Archbishop Cordileone calls Minnesota’s redefinition of marriage the ‘height of irony’

A week ago yesterday Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton turned his back on children across his state by signing into law a bill that allows same-sex couples to participate in the institution of marriage. Dayton signed the bill during a ceremony held on the steps of the state Capitol Tuesday following its passage in the Minnesota State House (75-59) and Senate (37-30). 107 Democrats and 5 Republicans voted in favor of the bill.

Although Governor Dayton told those in attendance that “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness certainly includes the right to marry the person you love,” there was no indication that he nor the thousands of ‘marriage equality’ supporters in attendance were cognizant of the fact that the law discriminates against polygamists, pedophiles and relatives who just want to “marry the person(s) they love.”

Perhaps this embarrassing oversight didn’t cross the minds of those who voted for the law, which now defines marriage as a contract between “two people.” Then again, maybe it was intentional. Maybe those who voted in favor of the law are just a bunch of bigots. Regardless, as it stands today, Minnesota is now the 12th state in the union and 1st in the Midwest to ignore science, cast aside the biological differences between men and women, and redefine marriage along gender neutral lines.

Cordileone

“It is the height of irony,” said San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, “that the Minnesota legislature decided, and the governor signed into law, the redefinition of marriage just after we celebrated the unique gifts of mothers and women on Mother’s Day.”

“Instead of strengthening [motherhood and fatherhood] the Minnesota legislature’s decision to redefine marriage weakens motherhood and fatherhood, and so strikes a blow to all children who deserve both a mother and father.”

The decision of gay rights activists to pressure Minnesota lawmakers into supporting a law they know will lead to the total loss of religious freedom and, as some LGBT activists contend, the eventual destruction of marriage all together, comes a mere six months after Minnesotans narrowly rejected a constitutional amendment that would have defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Although opponents of that amendment said it wasn’t necessary because Minnesota law already supported the traditional definition of marriage, their innocent-sounding claims were nothing more than duplicitous entreaties meant to trick marriage supporters into staying home and not voting.

Noting the surreptitiousness of their arguments, Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, issued a press release last week. In it, Brown claimed that marriage redefiners “always intended to redefine [marriage] at the soonest possible moment.” He later argued that “legislators who voted to redefine marriage were foolish to do so. They cast a terrible vote that damages society, tells children they don’t deserve a mother and a father, and brands supporters of traditional marriage as bigots.”

Recognizing that defenders of marriage are now facing an uphill battle, Archbishop Cordileone encouraged people to work even harder. “We know that now is the time to redouble our prayers, efforts and witness. The truth of marriage is not going away.”

“We know what it takes to work toward a culture of life even in the midst of laws that work against us,” he added. “The same is true for rebuilding a culture of marriage. No matter what the horizon may bring, we will continue in charity and truth to stand for justice and for the most vulnerable among us.”

10,028 views

Categories:Democratic Party Marriage Politics

21 thoughts on “Archbishop Cordileone calls Minnesota’s redefinition of marriage the ‘height of irony’

  1. patrick says:

    Yes, Paul Sadek, I hear you, and I respect your belief that that may happen, although I strongly hold the opposing view, and my view is supported by over 200 years of law.

    The question is why does someone like Noreen believe that our laws should reflect her personal, irrational fears?

    Frankly, it amazes me that people will put such a concept in writing and post it on the web.

  2. Jonathan Brumley says:

    Morality isn’t defined by religion. Murder is wrong whether or not you’re religious.

    It is right for a government to enforce just laws in order to prevent harm. It is wrong for the government to force participation in immoral acts.

    1. Quanah says:

      Jonathan, what is the basis for murder being wrong?

      1. Joe M says:

        Quanah, what do you think the basis for murder being wrong is?

    2. Russell says:

      Which immoral acts are the government forcing participation is?

      1. Joe M says:

        Gay adoption and funding contraceptives, to name two.

  3. Robb says:

    Perhaps the Archbishop misses the irony of using the government to force religions to marry only whom the government says. After all, as a US Bishop, Cordileone would surely agree that the government cannot restrict the religious or moral beliefs of any group.

    1. Laura says:

      At this juncture Robb, to the best of my knowledge, the US government does not ‘force’ priests, ministers, etc. to marry anyone. The concern is that the government WILL attempt to force Catholic priests, and others to perform that which is a sacrament in our faith. The Sacrament of Marriage. Thus the door to religious persecution is wide open.

      1. Veronica says:

        That’s not a concern at all. At least not a real concern. It’s a good way to stir up some animosity against gay people though.

        1. NoreenD says:

          Of course, it’s a concern. If the law says that a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman, then sooner or later they will cry discrimination if a member of the clergy refuses to marry them. They do it to businesses who will not serve their marriage festivities because it infringes on their religious beliefs. How can you say the same won’t happen to the clergy who refuse to perform the ceremony?

          1. Patrick says:

            Noreen we are waiting for a single example where the us or any State government has ever forced a RC priest to perform a sacrament that the church was opposed to. Ever. Anywhere. Ever.

          2. Paul Sadek says:

            Patrick, I don’t anticipate a government mandate in my lifetime; but what I do expect to see is a lawsuit–one which I would HOPE that a judge would dismiss as frivolous; but I won’t be surprised if SOME judge hears such a case.

        2. mominvermont says:

          Religious persecution has already begun. A Catholic couple in Vermont was forced to shut down their wedding reception business after refusing to celebrate the “marriage” of two New York women. Forcing citizens to violate their consciences or face fines is an effective way to show animosity against Christians though.

        3. Joe M says:

          Veronica. Can you honestly expect traditional marriage supporters to trust that no group will attempt to use these laws to force people to perform their marriages?

          Do you really believe yourself that that isn’t going to be an issue?

          1. Patrick says:

            Show me 2 Jews that a roman catholic priest was forced to marry by our government. For that matter, show me 2 Catholics that a roman catholic priest was forced to marry by our government.

      2. GREG SMITH says:

        Dear Laura ~ So you think that because ,maybe this remote possibility might occur sometime in the future (and every legal scholar left and right agrees it’s against the 1st Amendment.) poor widow Windsor will have to pay $360,000 to the IRS? ~ Pax, Greg

        1. TM says:

          Many legal scholars believe that the famous HHS mandate violates 1st Amendment rights, yet that is the law of the land. The possibility is not remote or far-fetched at all, more likely it’s imminent. I mistrust the power to penalize non-compliance: you don’t have to do this, but your choice is going to cost you.

          1. GREG SMITH says:

            Still ~ Should Mrs. Windsor have to suffer for this “possibility”?

        2. Joe M says:

          Greg. The solution for widow Windsor’s situation is simple. Remove the immoral estate tax.

          1. Patrick says:

            Joe M, the RC church doesn’t think the estate tax is immoral. Is the church the ultimate authority only when it agrees with you?

    2. Joe M says:

      Robb. Steven already addressed that angle by pointing out that they went from a discriminatory marriage law to a discriminatory marriage law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.