26 Comments

1. Rick DeLano
   Posted May 25, 2012 at 10:07 am | Permalink

   As long as they are outside, it is well.

   Should they come inside, then it is time to remind them of the Catholic commitment to the sanctity of our Churches.

   Ball in their court.

2. Rick DeLano
   Posted May 25, 2012 at 10:19 am | Permalink

   Had a nice chat with the ;arise in question.

   All is very well.

   The protesters are completely free to express their (inexpressibly evil) opinions outside the Church.

   It were most unwise- unwise in the extreme- to contemplate testing the resolve of the Catholics to defend their sacred places of worship.

3. Rick DeLano
   Posted May 25, 2012 at 10:22 am | Permalink

   "parish" in question.....

4. OvercameSSA
   Posted May 25, 2012 at 10:49 am | Permalink

   It's a shame that those who support the so-called SS"M agenda cannot distinguish between bigotry and logic. A good part of that is due to the framing of the discussion, on both sides, without mentioning children and parenthood.

   The sign at issue, "Two men are not spouses; Two men are friends," can be interpreted as bigoted unless one understands that what constitute spouses is a complementary, procreative union that two men are incapable of achieving.

   Children need a mom and a dad; that is a social ideal that not only provides economic stability, but also creates social stability through genetic connections and extended families that same-sex couples cannot achieve even when one of the same-sex couple chooses to conceive a child outside of the so-called "marriage."

   No one can deny that marriage is associated with children, no matter how loosely its corruption over time has tried to dispel that truth. And so-called "marriages" of same-sex couples will lead to more children conceived without its mother or father and without the opportunity to have the important influence of a two-sexed household.

   Unfortunately, these signs just aren't big enough. Perhaps a pamphlet of explanation would have helped the ignorant protesters understand the issue instead of resorting to the emotional, simple-minded propaganda fed to them by the homosexual activists and their homosexual children, friends, siblings.

5. Randy E King
   Posted May 25, 2012 at 11:14 am | Permalink

   Support of marriage corruption requires opposition to the truth.

6. Barb Chamberlan
   Posted May 25, 2012 at 11:26 am | Permalink

   The sign wasn't "anti-gay." It was a simple true statement about what marriage is and what it is not. The opposition wants to redefine "truth" to mean "hate."

7. John N.
   Posted May 25, 2012 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

   As you can see this is what you get when you legislate SSM in your state. You do not achieve tolerance or diversity but get intolerance and hatred from the left.
   Marraige corruption has already brought many detrimental things to MA. Let this video be an inspiration to those in WA, MN, ME, and MD as you vote this November.

8. AM
   Posted May 25, 2012 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

   One of the protesters suggested that because the sign was "subtle" it was a worse attack.
   Why?
   Because it's subliminal suggestion and the church has a school and she is concerned about what the children are being taught.

   How long do you think religious freedom would last if people like her had their way?

9. dn
   Posted May 25, 2012 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

   Rick, shouldn't you be off claiming your son's income as your own right about now?

10. Kristin
    Posted May 25, 2012 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    This just proves that the gays don't really care about "gay marriage." MA is one of the states where IT IS LEGAL! This is about gays declaring war on Christianity and trying to silence the church! This is why I oppose "gay marriage" or any other special rights for gays -- I know it's a lie and people need to wake up!

11. Nanette
    Posted May 25, 2012 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    It's so subtle? That's it's an attack? No lady, that's the truth.

12. John M
    Posted May 25, 2012 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

    If a well known Christian were to say, "I love that ugly bunch" and an unexpected backlash were to keep this issue in the face of voters even longer, on a scale of 1-10, how wrong would that be?

13. Preach it
    Posted May 25, 2012 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

    The church has the right to say what it believes, man shall not lie with man!

14. Chairm
    Posted May 25, 2012 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

    The "protestors" had nothing of substance to say because they do not think. They emote.

15. Patti
    Posted May 25, 2012 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

    Barb, that is exactly right! This is just a shame what is happening to America. Thanks to mr. o for putting his two cents into it, sure hope he is voted out in 2012!

16. Zack
    Posted May 25, 2012 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    Anything can lead to bullying. Just because someone says they disagree with homosexuality doesn't mean they are being a bully. I even said it while working on a campaign and the guy I was campaigning for was gay. I didn't say it too him but one of my coworkers seemed to have a problem with it and smirked as he said "I will destroy you in a debate" which signaled to me he wouldn't because he came off rather cocky and arrogant.

    It's not bullying to disagree, I'm happy to know that the protesters were being civil even though I disagree with their views.

17. Michael Cornish
    Posted May 25, 2012 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

    It is bullying to force someone to take on another persons belief. That is the gay protesters want Christians to change their beliefs to accomodate them.

18. Ash
    Posted May 25, 2012 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

    Great point, AM. No matter how "in your face" or "subtle" one is in expressing their opinion, it's all threatening to society and to children. "How long will religious freedom last?" is a great question.

    The key is for people to state their opinions and not back down. SSMers must understand that people disagree with them. It's not "bullying" or "bigotry"; it's life.

19. Ryan
    Posted May 25, 2012 at 7:36 pm | Permalink

    @Chairm,
    You say that these protesters do not think. Yet, they are the ones questioning this commonly held interpretation of the Bible. To accept something on faith is the act of not thinking. To question proves thought. You may disagree, but you're wrong to suggest they do not think.

20. Little Man
    Posted May 25, 2012 at 9:38 pm | Permalink

    PART 1
    1st Amendment freedoms (not rights) have a way of irritating those who themselves enjoy those freedoms. Anyone who wants more power immediately tries a go-around at 1st Amendment freedoms (not rights). These are not 'Rights', because the Bill of Rights simply expresses these rights as a given - not legislated. It's a starting point. Some people like don't like that starting point, yet they argue from such protected liberties. Why they don't see the self-contradiction is beyond me. Actually, in the back of their mind maybe they do, but also believe that rules apply to those they don't like, yet not to them. But that's exactly why the 1st Amendment IS the 1st.: All other freedoms cannot be enforced if the 1st Amendment is by-passed. England's laws were oppressive and self-serving, AND by-the-book.

    Yes, the 1st Amendment allows me to offend you, and offend the President too. It works both ways. I might get clobbered for the offense, but you cannot get the government to back you up.

21. AM
    Posted May 25, 2012 at 10:18 pm | Permalink

    Thanks, Ash.
    If a statement as benign as " two men are friends, not spouses" can cause ssm activists to get the vapors, it exposes two things:
    1) They really have thin skin.
    2) Even the slightest dissent will be treated as bigotry if they get control.

22. Little Man
    Posted May 25, 2012 at 11:49 pm | Permalink

    PART 2
    This is what we are up against - a redefinition of what 'secular' means. it is the way to get many Christians to vote for same-sex civil marriage. Once many Christians are influenced, majority wins via misinformation, the battle is over.

    The re-definition of civil marriage is possible once the political power of mainstream religious denominations is neutralized. But gradually, the mainstream denominations are waking up to this issue. R. Catholics are way ahead, due to their internal hierarchy, which is the most efficient.

    Here's the main thrust: It presents an opportunity for a NewsMedia to show the connection between (organized) religion and a restrictive but rational definition of civil marriage (note the word 'spouse'). They leave out the word 'secular', but include the vague word 'church'.

    'Journalism' Set up:
    'An Anti-Gay message'
    'It was anything but a peaceful service'
    'Sunday sermon overshadowed by protests'
    'The tolls call for parishioners to come together in love'

    The counter-idea is that love is necessarily permissive. But it isn't. Love seeks the long-term good of those around, not their preferences. This leads to ALL forms of bullying, an epidemic? Any proof? 'Borderline subliminal'? Any proof? None given.

    Like civil marriage, Friendship can be committed. Friendship can have privacy. Friendship is good for society. In the Bible, one particular Friendship is placed 'above' the love possible between man and woman, in a poem. Some civil married people are not mutually friendly - they marry for convenience. And some civil divorces happen between friends. If this issue was religious, the church would be stopping pre-marital sex. It is not.

    'Secular' means morality is made into law, according to majority decision. How else could it be? By imposition.

    'Secular' means laws are made or changed with input from EVERY religious value system present in the voter population. Check for yourself.

    'Secular' involves a melting pot of ethnicities, points of view, philosophies of life, religions, temperaments, private interests, genders. Even some mental -retards- can vote, but penal prisoners can't. That's the system. In essence, it means the majority decides the State of National consequences for the rest of the citizens and immigrants (including those who didn't vote on the issue or candidacy.) Minorities alone, cannot govern. That is as American as apple pie.

    Civil marriage does not require Friendship. All it requires is the acceptance of regulation by the State.

    That is generally some NewsMedia's most persuassive, yet false, argument: the imagined dichotomy between marriage by Religion, and a secular legal marriage contract. In other countries civil and sacred marriage are separate. In the USA it is still separate, but clergy are allowed to officiate a marriage, given a marriage license from the State (Why not?). Obviously, Sacred marriage doesn't need a license, witnesses, or a church, since it is not valid in court. Sacred marriage is a set of vows, not to each other, but to God or some other 'Force'.

    A protest by 12 gets National attention. 1st Amendment freedoms? It works both ways.

23. Ken
    Posted May 26, 2012 at 1:34 am | Permalink

    God's word is not an "opinion." These people have no idea what a relationship with Christ is and that's why they are like lost sheep. We need to pray for their eyes to be opened to the truth. Jesus would tell them that He loved them and that He died on the cross for each and every one of them. But in parting, He would have said, "go and sin no more."

24. Chairm
    Posted May 28, 2012 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    Ryan said: "To question proves thought. "

    False. They question based on emotion alone. What they said in their signs and in the interviews gives little with which to agree or disagree -- on substance.

    They did not think. They emoted.

25. LonesomeRhoades
    Posted May 29, 2012 at 10:39 am | Permalink

    The argument is really about the degree to which our society will tolerate unnatural, immoral, sinful behavior.

26. Joanne
    Posted June 1, 2012 at 2:04 am | Permalink

    The Catholic Church published some great works that address topics mentioned here. I suggest the protesters read The Theology of the Body and Fides Et Ratio (Faith and Reason) by Pope John Paul II for starters.