DENVER — A same-sex “marriage” bill has gone down to narrow defeat in the Colorado House of Representatives, drawing applause from Denver’s Archbishop Charles Chaput for being pro-family.
At the same time, homosexual rights groups have condemned it for being anti-family.
Calling on Catholics to thank their legislators, Archbishop Chaput said, “It took courage, especially in an environment of bitter criticism.”
A “sexual minorities coalition” called One Colorado, civil rights and left-wing groups, was soon out with a video promising “We Will Keep Fighting” and repeatedly stressing that the bill’s fate was decided by “one Republican vote.”
The Colorado Civil Union Act would have added the words “civil union partner” to every piece of Colorado legislation pertaining to marriage where the word “spouse” now appears. It would have allowed same-sex couples, as well as blood relatives, to declare one another dependents or beneficiaries of state benefits.
“It’s same-sex ‘marriage’ under a different name,” said Jennifer Kraska, executive director of the Colorado Catholic Conference, the political arm of the state’s archdiocese and two dioceses. “Proponents said it didn’t affect marriage because it used the words ‘civil union.’ But, as Archbishop Chaput said, ‘It’s a distinction without a difference.’”
Jessica Haverkate, executive director of Colorado Family Action, agreed. “It was a lookalike bill. They said this would be enough but our experience from previous legislation is that nothing will be enough until they have same-sex ‘marriage.’”
A Lookalike Bill
The bill was easily passed (23-12) in the Colorado Senate, with its Democratic majority. But in the House, with a one-seat Republican majority, the bill was sent to the Judiciary Committee, where Republicans have a 6-5 edge. After hearing eight hours of testimony, the committee voted along party lines, defeating it by a single vote. Had the bill gone to the House floor, both opponents and proponents believe it would have received the support of enough Republicans to be passed.
The bill’s proponents have already vowed to reintroduce it, which they cannot do before 2012.
Archbishop Chaput, in the same column in which he asked Catholics to thank the committee members who defeated the bill, also argued the bill was not, as its proponents had argued, about “basic rights for homosexual persons. Those rights are already guaranteed under law. Nor is it finally about love or personal equality. Civil union ensures neither of these any better than marriage does.”
Instead, Archbishop Chaput insisted, the bill was intended to legitimize homosexual activity, which “most societies and religious traditions have found problematic” and “morally troubling not because they are ‘haters’ or ‘frightened’ or ‘bigots’ or ‘uneducated’ but because they’ve carefully thought through the implications for society at large.”
And what are those implications? “Same-sex unions, whatever legal form they take, cannot create new life,” said Archbishop Chaput. “But they do copy marriage and the family and in the process they compete with and diminish the status of both.”
Proponents of the bill, led by Sen. Pat Steadman, D-Denver, and One Colorado, presented the judiciary committee with a parade of attractive homosexual couples of both genders as well as supportive parents and clergy, arguing that they deserved the same rights as other kinds of families, and that denying them was “anti-family.”
As well, the proponents made heavy use of a poll conducted for them in early February by Public Policy Polling that reported fully 72% of Coloradans surveyed approved of either same sex marriage (40%) or civil unions (32%). This led to the claim that the six Republicans on the judiciary committee were “anti-democratic.”
Though One Colorado staff did not respond to requests for an interview, Executive Director Brad Clark said in news release that the vote “was out of touch with everyday Colorado voters. With 72% of Coloradans in support of civil unions, House Republicans are out of the mainstream. Once again, they have turned their backs on Colorado families and kids.”
‘Suspicious’ Polling
Haverkate said that Public Policy Polling’s poll was very suspicious for two reasons. First, when Colorado Family Action heard about it they commissioned their own poll. With a sample twice that of Public Policy Polling’s, it showed 46% opposed and 41% in favor of civil unions. “We expected they would use their poll against the members of the judicial committee, some of whom we let know our own results.”
The second reason the Public Policy Polling results were suspect, though never seriously questioned in media reports, was that in 2006 a majority of Coloradans supported an initiative amending the state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage and defeated a referendum that would have recognized civil unions. “Coloradans made a very, very strong statement just four years ago,” Haverkate said.
Both her organization and the Colorado Catholic Conference urged their political networks to let their politicians know where they stood on the issue. “Marriage is meant to be for a man and a woman, for the creation of life,” said the conference’s Kraska.
“Marriage isn’t just about adults,” echoed Haverkate. “It’s about children. And these other relationships they are calling families just aren’t the best ways to raise children.”
Register correspondent Steve Weatherbe writes from Victoria, British Columbia.
Jimmy Akin: Pope Francis on Homosexual Unions
Comments
Post a Comment
What shall we call ourselves if we are forced to deny the self-evident truth that we are male and female, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters…?
It is out of Love and respect for all persons, who, regardless of race or ethnicity have been created equal as persons while being complementary as male and female, that The Catholic Church teaches we must never condone homosexual sexual acts or any sexual act, that demeans our dignity as human persons and does not respect our inherent complementary nature as male and female, endowed to us from God.
Just because a relationship can’t produce new life doesn’t make it illegitimate and threatening to relationships that can. I know it’s a tired old argument, but if you’re going to ban gay marriage then to be consistent you also have to ban marriage between infertile couples and couples where the woman is post-menopausal. And couples that might divorce shouldn’t be allowed to marry either because that is without question a non-ideal situation in which to raise kids. Why not also ban marriages between people that plan to adopt instead of having their own kids? They aren’t producing new life. Shame on them!
Let us reflect on biblical historical digest on Marriage: The first instance occurred in paradise ( Genesis 2:18-25). The institution of marriage was confirmed by Christ ( Matthew 19:5-6 ; Mark 10:5-10) ; and He attended a marriage feast in Cana ( John 2:1) In the time of Christ ,weddings were often celebrated with great feasting and rejoicing.when the marriage feast was to take place, the bridegroom went to the house of the bride with his friends, called ” the children of the bride - chambered” ( Matthew 9:15) A great procession was formed, which accompanied the bride to the house of the bridegroom with torches and lamps ( Matthew 25:1-10) .Polygamy was introduced by Lamech, who ” took unto him two wives” ( Genesis 4:19) ; and after the Jews had formed the habit,contrary to their usual customs and laws , of intermarrying with foreigners ,they indulged in polygamy unrestrainedly. The captivity seems to have stamped out this custom,however ,for there is no instance on record in the Old Testament . Of it’s practice after the return from Babylon
Biblical law , categorize marriage under civil laws ( prohibited Degrees of kingship in Marriage , one of the precept of marriage - Leviticus 18:6-18,Deuteronomy 27:20,22,23 )
Let us recall in Biblical Revelation , Marriage is only for this life ( Luke 20:27-36) Then came to him of the Saducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him, Saying , Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man’s brother die, having a wife , and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children.And the second took her to wife, and died childless. And the third took her, and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died. Last
of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? For seven had her to wife . And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage. Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels ; and are the children of God,being the children of the resurrection.
Commentary on (Luke 20:27-40) The problem of the Resurrection: ” Luke stresses the idea that the life of the resurrection is totally different from the realm of Ceasar. Similarly those who share it have a new nature. They become sons of God through being sons f the resurrection .Perhaps Luke conceives of this new being as present in the life of faith
Not only do the faithful worship a living God but they also all live to him through their response now to Jesus. Luke ends the story with an editorial note which again shows that no one dared to ask him any question. Jesus answers both Pharisees and Sadducees.
The Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church :( Matrimony) Pope Leo xii, Encyclical letter Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae ( 1880) , The Second Vatican Council Pastoral Constitution ( Gaudium et Spes , 1965)
Lastly , let us reflect on a precept of character building ( Pure) ” Thank heaven,there are honest man! Men who believe in honesty for the sake of honesty. John Bright said of William E. Gladstone that he had ” persuaded the house of commons to do many things for no other read on than that they were just and right” , and Sidney Smith said concerning the historian, Lord Macaulay , ” I believe Macaulay to be absolutely incorruptible .You might lay before him ribbons, stars,garters,titles,wealth and position without temptation .” we ought to thank destiny for these great historical illustrations. ” Blessed are the pure in heart,” said Jesus.
For further guidance, please read the catechism of the catholic church on the Sacrament of Matrimony ( catechism # 1601-1658)
Peace to all during this Lenten Season !!!!!!
I agree with Michelle, above, that ‘just because a relationship can’t produce new life doesn’t make it illegitimate and threatening to relationships that can.’ In fact, there are two purposes for marriage: “babies and bonding” in the words of Dr. Janet Smith. If infertile couples may still marry and “bond” why can’t same sex couples do the same?
If marriage is truly of and for this world, as Jesus explained to the Sadducees, why not allow same sex couples a civil institution from which to build stable, healthy, and loving relationship?
I understand that Church hierarchy (with its own skeletons in the proverbial closet) have consistently spoken out against same sex relationships, but Jesus NEVER condemns them in the New Testament. Certainly Jesus was exposed to same sex relationships in the ancient world. Doesn’t anyone ever stop to think about why he never brought up the subject? St. Paul does, but then again, St. Paul has a track record of killing and vilifying innocents, doesn’t he…
It would be easier to take the Church more seriously on this issue if it were upholding the “defending” marriage against other “attacks” such as Catholics marrying outside the Church, or Catholics marrying non-Christians such as Mormons and Jews.
Only in a complementary relationship of Love, between a husband and wife, united in a Holy Marriage, can two become one body, one spirit in Love, creating a new family, which is what God intended from The Beginning.
“Have you not heard from The Beginning that God created them male and female, and for THIS reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife…” -Christ
Michelle, why ban marriage between infertile couples or a marriage with a post-menopausal woman? These male/female couples can still adopt or have OLDER children around who have a father and a mother as role models.
Children have a right to a mother and father. Even when a couple divorces, the law recognizes the rights of the child to visit be with both parents, barring criminal or negligent behavior on the part of one of the ex-spouses.
Having two “mommies” or “daddies” is unnatural and distorts human nature.
To Nancy, you post what is known as an ‘evergreen’ a ‘truism’ which no one is debating:”...forced to deny the self-evident truth that we are male and female,....” To Guerline you go on and on with biblical quotes, which simply do not matter. Nor shall we delve in platitudes which are self-serving, or belittling statements intended to undermine a minority of citizens deserving our respect, protection, and recognition of rights as citizens to freely engage in all activities provided other citizens.
Our Founding Fathers, must have been supremely enlightened to separate powers of church and state. Thusly, what the Catholic Church condones or the Bible states does not matter. What matters is that the Church is free to express its opinion as we are here; but in a matter of a loving couple who choose to wed for reasons private to themselve; it is MYOB and don’t interfere. As a nation of diversity of race, creed, and intermingling cultures, we are implored by Bill of Rights to protect minority interests. It is an abysmal shame, an unconscionable shame to obstruct a gay/lesbian couple from marrying and afforded the same health care, health care proxy, insurance, social security, inheritance, tax benefits all hetero couples enjoy. Whether one invokes a God, a belief in God or not, or creates a God in our own image and likeness; we must not continue in our merry ways of an unGodlike behavior denying the fruits of love and marriage and forsaking the social corporeal works of mercy, love and justice to any of its citizens.
Skier, if it’s MYOB, does that apply to those who wish to interfere with current laws on marriage in most states viewing it strictly between one man and one woman?
I don’t invoke God, I point to the natural law. Societies have a vested interest in protecting marriage between a man and a woman, as it is that basic unit from which society springs.
If two homosexuals want to live together- go for it.
Don’t ask all of society to “approve” or give you tax credits for that.
@skier, it is very suspicious when someone suggests that something is A right, but they cannot articulate why it IS right. I think you misunderstand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights when you suggest that they exist to protect the minority’s interests. They exist to protect EVERYONE’s interests. And if the Founding Fathers views are important, then you cannot discount what John Adams said, which was: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”
—
Regarding the benefits granted to married couples, there is a cost to society to provide those. Traditionally-married couples make a contribution to society - namely society itself - that warrants the cost of those benefits. But what commensurate contribution can same-sex couples make?
Our Constitution governs all its citizens as a matter of law…and law only. When it fails in that endeavor, it no longer prevails as law of the land and is subverted as it is when its citizens are denied equal access to it. Kevin, if you are unable to know the ‘rights’ granted upon all its ciitzens, it is not due to intelligence, but rather an inflicted blindness caused by beliefs. “Cost” is a manufacture on your part, has nothing whatsoever to do with rights of its citizens, any more than a poll tax did to deny right to vote. There is no test for a ‘moral and religious’ people, nor anyone qualified to administer it. This might defy the limits of thought, but the very need of a Constitution and a Bill of Rights is indeed there to protect individual or a minority protocol to action from the onslaught of a contrary majority.
Liseux, the laws on marriage in ‘most states’ which deny same-sex unions are unconstitutional…to cite them is folly. Even worse is the citing of ‘natural law’, which is anachronistic, predating the scientific method.
What we have been taught in metaphysics and scholastic philosophy as truth attained by reason alone, has been found to be anything but the truth. Those who espoused Aristotle and Aquinas thwarted all attempts using science demonstrating otherwise…unless you continue to demand that the earth is immobile and the geocentric middle point of the universe, and subsequently in anthropomorphic terms it is all here for us, because reason tell us it cannot be otherwise…those who opt in ignorance to teach ‘intelligent design’ over evolution proclaim ‘natural law’ as an ontological entity.
Kevin says, “Liseux, the laws on marriage in ‘most states’ which deny same-sex unions are unconstitutional…to cite them is folly. Even worse is the citing of ‘natural law’, which is anachronistic, predating the scientific method.”
Your first statement is your opinion.
Don’t mess witht the natural law, Skier. When you break it, it comes back to break you. That’s why male homosexuals have a shorter life span than the average population. Also, they are still not legally allowed to donate blood in this country. That is for a reason- they have violated the natural law with their bodies.
That had unnatural consequences.
I’m all for evolution, as far as it goes. So please don’t lecture me about intelligent design.
I thought you were for a MYOB mindset. Why then, are you not following that original point of view? Are you only for people who disagree with you to mind their own business, but you can go around minding theirs?
skier, the folly of those who continually cite the Constitution as the ultimate source of law is that they fail to recognize its limits - that what it isn’t is as important as what it is. Your own assertions make this painfully clear. For example, if one thinks that murder is evil and should therefore be outlawed, the Constitution “fails in that endeavor” because it contains no language that suggests that murder should not be permitted (and I’m not talking about abortion). Only a federal, state or local statute can outlaw murder - the Constitution cannot do it on its own. In other words, when using the logic used to excuse abortion, sodomy, etc., murder cannot be said to violate a “Constitutional” right. (Of course, this is a separate issue from what the Constitution DOES say, which is that laws, including laws regarding murder, must be applied equally to everyone.)
—
The cost of laws that respect marriage and grant married couples certain rights and privileges is in no way a manufacture of my own. Every law has a cost, and if you don’t believe that the cost of laws is a significant issue, then you couldn’t have seen any national news in the past few weeks. The legislators who originally passed laws respecting marriage some hundred-odd years ago certainly knew that privileges like transferring property between spouses tax-free, filing tax returns jointly and allowing surviving spouses to receive the greater of their own or their deceased spouse’s Social Security payments would exact a cost from all taxpayers. While I admit there may be reasons to question them in some cases, one certainly hopes that when legislators pass a law, they expect that it will produce benefits (tangible or intangible) that will warrant its costs.
—
Regarding your comments to Liseux, it is your philosophy that I find anachronistic. Relying on the scientific method to determine what is right and what is wrong implies that you cannot know if something is bad for a person until it is tried. Not only does this result in the immoral use of human subjects to establish the evidence needed to make a decision, but it denies that our brains have evolved to the point where we can infer whether something is good or bad by simply applying thought and reason to the question, without having to test it empirically. (I will admit, however, that there are many who don’t seem to benefit from this bit of evolution.) On the other hand, I wouldn’t say that the scientific method is entirely without merit. There are many practices that could indeed be found to have a good effect on people that are simply doubted and dismissed out of hand without trying them, such as Christianity.
Because of the type of sex homosexuals have terrible diseases and damage to their body occurs in that part of their body used for sex. Even if you can’t accept the fact that homosexual sex is wrong from a moral standpoint take if from a natural standpoint. Nature itself rebels against this type of sex.
That should be “Skier” says.
Yep, natural law. Unnatural acts have unnatural consequences.
What a shame to take credit for defeating a pro-family bill. As a 50-year Roman Catholic, I’m appalled. The damage the Church has done to families in Colorado today will be short-lived, but these families shouldn’t have to suffer discrimination at all. We all know that by 2024, even Mississippi will support gay marriage. “The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.”
TennesseeMom, I don’t know how you can consider this a “pro-family bill” when those who would have benefited from it could never be expected to form a family of their own.
Don’t count on homosexual unions ever being accepted as natural or the law, Tennessemom.
One can’t make natural what is unnatural, no matter how many decades pass.
It is a pro-family bill because it allows committed couples with children to form a lawful family. We are a large Italian family. Two of my many siblings are gay. One of my brothers has a partner of 20 years and they have an 8-year old child together, my niece. Our Church lost these good, faithful, observant, lifelong Roman Catholics, and their child, and that’s a shame. Happily the younger generation is not doctrinaire as we are. Take it to the bank—mathematics shows us that in less than 15 years, this is a non-issue in the U.S., as we grow in understanding and experience of what it means to be gay. My gay siblings and your gay family and friends were born that way. Ask them, and they will tell you. My Church is on the wrong side of right on this one. Thank you, ncregister, for hosting this valuable discussion and for your good reporting.
Don’t count on homosexual unions ever accepted as ‘natural’ to Lieseux.
Since homosexuality exists throughout the animal kingdom in the same percentages as it does with humans; it is not ‘unnatural’. However, since it occurs approximately in only five per cent of the population it is ‘abnormal’. Then also is exceptual intelligence abnormal, as it also is present in abnormal numbers.
Skier, even if your stats on homosexuality in the animal kingdom are factual, they are irrelevant.
I’m sure you realize that in the animal kingdom gang rape and violence during sex are “natural” too.
If homosexual sex is natural, then why does it not naturally propagate the species?
Tennessemom,
There are other stories also, of homosexuals who accept the teaching of Christ and are still in the Body of Christ.
Your chicken little stance on homosexual unions being accepted was touted fifteen years ago as well. Ain’t happened. Kind of like the Jehovah’s Witnesses saying the world was going to end three different times and having to change the date when their claim didn’t happen.
In every state where the people get to vote, homosexual unions have been voted down.
What about that young generation?
Many of them GROW UP and realize the insanity of two mommies, two daddies, and trying to force everyone to pretend like it’s normal.
I am one of those who used to argue that stance- twenty years ago I supported some homosexual issues, such as homosexuals serving openly in the military. Fifteen years ago, my view changed as I got older.
And witness….. Christian pastors in the military are being silenced over their stance of homosexual sex.
So much for tolerance.
TennesseeMom, all are welcome in the Catholic Church, but she will never affirm what are essentially paradoxical relationships, for it would mean making a fundamental change to the form and meaning of one of the Sacraments, which, if she did that, would signal that she is not the one, true Church she has claimed to be for two-thousand years.
—
While the attractions and feelings that one experiences can affect one’s moral culpability in committing a particular act, they cannot change the Church’s position on whether an act is considered objectively good or evil. The Church views sex as having a proper objective and a proper context. Sexual activity outside of those bounds is considered immoral, regardless of the gender of those involved or their particular attractions or feelings. To discard this teaching as you suggest it should would throw the entire body of the faithful into a state of confusion. On the other hand, keeping it intact affords a tremendous freedom that many outside and even a fair number inside the Church seem to find difficult to grasp. G.K. Chesterton articulated this freedom best: “Catholic doctrine and discipline may be walls; but they are the walls of a playground. Christianity is the only frame which has preserved the pleasure of Paganism. We might fancy some children playing on the flat grassy top of some tall island in the sea. So long as there was a wall round the cliff’s edge they could fling themselves into every frantic game and make the place the noisiest of nurseries. But the walls were knocked down, leaving the naked peril of the precipice. They did not fall over; but when their friends returned to them they were all huddled in terror in the centre of the island; and their song had ceased.”
Given that some people are born homosexual, the Church has painted itself into a corner.
But happily, we are the Church, we are the People of God, and when Church administration is unable to acknowledge basic truths about our families, even when that’s hurtful to those we love, we choose to stay in the Church and work for change.
I was struck by the fear belied in Kevin Rahe’s comments. When we put away childish things, we don’t need walls around us. Our reason and intellect are boundless. The Church has never asked me to restrict the full use of mine. Far from huddling behind a wall, safe from imagined monsters, we are called to live our lives in public, a city on a hill.
TM3, we don’t know that some people are “born homosexual.” I have never seen a homosexual baby.
I have seen young men with fathers who don’t pay attention to them who seek attention from men in different ways. I have seen girls who’ve been mistreated by men who seek the company of women.
For 2000 years, this has been the teaching of Christ. To love the person, but not the sin. Before Christ and taught this, the Jews also taught that homosexual acts were an abomination before the eyes of God.
TM3, I would love my family member, but I could never agree with a lifestyle that puts him or her at odds with the teachings of Christand also in the natural order shorterns his lifespan.
Yes, we must love him, but we must never condone actions that are contrary to scripture and the natural law.
That is harmful to the person and society.
Tennesseemom, the folly of your argument is its implication that the Church affirms marriage between a man and a woman merely because they are attracted to each other. As you must know, there is far more to it than that. And if you’re arguing that if people are homosexual strictly due to biology (which hasn’t been proven) that the Church should allow them to fulfill those desires in some way, what if it’s shown that pedophilia, bisexuality or sexual attraction to beasts or inanimate objects also have a similar exclusively biological genesis?
—
Regarding your confusion about freedom vs. fear, you’re almost at the point where I have to say, “I can’t help you.” The other possibility - always a danger with people who don’t use their real names - is that you’re only here to try and play mind games with us rather than actually speak and seek the truth.
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.