Supreme Court Ruling on Same Sex Marriage

[KSU]

not exactly that but did you know that some members of the vatican2 talks were homosexual. i wasn’t originally same sex marriage, like obama, my opnion evolved as i grew older and had an improved understanding of what true sacramental marriage entails and how to know who you should marry. i was anti same sex marriage and signed the doma back in the 90’s. then one day i read the 1993 catechism passage which teaches the faithful to recognize that people with same sex attraction should be treated with respect and charity…i wasn’t taught or given good guidance on marriage when i was younger and had a lot of wrong ideas about how to know who you should marry etc. i think human progress and canon law and the catechism teaching on sacramental marriage and the psychology of sex and medical research all brought it to this point. and the homosexuals have always been with us but it was never talked about. they have always been with us and have influenced our culture all along. especially in the arts and literature and the entertainment field. they have always been there in the background. so i think its a snowball effect is what happened. all of these pieces coming together. technological advancement really pushed it forward too.

also one day i noticed in my bible which i’ve had since the 80’s the footnotes state that there are 3 differing opinions amongst the prophets as to what happened in sodom and gomorrah. the bible i have is an nab.

and then i heard that children had been born with both male and female organs throughout history. you know when you look at the diversity of nature in non human life forms you realize the originality and uniqueness of all creation and that sometimes these things happen. i also made a cursillo and learned god does not make mistakes. he made them for a reason. jesus did not condemn them either.

i am sure genetic research had a lot to do with it too.

and luckily i had a priest that worked at vatican 2 and was a marriage tribunal judge who set me straight about how to know who you should marry. i am thankful for him because i might have ended up in a bad marriage. he is the best priest and smartest priest i ever met.

Thanks for the reply, but the connection between VC II and SSM, if any, still is not clear.

When you say that some of the participants at VC II were homosexual, that is not particularly surprising. But if you mean that in the long run they influenced the Church to be more open to SSM, that would be something I had not heard.

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

Thanks for the reply, but the connection between VC II and SSM, if any, still is not clear.

When you say that some of the participants at VC II were homosexual, that is not particularly surprising. But if you mean that in the long run they influenced the Church to be more open to SSM, that would be something I had not heard.

i apologize but it has been a few years since i last read the documents of vat2. i never considered that they paved the way for same sex marriage and would have to read and review the documents.

i am not sure if they influenced the church to be open to ssm or not. i know the pope wrote a letter forbidding it. i can’t think of the technical term for the letter right now. that is the document that got doma going.

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

The current edition of the Catechism teaches the same thing. But, do I understand that you took **this part **of the catechism to heart, but rejected the remainder of the section on homosexuality?

Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its **psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. **Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary
to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible.This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.** They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.**** Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.** These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

2348 All the baptized are called to chastity. The Christian has "put on Christ,"135 the model for all chastity. All Christ’s faithful are called to lead a chaste life in keeping with their particular states of life. At the moment of his Baptism, the Christian is pledged to lead his affective life in chastity.

i either don’t agree or don’t care about the parts in green. i think its irrellevent because at this point in time same sex marriage was not even possible. and at the time it was thought to be psychological. i think its biological and psychological.

 

[ephesians4]

well it is interesting that a brit headed up the talk against the right to bear arms. i forget his name, he was on cnn and got himself into a lot of hot water. he is someone who was employed by rupert murdoch and may even himself have hacked into people’s cellphones and violated people’s right to privacy in the rush to humiliate and embarrass his targets.

why is it that america insists that other countries are not allowed to have weapons but america and israel are? people have a right to self defense and i am against attempts to dismantle our basic rights which the founding fathers established.

are you from the uk by chance?

Did you know that in the UK, Piers Morgan is not widely regarded as the sharpest arrow in the quiver? That the people who mouth off about US guns from the UK are the same kind of people you have doing it there - eg: the most vocal and perhaps not the most considered and thoughtful parts of society, and they do not necessarily represent a “British” viewpoint?

Precious few Brits care, or have ever cared (!) to take away your second amendment rights, and in the modern age Piers Morgan just seems like a mickey-taker to have come to your country to tell you what to do - a mickey-taker everyone would have preferred you to keep to be quite honest.

Another thing, there are plenty of Brits who think a lot of your Constitution and Freedoms and country in general, warts and all. I’m just saying in case it addresses any false impressions you might be under.

i either don’t agree or don’t care about the parts in green. i think its irrellevent because at this point in time same sex marriage was not even possible. and at the time it was thought to be psychological. i think its biological and psychological.

I think if we all start re-thinking and revising and opining about which bits are right and which bits are wrong, like the rules are all part of some mercurial “process” where they could end up the same as, or the opposite of, how they started, that is a victory for the enemy.

The rules were set a long time ago. If God were subject to the social code and morality could just become shifting sands if “enough people thought they knew better than God” then Sodom and Gemorrah and the subsequent troubling events in Lot’s family would not have been a thing.

I think moral uncertainty and confusion and rationalization for defying God are the hallmarks of something having gone very wrong.

 

[Rau]

Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary
to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible.This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

2348 All the baptized are called to chastity. The Christian has "put on Christ,"135 the model for all chastity. All Christ’s faithful are called to lead a chaste life in keeping with their particular states of life. At the moment of his Baptism, the Christian is pledged to lead his affective life in chastity.

And 2349 "People should cultivate [chastity] in the way that is suited to their state of life. Some profess virginity or consecrated celibacy which enables them to give themselves to God alone with an undivided heart in a remarkable manner. Others live in the way prescribed for all by the moral law, whether they are married or single."136 Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence:

Read more about the “married” state here:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

The current edition of the Catechism teaches the same thing. But, do I understand that you took **this part **of the catechism to heart, but rejected the remainder of the section on homosexuality?

1603 "The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been
established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage."87 The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics. Although the dignity of this institution is not transparent everywhere with the same clarity,88 some sense of the greatness of the matrimonial union exists in all cultures. "The well-being of the individual
person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life."89

1623 According to Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ’s grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. In the tradition of the Eastern Churches, the priests (bishops or presbyters) are witnesses to the mutual consent given by the spouses,124 but for the validity of the sacrament their blessing is also necessary.125

1624 The various liturgies abound in prayers of blessing and epiclesis asking God’s grace and blessing on the new couple, especially the bride. In the epiclesis of this sacrament the spouses receive the Holy Spirit as the communion of love of Christ and the Church.126 The Holy Spirit is the seal of their covenant, the ever available source of their love and the strength to renew their fidelity.

III. MATRIMONIAL CONSENT

1625 **The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; “to be free” means:

• not being under constraint;
• not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law.**

1626 The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element that "makes the marriage."127** If consent is lacking there is no marriage.**

1627 The consent consists in a “human act by which the partners mutually give themselves to each other”: “I take you to be my wife” - "I take you to be my husband."128 This consent that binds the spouses to each other finds its fulfillment in the two "becoming one flesh."129

1628 The consent must be an act of the will of each of the contracting parties, free of coercion or grave external fear.130 No human power can substitute for this consent.131 If this freedom is lacking the marriage is invalid.

1629 For this reason (or for other reasons that render the marriage null and void) the Church, after an examination of the situation by the competent ecclesiastical tribunal, can declare the nullity of a marriage, i.e., that the marriage never existed.132 In this case the contracting parties are free to marry, provided the natural obligations of a previous union are discharged.133

1630 The priest (or deacon) who assists at the celebration of a marriage receives the consent of the spouses in the name of the Church and gives the blessing of the Church. The presence of the Church’s minister (and also of the witnesses) visibly expresses the fact that marriage is an ecclesial reality.

1631 This is the reason why the Church normally requires that the faithful contract marriage according to the ecclesiastical form. Several reasons converge to explain this requirement:134

• Sacramental marriage is a liturgical act. It is therefore appropriate that it should be celebrated in the public liturgy of the Church;
• Marriage introduces one into an ecclesial order, and creates rights and duties in the Church between the spouses and towards their children;
  -** Since marriage is a state of life in the Church, certainty about it is necessary** (hence the obligation to have witnesses);
• The public character of the consent protects the “I do” once given and helps the spouses remain faithful to it.

if you are against same sex marriage it is likely you won’t be invited to the wedding. i suspect only close family and friends will be invited as per the usual.

bottomline is this: the parties contracting the marriage are the ministers of the sacrament and therefore they are the final authority. they don’t need your permission/approval to get married. since as catholics we do not hold that others have a sacramental marriage, there should be no impediment for you as we hold theire marriages to be merely natural and not sacramental and they don’t think its sacramental either. so they don’t care what catholics think about their marriages either and you have no authority over non catholic marriages anyway. . civil marriage is not considered sacramental either. you lose, they win, and you win too. end of debate everyone can breathe easy now.

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

Did you know that in the UK, Piers Morgan is not widely regarded as the sharpest arrow in the quiver? That the people who mouth off about US guns from the UK are the same kind of people you have doing it there - eg: the most vocal and perhaps not the most considered and thoughtful parts of society, and they do not necessarily represent a “British” viewpoint?

Precious few Brits care, or have ever cared (!) to take away your second amendment rights, and in the modern age Piers Morgan just seems like a mickey-taker to have come to your country to tell you what to do - a mickey-taker everyone would have preferred you to keep to be quite honest.

Another thing, there are plenty of Brits who think a lot of your Constitution and Freedoms and country in general, warts and all. I’m just saying in case it addresses any false impressions you might be under.

thanks for informing me on the true status of piers morgan. thank you also for setting me straight about how brits view these matters in general!

think if we all start re-thinking and revising and opining about which bits are right and which bits are wrong, like the rules are all part of some mercurial “process” where they could end up the same as, or the opposite of, how they started, that is a victory for the enemy.

The rules were set a long time ago. If God were subject to the social code and morality could just become shifting sands if “enough people thought they knew better than God” then Sodom and Gemorrah and the subsequent troubling events in Lot’s family would not have been a thing.

I think moral uncertainty and confusion and rationalization for defying God are the hallmarks of something having gone very wrong.

its a victory for the enemy if the rules are wrong.
we are not under the rules of the law of the old testament. we are free of them and not to be enslaved by them. please read the letter to the galatians.

i also want to remind you of the parable of the wine skins. to me it is ok to pick and choose from the old and the new. jesus said as much but i can’t remember where he said it.

lot had problems before sodom and gomorrah and he slept with his daughters–incest. how is this ok and homosexual marriage is not? the characters of the bible are certainly not heroic and worthy of imitation.

when you get married you can’t be confused or uncertain on your wedding day. you have to be 100% sure or don’t do it. god is not the minister of the sacrament and his will doesn’t count…yours does. you get to override him when it comes to marriage. and should. you shouldn’t marry someone just because god thinks you should. god respects our free will especially in marital matters. we shouldn’t marry someone just because he said so. awful awful awful if you do. big mistake. terrible reason to get married. if you don’t have personal authority then you shouldn’t be getting married. grounds for annulment right there. if you don’t have the personal power to say yea or nay then the marriage is null and void due to coercion.

 

[ephesians4]

thanks for informing me on the true status of piers morgan. thank you also for setting me straight about how brits view these matters in general!

Well the only bit that would apply in general is the Piers Morgan bit.

I can’t say what proportion of the population “think a lot of your Constitution and Freedoms and country in general, warts and all.” it isn’t negligible, though, only reason I mention it is that the idea that people would perceive the whole place banging the drum for Piers to take your guns is too much to contemplate.

its a victory for the enemy if the rules are wrong.

So you are going to tell us the rules are wrong? Catechism and Bible? Surely you are starting your own religion, then.

we are not under the rules of the law of the old testament. we are free of them and not to be enslaved by them. please read the letter to the galatians.

i also want to remind you of the parable of the wine skins. to me it is ok to pick and choose from the old and the new. jesus said as much but i can’t remember where he said it.

Yes, I remember this, too - although I seem to recall it being in regard to dietary stuff. Gay marriage as a concept doesn’t really have to be looked at as a matter of some lower level mitzvah, though. If you wanted to examine the issues with it on theological or scriptural grounds, Deuteronomy is barely relevant.

lot had problems before sodom and gomorrah and he slept with his daughters–incest. how is this ok and homosexual marriage is not? the characters of the bible are certainly not heroic and worthy of imitation.

None were untarnished by the place, and its scornful defiance of God and the Law, this was my point.

This is one of the messages I take from (in my opinion) the most challenging part of the scripture, so I do appreciate that you may not see the story that way.

when you get married you can’t be confused or uncertain on your wedding day. you have to be 100% sure or don’t do it. god is not the minister of the sacrament and his will doesn’t count…yours does. you get to override him when it comes to marriage. and should. you shouldn’t marry someone just because god thinks you should. god respects our free will especially in marital matters. we shouldn’t marry someone just because he said so. awful awful awful if you do. big mistake. terrible reason to get married. if you don’t have personal authority then you shouldn’t be getting married. grounds for annulment right there. if you don’t have the personal power to say yea or nay then the marriage is null and void due to coercion.

Are you really Catholic? Honestly? I will ask the question once and accept your answer in good faith, but on the face of it I find it extremely difficult to reconcile the way you are choosing to word things in the quoted text with the idea that you’re a practicing Christian. Can you see why?

 

[Rau]

…bottomline is this: …

Curiously, none of the Catechism which you have taken the trouble to quote at length supports your “bottom line”!

 

[Peter_Plato]

you shouldn’t marry someone just because god thinks you should. god respects our free will especially in marital matters. we shouldn’t marry someone just because he said so. awful awful awful if you do. big mistake. terrible reason to get married.

Yes, of course

It would be the determinably prudent thing to do to discount the “opinion” of the omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent Being in favour of the opinion of a limited, fallen and oftentimes immoral mind.

Yeah it would be a “terrible” thing to do what is determined to be the right thing to do by the omniscient, omnibenevolent Power that created, orders and maintains the entire universe. What would he KNOW anyway, right? :doh2:

if you don’t have personal authority then you shouldn’t be getting married. grounds for annulment right there. if you don’t have the personal power to say yea or nay then the marriage is null and void due to coercion.

Assuming human beings have the “personal authority” to carry out what they determine to begin with. You are discounting the possibility that coercion may be involved when we decide to do things by our own “personal power,” whatever that may mean. The kind of coercion that is active inside the heart of every human being is called sin and we are often tempted (attempted coercion) to do things we “want” to, as opposed to what is determinably the right thing. “Truly, I say to you, whoever sins is a slave to sin, but if the Son makes you free, you are free indeed.”

 

[_Abyssinia]

For Churches That Won’t Perform Same-Sex Weddings, Insurance Begins to Look Iffy

Read more at: nationalreview.com/article/420928/churches-gay-marriage-insurance?tsrvqUZ2WLkiLuwx.01

 

[ThinkingSapien]

For Churches That Won’t Perform Same-Sex Weddings, Insurance Begins to Look Iffy

Read more at: nationalreview.com/article/420928/churches-gay-marriage-insurance?tsrvqUZ2WLkiLuwx.01

This is probably the relevant part to share.

On July 1, David Karns, vice president of underwriting at Southern Mutual Church Insurance Company (which “serve more than 8,400 churches”), wrote an “all states” agents’ bulletin addressing same-sex marriage. It begins: “We have received numerous calls and emails regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriages. The main concern is whether or not liability coverage applies in the event a church gets sued for declining to perform a same-sex marriage.” Karns continues:

The general liability form does not provide any coverage for this type of situation, since there is no bodily injury, property damage, personal injury, or advertising injury. If a church is concerned about the possibility of a suit, we do offer Miscellaneous Legal Defense Coverage. This is not liability coverage, but rather expense reimbursement for defense costs. There is no coverage for any judgments against an insured.

In other words: Churches, you’re on your own. (National Review has tried to reach Mr. Karns and Southern Mutual’s corporate office, and they have not yet returned our calls.)

 

[zz912]

Sure. Though people of various sexualities could already engage in sex without legal penalty before this union (though that hasn’t always been the case in USA history). There was another Supreme Court ruling over that.

It’s a social convention, along with the rules and laws written around it. They’ve different over time and geography. This is a different time with different rules. Various people have additional views about marriage. For example, some people see love as an integral part of marriage. But not every one does. So the views are non-uniform In the USA there are laws in property inheritance, confidentiality rights, eligibility for health and other benefits, and more that are associated with marriage status.

It’s not entirely new. In the general case what need is there to be able to distinguish between whether some one is married to someone of the opposite sex of same sex? If I hear that Jim is married other than curiosity is there a problem that comes with not knowing if Jim is married to Alice or Mike?

Of course it is entirely new. Even in cultures where homosexuality was accepted, they never confused those sexual activities with marriage. They could plainly see that the next generation of society comes from heterosexual unions. And the next generation of society needs a stable environment to flourish. So they recognized marriage to encourage the parties to remain in the marriage and provide for the children and the next generation of society.

This is just one more step that society has taken to divorce the concepts of babies/pregnancy, sex, and marriage.

Even the name, holy matrimony, indicates what marriage is. “Matrimony” means “making a mother”.

 

[zz912]

i either don’t agree or don’t care about the parts in green. i think its irrellevent because at this point in time same sex marriage was not even possible. and at the time it was thought to be psychological. i think its biological and psychological.

Since you pick and choose which parts of Church teaching you will accept, how are you different from a Protestant?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Of course it is entirely new. Even in cultures where homosexuality was accepted, they never confused those sexual activities with marriage.

I tried looking into that sometime ago. What I found is that it wasn’t uncommon for anthropologist to apply the word “marriage” to something that matched what they thought of as marriage while applying a different name to something they didn’t think of as marriage; in other words there’s even a bit of self projection that occurs in anthropology.

This is just one more step that society has taken to divorce the concepts of babies/pregnancy, sex, and marriage.

The occurrence of sex without marriage isn’t recent. Such things have been happening for quite some time. Even sexual activities among homosexuals isn’t new . But this case wasn’t about sex.

Even the name, holy matrimony, indicates what marriage is. “Matrimony” means “making a mother”.

And 結婚 is from a word meaning to tie a knot. Something that may seem like an irrelevant fact until what I just said about anthropological projection is taken into consideration.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

it is wrong to assume that homosexuals are not christian or jewish. there are most certainly homosexual christians and jews and muslims. therefore no lawyer will take a case of this type because it is a false dichotomy.

The religious beliefs of homosexuals will have no bearing on the cases…what we will see is homosexual behavior vs. religious rights.

Anyway… if you think about it…a Christian homosexual would never think of violating another Christian’s religious beliefs…otherwise the homosexual would not really be a Christian.

 

[sallybutler]

The religious beliefs of homosexuals will have no bearing on the cases…what we will see is homosexual behavior vs. religious rights.

Anyway… if you think about it…a Christian homosexual would never think of violating another Christian’s religious beliefs…otherwise the homosexual would not really be a Christian.

Lots of Christians have no problem violating and or mocking other Christian’s religious beliefs. Why do you think there are so many different denominations and sects.

 

[KSU]

Lots of Christians have no problem violating and or mocking other Christian’s religious beliefs. Why do youHere is an example of the gross hypocrisy about which Pope Francis was warning the world:
Our very own Dear Leader, a self proclaimed Christian (no, not that hypocrisy), anti-war exemplar, Crusader basher at a “prayer meeting” , 2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Barack Hussein Obama, just agreed to let Iran continue to develop nuclear weapons despite a veritable plethora of UN treaties and agreements, and despite the very real potential for nuclear war.

Now that’s world class hypocrisy!
Here is an example of the gross hypocrisy about which Pope Francis was warning the world:
Our very own Dear Leader, a self proclaimed Christian (no, not that hypocrisy), anti-war exemplar, Crusader basher at a “prayer meeting” , 2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Barack Hussein Obama, just agreed to let Iran continue to develop nuclear weapons despite a veritable plethora of UN treaties and agreements, and despite the very real potential for nuclear war.

Now that’s world class hypocrisy!
Here is an example of the gross hypocrisy about which Pope Francis was warning the world:
Our very own Dear Leader, a self proclaimed Christian (no, not that hypocrisy), anti-war exemplar, Crusader basher at a “prayer meeting” , 2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Barack Hussein Obama, just agreed to let Iran continue to develop nuclear weapons despite a veritable plethora of UN treaties and agreements, and despite the very real potential for nuclear war.

Now that’s world class hypocrisy!
Here is an example of the gross hypocrisy about which Pope Francis was warning the world:
Our very own Dear Leader, a self proclaimed Christian (no, not that hypocrisy), anti-war exemplar, Crusader basher at a “prayer meeting” , 2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Barack Hussein Obama, just agreed to let Iran continue to develop nuclear weapons despite a veritable plethora of UN treaties and agreements, and despite the very real potential for nuclear war.

Now that’s world class hypocrisy!
.

 

[KSU]

Here is an example of the gross hypocrisy about which Pope Francis was warning the world:
Our very own Dear Leader, a self proclaimed Christian (no, not that hypocrisy), anti-war exemplar, Crusader basher at a “prayer meeting” , 2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Barack Hussein Obama, just agreed to let Iran continue to develop nuclear weapons despite a veritable plethora of UN treaties and agreements, and despite the very real potential for nuclear war.

Now that’s world class hypocrisy!
.

 

[KSU]

Lots of Christians have no problem violating and or mocking other Christian’s religious beliefs. Why do you think there are so many different denominations and sects.

There are so many different denominations and sects because far, far too many self-proclaimed Christians think like pagans–with their genitals and their money. In America, debauchery and Socialism have finally met and kissed. Homo-socialism has won the day.

Authentic Roman Catholics and others will begin to be accused of hate crimes and illegal intolerance; we will see persecution unimagined just ten years ago. The Church Herself will be powerless to stop it. She knows that it will be up to lay people to save America, and not just through prayer.

Ironically, if Christianity and its traditional partner, i.e.,the ideals of our Founding Fathers, fail to win this culture war, homosexuals will lose their humanitarian protection. Godless Socialism eventually turns on them–see Nazi Germany and the USSR for examples.