Bishop Richard Malone of Maine responds with a letter to the editor to a New York Times attempt to downplay the Catholic Church's role in protecting marriage in Maine:
I have not backed down in the church’s defense of marriage. Although not a member of the current political action committee, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland is playing a crucial role in November’s vote, launching a communication and educational effort based on my pastoral letter.
This document is intended to educate all people of good will about the truth and beauty of marriage as it has been preserved for millenniums by society and various religions.
Objectively, the essence of marriage can only be the union of one man and one woman open to the new life of children, whom they nurture in their irreplaceable roles as father and mother. Faithful Catholics will continue to defend God’s plan for marriage through its preaching and teaching and in the public square.
16 Comments
"I Have Not Backed Down in the Church's Defense of Marriage"!
No one is asking you to. And no one is asking you to change your beliefs. This is a civil rights issue and has nothing to do with any religion or church.
Precisely, elias.
It is a civil rights issue that the vote of the people concerning the assault on marriage has not been respected.
We will demonstrate, again, this November, that the people of this nation reject the argument of the pseudo-marriage advocates, and then we will await the (now utterly certain) vindication of that decision at SCOTUS.
Of course there is no civil right to change and redefine marriage. Just because one engages in immoral sex it does not mean you get to change the rules.
Anyways this is typical of the smear campaign of the liberal press. Always attacking and making false statements of the opposition.
Okay, great; but one can defend God's marriage in the public square only with respect to people who are theists. More narrowly, these Bishops mean they will defend their God's marriage amongst R. Catholics. Just making a distinction not made in the post, because people outside the R. Catholic church (or another church which respects God's marriage form) might not believe in the same God. They might believe in other Gods, even though they do not call them 'Gods'. Money, or Power, for instance, could be their God - anything as to not rely on the Creator of space and matter.
“one can defend God's marriage in the public square only with respect to people who are theists.”
This is a case of people expressing their opinions in an election duly authorized by the state. Changing the definition of marriage will affect everyone in the state, not just theists or atheists. All voters have an equal right to vote, and everyone has an equal right to express their opinion, whether they are Roman Catholic or not. Everyone has a right to try to persuade all other voters to accept their position by all legal means. The Bishop even has a right to exercise his free speech rights to persuade non-Catholics to become Catholics. I am not a Catholic, but I respect the Bishop’s free speech rights.
Yes eliasasm: it's always good for someone to reveal a false argument for our collection.
Yes, It is a civil rights issue. Yes, that's what we've been saying all along. It is about civil marriage, and it is indeed an issue.
We agree. Thanks for your assurance.
What we don't agree on is that it is a civil right to circumvent our vote such that civil marriage is extended to partnerships (not even couples) of homosexual persuasion, as if it was their (God-given inalienable civil right).
Marriage is not fundamentally a religious doctrine imposed on secular society. When we are privileged to be born through our mother's birth canal, and are reared by our genetic mother and father, we experience what 'marriage' truly is, in its optimal form. We cannot but wish that experience on all members of the next generation.
Those who haven't experienced it, cannot comprehend what it is like. So, to them it's just a ceremoniously celebrated friendship - nothing more. They cannot see the difference. Okay, then don't vote for it. But we will.
Certainly, celebration of friendship indeed would be an inalienable civil right because we have the explicit Constitutional right to pursue (work on) our happiness. We agree on that too. We actually agree on most everything !
Little Man,
Only someone with hate would think that it is ok to vote against civil rights that affects only one minority group of human beings.
eliasasm, please show me where in the US Constitution SS"M" is listed as a civil right.
SoA 8,
If you didn't have so much hate you would have an understanding of civil rights.
That was not an aswer, eliasasm. That was a dodge. And a very lame one at that.
Now would you please tell me how the pseudo rights you arbitrarily invent for yourself equate to civil rights found in the Constitution?
@Son of Adam:
Equal protection clause, 14th amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Heterosexual interfaith couples are allowed to have civil marriages in the US, even though this is against the rules in many prominent organized religions (particularly Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism). How is denying same-sex couples the ability to have a civil marriage not abridging their privileges as citizens of the United States, when opposite-sex couples have this privilege? How is it that equal protection under the law is being upheld toward LGBTQ individuals when heterosexuals can be married in a civil court but they cannot?
Privilileges and immunities are not anything that anyone arbitrarily declares, Rivka. They have to be recognized as such by the law. And just because something is legal in some places, does not automatically make it either a right, immunity, or privilege.
For instance, how is it not abridging the privileges of polyamorous groups to continue to outlaw polygamy and bigamy? Are they not also citizens of the US?
It seems to me that in your world, equality revolves exclusively around homosexuals while everyone else is on their own. So much for inclusiveness.
The 14th amendment argument was specifically brought up in Baker v. Nelson, and the Supreme Court of the United States did not agree with Rivka's position.
Everyone loves to have friends, but why some want to call them "marriages" makes no sense whatsoever. SS"m" extremists need to get some college biology and physiology under their belt to better understand what marriage is and is not.
Am I the only one who has noticed that whenever SoA brings up a great point the other side always plays the hate card.
John N., right on!