Gay marriage backed in Catholic states

If it's so well accepted and backed by all these states, why won't they let THE PEOPLE vote on it?

I think this demonstrates both the dwindling authority of conservative bishops when it comes to matters of personal morality (especially since their defensive response to the abuse crisis) as well as the recognition, among a more broad-minded laity, of marriage equality as a social justice concern.

It's not inconceivable, from this point of view, that were Jesus to suddenly rejoin us in physical form, s/he would be marching in defense of equal protection for gay and lesbian citizens, instead of holding signs describing whom God hates and for what reasons.

I also suspect that, especially since the previous eight years' experiment in conservatism, there's a growing wariness on the part of the broader electorate about clerical intrusions into personal matters, such as whom to marry or how to manage a pregnancy.

Gee, I guess there's not many Catholics in CAlifornia.

Whats so stupid about this is that NY and Calif are the most liberal states in the country. if those states have more blacks than any other state, does it mean that more blacks support gay marriage just bacause they live in those states?

Stupid article

"If it's so well accepted and backed by all these states, why won't they let THE PEOPLE vote on it?"
Posted by FX July 29, 09 05:01 PM

For the same reason that your own rights are not subject to a vote. Rights occur at birth, not as a matter of public approval. You do not have the right to deny rights to others. However, if you oppose same-sex marriage, don't marry someone from the same sex.

I wonder if some of the support for equal marriage comes from the fact that the Catholic Church so strongly supports marriage. Among my gay & lesbian friends who had commitment ceremonies and civil unions long before marriage was available to them and then had civil marriages as soon as it was, most are Catholic, and marriage is deeply important to them. If the Church is teaching that marriage is a fundamental social institution and a defining characteristic of a moral and ethical life, those overarching principles apply to both same sex and opposite sex couples. In fact, that was what the California Supreme Court said (before its decision was reversed by Prop. 8): that marriage is too important to society to exclude gays & lesbians.

This is a sad commentary on cultural Catholicism - the failure of Catholics to know and live their faith, in no small part because our Catholic high schools and universities are filled with outspoken dissenters, and our priests are not strong enough believers to preach the hard truths of our faith. Being Catholic means living a radically different life for Christ and that will not coincide with the popular permissive values of our times. The young people are leaving in droves because their parents are not teaching them to pray and to value the sacraments... because their parents watered down the message ... because we wanted to be affirmed in our sins.

I guess it proves that what we say we believe in isn't really what our actions indicate.

Aaah. The fruits of Vatican II.

"The young people are leaving in droves because their parents are not teaching them to pray and to value the sacraments... because their parents watered down the message ... because we wanted to be affirmed in our sins."
Posted by Karen July 29, 09 06:07 PM

Karen, I suggest that you concern your self with your own "sins", which apparently include a substantial intolerance, plus the arrogance to believe that you know the mind of the Divine. And your basis for your statement as to young people departing your church, and the reasons for that are what? Hard objective fact? Do you have the studies to support your claims? Or is it simply wishful thinking on your part that people in your church will leave unless your church demonstrates a brutal enough level of intolerance?

They elevated an unsafe fetish to some type of equal status with real marriage. Amazing and sad.
Vote radical Democrats out.
Watch the schools folks - they try to indoctrinate the kids. Get the right folks on the School Committees and stop the rainbow agenda. Demand accountability and equal status.

This is an interesting insight from a post entitled "Why Marriage?" on Megan McArdle's blog at The Atlantic. Catholics have a finely-honed understanding of the difference between marriage in the church and civil marriage. We all know people who are considered divorced by the state but not by the church. Protestant and Reform Judaism (from what I read) do not have the same distinction. Members of those faiths are considered married and divorced when the state sanctions it, not at the blessing of religious authorities. This might be one of the reasons that gays and lesbians marrying doesn't bother Catholics as much. Catholics understand that civil marriage for gays and lesbians doesn't disrupt the Catholic sacramental institution. Why not let our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters have the security and recognition of a civil marriage when the Church isn't forced to recognize them?

Mr. Paulson. I'm disappointed is that your first reaction is to search for counterexamples, rather than to perhaps put your own biases on hold.
University of Chicago sociologist Andrew Greeley has shown lower rates of Anti-Semitism and racism among Catholics-lowest among Irish Catholics-than among the population at large and the white Protestant population in particular.
It's not food for thought unless you first digest it, bud.

I'm sure I'll get angry replies from "real Catholics", but I am Catholic and support same-sex marriage. The primary reason I support same-sex marriage is the seperation of church and state. What I want to do at home is my business, but the right to do those things must be protected. Being a woman of science, I know that homosexuality is a biological issue, not an issue of choice, thus those rights need to be protected. As mentioned in the article, I am one of those liberal Catholics with a strong emphasis on social justice (I attend the Paulist Center). The marriage of two men or two women would not deminish the meaning of marriages between a man and a woman, it would instead provide a richer and safer society. I plan to read "Heather has Two Mommies" to my baptized children.
Contrary to previous comments, I come from a devout family, including nuns and priests. i think they would value my arguement as well thought out and exemplary of the Christian values - respect (Matthew 5:43-48), humility (Proverbs 17:7), and honesty (Exodus 20:16).

FX,

Why do we need to vote on it? Our judicial and legislative processes are just as binding and legal as a vote of the populace. Frankly, I think the courts and our legislators did their job. We elected our legislators to vote for us and they did. Most of them voted not to bring the issue to a ballot of the people. Fair enough. That's their job. They've done it. Let's move on.

As a Catholic I believe firmly that the sacrament of marriage, as taught by the Catholic tradition is between a man and a woman. However, the marriage that gay men and women seek, is not the sacramental institution within the Catholic Church. It's a legal recognition within secular society in which men and women of all faiths and creeds attempt to coexist.

Matthwew 22:21 - "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." As a straight Catholic, I have no issue with non-Catholic gay and lesbians wanting to legally bind themselves in secular marriage. And for Catholic gays and lebsians who wish to do so, that decision is between them and God.

It all depends how you define Catholic. I an technically a Catholic but I haven't set foot in a Catholic Church since I was 15. The Pope and Church live in the dark ages and are so out of touch it is laughable. There are many, many Catholics like me - in fact I would assume we are the vast majority. We don't buy their narrow minded thinking. Many of us lapsed Catholics support a woman's right to choose an abortion, gay marriage, priesthood for women, and that priests should marry if they want to.

Only old people still go to Church and buy the garbage that they teach.

Ontheleft, "rights" certainly are subject to a vote. Ever heard of Prop. 8? Dolt.

This certainly does reflect the illiteracy of so many Catholics as to their own Faith but I think, Michael, this linkage has not as much to do with Faith as it does pure ideology. "Catholic states support gay marriage" is a peculiar assertion when no elected representatives voted in favor of it, save Vermont and they already had the ball rolling with civil unions in 2000. Otherwise, it was done by judicial fiat.

And what of California, Michael?

LeftyLucy, I wouldn't get too deep in the scriptural passage supports my argument game. You won't like where that goes.

OnTheLeft, my goodness an ad hominem against another commenter on this blog? You DON'T SAY! Karen did say "our sins" not "your" or "other peoples'" Did you fail to realize that you're criticizing Karen with the same intolerance you pretend to oppose? Funny how that works...

For the record, the ARIS survey defines Catholic as whoever answers "Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" to the question, "What is your religion, if any?"

Catholicism, in terms of how you answer a survey, is as much a cultural thing as it is religious or dogmatic. There are MILLIONS of atheist survey-answer-Catholics in this country, particularly in the northeast. Heck, I'm one of them. And there's more agnostic survey-Catholics. The type of people who take communion at Grandma's funeral, the kind who went to CCD for 8 years as a kid, the kind that got confirmed by a sex-scandal hiding Cardinal. These people have all walked away from the Church, and most of the beliefs of the Church, but they absolutely still consider themselves Catholic. These people are not really influenced by the Church's opinions on pretty much anything, but they still count as Catholic to the pollsters.

Other versions of Christianity don't have the same problem. You're a Baptist by choice, but you're a Catholic by birth.

"If it's so well accepted and backed by all these states, why won't they let THE PEOPLE vote on it?" Posted by FX

For the same reason that the people didn't vote on slavery, segregation, women's rights, etc. If any of those had been subjected to a popular vote, we'd probably still have slavery and segregation, and women wouldn't have the vote. You don't get to vote on rights because rights are not a political popularity contest - they're a matter of the constitution. They are "inalienable" and sometimes, the executive, legislative and judicial arms of our government need to remind "We, the people" of that.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Messrs Silk and Paulson, seem to trim the facts to suit their prejudices. California voted down same-sex marriage and Catholics, especially Hispanics, were a large factor there. But even Catholics, who feel obliged to oppose same-sex marriage, also know our own history, as oppressed peoples. In 1848 the US drew a line across what had previously been Mexico, making those born south of it; aliens. And every Bostonian knows about, “We Want No Irish Here!” And while the Church opposes same-sex marriage, it also teaches against unjust persecution of homosexual persons (etc.). And state marriage law; which allows divorce, while our Church does not; is really alien to Catholics. And when George W. Bush invaded Iraq, our saintly Pope, John Paul (and also the then “Cardinal Ratzinger”) wept. So how could we make common cause with people who claimed to be “pro-life”, but supported that criminal war?' So, the vast majority of Catholics voted Democratic. Anyway, “same-sex marriage”, is such a piddling issue!

FX,

Why do we need to vote on it?"

You're right: we don't and shouldn't.

It's an issue about rights under the Constitution ,not something to leave to average people, many of whom don't have a clue what the Constitution says. Especially Republicans, some of whom would vote for slavery if they could.

Next to be studied will be catholic support of and opposition to gay marriage as measured by by the height of catholics.

First of all, the term 'gay marriage' is an oxymoron.

Secondly, this article is an example of 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' chop logic. It's like saying, my rooster crows every morning, the sun comes up every morning, therefore, my rooster causes the sun to rise.

Catholics who are in favor of abortion or same sex marriage are CINO's, Catholics in name only.

Several Catholic commenters said that they thought marriage in church should remain traditional, heterosexual, but wouldn't mind if civil marriages were same sex. But Catholics, as well as other faithful Christians, are called by our Catechism not to just bury themselves into their shell like a turtle, but to bring what they understand as best policy for our whole country, which we do on many other issues. We do it not to impose our faith [is being anti-murder imposing the 5th commandment?], but because no abortion and heterosexual marriage concord with the natural law. Furthermore, the law against them was the bedrock foundation of our country, so it is the left which is trying to, and already largely succeeding, to dynamite the stability of our society and culture, and such undermining should be politically opposed. After all, those of no faith feel free to weigh in on every issue, trying to impose their agnostic/atheist secularism on us.

@ "Ya know" (#11): An unsafe fetish? It's clear that there's much about the world you don't have a clue about. Maybe you should spend time addressing your own ignorance instead of commenting on blogs like you're some sort of expert and coming off like a fool. Evidently ya don't know much.

Once again Catholic Religion is accomodating the people. Instead of Gods word. It was never intended for man/man or woman/woman. I do not agree with gay anything but what the person chooses is on them and not on me. God Bless them in all there actions. But I know what I read in the word of God. If people would put away the religion and read what God says this would not be an issue.

What is a "Catholic state"? I am familiar with Catholic Churches, etc. but I wasn't aware that this country had any Catholic states. ---- It always seems to come down to the Ten Commandments (not ten suggestions); that is God's moral law(s) for His people. For those with a desire to "straighten up and fly right" they are the basis for moral behavior. For those who wish to keep doing whatever they want to do, they ignore them and go through all kinds of contortions and argument to avoid having to face the Ten Commandments.

I also think American Catholics, because of the unique history of this nation, are increasingly unlikely to look well upon being told what to think, how to feel, or how to behave, even when this is done under the guise of "teaching" or "guidance."

I think they, like Lucy, are much more likely to read the Good News for themselves and come to their own conclusions about what it means to be Catholic, rather than simply do what someone else says because of the office they hold or the passion with which they argue.

I suppose the British of the time would have said the colonists had "authority issues." I'm not inclined to disagree; except, perhaps, to automatically see the term as an insult.

Don't states with high percentages of Catholics also disproportionally support abortion rights? I think the reason has little to do with religion here and everything to do with demographics. States with lots of Catholics tend to be states with lots of immigrants from the historically less well-to-do parts of Europe (or in the case of California, Latin America.) That is, Ireland, Poland, Italy, etc... These people arrived in America and became part of the urban working poor and have tended to have a more "liberal" political position historically.

If homosexual "marriage" is so popular as claimed, why the desperate moves to prevent the people from voting on it?

"However, if you oppose same-sex marriage, don't marry someone from the same sex."

There's no such thing as same-sex "marriage". It's a contradiction in terms and you know it, which is why you must awkwardly juxtapose the two terms "same-sex" and "marriage" in an attempt to create meaning. Otherwise you would simply say "marriage". Marriage is between one man and one woman, despite what a few wacky politicians bought off with money from homosexual pressure groups think.

All citizens have the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex. No issue here.

"@ "Ya know" (#11): An unsafe fetish? It's clear that there's much about the world you don't have a clue about. Maybe you should spend time addressing your own ignorance instead of commenting on blogs like you're some sort of expert and coming off like a fool. Evidently ya don't know much."

Actually, it is you who is ignorant. The comment was right on the money. Homosexual behavior is filthy and dangerous, the greatest public heath risk there is.

I laughed at "Ya know's" comment calling non-hetero sex an "unsafe fetish." Clearly, s/he doesn't know what a fetish is (and s/he has a very, very strange definition of "unsafe").

I think that this correlation is just that: a correlation. Additionally, I think that there's enough variation among Catholic people that defining yourself as Catholic does not mean that your beliefs (or voting patterns) match everyone else who identifies as Catholic.

And for those people who are all, "Waaah, then you're not a real Catholic!" I'm sure you're not either, especially with the number of Commandments you break on a regular basis (graven images = nuh-uh, people; either you're worshipping a false idol, or you should never, ever depict Jesus).

@Minuteman: Funny, but somehow homosexuality didn't make it into the top ten! But "love they neighbo"r did, and I'm grateful to be living in a state where that principle means something.

This is where you have to be VERY careful about putting your trust in statistics as they can be manipulated to say pretty much anything you want. Technically I can make a case for saying that the Catholic Church brings crime and poverty to urban areas because that is where the highest number of Catholic Churches are located... so be careful when you read stuff like this. I always loved the quote from Mark Twain:

"There are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics."

'As a Catholic I believe firmly that the sacrament of marriage, as taught by the Catholic tradition is between a man and a woman. However, the marriage that gay men and women seek, is not the sacramental institution within the Catholic Church. It's a legal recognition within secular society in which men and women of all faiths and creeds attempt to coexist.'

I think JC made the perfect response to this issue. Churches already have the power to include or exclude whomever they wish in their marriages. The issue is that modern society confers many secular rights on married couples and same sex couples are not equally protected by the law as it stands. In the 70s and early 80s, fundamentalists decried the decadence and promiscuity of gay men, so I find it funny but also disingenuous that when we want to settle down and look a lot like 'boring' straight couples, everyone gets into a lather. Ok, I get it, you don't like us, but please get a life and let us live ours in stability with the person we love.

This issue was clearly very important to Christ, because he talked about it so much.

Oh, you think I'm kidding? His message was love. Love God, love your enemies, love your neighbors, allow yourself to experience the awesome and humbling love and grace of God. I'm gay, and He included me in his vision.

Too bad some people get caught up in what supposedly divides us, instead of what unites us.

MarciaC:
" FX,

Why do we need to vote on it?"

You're right: we don't and shouldn't.

It's an issue about rights under the Constitution ,not something to leave to average people, many of whom don't have a clue what the Constitution says. Especially Republicans, some of whom would vote for slavery if they could.
Posted by MarciaC July 30, 09 12:26 AM"

Marcia, it is (are) the Republican(s) who abolished slavery.

Donna C -

The "Catholic Religion" is not accommodating the people. Please pay attention to what is happening. The Church is unequivocal about the phony concept of "gay marriage", abortion, and other social teachings. You are being deceived by those who claim to be faithful Catholics, yet pick and choose which teaching they like and which they don't. Agree with your premise, it is pathetic, but is is not the Church.... it is those who want to conform the Church to their own personal preferences.

As you see above, there is even one poster who claims "faithfulness", even though she rejects Church teaching, and justifies it because she has priests and nuns in her family. It is far beyond absurdity.

Look at the Episcopal Church.... the prototype of dissent and personal accommodation...

The Woodstock crowd will be gone someday, and not a day too soon.

RE: 40 The Republican party of 1865 was very different than the Republican party of today. Marcia is referring to today's Republicans. It is intended as a joke.

How many of you who would like "the people" to vote on gay marriage would be willing to subject the Catholic Church's tax exempt status to a referendum?

"Watch the schools folks - they try to indoctrinate the kids. Get the right folks on the School Committees and stop the rainbow agenda. Demand accountability and equal status."

"Ya Know,"

The only indoctrination is that of basic human dignity and respect. Many of my straight friends who teach want ALL children and ALL families to live each day with the aforementioned.

With statements like this...

"They elevated an unsafe fetish to some type of equal status with real marriage"...

you display your ignorance (gay monogamous sex is no more dangerous than straight monogamous sex, and no, not all gay men practice penetrative sex - as an aside), and reveal that you are indeed one of those angry many who indoctrinate gay and lesbian youth into a dangerous self-hatred.

Those good teachers are not trying to indocrinate children into the "gay lifestyle," they are trying to protect them from YOUR indoctrination.

"Ontheleft, "rights" certainly are subject to a vote. Ever heard of Prop. 8? Dolt."

That is why Proposition 8 is a travesty and has made a farce of our American ideals.

May I vote on YOUR personal relationship? If I am revolted by, say, hypothetically speaking, you and your wife's personalities and political views, and your morbid obesity, and the thought of you together repels me, may I start a petition to ban your relationship?

"The Woodstock crowd will be gone someday, and not a day too soon."

And you don't think you're often hateful? Nah, not you, KJR.

"Actually, it is you who is ignorant. The comment was right on the money. Homosexual behavior is filthy and dangerous, the greatest public heath risk there is."

Actually, cigarette smokers are putting themselves at greater risk each time they light up than I am when I am monogamously intimate with my same-sex partner.

That's just one example of greater public health risks.

I find it fascinating yet infuriating when the ignorant and foolish are as angry at the alleged ingorance and foolishness of others, which is actually non-existent in the scenario, as you are.

"There's no such thing as same-sex 'marriage.' It's a contradiction in terms and you know it, which is why you must awkwardly juxtapose the two terms 'same-sex'and 'marriage' in an attempt to create meaning. Otherwise you would simply say 'marriage.'"

Wow. You're really something.

No. When necessary, as in, during debate on the topic, it is appropriate to make such a distinction.

If you were debating interracial marriage, you'd also make a clear distinction.

"All citizens have the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex. No issue here."

This is a specious argument.

YOU have the right to marry the person you fall in love with. GAYS, however, do NOT.

That is definitely giving YOU a special right.

And yes, that's an issue of violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution, as this nation is destined to acknowledge.

Peter, can you admit that the word "marriage" is defined as between one man and one woman, and the essence of this debate is to change that definition, rather than to get the world to admit that the definition of the word has historically meant recognized union between two people, regardless of orientation? Would you admit that much. The honest discussion would be the former, and not the later, correct?

No, I will admit nothing of the kind.

To many marriage is and always has been a legal contract binding two people who wish to solidify and to protect their life together. That's how my heterosexual brother feels about it, for instance. Gender is a non-issue. He personally thinks granting gays the right to marry should be, as he put it, "a non-issue...this is supposed to be America."

Point is, marriage means many things to many very different kinds of people.

Thing is, my brother doesn't want to regulate the relationships of others to match his own personal viewpoint, but you, KJR, do.

"rather than to get the world to admit that the definition of the word has historically meant recognized union between two people, regardless of orientation?"

Oh, please.

Marriage has absolutely proven itself to be a most malleable institution, despite people like you trying to, ahem, convince the world that's not true.

This is about EXPANDING an institution NOT redefining it. The institution is becoming more inclusive, more fair, and more in line with our American ideals.

You are a Catholic first, an American second. That much is clear, and that is your prerogative. But others are Americans first, period. It often seems as if you want to make everyone else a Catholic first, too.

And KJR, you of all people, shouldn't be lecturing me on intellectual honesty.

"This is about EXPANDING an institution NOT redefining it. The institution is becoming more inclusive, more fair, and more in line with our American ideals."

Well, Peter, you may not have intended it, but you admitted the point. With all due respect for your brother, that is his opinion, but it does not square with the historical definition of marriage. Why is it so hard to admit that?

Webster's dictionary recently added the second definition of "marriage". Why? Because recently, society has changed its definition. Note that there are still two definitions. If marriage was always as you want to believe it, there never would have been a distinction made. The issue I raise (though I oppose it "gay" marriage" - I do NOT oppose civil unions) is whether or not the definition has changed, or is being "forced" to be changed. Why is that so hard to admit? It is a fact. And the issue has nothing to do with whether or not it should include same gender, but only that it has changed. Do you agree with that? EXPANSION=CHANGE.

"I am the King's good servant, but God's first". Thomas More. (Beheaded by Henry the VIII for not sucking up to him and "blessing" his divorce. The beginning of the Anglican/Episcopal Church.)

"You are a Catholic first, an American second. That much is clear, and that is your prerogative. But others are Americans first, period. It often seems as if you want to make everyone else a Catholic first, too"

We find ourselves here defending the Church rather than promoting her. The issues on this Board transcend the Church, and that is how I have tried to argue. The most glaring example of this transcendence is abortion - it is a human rights issue.

Most of the issues on this Board are important to Catholics, but not exclusively Catholics, and many faiths and secular people share them. So, that comment is a non-sequitur.

Your sweeping comment implies that everything that America has done or stood for is honorable, correct and right,and should be supported without any questioning. cf. Dred Scott, Korematsu, Vietnam, Roe vs. Wade ...

Peter, you are obviously a very bright guy, but to not acknowlege that the word is being "re-defined" is intellectually dishonest.

Hey- Good for Us!!

This just shows that many Catholics follow the true meaning of the Gospels!

Meanwhile conservatives just want to water-down Christianity to some sex-obsessed secular ideology. If an issue doesn't somehow involve sex, (contraception, cohabitation, gay rights, abortion) they aren't interested in it.

"Your sweeping comment implies that everything that America has done or stood for is honorable, correct and right,and should be supported without any questioning. cf. Dred Scott, Korematsu, Vietnam, Roe vs. Wade ... "

No it does not imply anything of the kind.

"Peter, you are obviously a very bright guy, but to not acknowlege that the word is being 're-defined' is intellectually dishonest."

Again, you of all people are in no position to lecture me on intellectual honesty.

There are many people, who are not gay, mind you, that do not consider allowing gay PEOPLE (I know many like to view us as a subspecies) to marry a "redefinition of marriage." I'm really not alone on this and I stand by my belief that this is not what you speciously claim it to be.

Your Church refuses to acknowledge that gay marriages are valid, and I have no desire to force them to validate these marriages. Why do you really care if CIVIL marriages are allowed? Truth? Because you feel our marriages degrade yours.

You don't want us on an equal playing field.

And that is ALL.

"So, that comment is a non-sequitur."

No, I truly do believe you would prefer if this nation were a theocracy. I absolutely believe that. THAT was my point.

Peter:
"So, that comment is a non-sequitur."
No, I truly do believe you would prefer if this nation were a theocracy. I absolutely believe that. THAT was my point."

If you believe that you have not been reading my posts, or reading them with an eye toward discrediting the substance by a typical liberal deflection.

You can spin all you want, but this notion of "gay marriage" is a recent phenomenon, and to not recognize that the term marriage has always (until recently) been defined as a union between one man and one woman is simple denial. That is different than the debate of whether or not it should include same sex couples. You don't want to admit it (as don't others) because you believe (correctly) that the institution of marriage has never been other than heterosexual, and if you admit that, the concept of same sex "marriage" is diminished (relegating it to perhaps pandering to political pressure). I understand why you want to avoid that admission, but the facts are the facts.

Peter, with all other things being equal, would an adopted male baby by a lesbian couple, or little girl being adopted by two gay men be better, the same, or worse, than those children with heterosexual parents? Do you thing the nurturing of same sex couples would be just as good for the child as homosexual couples?

dave @ 18
Prop 8 was an abomination because the majority was allowed to vote on the rights of the minority. If civil rights were meant to be voted on women wouldn't be voting, only wealthy white landowners. Segregation would still be the law down south. Our Founders were very wary of the "tyranny of the majority." Prop 8 is one proof that they were right to worry.

KJR, I admit that marriage has traditionally been an institution that blatantly discriminates gay people. Marriage still remains an institution that violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Marriage is, at his has for thousands of years, evolving into a more fair, just, and inclusive institution. There's my answer.

I believe gay couples can be JUST as beneficial to a child, as parents. Absolutely. In fact, in some instances, gay parents may actually be more sensitive to certain situations involved in parenting because gays and lesbians have experienced a significant hardship their heterosexual counterparts have not experienced.

The gay parents I know are all extremely sensitive and attentive to their children's emotional wellbeing. They are hypervigilant in teaching pacifism and sensitivity to other children. They put their children first. They change diapers. They stay up all night at times. They routinely read to their children. They teach their children to explore the differences of others without prejudice. All the things I wish all couples would do and take as seriously as these couples.

In my group of friends, I am Uncle Peter to all my straight friends' kids. I read to them. I entertain them when my friends need a break to take some "adult time" with our other friends...and more circles of friends include gays and lesbians who often assist in parenting roles, as uncle and aunt figures. In many gay circles, male couples and female couples together expose a healthy blend of the genders...it's not as if a gay male couple is the only exposure a child has. There are aunt and uncle figures, gay and straight alike.

And whether you like it or not, we as a culture have been undergoing a transformation of gender roles for centuries. Only relatively recently, however, are the roles being blended, and I don't think that's a negative thing at all.

In my mix of friends, there is an assortment of Christian (including Catholic...my friend Rebecca is one my best and most trusted ally), Jewish, Hindu, agnostic, and atheist - gay and straight. It's a very harmonious, loving group of friends that works together to build the self-esteem of children and to teach decency and respect for other chidren. I often find myself wishing that those who so vehemently oppose gay couples raising children could have but just a glimpse into this world. It's really quite a beautiful thing.

When we were all at one my Catholic friend's family reunion, one of my friend's older aunts saw me playing with my friend's six year old son and seemed to fly into a panic. She ran over and snatched Thomas from my hands (I was zooming him around like an airplane), leaving me standing in the grass alone, with complete strangers just staring at me...no explanation...just snatched from my hands. My only analysis of the situation was that this relative didn't want her great-nephew touched in any way by a homosexual. I will never forget that humiliation, and ever since I am very aware that THIS is the real reason most people don't want gays to raise children. They fear molestation. It pains me that I cannot let go of that experience. To this day, when I help my friends care for their kids, I sometimes find myself holding back in being wholesomely affectionate because I don't want to risk some alarmist misconstruing something innocent, and that is tragic. And it deeply angers me.

"Marriage still remains an institution that violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution." You need to review your principles of constitutional law. They are not similarly situated for the many reasons indicated on these boards. This is a state issue and will not be brought before the SCOTUS.

So how do gay men nurture a young girl about female issues? Lesbian women going to teach young men and counsel them on issues unique to men? Your conclusions is patently irreconcilable.

With regard to the rest of your post, the issue in not about respect and dignity to gays and lesbians. I work with a gay man, I have a gay nephew. There is no issue and serious Christians and Catholics must always afford all people, regardless of orientation, dignity and respect. I am happy you have such a good group of friends. Good for you and good for them having you as their friend. I am sure you are a great friend.

Parents are the primary educators of their children, to suggest that with all else being equal, gay couples provide more universal and comprehensive nurturing of children is on its face, bizarre and naive at best.

More manipulation.

You took this...

"I believe gay couples can be JUST as beneficial to a child, as parents. Absolutely. In fact, in some instances, gay parents may actually be more sensitive to certain situations involved in parenting because gays and lesbians have experienced a significant hardship their heterosexual counterparts have not experienced."

and turned it into me suggesting gay parents are better nurturers of children than their heterosexual counterparts.

I stand by my claim that in some instances gay parents may have greater insight into an issue because of the social trauma that comes with being gay.

"So how do gay men nurture a young girl about female issues? Lesbian women going to teach young men and counsel them on issues unique to men? Your conclusions is patently irreconcilable."

Who did my female friends go to when they head boy trouble, when they were teenagers? Quite often me, and not their mothers.

Body issues? Same thing.

Of course they often went to female friends or their mothers with "female issues," but, as is common with many gay men, when we were younger, our female heterosexual friends sensed a trust in us and formed a bond with us that was a unique friendship, in terms of opposite gender. Many of us had these relationships throughout our childhood. And these relationships taught us MUCH about the opposite gender.

Who do my closest heterosexual female friends now tell their most intimate secrets to, especially in relation to heterosexual men? Quite often me.

Point is, gay men, in general, have FAR more insight into the female mind and into the female experience than many of our heterosexual counterparts could even imagine. And boy, if they knew we knew what we know...

I can say with absolutely certainty that I am often more equipped to handle the questions of a teenage girl than many heterosexual fathers. Absolutely.

Still, if I were a parent to a girl, I would absolutely make certain there was a friend or aunt she could go to when she needed to ask questions she would rather pose to another female, and I would make sure she felt comfortable asking those people.

There would be other women with whom my daughter could go shopping, or do traditionally so-called girly things, should she be compelled to do those things.

Women would be practically omnipresent in my daughter's life (I have more female intimate friends than male), and there would indeed be role models of the same gender with whom they could relate and from whom they could seek counsel and support.

It's not all as black and white as you'd like to paint it, KJR. I really do believe that, deepdown, your fears and objections are rooted in simple prejudice.

"This is a state issue and will not be brought before the SCOTUS."

If that were TRULY the case, then the federal government should respect the marriages in Massachusetts and grant our gay couples the over one thousand federal benefits currrently denied them.

GLAD has already challenged the Constitutionality of the federal ban on gay marriage. You think this challenge won't proceed?

The federal ban deprives families of federally-created economic safety nets, to the detriment of those couples and their children or other dependents. It creates a system of first and second class marriages, where the former receive all federal legal protections, and the latter are denied them, even while taking on the responsibilities of legal marriage. That's government-sanctioned, blatant discrimination. That DOES violate the equal protection clause, and I believe our nation is destined to acknowledge this.

"There is no issue and serious Christians and Catholics must always afford all people, regardless of orientation, dignity and respect."

vs.

"The Woodstock crowd will be gone someday, and not a day too soon."

These sound like two different people...did someone hijack your monicker, KJR?

Re: 64, Peter.

Not at all, my Woodstock reference is broad in nature and refers to general dissent in the Church by those who claim to be faithful Catholics, yet pick and chose what they want for them (regardinless of the social issue). The tail wants to wag the dog, and that is not what the Church is about.

That has nothing to do with the very clear position of the Church that all people, invluding the unborn, should be afforded respect and dignity. The former refers to innate attributes of people (orientation, race, gender), and the later refers to dissenting, rebellious choice contrary to their stated affilation with the Church. See the diff?

KJR
Your post in 60 and a male child with two female parents and dealing with issues of a male or a female child with two male parents is really specious. Think of it this way... a heterosexual couple has a child... one parent dies. That remaining parent has to take the role of both parents, supporting or having a trusted network of friends/family their opposite gender children can go to for support if the primary caregiver is not a comfortable source... It happens with heterosexual parents. How about one parent in Iraq for 6 months at a time and out of regular contact with the famly? Supoort networks get built... life goes on. It does not always work for the best but their are solutions and Peter is right. Current law is in violation of the Constitution because it does not allow same sex couples equal protection under the law. This is rooted in centuries of Jedeo--Chrisstian teachings making gays second class citizens at best, threas or subject to lynching, etc for being who they are, for centuries.

Kai, you seem to be conceding the point, and justifying it because in some hetero situations, there is one parent and the child needs nurturing from others. You comparison to similar situations with one parent does not argue against the point, it justifies it by comparing to another situation where there are not two parents.

Are you really arguing that with all things being equal, it would make no difference that a single hetero familiy with community support is as good as a mom and a dad? You can't really believe that, but that is the parallel you have drawn to argue that there are parallels between same sex parents = hetero single parent with community support = mom and dad, therefore, same sex = mom and dad. Is that really your argument, ie, that a single hetero mom or day + family = mom and dad?

Your argument is If A=B and B=C, then A=C.

With regard to your constitutional argument, as I have said, marriage has never been understood or defined as anything but one man and one woman, so no matter how you want to spin it, it requires a changed character. That was my only point. Until that happens, there is no violation of equal protection.

Kai, Peter

To follow up, you don't think girls not having a father is a detriment? Google it. Google "fatherless girls" and see what comes up.

Here is an example.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCR/is_4_35/ai_84017196/pg_7/

The father figure is the the most important person in a teenage girls life. Study after study has shown that.

Similarly, how many times have we heard about kids that went bad because the father ditched. No male discipline in a lesbian family for a young boy.

This recent notion that gender is irrelevant in child development is completely false as evidence by the massive studies that speak to it - particularly when that figure is not around.

Peter: "I can say with absolutely certainty that I am often more equipped to handle the questions of a teenage girl than many heterosexual fathers. Absolutely. "

Oh yeah, so you and a male partner would be better than a male and female for the same teenage girl - with no mom to come home to on a daily basis. Sure... I have some swampland for sale if anyone believes this...

"That was my only point. Until that happens, there is no violation of equal protection."

You can marry the beloved of your choice.

Gays cannot.

This is a system of two-class citizenship.

And those opposed to gay marriage often say gays want "special rights?"

Again, you can marry the beloved of your choice while gays cannot. Seems like you have the special rights, not gays.

No, we want the equal protection promised to us by the Constitution.

KJR, it's frustrating you chose to address post 65 but not 62.

KJR, you twist everything, or seemingly CHOOSE to miss the point. You do this with me all the time. Now you're doing it with Kai.

Kai said:

" Supoort networks get built... life goes on. It does not always work for the best but their are solutions"

You come back with:

" Is that really your argument, ie, that a single hetero mom or day + family = mom and dad?

Your argument is If A=B and B=C, then A=C."

Kai said that there are often situations in which a parent is left alone to care for a child and that child is raised just fine, due to the help of her support network. Sometimes, it doesn't work out so well.

Quite often the aforementioned support network, of which Kai speaks, is tremendously advantageous for a child and produces a strong, self-loving child.

You seem to want to reinforce the belief that ONLY a father and mother can raise a healthy well-adjusted child, and that is simply NOT the case.

And again, I really do believe your obstinate perspective is, ultimately, rooted in prejudice.

During the same-sex marriage fight here in Massachusetts, I was perpetually angered by the "family is this" argument from those against gay marriage. It's a pretty transparent morality cloak over raw prejudice, but it often successfully wins over people who need to feel good about themselves by judging others who don't live life exactly as they do. That's what I see with you, as a generality.

Peter, I did address 62 in detail, and Paulson has not posted it. I would ask that he post it.

By the way, I did not twist anything. My only premise was that will all things being equal, it is in the child's best interest to live with a mom and a dad.

Go and Google "fatherless daughters" or fatherless sons. There are scores of studies that demonstrate the consequence of fatherless homes. And from a female perspective, there is no one more important for esteem than a teenage girls FATHER. He can make or break the success of a young girl.

Lesbian couple raising a son? And your position is that it is just as good as a mom and a dad present for the son? That position is patently absurd. You would not have to look to far to ask a single mom whether a strong male influence in the house would make her life easier.

That is NOT to say that it cannot work in some situations as Kai seems to argue, but on the whole, no one can seriously argue that it doesn't matter to children as to whether they are in same sex or heterosexual family - again, with all else being equal. The current state of this society with fatherless homes defies your argument - for both boys and girls.

"That is NOT to say that it cannot work in some situations "

So, to use your own words, let's just throw the baby out with the bathwater, because, ideally, families should only be led by one father and one mother.

If those situations CAN work, and often work quite well, who are you to prevent them existing?

Many teen girls having sex is directly influenced from how they are treated by their Father. The ideal situation for any child is to have a married and stil together mom and a dad raising them. The Father needs to show his daughter that he is a protector of both his wife and her. Yes some single Moms have done well but the percentages of teen girls having sex is directly related to her Dad and his relationship with her and his wife. If the Father is not around or not adequate the girl will find other males to love her and will look at sex as love.

Peter, your and Kai's argument is that there is no difference between same sex parenting and hetero parenting. The examples you give argue for those situaltions were it works. I don't disagree with that, but my point is, on balance, the gay marriage's lobby's argument that they are interchangeable parts is not supported by the evidence of the fatherless epidemic in the country for both boys and girls. You are arguing the exception, rather than the entirety.. The absence of a male presence and father is a MAJOR societal problem. Look around at the problem kids you know - and correlate that with a missing father. You will see what I am talking about.

"the gay marriage's lobby's argument that they are interchangeable parts is not supported by the evidence of the fatherless epidemic in the country for both boys and girls"

You know. It all comes down to this. So long as you bring children into the argument, while arguing against gay marriage, without expressing a will to prohibit heterosexual marriages that do not produce children, I really don't want to hear any of your "family is this."

You're shamelessly exploiting children to deny gays the right to marry.

I love how you totally disregard the hypothesis I presented where my child would be SURROUNDED by both male and female role models, KJR.

"You are arguing the exception"

I am saying that if gay couples can raise a healthy, well-adjusted, informed, educated, secure child with a strong sense of self and personal responsibility....LET'EM.

Peter -
In 77, the flip side would be the argument that gays who want to "marry" cannot have children..., correct? Your point is illogical. You lash out with your accusation because you have no response - whether or not a hetero couple is childless. That is not the discussion. The discussion is the so-called "equivalency" for the child benefit of hetero vs. same sex marriages. That is the point.

78: I don't disregard that at all. The issue is the family itself, and the ridiculous argument that is made that with all things being equal, gay parents vs. mom and date have equal effect on children. You are bringing in others into the lives of the kids beyond parents, and I don't argue with that. You are off point.

79: I have never said they can't, again, you are off point. On balance, with all things being equal, it is absurd to suggest that children can be nurtured the same in same sex housholds. The child looses from the nurturing of the opposite sex, and in the case of girls, it can be and usually is tragic when a solid dad is not around. Two lesbians can NEVER replace that. Nor can two male partners replace the motherly nurturing that boys and girls need. Is that really a concept that is so tough to understand? Isn't that the normal and natural order of life? But the gay community would never acknowlege that.

KJR, you really are something.

My accusations are valid, and not a tactic of avoidance. I wholeheartedly believe them. I stand by them.

You are using children as a tool against gays just as much as you are advocating for children.

No, I don't avoid giving a response. I'm saying flat out that if straights are not required to reproduce after marrying, then your point is MUTE and I don't feel like continuing because I know you're number and I'm getting tired of elaborating when you're going to manipulate everything anyway.

It's as simple as this, and I don't feel compelled to continue playing your game.

Two heterosexuals can obtain a CIVIL marriage license in order to commit to each other and to build their lives together, without desiring and having children.

Gays should have that same right.

I have no desire to prevent ANY church from rejecting the state's legal marriage status of gays and lesbians. Religious marriage and civil marriage are separate. Civil marriage means many things to many people, and you shouldn't have the right to define that for certain couples you don't approve of or you dislike. Why don't you have a problem with the marriage of two atheists? Two Jews?

Because, in the end, you just don't want to see gays legitimized AT ALL. In other words, I think you're full of it. I think you often even kid yourself.

You folks always rally around the "but marriage is about the children" nonsense, which is obviously just one big ole Trojan horse. YOU JUST DON'T WANT GAYS TO MARRY, and you bring children into it to appeal to people's sense of nobility: "Think about the children!"

I have seen same-sex couples raise kids and ya know what? I think their kids are a lot healthier and happier than some of their counterparts raised by a traditonal mother and father, or by a single parent.

The black, married, heterosexual man who beat his young son to death on Father's Day? This stuff happens ALL THE TIME. And it's infuriating that people like this guy can just go out, become a father, be married, and no one questions a thing...until a child dies.

Meanwhile, gays are out in the cold. Makes no sense to deny children a home WHERE LOVE AND FINANCIAL SECURITY IS THE FIRST PRIORITY and many gays can provide those homes.

So, no. I will not concede that a father and a mother are automatically superior, by default.

I just think you are underexposed to gay parents and you're too loyal to your prejudice to understand why someone would refuse to concede to your point. Sorry, aint gonna happen.

" I have never said they can't, again, you are off point. "

You've told me at least twice that I tend to "throw the baby out with the bathwater," so yes, it is well within my right, and most on point, to tell you when you are doing just that.

If you concede that a gay or lesbian couple can indeed raise a strong, self-respecting, healthy, educated, secure child, then you shouldn't deprive them of the opportunity just because you believe the ULTIMATE beneficial environment is two opposite sex parents.

Baby with the bathwater, indeed.

"Is that really a concept that is so tough to understand?"

Oh, I understand you. You're just too limited in your thinking.

As an aside, I have two friends, one of whom was routinely verbally and physically abused by his father, and the other of whom had a father he rarely saw because he was on the run from the law. Both have said they would prefer two stable, loving, constant lesbians or two stable, loving, constant gay men raising them over their respective realities.

I've seen gay and lesbian families up close (something I doubt you have), and they're a thing of beauty, they really are.

Maybe the correlation is body mass index rather than Catholic population: RI-21.4%, NY-25.0%, CA-22.6%; AL-30.3, NC-28.8%. (http://www.obesity.org/statistics/)

Maybe the study is an answer in search of a question.

Thanks for making that really interesting observation. I too had just noticed this correlation between Catholicism and support for gay marriages, as well as some other interesting trends, like divorce, crime, education spending, and murder rates, which vary from 6 to to as much as 400 times from state to state.