|
Published: May 16, 2008
“This battle is not over”
Ballot box brawl likely after Supreme Court’s marriage ruling
Opponents of same-sex marriage reacted with anger, shock and disappointment yesterday following the California Supreme Court’s decision declaring Proposition 22 unconstitutional -- and are vowing to take their fight to defend marriage to the ballot box in November.
 “The California Catholic Conference of Bishops must express its disappointment in the California Supreme Court decision to declare Proposition 22 unconstitutional,” said Ned Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference, in a prepared statement issued on behalf of California’s bishops shortly after the court handed down its decision. “Proposition 22, which states, ‘Only marriage between one man and one woman is valid and recognized in California,’ passed eight years ago by a vote of 61.2 to 38.8 percent. That statute reflected the wisdom of the voters of California in retaining the traditional definition of marriage as a biological reality and a societal good. Unfortunately, today, the Court saw fit to disregard the will of the majority of people of California.”
Dolejsi noted that California’s domestic partnership laws already protect people in same-sex relationships, but that such relationships could never constitute a marriage. “Catholic teaching maintains that marriage is a faithful, exclusive and lifelong union between one man and one woman joined in an intimate partnership of life and love -- a union instituted by God for the mutual fulfillment of the husband and wife as well as for the procreation and education of children,” said Dolejsi.
Karen England, executive director of the pro-family lobbying group Capitol Resource Institute, called the ruling a decision by “four arrogant, elitist, activist judges,” who substituted their personal opinions for the will of the people expressed in Prop. 22. "We now must focus our energy on passing the Protect Marriage Initiative and place traditional marriage in the state constitution," said England.
Attorneys for the Alliance Defense Fund, which defended Prop. 22 before the Supreme Court, said yesterday’s ruling means Californians must now amend the state constitution. “The government should promote and encourage strong families,” said ADF Senior Counsel Glen Lavy, who had argued before the court. “The only way to make sure it does so in California is to amend the state constitution to protect marriage. That’s ultimately the only avenue to ensure that no one interferes with the will of the people.”
 Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel for the Thomas More Law Center characterized the high court’s decision as “outrageous.” Said Thompson, “The California Supreme Court took judicial activism to a whole new level. When four judges can overturn the vote of the people protecting marriage, the Constitution’s guarantee of a Republican form of government becomes meaningless. This battle is not over.”
Charles LiMandri, West Coast director for the Thomas More Law Center in San Diego, said he was confident the Protect Marriage Initiative, which would amend the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, would qualify for the November ballot. “Thanks to the tireless efforts of the National Organization for Marriage and the many groups that have supported it, like the Thomas More Law Center, the courts will not have the final say on marriage in California -- the people will in November,” said LiMandri.
The California Catholic Conference has indicated that the state’s bishops would likely support the Protect Marriage Initiative should it qualify for the ballot.
"The Court’s rationale for its decision should prompt outrage from the majority of California’s citizens,” said Ron Prentice, chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition, a group of organizations promoting the ballot initiative. “The will of the people has been completely undermined by four individuals. In November, the people will have an opportunity to overrule the Court’s decision by passing a constitutional amendment – and California’s voters must respond by voting.”
Posted Friday, May 16, 2008 5:07 AM By Fr. M.P.
Keep up the fight through prayer and legal action. We see how the evil one perverts the judges since he cannot get enough of the people to vote for such vices enshrined as law. Evil triumphs when good people do nothing.
|
Posted Friday, May 16, 2008 5:52 AM By Marcia
Four people nullify what millions of people voted on! How democratic is that?
|
Posted Friday, May 16, 2008 7:50 AM By Vincent
Amazing ... reminds me of the 1866 declaration by the Vatican’s Holy Office of the Inquisition: “Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery … . It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.” This was in response to the 13th amendment to the US constitution (which abolished slavery)! And as I recall, there were plenty of dissenters to this amendment, especially in Southern States - and much blood was spilled. And then that thing about legislation against inter-racial marriages being repealed by the Californian Supreme Court - and the clear indication that the will of the people at the time was for the legislation to remain intact. Thanks be to God for the enlightened opinions of activits judges!
|
Posted Friday, May 16, 2008 8:25 AM By Maria C
This spiritual war is not over, with prayer and perserverence we will defend marriage between a man and women.
|
Posted Friday, May 16, 2008 8:59 AM By Ttee
How courageous of the CA Catholic Conf to make a secular statement about marriage. Could they not have stated that "marriage" of a man and woman was the first covenant God made with the creatures He created in His image and likeness? As such, it is in the basic nature of a man and woman to have a relationship with the opposite gender. It is so basic to a man and woman that it predates "religion." That should have made them safe from "imposing" their religoius views on others.
|
Posted Friday, May 16, 2008 9:39 AM By Puttss
I like the comment by Ttee. Truth to tell, the sacramental reality of marriage was a late comer to the scene. Marriage was and still is a civil law contract the world over. Don't get me wrong, I think that the homosexual marriage thing is an aberration. The legal fight is not over and no matter who wins, the discussion about the concept will continue. I'm very glad that I married a woman and that I got my ring at the foot of the altar.
|
Posted Friday, May 16, 2008 9:41 AM By Fr. M.P.
"bishops would likely support the Protect Marriage Initiative should it qualify for the ballot." Why not "definitely" support? And will they only support valid marriage if it qualifies for the ballot?
|
Posted Friday, May 16, 2008 9:46 AM By Eileen
California voters must respond to the November ballot. Once again, it was the bad example of a Catholic in name only, Gavin Newsom, who helped pave the way. Gavin Newsom is temporarily toasting champagne glasses as he ignores the grave consequences of his profound slap to God's Laws. Gavin started the ball rolling downhill that influenced this ruling. Can you imagine the beautiful influence that faithful Catholics could have?
|
Posted Friday, May 16, 2008 10:26 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Vincent,
I'm surprised you're dredging the 1866 statement up again after your claims about it were refuted several months ago. I don't remember you're making the claim that it was directed at the 13th Amendment -- what is your source for this assertion? To recapitulate briefly: when the pope speaks here of just titles to slavery, he refers to what was traditionally held to be the case; namely, that slavery (understood as forced labor) is not unjust in certain circumstances -- such as a punishment for a crime or in the case of indentured servitude, entered into freely and voluntarily by both parties. The Church has always condemned enslaving the innocent, as I pointed out to several months ago. I refer you (again) to a brief article on the subject of the Catholic Church and slavery, found at http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea2.asp
|
Posted Friday, May 16, 2008 11:44 AM By George
The ruling is a victory for all Californians who value fairness.
Two people in a committed, loving relationship deserve the dignity and support that come with marriage.
Now California will be a state where every person has the opportunity to realize their hopes and dreams.
The Court did its job. It ensured that all Californians are treated fairly and equally under the law.
|
Posted Friday, May 16, 2008 12:07 PM By Anne
Fairness, George! Why was I not allowed to marry my cousin whom I had a crush on when I was a child? Why cannot one woman have two husbands? There will be massive disobedience against this same-sex law if it goes through. We will end up in chaos in this state. Watch and see.
|
Posted Friday, May 16, 2008 12:13 PM By Martin
I want to marry my two best friends, both of them male. Why does California law discriminate against us? We deserve equal protection too, and who are you polygaphobes to tell me that love can't be three-ways? Love is love, right? We just want the same rights as binary marriages.
|
Posted Friday, May 16, 2008 1:00 PM By Peter
Massachusetts is doing just fine. No massive disobedience . . . no collapse of society . . . no rush to push for polygamy, beastiality, or incest . . . no degradation of hetersexual/traditional marriage what-so-ever. No chaos. Why should California be any different? It won't, and you'll have wasted you time worrying for nothing. Recall the story of Chicken Little . . . that's in the Book of John, I think.
|
Posted Friday, May 16, 2008 1:29 PM By Lassie
I wish to take this opportunity to express my support and affirmation for my homosexual brethren as they seek liberation from moralistic medieval religious beliefs that have been imposed on the world for thousands of years now. I hope to join them one day in enjoying the same marriage rights that they have recently won. As outdated religious beliefs die in the face of intellectual progress, old prejudices shall die with them and bestialphobes shall become increasingly marginalized as a consequence of their own ignorant bigotry. The days of marriage discrimination are coming to an end! Hooray!!!
|
Posted Friday, May 16, 2008 2:50 PM By Elizabeth
Is it my imagination or does it seem that the poor souls from the other side have infultrated this website with their postings?
They have plenty of other places they can voice/write their sad and evil ways.
I will keep them in my prayers...
|
Posted Friday, May 16, 2008 3:26 PM By Silvana
We also want what is best for gay people therefore we have to fight same sex marriage to do otherwise--to think the battel--is over is to lack faith in Christ
|
Posted Friday, May 16, 2008 3:31 PM By simone dubois
This whole thing is about one thing and one thing only. The establishment of a legal way to attack the one Holy Catholic Church. If this becomes a legalized situation then any entity which refuses to participate in performing these so called marriage's will become the focus of lawsuits to force them to do so or be destroyed. There may be some unwitting co-operators who will deny this but consider... first it was tolerance, now tolerance is not enough only acceptance will do. First it was civil unions, now civil unions are not enough, only marriage will do. yes, as St. Anthony of the Desert said "... they (referring to some time in the future, now? us?) will fight Satan unchained."
|
Posted Friday, May 16, 2008 5:42 PM By Barbara
The California Supreme Court decision is unconstitutional not Proposition 22. It would seem that the California Supreme Court now considers the will of the people of California through the ballot box unconstitutional and anti democratic. The California Supreme Court is in contempt of the democratic free will ballot vote of the people of California. Elizabeth please do continue to pray for all in this spiritual warfare that is increasing daily in its ferocity. Like a roaring lion satan wants to devour all in his way because his time is short. Don't despair Elizabeth. Keep on praying.
|
Posted Friday, May 16, 2008 6:11 PM By gravey
Vincent, Your posting clearly demonstrates the intrinsic disordered condition described in the CCC: 2357; 2358; 2359. Great concrete example.
|
Posted Friday, May 16, 2008 7:08 PM By Soledad
George, "Equal protection" is not some kind of amulet one can just wave around to magically come up with the conclusion one wants. An equal protection analysis has very specific requirements. Lawyers are trained to analyze using this scheme, and justices are required to use it when ruling on the constitutionality of a statute. As the 3 dissenters point out, the majority did not do a proper equal protection analysis -- they twisted the law to get the result they wanted. Read Justice Corrigan's dissent. She personally favors gay "marriage" but couldn't go along with the intellectual deceit in the opinion. The Supreme Court opinion No. S147999 is posted on the court website at www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/
|
Posted Friday, May 16, 2008 7:17 PM By Anne
Peter, the Chicken Little story is a folk tale; it has nothing to do with the Gospel of John which is in the Bible.
Ellizabeth, I was trying to make a point when I questioned why I could not have two husbands or marry my first cousin. I did have a crush on my boy cousin when little, but that is common, and as an adult I would never have considered marrying him--or having two husbands. One is enough.
I think the post from Lassie might have been a joke, if not the guy is surly "nuts". That is the kindest thing I can say about him if he is for real.
|
Posted Friday, May 16, 2008 10:51 PM By John L. Sillasen
Peter, are you announcing your pending marriage to Chicken Little? Man and fantasy! Such a deal!
|
Posted Saturday, May 17, 2008 12:46 AM By Vincent
Dear Zehnder, you might think that you refuted my claims about slavery, but you simply applied sophistry and extreme Catholic apologetics. The 13th amendment to your US constitution (i.e. abolition of slavery) occurred on 18 December 1865. It hardly takes a brain surgeon to realise that the 1866 Holy Office of the Inquisition's statement was in objection to this amendment. "It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.” That this applies to the slave-labour market as in the US (where many priests and bishops themselves owned slaves!), is incontrovertible. As Bishop Geoffrey Robinson has argued in his best-selling book "Confronting power and sex in the Catholic Church", “In this field I believe that the Catholic Church is in a prison. It was not evil people who put it in this prison. No, it constructed the prison for itself, locked itself in and threw away the key. That prison is the prison of not being able to be wrong. … Far too often the Catholic Church has believed that it had such a level of divine guidance that it did not need the right to be wrong.”
|
Posted Saturday, May 17, 2008 10:53 AM By betty
Massachusetts is doing fine in one sense. The first lesbian couple that went through a marriage ceremony is now going through a divorce. Maybe when gay and lesbian "couples" find out what a mess they got themselves into, they'll forget about the shole thing.
|
Posted Saturday, May 17, 2008 11:11 AM By Miguel
Peter, your reference to "chicken little" being in the book of John is in very poor taste. As I continue to read your posts they are becoming more revealing. Your contempt for the Catholic faith is most obvious. Everyone here has the right to their views and are most passionate. You obviously are a some sort of activist who is trying to enlighten us by rubbing salt in the wound and mocking the bible and our teachings and customs. You are barking up the wrong tree my friend. Why don't you stick to your gay-friendly sites and cavort with the rest of your crew. You can continue to complain about non-acceptance and mock the church, as you continue to do harm to your bodies.
|
Posted Saturday, May 17, 2008 11:14 AM By simone dubois
vincent, you convince me that we need to bring back the inquistion through a good holy crusade.... too long have we allowed some to re-write history and make something which was essentially good into something bad based on a few bad apples. now is the time to rise up and set these stories right. God Bless Pope Benedict XVI.
|
Posted Saturday, May 17, 2008 11:30 AM By John L. Sillasen
Vincent, your enflamed rhetoric, agenda driven, is not convincing. Instead of facts to support your claims, you use emotional assumptions and indicate that these are obvious. So obvious that it took the western civilization several thousand years to see it. But regardless of your view, I will go with God's view, expressed through His spokesman, the papal throne. You do not reveal much understanding of what slavery consists of.
|
Posted Saturday, May 17, 2008 1:09 PM By Anne
Those who want this same-sex marriage are in the worse kind of slavery--slavery to sin.
By the way, it was not the Church that started slavery. It was done by all cultures before the Church even began. Also, the Muslims went into Northern Africa and massacred Jews and Christians who were lliving there. They massacred most or forced them into converting or into slavery. Then the Muslims, who were either Arabic or African, went into southern Europe and did the same thing to the Christians there. When some Jewish people sided with the Moors, Queen Isabella told them to convert or leave. Trying to figure out who started slavery is like trying to figure out which came first, the chicken or the egg.
Peter, you should be able to relate to that quite well. Ha! Ha!
|
Posted Saturday, May 17, 2008 1:12 PM By John Andersen
So, are we all working actively in our respective church/parish and neighborhoods to "get out the vote" for the marriage ammendment when it qualifies in a couple of weeks? Are we all working actively in our respective church/parish and neighborhoods to get signatures for a petition to overturn SB777? I say amen for the Pope's proclamation. Now it is time for the rest of us to get busy.
|
Posted Saturday, May 17, 2008 1:28 PM By Anne
I am sorry, Peter, I should not have laughted at you. You are in a very serious situation, and it is not funny. I should be praying for you instead. I know why some people get into the so-called gay lifestyle, but it is sad and nothing is funny about it, but same-sex marriage wil not solve the situation. Peace.
|
Posted Saturday, May 17, 2008 1:32 PM By Anne
John Andersen, yes I am. I just sent a donation for the cause in the mail.
|
Posted Sunday, May 18, 2008 9:38 AM By Aaron
The Court decision is about equal civil rights. It has nothing to do with the Church. Equal civil rights includes the right to sponsor your foreign spouse to become a U.S. Citizen, the right to visit your gay spouse in a hospital IC Unit, the right to social security benefits, the right to file a joint tax return, etc. etc. etc. These are rights assumed by traditional married couples that are not available to gay couples, even if they have been together for 50 years! I don't understand why CA Catholic is making such a big deal about this! This has NOTHING to do with the church. The Court decision specifically says that no religious institution will be forced to have a marriage ceremony for gays if they don't want to.
The effort spent on this issue should be diverted to help give religious/moral training to the 70% of 2006 black children who were born into a single parent family. THAT is a moral issue: legal gay civil rights is NOT a moral issue. Please get your priorities straight!
|
Posted Sunday, May 18, 2008 11:27 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Vincent,
Concurrence in time does not prove causality. Nor does your inability to understand distinctions mean that you have not been effectively refuted.
|
Posted Sunday, May 18, 2008 11:38 AM By simone dubois
Right Aaron, militant homosexual groups have been calling for the Pope to charged with hate crimes in the international court in the Hague since back when JPII the great was alive, simply for teaching and preaching the teachings of the Catholic Church. Thats homosexual tolerance for you. You can fool some of the people some of the time, all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all the people all of the time. Of course it's about the Church, it always has been, it always will be.
|
Posted Sunday, May 18, 2008 12:05 PM By Vincent
Yeah, sure Chris. The 13th amendment is passed, and the Holy Office of the Inquisition quickly issues a document supporting the selling and buying of slaves ... pure coincidence. And the fact that many Catholics in the 19th century bought, sold and owned slaves, and that many of their Bishops supported this is of course a pure figment of my imagination! I'm being hysterical, irrational and profoundly uncogent. And today we have the Californian decision to allow gay marriage. And Pope Benedict immediately restates the gay marriage ban. Though he doesn't mention California specifically. It's just another coincidence I suppose. Completely and utterly unrelated. How silly of me to even think there might be a tad of cause and effect!
|
Posted Sunday, May 18, 2008 12:59 PM By John L. Sillasen
Take another look at the ancient paintings on Egyptian walls ... see all the strange creatures? They represent the strange mindsets of the populace ruled over by the Pharaohs. The ancient empires came into contact with God's revealed Law via the Jews, and then via Christianity. Since there is nothing beyond the Church, the conflict will always be between the Church and the various Egypts which come along. Their common denominator is the desire to rule the most diverse civilizations without bringing them into a unity. The point of unity has always been the rulers, themselves. This changed sort of with the advent of rule by law, or democracy, or republic, but it is showing itself to be part and parcel of the same old libertine type of dictator type government. These do not like the Church because the Church insists upon uniting the population with God, and not some tyrant, or succession of tyrants.
|
Posted Sunday, May 18, 2008 1:55 PM By simone dubois
Vincent, since you stated responding to another article on this site that you have never had sex and that you claim to be a homosexual catholic you must be supremely proud of and apprieciative of our Holy Fatherss support of your chastity to live in accordance with the teachings of Holy Mother Church when he spoke out on this issue. See, it is good when the vicar of Christ speaks and we all listen. I am glad we can agree on this cause and effect of our faith.
|
Posted Sunday, May 18, 2008 2:41 PM By Aaron
Vincent: What is it that you don't understand about equal civil rights? There are 1100+ rights embedded in U.S. Statutes that are given to traditional married couples. NONE of these rights is available to gays because they cannot marry. Nobody will quarrel with the right of the church to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for gays, divorced people, etc. It is part of the separation of church and state. Massachusetts has had gay marriage for 4 years, along with Spain, Belgium, Netherlands & South Africa. It changes NOTHING for traditional married couples. The Supreme Court decision was exactly right. Again, try to do something worthwhile with your efforts-get the 70% of black babies/40% of white babies without fathers into church to give them religious/moral teachings. Expand your efforts at education, but stop trying to build roadblocks that keep other people from having the same rights as you!!!!! Homosexuals have been part of mankind throughout all of history. Churches/ governments have tried genocide to rid the world of homosexuals, but God just keeps wiring a small percentage of every generation to be attracted to their own gender. Just get over it. Treat them as your equal under the law. This is ONLY about civil rights, no matter how annoying to the church's beliefs.
|
Posted Monday, May 19, 2008 12:55 AM By Aaron
Sorry Vincent. My remarks should have been addressed to Simone.
|
Posted Monday, May 19, 2008 1:13 AM By Vincent
My Dear Aaron, I am a homosexual, and I want to be treated as equal under the civil law. But I am also a Catholic, and I want to see Truth prevail. I want to see gay Catholics who are in authentic love-relationships be united in Catholic ceremonies! True, this is a separate fight from the civil-law fight. True, I might seem to conflate the two - but that's because I'm a citizen and a Catholic. And I'm not really into dualistic thinking. Thesis and antithesis must lead to synthesis.
|
Posted Monday, May 19, 2008 1:17 AM By Vincent
Dear Simone. Let me explain a little further. As a devout Catholic, I hold the expression of sexuality to be of enormous value, a gift only to be used if authentic love is present: a means of being gift to the beloved. And, for reasons beyond my understanding, Yahweh has never sent me a beloved. And hence my virginity (at the ripe old age of late thirties!) So it goes. But if he were to grace me with an authentic beloved, well, then - ... .
|
Posted Monday, May 19, 2008 12:20 PM By Ryan
Some of you want to "protect" straight marriage...but what are you protecting it from? How would it harm your marriage if same sex couples where allowed to join into it and receive all of the same benefits? Wouldn’t it actually strengthen the idea of marriage? Are you afraid that same sex couples would ruin the 50% divorce rate you heterosexuals are so proud of? Or, is it just your kind of “family” that you consider worthy of the benefits of the government? Not one judge said you had to approve, they just pointed out that equal rights in the great state of California should be just that…EQUAL for all people of al races, ethnicities and sexual orientations. Ah, but that’s where the prejudice comes in isn’t it? There is no “non-religious” argument that you can use to argue your point and judges are to interpret the law, and indeed the constitution, with no religious bias! Therefore, they did there duty and did it without fear. They are brave judges to do what is right and not what is popular. God bless them.
|
Posted Monday, May 19, 2008 1:52 PM By Grisha
Ryan ~ I have yet to hear anyone craft a halfway reasonable argument about how existing or future marriages between men and women are being "protected' or "defended" from anything caused by gay civil marriage. How is my marriage of 38 years, my daughter's of 8 months or my nephew's which is scheduled for next August at risk if the court's decision stands?
|
Posted Monday, May 19, 2008 3:59 PM By simone dubois
Vincent, your statement "I want to see gay Catholics who are in authentic love-relationships be united in Catholic ceremonies" only proves my point. Aaron, you also prove my point. If you simply seek the so called civil advantages of "marriage", civil unions, (though I would be opposed on religious grounds) would suffice. But it doesn't does it. Why? You want to normalize that which cannot be normalized, hence, you want to use the word marriage co-opting the holy sacrament so as to make the evil more palatable to the masses and feel better about yourself. Me thinks you doth protest too much. I read "After the Ball" too. I am against you in this. This is a battle for souls, yours included. It always will be. As long as one follows the father of lies and murderer from the beginning one cannot see, one is blind. You can stick to your earthly fight, I will oppose you in my fight for heavenly things.
|
Posted Monday, May 19, 2008 4:06 PM By simone dubois
Ryan, the statistics you cite prove that the sacrament of marriage is under extreme attack, just as the family and the Church are. We are obligated to defend God's teachings for the sake of our families and all that is holy. I don't feel badly about truth at all, not one iota. Man's law is only concordant with truth but it is not in and of itself truth. God's law is truth for God is truth. You have the right to reject truth and it appears you, aaron and vincent have. will pray for you.
|
Posted Tuesday, May 20, 2008 12:41 AM By Aaron
Simone: The "Holy Sacrament of Marriage" is a Catholic Religious term. That is NOT what the Supreme Court ruled. The court ruled ONLY on the civil law term "marriage" which carries with it 1100 different rights in the laws of the land . The court decision provides for equal CIVIL RIGHTS for gay couples who are willing to marry. You protest too loudly: this has NOTHING to do with the church. It is ONLY about civil rights. "Marriage" is a LEGAL term. The "Holy Sacrament of Marriage" is a Catholic/Religious term. Please do not confuse the two.
|
Posted Tuesday, May 20, 2008 12:58 AM By Aaron
Simone: I am offended that you so easily use the words 'evil" "lies" 'murderer' when you speak about gay marriage. Tomas and I love each other. We have been in a 100% monogamous, love relationship for more than 7 years. We respect one another; we care for each other. What is it about our relationship that is evil? NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING. Grisha: I am confused by your comments. It seems you agree with the Court ruling since it does NOTHING to harm your marriage. You have full civil rights because you are legally married. Only you and your spouse can 'protect' or 'defend' your marriage by loving each other, caring for each other and staying out of divorce court..
|
Posted Tuesday, May 20, 2008 3:27 PM By simone dubois
Aaron, your speech about the wonders of homosexuality appaul and offend me. I don't think this will change what you do though just because you choose to offend me. Like I said you can go by the man made courts and laws. Me and mine, we're sticking with God's laws. Be clear about this Aaron, while I'm sorry for you that truth offends you I can't change truth to suit your sensibilities. I care about your eternal salvation but I don't really care if you are offended. I hope it offends you out of your delusion frankly. Satan IS a liar and a murderer from the beginning. Why does saying so offend you? Those that follow him ARE spiritually blind. I'm sticking by it. Why is it you cannot stand to hear the truth? Why didn't you answer my question? You chose to skirt it. why marriage? why not civil union? Are you afraid to answer this honestly? come on, I adjure you.
|
Posted Tuesday, May 20, 2008 9:44 PM By John L. Sillasen
Aaron, consider love: Al Capone, the infamous gangster, loved his work, loved his adultry, loved crime, loved murdering people ... he was a man of love.
|
Posted Wednesday, May 21, 2008 12:19 AM By Aaron
Simone: You are appalled by having two people love each other, to commit their lives to one another? That is pretty weird - particularly for a Christian. We argue about semantics: I would never question the rights of the church to use the words 'Holy Sacrament of Marriage,' exclusively for traditional marriage - refuse to bless gay marriage. "Equal Civil Rights" suggests the commitment Tomas & I have for each other is less than traditional couples-sorry that is not true. Speaking of being spiritually blind, Christ taught first of all that we should love one another; he never mentioned homosexuality, no matter how people might try to infer that he did. I believe that many so called Christians are spiritually blind in their quest to keep gays from having equal rights through marriage. The CA Supreme Court is right, but much remains to be done since Federal laws give gay couples NONE of the benefits of marriage - the debate will go on for many years. In the meantime, there is NOTHING evil about the love and commitment Tomas and I have for each other as illustrated by the FACT that I moved to Spain because U.S. Immigration provides sponsorship rights ONLY for married couples (Defense of Marriage Act-1996). We are no different than any other old married heterosexual couple - except I had to move to Spain to have the same rights as you and your wife have in America.
|
Posted Wednesday, May 21, 2008 9:28 AM By John L. Sillaesn
Aaron, when you say "the California Supreme Court is right", and their decision was made by vote, then are you claiming in effect that right is determined by the majority opinion? How would you define truth?
|
Posted Wednesday, May 21, 2008 11:40 AM By Aaron
John: Sorry, you are off topic. Truth was debated by Plato with no conclusion.
|
Posted Wednesday, May 21, 2008 12:35 PM By Fr. M.P.
Aaron, it is irrelevant what Plato could not conclude. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life, as we heard from His own mouth. What He says, as defended by the Magisterium, is the Truth. True love is not represented in unnatural disease-ridden sex acts, but rather that you want the person to be in heaven with God in perpetual happiness. The sin of sodomy, a mortal sin choice by humans, leads such souls away from God in selfish lust. Let them that hate God flee from before His Face (Psalm 67). Your joinage with another man is totally different than a natural marriage between a man and a woman. Try contacting Courage to deal with your problem.
|
Posted Wednesday, May 21, 2008 2:57 PM By simone dubois
Aaron, since you miss the point... again, if civil remedy is what you seek then civil union would be enough but it isn't. you want the title conferred on the marital relationship which is between a man and a woman and can be fruitful wihtout adoption or artificial (operative word here) means as God intended. Lastly, I am celibate woman because I am single. I don't have a wife because I am not a man. I'm done with these polemics Aaron. Will pray for your conversion to the truth.
|
Posted Wednesday, May 21, 2008 3:45 PM By Aaron
Fr. You are entitled to your beliefs. The truth for you is far different than truth for many of the billions of people that live in this world. You insinuate that when we make love that we are spreading disease? ABSOLUTELY NOT SO. Had you read earlier, you would know that we are in a 100% monogamous relationship; neither of us has EVER had a disease from making love to each other. Disease comes from having sex outside marriage and infects the heterosexual population as frequently as among homosexuals (AIDS in Africa is almost ALL spread among heterosexuals, and is being spread by prostitutes). We will not be calling Courage, because we do NOT have a problem. But please, let's not argue about your beliefs or I shall be obliged to begin calling out the sins of the church-among them the church approval of burning homosexuals at the stake during the dark days of the Spanish Inquisition - despite the commandment "Thou shalt not kill." I also will not call out any of the modern day insults the church has made on mankind which has nearly bankrupted the U.S. church. BUT WE ARE WAY OFF TOPIC. The issue of gay marriage is to have equal civil rights for Americans just as exist in Spain. President Zapatero originally suggested the legislation because he believes as I do, as the CA Supreme Court believes, that everyone should have the same rights. No need to hit the ceiling and pander to your own members by accusing us of immoral behavior. As Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."
|
Posted Wednesday, May 21, 2008 8:16 PM By John L. Sillasen
No kiddin', Aaron!? Looks like Plato was off topic, huh ... couldn't even find the truth, which was in plain sight. As St Paul pointed out, all creation proclaims the existence of God, obviously the end of the search for truth. This "view" was not originated by St Paul, but is found abundantly in literature written well before Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Homer ... so, why don't you simply go to the library and find the books and read them? And, what is the refrain about being off topic all the time?
|
© California Catholic Daily 2008. All Rights Reserved.
|