Cardinal George Rallies the Faithful to Protect Marriage in Illinois

Illinois already has same-sex civil unions that give same-sex couples all the legal benefits of marriage.

Now, proponents of redefined marriage are attempting to legalize same-sex “marriage” in Illinois during the lame-duck session.

Same-sex civil unions have already forced Catholic and Lutheran adoption agencies in the state to shut down.

Redefining marriage will further threaten the religious freedom of those who understand the true meaning of marriage and will further erode our country’s ability to sustain a healthy marriage culture.

Francis Cardinal George of Chicago is urging Catholics in Illinois to take action by contacting their lawmakers and urging them to protect marriage:

Chicago’s Cardinal Francis George and his six auxiliary bishops officially entered Illinois’ gay marriage fray Tuesday, issuing a letter that urges parishioners to contact state legislators and voice opposition to a legalization bill that could face a vote this week.

“Civil laws that establish ‘same-sex marriage’ create a legal fiction,” George and the bishops wrote in a letter sent to priests Tuesday. “The state has no power to create something that nature itself tells us is impossible.” [The Chicago Tribune]

It’s good to see reporters beginning to grasp that the Church’s defense of marriage is rooted in both faith AND reason:

While traditional marriage advocates have cited Scripture as the basis of their objections to civil unions and gay marriage, Roman Catholic leaders have been highlighting their belief that same-sex relationships violate natural law.

According to the tradition of natural law, every human being must seek a fundamental “good” that corresponds to the natural order to flourish. Natural-law proponents say heterosexual intercourse between a married man and a woman serves two intertwined good purposes: to procreate and to express a deep, abiding love. For that reason, they say, homosexual relationships are not equal to heterosexual ones.

Cardinal George also reminds everyone that just because the Church is pro-marriage does not mean she is “anti-gay”:

In George’s letter, he writes that despite the church’s objections to gay marriage, priests and parishioners should not alienate members of the gay community, especially relatives. He said the church is not “anti-gay.”

“Does this mean that the Church is anti-gay? No, for the Church welcomes everyone, respects each one personally and gives to each the spiritual means necessary to convert to God’s ways and maintain friendship with Christ,” he wrote.

“The Catholic Church in the Archdiocese of Chicago has consistently condemned violence toward or hatred of homosexually oriented men and women. Good pastoral practice encourages families to accept all their children and not break relationships with them.”

Cardinal George also reminds Catholics that we all have a stake in protecting marriage:

In the letter, George cautions parishioners about the negative consequences for gay marriage opponents if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land.

“We will all have to pretend to accept something that is contrary to the common sense of the human race,” he wrote. “Those who continue to distinguish between genuine marital union and same-sex arrangements will be regarded in law as discriminatory, the equivalent of bigots.”

If you live in Illinois please TAKE ACTION by contacting your state lawmakers through this form.



76 thoughts on “Cardinal George Rallies the Faithful to Protect Marriage in Illinois

  1. Truth B Told says:

    Brothers and sisters marry, mothers marry heir own daughters, let men marry dogs, women marry horses, it all makes as much sense as two men getting married.

    1. Philip D. says:

      Gay people = dogs. That pretty much sums up your disrespectful view.

      Fortunately, gay people are protected by the constitution despite the fact that you think they don’t deserve that basic respect and dignity. This is why gay people will ultimately be provided the protections of our civil marriage laws.

      1. Kevin Rilott says:

        Homosexauls can pretend they get married but it will never be marriage…….we all know that.

        But you never answered the question,”Brothers and sisters marry, mothers marry heir own daughters, let men marry dogs, women marry horses, it all makes as much sense as two men getting married.”
        So, Phil, are you saying a mother who wants to marry her own son should be able to…after all they may be “in love”

        1. Philip D. says:

          Again, simple and utter disrespect is the argument of a person that has no argument.

          Tell me, what government interest is accomplished by banning gay people from getting a marriage license from the government clerk that works at City Hall? What part of the traditional marriage vows are gay couples unable to fulfill that you think you should use our country’s laws to ban them from marriage? Please explain your position using something other than insults and disrespect.

    2. Greg B. says:

      Yeah, because comparing human relationships to beastiality helps your case. Good luck with that at SCOTUS.

      1. Truth B Told says:

        Greg, but if they are in “luv” shouldn’t they be allowed to marry?
        By the way, one man sucking on another mans penis is beastiality.

        1. Greg B. says:

          Oh Christ. I hope you’ve been neutered. Idiot.

        2. abadilla says:

          No, a man or a woman having sexual relations with an animal, is bestiality.

        3. “Nope, no anti-gay animus here, people.” “Nothing to see here, folks, move along.”

  2. John Ritchie says:

    Does the State have the power to create something that violates natural law, simple biology and basic morality? No, it does not. There are many reasons to oppose same-sex marriage. See:

    1. Scott H. says:

      I think you should put on a silly red cape and go stage fake “hate crimes” over the entire issue.

    2. Philip D. says:

      Like when the state created the right to free speech even when that speech violates basic morality, natural law, and biology?

      1. Teep says:

        Philip, your comment shows the basic problem in clear relief. The church understands rights to be pre-political, natural and God-given, whereas proponents of same-sex marriage largely seem to think that they are posited by governments and states and derived solely from sentiment and trial-and-error.

    3. Greg B. says:

      Yes, actually, it does.

  3. Truth B Told says:
    Cardinal George is a good man but does not have the backbone needed to protect the Church. The sodimites destroy human lives and souls and Cardinal George needs to excommunicate any and all Catholic politicians who supprt homo-sex-marriage.

    1. Scott H. says:

      I agree. Cardinal George should weaken the church by 60% and see how many gold hats he can buy after that.

      1. abadilla says:

        “see how many gold hats he can buy after that.” Any proof for your assertion that he bought his red hat from Blessed John Paul II? If not, you just calumniated a man simply because you disagree with his position which happens to be the Roman Catholic position on the question of same-sex marriage.
        See Scott, as much as you and others here at CV, whether a small group or a big group, throw tantrums on this question, the Church will never change her position. I don’t know how old you are, but when Venerable Paul VI made it clear that we can’t use artificial means of birth control in 1968, the majority of church members, including priests, theologians and even bishops opposed Paul’s teaching. Now, did the Church “change” its teaching because of that? No, it is still the teaching, popular or not. The same with same-sex marriage.

        1. Scott H. says:

          I don’t particularly care what the church chooses to do when it comes to weddings. I do care when the cardinal decides to stick his nose in civil law.

          1. Truth B Told says:

            Hi Scott, do you think it was wrong for REV. M.L. King (and other clergy)to stick their religious noses in civil law when they opposed racism?

          2. Scott H. says:

            Since M.L. King was the one being discriminated against he had every right. Cardinal George can show no such discrimination against him.

          3. abadilla says:

            If the Cardinal were to say to gay people, you can’t come into Holy Name Cathedral for Mass because you are gay, that would be discrimination, but you can’t expect the Cardinal to give his blessing to what he and the Church considers sinful.

          4. Truth B Told says:

            Hi Scott, All the white ministers and Priests who supported civl rights should have remained silent then. Hummmm……..

          5. Scott H. says:

            You know exactly what I’m saying, quit playing dumb. The Cardinal wants his version of marriage written into civil law. That discriminates against the religious freedom of anyone who does not see civil marriage the same way he does. The Cardinal is still free to bless any kind of marriage he sees fit but he’s not free to tell an MCC pastor what kind of marriage licenses he can legally sign.

          6. Kevin Rilott says:

            Wow, Scott, get a grip, the Cardinal is trying to get anything written into law. The sodomites what to rewrite the law to allow unnatural marriage.
            Com on, no way can two men get married. They have as much chance to have a marriage as a man and a tree – it’s a fake, sure they pretend one is the wife and the other the husband but when it come to procreation, I hate to bust your bubble, it will work about as well as a man and a goat.

          7. “no anti-gay animosity here, folks” “nothing to look at, move along”

          8. abadilla says:

            Scott, what do you think “freedom of religion” is? Freedom of religion implies that every American whether he be a bishop or a lay person has the right to voice his or her concerns in the public square. To tell a Cardinal not to stick his nose in civil law is the same thing as saying that religion should be private and that it has nothing to say in the public square in order to reassert the common good.
            In the 50s there were Baptist and Catholic leaders demanding changes because some laws were downright unjust, especially against Blacks. I didn’t hear then that Baptist ministers and Catholic bishops should not stick their noses in civil law, when the law was clearly unjust and it didn’t reflect at all Christian principles.

  4. David Hart says:

    Mr. Peters seeks to inflict papal law on everyone else. My grandmother was quite religious. Yet she never tried to make Kashrut the law of the land. Nor did she ever organize a protest at her local pork store. I wrote a bit on “natural law” today:

    1. Paul Sadek says:

      I stopped reading at the remark about Snow White, assuming that you had no intention of being taken seriously.

    2. abadilla says:

      Why are you attacking Mr. Peters for posting what Cardinal George said? Your argument is with the Church’s teaching on same-sex marriage, not with Mr. Peters or even Cardinal George.
      As for “religious” people, my sister in law was a catechist and she believes in abortion. So much for “religious” people!

  5. Scott H. says:

    Luckily nobody elected Cardinal George to administer civil law. He’s more than free to say what goes on in his church, however.

    1. Philip D. says:

      No one elected Cardinal George at all.

  6. Karl Komara says:

    I am not a bigot, but it has been infered that I am engaged in bigotry. This will only multiply with myself and many others who choose to express the truth if so called same-sex marriage becomes the law. Now is the time to speak out, friends!

    1. David Hart says:

      Please. A listener “infers;” The speaker “implies.”

    2. abadilla says:

      Well Karl I just did write my opinion and I want you to know the hostility will only grow stronger because far too many Catholics don’t even believe in the moral teaching of the Church. It is weird that the same Catholics who believe Christ is God or that He is truly present in the Eucharist, believe those dogmas because the Church says so, yet, when it comes to the moral teaching of the Church, then they believe the Church is wrong. How can the Church be right in some of her teachings and dead wrong in others. Either the Church is Christ in space and time and guiding us correctly, or it is not. It seems some folks want to have the cake and eat it too.

    3. Philip D. says:

      No, others have accused you of bigotry because you seek to use the laws to disrepectfully force others to live by your religious beliefs. You wish to deprive others of the right to live by their beliefs without any valid reasoning. You wish to limit their freedoms because you don’t like them.

      Never once has the pro-marriage side run a campaign about the value of marriage. They always resort to anti-gay ads that prey on prejudice, fear, and animosity. The people of Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington saw through that.

      If you wish to align yourself with an argument that is based on irrational prejudice, hate and discrimination, then you should, as Pope JPII said, expect the consequences. Depriving others of thousands of legal rights so you aren’t called a bigotry isn’t a rational response. At all.

      1. Teep says:

        Philip, just because you happen to call something a legal right doesn’t make it so. In fact, It’s fairly logical to be highly doubtful about any ‘right’ that is only derived from opinion and legal assertion rather than from a self-evident principle or a natural state of affairs. Just because you and I disagree does not make me a bigot. It is, of course, your right to say whatever you wish about the nature of rights, just as it is mine. It’s too bad that your method of argument is to shout ‘bigot!’ Also, being opposed to same-sex marriage is not an exclusively religious belief, as the article which Thomas cites above points out.

    4. Greg B. says:

      When you oppose equal treatment under the law for a segment of the population, you are indeed engaging in bigotry. It’s as simple as this:,if you don’t like being called a bigot, stop being one.

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=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



Receive our updates via email.