who were surprised to have an unplanned addition to the family. And for couples who marry with the intent of never having children, contraceptives are never 100%.
The truth of the Churches position on marriage lays in the possibility of children, planned or unplanned. For homosexual couples, if there are children, they are always adopted from a heterosexual couple. This is because children are not possible naturally, no matter how badly the homosexual couple may wish to have them.
Yay for Gov Gregoire! Whether gay or straight God made us just the way we are.
“For homosexual couples, if there are children, they are always adopted from a heterosexual couple.”
Uh, ever heard of in vitro fertilization (or adoption). There are thousands of children being raised by gay married couples that are doing just fine - its called objective reality. The RCC’s position carries ZERO weight with Non-Catholics, just has I’m confident that most Catholics don’t know or care what Hinduism has to say about marriage or child rearing. If you don’t like SSM don’t marry a person of your gender and simply leave others alone.
Only a heterosexual couple can create a new life.
Yes, the Archbishop of Seattle needs our prayers to be the salt of the earth. They all do.
The contraception issue in itself is like a boomerang….Catholics have been put down, marginalized, misrepresented and condemned by various Protestant Christian organizations as well.
It is time to progressively promote our faith ... in charity and reason….to seculars and other Christians.
The Greek Orthodox calendar has fasting on Wednesday’s and Friday’s throughout the year.
Give us some old time religion.
Now is the time for the desert to bloom, Lord Jesus come!
“Marriage makes a contribution to the common good of society unlike any other relationship, through the procreation, rearing and education of children.” Everyone can agree on that statement, so why not promote it as a model for all couples to follow?
The “traditional marriage” argument is a farce. Historically marriages have been a business agreement, an exhange of ‘property’, or a pre-designated coupling. Traditional marriages were not about a loving partnership between a man and a woman formed solely to create a stable environment to raise children. My greatgrandmother was 13 when she was ‘married’ in the Catholic. Is that the tradition I want for my daughter? I think not.
Observation, lets see if I understand you correctly.
Basically marriage is a title of ownership of a woman as breading stock. Allowing gays to marry would change the definition giving women equal status to men.
Cardinal Wuerl of Washington, D.C. stated it beautifully during his appearance on EWTN’s “The World Over” this evening. He spoke of the need for a definition to describe the joining of a man and a woman for a lifetime, having and raising children together, and contributing to the greater good of society, and that for millenia the word employed to describe this unique relationship has been “marriage.” Same-sex relationships are in no way equivalent to authentic marriage. As Cardinal Wuerl said, “Apples and oranges are *not* the same.”
Observation, couples in their 80s get married. By your logic it is allowed because the possibility of creating life exists. I think you are limiting the power of God. If God wills it, She can make a man pregnant. Makes about as much sense as a 90 year old woman getting pregnant
dch, one cannot ‘marry’ a person of the same gender. Only two people from the two different genders in our human nature can marry. The two genders beautifully and meaningfully complement each other. It is a union designed in our nature. This is why Hindus and Sikhs consider it to be a sacred bond. In China, it is a secular ceremony that is celebrated by the community. Marriage, they say, is the fundamental unit of society and civilsed people respect and nurture it. Other realtionships exist, but marriage is unique.
“dch, one cannot ‘marry’ a person of the same gender.”
Uhh really? As of this morning in the year 2012 one can legally marry a person of the same gender in: NY, MA, CT, VT, NH, and IA and very soon in WA, and after that CA.
With all due respect, we can all agree that ‘marriage’ is a special relationship within the Catholic and other religious organizations. However, ‘marriage’ may be defined differently in other religions.
The government should not dictate what we believe in nor how we pray. If we accept and acknowledge that ‘marriage’ is a religious term, we should also accept and acknowledge that our government should not be defining the (religious) meaning or significance of that term.
The solution to this is obvious. To eliminate the confusion between the legal term ‘marriage’ and the religiously significant term ‘marriage, the government should eliminate any and all legal use of the term ‘marriage’. Committed relationships between two consenting adults should be legally termed as a ‘civil union’. The religious ‘marriage’ term should be defined by each religion, not by the government.
To Catholics and others, there is no question that the religious term ‘marriage’ is defined as a special relationship between a man and a woman. To a reform jewish person the religious term ‘marriage’ is not defined the same way. Just because one group outnumbers the other is not a civilized reason to impose its beliefs on the other. No politician or other group of citizens should have the power to control our faith or our religious beliefs.
The battle over ‘marriage’ has been mischaracterized. It is not an attack on a religion, it is an attempt to impose a religious belief on all. As a free society we should not accept the government controlling our religious beliefs. Though we may have strong beliefs about what a term means according to OUR own religious beliefs, we should not have the power to impose those beliefs on everyone. What if the tables were reversed?
Whatever your beliefs are, we should agree that the government should broadly support the beliefs of ALL its people – it should not impose one belief on all.
The Us Supreme Court in the 1890’s decided the issue. Utah could NOT legalize Polygamy because everyone knows Supreme Court included that marriage is between a man and a woman Period!!!. That is why Homosexual liberals Oppose the efforts in 39 states including California twice to restate the obvious and vote to protect normal marriage.They also opposed efforts by DC, Ct. and Mass. residents to open up the homosexual sodomite agenda to a public referendum-vote there . Muslims and Mormon Heretics having Multiple wives along with incest and bestiality are Sexual Orientations.The Supreme court knew that then and now.
Ed M Waterbury, the primary argument against polygamy was the potential for abuse making it a form of slavery.
dch, marriage occurs when two people from the two genders which perfectly and meaningfully complement each other unite. There is no marriage when only one gender is involved. It is a relationship but not a marriage as the world community sees it.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.