NOM BLOG

In Wake of Anchorage Voting Down Prop 5, Catholic Archbishop Reminds Faithful of Duty to Be Respectful

 

From the Catholic Anchor, the newspaper of the Catholic archdiocese of Anchorage:

"...Anchorage Archbishop Roger Schwietz was among the prominent religious leaders who urged residents to vote against the ballot measure. Following the election, he issued a public statement affirming the dignity of each person.

“The people of the Anchorage Municipality have spoken, and Proposition 5 appears to have been defeated,” he said. ” Although I did not support Proposition 5, I fervently oppose unjust discrimination against any person or group.”

He added: “I pray that Anchorage will strive to be an ever more tolerant city for all our citizens. The basis for our social interaction must remain a deeply held respect for the dignity of each human person — a dignity that comes not from the state but from our Creator. I reiterate what I stated in my pastoral letter, the Catholic Catechism, #2358 states that people with homosexual tendencies ‘must be accepted with respect and compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.’

In the lead up to the vote, Archbishop Schwietz wrote an open letter to area churches warning that Proposition 5 threatens the religious freedoms of churches, schools, businesses and other organizations.

The letter denounced any attempt to “advance disrespect or unjust discrimination against people of homosexual orientation” but stated that there is “an essential distinction between unjust discrimination, which is the arbitrary violation of human rights, and the necessary limitations on the exercise of our rights when it is required to protect the justice that is due to others, and the common good.”

Archbishop Schwietz added: “Proposition 5, regrettably, makes no such distinctions. It sweeps with a broad brush, and would usher in a new era of intolerance in Anchorage, all done in the name of ‘ending discrimination.’”

17 Comments

  1. Little man
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

    Prop 5 would have 'added sexual orientation and -transgender identity- to anti-discrimination language in the city’s municipal code.' Note this was defeated by noting 'transgender identity' can be almost anything having to do with how people dress.

    Sexual orientation is a religion. People from way outside the community are influenced and even harassed into adopting that religion's dogmas. Just like in any other well-organized religion. Sexual orientation is not a genetic trait. It is a moral value system, and just like any other religion, it attempts to become the secular value system. But in the case of Sexual orientation, it poses as a purely civil value system, as it that were possible. The moment we realize there are zero 'people of no faith', a NoBama epithet, we can begin to see sexual orientation for what it really is, according to our political system and the 1st Amendment of our national constitution; and be able to oppose it more successfully. Thanks for the post.

  2. Greg
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

    Little Man: If sexual orientation is a religion, then it should already be covered under existing laws banning discrimination based on religion, correct? So to be clear, you're arguing that it's already illegal to deny housing or employment to a gay person because it's religious discrimination?

  3. Good News
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

    @Little man
    Interesting. What is true is that these cultural changes have less to do with homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexualism, (sexual orientation) etc., and more to do with 'sex' pure and simple. Now there's a mesmerizing god that we can all bow down to and worship. And it feels so right. God equals love equals sex. Or how they would teach it, sex equals love equals god. But maybe sex would be more equated to the religion; and its Priests would be the government and commercial powers using that religion to control the people. As for a god above them there effectively wouldn't be one – the only leader above it all would simply be a smiling satin. Anyway, I'm glad that at least for now, they've cooled off in Alaska.

  4. Little man
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 5:07 am | Permalink

    I said it clearly: Sexual orientation, in the context of the Prop. 5 in the city of Anchorage, Alaska (8 times more populous than the next municipality in number of inhabitants) is a value system. It wants to become a main premise of the secular value system, not only there, but everywhere there is a municipality.

    It would make sense that people who believe they are sexually different with no hope of restoration or change, would want their belief to be accepted at large by society. It is nevertheless still a belief. It takes more than 1 to form a 'religion'.

    From The Free Dictionary: 'The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment.' ... 'The Supreme Court has deliberately avoided establishing an exact or a narrow definition of religion because freedom of religion is a dynamic guarantee that was written in a manner to ensure flexibility and responsiveness to the passage of time and the development of the United States. Thus, religion is not limited to traditional denominations.'

    And it is not only about sex. Obviously a bizarre sexual orientation cannot perform the biologically obvious sexual act. It is about community - therefore a community with beliefs, self supportive, politically interested, fighting persecution, ignoring contrary notions against their dogma, taking monetary collections, organized in denominations each with their respective leaders.

    My opinion differs altogether from them: I don't believe they have a sexual orientation. I believe they NEED sexual orientation. But that's my opinion and belief, obviously not shared by them, for they have joined together into a different belief system. That they don't call it a religion, is the tricky part.

    Greg: You got to put your thinking cap on, and not contradict yourself, if you sincerely want an a answer. Take 3 cups of coffee, and write back.

  5. Mikhail
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 10:07 am | Permalink

    The truth is that NOM loves gays and HRC hates them. NOM tells the truth which is that if you are gay you can choose either to remain celibate, have a difficult (possibly unhappy) life but be rewarded in heaven, or you can have a romantic same-sex relationship and a happy life but burn in hell for eternity. Its your choice: finite happiness now and infinite misery later? Or would you prefer finite misery now and infinite happiness later? This is the teaching of the Russian Orthodox and the Roman catholic church. I enjoy the thought of these gays being tortured in hell, makes up for their opression and hatred of Christians in this life.

  6. JR
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 11:56 am | Permalink

    Mikhail - your comments are 5 days late. April Fool's Day was Sunday

  7. ResistSSA
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

    So happy to see the word "discrimination" appropriately qualified with the term "unjust." ALL discrimination is not wrong; indeed, discriminating amongst behaviors is the basis of many of our laws.

    It is perfectly fine to treat male-female couples differently from same-sex couples, because they possess uniquely different traits, most notably in the ability to procreate. Marriage intentionally discriminates between male-female couples and all other combinations of people and things, and with good reason: male-female couples serve a special and unique role in our society.

  8. Good News
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

    @Little man
    What do you mean by 'sexual oriantation'?
    I follow your idea, and yet I can't seem to grasp what it is this, 'sexual oriantation' that you're talking about?

  9. Robert
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 11:23 pm | Permalink

    "It is perfectly fine to treat male-female couples differently from same-sex couples, because they possess uniquely different traits, most notably in the ability to procreate."

    Not legally, it isn't. There has to be a rational public purpose in such treatment, and there is none. And keep in mind, not all straight couples can procreate..

  10. Little man
    Posted April 7, 2012 at 7:43 am | Permalink

    Robert: Yes, legally, there is.

  11. Little man
    Posted April 7, 2012 at 8:05 am | Permalink

    Good News: sexual oriantation? 'sexual orientation': That's a term created by people who believe it is perfectly natural for same-sex couples to have what they call 'sex'. In the case of two men, it's a pretty crude affair, and dangerous to their health, overall. I don't call it 'sex' - i call it punishment.

    Some define it as same-sex couples (or triads, quartets, etc.) having same-sex attraction. The only problem is that there is no genetic distinction between those with one sexual orientation and those with a different sexual orientation. Therefore, the analogy to women's Rights movements, and to the Civil Rights movement for the Blacks, doesn't follow. Those social classes (women, and Blacks) have genetic traits which distinguish them. Not so the so called {gays}. I mean, i am gay when i am happy. But being happy does not change my genetic makeup at all :)

    I use the term sexual orientation with a different meaning: that they need to take some orientation courses to teach them a more advantageous form of sexuality. They usually don't get along with the opposite sex too well. I mean, a man courting a woman can be very taxing!

    The idea that there are many perfectly natural forms of sexual orientation, which are irreversible or shouldn't be messed with, results in the idea that therefore same-sex unions are equivalent to opposite-sex unions as it refers to marriage or civil unions. But the problem with that idea, is: if having same-sex attraction is 'natural', then a way to abort those type of babies could be found (for, note that all babies come from opposite-sex biological sexual unions, except Jesus the Christ, as recorded, but that's another topic, of indirect faith :) ). Up to now, no one has found a genetic marker tied to same-sex attraction or homosexuality that stands up to scientific scrutiny and peer review. To me, the intellectual case is already won. It is a matter for people who don't read or have critical thinking skills to come to that understanding. That can take decades...

    When a matter becomes political and there's lobbying money involved, the words are easily twisted around to mean what is politically advantageous - the goal justifies the means, type of ethics. The homosexual sexual act (not homosexuality itself) is considered a sin in the New Testament. But so is lying. Lying is our most serious problem in the USA. It has become commonplace, and actually expected, and actually justified. Like i said: the goal justifies the means, type of culture.

  12. Bryce K.
    Posted April 7, 2012 at 8:29 am | Permalink

    Little man, thank you for your astute legal opinion. How about you testify in court?

  13. ResistSSA
    Posted April 7, 2012 at 10:46 am | Permalink

    @Robert -

    If you see no rational purpose in encouraging men and women to take responsiblity for the offspring that they create, you're deluding yourself. Same-sex couples can never procreate; that's why they are, by definition not arbitrarily, from marriage. We don't toss our laws because there are exceptions to the rule; the public purpose of uniting men and women with their offspring is still served despite the exceptions. OTH, since same-sex couples never procreate, they never serve the purpose of marriage laws.

  14. ResistSSA
    Posted April 7, 2012 at 10:48 am | Permalink

    Hey Bryce -

    You must be so excited to get the right to vote, what, next year?

    btw, it might surprise you that a few of us here are not teenagers and actually have legal careers....

  15. Little man
    Posted April 7, 2012 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

    Bryce K.: You are welcome. I'm working pro-bonus :)

  16. Marc Paul
    Posted April 7, 2012 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

    'I enjoy the thought of these gays being tortured in hell'. Ahh yes, that well known verse from the Sermon on the Mount, replete with the compassion only God, manifest in Jesus, could display.

  17. Marc Paul
    Posted April 7, 2012 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

    " I enjoy the thought of these gays being tortured in hell" for real? This gets through moderation? Seriously?