Catholic Politicians Supporting Same-Sex Marriage Legislation
by Deal W. Hudson  
1/07/10
Writing for the Catholic Advocate, Matt Smith reports that 39 of the 106 cosponsors of a House bill that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act are “self-identified” Catholics. Smith, a former associate director of the White House Office of Public Liaison, warns that same-sex marriage activists are trying to bring H.R. 3567—ironically, titled the “Respect for Marriage Act 2009”—to the House floor this year.
The end of DOMA would mean 40 states would be required to recognize same-sex marriage. As Smith writes, the political fallout would be enormous: “Democrats will have learned nothing from the current health care debate or the voices of the voters in the states that have repealed gay marriage initiatives.”
Earlier this week, I wrote about Catholics in Congress leading the effort to procure abortion funding. Now we see many of the same names, such as Rep. Rose DeLauro (D-CT) and Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), seeking to change the legal status of marriage in direct contradiction to the teaching of the Catholic Church.
In 1996, the Catholic bishops in the U.S. expressed that teaching this way:
[W]e oppose attempts to grant the legal status of marriage to a relationship between persons of the same sex. No same-sex union can realize the unique and full potential which the marital relationship expresses. For this reason, our opposition to “same-sex marriage” is not an instance of unjust discrimination or animosity toward homosexual persons.
American citizens appear to be on the side of the bishops, not the dissenters in Congress. In the nearly six years since the Supreme Court in Massachusetts made that state the first to recognize gay marriage, 26 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit gay marriage. Last November, Maine—a blue state—voted to repeal the law legalizing gay marriage. In December, the New York Senate voted to reject a gay-marriage bill.
Today, the New Jersey State Senate will vote on a same-sex marriage bill. Activists are hoping to get the bill passed while Gov. John Corzine is still in office, as his successor, Chris Christie, is a Catholic opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage. If passed, New Jersey would be the seventh state—following Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont—to recognize gay marriage.
Gay activists are hopeful to turn the tide in their direction after winning a victory in Washington, D.C., last month, when the city council voted for legalization. But, as Smith points out, the D.C. bill must pass congressional review before the House Government Reform and Oversight Sub-Committee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia.
Noting that the sub-committee is composed of seven Democrats and three Republicans, Smith writes, “With such a lop-sided advantage, advocates anticipate marriages could begin in the District of Columbia as early as February 16. Since the District is a federal territory, same-sex couples from any state will be free to travel to our nation’s capital to wed.” Four of these subcommittee members are Catholic: William “Lacy” Clay (D, MO-01), Dennis Kucinich (D, OH-10), Gerry Connolly (D, VA-11), and Brian Bilbray (R, CA-50).
Smith argues that the Democrats are using the same-sex marriage issue to “re-energize their disappointed base leading into the November 2, 2010, mid-term elections.” If so, they are wading into already very turbulent waters, as the majority of Americans (52 percent) are opposed to the health-care reform the Democrats are trying to ram through Congress.
An even larger majority of Americans (55 percent) oppose the abortion funding that the Democrats and the White House are gearing up to protect from the threat of Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and his pro-life coalition in the House. With all this public discontent, the mid-term election of 2010 could take on the high drama of a presidential election.
* * *
The following are the names of the Catholic co-sponsors of H.R. 3567, a bill “to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State regulation of marriage,” according to Smith’s tally:
Rep. Michael Arcuri (D, NY-24)
Rep. Xavier Becerra (D, CA-31)
Rep. Michael Capuano (D, MA-8)
Rep. Wm. “Lacy” Clay (D, MO-1)
Rep. Gerald “Gerry” Connolly (D, VA-11)
Rep. Joe Courtney (D, CT-2)
Rep. Joseph Crowley (D, NY-7)
Rep. Bill Delahunt (D, MA-10)
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D, CT-3)
Rep. Michael Doyle (D, PA-14)
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D, AZ-7)
Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D, IL-4)
Rep. John Hall (D, NY-19)
Rep. Brian Higgins (D, NY-27)
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D, NY-22)
Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D, RI-1)
Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (D, OH-15)
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D, OH-10)
Rep. John Larson (D, CT-1)
Rep. Ben Lujan (D, NM-3)
Rep. Stephen Lynch (D, MA-9)
Rep. Daniel Maffei (D, NY-25)
Rep. Edward Markey (D, MA-7)
Rep. Betty McCollum (D, MN-4)
Rep. James McGovern (D, MA-3)
Rep. George Miller (D, CA-7)
Rep. Jim Moran (D, VA-8)
Rep. Grace Napolitano (D, CA-38)
Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D, NJ-6)
Rep. Ed Pastor (D, AZ-4)
Rep. Charles Rangel (D, NY-15)
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D, CA-34)
Rep. Linda Sanchez (D, CA-39)
Rep. Jose Serrano (D, NY-16)
Rep. Joe Sestak (D, PA-7)
Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D, NH-1)
Rep. Paul Tonko (D, NY-21)
Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D, NY-12)
Rep. Diane Watson (D, CA-33)

————————————————————————————————————————

Deal W. Hudson is the director of InsideCatholic.com and the author of Onward, Christian Soldiers: The Growing Political Power of Catholics and Evangelicals in the United States (Simon and Schuster).

Your post seems to be saying that these politicians were voting against taking State’s rights away and giving it to the federal government. What’s wrong with that? Shouldn’t the gay marriage agenda be decided at the State level?

We need to tell our leaders who claim that they are Catholics to start to learn the basics of the ten commandments. We need to tell them to stop being cowards and have the moral courage to stand up for what is right. There are countless ways to let the public know in a loving and non-judgemental way that the people that are acting out their homosexual tendencies, can get relief in the Catholic Church, under The Chapter called Courage. They will be called to chastity. Catholics are suppose to love like Christ, that is in each person, and to tell the truth with love and not hate. We all have crosses to bare and no one said it was going to be easy. Other institutions have helped thousands heal and change, that have been told the lie, that they are born that way, so that they don’t have to be responsible for their actions. We have to get the liberal media to start professing the truth. We have to stop the militant gays that are filled with blind rage, to stop bullying anyone that disagrees with them. If they don’t want the help, don’t stop others who suffer and who want help to be denied a way to change their behavior and life, just because they don’t believe its true.

Here is a great article by Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, on this subject
The rest of the article is at, Catholic Education Resource Center

Imposing Our Beliefs On Others

A lot of hot-button topics are being debated in our state legislatures these days, topics of great ethical and bioethical importance, ranging from emergency contraception to gay marriage. These debates address important issues for the future of our society. Lawmakers face the daunting task of making decisions about what should or should not be permitted by law within a reasonable society. Recently I was asked to speak in Virginia at legislative hearings about embryonic stem cell research. After I gave my testimony, one of the senators asked a pointed question. “Father Tad, by arguing against embryonic stem cell research, don’t you see how you are trying to impose your beliefs on others, and shouldn’t we as elected lawmakers avoid imposing a narrow religious view on the rest of society?” The senator’s question was an example of the fuzzy thinking that has become commonplace in recent years within many state legislatures and among many lawmakers.

Two major errors were incorporated into the senator’s question. First, the senator failed to recognize the fact that law is fundamentally about imposing some-body’s views on somebody else. Imposition is the name of the game. It is the very nature of law to impose particular views on people who don’t want to have those views imposed on them. Car thieves don’t want laws imposed on them which prohibit stealing. Drug dealers don’t want laws imposed on them which make it illegal to sell drugs. Yet our lawmakers are elected precisely to craft and impose such laws all the time. So the question is not whether we will impose something on somebody. The question is instead whether whatever is going to be imposed by the force of law is reasonable, just, and good for society and its members.

The second logical mistake the senator made was to suppose that because religion happens to hold a particular viewpoint, that implies that such a viewpoint should never be considered by lawmakers or enacted into law. Religion teaches very clearly that stealing is immoral. Would it follow that if I support laws against stealing, I am imposing my narrow religious viewpoint on society? Clearly not. Rather, the subject of stealing is so important to the order of society that religion also feels compelled to speak about it. Religion teaches many things that can be understood as true by people who aren’t religious at all. Atheists can understand just as well as Catholics how stealing is wrong, and most atheists are just as angry as their Catholic neighbors when their house is broken into and robbed. What is important is not whether a proposed law happens to be taught by religion, but whether that proposal is just, right, and good for society and its members.
That lawmaker may not be so concerned about avoiding the imposition of a particular view on others — more likely, they are jockeying to simply be able to impose their view, a view which is ultimately much less tenable and defensible in terms of sound moral thinking.

To be more coherent, of course, the senator really should have chosen to address the substance of my testimony, rather than talking about the imposition of religious views. The argument I had offered, interestingly, did not depend on religious dogma at all. It depended rather on an important scientific dogma, namely, that all humans come from embryonic humans. The statement that I was once an embryo is a statement about embryology, not theology. Given the fact that we were all once embryonic humans it becomes very clear why destructive embryonic research is an immoral kind of activity. Exploiting the weak and not-yet-born in the interests of the powerful and the well-heeled should not be permitted in a civilized society. This argument, moreover, can be clearly seen by atheists, not just Catholics.

During my testimony, I pointed out how in the United States we have stringent federal laws that protect not only the national bird, the bald eagle, but also that eagle’s eggs. If you were to chance upon some of them in a nest out in the wilderness, it would be illegal for you to destroy those eggs. By the force of law, we recognize how the egg of the bald eagle, that is to say, the embryonic eagle inside that egg, is the same creature as the glorious bird that we witness flying high overhead. Therefore we pass laws to safeguard not only the adult but also the very youngest of that species. Even atheists can see how a bald eagle’s eggs should be protected: it’s really not a religious question at all.

He goes on to say what about the importance to protect the tiniest human being.

Thank you,
Fighterforlife

Marvin,

Gay marriage goes against the teachings of the Catholic church, and since these people are supporting a lifestyle that goes against the teacthings of the church, they need to be disciplined.  To let them go on in this state, not only harms the individuals involved, but harms the Church at large.