Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla) penned a thoughtful op-ed in the Wall Street Journal recently, outlining all the tougher provisions in the Senate bill—the path to citizenship for those who broke the law is marked with fines and sanctions. The same goes for employers who undercut the market by employing those who broke the law and got in ahead of those who waited in line. Senator Rubio further invited people to express ways the security provisions could be further strengthened.

For those who are concerned about rewarding law-breakers—the roughly 11 million or so illegals currently here—Rubio correctly responds that we have to deal with reality that people are not going home. We can further add, that they’ve been here so long, many having children that mass deportations would be unjust, in addition to politically untenable.

It’s this focus that has rightly animated Catholic activists on the topic, all the way up to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and its leader, Cardinal Timothy Dolan. Legalization is the only way to ensure migrant workers aren’t exploited.

But in my view, pro-immigration activists have too often neglected the need for strengthened border security as an important prerequisite of any true immigration reform. Dealing with current reality is one thing—allowing the same conditions that created it to fester and doing this all over again 25 years from now is quite another. Furthermore, the very principle of what is just—something touched on by CV blogger Tim Shaughnessy in two good posts here and here—is hindered, when a system doesn’t reward those immigrants who wait in line and do things the proper way.

The following two paragraphs are extracted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and effectively sum up the Church’s teaching on immigration…

#2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws (emphasis added) and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

I’ve emphasized the part about obeying the laws, because this is a facet of Church teaching that Catholic activists have too often overlooked—not contradicted directly, but seemingly passed over. It’s time for immigration reform to become a reality, and to take 11 million people and get them “on the grid”, so to speak. But it shouldn’t happen until we’ve taken the necessary steps to ensure this whole illegal mess doesn’t repeat itself. Upholding this facet of immigration laws is woven into Catholic doctrine and an essential part of keeping the whole intact.

I say “unlikely” not to cast aspersions on Broussard, but simply because he’s a reasonably prominent media member at a network that has mostly bowed down to secular liberalism. As such, I was surprised to hear him say the following in light of yesterday’s news…

“I’m a Christian. I don’t agree with homosexuality. I think it’s a sin, as I think all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is…” Then after referring to a friendship with ESPN’s openly gay L.Z. Granderson, Broussard added “true tolerance and acceptance is being able to handle that as mature adults and not criticize each other and call each other names.”

Broussard has since had to issue a “clarification” of his remarks, but he did not back down from his religious beliefs, ones quite obviously shared by the Catholic Church on this subject. The clarification only confirmed that he has no objection to Collins playing in the NBA.

That wasn’t enough for media people like Yahoo’s Kelly Dwyer, who felt compelled to rush into print with a diatribe against Broussard that said America was not a “theocracy” (although if Broussard ever advocated making it such, I missed it) and that it was “it’s infuriating that Chris would go to this place immediately after talking up the massive outpouring of support he referenced from NBA players earlier in the program (Broussard had mentioned talking to many other players with Christian beliefs on the topic).”

Why is it infuriating? The media is regularly admonishing America that we need to have an open and honest discussion on subjects like these? Does an open and honest discussion mean tuning out the other side completely? Apparently Dwyer and those who agree with him feel that way.

And why was it inappropriate for Broussard to make his remarks yesterday? He’s a socially conservative Christian who covers the NBA at an all-sports network that owns a huge chunk of the TV rights to the league. Why on earth would he not give his view, especially given that his beliefs had apparently been expressed before and he was invited onto the network’s discussion? We might add that “his beliefs” on this speak for those of many, ranging from the Catholic Church, to various Protestant communities to Judaism and Islam.

What’s more disturbing is that Dwyer and his ideological compatriots really don’t grasp that it really is possible to see beyond a fundamental disagreement on questions of right and wrong and still like a person. Does this mean they’re only capable of talking to and connecting with those who toe their line?

It brings to mind the story of Andrew Sullivan and Pat Buchanan. Sullivan is an openly gay liberal writer and Buchanan a socially conservative Catholic and three-time presidential candidate. When it was made public that Sullivan had HIV, Buchanan sent him a note. Sullivan recalled that he expected condemnation and instead received a compassionate response and an offer of prayer. Sullivan at first could not understand how someone who had been so vocally opposed to his lifestyle could reach out in a time of need. He eventually came to realize that however much gay rights supporters get tired of hearing “hate the sin, love the sinner”, for many people that really is the way they live.

Sullivan would later write, “I think it would have been perversely churlish not to recognize his good intent, quietly and privately expressed.” He later lamented that “one of the deepest problems in today’s culture war is the reflexive imputations of bad motives to the opposition and the demonization that inevitably follows. The corollary is believing that we ourselves is capable of nothing but good, and so failing to see where we also go wrong.”

Kirsten Powers wrote column in The USA Today that sums it up—“

“Infant beheadings. Severed baby feet in jars. A child screaming after it was delivered alive during an abortion procedure… The revolting revelations of Gosnell’s former staff, who have been testifying to what they witnessed and did during late-term abortions, should shock anyone with a heart.”

It’s worth noting that Powers is hardly a card-carrying conservative pro-lifer. Don’t let her appearances on Fox News fool you. She is in fact, a Democrat who backs liberal orthodoxy on most political issues, and according to her Wikipedia page, she carried on a romantic relationship the now-disgraced left-wing congressman from New York, Anthony Weiner. The fact Powers is horrified, and that USA Today allowed her to publish her horror, is a sign of how revolted people are.

If you want some historical perspective on this, compare the tragedy of Philadelphia to the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire incident of 1911. In that case, horrific working conditions resulted in a fire at a New York factor, which ended with girls leaping to their deaths rather than be burned alive.  Everyday Americans were horrified and the result was a sea change in the push for worker safety. Is Gosnell’s Butcher Shop and this trial going to be what future students read about in their history classes? Are they going to read that this was the moment when wavering voters shifted gradually, but irrevocably to the pro-life side? One can only hope.

Carson has sort-of apologized for his remarks. The pseudo-apology was admirable on two counts—he acknowledged that his wording was poorly chosen, but made no backtracking on the fundamental principle itself.

I would agree that the wording was poorly chosen, and not just for PR-related reasons. There’s no automatic linkage of same-sex marriage to pedophilia and other aberrant practices. The path from Barney Frank to Jerry Sandusky is not inevitable. At least it doesn’t have to be. In a recent post on the redefining of marriage, I said that when same-sex marriage supporters say that don’t want this practice extended further, I’m inclined to believe them.

But in that same post, I added another question, which is relevant again here in the Johns Hopkins case, and it’s this—on what basis do you stop the redefinition of marriage as just being between two people, regardless of gender? The entire crux of the same-sex marriage push has been that these are people in love, and it’s hateful  and intolerant to draw a line at them marrying.

Well then, why is not hateful and intolerant to stop a man from being with a 16-year-old if they’re both “in love”? Why is not hateful and intolerant to stop someone from having four or five wives if everybody’s in love? In short, what is your basis for drawing the line? Or do you believe there is no line? If same-sex marriage supporters believe there is a line, let’s hear it. Or if they believe that all boundaries are hateful and intolerant, let’s hear that.

If there is no line, then the downward path into all kinds of sexual aberrations that I think most same-sex marriage supporters would be horrified by, becomes all too realistic.

In my earlier post, I laid out the case for the line being at a man and a woman, one I believe stands up on non-religious grounds. I won’t reiterate it all here. I will point out that this breaking of boundaries did not start with the same-sex marriage movement. Monsignor Charles Pope, in a thoughtful article, says that the roots of the current crisis were planted long ago, when pleasure started to become the exclusive basis for heterosexual relationships.

Once “being happy” and “being in love” become the accepted norm between a man and a woman, what basis was there to stop the same from being extended to those who experience attraction to those of the same gender? There was none, and to borrow Msgr. Pope’s words, we are now “reaping the whirlwind” of what was sowed long ago. I suspect there are very among us who can claim innocence in this regard.

But in acknowledging that the current climate was prepared for long ago, going back at least to the late 1960s and arguably before, we can find hope. The cultural victories of 2040 and 2050 will be won by laying the groundwork today and regardless of how this plays out in the short-term, that’s where the focus needs to be.

The question of why Congress can’t pass reasonable gun legislation has a multitude of answers—but I would suggest that at least one answer involves looking at the tactics, mindset and notable omissions by the political Left, including the president himself.

Let’s begin with the tactics—while Barack Obama is hardly the first political leader to exploit public emotions after a tragedy, the decision to shove gun legislation down the nation’s throat immediately after Sandy Hook smacks of bullying. A liberal can reasonably counter that it’s no different than George W. Bush jamming the Patriot Act through Congress in the aftermath of 9/11 and they would be correct. It’s worth noting that in Bush’s memoirs Decision Points, he said he regrets not the legislation itself, but allowing it to be termed the “Patriot Act”, because it unfairly maligned the patriotism of legislators who opposed its provisions. In short, Bush regretted a contribution to an atmosphere of political bullying. Is similar repentance in Obama’s future?

Now let’s go to a mindset that goes well beyond the president. The vast majority of Americans—myself included—do not see owning an assault weapon as necessary for hunting or protecting one’s family, nor do we see it is intrinsic to the Second Amendment. But the mindset of the anti-gun crowd is such that their reaction to every firearms-related crime is exactly the same, regardless of whether it’s a handgun or an assault weapon. This unwillingness to distinguish between the two—between one weapon that truly is necessary to protect one’s self and another that is not—makes the NRA’s charge of an ultimate conspiracy aimed at gun confiscation quite realistic.

Finally, let’s come to the omission, one that was touched on by Campbell Brown in The Wall Street Journal. It’s the unwillingness of the Left in general and the president in particular to go anywhere near the issues of violence in video games and in Hollywood. We know for a fact that Newtown killer Adam Lanza fed his mind a steady diet of violent video games. We know that as sure as we know that he used an assault weapon. Would stiffer regulation of what appears on video games, along with our TV screens and in the theatres be able to reduce violence? I don’t know, but there’s equal uncertainty about whether an assault weapons ban will work, and that hasn’t stopped Obama from pushing on that front.

What this smacks of is political opportunism. Democratic presidents get their backing from Hollywood, while Republicans are backed by the gun industry. Standing up to the other party’s heavyweights is hardly an act of political courage. Opening up a real conversation that involved all facets of gun violence, regardless of whose cages were rattled would be. Obama didn’t act any differently than any other politician of any ideological stripe would have in only targeting his adversary, but that’s hardly a compliment.

I’d like to be more enthusiastic in backing some of the gun control measures that are reasonable and common-sense oriented. Cardinal Dolan in New York, hardly an apologist for the Administration, has been supportive. There’s no reason not have a background check in place—while we can’t expect laws to work in keeping guns away from criminals, we can reasonably expect to keep them out of the hands of the mentally ill, and a background check would go a long way towards that. Even in the current political climate, I would like to see the background check pass. It’s the assault weapons ban where the problems of tactics, mindset and omission give me pause. In an ideal world, I’d be for the ban. But until the debate starts getting conducted on fairer ground and all causes of violence explored, I’ll have to pass.

Maybe when gun control advocates lament an “enthusiasm gap” when it comes to public opinion on these issues, they might examine their own role in creating that gap. I just hesitate to get on board with them, even when there should be room for agreement.

Dolan’s statements—especially the latter—hit the nail on the head and represent the challenge the Church faces. The questions that come to my mind are first of all, how does the Church reach out to gays and lesbians without compromising unchangeable Catholic teachings, and what level of success should be expected.

I’ll start with the second question—I think we’ve got to be realistic and say that at least for the short-term, the success rates won’t be high. The movement of gays and lesbians is exceptionally militant right now, and as much as we might genuinely believe in the human dignity of everyone who deals with same-sex attraction, the leadership of the gay and lesbian movements have chosen to define themselves exclusively by their sexual attraction, and to further define the legalization of marriage as the only way they feel their dignity is being upheld. We can’t give in on either point, creating an impasse that it will require a lot of prayer to get through, before we can reach the point of significant progress.

But “significant progress” is usually measured by worldly standards—be it huge numbers of people who change their minds, political victories, etc. The Catholic Church is above worldly standards and is in the mission of saving individual souls. And behind the media noise of today are going to be men and women who wrestle with same-sex attraction, don’t really want to live that way and are looking for a place of spiritual refuge to work things out.

These aren’t the people who will get on television, start up a blog or have reporters looking to talk to them. They’re just the ones who are really looking for what the Catholic Church has to offer—the graces that pour out through the sacramental life and the certitude that comes with embrace of infallible doctrine, unchanged through two millennia. Cardinal Dolan is right—if a rigorous defense of the true nature of marriage comes off hostile, these people are likely to stay away.

It’s difficult not to feel  hostile when the leadership of the current gay and lesbian movement feels the need to stick everything in your face, to judge your motives and to, in effect, play God, by damning the intentions of their opponents at every turn. Such is the state of politics in America today. But behind the politics are people who are hurting, need help and need to know there’s a place they can go. If the leadership of the Catholic Church keeps this type of person at the heart of its ministry, and doesn’t measure its success by dramatic and sudden shifts of public opinion, then the day of the Church’s inevitable victory will be hastened, and a lot of people behind the scenes looking for an answer to same-sex attraction will be better for it.

P.S. A similar theme was hit by CV blogger Tim Shaughnessy in his fine piece about Starbucks, Chick-Fil-A and the gay marriage debate.

Dan Flaherty is the author of Fulcrum, an Irish Catholic novel set in postwar Boston with a traditional Democratic mayoral campaign at its heart, and he is the editor-in-chief of TheSportsNotebook.com

It seems you can’t go anywhere online or on television right now without seeing something about same-sex marriage. I suppose it’s logical enough, given the prominence the issue has as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments over California’s ban on the practice, but it’s also discouraging as not only does public opinion show rising support for same-sex marriage, but the name-calling of opponents has also hit a fever pitch. The question to supporters becomes this—if this boundary in the definition of marriage is crossed, where exactly does it stop?

Same-sex marriage supporters are offended at the notion that approval of this practice means an inexorable march to legalization any number of “relationships”, from polygamy to a man marrying his dog, and the real elephant in the room, which is marrying underage kids. And in truth, I don’t doubt that most supporters of same-sex marriage are genuinely opposed to all of these practices. But they have no firm basis on which to oppose them.

I can tell you where my line is drawn and why. Marriage is between a man and a woman, because the genders were designed to complement each other. To be as diplomatic as possible, let’s just say the plumbing all matches up. Same-sex marriage crosses that line, and arguments that supporters of traditional marriage are no different than people who oppose interracial marriage also fall flat on that same basis. Skin pigmentation differences don’t alter the question of natural design in the way same-sex relationships do.

That’s why I believe the boundary we currently have on marriage is in the correct place. We’ve progressed past old prejudices that have nothing to with the nature of humanity, but have not yet gone over the line to a new construct that challenges the laws of nature. I think it’s important to note that this defense of traditional marriage is not rooted in religious beliefs—it’s rooted in the nature and design of human beings, which any atheist can believe.

So my question to people who support same-sex marriage and believe I’m full of it, is twofold—the first, and most important, is where your boundary exists and on what basis. The second would be this—why is your boundary the mark of an enlightened, compassionate human being and mine the mark of a hate-filled bigot? Or is that just name-calling that we can dismiss?

Dan Flaherty is the author of Fulcrum, an Irish Catholic novel set in postwar Boston with a traditional Democratic mayoral campaign at its heart, and he is the editor-in-chief of TheSportsNotebook.com

The question of whether homosexual desires are something was born with is not the issue. The issue is whether homosexual acts—and thereby marriage—are natural. To answer that question, just ask yourself what would happen if everyone was homosexual—the human species would die out. That would strike me as unnatural.

The reality of life in this world is that we have attractions and passions that are, in varying degrees, unnatural and not the way God intended us to live. The Catholic Church would call that the consequences of original sin. I believe that gays and lesbians don’t control their attractions. What I don’t agree with is the belief that this therefore makes it natural.

It’s analogous to alcoholism. No one knows why some people seem to be wired in a way that when you have one beer it invariably leads to a case. The answer society offers is the correct one—to seek help and to live sober. Thankfully our society has mostly grown past the notion that alcohol abuse comes from a weak will and come to recognize it as an illness. It’s handled in the way it should be handled—with compassion, with respect, but with a firm belief that getting beyond the affliction is the way to live.

Unfortunately, we have not progressed as far when it comes to homosexual inclinations. The reality is that homosexual acts take a grave toll on those who commit them, the exposure to STDs being the most publicized, and including heightened chances of syphilis and hepatitis. I don’t consider this “God’s retribution”. I consider it the natural consequences of unnatural acts. The answer society has given those who struggle with homosexual affliction is tantamount to giving an alcoholic a case of beer—telling them, in effect, we won’t help you past your affliction, we’ll instead feed it.

The effects of normalizing unnatural behavior affects everyone, but the first people it affects are those who struggle with their afflictions. They really aren’t being given adequate answers by anyone, and that’s where the Catholic Church has to continue to find its voice—to articulate both the doctrine of original sin as an explanation for the disorder, and the grace poured out through the sacraments and the Gospel as the way to heal, recover and live normally.

The secular answer of “do whatever your passions tell you” is winning the argument right now, because it’s practicioners have been working at a long time, planting the cultural seeds that have put them on the verge of a political victory. If the poll numbers are right—and in spite of the bias at The Post & ABC, I imagine they’re pretty close—than even if California’s gay marriage ban is upheld by the Supreme Court, more states are going to continue to legalize the practice.

But what if the Catholic Church and its practicioners make the same sort of commitment to settle in for the long haul, to plant the seeds that will eventually lead to a restoration of the natural law. We’re losing the battle at the highest levels today, because we lost at the grass roots twenty and thirty years ago. The flip side is that the battle for the victories of thirty years’ hence is just beginning.  Save the life and soul of the individual gay person. From there save the culture, and eventually let that settle into law.

Dan Flaherty is the author of Fulcrum, an Irish Catholic novel set in postwar Boston with a traditional Democratic mayoral campaign at its heart, and he is the editor-in-chief of TheSportsNotebook.com

North Dakota’s pro-life legislation bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, and further bans it for purposes of gender selection or due to genetic defect. Now the question becomes what happens next. Critics of the bills have cited the expense that the state will incur after the inevitable litigation begins and the strong possibility—indeed the hope—that this ends up in the Supreme Court with a showdown over Roe.

A few thoughts regarding this potential watershed moment for the unborn in America…

*The alleged concern about the costs of litigation are comical. If the secular left in this country really feels that money shouldn’t be wasted on lawyers, then there’s an easy answer—don’t challenge the law. Let it stand and move on. Or work to undo it through democratic means rather than judicial fiat.

*With regard to the substance of the law itself, what is the woman who might casually identify as a feminist, but not be a passionate secular left-winger, going to be at the debate over abortion for purposes of gender selection.

The abortion industry has gotten a lot of mileage and made a lot of money by pretending they’re about the health of woman. What happens to that perception when a highly visible clash over whether we should be a society that tolerates the most flagrant form of gender discrimination—murder in the womb—breaks out? There will be a sharp contrast drawn between the abortion industry’s desire for a practice that almost always works against baby girls and the pro-life movement, which staffs pregnancy centers aimed at providing the basics for poor, expectant mothers.

If this reaches the Supreme Court prior to 2016, what happens when these same women realize that the president they thought was oh-so-kind and sensitive to female concerns, steps in and gives legal comfort to the corporate industry that carries out abortion for purposes of gender selection? Does anyone doubt that another amicus curiae brief would be filed the Administration on behalf of Big Abortion?

However the politics of it all shake out, we’re headed for a long overdue battle. Thanks to the legislators of North Dakota for starting the ball rolling.

Dan Flaherty is the author of Fulcrum, an Irish Catholic novel set in postwar Boston with a traditional Democratic mayoral campaign at its heart, and he is the editor-in-chief of TheSportsNotebook.com

But maybe I was wrong, a notion I’m sure CV readers can be easily persuaded of. The reason is this—the pro-life movement has begun to make ObamaCare work to its own advantage at the state level. What’s transpired is this—as states set up the exchanges, they also have the right to regulate them. And in eighteen states, the exchanges are expressly forbidden to cover abortions.

The source on this is not one that’s celebrating this victory for the unborn. Sara Beincasa, writing at Take Part, reports this development and is obviously distressed by it. I think there are a few important lessons that have to be taken…

*There was much talk on the part of ObamaCare opponents about how either the Supreme Court case of last June, or the presidential election in November were “the last chance” to defeat the law. This creative work by the pro-life movement is the reminder of a basic political fact—there is no such thing as a “last chance” in politics. Whether it’s a defeat or a victory, nothing is permanent. The question is how well you roll and take your cause to the next stage of the game.

*The pro-life movement and conservative politics have been linked together since at least the Reagan era. The reason is understandable enough, given the way Planned Parenthood became the imposter holding the Democratic Party hostage. But the pro-life cause and conservatism are not irrevocably one in the same. If there continues to be reasonable hope that the apparatus of ObamaCare can be used to advance the pro-life cause, that’s a greater good than resisting the apparatus itself. This could be the next battleground that pro-lifers and conservatives have to agree to disagree.

The question becomes whether it’s time to make this leap, from resisting the exchanges to using them to advance the cause of basic human rights. This was most decidedly not the intention of the law’s author, so I’m not ready to make the leap based on a single article by one of the foot soldiers for the abortion industry. I’d like to hear from pro-lifers if the situation is really is optimistic as Benincasa’s gloom makes it appear. But in either case, the recent developments at the state level are another small reminder that the pro-life battle isn’t dependent on the results of a presidential election.

Dan Flaherty is the author of Fulcrum, an Irish Catholic novel set in postwar Boston with a traditional Democratic mayoral campaign at its heart, and he is the editor-in-chief of TheSportsNotebook.com