Catholic Church commits hari kari over gay marriage law in D.C.

February 18, 2010

The Archdiocese of Washington has scrapped its 80-year-old foster care program, claiming it’s no longer eligible to serve as an adoption provider due to the District of Columbia’s pending same-sex marriage law.

Under the legislation, which legalizes same-sex marriage in the nation’s capital and which goes into effect March 2, all outside contractors must recognize gay couples in the District.

In a press release posted on its Web site Tuesday, the archdiocese, which opposes gay marriage, said it had no choice but to transfer its foster care program to the National Center for Children and Families, or NCCF.

“We regret that our efforts to avoid this outcome were not successful,” Ed Orzechowski, president and CEO of Catholic Charities, said in a statement.

The transfer includes seven staff, 43 children and their biological families and 35 foster families, according to the press release.

From Fox News

If the Church had the courage of its convictions, it would not close the foster care program but conduct it just as it always has and simply ignore the law on gay marriage.

Let the gays take the Church to court and let the Church defend herself on freedom of religion.  And let the world see the hate that the gay community has for the Church.

But, no.  The Church rolls over and plays dead.


Why Gay Marriage is not Inevitable!

December 12, 2009

NRO has an excellent piece on the subject.

Maggie’s Top Eight Reasons Why Gay Marriage Is Not Inevitable

1. Nothing is inevitable.

We are talking about the future here. It’s weird to have  “reporting” that something that has not yet happened will certainly happen. The future is never inevitable.

2. Young people are not as unanimous as most people think.

In California, the young-adults vote split 55 percent to 45 percent. Is it so hard to imagine 5 percent of those young people changing their minds as they move through the life cycle?

3. The argument from despair is bait and switch.

They are trying push the idea that gay marriage is inevitable, because they are losing the argument that gay marriage is a good idea. Read the rest of this entry »


Homosexual “Marriage”

June 17, 2008

Here is a link to the online article I have reproduced below. We, in California will be voting on this issue in November.
But it is of interest for everyone. I thought this was an excellent well- thought out article.

http://ncregister.com/site/article/15099/

The National Catholic Register

COMMENTARY

Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ and the Persecution of Civil Society

BY JENNIFER ROBACK MORSE June 8-14, 2008 Issue | Posted 6/3/08 at 10:48 AM

Advocates of same-sex “marriage” present the idea as a step forward for tolerance and respect. But recent developments place that interpretation very much in doubt.

Legalizing same-sex “marriage” is not a stand-alone policy, independent of all the other activities of the state. Once governments assert that same-sex unions are the equivalent of marriage, those governments must defend and enforce a whole host of other social changes.

Unfortunately, these government-enforced changes conflict with a wide array of ordinary liberties, including religious freedom and ordinary private property rights.

It began with the persecution of Catholic Charities in Boston. The archdiocese eventually closed down its adoption program, because the state of Massachusetts insisted that every adoption agency in the state must allow same-sex couples to adopt.

Recently, a Methodist organization in New Jersey lost part of its tax-exempt status because it refused to allow two lesbian couples to use their facility for a civil union ceremony. In Quebec, a Mennonite school was informed that it must conform to the official provincial curriculum, which includes teaching homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle.

At last report, the Mennonites were considering leaving the province rather than permit the imposition of the state-sponsored curriculum on their children.

And recently, a wedding photographer in New Mexico faces a hearing with the state’s Human Rights Commission because she declined the business of a lesbian couple. She didn’t want to take photos of their commitment ceremony.

The underlying pattern is unmistakable. Legalizing same-sex “marriage” has brought in its wake state regulation of other parts of society. The problem is sometimes presented as an issue of religious freedom, and so, in part, it is. But the issue runs deeper than religious freedom.

McGill University professor Douglas Farrow argues in his book A Nation of Bastards that redefining marriage allows the government to colonize all of civil society.

If same-sex couples can marry each other, they should be allowed to adopt. Anyone who says otherwise is acting against the policy of the state. If same-sex couples can have civil unions, then denying them the use of any facility they want for their ceremony amounts to unlawful discrimination. When the state says that same sex couples are equivalent to opposite-sex couples, school curriculum will inevitably have to support this claim.

Marriage between men and women is a pre-political, naturally emerging social institution. Men and women come together to create children, independently of any government. The duty of caring for those children exists even without a government or any political order.

Marriage protects children as well as the interests of each parent in their common project of raising those children.

Because marriage is an organic part of civil society, it is robust enough to sustain itself, with minimal assistance from the state.

By contrast, same-sex “marriage” is completely a creation of the state.

Same-sex couples cannot have children. Someone must give them a child or at least half the genetic material to create a child. The state must detach the parental rights of the opposite-sex parent and then attach those rights to the second parent of the same-sex couple.

The state must create parentage for the same-sex couple. For the opposite-sex couple, the state merely recognizes parentage.

In her essay in The Meaning of Marriage, Seana Sugrue argues that the state must coddle and protect same-sex “marriage” in ways that opposite-sex marriage does not require.

Precisely because same-sex unions are not the same as opposite-sex marriage, the state must intervene to make people believe (or at least make them act as if they believe) that the two types of unions are equivalent.

Public schools in California are soon going to be required to be “gay friendly.” A doctor has been sued because she didn’t want to perform an artificial insemination on a lesbian couple. A private school is in trouble for disciplining two female students for kissing. All in the name of supporting the rights of same-sex couples to “equality” with straight couples.

The fact that opposite- and same-sex couples are different in significant ways means that there will always be scope for the state to expand its reach into more and more private areas of more and more people’s lives.

Perhaps some people think it is okay to shut down Catholic adoption agencies, because the Catholics have it coming to them: The Church’s enemies are many. Perhaps some people don’t care for Methodists, and don’t care whether they lose their tax-exempt status.

But the Mennonites? These are the most inoffensive people on the planet. They have been pacifists for centuries. Their continued existence here in North America is a testimony to the strength of our ideals of religious tolerance and pluralism, in all the best senses of those terms. But now, in the name of equality of same-sex couples, the Mennonites are being driven out of Quebec.

Perhaps you think people have a natural civil right to marry the person of their choosing. But can you really force yourself to believe that wedding photography is a civil right?

Maybe you believe that same-sex couples are entitled to have children, somehow. But is any doctor they might encounter required to inseminate them?

Advocates of same-sex “marriage” insist that theirs is a modest reform: a mere expansion of marriage to include people currently excluded. But the price of same-sex “marriage” is a reduction in tolerance for everyone else, and an expansion of the power of the state.

Jennifer Roback Morse is the senior fellow in economics at the Acton Institute and the author of Love and Economics: It Takes a Family to Raise a Village, newly reissued in paperback.



Stay informed, get connected and more with AOL on your phone.


Don’t Punish My Other Wife!

April 8, 2008

5 bob to: Creative Minority Report

From the Daily Mail.

But yesterday one motorist offered what must be a unique reason why he should keep his licence.

Mohammed Anwar said a ban would make it difficult to commute between his two wives and fulfil his matrimonial duties.

His lawyer told a Scottish court the Muslim restaurant owner has one wife in Motherwell and another in Glasgow – he is allowed up to four under his religion – and sleeps with them on alternate nights.

Oh the irony when the pluralism being demanded shows sharia-law and same-sex marriage folks climbing into bed together. How do I mean?  Well if having multiple wives is respected in courts, how long can you argue that one woman can’t have just one other woman as her wife?

Will this woman who fancies herself a man, one day be allowed to be the husband of multiple wives and give birth to all their children?  In fact I daresay that taking steroids and having her breasts altered didn’t turn her into a man – the bun in the oven shows that…  But state law recognizes her as married to a woman.  Now in Britian the courts are – at least here – showing recognition to bigamy.  The floodgates are going to open – these parties are just chipping away at the same dam from different sides.

It boggles the mind…


“Pregnant Husbands” In The Brave New World (or) “Woman With Plastic Surgery & Hormone Treatment Gets Pregnant”

March 25, 2008

Homosexual activist and lifestyle publication The Advocate reports something that very well may qualify as “new under the sun.”

In the brave new world, after an operation for “gender re-assignment” a woman who has legally married another woman has opted to become “the pregnant husband”.

How does it feel to be a pregnant man? Incredible. Despite the fact that my belly is growing with a new life inside me, I am stable and confident being the man that I am. In a technical sense I see myself as my own surrogate, though my gender identity as male is constant. To Nancy, I am her husband carrying our child—I am so lucky to have such a loving, supportive wife. I will be my daughter’s father, and Nancy will be her mother. We will be a family.

I remain uncertain how it is the case that breast reconstruction and testosterone therapy allows a woman to be considered to be married to another woman. When it comes to pro-creating, nothing seems to have changed in that department.

So “How does it feel to be a man and to be pregnant?” Find someone with an XY chromosome set who is pregnant and you will answer that question! Get out your lamp, Diogenes – you will be looking for one honest man for a good long time.

Now might be a good time to consider spending a little time with some of JP2’s Theology of the Body writings.