Maggie Gallagher’s panic is clearly showing. 

She should find some other group of citizens to abuse.

Bill,  how about offering some constructive criticism instead of verbal abuse?

Just one more reason to RUN from the Catholic Church. The Church has no right to tell anyone who they can love. Civil Rights are not up for popular vote.

So if Marriage is a and I quote…” Marriage is a union of husband and wife because these unions really are unique: They make new life and connect children in love to their mother and father. No other union can do this, or serve the common good in this unique way”

So a man or a woman that by nature and medical problems, can not make “new life” are not allowed to marry??? WOW

I am a woman, I do not need to be married to have a baby… I chose not to, and I am also a lesbian, but mostly I am a citizen of this country and I have rights… to choose or not to choose! oh wait, I am gay and I don’t have that right, so therefore I should only pay half my tax share, since I can have full rights…

far49

The more they poison civil marriage, the more obvious it is just a cardboard copy of the real thing. As long as we protect the Church from modernism, we will be safeguarding the sacrament of marriage for all civilization. Let the liberals have their way with civil marriage, it’s not ours and it never was. We should distance ourselves from it, and protect the real thing from being tainted by it. People will come back to the Church for the real thing, instead of being satisfied with the disney version.

My eight year marriage to a nice Catholic girl, which has produced three wonderful children and lots of love, is just as strong as it was when DOMA was enforced by the DoJ.  The nice lesbians down the road getting married has no effect on our vows, fidelity or respect for one another.

Hatred of “the other” is completely contrary to the teachings of Jesus and the continued acceptance of gay panic stories like this one by respectable Catholic institutions is quite damaging to the ability of loving Catholics to reconcile their church’s teachings with the plain-text reading of the New Testament.  How about we live and let live?

On the contrary, people (like thousands of former Anglicans and other Protestants) are joining the Catholic Church because they realize it is the last bulwark of moral reasoning, natural law, and social justice.  And, yes, natural marriage is a matter of social justice.  It is the primary institution that protects women and children and keeps them from poverty and exploitation.

Wondeful piece. It’s always amusing to me how with enough effort and double-speak huge swaths of generally sensible people can be convinced that to defend the truth that 2 + 2 is always 4 and is not in anyway like 2 + 3 is somehow bigoted and mean. I’ve made this argument to many friends of mine and none has been able to come back with anything logical or rational. To restrict marraige to one, not two not 4 women and one, not two etc. man is anything but discriminatory. If a “gay” man were denied the right to marry a women it really would be discriminatory. Leaving the entire consummation argument aside, if a judge said no, sir you can not marry a women because you say you’re “gay” then everyone would condemn that judge as acting partially. But two men or two women really are different. No amount of pseudo-science and intimidation or even 1,000 years of promotion of the fantasy that 2 men are like one man and one women will change the truth that nature, science, logic, reason, millenia of faith tradition have all recognized and that indeed all 3 year olds can recognize. On a side note I have a feeling that Obama is sensing troubled waters ahead and is panicing. If 2 + 3 is to equal 6 or 4 not only will people of the truth suffer but eventually everyone will be sorry. As unfortunate as it is for the people who have become blinded by their misplaced sympathy for a tiny group of people blessed with marketing genius, the truth is the truth and it has to be defended. Marriage between one man and one women is a scientific, rational fact that no amount of legal or societal invention will ever, can ever, alter. It’s just a fact.

xcatholic, you are demonstrating exactly what Maggie is writing about.  Marriage is not about “two people in love”.  Marriage is about two people uniting themselves by a unique physical action that joins their bodies towards a concerted purpose - that of procreation.  It is only by this form of sexual union that the male and female reproductive systems find themselves complete and working to their ultimate end, reproduction.

The man/woman bond is demonstrably different than a male/male or female/female one, or even two men and a woman, etc.  This is not about civil rights or emotions - it is about biology and natural law.  Marriage is a unique natural construct, not merely a civil one.

Without an orientation towards children produced by a mother and a father, there is no need for fidelity.  If sex is just a way for two people to be close and express love, then any two people who love each other should reasonably be allowed to have sex - even if one or more of those people loves someone else in addition.  Without an orientation towards children, there is no real need for lasting partnership - once people no longer feel the same emotion for each other, they should be allowed to separate and find someone else to emotionally bond with.

It is only in a relationship that orients towards children that fidelity, permanence, and mutual, life-giving self-giving makes sense, and only one type of relationship that is naturally oriented towards childbirth.  You want to know why divorce, infidelity, and abortion is rampant in our country?  Look to a country that has no idea what sex and marriage is about anymore.  Couples that practice NFP - i.e. realize that sex is about both bonding and babies - have about a 2% rate of divorce, compared to our frightening 50% divorce rate overall.  Think that’s a coincidence?

“The Church has no right to tell anyone who they can love. Civil Rights are not up for popular vote.”

Interestingly, the Church tells everyone to love everyone, regardless.  She also tells everyone how to behave, which is the point of a religion after all.

I agree that rights are not up for popular vote.  Its important to help others realize this and avoid creating rights out of things that aren’t.

As an ‘x’ Catholic, why so much interest in the Church?  You’re certainly welcome here, but why the fascination?

xcatholic:  You are begging the question of how civil rights are recognized.  I have not seen in the Constitution where a small minority has the right to unilaterally redefine an institution that has been understood one way across most times and cultures and shove that redefinition down the majority’s throat through judicial fiat.  Indeed, such “legal might makes right” reasoning could well backfire if the nominally Christian majority in this country starts to become as intolerant of dissent as the homosexual-secularist alliance.  But it’s a good thing that, contra the current meme, Christians demonstrate more tolerance toward those who are different than their critics do.  To put a fine point on it:  Disagreement is not intolerance.  Silencing and criminalizing (as in Canada and the UK) dissent on this issue is intolerant.  Shouting people down and demonizing them is intolerant.  Disrupting church services and threatening to sodomize little boys is intolerant.  Vandalizing and burning churches is intolerant.  And those events are a thousand to one against the Matthew Shepards.  Run from the Catholic Church after just arriving?  No thanks.  I find the environment here infinitely more humane and tolerant than I do among my “progressive” and “open-minded” colleagues at work who don’t bother to hide their hatred of my kind or their readiness to deprive Christians of our rights (i.e. those rights that are universally agreed upon) if they can.

Conservatives’ failure to oppose the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, thus striking down the Uniform Code of Military Justice ban on homosexuals serving in the military was the opening that the gay rights movement needed to convince Obama to stop defending DOMA. Conservatism is dying as a way of life in this country.

xcatholic: No one is being told by the Church or anyone else whom to love. THE issue is marriage, not love per se. That I have to point out something that obvious to you is a sad comment on the (willful?)ignorance pervasive on your side of the battle. If you do not qualify for marriage, then you cannot be married. Marriage is by its very definition, the union of male and female. Something like same-sex ‘marriage’ is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. It does not qualify for status as a civil right since marriage is not a creation of any state or country, any judge, legislator or bureaucrat. It is a common inheritance of the total human race. It predates every government and society on this planet. The union of male and female is an integral and unchangeable part of what marriage is. Governments can regulate it but cannot redefine it because they did not create it.

hello xcatholic,
no use running from the catholic church, because you can’t; she is everywhere!
love everyone and that’s the command of Jesus, but please do it as God wants us to do!
God created adam and eve and not adam and steve OR lilly and millie!
Thus God established the natural order. God also gave man and woman free will and the freedom of choice. And also God established the consequences of the choice man/woman makes.
please do some real thinking about ‘civil’ and ‘rights’ and when on that matter also on ‘responsibility’ or ‘duty’.
God bless you. i will pray for you everyday.

Who’s going to defend young homosexuals?  I knew I was gay at the age of 7, no one ever touched me,  I didn’t see it on TV, My father was the dominent one in the family, didn’t hear it on the Radio either.  Who defends us?  I’m soo lucky my parents weren’t preoccupied with hating others for their differences, my mother and my father worked, we kept a clean house, we were a middle imcome family.  And when I came out at the age of 21, they accepted my homosexuality right away, because they knew I wasn’t faking it.  If I said I was Gay, I meant it, and that’s all there is to that….......again, believe what you have to believe….and go according to your beliefs, but again, who is going to protect the young homosexuals growing up?  We’re not going away.  I believe if Catholics are truely worried about marriage, they should start with heterosexuals first, Marriage is in a bad state at the moment, work on straight marriages first, and when you fix them all up, come around and show me how it’s suppose to be done.

Maggie’s latest argument is that opposite-sex marriages are unique because they make new life and connect children with their mother and father.  I agree!  They are unique!  And their uniqueness and their ability to make new life and connect children with their mother and father is a great reason for the government to sanction these unions.  What it is not is a valid reason for the government to exclude gay couples from marriage.  There are multiple reasons for the government to sanction marriage.  Maggie’s argument is not faulty, it’s just not the only one.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

What part of the above Oath does Obama not understand?

Well, let’s see. Victory for gay civil unions in Hawai’i, victory for gay marriage in the MD senate, good progress in RI; yep, Maggie’s so far on the losing side this year.  Her biased and nasty testimony turned MD senators -in favor- of gay marriage!  Thanks!  Her appeal to overturn NH law had 40 people speaking / signing up in favor, and over 550 against.  Thanks, Maggie!  Her / NOM’s willful disobedience of the elections laws in Maine (hmmm, she doth protest too much above, I think) have earned the ire of the legal system there.  2011’s not a bad year afterall!

Maggie, I sure hope you’re right.  I voted for Obama because I thought his foreign policy would be better tempered than McCain’s.  While that may or may not be true, his actions at home are very concerning.  I certainly will not be voting for him again.

Several points.
1. The President’s role and responsibility is to “take care that the laws (of the United States) be faithfully executed”.  It is the role of the Supreme Court to interpret the law and determine if a law is Constitutional.  Until congress repeals it, or the Supreme Court overturns it, the President has a duty to enforce it and to defend the laws.
—
2. Marriage is not a right.  The state has always defined who may and may not be married and to whom.  In the United States, marriage has traditionally been defined as the union between one man and one woman; all other sorts of marriage type unions have been, until recently rejected by the courts.
—
3. The Catholic Church does not tell anyone who they may love.  Rather we are told we should love everyone.  The Catholic Church does however believe that marriage has been defined by God to be between a man and a woman.
—
Finally, ultimately, I think it is fair to say that most faithful Catholics object not so much to what people do in their private lives than to the idea that the state can force us to recognize marriages that we believe cannot exist.  In other words, if a gay couple wants to call themselves married, that is fine, but it is unreasonable for the State then to demand that we are forced to treat them as a married couple.

To be honest, a law stating that marriage is a union between a man and a woman is about as silly as one that says water is wet.  But it’s not the fault of those who originally passed the DOMA that they were backed into the position of codifying mere sanity.

The way to know whether those who promote same-sex “marriage” really believe it is the equivalent of traditional marriage is to examine how they compare the two, that is, when they actually dare to do so.  They never compare same-sex “marriage” to the ideal of traditional marriage.  Rather, they invariably note divorce rates, marital infidelity and the number of children born to single moms in the course of arguing for acceptance of same-sex “marriage.”  In other words, it is not according to the ideal of traditional marriage that same-sex unions can be justified, but only by the failure of traditional marriage to live up to that ideal.  Comparing same-sex “marriage” to the ideal of traditional marriage is like setting a candle against a bonfire, so no one does it.  Rather, they wait for an ember to be ejected from the inferno by a bit of sap that has boiled to the point of exploding, and use that as the object of comparison instead.

I believe there is something special about the union of a man and a woman. It’s obvious that nature “agrees”, as it has designed that a man and a woman together are the ONLY way in which life is created, at least for a the preponderance of advanced species.

Instead of trying to force us to ignore this glaring fact, instead of trying to force us to pretend that gender differences don’t matter,  the president should be worrying about what’s going on in the economy. He lost my vote when he was reluctant to exclude abortion from his health care plan… and by this adversity to DOMA he has just ensured he will never get it back.

And, I love the Catholic Church, and am proud to be a Catholic.

Xcatholic
Since when does the Church not have a duty to properly adjudicate the word of God found in the scriptures and note what is and isn’t a sin?  Even without the Church, for such alleged civil rights to trump the natural rights would indeed be a contradiction of what our founding documents represent.  Marriage is not derived from man’s law.  You seek to obtain that which was not given to you by shredding the giver.  Will that mark an improvement?  When the constitution is destroyed, then what will protect your rights?  When man’s law no longer means what the words say, then it only means what the blackrobed judge says.  Then you seek rights from a priesthood of the bench.  But where will that blackrobed judge be on the final Judgement?  Will he be there to proclaim your civil rights before God?  The Church speaks and you wish to silence it.  The constitution also speaks and you wish to silence it too.  Seek to change them if you must, but you must let them speak.

I believe that The Church will grow stronger as it loses people who RUN from the Truth.

xcatholic, the gay marriage debate is not over freedom to love. Nobody is talking about criminalizing homosexuality.

It’s over whether we are going to redefine family so that some people can avoid the obligation to honor, respect, and support the person they make a baby with.

Babies are not for buying or for selling. All children should have the right to know their own real mother and father, unless a real crisis makes that impossible.

My opinion as a Catholic & as an American:
1. Marriage is between a man and a woman
2. It is a sacrament of the church
3. The sacrament has been around way before the forming of America and it’s Government.
4. It is unconstitutional for the govt. to pass such a law to call same sex couples as “married”—For it is altering the law of religous followings—Hence, this is a perfect example of what we need “Separation of Church and State”
5. With the govt. enforcing the term of “marriage” to fulfill same sex couples desires—It is blasemous and offends the moral following of many religous practicers.
6. To be fair, and to respect other’s own values and beliefs, if the govt. wants to see same sex couples as legally together, then pass it as stating that they are in a “civil union” and that they are “life partners”—This way, it will not offend, water down or have it that the govt. changes the term of a church sacrament. 

“Love the sinner, hate the sin”.....

How far stretch is the meaning of love in today’s term?  I see most Americans confuse lustful desires to make one feel good as love.  That’s far from it.

Love is to protect and to provide, but not just for right now and for one person.  Looking to love future generations to keeps this country strong and free without demoralizing it.

Why should someone’s sexual preference makes them a protected class?  Where’s the limit?  Should we do the same for those who are sexually attracted to children or someone that desires a sexual relationship with their siblings or someone who’s consider a womanizer?

This is ridiculous!

What if we ALL refused to pay our taxes to a government that is antilife and anti marriage? Would they put us ALL in jail?

Could someone please tell me which church I have to go to to get my marriage license?
Better yet, after I have cheated on my spouse, which church do I go to so I can get divoriced?
Just Sayin’

V and SFGeek, the main point is that whatever their merits, same-sex unions and traditional marriage are DIFFERENT, and so should not be treated the same.  You note V that some couples are unable or choose not to have children.  That is true, but they are exceptions to the rule that married couples bear children.  A same-sex couple that does not have children, however, is NOT an exception to that rule.  For them, the rule is the opposite - same-sex couples do not bear children, so the exception would be a same-sex couple that DOES have children.  The fact that the rule and exception for same-sex couples is reversed from those that apply to traditional couples is the clearest evidence that they’re two very different things.
—-
Adam, so what is the purpose for government recognizing marriage and granting married couples certain rights and privileges, and how is that purpose fulfilled equally as well by same-sex couples as it is by those married traditionally?

The scripture gives each person the road map for living life.  it also gives evidence of satan who seeks WHOM HE MAY DEVOUR,  going abut as a roaring lion.  one of the prevailing lies is the entrapment into behavior that scripture says is an abomination in the sight of God.  God is God.  man is NOT God.  In earlier years in this country there was a reverence for the Almighty God,  a recognition that we needed to get right with Him in our lives and to do so frequently,  keeping short accounts with Him.  but now many many people have let the lies of the enemies of God entrap them,  and many many people love those lies and what they do for their personal lives.  I prefer the scripture,  As for me and my house we will serve the Lord.  as a nation we cannot separate God from all that happens in personal lives or in public lives, in government.  This country is like no other because,BECAUSE the christians who came in the early years,  1600s and such,  dedicated and covenanted this land to and with the Lord for the purpose of the spread of the gospel of Jesus.  go back and read the early history out of the original texts if you can find them. We dishonor God and ourselves when we try to do things against His ways.

God Creation “The Family”, With two essential halves, man and woman.  Is being destroyed!!!  And with this destruction we will destroy a whole lot more than GLOBAL WARMING!!! all we care about now is who’s attractions we need to protect, and are doing far more HARM than GOOD, DO WE REALIZE we are pulling the Pillars(the family)of our blessings from GOD down, and thus will bring about the clamities spoken of by Propets and the end of the world.  The Family is God doctrine, and through Him it must remain. As stated in Ephesians 6:12 “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against (Evil) principalities, against (Evil) powers against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”  This is EXACTLY what Anti(traditional)Family IS!!! Don’t be decieved. If you want to know the truth read this transcript that tells of the way many who suffer from same sex attraction have overcome it. Two people I know personally, but no one ever tells you the truth anymore.  http://www.theguardrail.com/transcript.htm

Look at what civil discourse has come to in America:  I don’t care about logic; just agree with me or else it means you hate me!

As with every major issue, there are many sides to this one.  And I can, for the most part, see where those sides are coming from.  My biggest problem with this whole question is this: when are we going to decide whether we are actually going to follow our Constitution with regards to the separation of Church and State?  On every major issue (abortion, civil unions, etc), the question of religion distorts everything.  It has always struck me as being more than a little incongruous that with one hand the government can take away the ability of a Southern courthouse to display the Ten Commandments, and with the other defend its stance on same-sex unions by quoting Bible scripture.  We can’t have it both ways.  I personally don’t have any problem with defining “marriage” as one man, one woman - with the caveat that there should also be some sort of sanction of civil unions between same sex couples.  And to be quite honest, I don’t see where the government has any right to be regulating marriages or unions anyway.  We as a nation have allowed our local, state, and federal governments to grow ever-larger and ever more intrusive over the past hundred years or so, and it needs to STOP, now!

Very good article, and so true. Marriage is between a man and woman only. God didn’t create men to be with men, and women to be with women. That is unnatural and an abomination to our Creator.

And it is not in hatred that we wish to uphold the DOMA, but because it is God’s law, and if you choose to act against God’s law, that’s your business, but you don’t have to make the rest of us suffer with you. God’s ways are always right, and His Will will prevail.

Marylandbill-” I think it is fair to say that most faithful Catholics object not so much to what people do in their private lives than to the idea that the state can force us to recognize marriages that we believe cannot exist.  In other words, if a gay couple wants to call themselves married, that is fine, but it is unreasonable for the State then to demand that we are forced to treat them as a married couple.”
—-Exactly!  These politicians and poeple who are in favor of passing the law to call a same sex couple “married” is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!

@MarylandBill: “The state has always defined who may and may not be married and to whom.”

Nope. After desegregation, numerous states attempted to pass laws stating that interracial marriage was illegal. In that instance, the federal government stepped in because it was no longer a matter of state-sanctioned marriages, but a question of national civil right and equality, as well as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

In that instance, the states were attempting to rule that a person, due to a characteristic of that person, was not allowed to marry another person, due to the characteristic of that person. The source of that characteristic - bet it genetic, inborn, or whatnot - is arbitrary.

Maggie loves to claim there’s a difference between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage, but the fact is that she bases the argument on the assumption that homosexuality is a CHOICE, which is a different debate altogether - but regardless, that is an unproven assumption, and thus an incredibly weak basis for an argument.

@John: “Why should someone’s sexual preference makes them a protected class?  Where’s the limit?  Should we do the same for those who are sexually attracted to children or someone that desires a sexual relationship with their siblings or someone who’s consider a womanizer?”

Perhaps you’ve heard the word ‘consent’? In a same-sex relationship, you have two adults consenting to the relationship. Attempting to lump in pedophilia is just a scare tactic, because a child is not of age of consent.

As for siblings: Relationships borne of incest have a very tangible harm connected to them - a greatly increased risk of reinforced recessive genes in offspring, resulting in defects.

Lastly, regarding womanizers - I fail to understand your point because womanizers are already allowed to get married; legal adultery is one of the most common, yet often uncited, causes for divorce in the United States.

@Sam: “Since when does the Church not have a duty to properly adjudicate the word of God found in the scriptures and note what is and isn’t a sin?”

Its ‘duty’ (read: right) to adjudicate the ‘word of God’ ends where the next man’s freedoms begin. The Establishment Clause denies any person the right to base legislation on a solely religious viewpoint. You can feel free to hold any rights you want - but your right to freely practice your religion ends when it starts affecting someone else.

If you’d like to argue otherwise, I have a hypothetical for you: I will start a religion with a tenet that its members are REQUIRED to enter into a legally-recognized union with the person they love, as long as that person is of the age of consent in that region - regardless of the person’s sex. Now, are you still standing up for freedom of religion? After all, telling me that I can’t marry the man I love is forcing me to violate my religion.

Maggie’s arguments are as worn and tired as she appears to be. I have no problems with anyone’s religious beliefs - as long as they remain THEIR religious beliefs. When they extend beyond your person and detrimentally affect my life, your right to freedom of religion ends.

@SFGeek - I would agree to an extent. We should love and respect the homosexuality community but not endorse it’s sin. I agree we should act like Jesus. Homosexuality is a sin that should be repented of just like murder, lying and stealing. I am not sure where we came up with the idea of having ‘freshman’ level sins and ‘varsity’ levels.

If we are to be like Christ, we must love but also rebuke. Christ did not embrace homosexuality. It is a sin and if we are of Christ, we must come to terms with this. We must love the homosexual community like we love everyone else but also rebuke the sin as we rebuke other sins.

My sin is just as wicked as their sin - but through Christ on the cross I am set free from the bondage of that sin.

I don’t get it. This story by Ms. Gallegher is presented in a predominately conservative Catholic website that expresses the teachings of the Catholic Church and there are people that express their thoughts and feelings that go against Catholic teaching. You who feel the need to argue what the Catholic Church should do is quite clear: all you want us to do is to be like all the other main-stream religions who have succumbed to progressive and sinful practices that go agains our teachings. Instead of trying to changed the only church that does not recognize same-sex marriage, you should get on the gay websites and tell them how supportive you are of their practices. Frankly, I want my church to be Catholic and conservative. Those of you who feel that our teachings are not to your liking, then do what Henry VIII did and start your own church. I am quite tired of x-catholics telling me what the Church is doing wrong; how you’ve been harmed by its teachings. I will always support my church as long as they continue to be in union with the Pope and all the teachings of the church. The rest of you can go take a hike, please.

@Teddy:  To be fair, and to respect other’s own values and beliefs, if the govt. wants to see same sex couples as legally together, then pass it as stating that they are in a “civil union” and that they are “life partners”—This way, it will not offend, water down or have it that the govt. changes the term of a church sacrament.

There’s the rub.  Rhetoric aside, it’s not about equality or legal standing or what label you want to put on this or that sort of relationship.  It’s about using the police power of the state (via the courts) to force society as a whole to make statements about the nature of marriage and the morality of same-sex relationships—and indirectly whether God has a say in those things—that the majority disagree with.  If God had said, “Drink Coke and not Pepsi” some of the same people would be mounting a full-court press to force the nation to express its approval of Pepsi drinkers.  So on one level if courts want to force this extremist redefinition of marriage on everyone, or render a verdict that 2+2=5, it won’t legitimize those things but merely delegitimize the courts; it will undermine the rule of law and the democratic pluralism by which competing groups agree to disagree rather than resorting to civil war. 

On another level I think gay activists are opening a Pandora’s box.  In insisting on moral relativism and the marginalization of Christianity, they are undermining their own greatest protection.  They don’t see that now, but history shows us how statist, atheistic, will-to-power governments treat homosexuals: it isn’t pretty.  And make no mistake:  courts imposing the will of a minority on the basis of nothing but mere assertion and demand is a move toward statism. (Abolition and rights for African-Americans had a firm basis in their dignity as created in God’s image and the founder’s statement that “all men are created equal” and so is not analogous to gays demanding “marriage” recognition.)  Any successes gay activists have today in forcing their views down our throats via the courts will turn out to be Pyrrhic victories.  They are, I think, cannon fodder for those with statist dreams who see the Church as their greatest obstacle, just as statists have seen us from Caesar until now.

THIS IS CRAZY THE ORIGINAL INTENT WAS TO KEEP MAN AND WIFE TOGETHER BY GOD’S DESIGN NOT MANS!

KEEP ME POSTED. SHOULD NOT RULE OUT THE DOMA LAW; UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO RULE THE DOMA FEDERAL LAW!  IDIOTS!  HEATHER

The Supreme Court will overturn DOMA. We can not defend it legally, only morally.

A discussion we had in the faculty lunchroom the other day put some of this thinking in perspective for me.  It started with comments on the union situation in Wisconsin and the unfairness of forcing people to pay union dues, especially when those same unions send large amounts of that money to support the Democratic candidates only (offensive!). THe main liberal on board felt that “the majority has every right to force the minority to do its will.”  So that lead to a discussion on the fact that, in every state where it has been brought to a vote, same sex marriage has NOT been the will of the majority.  In that case, he felt the minority was justified in using any means to get their way - because they had the moral right. 
So I then brought up Natural Law overriding government law.  He would have none of it.  So the next point addressed the reality that if the government could define all of your rights, THEN THAT SAME GOVERNMENT COULD TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHTS.  He agreed that was the case and he had no problem with it.  The bell rang before I could remind him, a Jew, that Hitler functioned by that philosophy.
Progressive/liberals are very scary people.

It doesn’t matter to me if you are Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or Baptist.  If you believe in God do you believe He would sanctify a homosexual marriage? If you are an atheist, your answer doesn’t matter.

It seems there’s a lot of confusion and opinion instead of fact that’s been mentioned. Does anyone care what God says, or are they so self-absorbed that they don’t even care what their Creator has to say on the matter?
In Genesis 1: 26-27, God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…And God created the man in His own image, In the image of God created He him,—Male and female created He them.”
God then made the first human who contained both male and female elements like God possesses. Following that, God put Adam asleep and removed a rib from his side, from which He built the woman, Eve. Adam named her Woman, “…for out of man hath this one been taken.” It continues, “For this cause, will a man leave his father and his mother,—and cleave unto his wife, and they shall become one flesh,” Genesis 2: 23-24.
To summarize, God created man as the embodiment of both male and female because God contains both male and female elements. After a suitable companion wasn’t found for the man after examination of the entire animal kingdom (Genesis 2: 20), God removed the female portion from Adam and said that because woman had been taken out of man, that (upon maturity), the man shall cut his bonds with his mother and father and join with his wife to be a complete person, restored to the image of God again. That way, the half-man becomes whole again by reclaiming his feminine side.
Humans are made in God’s image. God is both male and female elements joined together in one being. Through the holy sexual union provided by marriage, God joined the male part of man, Adam, to the female part known as Eve to reflect His image as one male and one female joined together as one being, or, one flesh. The devil wants to join two men or two women together as one flesh through homosexuality, because he hates God and wants to pervert God’s image.

The Netherlands was among the first countries to legalize the “gay marriage”.
Once it was lawful one could think that the gay peoples would rush in droves to be married.
And then what?... Only 6 per cent of the gays are married.
No wonder that this would happen in the US too.
The mountain gave birth to a mouse…
Indeed it was very very urgent to legislate in that very very important issue.

In Response to Bemore, Wed Mar 2nd;
Thank you.  Your comment is theologically absolutely correct.  Any Christian scholar who holds to the first 5 books of the Bible or any Jewish scholar who knows the Torah would have to agree on the Theological Correctness of your comment.  The non-beleiver has no clear standard in which to hold, therefore right or wrong depends only on his/her opinion or personal feelings.

“Posted by Kevin on Tuesday, Mar 1, 2011 12:13 PM (EST):Look at what civil discourse has come to in America:  I don’t care about logic; just agree with me or else it means you hate me!”

—-Actually, in most cases, it is “I don’t care about logic: just agree with me or else it means I HATE YOU!—I get that alot when I discuss things such as “Gay marriage’ and “Abortion”...

what I usually say, “The people who cry prejudice the most are usually the most ignorant” and “Just because it is politically correct doesn’t make it right”

Response to:
“Posted by Kevin on Tuesday, Mar 1, 2011 4:44 PM (EST):@Teddy:  To be fair, and to respect other’s own values and beliefs, if the govt. wants to see same sex couples as legally together, then pass it as stating that they are in a “civil union” and that they are “life partners”—This way, it will not offend, water down or have it that the govt. changes the term of a church sacrament.

There’s the rub.  Rhetoric aside, it’s not about equality or legal standing or what label you want to put on this or that sort of relationship.  It’s about using the police power of the state (via the courts) to force society as a whole to make statements about the nature of marriage and the morality of same-sex relationships—and indirectly whether God has a say in those things—that the majority disagree with.  If God had said, “Drink Coke and not Pepsi” some of the same people would be mounting a full-court press to force the nation to express its approval of Pepsi drinkers.  So on one level if courts want to force this extremist redefinition of marriage on everyone, or render a verdict that 2+2=5, it won’t legitimize those things but merely delegitimize the courts; it will undermine the rule of law and the democratic pluralism by which competing groups agree to disagree rather than resorting to civil war. 

On another level I think gay activists are opening a Pandora’s box.  In insisting on moral relativism and the marginalization of Christianity, they are undermining their own greatest protection.  They don’t see that now, but history shows us how statist, atheistic, will-to-power governments treat homosexuals: it isn’t pretty.  And make no mistake:  courts imposing the will of a minority on the basis of nothing but mere assertion and demand is a move toward statism. (Abolition and rights for African-Americans had a firm basis in their dignity as created in God’s image and the founder’s statement that “all men are created equal” and so is not analogous to gays demanding “marriage” recognition.)  Any successes gay activists have today in forcing their views down our throats via the courts will turn out to be Pyrrhic victories.  They are, I think, cannon fodder for those with statist dreams who see the Church as their greatest obstacle, just as statists have seen us from Caesar until now.”

—-Well, poeple need to take responsibility of their actions—and from that, they will learn from it—and ONLY God will be the judge of people when they reach the other side….Weather they are in a “gay marriage’civil union”, child molesters, drug addicts, etc.

When it comes down to two concenting adults engaging in something such as a “gay civil union”, well—that’s there lives.  Not mine, nt ours.  They will have to live with the consequences and when it is their time to pass on.  Same goes with women that go around as a single parent, having children with multiple fathers and never getting married.  The problem is with that—and letting gay couples adopt children is THE CHILDREN SUFFER.

Just look at the smutty lifestyle Charlie Sheen is living—has TWO live in girlfriends in a house with his two young boys?  What kind of morals is that showing to the boys? women are just playthings, they are just to serve and give pleasure to men?  And the drug abuse of father also!  GLad they took the kids away from him.  The man is sick and needs help with his addictions and the lifestyle he is publically leading also. 

As long as we try our best as being catholics and as long as our rights are not jeopardized, hopefully we shall overcome and end up where we belong in the after life.

Poeple, I feel, that are gay, had abortions for selfish reasons or live with spouses without being married==They are GUILTY of their sins, yet instead of blaming themselves for their sins, they balme God—and that there is a problem…...

The Church isn’t telling people who they can love, however it is the duty of the Church as to who can and can’t be married. Biblically there isn’t one example of homosexual mariage, however there are examples of the destructive behavior of a homosexual society. Certainly we can see the progression of homosexuals in America from wanting to be left alone, to attacking those who disagree with them, to creating laws to punish those who disagree with them. That is quite a turn around in a 40 year period. The law (the 10 Commandments) was given to a man who was in an interracial marriage. Moses was married to an Ethiopian woman. Noah was, in all probability, in a similar marriage as he had sons who were different colors. I find no passage that refers to these men or their relationships as an “abombination” to God.

For those of you who are complaining by saying you don’t have the same rights as everyone else because you choose to be homosexual, STOP - it is ridiculous.  Marriage is between a man and a woman, by law; you are absolutely free to marry a man if you are a woman, and you can marry a woman if you are a man, just like you choose to be or not be a homosexual.

@ Matt, ” The problem is with that—and letting gay couples adopt children is THE CHILDREN SUFFER.” So tell me, do they suffer more than the children in the adoption agencies or less? If two people of the same sex want to get married ant then adopt some poor child that has been in and out of 6 or 8 foster homes in the last 4 years, does that create more suffering for the child?

@ Real Love, YOUR religion says marriage is between one man and one woman, what about those that don’t share YOUR religious beliefs? Next question, when did you choose to be hetrosexual? Could you have “Chosen” to be homosexual, personally for me, it was an easy choice not to be hetrosexual and I don’t believe I ever could be. On the other hand you could say, I did choose not to be miserable the rest of my life.
The only reason it is still law is because the “religious right” continues to deprive everyone of what THEY think everyone should not have” Just think if 80-90 years ago, men voted that women should still be property and that blacks could not marry whites, thats what we are doing now, I think we should put up to a vote by all on which religion should be the national religion, do you think all the protestants would allow it to be the catholic religion or not?

People that are defending marriage between a man and a woman are not bigots!!! I for one don’t care (but don’t approve) if two of the same sex are in a sexual union.  I don’t want to judge anyone.

However, this will definitely have a ripple affect.  As stated, children will not be allowed to be adopted by parents or religions disapproving gay marriages.  Children will be taught in school that gay marriage is fine and in many cases will be obligated to learn this from kindergarten up, even if their religion teaches them differently.  Parents will have no say, the state will.  And what’s to prevent the state eventually to try and remove children from their parents because “they are teaching their children the wrong things”.

Furthermore this will spill into the Churches.  If you have some type of Federal Law, such as the one Canada has, pastors are FORBIDDEN to speak from the puplit against gay marriage even if our religion doesn’t approve.

Also business will be affected.  Floral shops will not be allowed to discriminate, caterers and bakeries will not either.  If they do, lawsuits can be filed against them.

So your homosexual agenda, for that is what it is, will affect everyone.  It will not leave people in peace who believe in traditional marriage.  “A tiger does not loose it’s stripes”.

thank God for our new congress!  since the beginning of time marriage was always between a man and a woman. the Bible is not a mythology book as liberal college professors would like you to believe; it confirms science and its documented history. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like whats in it, or don’t want to believe it. It is Gods word to us, and we better live by it or we will suffer. God created us man and woman for a reason, and he put us together and said “multiply”. God doesn’t hate anyone, he is a God of love. however, he has absolutes in his word to protect us from sin, or wrong living that will seperate us from himself. he wants us to live a happy, fufilling life with him in the center leading the way. He says not to do certain things to protect us, and help us to live a long healthy life. I lost a family member to aids, and he knew his lifestyle cut his life short. Before he died he asked Jesus to forgive him for living for his desires as a gay man,  instead of living for the God he knew as a boy, a God who loved him very much. I have no doubt that he is in heaven today. Jesus is his lord and savior. God created marriage whether you like it or not, and he will never be politically correct for anyone. He cares about his creation. He uses marriage as an example to the world of Christ and the church. How dare anyone who thinks they can destort what God has created in marriage, and mock his word. He has a very fulfilling life of adventure for anyone who believes in him. He has a plan for every life, that makes him their Lord. He came to heal the broken hearted, and to set the captives free. Without him we are all in that condition. You can have all the money in the world, and live your own way, but you will never be satisfied, and never find peace within. not until you surrender to the savior of the world, “Jesus Christ”. He alone has put eternity in our hearts, and in him alone can we find true life. Marriage is between a man and a woman no matter what man says.

“Next question, when did you choose to be hetrosexual? Could you have “Chosen” to be homosexual”

Irrespective of whether you are attracted sexually to men or women, marriage is between men and women. Marriage should not be based solely on sexual attraction either, those marriages fail. These two issues are separate and frankly have not been resolved by science whether one can choose or not choose or whether it is nature or nurture which leads to either or both. Certainly it is common for young boys who have been molested by men as children to often have attraction for other men. Some gay groups claim we can choose and in fact we are all a little gay - every single human being.

Pedophiles are sexually attracted to children (often exclusively so), should 8yr olds and 40 yr olds marry too? People who peform acts of bestiality are attracted to animals. Shouldn’t they also marry? What about necrophiliacs? What about more than one spouse? Most men are sexually attracted to numerous women. Why not marry 10 girls? An white girl, a black girl, an Asian girl, etc., only one girl is boring!
Aren’t we discriminating against hyper-sexual men and women?

What about men who marry dolls (it happens in Asia)? Shouldn’t those marriages be recognized?
We could go on and on…. Each of these categories should receive civil rights protection. Proponents of pedophile marriages will argue that it is society’s negative response which is responsible for negative effects of child-pedo relationships, and the actual abuse itself is akin to rape of adult women, they will argue that it doesn’t happen in ‘loving relationships’. Those who’d favor marriage with animals will also rationalize their views, the animals appear to enjoy the encounters.

Now, perhaps secular society should recognize some form of ‘union’ for gay men, lesbians and bisexuals but this should not be called marriage and under no circumstance erode into the specific societal construct responsible for the entire human race, we believe was ordained by God. Irrespective of one’s belief in God however, the truth is also that loving committed relationships between men and women have been responsible for raising children in the most optimal way, building societies (civilizations) for millennia and this is also echoed in nature among mammals and birds. Marriage should be reserved for the covenant between men and women, regardless if any of them is infertile or fertile, the vast majority is fertile anyway. No gay or lesbian couple is fertile either. Arguably blindness takes away from marriage too, should blind people also not marry, if infertility was a sole argument? Blaming relatively rare material errors in occasional men or women is not conducive to allowing people whose bodies are not designed to bring new life forth to be granted the license to have marriage. Our societies are already in decline over too few young people because of smaller family sizes.

Secular civil unions I think may be OK but not to ever be marriages so as to avoid confusion between the two. They can involve tax breaks and so on and offer sharing of property, inheritance rights etc. Some people may disagree but we do live in a secular, pluralistic, society full of people of various beliefs.

The difference between civil marriage and civil union is a matter of law, not religion.

Baker v Nelson (from the early 70s) has been superseded by Lawrence v Texas (2003), which overturned Bowers, which was decided a mere 17 years prior. The fact that you would continue to mention Baker (from not 17, but 40 years ago) as some kind of binding precedence is a joke. Read Scalia’s comments in Lawrence—even he thinks that without moral disapproval, there is no legal basis for denying gay couples the right of marriage.

In addition, society has changed significantly in the 40 years since Baker. Most recent polls show a very even split between those for and against same-sex marriage (even the Pew poll which often shows less support for same-sex marriage, recently polled a statistical tie between those for and against).

No reputable lawyer or reasonable person is going to say that given all these factors that Baker is any case to be relied on. The problem with those against same-sex marriage is that there is really no solid argument, and so they have to make up evidence, or rely on clearly outdated precedents.

If there was any solid evidence showing harm of same-sex marriage, it would have been demonstrated in the Prop8 trial in California last year. Only two witnesses were proffered by the anti-same-sex marriage side and neither was much of an expert, especially compared to the witnesses presented by the pro-same-sex marriage side. One of the witnesses from the anti-same-sex marriage side even stated that “we would be more American” on the day we legalized same-sex marriage.

The question is not whether marriage is good for helping children be raised by their mothers and fathers. The real question is “will also allowing gay couples to marry substantially affect this goal in a negative way”.

So far, I haven’t seen any good arguments about how allowing gay couples to marry will cause heterosexuals to lose interest in marriage or how it will “devalue” marriage (other than “society hates gay people; therefore if gay people can get married, society will no longer value marriage”). The problem is that raw hatred or disdain for a group doesn’t hold up in court.

What about the children that gay couples are raising? Don’t those children deserve a stable family as well? Based on Maggie’s arguments, I would say that those children need the protections of marriage *even more* because they are not being raised by their biological parents (in many cases, because the biological parents were drug addicts or criminals).

And the “accidental pregnancy” argument can apply to gay couples as well. My brother decided that my partner and I should take care of his kids if something happens to him and his wife. If they’re involved in a fatal accident, I could suddenly be responsible for raising children and I would not have the benefit of marriage.

Regardless, surely we care as much about the accidental children as we do about the planned children? I think people often forget that there are huge numbers of gay couples raising children. Let’s protect their children too.

Matthew, a more current discussion on this topic, which addresses several of your questions, is at http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/doma-and-20121/
—
The question is not so much will same-sex “marriage” affect what traditionally-married couples WANT to do, but will it affect what they’re ABLE to do.  Government recognition of same-sex unions has proven to be quite coercive in the countries and states where this grand social experiment has been tried.  In Canada freedom of speech has been curtailed, and just last week in the UK it was determined that children cannot be entrusted to Christian foster parents who aren’t willing to squelch part of their beliefs.  In our own country we’ve seen adoption agencies have to close up shop in states where same-sex unions are recognized.
—
You imply that same-sex unions are the equal to traditional marriage, yet no one actually dares compare same-sex “marriage” to the IDEAL of traditional marriage.  It is only the failure of traditional marriage to live up to that ideal that is used as a justification for same-sex unions.  The fact that same-sex “marriage” presents itself as an ideal weapon for those more interested in suppressing the influence of religion in society than granting anyone particular rights is also deeply concerning, and raises the question of how much of the “support” for same-sex “marriage” is really genuine.

This just makes you sound weak, stupid and defenseless. It pity you and you’re closed minded ways. Get a real reason to hate gays, no one cares about your bible thumping anymore

I can’t wait for the next republican president who will “strike” all these amendments.

A man and a woman make a marriage and nothing else! I am appauld at what is going on but you outsiders who want to change the traditional ways of proper and healthy family are refusing to see the future implications of the children who may be involved and the stability of our nation’s families and morals. This desire is a CHOICE!  Not something you are born with. It’s a sexual, disgusting lust,,,period. Whoever wants to do these appauling things behind their closed doors than fine, but don’t bring it out and force the majority of our nation’s families to adhere to your chosen lifestyle. DADT needs to be reinstated!!!!!!  DOMA needs to be protected!!!!! Gay marriage should never exist!!!!  Homosexuality IS A SIN UNDER GOD!!!!  Read the books of Corinthians!!

@ cameron, I challenge you to name a republican candidate that would be capable of winning in an election against President Obama. Do you think that Newt Gingrich would have a chance, would you vote for someone that commited adultry several times? How about Sarah Palin? Her family values led to her daughter giving birth out of wedlock, was that the right thing to do? I guess Mike Huckabee could run, he is sure to get all the votes from the religious extremists, course at the same time, he will offend the rest of the country and that would sure cost him the election. What I am trying to say is there is no republican that is pure enough to be the parties represenitive and moderate enough to get the votes from the swing voters to get elected.

@ LynneH OK Sweetie, could you please provide chapter and verse in Corinthians where god refers to homosexuality, I have been trying to find that section but am having some difficulty. Thank you