Comments on: CNN Anchor Asks Bishop: “Why Not Get On Board” With Same-Sex Marriage?

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 23 Jun 2012 23:32:06 +0000

I think the first post was about the 57% being against homosexual ‘marriage.’ The report says that 43% are for it, and the poster was wondering why the reporter would ask the bishop to join the 43%. If we were going strictly by numbers, wouldn’t it be more correct to join the 57%?

By: Juan Diego

Juan Diego — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 21:47:23 +0000

Catholics your either in or out ! You know right from wrong and if
you dont we have a Catholic Catechism for Adults.
Policies would be negotiable.Principles would not be.Dont stumble
and fall.You have steak-dont take balogna by mistake.Blessings,Juan

By: Clement Lam

Clement Lam — Thu, 31 May 2012 07:55:29 +0000

Dear Johan,
Marriage is a Sacrament instituted by the Church and is dearly protected by the Pope and the mother church……No Pope of our the Cathoic Church would make any drastic changes to a Sacrament which was instituted for the good of all members of the church. There is now a crisis in the American Catholic Church when more than 40% of Catholics think same-sex marriage is o.k. What’d happened to the formation of all cradle and convert Catholics ???

By: Mary

Mary — Tue, 29 May 2012 19:06:27 +0000

Not sure where my other post went Patrick but here is an article you may find interesting…

http://townhall.com/columnists/frankturek/2008/05/26/gay_marriage_even_liberals_know_its_bad/page/full/

By: Mary

Mary — Tue, 29 May 2012 18:48:45 +0000

The reason that citizens A&B (man and woman) get the “exalted status” is that the government has recognized that the union of A&B is the ideal relationship in which to raise children, the future members of/contributors to our civilized society. This is from the “greater good” or public purpose of marriage perspective. It is not in the best interest of our society as a whole that the government change what marriage means. Private reasons for wanting to marry (tangible benefits) vary greatly but the public or societal purpose of marriage is constant and has been in every civilized society on the planet throughout the history of man. It is the well-being of the children, not the desires of the adults involved that has been and should be the reason for protecting natural marriage. About thirty years ago, we changed the marriage landscape by allowing no fault divorces. People decided that the needs of the adults were more important than the needs of the children and thus the family. Thousands of studies have shown that this more subtle “redefining” of marriage (that it is something that can be dissolved easily, oftentimes capriciously, and not a lifelong commitment) has been harmful to children and adults as well. Just as we didn’t know at the time the impact no fault divorce would have on society, we don’t know now what the impact of changing the definition of marriage will have.

By: Sherry

Sherry — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 17:06:39 +0000

I agree…”YEA CARDINAL MALONE”!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By: Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 23:07:10 +0000

Question for you, Father K: I’m sure you remember the days when Catholics were expected to abstain from eating meat on Fridays … was there ever an effort to make it illegal to eat meat on Friday? Or consider the current church teachings against the use of contraceptives … ever an effort by the church to make contraception illegal? It seems that the the church does best by helping the faithful understand what is expected of them, and often in helping them fulfill that expectation. Why is she not taking the same approach re: same-sex marriage? Why do the faithful require a public law prohibiting same-sex marriage in order to comport themselves as the church teaches … any more than they hypothetical laws re: dietary restrictions ?

By: Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:53:13 +0000

Marriage is the union that creates kinship between two people. It is a union beneficial to the espoused, to their community, and to any children who may become part of their household – BUT – the ability to reproduce is not a prerequisite. The proof of this is self evident when one considers that the marriages of infertile couples enjoy full and equal recognition. Homosexuals and lesbians can bring new life into existence just like any other couple whose biological impediments might be overcome through medical assistance. There is no such thing as “gay marriage” – there is just marriage, the definition of which is commitment between two intimate, loving people to care for one another for the rest of their lives. Any law that prohibits, bans, or prevents such unions is contrary to reason, ignores the realities of nature (human and otherwise), and errantly grants the force of law to an article of faith. Any beliefs about the sacramental nature of matrimony – as well as limitations and prerequisites for entering into this sacramental union – do not require the law of the land to exclude same-sex couples from this legal recognition. Only in this century have we shown such great capacity to recognize that the things that make us different – gender, race, religion, and now sexual orientation – are not justifications for imposing unequal protections of the law. Even Catholics should know better.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:49:59 +0000

You are wrong. Marriage is not natural. Marriage occurs nowhere in nature – among animals or plants or humans. Nowhere. Are you thinkng of “mating”? THAT occurs naturally. Not marriage. You cannot conflate marriage and mating, it is illogical and an insult to married people.

And Christ’s sacramentalizing marriage is as irrelevant to civil laws as is baptism or communion. The idea of it – the practice of it – is lovely for Christians, but is unrelated to the operation of our civil laws.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 01:44:28 +0000

Daniel, Francis’ position with respect to civil gay marriage makes sense ONLY if you start with the premise that “gay people shouldn’t be permitted to marry each other” and then BACK your way into explaining why that is so.

And as you know, our legal system doesn’t work that way. Our legal system works like this – if the government is going to grant a government license and that license is going to endow Citizens A&B with an exalted status in our society (not to mention the tangible benefits attendant to it), well then that government has to have a very good reason for denying that same license to citizens C&D. And really smart men have recently held that being straight is not a good enough reason for citizens A&B to get to get the exalted status we deny to citizens B&C.