White House Petitioned to Declare Catholic Church a “Hate Group” — Will it Comply?

This isn’t as far-fetched as we’d like to imagine:

An online petition asking the White House to designate the Catholic Church as a “hate group” for its views on marriage is drawing criticism for generating unjust animosity.

The petition reveals an “underlying agenda,” which is not simply to prevent violent crimes, but to “stigmatize any disapproval of homosexuality at all and essentially to silence us,” said Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C.

He explained to CNA on Jan. 3 that applying the “hate group” label to organizations that are morally opposed to redefining marriage is simply “name-calling designed to cut us out of the public debate.”

Initiated on Christmas Day, a petition on the White House website had collected 1,640 signatures by Jan. 3. [CNA]

(Nice touch, initiating the petition on Christmas Day.)

Here’s my reaction to this news: I’d love to see the White House declare once and for all that it does NOT consider the Catholic Church to be a “hate group”.

You see, this is one of the most insidious arguments used by those bent on redefining marriage: they claim, time and time again, that laws, traditions, individuals and institutions which understand marriage to be the union of one man and one woman do so because of animus towards gay people.

It’s an absurd claim, of course: the notion that thousands of years of civilized human beings all coming to the same conclusion that, to make a marriage, you need both sexes was purely a way of expressing “hatred” towards gay people.

But an absurd claim repeated often enough by powerful people can still do incredible damage.

Which powerful people are repeating this absurd claim that marriage is rooted in hatred, you might ask?

Obama’s Justice Department, that’s who:

“…The [Department of Justice's] 31-page brief asserts that DOMA’s “official legislative record” shows clearly that Section 3 of DOMA, which limits the federal definition of “marriage” to the union of one man and one woman, and “spouse” to indicate a member of the opposite sex, was “motivated in large part by animus toward gay and lesbian individuals and their intimate relationships.” (LSN, emphasis added).

And, in another instance:

“… Stuart Delery, acting assistant attorney general of the Department of Justice’s Civil Division, argued for the government, against the constitutionality of Section 3 of the act [before the Supreme Court]… Delery said. “Furthermore, there’s clear evidence in the legislative record of animus including prejudice and stereotyped-based thinking.” (Law.com, emphasis added)

Yes, you read that right: official representatives of our own government claiming in the highest court of the land that the reason a law was passed to protect marriage was because of “animus” and “prejudice” towards gay and lesbian people.

For gay marriage activists, including many representatives of our own government, failure to support gay “marriage” makes one immediately guilty of being “anti-gay.”

That’s why I’m really curious to see how the White House answer the question: is the Catholic Church a “hate group” because of our understanding of marriage?

4,494 views

Categories:Uncategorized

73 thoughts on “White House Petitioned to Declare Catholic Church a “Hate Group” — Will it Comply?

  1. The Golden Rule requires us to be respectful in all of our relationships. This includes sexual relationships. What kind of respect are two homosexuals really showing to each other and others around them? What is friendship anymore? Friendship is ruined in the homosexual encounter…”I’ll violate your personal space and body if you violate mine.” This is not respect but an ASSAULT.

  2. Dave Richey says:

    As a practicing Catholic who simply adores our wonderful faith I guess I am a member of the hate group being espoused here … I HATE that there are those who want to tear down this great country and I HATE that we appear to have lost our moral bearing and I HATE that my beautiful 7 year old granddaughter is faced with the possibility her America will look nothing like the America we older folks have enjoyed and I HATE that our freedoms are constantly under attack and that we risk losing them altogether and I HATE that there are those among us who feel so threatened as to feel the need to resort to tearing down the most fundamental societal ‘norms’ like marriage between a man and woman … and yet I will pray for all who hold views contrary from my own and will love them as I’m directed by My Lord to do … and in the meantime if there is a petition circulated to register my growing list of ‘HATES’ with the White House would someone kindly sign me up!!

  3. Thomas, all your online writing is visible and easy to read. You are indeed prejudiced against homosexuals, you do indeed judge them not by the content of their character but by the orientation of their sexuality, and you do indeed frequently exhibit animus toward them.

    1. abadilla says:

      You are dead wrong about Thomas. He presents the teaching of the Church on this delicate matter and several of us attept to do just that as we are accused falsely of being evil, and demonstrating hatred and bigotry. If Thomas and several of us here who defend the faith are “prejudiced” against homosexuals, which is definitely not the truth, you might be prejudiced against the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

      1. I am ABSOLUTELY prejudiced against the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. They judge me — not by the content of my character but by the orientation of my sexuality — to be “sinful” and “intrinsically disordered”. I find the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church to be rancidly bigoted. One cannot choose their sexual orientation; one CAN choose their spiritual belief system.

        1. And it is your inability to distinguish between judging an action and judging a person that makes it near impossible to have meaningful dialogue. I have no personal issue with you in telling you your actions are wrong any more than I do with a child trying to sneak candy into his bedroom. Being gay is not a sin. Acting upon it is. Also, being bigoted doesn’t really matter if someone is right, so how about showing us how we are wrong to entertain the thought that homosexual actions are sins. You may not be able to choose your orientation, but you CAN choose how you act base upon that orientation.

          1. Patrick says:

            Sin? Sin? This isn’t about sin. Sin has no meaning in civil law, Some crazy religions also think that masturbation is a sin and that a women showing her face is a sin and that viewing naked pictures is a sint? Our civil laws don’t key off of what some religions think is sinful. if it did, our art museums would close tomorrow and our women wouldnt be able to drive.

        2. Justin Jurek says:

          One might not be able to help being a pedophile either, but you certainly wouldn’t want someone acting on that now, do you?

          Having deviant inclinations might not be sinful, but acting on them is.

  4. disqus_NFTX9Yjqrg says:

    America is under an all out assault from the left…Don’t let them take your guns—These anti-American liberals will not stop until they’ve destroyed every inch of moral fabric this country was founded on…

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.