Posts Tagged With: marriage

I’m Not an Anti-Gay Bigot Because I Don’t Support Gay “Marriage”

Posted on February 28, 2013 by DN

 

This is a repost from Brendan Malone from The Leading Edge, a blog based out of New Zealand, expressing his thoughts on legislation making its way in that country’s parliament.

Let me start by putting all my cards on the table.

I think that Labour MP Louisa Wall’s bill to redefine marriage in NZ (a bill which is proposing the biggest change to marriage and marriage laws that has ever taken place in this country) is a really bad piece of ideologically driven legislation that has no sound basis in reality, and as such it should be rejected by our parliament.

Holding such a view about Louisa Wall’s bill does NOT make me a bigot, anti-gay or make me guilty of discrimination.

It simply makes me someone with a view that is opposed to the personal views of Louisa Wall and those who support her bill to redefine marriage.

One thing that I have grown sick and tired of in the seven months since the introduction of this bill is the way in which various supporters of this bill – including some journalists who have decided to trade in their journalistic balance for a biased ideological leaning (just look at the URL address for this article and you’ll realize that the original headline never contained the word ‘marriage’), and, sadly, even our MPs on the supposedly impartial select committee receiving submissions about this bill – have chosen to slur the supporters of the natural biological view of marriage (woman/man) rather than actually engaging with the arguments we are putting forward.

Here’s the rub – the fact that I do not think that ANY two people should be able to legally marry each other does not mean that I think any less of the persons proposing the opposite view to me, or that I am guilty of any sort of unjust discrimination for firmly committing myself to such a belief.

I also believe that 25 year old vehicle license holders should be allowed to drive cars on our roads, while at the same time I hold to the firm belief that 13 year old’s shouldn’t legally be allowed to do the exact same thing. This belief doesn’t make me guilty of youth-ophobia or unjust discrimination, instead it makes me someone who has clear ideas about what road safety is and isn’t, and someone who draws a line in the sand because of that understanding.

Claiming something as a ‘right’ doesn’t make it so – not even for two heterosexuals of the opposite sex who want to rush into a marriage (like two 14 year old students who are desperately ‘in love’ with each other and who believe that no one else has a right to prevent them from marrying each other).

The reason I oppose Louisa Wall’s bill to redefine marriage is because I think that there are some things that are more important than people’s personal wants – and in this case one of those things is protecting, in legislation, a sound, reality based vision of human marriage, rather than imposing subjective personal whims upon an important pre-existing institution.

Marriage has a specific nature, and in order for marriage to exist, there has to be a heterosexual union present to actually bring that authentic nature of marriage into existence – without a heterosexual union between a male and a female spouse authentic marriage can’t even be brought into existence.

This isn’t just a competing version of marriage (as supporters of Louisa Wall’s bill would like to claim), it is something far more fundamental than that – it is the traditional understanding of marriage that has existed since year zero, and it is an understanding based in the biological complimentarity of the heterosexual union, and it’s potential to create new human life.

(The procreative potential of heterosexual unions is also the only thing that actually makes sense of the state’s involvement in marriage – without this what you have is the state regulating your personal romantic friendships, something that it has no need or business doing.)

The fact that ONLY the pairing of a male and female can produce children is a truth that is self-evident in the lived bodily reality of the human species – it’s as obvious as the laws of gravity.

Now at this point supporters of the bill usually retort with something along the lines of “marriage can’t have its basis in procreation, because infertile couples still get married.”

To paraphrase my good friend Dr. Matthew Flanagan: if this argument is true, then the fact that people who don’t love each other still marry must also mean that marriage isn’t actually about romantic love either (by arguing against marriage as an exclusively heterosexual union, based on the presence of infertility in some heterosexual couples, supporters of Louisa Wall’s bill have ironically ended up logically undermining their own ‘marriage is merely about romantic love’ view of marriage – by virtue of the fact that some heterosexual marriages are also devoid of love).

I make no apologies for holding the view that marriage has to be grounded in a biological reality of male/female complimentarity – and neither do I have to, for mine is the traditional understanding of marriage that has existed from its inception.

I have nothing to apologise for, and I shouldn’t have to put up with childish public ridicule and vilification (especially from journalists who are supposed to be reporting facts) merely for proposing this traditional biological reality-based understanding of marriage.

It is those who wish to propose a complete change to this original definition of marriage that have an obligation to provide a logical basis for completely redefining marriage (and no, claims of discrimination and bigotry are not actually a logical argument, they are merely emotive pleading).

I hold the views I do because I think that marriage is far too important an institution to be interfered with and completely redefined in such mass social experimentation as that which Louisa Wall is proposing.

Now supporters of this bill will probably respond by saying “but what about all those social harms caused by bad heterosexual marriages”?

To which I reply: stop trying to justify your social experimentation on the basis of failed executions of an institution that is a massively important social good, and which, when it works, produces some hugely important benefits for society.

Just because some people are already making a mess of marriage, it doesn’t mean that we should open the floodgates and let every Tom, Dick and Harriet have a crack at social experimentation with marriage, thus creating even more harms.

If anything, failed heterosexual marriages are NOT a justification for the social re-engineering of marriage, just the opposite; they are actually a wake-up call that we need to focus more time and resources into supporting and growing good marriages.

At the end of the day, one of the hallmarks of a truly free and open democracy is a robust and open public discourse on important issues. Therefore it’s time that we grew up and started acting accordingly by ceasing the childish and illogical name-calling with labels such as ‘bigot’, ‘anti-gay’ and ‘discrimination’ for those who support the traditional biological complimentarity understanding of marriage.

As my grandmother used to say ‘if you haven’t got something constructive to contribute, don’t say anything at all’.

Categories: America, Sanctity of Life and Marriage | Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Bishop Tobin on Marriage

Posted on January 9, 2013 by DN

 

Bishop Tobin of the Diocese of Providence writes about marriage in response to one Rhode Island legislator’s promise to bring a bill before the state legislature by the end of the month:

The proposal to legalize “same-sex marriage” in the State of Rhode Island is immoral and unnecessary. Despite enormous political pressure, the General Assembly should stand firm, resist the current fashionable trend, and continue to uphold its longstanding commitment to marriage as traditionally defined.

The proposal to legalize same-sex marriage is an attempt to redefine the institution of marriage as it has existed in every culture from the very beginning of human history. Marriage between a man and a woman was designed by God for two specific purposes: to affirm the complementary roles of males and females in a loving relationship, and to provide a stable foundation for the procreation and raising of children. Homosexual relationships can achieve neither of those goals.

Secondly, homosexual marriage enshrines into civil law immoral activity. The natural law, the Holy Scriptures, and long-standing religious tradition are very consistent in affirming that homosexual activity is sinful, contrary to God’s plan. It should never be encouraged, ratified or “blessed” by the state. It’s important to emphasize once again, however, that while rejecting homosexual activity, the Catholic Church has consistently promoted respect and pastoral care for individuals with same-sex attraction. They are children of God and our brothers and sisters. They are invited to be members of our churches. It is our very concern for their spiritual welfare, however, that motivates our rejection of the homosexual lifestyle and same-sex marriage.

Next, the concept of same-sex marriage is an untested social experiment with unpredictable long-term outcomes. The marriage of man and woman is, and always has been, the fundamental building block of the human family and human culture. One cannot tinker with this societal DNA without risking unknown changes to the structure of our society, especially as it relates to the proper upbringing of children.

Another real problem to consider is that the establishment of same-sex marriage would pose yet another threat to religious freedom. Proponents of same-sex marriage have frequently proclaimed that no religious institution will be obliged to officiate at marriages that are contrary to their beliefs. That may or may not prove to be true. But what is of equal concern, however, is that religious bodies will be obliged to extend their resources, facilities and benefits to individuals who are living in immoral relationships – contrary to sincerely held religious beliefs. This is not a hypothetical situation; it’s already happening throughout our nation.

A final point. If we are in fact forced to discuss the nature of matrimony in our state, it should be placed before the general public in a referendum. The proposal to redefine marriage as a fundamental structure in our culture is a very serious issue with profound consequences. I suspect that people on both sides of the issue agree with that. On a question of this magnitude, then, the people of this state should decide as they have in many other states. Let us vote!

It has been said that “the world is changing” and that we need to get with the times. Well, it’s certainly true that the world is changing, but the truth is that not all change is good. It’s never good to accept and promote immoral activity; it’s never good to experiment dangerously with the long-term well-being of the community; it’s never good to impose a politically-correct, socially-fashionable agenda item on the entire community, especially if it challenges the conscience and religious liberty of many, many citizens.

H/t to Catholic Vote.

Categories: America | Tags: , , , , ,

Tolerance and Intolerance

Posted on December 17, 2012 by DN

 

As I was reading the bulletin from Mass yesterday from St. Agnes Catholic Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, I read through the pastor’s message for parishioners and wanted to share it here:

Tolerance is a frequently used word today which is intended to help the general harmony of society as well as to help discussion between opposing sides of a debate. However, many who use this word really intend to prevent true discussion and examination of conflicting ideas. A few years back I came across an article by Fr. James Schall in CRISIS magazine with the title, “Tolerance and Persuasion”. I would like to share his main points with you along with some ideas of my own.

Schall begins by considering persuasion, “Persuasion is the object of rhetoric or oratory, to move us to action by preponderance of argument when many reasonable or unreasonable alternatives are open to us. Elements both of risk and safety are indeed to be considered.”

Schall relates an episode from the beginning of Plato’s Republic. Socrates is returning from the seaport to Athens when several youths, including some of his students, come running up and deliver a message that he, Socrates, is wanted at someone’s home. After a question is raised as to why Socrates needs to go, one of the young men implies that they could force Socrates to go. Never missing an opportunity to delve more deeply in to the truth of things, Socrates asks if there is not the possibility of a way other than force. Is not persuasion an option so that he can voluntarily choose to go with the band of youths?

Schall goes on to identify that many in today’s climate are only open to their own values, which they make for themselves. They are obedient to nothing but themselves. They do not even think that valid intellectual argument can force or persuade them in the least. Truth, for so many, is subjective. In the worst case it becomes intellectual skepticism where the only truth adhered to is the denial of truth. According to Schall, “Tolerance theory has nothing to do with allowing discussion. It has everything to do with preventing settled positions form being examined against some non arbitrary standard.” Schall concludes by asserting that we can be persuaded.

I agree with Fr. Schall; many people are hiding behind tolerance in order not to investigate their dearly held views. Tolerance is first used as an insulator. It keeps people from seriously entertaining opposing views as if to say, “Well, that is your opinion and you have a right to it but don’t make me seriously consider it.” More recently, however, tolerance itself has been used to outright stifle debate. In today’s public squarethere are many topics that many academics, media personnel and those in public positions of authority have determined are decided issues and no longer open for any further debate. Here are a few examples: there is no moral difference between heterosexual acts and homosexual acts; contraception is a right and it has no adverse effects on those who use it; abortion must always be allowed for pregnancies resulting from rape and incest; religion and state must be separated in every respect. The list goes on. As many have said before, modern tolerance has now changed into intolerance for anything that does not agree with what is determined to be politically correct.

Christianity, especially Catholicism, has been accused of being intolerant. Was it not the Church that led the charge to defend traditional marriage here in Minnesota? This is actually a great example of good Christian Intolerance. Yes, Christian Intolerance. In other words there are many things that it is good to be especially intolerant of. For example, many decades ago when kidnapping for extortion began to increase, federal and state officials were concerned this would escalate to such a disastrous point that it would be dangerous to the stability of our society. Federal and state laws were tightened and the FBI made it a top priority to target kidnappers. Kidnapping for extortion was a crime targeted with extreme prejudice. Even though this problem persists in other countries, it is now very rare in the United States. The Church and individual Christians are similarly justified for having a kind of intolerance that similarly is interested in protecting society. Not every sin should be a civil crime. But some sins have such dangerous consequences that it is good and right to be zealous in not only trying to persuade but also more actively squelching some evils. Defending traditional marriage and the sanctity of human life are perfect examples where, for the sake of the existence and good order of society, we can and should be intolerant. We should always make use of prayer and persuasion. After all, we care about the happiness, holiness and salvation of all. Yet, in order to protect innocent life and key elements of a good and ordered society, Christians are more than justified publicly exercising an intolerance of some evils in a discerning and courageous manner. May God bless you and keep you.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Fr. Mark Moriarty

Categories: America | Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Serving Jesus Apart from Romantic Love

Posted on November 20, 2012 by DN

For one reason or another, there are some people who just aren’t called to romantic love, no matter how badly they might want to be. Some of these people aren’t called to the priesthood or the religious life either. I am one of these people, at least for now.

It’s really hard to be optimistic sometimes about what I’m doing with my life. People all around me are getting married or dating or having babies, and I’m…well, I’m still alone. My peers are all hopelessly in love and starting families and our culture says that having someone else whether it is permanent or temporary is the be all end all. That’s just not me. I want it, but I just can’t do it.

And the priesthood isn’t the answer for me. God is it NOT the answer. I’ve been down that road. It was an awful road and I will never go down that road again. Ever.

And the religious life? I thought about it this summer. I even prayed about it a little. But its not where my heart lies. Sure, I love solitude, but I also love attention and fun and groups every now and then. I also love this great and wonderful planet that God created and I want to see it and all the people he has put on it. Religious life is definitely the right choice for some people, but not for me.

So then what am I supposed to do? When I have certain friends who are of the opinion that men should either be making babies or making Sacraments for the rest of their lives, it seems that there is really nothing productive and holy to do with my life. It would seem that unless my loins are bearing fruit or my spirit is bearing the fruit of the Eucharist or my soul bears the fruit of cloistered prayer, my life is a fruitless wasteland.

But I know that there has to be a way to serve Jesus. And so I look to Jesus for an example. Jesus was none of these things: married, a religious, or an ordained priest, yet he was all of these things…and more. He was and is married to the Bride, the Church. He was a contemplative, offering his life up in prayer, stopping in solitude, going on retreats, fasting, suffering silently for others when they had no idea that he was doing these things. He was a priest, the high priest, offering his life as a fountain of grace and mercy for others, atoning for our sins. But he was also a single man. A single man who loved God and served God by serving the needs of others. He was a simple carpenter. He never took a wife. Never went to live in the temple. Never serving the community as priest. He lived a life like the rest of his people, and served their needs: fed them, healed them, taught them, ate with them, traveled the world over to visit them, to bring them peace and consolation.

This is the kind of life that must be lived in service to Christ outside of Marriage or the Priesthood.

It is time to start planning to serve.

Categories: Miscellanea | Tags: , , , , , ,

Waiting or Loving?

Posted on November 18, 2012 by DN

 

I read a blog post not too long ago that I had seen on someone’s Facebook. It was about Christianity’s mentality about waiting for sex, specifically for women. A lot of youth groups or young adult groups will take purity pledges or wear purity rings, and girls will talk about how they are waiting for the right man to come long, or whatever.

When I was with Cru in California, we were required to take such a pledge and I still have the pledge card to this day in my wallet. Yet, the focus of these pledges is hardly ever in the right place. The focus is usually on abstinence. Yes, abstinence is a good thing, and is the moral duty of any person who is not married to someone of the opposite sex, but the focus of abstinence should not be abstinence in itself. Rather, the focus of abstinence is on God. Our time spent abstaining from sex shouldn’t be focused on looking for the one who we will eventually abandon our abstinence with. Instead it should be focused on using that time, energy, and emotion on Jesus Christ, the true lover of our soul.

Abstinence is just like a vocation.

In Catholic circles we always talk about vocation: marriage, priesthood, religious life, and consecrated single life. We set them up on such a high pedestal. We frickin’ bug the crap out of young people asking them if they’ve ever considered being a priest or a nun, or hounding them about how vocational discernment is going. How is that any different than sitting around all day searching for the man or woman we are supposed to marry, dreaming day in and day out of that gift? Instead of focusing our attention on these vocation-suitors wouldn’t our time be better spent simply loving God and accepting the gift of vocation when God shows it to us in his time rather than fretting over it daily?

The point is I’ve been sick of vocational discernment for a long time. It is perhaps the one thing that I was least prepared for when I converted and is by far the most unpleasant and obnoxious thing about the faith. After pouring so much of my heart and soul into discerning the priesthood for the first few years of being Catholic I feel like I’ve got nothing to show for it in my faith. I tried so hard to know if I was called to be a priest that I didn’t spend any time actually loving Jesus, actually caring for his mystical body on earth, the Church. If I spent all the time that I fretted away over my vocation on loving Jesus and his people, I would be far better off and Jesus would have been better served.

There is no dogmatic or disciplinary requirement that I discern my vocation in the way that is typically advocated by traditional priests and FOCUS missionaries, and so I refuse to do it. I just want to love Jesus with my heart and my actions and when Jesus wants to show my vocation he will show me. It’s not my problem anymore.

Loving. Not waiting.

Categories: Miscellanea | Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Marriage Matters

Posted on September 30, 2012 by DN
Categories: America | Tags: , , , , , , ,

Gay Football Player Kicked Off Team

Posted on September 12, 2012 by DN

 

On the front page of today’s paper was a story that has gained national attention this week: a freshman at North Dakota State College of Science was kicked off of the football team. The coach said it was because he lied, the student said it was because he was gay. You can read about it here.

I would have to disagree with the coach’s decision to kick him off of the team for a few reasons.

To start with let’s just be honest, he was kicked off the team because he was gay, not because he lied. An hour north of NDSCS at NDSU, football players are being charged with voter fraud and no actions have been taken against them. This player lied about a kiss. Doesn’t really seem to be in the same realms. The person he kissed wasn’t a coach or professor as far as we know, so in that way, there really wasn’t a violation. Perhaps he shouldn’t have had a significant other in the press box, but the article makes no implication that nobody else was allowed to be in there.

As a Catholic, I can never condone homosexual activity nor can I condone same-sex relationships, specifically granting them the benefits of marriage. However, as a Catholic, I am to show mercy, and I am to refrain from unjust discrimination against those with homosexual inclinations. Sexual orientation and football have nothing to do with each other. There is no reason to kick a homosexual off of the football team over a kiss. In fact there is no just reason in kicking an active homosexual off the team either.

This kind of behavior only sets supporters of true marriage back. It makes us appear bigoted and small. It makes us seem like we are afraid of homosexuals. It gives those who want to destroy religious freedom and the family the additional bait that they need to sway the sheep.

But what really matters is not that this kid got kicked off of his team. What we really should be asking ourselves is why an 18 year old boy is dating a 65 year old man. What could an 18 year old and a 65  year old really have in common? In what way is that a healthy relationship, sexual orientation aside? Where are this boy’s parents? He may legally be an adult, but brain development in men doesn’t reach maturity until nearly 30 years in age. Without guidance, men of his age are still prone to making terrible, short-sighted decisions. I know, I work with college students. A lot of young men are really really stupid, even if they are straight-A students.

I think the point is, whether gay or straight, boy or girl, and 18 year old dating someone the age of their grandparents is something that we as a society she be seriously worried about. It should give us pause, and cause us to look at where we are going as a culture.

Categories: America | Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Free Speech, Free Press, Freedom to Exercise Religion, First Amendment, Assumptions, Intolerance, Anger, Sadness, Bullied

Posted on September 7, 2012 by DN

 

This is the post that I just can’t make up my mind about the title. All I can say is that its begun.

Yesterday I had this meeting added to my work calendar that just said “Diversity Discussion”. It was with my boss’s boss, my grandboss if you will. I thought it was an entire department thing. But as I showed up and it was just me, my boss, and my grandboss, I knew that something was wrong.

My grandboss assured me that I wasn’t in trouble, but it sure felt that way as I was showed an innocent post I had made a few weeks ago on a public forum in which I defended a local newspaper’s right to not publish same-sex “marriage” announcements under the protection of the First Amendment, as well as all of our rights to the freedom of speech and the freedom to exercise religion. Another staff member had seen my comments and immediately assumed that because I am a conservative Christian who holds to the time-tested view of marriage as well as the Constitutional freedoms we are supposed to enjoy in America, that I must be intolerant. How offensive. I was glad to find out that both my boss and grandboss have been defending that crap out of my rights as an American to hold and express my views and that just because I hold these view does not mean that I am intolerant or discriminatory towards my students, in fact, my life expresses the contrary.

First of all, my Faith demands that I treat all people with dignity and respect, regardless of their skin color, ethnicity, religion, wealth, sexual activity, language, disability, or political beliefs. Underneath all of that is a soul created by God, created for God, and I must recognize that. I do recognize that, and have never treated someone differently because of those things.

Second, because of my faith, I do not define people by things like sexual orientation, race, class, or creed. In fact one of my best friends for the last two years of my college education was gay. I knew he was gay. He knew I was Catholic. It didn’t matter. In fact it didn’t matter so much that we even chose to be roommates. It didn’t bother me one bit. What actually bothered me were some of my fellow Catholics who made snide remarks about how I needed to make sure that I always locked the bathroom door when I was in the shower or how I would have to basically cover as much skin as a nun so that he couldn’t ogle me. THAT was offensive.

The bottom line is that we don’t have to see eye-to-eye in order to get along or to treat each other with respect. I don’t have to support all of someone’s actions in order to support them. I don’t have to be supportive of so-called same-sex marriage in order to be supportive of the LGBT community.

But some people just can’t grasp that and would automatically assume that I am as intolerant of them as they are of my religious freedom. And rather than call me up to have a mature discussion they “report” me to my supervisors. It was only a matter of time before my faith and my job collided, and I sensed it was coming soon, and so for the last few days and for the coming indefinite future I am actively searching for a new job.

Categories: America, Miscellanea | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why Catholics and Christians Need to Vote Republican in November

Posted on August 29, 2012 by DN

 

Repost from Catholic in the Ozarks.

In my last essay I explained why I (a Catholic) tend to vote Republican, instead of Democrat, as of late.  At one time the Democratic Party was the way to go.  Had I been around in the 1940s, 50s, 60s, and maybe even early 70s, I probably would have voted Democrat straight down the ballot.  There have been a few times I’ve been tempted to vote straight ticket Democrat since becoming Catholic, and I will admit to have voted for a few Democrats (here and there) when they ascribe to the Church’s social teachings on the sanctity of life and marriage.  However, for the most part, I vote Republican, and it’s not because I want to.  As I pointed out in my previous essay on this topic, it all comes down to the fact that I am a Roman Catholic by faith, Anglican Use by tradition, and a big believer in the social teachings of the Church.  So politically speaking, I am a Traditionalist.  I believe in Christendom as the foundation of Western civilisation, and I want Christendom preserved (even restored) as much as possible.  The problem with the Republicans (paleoliberals) and Democrats (neoliberals) is that they both cherry pick the virtues of Christendom, and by doing so, they erode the very foundation of Western civilisation.  However, the Republicans (paleoliberals) tend to cherry pick it a little less so, and while they don’t do enough to support it, they are not actively working to undermine it either.  This, in effect, makes them the lesser of two evils — for now.

I would certainly love to see the Democratic Party start running truly Pro-Life and Pro-Family candidates again.  You can bet your bottom dollar, that if they did, I would surely vote for them.  I prefer the Democrat support of labour unions, solidarity with the poor and fair (not “free”) trade agreements.  I also prefer the traditional Democratic support (and aggressive implementation) of antitrust laws.  All of these things help create a distributed economy, improve upward mobility and strengthen American families.  In recent years however, Democrats have gone soft on these key issues, and instead turned toward an agenda that is so shocking (indeed horrifying) that I cannot support them so long as they continue down this course.  The Democratic Party has become the single greatest supporter of abortion-on-demand in this nation.  The pro-abortion lobby (consisting of, but not limited to, Planned Parenthood, NOW and NARAL) literally has the Democratic Party in a choke hold of which it seemingly cannot get out.  The teachings of the Catholic Church are 100% crystal clear.  Abortion is murder and Catholics may not support it.  It is a mortal sin, and a grave intrinsic evil.  Those who knowingly and deliberately support politicians and policies that allow it, when there is a pro-life option available, provide material cooperation in evil and therefore commit a mortal sin.  As if that were not bad enough, the Democratic Party (both states and national) has also provided political support for embryonic and foetal stem-cell research, which again calls for the murder of pre-born children.  The Democratic Party has not yet provided wholesale support for euthanasia or human cloning, but based on their trajectory so far, I think we can see where this is going.  So disturbing is the Democratic Party’s actions in these matters, that it has caused Cardinal Raymond Burke, Prefect of the Vatican’s Apostolic Signatura (the Catholic Church’s Supreme Court), to say the U.S. Democratic Party is steadily becoming the “party of death” in America.  These are just issues related to human life.  Now we have the Democratic Party supporting the clear destruction of the human family.  Supporters of gay-marriage have found a welcome home within the Democratic Party, as well as plenty of support from Democratic politicians, including President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.  Now the Democratic National Party is expected to approve a “marriage equality” plank as part of its national platform during their national convention (September 4-6, 2012).  When approved, the Democratic Party will OFFICIALLY become the party of gay-marriage.  Once again, the teachings of the Catholic Church are 100% crystal clear.  Holy Matrimony is a sacrament between a man and a woman, and civil marriage is the state’s recognition of that sacrament designed to promote healthy families and child welfare.  Catholics are not permitted to support gay-marriage either privately or publicly.  That’s not my teaching.  It’s the teaching of the Catholic Church.  If you’ve got a problem with that, take it up with the pope.  The U.S. Catholic bishops have urged a constitutional amendment to effectively ban gay-marriage in the United States.  Catholics should support their bishops on this, but the Democratic Party would now seem to be directly opposed to the bishops on this.  These things, the issues of human life and human family, have effectively turned the Democratic Party against Catholicism on the most fundamental issues of our time, which will effect the future of Western civilisation for generations to come.  When a political party opposes Catholicism, in my book, that political party opposes me.  It’s not just politics.  It’s personal.

These are the underlying issues that highlight why the Democratic Party has become a neoliberal organisation that is cherry picking the virtues of Christendom to the point of social collapse. We may not see that social collapse come immediately.  These things usually take time, but once the dominoes start to fall, there will be no stopping them.  The day will come eventually, when they will all come down.  One would think this is bad enough, but wait, there is more.

The ultimate insult to injury came on January 20, 2012, when Kathleen Sebelius (Barack Obama’s Secretary to Health and Human Services) announced that religious and nonprofit groups must provide medical insurance that covers contraception, sterilisation and chemical abortion.  After outrage expressed by the U.S. Catholic bishops, Barack Obama himself did some political manoeuvring that  effectively changed nothing.  Religious and nonprofit organisations still have to pay for medical insurance that covers contraception, sterilisation and chemical abortion.  This is effectively a slap in the face to religious freedom in America.  It effectively says, “you can believe whatever you like, but you can’t act on it.”  In America, Freedom of Religion has always been understood as existing in two parts: 1.) Freedom of Worship, which means you can worship any way you like, and 2.) Freedom of Conscience, which means you can allow you religion to affect your behaviour.  That means if you find something morally objectionable, based on your religious beliefs, you don’t have to participate.  Likewise, if you find something morally necessary, based on your religious beliefs, you are free to go about it.  Barack Obama, with his HHS Mandate, is trying to strike down the second part of Religious Freedom — the Freedom of Conscience.

This is unacceptable on every level.  It doesn’t just violate the rights of Catholics, but it violates the rights of every Christian, Jew and Muslim in the United States!  There are multiple lawsuits filed against the Obama administration all over the country in regards to this.  The matter will likely end up in the United States Supreme Court.  Regardless of the justices’ decision on this however, even if they decide to strike the HHS Mandate down, we have a glimpse into the character of the man who now sits in the Oval Office.  He has no respect for religious freedom or the rights of religious people.  He has also shown contempt for the largest Christian organisation in the United States, the Catholic Church, by dismissing the bishops’ concerns and showing no sympathy for their grievance.  Even worse, our Catholic priests and bishops are now in physical danger.  Once fully implemented, the HHS Mandate will have the full force of law, and the U.S. Catholic bishops have openly said they will not comply.  What does this mean for them?  Will our clergy be subject to fines and perhaps time in prison!?!  No word has been given yet as to the methods of enforcement the Obama administration will pursue, but it doesn’t take a lawyer to figure out that when you violate federal law, the penalties are usually pretty stiff.

Enough is enough!  To Barack Obama I say this. You disrespect my Catholic religion, you disrespect my priests and bishops, then you get no respect from me. I will vote for the Mormon.

That’s right, I will vote for Willard “Mitt” Romney for president of the United States.  It’s not because I particularly like him.  It’s not because I’m enamoured with his policy proposals or his record, because I’m not.  It’s because as a Mormon, he understands what it’s like to get slapped around over religion.  Now I don’t agree with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  I’m a Catholic for heaven’s sake!  There is nothing about Mormon theology that I care for, and yes, I have read it, and I do understand it.  However, I have Mormons in my extended family and they are good people.  They have never given me any reason to doubt their sincerity or christian charity.  If Mitt Romney is only half as christian as they are, he’ll make a good president.  Romney has also made it clear that he will rescind Obama’s HHS Mandate and make Religious Freedom a top priority in every policy his administration implements.  You know what?  I actually believe him on this.  Why?  Because he’s a Mormon, and he knows exactly what it’s like for his church to be persecuted by the United States federal government.  He knows exactly what it is like to be talked down to, told his faith is a “cult,” and belittled in every way by society at large just because he’s a Mormon.  He understands first hand, what Catholics have been going through in this country since before its founding, because he’s endured pretty much the exact same thing his entire life.  There are many things Mitt Romney says that I don’t believe, but this is not one of them.  He has a PERSONAL interest in this, not just for himself, but for his children and grandchildren.  He also has a long family memory of this.  His family has been persecuted for their faith, both politically and socially, for five generations!  Though he is a Mormon, Mitt Romney has a better understanding of what it’s like to be a Catholic in this country than Barack Obama will ever have.  So that is why this Catholic, and probably many more like me, will vote for a Mormon this November, just in case you were wondering.

Categories: America | Tags: , , , , , , ,

Opposition to Same-Sex “Marriage” is not a Catholic Issue

Posted on August 28, 2012 by DN

The left seems to always point their fingers at Christians and Catholics as being anti-gay “marriage” simply because of their religion, and that they shouldn’t be forcing that on everyone else.

What they seem to miss is that the issue is far from being a Christians-only issue. We seldom hear condemnation against Muslim opposition to same-sex marriage, nor do we hear outrage on the Dalai Lama’s positions. Further still, there seems to be a lot of silence when it comes to secularists who oppose same-sex marriage.

The fact of the matter is, we benefit as a whole from stable heterosexual relationships which beget children. Whether we are Catholic, atheist, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, or Pagan, we have a stake in the propagation of the human race, we have a stake in helping married couples raise children who could some day be the fathers and mothers of our own grandchildren, or who will pass on the legacy of our culture. We have no such stake in the inherently, as in, ALWAYS, infertile homosexual relationships. This isn’t about Jesus, this isn’t about sin, or hellfire, or evagelizing, this is simply about the survival and nurturing of the human race.

But seeing as how the other side typically, as in I am making a generalization and not saying that all supporters of same-sex “marriage” are like this, is pro-choice, not really caring about the inherent value of every human life, seems to love the environment and animals more than they love human beings, is more interested in careers than family, more interested in being liked than in what is good for us as a whole, there really is no surprise that they don’t see society’s common interest in the propagation of the race as fundamental, but rather see forced societal approval of their appetites and more federal and state subsidies as the prize.

Come on people, the last threads that couple sex with procreation are barely hanging on, lets please not cut the last of them, but instead, lets start putting those threads back in place, starting with protecting the age-old understanding of marriage, outlawing the slaughter of our children in the womb, and then by undoing our contraceptive mentality, returning dignity, respect, and responsibility to sexuality.

Categories: America | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Blog at WordPress.com. Theme: Adventure Journal by Contexture International.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 129 other followers

%d bloggers like this: