Maine bishop speaks against gay marriage

i'm so tired of this antediluvian ideology; go back to your cave, bishop and take your ignorance and intolerance with you.

Take this reasoning to its logical conclusion, and we should also deny marriage to infertile heterosexual couples. Or older couples, past the childbearing years.

The fact is, there are many ways to start a family. As a heterosexual infertile couple, we are an example of this, and have adopted an amazing baby from MA. Marriage is an essential anchor and safety net for children, no matter how they came to be part of their family.

I cannot condone this bishop's opinions, which seem to deny and debase not only gay marriages but a great number of heterosexual marriages as well.

THANK YOU Bishop Malone!

Agree.
The problem stems from the fact that states play a role in 'marriage', when in fact 'marriage' is a religious institution.
There should be no state or federal laws based on marriage, but instead base these laws on 'unions'.
Straight folks get married by the church, and enter into a legal union as far as the govt is concerend. Gay folks can have the same rights by entering into the same type of legal union. if there is a religion that will marry them, then so be it.
The problem comes with the state calling the legal joining of people marriage, which is very many centuries a religious term.

I agreewith the Bishop and further look US Senator Ted Kennedy is on a mission to HELL when he dies> He is no leader of decency!

I am getting so tired of this crap. Why can't people just get over it already. Gay men and women have every right to marry who they love. Who are we to judge them and take their civil rights away. Slavery was abolished because it was unconstitutional and as far as I am concerned this is the same type of thing. Same sex couples getting married does not hurt stright couples. This is why I do not attend religious services, because of this hateful bigotry. If I was one of these churches who got this letter, I would write one back telling this bishop to mind his own business. Let people love who they love and marry who they love. Stop trying to take this right away. People like this make me sick. I am a straight woman and in no way do I feel same sex couples getting married compromises my relationships. It's disgusting behavior and it needs to stop.

EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL!!!!

You Bishops and any one else who thinks marriage has remained the same for millennia, need a history lesson! Marriage has changed over the centuries and will continue to do so as does everything in life. The ones who suffer are those who resist evolution and progress as they stay stagnant and waste in there own fear. No one owns the word marriage. Religion needs to stay out of the states politics. Civil marriage is not affecting your religious form of marriage ceremony. I think it is time for a petition that discusses the losing of the church's tax exempt status as it preaches politics from the pulpit.

Good for you bishop. Don't be silenced by the pro-gay agenda!

While twice as many children go to bed hungry in our country today compared to a year ago, while tens of thousands of victims of Hurricane Katrine still cannot return home years later, while millions of families are losing their life savings and their homes in this recession, while nearly 50 million of our fellow citizens have no health insurance -- the Catholic Church and other major denominations have decided that the most important thing they must do is to prevent same sex couples and parents from being able to access the single civil legal institution (marriage) that will allow us to protect each other and take care of each other. Over $70 million was spent to take away equal marriage rights from couples in California. That is the unspeakable and immoral waste that the Maine Bishop, and all people of faith and good will, should be condemning, not the quest of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens for equal civil rights.

Equal marriage DOES protect families and children, as there are countless same sex couples raising children across the Equal marriage DOES NOT take away a single thing from "traditional families." The state issues marriage licenses to any two consenting adults who wish to marry, and no church is forced to marry any couple whose marriage they disapprove of (for example, divorced persons can marry even though the Catholic Church disapproves). Folks will keep on having children regardless of whether their gay and lesbian neighbors, co-workers, friends or family members are permitted to marry. Denying us this civil right, which many faiths believe is our civil right, only serves to make our lives more difficult and our children's lives more insecure. It does not and will never make us go away.

How many homes or schools could $70 million build? How many people could be fed and cared for? Please stop this nightmare.

Does no one realize that church marriage and legal marriage are two different things? What does two gay people getting a marriage certificate have to do with what the priest thinks or does, and what does the priests thoughts have to do with two gay people? The priest also does not beleive in divorce or pre-marital sex, and he is free to preach on that. But what does this have to do with whether the city clerk issues a marriage certificate to someone?

Common sense makes sense, but the powers that be would rather keep us arguing about this crap, rather than looking at the true injustices of the world.

They should strip the powers of the church and other clergy to perform legal marriages and require everyone to go to city hall and get married in front of the city clerk. And if the people also want to do the church thing then they can, but one should not be connected with the other.

You Bishops and any one else who thinks marriage has remained the same for millennia, need a history lesson! Marriage has changed over the centuries and will continue to do so as does everything in life. The ones who suffer are those who resist evolution and progress as they stay stagnant and waste in there own fear. No one owns the word marriage. Religion needs to stay out of the states politics. Civil marriage is not affecting your religious form of marriage ceremony. I think it is time for a petition that discusses the losing of the church's tax exempt status as it preaches politics from the pulpit.

If gays were not demonized for millennia, this would not be an issue today as blacks and whites can now marry where it was illegal in the 1960's before that was over turned.

A jesuit once told me at college: "the church doesn't create social trends, it follows them." And so, when the older ideologues of the clergy die off, the r.c. church will see the hatred and bigotry of opposing civil marriage for same sex couples, and thus change. But for now, this is their idea of Jesus' message. Please be patient with all sides of this issue. Love is the answer, as always.

Change is bad, Mkay? Bad.

Why not drop the pretense and advocate a return to the good old days. You know, back when women were chattel.

Sorry 'Common Sense', Marriage is first and foremost a civil institution. Marriage is a good of civil society, of which we live in exactly one. Whereas we have multiple religious societies co-existing.

Thus every Catholic couple getting married in Church has a marriage license issued by the state, and the Priest cannot marry them without it.

It also explains why other churches that are for gay equality in marriage do not perform gay marriages where the state doesn't offer it, but instead 'solemnize' their civil union.

Ever since Gay marriage has come to Massachusetts the sky has fallen in and Sodom and Gommorah are present in the Commonwealth. Look at all those families that have been broken up due to the Gay marriage thing The Commonwealth is a better place for all. Go back to your churches and pray for us all.

'To redefine marriage to include same-sex couples is to strip marriage of an essential component, namely the ability and obligation to procreate,'

so - should women who are menopausal not be allowed to marry?
men who are unable to reproduce, should they not be allowed to marry?
older people who have no intention of having kids, not allowed to marry?
men who have had vasectomies - not allowed to marry?

Bish Malone - If priests are married to God, where is the licence?

the "gays can't procreate" argument, we can agree that that's crap right? that doesn't make any sense at all, correct?

do non-gays have to pass fertility tests and sign papers with the church agreeing to their "obligation to procreate"?

my father, who was well past the age of having children and had had a vasectomy, married his new wife a few years after my mother died (and his new wife's husband had died). my father and his new wife NEVER planned on having children and - indeed - couldn't have had children if they tried.

should they have been denied their marriage by the church?

the "gays can't procreate" argument doesn't work. the "sanctity of marriage" argument falls flat in the age of 50%+ divorce rates and elvis-themed weddings in Vegas and 48-hour Britney Spears weddings... so what's left?

Firstly, everyone's entitled to an opinion. If you don't agree, don't resort to name calling.

Marriage (even civil marriage) is NOT a Right. You do not have the RIGHT to marry anyone you want (hence relatives, minors, polygamy, etc) regardless of how much love is there . The law (as enacted by the Legislative Branch, not executive or judicial) provides the framework governing civil marriage.

MA has not enacted a law explicity allowing gays to marry. The judicial branch has decided that the laws as written, cannot bar two gays from marrying.

That being said, I have no problem with gay's marrying. Do I think it's "right"? No, but in general it doesn't affect me. Keep the issue out of the schools, especially K-5. It's not public education's place to teach marital relationships of any type to children that young.

I do have a concern with child rearing, though. I agree that a same sex family can provide a loving, nuturing home for children, as good or better than some traditional families.. However, I don't believe that a same sex couple provides the balance of viewpoints and experiences that both a man and a woman can provide to a child.

ah, common sense what about "straight folks" that don't belong to a particular church or have agnostic or atheist viewpoints? Who marries them?

To poster #4,

Articulated beautifully!

To poster #3,

You're an idiot!

So Bishop Malone, if I am driving through ME and get seriously injured in an auto accident, are you willing to stand up to an ER doctor and demand that my wife be allowed to make medical decisions for me (as is the case here in MA)? Because without the protection of legal marriage - same-sex couples rely on the pity and kindness of strangers in cases like that.

We do not presume to ask for any church's blessings except the one we attend. We do not presume to ask that you agree with our union. What we DO presume to ask for is the full rights and responsibilities of marriage under the laws of the U.S. Nothing more - nothing less. It has been proven time and time again that civil unions (and gay marriage outside of MA, CT or NY) do NOT offer sufficient protections. If marriage is solely about having and raising children, then I shall look forward to seeing the marriages of straight couples who cannot and/or will not have children dissolved by the state post-haste.

"...the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." So said JFK in his inauguration address. I believe we would all agree that even if we don't believe in God, we believe in equality and equal rights. But where does that equality come from? JFK said it comes from God, you can say it comes from Mother Nature, I can say it comes from Biology but it is something other than a vote or a court's decision. It transcends these things.

It is our humanity. Our humanity is our equality, the former fundamental to the latter. No argument so far? Good. Keep reading.

If the state specifically or the country in general has any hope of communicating real equality in the civil rights it establishes for it's citizens it must first recognize something much more basic. Consider that gay or straight every single human, 6 billion of us or so, is born of the bond from one sperm and one egg and ask yourself what can be more transcendent than that? What else can we point to and say, "This is the reason that you and I are equal. This is the reason I deserve the same rights as you." There is nothing. It is the quintessential thread that binds all of us together. Recognition of that must precede any discussion of equality.

This is the reason the bond of one man and one woman is unique amongst relationships. This is the reason it must be recognized as fundamentally different from other relationships not just in religion but socially. It is the very wellspring of or equality. Without it we have nothing to restrain us from unmitigated hate.

"justmyopinion,"

You said:

"I do have a concern with child rearing, though. I agree that a same sex family can provide a loving, nuturing home for children, as good or better than some traditional families.. However, I don't believe that a same sex couple provides the balance of viewpoints and experiences that both a man and a woman can provide to a child."

I actually think a gay couple often provides a unique insight into raising a child, in that for our entire lives (including our childhoods, mind you...gay adults were once gay children, and we should know, we're the gay ones) we've been ridiculed, attacked, marginalized, and misunderstood; gay parents have a TREMENDOUS sensitivity into the emotional needs of a child.

I think, if anything, gay parents will be exceptionally compassionate, understanding, nurturing, protective, and loving...

AND...they will teach their children to be kind, loving, and respectful of others....something I wish many of the heterosexual parents of some of my schoolmates had taught THEIR children.

I find it fascinating, too, that often people say, "Gay couples are so selfish to want children...just think about all the teasing those kids will go through."

I ask myself, "Shouldn't we, rather, be upset with and concerned about the parents raising kids who tease and torment other children?" They had to learn it somewhere. Of course, sadly, people's first instinct/habit is to blame the gays.

Anyway, just my thoughts. Peace to all.

I am amazed at the number of people who purport to speak authoritatively about what has been the rule for thousands of years, or for centuries. I have no quarrel with asserting a vested obligation for anyone, say between 200 and 2000 years old, to stick it out - after all some oppressive religions or jurisdictions quite close to home only recently allowed divorce, and only in my lifetime has the federal government stood behind anti-lynching initiatives. Contracts, such as thousand year old marriage obligations between consenting adults, must continue to be enforced, if they exist. But it is another matter to assert that this world, hypothesized in ignorance, world must govern others whom it would manifestly oppress.

I wish Malone would spend more time protecting children from pedophile priests than sticking his nose in consenting adults personal business

While everyone's screaming about who has a right to marry whom and what role religion plays, I think we're forgetting what rights we really have been granted. Marriage, isn't a right. If you don't believe me, check the first 10 Amendments of the Constitution that lists our rights as American Citizens. You know, that thing we call out "Bill of Rights".

While you're checking that out, you might want to read that first one closely and notice the part about "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Now, consider this. Religous leaders (priests, ministers, rabbis, etc.) are given legal right to marry two people. Now if a state (or the country) goes ahead and amends the laws so that same sex marriage is legal, that means if a couple goes before any person given the right to marry legally and are refused on the basis of being the same-sex, that's a lawsuit waiting to happen. The state would then be "forced" to make the person who refused marriage follow the law since, well, it's the law. That would then infringe on that religous establishment's right to not have Congress make laws regarding it. If it's the Catholic Church's (or any church's) position that same-sex marriage is wrong - whether that opinion is right or wrong - the Constitution guarantees that they cannot be legislated out of that opinion.

Personally, I'm not sure how I really feel on the matter. I do have strong opinions, though, about rights that the Constitution guarantees us as Americans being trampled. As long as the marriage that a religous group performs is equated with a legal, civil marriage, then no, I don't think there should be laws put into place to allow same-sex marriage as it will end up infringing the rights of established religions - rights which are guaranteed by the Constitution.

Peter.. gay parents, just like straight, can be equally "compassionate, understanding, nurturing, protective, and loving..." Every parent should teach respect and tolerance of others to their children. I don't think of that as a gay/straight issue, that's a parenting issue.

My concerns are more specific to the needs during the teenage years.. ie, male and female health and reproductive health issues, puberty changes, etc, and the emotions that go with it. I can't imagine that having two moms can help a teenage boy understand what's going on in his body, or likewise two dads with a adolescent daughter.

I also find it a bit odd that over the past 20 yrs or so, the major issue involving single moms with sons was not having a male role model in the household. Now with the gay movement, there is no issue with having two mom's parenting a son. Seems a bit of a double standard.

"justmyopinion," and Peter -
I agree with Peter's observations and would add that the "pro-family" (and usually anti-gay) organizations are disingenuous and deceptive when they contrast "gay families" with what they consider "ideal" families. In Massachusetts, almost one out of three children lives in a single-parent home. Many of these children live in poverty because their single parent cannot meet the demands of parenting and earning a decent living at the same time. The Catholic Church opposes divorce, but I will guaranty you there are tens of thousands of Massachustts children (and probably Maine children as well) living in Catholic single-parent homes.

And for many same-sex couples, the choice is not whether to have children (many have adopetd children, many are caring for their own children from previous hetero marriages or relationships), the choice is whether they and their children will have the security of the many benefits the state accords to married couples and the dignity of a legally-recognized relationship that has a name.

Poster #26. I couldn't agree with you more.

To Alan from Western Ma -- What sky has fallen? I have been to many weddings in this state -both gay and straight and I have to say I am still waiting for the sky to drop! There has been numerous weddings in this state- as well as numerous divorces but I cannot say for a fact that those have been because Gay Marriage. If you can - with facts to prove it - then share with us, enlight us? Many people out there, do went through the process of getting married(to the opposite sex) knowing they were gay -becuase "that is what was expected" (as I have been told by some who had married). WHY? Let people marry: gay, straight, and let them share the love --afterall is all about LOVE!

bluetoille,
You are being disingenuous. No religious leader has an obligation to marry anyone they don't want to marry. A Catholic priest won't marry, and doesn't have to marry, anyone who isn't Catholic. In fact, hedon't even have to marry a couple of Catholics if he doesn't want to. That's true today and it'll be true tomorrow.

What we have today is that the State automatically recognizes a religious marriage ceremony as also being a civil marriage ceremony. We don't have a situation where a religious leader has an obligation to perform a civil marriage for anyone who wants one.

It would be simpler if this was not true. If everyone who wanted to be legally married had to appear before a Justice of the Peace and have a civil ceremony in addition to whatever religious ceremony they might choose to have.

Then we'd have less of the misstatements such as yours.

ps; in ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL the USSC found that marriage was a fundamental right, and I think that if, for example, the government started charging $10,000 for a marriage license, there'd be lots of lawsuits filed about preventing people from exercising their right to get married.

I find it interesting that the Catholic Church is so opposed to same-sex marriage, when in the Bishop's own letter (followed from the link in the story) states "...the Church's authoritative teaching when it declares that homosexual persons 'must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."

Isn't preventing me from marrying my partner, whom I have been with for ten years, a form of discrimination? I'm not asking the Bishop to personally perform our ceremony, I left the Catholic Church years ago because I don't go where I'm not welcome. However, I would like to share the same legal rights as any other couple in the country who has gotten a marriage license - hospital visitation, inheritance benefits, tax status, etc etc. There are over 1000 benefits that the Federal Government bestows upon a couple who has a civil marriage, and my partner and I have none of those afforded to us.

If one ignores biology, the nature that made us, condemn it all as irrelevant what is to stop us from condemning our neighbors, ourselves, our own children as irrelevant as well?

Where does our innate dignity come from if not from that which, quite literally, makes us human?

To bluetoille (#29): Equal marriage has existed in Massachusetts for 4 years now and not a single church has been forced to marry any same-sex couple. There are no law suits for the same reason that a Catholic couple cannot sue to be married in a Jewish Temple or a divorced couple cannot sue to be married in a Catholic church. What HAS happened is that churches that want to honor and marry same-sex couples in their congregations finally are able to. The state respects the religion beliefs (or lack thereof) of ALL its people when it supports equal civil marriage, NOT when it forces one church's view of marriage on everyone else.

To JustMyOpinion (#30): I read a study that found that children of lesbian couples actually had MORE access to positive male role models than most children -- even children in "traditional" families -- because their moms go out of their way to make sure that the kids don't miss out. When I was a kid, my father worked all the time. I can't remember a single important conversation that I had with him about anything -- my mom was the one who was there for us -- while I have friends who grew up in families where it was the exact opposite and the dad was the approachable one. So even in "traditional" families, one parent or the other may be closer to the kids, male or female, and gender has little to do with it.

But the important thing in this discussion today is that the state doesn't condition the granting of a civil marriage license on anything to do with having children -- or else fertility testing and parenting classes would be required of everyone, and your marriage license would be revoked if you didn't have children or were a bad parent.
That's not the law. We expect adults to be able to make their own decisions about who to marry and how to raise their children; we depend on all kinds of social institutions -- family, work, the church, schools -- and non-family members -- neighbors, doctors, friends, teachers, day-care providers, etc. -- to help families succeed. Gay and lesbian parents are a part of all of these same institutions and have all of the same contact with neighbors, friends, doctors, teachers, day-care providers, etc., as any other family. If you care about kids, you must support equal civil marriage rights for same-sex couples. That's the best way to support and protect kids of same-sex couples, AND to help gay and lesbian kids who are growing up in "traditional" families (the overwhelming majority of us are, after all, born of heterosexual couples and are quite alone trying to figure out why we are different). Imagine a gay teenager sitting in church and hearing that Bishop's letter read to the congregation. Is that a Christian thing to do to anyone? And is it any wonder why the suicide rate is still so high for gay teenagers?

To John Adams (#25 and #36): I am trying to understand your argument. I, too, believe, as I suspect you do, that human dignity is innate and much of our world's problems stem from the failure of some human beings to see our common humanity with other human beings. But I think you have reduced your vision to a tiny speck and a brief moment in time, when compassion and empathy call on us to open our hearts and eyes wide. It is not the fact that we are all the product of egg and sperm that gives us human dignity -- before science ever understood such things people fought for justice and human rights, after all, and great philosophers opined as to the human condition. I would guess it is human consciousness and experience that is the source of our dignity. The contradiction inherent in the view you propose is that it elevates biology over everything else, including human consciousness and experience -- and dignifies only some kinds of biological parenting and relationships while marginalizing others.

I do not know if there is a God, but if there is a God and if She made me, She made me gay. I can live and love no other way. When you deny me the ability to live my life fully, safely and with integrity, to love and take care of the one who loves me and our children, you deny me my dignity, and you deny my family our dignity. If I am the same as you because we both came from the union of sperm and egg, then I am entitled to the same rights and respect you have.

the Fundamental question is: has any group on the same-sex marriage side tried to put through an amendment assuring their thesis? No. Because they know, that in no state, including the most liberal, CA, will they be approved. That makes you anti-democratic, authoritarian. The point is, as John Adams has stated above, is that when he and the other wrote the US and MA constitutions, and the word 'marriage' popped up, ' in their minds it always meant the union of one man and one woman for the possiblility of procreation and education of children.IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE MEANING OF MARRIAGE,YOU, NOT THE STATUS QUO-ERS, NEED TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT. Good Luck; but the black and women civil righters did it. You try to change the rules of the ball game in mid stram, that now we, who have the status quo, have to go through the arduous amendment process. If you succeed, as you did in electing Obama, fine, we'll deal with that too.

There is a very nice word for committed homosexual relationships--friendships.

Amen JP Gal: but just change the word for your status. The word 'marriage' has a ten thousand year history. Call yours 'friendship, or asdf;lkjf, or whatever, but it ain't a marriage according to Judaeo-Christian-Greco-Roman culture in which we live.

once again the line has been crossed and the church is breaking it's agreement to live within the rules that assure it's tax free status. this is an institution which has, most recently, tolerated the rape and abuse of minors, has in it's history such horrors as burning at the stake anyone who disagrees with it, castrating boys, amassing knowledge in order to keep it's 'flocks' uneducated and more easily controlled. how the church believes it carries ANY moral weight is beyond me, other than there are still so many willing to live under the tyranny of superstition. the church needs to shut up or pay up. if it had to support it's infrastructure on it's own and not rely on it's subject's being able to deduct their donations from their taxes it would have plenty to keep it busy. the church is entitled to it's beliefs. they are beliefs and not a reflection of reality. certainly not my reality. it is absurd that i or anyone else of 'other' belief should have our lives at risk due to a mob following
what i consider no more than the equivalent of grimm's fairy tales. group hallucination does not define reality.

JPGal,

Above all else this discourse needs to be civil and respectful. In no way an easy task for something that rightfully stirs so much feeling. And especially not on a blog where anonymity sometimes emboldens our emotions making it exceedingly easy to forget that there are other, tangible, flesh and blood human beings on the other side of our monitors. I feel your post is trying to do that (civility and respect) so first and foremost thank you for it.

To the point of compassion and empathy, these things serve us well at all times and should always temper our reason, on this we agree completely I think. I would respectfully submit to you however that our dignity stems not from our consciousness and experience for then it would not be innate, as everyone would have a different consciousness and experience and therefore dignity and this cannot be true if we believe in equality. We are equal because we are people.

I am not trying to elevate biology to any level other than the one it occupies presently and only wish that we recognize its role in our lives, an essential one I think we would agree since it created both you and I and, gay or straight, neither of us would be here without it.

You close by asking if you are entitled to the same rights and respect that I am. And the answer is, ‘of course’. The logic I’m endorsing can lead to no other conclusion. And in the realm of social consciousness where legislatures have the power to forbid or encourage particular actions of persons a proper understanding of what a “person” is becomes positively vital. The foundation for establishing rights on a human much less civil right comes from this same understanding.

These questions are not easily answered. But we must first ask the right questions if the answers are to be meaningful. Thank you for reading my post.

But it is marriage according to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, gaudette (#40) -- that's what our license says. And if we're going by the"10,000 year history of marriage,'" then polygamy and incest (widely practiced in the Old Testament), marriage only for landowners (as was the case throughout much of European history), extinguishing all of a woman's legal rights when she marries (which was the law in this country until the last century), and no marriage at all for mixed raced couples (legal in the US until 1967) would be the law of the land. Obviously, as we have come to understand that previously second-class citizens (non-landowners, women and blacks) should be full citizens in the eyes of the law, the "timeless" definition of marriage has changed. Marriage is not and never has been defined in the Constitution, and a group's civil rights have never depended on being able to amend the Constitution (the ERA failed, after all, but we still permit women to own property and retain their individual rights once they marry).

But how many times do we have to say that all we're talking about is CIVIL marriage here -- just the license that the state grants to any two consenting adults over the age of 18 -- not what happens in your church? I respect your religious beliefs and I don't expect to change your mind, but please don't try to tell me that your religious view of marriage should be the law of the land, especially when other churches disagree and want to be free to exercise their beliefs as well.

And it is definitely NOT antidemocratic for any minority community to seek to secure its civil rights through the courts -- the system was designed for this to happen; the rules haven't been changed. Our founding fathers established a system to protect the minority from the "tyranny of the majority," and wrote the Constitution so that it applies to all of us, even those who are condemned or despised. Thus it took a Supreme Court decision to recognize the rights of African-Americans to full citizenship (Plessy v. Ferguson), and to give all of us the right to a lawyer if we have been arrested (Miranda). That's the same Supreme Court that said that a convicted murderer, serving a life sentence with no possibility of parole, has the right to marry the woman he loves. I'd kind of like my community -- on the whole a pretty law-abiding, tax-paying, church-going and responsible group of people -- to have the same rights that guy has.

John Adams,

Thank you for your kind words. I, too, hope that our discourse can be civil and respectful. I have tried for many years, as this debate unfolded in Massachusetts, to understand the opposition to equal marriage rights, and to respect that people's religious beliefs and life experiences shape their views and perhaps those views will never change. What seems so clear and reasonable to me seems like something else to you. But I think in this debate we are often having two different conversations: one about beliefs, and another about what our civil law is or should be. I often become frustrated when folks argue for a version of marriage that simply does not exist in reality -- in reality, complete strangers who are of the opposite sex can legally marry (I think Brittany Spears is a good example!) and in reality, no church can be forced to perform a wedding for any couple whose marriage it disapproves of. If you look at the reality of civil marriage, which delivers a staggering array of benefits and obligations along with the marriage license that are impossible to obtain elsewhere, denying same-sex couples the right to marry makes no sense.

But when we are talking about beliefs, I would hope that I could persuade you not to fear or suspect your gay & lesbian sisters and brothers because we are all one human family and every religion and every God teaches us to love one another, but I may not be able to. I would hope that I could persuade you that the best American tradition is the tradition of "live and let live," and all that the gay and lesbain community is asking is to be allowed to live in peace. But I may not be able to. You may never believe that my marriage is equal to yours and you may always believe that gay and lesbian couples should not be permitted to marry. In that case, I respect your beliefs but I will fight with all my power to keep them from becoming law.

And if I understand your last post, I think you are saying that to the extent you are I are the "same", we are entitled to equality. And to the extent that we are different, the law may treat us differently. I guess that is where we part company, because I believe that even if we are different, we are entitled to the same basic civil rights because of our common humanity.

Thank you again.

Don't some of your recognize that Paulson is posting this because a) Yes, it's timely and important and 2) to enrage some of you in your already white-hot vitriole for the Church?

50% of heterosexual marriages ending in divorce does not an argument for same sex marriage make. Something fails so you widen and delute what it means? That's not "innovation"; that's nonsense.

Marriage isn't a right much less an inalienable one. Just because you feel it should be doesn't mean that it is.

well said, jp gal. it should be noted that until relatively recently, the beginning of the modern era, the church had no interest in marriage. it was believed to be beneath it's consideration. purely a civil contract between two parties. it assured the passage of goods from one generation to the next by cementing relationship. that is where the idea of legitimacy comes from. a legitimate heir was one who's parentage was clear. for countless generations marriage was a contract made for children by parents, no love involved, no religion involved, unless by choice. when it became clear that revenue could be made from it, marriage was co-opted by the church. since both sides of this argument are so passionate it becomes extremely difficult to have a dialogue. we want equal rights UNDER THE LAW with no intention of pulling the church into it. nor do we want it there. same-sex marriage has gained much ground and support. that is the direction in which our culture is going, toward understanding and acceptance. we just bide our time and accept that we may not see it's full fruition in our lifetimes but it will come. and we will continue to fight. and you will continue to fight. it will be acceptance and tolerance that will ultimately prevail.

gaudete - You just don't have your facts right. One of the main functions of our Constitutions (federal and state) and the courts is to protect the rights of minorities from abrogation by the majority. Most of the major advances in civil rights for blacks started with court decisions, and only years later was legislation passed to confirm and codify the advances. If basic rights had to be approved by referendum in every state, a third of the states might still be segregated.

It was illegal in most of the U.S. for a white person to marry a black person until 1948 when the California Supreme Court found that the anti-miscegenation law violated the Constitution (in a case it cited this past summer when it found that prohibitions on same-sex marriage also violated the state constitution). It was not until 1967 that the US Supreme Court held in 'Loving v. Virginia' that laws against black/white intermarriage violated the U.S. Constitution. Thus essentially the definition of "marriage" was changed by the Court, not by a referendum or an act of Congress, from "one man and one woman of the same race" to "one man and one woman." Now it's time to change it again.

btw - Those who want to conform our civil laws to their religious beliefs and interpretations of "God's intent" not only do violence to the Constitution, they usually end up looking ridiculous. To wit - the trial court judge in the Loving case who wrote the following justification of the Virginia law (and the guilty verdict he issued):

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix."

of note, it is unlikely that, put to popular vote, the American Revolution would have occured.

touche, and simply because you feel it is not a right does not mean it is not, we define rights as we move along. hopefully when we encounter a fault in our thinking and are forced to look at that, we can evolve to outgrow said incorrect or outmoded thinking.

JPGal,

I would just like to first point out that my only reference to religion was the use of the word, “God” in a quote from JFK, and then it was dismissed as irrelevant to the argument specifically.

You assert that marriage confers a “staggering array of benefits and obligations… impossible to obtain elsewhere”, and I would not disagree. Why is this so? As I’ve tried to detail in my previous posts, I believe the couples are not the only one receiving benefits but the state and society do as well. Specifically society reinforces it’s understanding of equality from humanity, but also a whole host of other benefits I have not mentioned such as reduction of poverty, crime, etc… It is much the same way that a company I take a job at receives benefits from my services and reciprocates. The company is under no obligation to provide me those benefits and I under none to work for them. Neither are they obligated to provide the same benefits for non-employees.

Now I do understand the point same sex couples have about inheritance, or hospital visitations for example, but it seems to me that there are ways to grant those benefits without jeopardizing that that provides us the fundamental understanding of our equality. If there are problems with how that is accomplished that should be addressed. But if the state fails to recognize the uniqueness of hetero marriage all those other rights are also in jeopardy, because it essentially says that the people (i.e. the state) define what they are. Since definitions will differ equality becomes concept only.

To your point about fear and suspicion of the GLBT community, I think this is a common misconception amongst that community. I engender no fear or suspicion towards its members, nor do the majority of people sharing my opinion. Rather what we fear and suspect is a slow erosion of the rights of all citizens that begins with the failure to recognize our common humanity, as you say. And where we part company is not at the belief that different people are entitled to the same rights, for on this we concur. Where we part company is in the understanding of what it takes to ensure those rights. I say it requires a social recognition of our humanity implicit in the institute of hetero marriage. You say it requires guarantee of law. But laws like the men and women that write them are fallible and subject to change. Some things shouldn’t be.

Finally, I’ll just say thanks for sharing your thoughts. It’s hard sometimes to have a dialogue like this and the opportunity is not one either of us should walk away from.

It is too bad more readers have not accessed the link to all of Bishop Malone's sermon. He refers to the union of a man and woman as a primary image (sign) of God's union with God's people.
Astrophysics presently teaches that the entire cosmos originated as energy from a point of no dimensions. So also, does the human body-person evolve from a "point" of no dimensions. One is creative, the other pro-creative, i.e., "out of no thing", one proceeding from union, the other from the sign of that union. Fitting unions are fruitful, or should be.

Catholics: We Do Not Like Your Families Either.