Archbishop of San Francisco warns of coming war on marriage

[edwest2]

Probably most same-sex couples live very normal lives, buy a house with their partners or spouses and mind their own business. Some of them are getting married now that this is a possibility. I don’t personally know any gay people who have sued a bakery or a florist or are agitating to get gay storybooks into schools. Those people are the exception.

How do these gay storybooks get into schools?

amazon.com/Beyond-Diversity-Day-Curriculum-Sexualities/dp/074252034X

Ed

 

[edwest2]

What ARE you talking about. The Secular Progressives got behind “gay rights” movement as just another way to tear down faith and family. Divorced people don’t have any particular agenda whereas gay rights activists do. Divorced Catholics are not suing the Church to receive the Eucharist before their annulments are granted. Gay rights advocates and gay individuals are and continue to agitate to attempt to force the Church to capitulate to their demands such as to recognize gay “marriage” or to continue with employment after breaching their contracts.

Gays and Lesbians have no legal right to force the Church to accept their demands but that doesn’t stop them from suing and costing the Church, or the school or other organization thousands in legal fees. This is quite similar to the ACLU and other pro atheists groups that spot a creche in some small town and then threaten to sue. The town capitulates because they do not have funds to incur the legal fees. So far the Church has not capitulated and I don’t think this will happen. But it is going to cost in time, funds, and negative publicity. .

Well said.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

There are more than a few gay marriage websites that I cannot link to. My point is: activists went door to door in one part of the country recently to convince average people that SSM was OK. This was a coordinated effort, the websites are a coordinated effort and the LGBT press and so-called “mainstream” media supports SSM. I recently watched an episode of a TV show where an SSM couple was portrayed. What? They thought no one would notice? “Nothing to see here. Move along.”? Seriously?

I do not care if half my neighbors are gay. I had no problems with the LGBT people in a major hospital where I worked for nearly 10 years. Their right to privacy was respected and it did not occur to me to even think about what they did on their own time. Then what? Abandon your privacy - be proud to be LGBT. It’s fine to have a healthy ego but come on. I’m watching TV at a hospital recently and a pro athlete is telling all viewers: “Stop Being Homophobic!” 5 year old Billy is homophobic? The elderly lady in a wheelchair with oxygen tank next to me is homophobic? The President got a lot of grief from the LGBT community because his views on SSM had not “evolved” - yet.

Give me a break.

hprweb.com/2014/09/personal-holiness-and-the-homosexual-agenda/

Ed

 

[LisaA]

What’s wrong with going to the Supreme Court? If I was Edith Windsor, I would have gone to the Supreme Court, too, to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. Even though she was legally married to her spouse Thea Spyer and had been with her since 1963, the Internal Revenue Service did not recognize their marriage and compelled Windsor to pay $363,053 in estate taxes when Spyer died. I wouldn’t consider Windsor to be some wild eyed activist.What happened to her was totally unfair and unjust and I’m glad she went to court.

I didn’t say there was anything wrong with going to SCOTUS, I was just pointing out to those who seem to think this isn’t a huge change in how the word marriage is going to be viewed that it IS a serious matter. Further along with other considerations, I believe the determination of states’ rights will be a very significant part of this case. Marriage among other privileges such as drivers’ licenses, has always been an issue for states to determine. There are differences in age allowed to marry, degree of familial relationship, etc. In fact there used to be a concept of a young couple “heading across state lines” in order to marry in a state with a lower age of consent. If SCOTUS determines there is a Constitutional right to “marry” someone of the same sex, then the term itself has lost its meaning since there is nothing unique about this relationship. Further if one has the right to define marriage as the parties desire, that is the end of state’s rights in determining what constitutes a valid marriage and opens the already ajar door to plural marriage, striking down relationship prohibitions (currently a teen plans to “marry” her biological father…) and other alternative partnerships.

And if Ms Windsor had such a large estate she should have availed herself of legal advice regarding the impact resulting from her death rather than assuming that since she was “married” in one state, the Feds would accept it.

 

[Sy_Noe]

There are more than a few gay marriage websites that I cannot link to. My point is: activists went door to door in one part of the country recently to convince average people that SSM was OK. This was a coordinated effort, the websites are a coordinated effort and the LGBT press and so-called “mainstream” media supports SSM. I recently watched an episode of a TV show where an SSM couple was portrayed. What? They thought no one would notice? “Nothing to see here. Move along.”? Seriously?

I do not care if half my neighbors are gay. I had no problems with the LGBT people in a major hospital where I worked for nearly 10 years. Their right to privacy was respected and it did not occur to me to even think about what they did on their own time. Then what? Abandon your privacy - be proud to be LGBT. It’s fine to have a healthy ego but come on. I’m watching TV at a hospital recently and a pro athlete is telling all viewers: “Stop Being Homophobic!” 5 year old Billy is homophobic? The elderly lady in a wheelchair with oxygen tank next to me is homophobic? The President got a lot of grief from the LGBT community because his views on SSM had not “evolved” - yet.

Give me a break.

hprweb.com/2014/09/personal-holiness-and-the-homosexual-agenda/

Ed

Ed, it must not have been my part of the country. No one ever came door to door to convince me. I decided to vote to allow SS couples the right to a civil marriage under civil law by whoever was willing to perform the ceremony. A judge down at the courthouse. The Unitarian Universalist minister 2 towns away. The UCC pastor down the road about 5 miles. Maybe someday the PCUSA pastor or other ministers of Christian faith communities. Never even gave a thought of and have never had any expectation of a RC priest ever doing so. Who is willing can and who isn’t won’t. A RC priest wouldn’t even perform a heterosexual marriage for me today because I don’t meet the Catholic Church’s requirements, But I know of an Episcopal priest who would. So I would seek out someone like that and wouldn’t even give one thought to suing the CC. Wouldn’t even cross my mind. Was that your first time watching a TV show where a SS couple was portrayed? Hopefully Billy hasn’t learned to be homophobic.

 

[Sy_Noe]

If SCOTUS determines there is a Constitutional right to “marry” someone of the same sex, then the term itself has lost its meaning since there is nothing unique about this relationship. Further if one has the right to define marriage as the parties desire, that is the end of state’s rights in determining what constitutes a valid marriage and opens the already ajar door to plural marriage, striking down relationship prohibitions (currently a teen plans to “marry” her biological father…) and other alternative partnerships.

Lisa, you seem to like to bring up a lot of non existing hypotheticals. I think you have just re-proven the point SavvanahGal was making about scare tactics. If SCOTUS determines homosexuals have the Constitutional right to a civil marriage, it doesn’t mean there is nothing unique about the marriage relationship. Who am I to say the 1 person it is that someone else falls in love with and wants to spend the rest of their lives with. The uniqueness will still be a monogamous couple, in love with each other who goes thru the process of a legal marriage. Nothing changes other than the couple doesn’t have to be of only a heterosexual orientation in order to get married by a judge at the courthouse or by whomever else willing to perform the ceremony. Some couples are in faith communities where their pastors are willing. The Catholic Church is not willing and there won’t be any SSM performed in Catholic churches. Any gay Catholic who wants to get married in the CC will be refused. Just as I wouldn’t even be able to have a heterosexual marriage ceremony in the church I was baptized and confirmed in because I don’t fit into what the CC considers to be a state of grace and I’m unwilling right now to do what they would expect of me for them to consider me in such a state. Peace be with you.

 

[Thorolfr]

My point is: activists went door to door in one part of the country recently to convince average people that SSM was OK. This was a coordinated effort, the websites are a coordinated effort and the LGBT press and so-called “mainstream” media supports SSM.

What’s wrong with people going door-to-door and trying to convince their fellow citizens to support them? That happens all the time in a democracy. You also have the right to go door-to-door and try to convince your fellow citizens to support something that is important to you.

And as for advocates of SSM or any other issue being part of a coordinated effort, they’re more likely to succeed at what they’re doing than if it’s a disorganized effort. Also, national electoral politics in the US is a coordinated effort by both the Democratic and Republican parties. I get mailers every election trying to convince me how to vote on various issues and who to vote for and campaign offices of various politicians call me up to ask if they can count on my vote. Seems like a pretty normal thing in America.

 

[Sy_Noe]

What’s wrong with people going door-to-door and trying to convince their fellow citizens to support them? That happens all the time in a democracy. You also have the right to go door-to-door and try to convince your fellow citizens to support something that is important to you.

And as for advocates of SSM or any other issue being part of a coordinated effort, they’re more likely to succeed at what they’re doing than if it’s a disorganized effort. Also, national electoral politics in the US is a coordinated effort by both the Democratic and Republican parties. I get mailers every election trying to convince me how to vote on various issues and who to vote for and campaign offices of various politicians call me up to ask if they can count on my vote. Seems like a pretty normal thing in America.

Right. Btw I didn’t mean to imply there is anything wrong with it just because no one came to my door. I’m like you. As soon as I request my mail-in ballot each election, my mailbox is swamped! I’d get lots of calls too but since I did away with my landline, I don’t bother answering unlnowns. And CAF and others with their POV are doing a good job lobbying against SSM.

 

[Tomdstone]

What’s wrong with people going door-to-door and trying to convince their fellow citizens to support them?

Maybe nothing wrong, but I have noticed that people who run for election frequently make promises but don’t keep them. You vote for them on the basis of what they have promised in their speeches, but once they are in office, they seem to forget many of their campaign speeches.

 

[DrTaffy]

My point is: activists went door to door in one part of the country recently to convince average people that SSM was OK. This was a coordinated effort, the websites are a coordinated effort and the LGBT press and so-called “mainstream” media supports SSM.

That’s freedom of speech. There was a case very recently here in the UK where a Catholic monk had been going door to door in Leicester and thereabouts distributing some quite nasty homophobic leaflets. It was confirmed that he had the legal right to do so.

I recently watched an episode of a TV show where an SSM couple was portrayed.

How very dare they?

I saw a programme last night where a Catholic priest was portrayed. So what?

What? They thought no one would notice? “Nothing to see here. Move along.”? Seriously?

Yes, that is what all TV producers long for, no one even noticing their programme.

 

[LisaA]

Lisa, you seem to like to bring up a lot of non existing hypotheticals. I think you have just re-proven the point SavvanahGal was making about scare tactics. If SCOTUS determines homosexuals have the Constitutional right to a civil marriage, it doesn’t mean there is nothing unique about the marriage relationship. ***Who am I to say the 1 person it is that someone else falls in love with and wants to spend the rest of their lives with. The uniqueness will still be a monogamous couple, in love with each other who goes thru the process of a legal marriage. ***Nothing changes other than the couple doesn’t have to be of only a heterosexual orientation in order to get married by a judge at the courthouse or by whomever else willing to perform the ceremony. Some couples are in faith communities where their pastors are willing. The Catholic Church is not willing and there won’t be any SSM performed in Catholic churches. Any gay Catholic who wants to get married in the CC will be refused. Just as I wouldn’t even be able to have a heterosexual marriage ceremony in the church I was baptized and confirmed in because I don’t fit into what the CC considers to be a state of grace and I’m unwilling right now to do what they would expect of me for them to consider me in such a state. Peace be with you.

Because it becomes COMPLETELY arbitrary! There IS something unique about Natural Marriage in that it requires a male and a female and has procreative potential. There is nothing unique about any other arrangement…two men, two women…or other number of persons.

Further you continue to use a religious concept to support CIVIL marriage. Where in any civil marriage statute does it require the person to fall in love, stay together forever and be monogamous? It doesn’t. In addition if two gay guys fall in “love” and promise to be faithful and be together forever, why do they need a CIVIL certificate that has no such requirement?

Now if you then change horses in mid argument and state well it’s not FAIR that Joe and Bill can’t share health benefits and claim that gay “marriage” is all about sharing benefits and government largesse, not only can and has this been worked out WITHOUT “marriage” (most companies allow partner benefits that can include same or opposite sex partners) but then the same opportunity should be afforded anyone else who wants to share their benefits…I mentioned a good friend who needs health insurance. I can “marry” her to give her that benefit. Why not? Ditto with my friends, two sisters who certainly love each other and live together. One sister has benefits, the other does not. They can “marry” and thus share those benefits.

Oh and then why limit to just two people or prevent relatives from marrying? It’s all about being fair right?

This is an opinion based on fuzzy logic, misplaced compassion, and a lack of understanding of the purpose and unique nature of Natural Marriage. Either marriage has a unique meaning and purpose or it is just the desires of the parties who wish to avail themseles of various real and perceived benefits of being married.

 

[Sy_Noe]

That’s freedom of speech. There was a case very recently here in the UK where a Catholic monk had been going door to door in Leicester and thereabouts distributing some quite nasty homophobic leaflets. It was confirmed that he had the legal right to do so.

How very dare they?

I saw a programme last night where a Catholic priest was portrayed. So what?

Yes, that is what all TV producers long for, no one even noticing their programme.

This lightened my day! Thanks,

 

[JimG]

The war on marriage has been underway for quite some time in teh popular media.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Because it becomes COMPLETELY arbitrary! There IS something unique about Natural Marriage in that it requires a male and a female and has procreative potential.

I’ll just assume you understand even a male and female can marry when there is no potential for procreation. I’m pretty certain we shall never agree anytime soon so at this time it is fruitless for either of us to continue back and forth with one another. Peace be with you.

 

[JimG]

I’ll just assume you understand even a male and female can marry when there is no potential for procreation. Peace to you.

A male and a female have the potential and ability to have marital sex. Only a man and a woman.

 

[zz912]

What’s wrong with going to the Supreme Court? If I was Edith Windsor, I would have gone to the Supreme Court, too, to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. Even though she was legally married to her spouse Thea Spyer and had been with her since 1963, the Internal Revenue Service did not recognize their marriage and compelled Windsor to pay $363,053 in estate taxes when Spyer died. I wouldn’t consider Windsor to be some wild eyed activist.What happened to her was totally unfair and unjust and I’m glad she went to court.

A woman wanted to transfer her estate tax free to an unrelated woman. Of course I support eliminating death taxes, as the govt has no business taxing estates.

But why she should get preferential treatment I don’t understand.

 

[zz912]

The war on marriage has been underway for quite some time in teh popular media.

It’s tough to find even one program on tv today that isn’t full of propaganda aimed at destroying the fundamental truths of nature and society.

 

[religioussoup]

I could never figure out how any “Catholic” may be for gay “marriage” and remain as a “Catholic”.

As a person who believes in gay marriage, I assure you, I am still Catholic.

 

[Tomdstone]

As a person who believes in gay marriage, I assure you, I am still Catholic.

Do you think that SS marriage should be a Sacrament?

 

[LisaA]

A male and a female have the potential and ability to have marital sex. Only a man and a woman.

Exactly the “not all married couples have children” meme is absurd when the difference is in the completely different nature of same sex couples who have zero procreative potential.

But remember facts only matter when they push a narrative. When they get in the way of an agenda or ideology, they can be dispensed with