Q-poll: Catholic voters are leading US to same-sex marriage

posted at 12:31 pm on March 10, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Don’t look at me — I was the one arguing that the state should get out of the marriage business entirely, and that the only true state interest in marriage, from a secular point of view at least, is enforcing paternal responsibility, which has no connection to same-sex relationships.  This latest poll from Quinnipiac only surprises me to the extent that Catholic voters seem to be ahead of the general population in redefining the legal definition of marriage while still identifying as Catholic:

American voter support for same-sex marriage is inching up and now stands at 47 – 43 percent, including 54 – 38 percent among Catholic voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

This compares to a 48 – 46 percent statistical tie among all voters on same-sex marriage December 5 and reverses the 55 – 36 percent opposition in a July, 2008, survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University. …

“Catholic voters are leading American voters toward support for same-sex marriage,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “Among all voters, there is almost no gender gap, but a big age gap. Voters 18 to 34 years old support same sex marriage 62 – 30 percent; voters 35 to 54 years old are divided 48 – 45 percent and voters over 55 are opposed 50 – 39 percent.["]

This seems surprising for two reasons. First, as a rule, the Catholic voting bloc doesn’t truly lead much anymore. They tend to just reflect the current status quo of the general electorate. This kind of gap from the topline finding is unusual, and perhaps speaks to the demographics of self-identifying Catholics in the US — more centralized in urban areas, trending younger, but perhaps more culturally and ethnically identified than practicing.  Only 31% in this sample attend Mass every week, and another 12% “almost” every week.  By contrast, 39% either “never” attend Mass or only attend a few times a year, with 18% only attending “once or twice a month.”

The other surprise is the significant majority presented in this poll that is willing to let the state redefine what is a sacrament in the religion with which these voters are affiliated.  It’s certainly intellectually possible to separate the church function in marriage from the state function, and a good number of decent and well-intentioned members of my faith make that argument.  Unfortunately, in the real world, those functions have been linked, and it’s not too difficult to see what will happen in the future if the state redefines marriage.  Eventually, a refusal to perform these unions will result in state sanctions and potentially the end of the ability of the church to perform one of its core sacramental duties; the HHS contraception mandate shows the demands popular culture will make on those of faith, and the penalties for refusal.

Also, not to hammer the point unnecessarily, but marriage in the Catholic faith is not a utilitarian tool for worldly pleasure.  It’s a mirror of the internal life of the Trinity, which like its progenitor creates life and operates on both a material and spiritual plane to help us attain the holiness that will eventually (we certainly hope) bring us into that Trinitarian presence for eternity.  That’s why it’s considered a sacrament, and why the Church teaches that marriages have to be open to new life in order to operate in a fully sacramental way — which, by the way, is the reason that the next Pope isn’t going to bless same-sex marriage or contraception, no matter how much the media wants it.  Now, secular voters aren’t required to believe this, but one might think that Catholic voters would.  The question of whether they have been taught this by their churches is certainly open to debate, however.

Yesterday I met author Christopher Ferrara, who wrote a provocative book called Liberty, the God That Failed: Policing the Sacred and Constructing the Myths of the Secular State, from Locke to Obama, which explores some of these issues. Chris is also president and chief counsel of the American Catholic Lawyers Association, which takes the cases of Catholics facing legal action for living their faith in the world, especially focused on pro-life issues.  Chris and I discussed these issues yesterday at the media center here at the Vatican:

I may catch up with Chris later to discuss more of the issues facing this conclave and the Catholic Church in the US.

Update, 3/11: The Catholic League responded yesterday by questioning Quinnipiac’s methodology:

‘Leaving aside the not insignificant fact that the sample size of Catholics was a mere 497, with a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percent, there is something so bizarre—that would be the kind word—about a much more problematic methodological issue: Quinnipiac asked Catholic voters 14 questions on issues of interest to them, and on all but one the survey disaggregated the answers on the basis of church attendance. The one exception was on same-sex marriage.

In other words, we know how Catholics think on issues ranging from celibacy to whether the new pope should come from the U.S. or not; we also know how they split on these subjects on the basis of church attendance. But all we know about the issue that is receiving top billing in the media—gay marriage—is the aggregate figure.

This takes on added significance when we consider that 4 in 10 of the Catholics sampled do not practice their religion (28 percent go to church “a few times a year” and 11 percent say they “never” attend). That these nominal Catholics are precisely the biggest fans of gay marriage is a sure bet, though the poll fails to disclose the results.

The Quinnipiac Polling Institute has some explaining to do.’

Via reader Karla.

HAatV-560


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Catholicism-the only religion where the “believers” decide what they want to believe,whenever they want to,and where the same believers still believe the Church that protected pedophiles still has some moral authority.Becoming quite the joke!

redware on March 10, 2013 at 5:21 PM

Funny, your definition of Catholicism sounds a lot more like secular humanism. Anything goes, and all my decisions are totally valid because I thought of them in my head with no research, zero historical perspective, and without applying even rudimentary common sense.

As long as your standard is the dissolution of any institution that has ever had pedophiles, we should probably just pack up everything since every single institution in society has had a pedophile inhabit it at one point.

One as unserious as you should not talk about jokes unless you are standing in front of a mirror.

BKennedy on March 10, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Please stop calling these people Catholics. They are CINOS.

Catholics In Name Only

potvin on March 10, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Definitely got a lot of Southern Evangelical anti-intellectualism going on here. Moronic attempts to compare consenting adults marrying to humans marrying animals.

The country would be in a much better place when Evangelicals stop claiming they are for small government. They really support “small government” except for marriages, our bodies, our bedrooms, and anything else they consider “icky.” Then they are all about Big Brother, Draconian Laws, and Constitutional Amendments.

The point isn’t that they’re the exact same thing. It’s pointing out the philosophical dead-end of the argument that people should be able to marry however they want with no restriction from anybody else. That’s never been the case, and most people don’t believe it. All we’re talking about are lines in the sand. For some, it’s only a man and woman. For others, it’s only two people. For others, it’s any three people. And so on and so forth.

jas88 on March 10, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Here’s a good write-up of why the “get the govt out of marriage” position is implausible.

pauljc on March 10, 2013 at 12:52 PM

Still missing one important deception: the reason that there is such a large percentage of support for this is that the gays are just stalking horses. The push for gay marriage is really just a front for a push to use the force of government to ban or at least delegitimize all criticism of sexual behavior, boiling down mostly to per-marital sex, infidelity, and divorce.

Count to 10 on March 10, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Please stop calling these people Catholics. They are CINOS.

Catholics In Name Only

potvin on March 10, 2013 at 5:44 PM

…looking for the government to protect them from the moral expectations of their own church.

Count to 10 on March 10, 2013 at 5:48 PM

The Catholic church, like schools, media, and other religious and cultural institutions, were infiltrated by liberal, socialist extremists starting in the 50′s and 60′s. All while your average Joe and Joann went about their daily business of working hard, trying to raise a family and doing what they fel was right in life.

We’ve been plotted against and a creeping subversive war against American values and traditions has been waged against us right under our noses. Only time will tell if it is to late to turn the tide.

Rockshine on March 10, 2013 at 5:49 PM


Believe the Quinipiac polls and I have a Brooklyn Bridge you can buy cheap.

HAGGS99 on March 10, 2013 at 5:54 PM

Also, are you aware that almost 30% of those illegal aliens are Protestants — particularly the ones from Guatemala?

unclesmrgol

And they shouldn’t be rewarded for being here illegally either.

xblade on March 10, 2013 at 6:05 PM

You can spin it anyway you want! However other folks from other belief sets were polled too, the same dynamic of not being true adherents of the denominations tenets applies across the board. It does not change the fact that Catholics polled highest. Again is it surprising to y’all illegals are overwhelmingly a majority Catholic. Not only are they stealing our jobs, invading us and having babies they are also eroding our most basic institutions, marriage. God help us

conservador on March 10, 2013 at 6:11 PM

This is why I pray Raymond Cardinal Burke steps out onto the balcony soon. We need someone who will defend God’s Law and enforce Canon 915. No more of the scandal of anti-Catholics being allowed to say they are Catholic while spitting on everything the Church has always taught and upheld. If not him, someone like him, and I don’t know who that might be.

Please, God, give us a holy Pope.

pannw on March 10, 2013 at 6:21 PM

Definitely got a lot of Southern Evangelical anti-intellectualism going on here. Moronic attempts to compare consenting adults marrying to humans marrying animals

/facepalm

First off, I live in the south-yes, but I was raised in Chicago. Secondly, I am not an Evangelical, and I am well-educated. Third, lighten up Francis, as at least my post was a joke.

The country would be in a much better place when Evangelicals stop claiming they are for small government. They really support “small government” except for marriages, our bodies, our bedrooms, and anything else they consider “icky.” Then they are all about Big Brother, Draconian Laws, and Constitutional Amendments.

TEPJoePa on March 10, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Furthermore, gay marriage is IN YOUR BEDROOM. It is the sanctioning of bedroom behavior hence why you can annul a marriage for lack of consumation. And marriage in general is not small government so extending benefits for another population of the government for the sole purpose to make that group feel good is the very essense of BIG GOVERNMENT. Your asking BIG BROTHER to sanction a private relationship.

And no one is prescribing death(overuse of draconian here) is some one wants to get married if they are gay; they just have a disagreement whether the state should subsidize it or not.

melle1228 on March 10, 2013 at 6:23 PM

1) Roman Catholics ARE Christians. I see some Protestants on this forum writing as if Catholics are not Christians. We Roman Catholics believe that only through the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, only thanks to his death and resurrection and only the grace of God can save us.

Our work proves that we are worthy of this grace, but we can work all we want, without God’s grace there would be no Salvation.

2)Here is are some hardcore numbers to consider when it comes to the Roman Catholic Church.

The Roman Catholic Church in the USA educates 2.6 million students every day costing the Church 10 billion dollars and saving American tax payers 18 billion dollars. Graduates of Roman Catholic Church schools enter college at a 92% rate.

The Roman Catholic Church in the USA has 637 non-profit hospitals. 1 out of every 5 people in the USA (not just Catholics) will be treated at a Catholic hospital.

4) Pedophilia? here are numbers which are sure to be ignored by my ardent anti-Catholic Protestants.

12% out of 300 Protestant clergy surveyed admitted to sexual intercourse with a parishioner. 38% acknowledged other inappropriate sexual contact in a study by the United Methodist Church. 41.8% of clergy women in Protestant churches reported unwanted sexual behavior by male clergy. 17% of Protestant women reported unwanted sexual behavior by a Protestant clergyman.

While 1.7% of the Catholic clergy has been convicted, 10% of Protestant clergy has been convicted of pedophilia. The latter is more in par with the secular population convictions!

I would ask the ardent anti-Catholics do a little bit of research instead of spreading propaganda.

5) Let us get real. The TRUTH is that if you are for gay marriage, for abortion, for anything that disobeys the Pope, the Doctrine and Dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church you are NOT a Roman Catholic.

Picking and choosing what is Right and Wrong. Choosing which Dogmas and Doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church to follow makes you a Protestant at best.

I wish Ed Morrissey would make this distinction.

I have ZERO doubt that among the Roman Catholics who practice, that is those who attend Mass at least every Sunday and those who attend every Sunday, Holiday of Obligations and Weekdays, the numbers would be very different.

You are not a Roman Catholic merely because you say so, because you identify as such. You are a Roman Catholic when you follow and obey all of the teachings, Dogmas and Doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.

Cpt. Kirk on March 10, 2013 at 7:13 PM

Conservador,

I would urge to look into the FACT that illegals from Mexico and other Latin American nations tend to be very socially conservative. And the only reason that most of the illegals that are in the USA are Catholics is because they come from nations where Catholics are the overwhelming majority. It is not because they are Catholics that they are illegals. c’mon now.

I will even go as far as saying that many of these illegals are much more American than countless of fellow LIBERAL Americans.

and there is no such thing as a Liberal or Conservative Catholic, you are either a Catholic or you are not.

Given the results of the poll that Ed cites, the vast majority of so called Catholics, self-identified or identified by the media as such, are NOT Roman Catholic.

Cpt. Kirk on March 10, 2013 at 7:18 PM

This is why I left the Catholic Church. Far too many of them a phonies who think voting for big government is doing Gods work to help the poor and then waste time squabbling over earthly leaders like the pope when they should be focusing on their relationship with Jesus Christ and praying for conviction through the Holy Spirit. Went to a catholic church for 17 years and learned less about Jesus Christ in those 17 years than I did in 2 years attending Bible study with a friend one mine after high school. What a joke this church has become.

jawkneemusic on March 10, 2013 at 1:12 PM

Try looking for an Opus Dei priest near you. They will not steer you wrong.

Also, Ed why don’t you get behind the Marriage March on March 26th?

DagoTwit on March 10, 2013 at 7:54 PM

5) Let us get real. The TRUTH is that if you are for gay marriage, for abortion, for anything that disobeys the Pope, the Doctrine and Dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church you are NOT a Roman Catholic.

Picking and choosing what is Right and Wrong. Choosing which Dogmas and Doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church to follow makes you a Protestant at best.

I wish Ed Morrissey would make this distinction.

I have ZERO doubt that among the Roman Catholics who practice, that is those who attend Mass at least every Sunday and those who attend every Sunday, Holiday of Obligations and Weekdays, the numbers would be very different.

You are not a Roman Catholic merely because you say so, because you identify as such. You are a Roman Catholic when you follow and obey all of the teachings, Dogmas and Doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.

Cpt. Kirk on March 10, 2013 at 7:13 PM

True.

Those that took the sacraments and then actively work against Church Teaching are engaged as enemies of the Church in schism.

This is a Grave Sin placing the immortal soul in jeopardy.

And Hell is forever.

workingclass artist on March 10, 2013 at 8:23 PM

Conservador,

I would urge to look into the FACT that illegals from Mexico and other Latin American nations tend to be very socially conservative. And the only reason that most of the illegals that are in the USA are Catholics is because they come from nations where Catholics are the overwhelming majority. It is not because they are Catholics that they are illegals. c’mon now.

I will even go as far as saying that many of these illegals are much more American than countless of fellow LIBERAL Americans.

and there is no such thing as a Liberal or Conservative Catholic, you are either a Catholic or you are not.

Given the results of the poll that Ed cites, the vast majority of so called Catholics, self-identified or identified by the media as such, are NOT Roman Catholic.

Cpt. Kirk on March 10, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Perhaps but many of those from Latin American countries have difficulty understanding conservative small government philosophy. Many of them expect the same corruption they have seen in their own countries.

Many of them have expectations of government involvement that are influenced by their countries of origin.

It’s a problemo.

workingclass artist on March 10, 2013 at 8:29 PM

If that is true, then the Catholic Church has become salt that has lost it’s flavor, and is good only for casting out.

SWalker on March 10, 2013 at 1:06 PM

Because one Christian sins, or a hundred, or a thousand, or a billion — does that mean that they must be thrown out?

We are all sinners. Now, how does one turn from sin? The lesson of St. Monica and St. Augustine is instructive. Even when Augustine was his most dissolute, Monica never ceased exhorting him to come to God.

unclesmrgol on March 10, 2013 at 1:22 PM

If you knew your Bible (you know that dusty old book the defines exactly what constitutes being a Christian) says, you would not be making such absurd statements. That was a direct quote from no less than Jesus Christ himself.

Matthew 5:13

Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

Furthermore the Apostle Paul wrote pretty much the same philosophical concept when he wrote:

1 Corinthians 5:1-8
1It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife. 2And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3For I truly, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that has so done this deed, 4In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5To deliver such an one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6Your glorying is not good. Know you not that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7Purge out therefore the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, as you are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: 8Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

I do not say this because it is the Catholic Church, I say the exact same thing about any so called Christian Church that abandons the teachings of the Bible.

To be a Christian is to accept that you do not get to make the rules. That you must follow the COMMANDMENTS of Jesus Christ.

Luke 6: 46
Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?

1 John 3:22-24

22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

This is, as I said, not my judgement, but the words of the Holy Scriptures. It does not matter one single bit what a single person, a hundred people, a thousand people or even a billion say, what matters is, what did Jesus Christ say. What do the scriptures say.

Proverbs 14:12

12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

The Church must be held to the highest standard. People fall short, and people can repent. The Church is not a person, and if it falls short it cannot repent. Do not allow yourself to be deceived about this, the Churches will be judged just as each individual will be judged.

Revelation 3

3 And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.

2 Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God.

3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.

4 Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.

5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

6 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;

8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.

9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

13 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

That you, or even every single person on the face of the earth do not like this does not matter one single bit. You do not make the rules, no imperfect human being does. God and God alone does, and even if a billion Catholics choose to disobey God, God will not relent in his judgement. All of the human being in all of history cannot and will not force God to do anything he does not want to. Nor will they force him to accept what he has deemed as a sin to be anything other than a sin.

It’s as simple and straight forward as what the Apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians 5:1-8. Even if it means throwing out the entire living Catholic population.

4In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5To deliver such an one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6Your glorying is not good. Know you not that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7Purge out therefore the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, as you are unleavened.

SWalker on March 10, 2013 at 8:35 PM

Workingclass,

I agree with you. The problem with Latin America is its economy and too many do believe that big government is what it is needed. I do not disagree with you. However, Latin America has a strong social conservative side to it.

I would say, as a practicing Roman Catholic, that the problem is the misunderstood believe of helping our fellow human being as taught by Christianity. People start believing that the only way to help people, to fulfill the Christian tenant of helping our fellow man, is through big government.

We are suppose to help our fellow man, through our own Free Will and out of our own choice. Government should not force us to help others, in the eyes of God, this is meaningless.

Cpt. Kirk on March 10, 2013 at 8:40 PM

Workingclass,

Also, what is helping our fellow human being?

Is helping our fellow human being giving him food to eat each day and not helping him to work? Giving him free money that he/she did not earn?

I do believe that at some point, it is actually wrong to help someone who refuses to help himself. You can actually add to the vices of this individual and this is by no means the Christian help that we Catholics, that all of us Christians, must adhere to.

Government giving and giving and giving and giving, from our tax dollars, to individuals who refuse to obtain an education, who refuse to even struggle to become better individuals, is morally wrong.

Cpt. Kirk on March 10, 2013 at 8:47 PM

Workingclass,

I agree with you. The problem with Latin America is its economy and too many do believe that big government is what it is needed. I do not disagree with you. However, Latin America has a strong social conservative side to it.

I would say, as a practicing Roman Catholic, that the problem is the misunderstood believe of helping our fellow human being as taught by Christianity. People start believing that the only way to help people, to fulfill the Christian tenant of helping our fellow man, is through big government.

We are suppose to help our fellow man, through our own Free Will and out of our own choice. Government should not force us to help others, in the eyes of God, this is meaningless.

Cpt. Kirk on March 10, 2013 at 8:40 PM

With all due respect, you have misidentified the problem. The problem is that Marxists infiltrated the South American Jesuit Seminaries during the late 50′s and early 60′s. That Marxist-Leninist “Liberation Theology” ideology permeates the Latin American Catholic Church.

Everything that I have read indicates that Pope Benedict XVI recognized this infiltration and was taking extremely serious steps to eradicate it. The problem isn’t a Catholic problem per say, it’s a Marxism problem within the Latin American Catholic Church.

SWalker on March 10, 2013 at 9:01 PM

Sorry Ed but until the church tells these people that what they are doing is a sin and it will impact their eternity, the church will become more watered down. We are headed towards a state run church and it could possibly end up being this faction of the Catholic church that becomes the state run church along with the watered down lefty Episcopals, Methodist Presbyterians, Lutherans and evangelicals. The Catholic church has allowed the lefty theology way too long worrying about offending the politicians like kennedy, pelosi et al that claim to be Catholic and are closer to pagans than the true Catholic faith. I had a discussion with a Catholic woman not too long ago that had not even heard of Sodom and Gommorrah. She thought having gays in movies and on television was refreshing. She did not even consider the sin involved. Tell them to repent and turn away or communion will not be given to them. Start with pelosi and the lying politicians that claim they are Catholic yet espouse killing babies and homosexuality. Until then, we only can wait till we get to the other side or Christs return because left to man we can forget it.

crosshugger on March 10, 2013 at 9:12 PM

Attn Catholic Church : why don’t you guys simply start denying sacraments and excommunicating folks like Kennedy and Pelosi. Seems like that would go a long way toward fixing your problem. Granted, you will cease to be the world’s largest social club, but you might become relevant as a religion.

kpguru on March 10, 2013 at 9:26 PM

SWalker,

You said it better than I did. Yes, Marxist infiltration of the Roman Catholic Church.

Have you ever read the book, “AA-1025″? It is all about the very real Soviet Union infiltration of the Roman Catholic Church.

It is exactly what you are talking about.

I am sorry if my post came out as being a Roman Catholic Church problem. It is not.

Yes, I was very happy with Pope Emeritus Benedict who was cleaning up the mess that the very Marxist infiltration of the Roman Catholic Church has done.

Cpt. Kirk on March 10, 2013 at 9:44 PM

SWalker,

By the way, thank you for the correction.

Cpt. Kirk on March 10, 2013 at 9:45 PM

kpguru,

first of all, the Roman Catholic Church is very relevant as a Religion.

Second of all, excommunication happens whether the Church does it publicly or not. If a Roman Catholic supports abortion, is involved in an abortion, if Roman Catholic is involved in sins that excommunicate you, the Church does not need to do any formal papers to excommunicate you, you are automatically excommunicated.

the above being said, I do wish, and it is starting to happen, that bishops would speak much louder against supposed Roman Catholic politicians and other public figures who claim that homosexuality is ok, that abortions are ok, etc.

What is starting to happen too is that much more conservative priests are coming out of Roman Catholic seminaries. The Church was infiltrated by very Liberal men and women who became priests and nuns and they have taught very poor theology and as it was said above, it was infiltrated by Marxist who started teaching ridiculous Liberation theology mixed with Catholicism. But this is being turned around. It is a tough road ahead, but it is happening.

Cpt. Kirk on March 10, 2013 at 9:53 PM

SWalker on March 10, 2013 at 8:35 PM

Even Satan can quote scripture, as you well know. And strangely, my Bible is not dusty. It might be old, and it might be worn, but it is by no means dusty.

No, the Church is not of man, but it is composed of men (nonsexual use of this word in both places), guided by the Holy Spirit. Individual men may sin, but the Church does not.

Jesus’ encounter with the rich young man is instructive — particularly the Disciples’ consternation at the requirements Jesus has levied upon the young man, and how Jesus responds to that consternation. It has a direct bearing on that which we are discussing here.

You may choose to discard a huge hunk of humanity — saying that they are to be given to the Devil, but such talk merely indicates with whom you are aligned — if you believe it. Certainly evangelicals do not believe this — they try earnestly to bring people to salvation.

I believe that God wants to save us all, but we must make the effort to receive his grace, and in our faith to guard ourselves from evil thoughts and evil deeds.

unclesmrgol on March 10, 2013 at 10:50 PM

God and God alone does, and even if a billion Catholics choose to disobey God, God will not relent in his judgement. All of the human being in all of history cannot and will not force God to do anything he does not want to. Nor will they force him to accept what he has deemed as a sin to be anything other than a sin.

On this we agree. But the word “Catholic” above might be better rendered as “Christian”, or even better as “people”.

God has told us what sins are, and has told us how to avoid them, but he did not make us perfectly capable of never sinning. He has given us free choice to do as He wills or not.

Indeed, isn’t that what the whole Book of Job is about? Free choice, and Satan’s claim that no human will stick by God given a choice — they are wholly evil. Indeed, Job’s three friends, with good yet faulty intention, try to convince him to reason with God over the trials and tribulations he is enduring, and are they right?

As for God being the judge, yes, he is, but he has delegated the binding and loosing power to his Church. One assumes that said Church must, of necessity, be guided by the Holy Spirit, or such bindings and loosings would eventually run counter to God’s will.

unclesmrgol on March 10, 2013 at 10:59 PM

And they shouldn’t be rewarded for being here illegally either.

xblade on March 10, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Unjust laws are bound to be disobeyed.

Again, you have lost this battle, and you have lost this war, but in even fighting the battle in the first place, you have lost far more than just this war.

I expect that Democrats will be in the ascendency for the next few decades just on the basis of the immigration issue.

And that’s a shame, but a shame you and yours have brought upon us.

unclesmrgol on March 10, 2013 at 11:01 PM

Catholics seem to think their forgiven by going through the earthly motions set by the church and praying to saints. Most Christians understand that redemption only comes through repentance and a dedication to Christ and his work. Jesus Christ is it. The way the truth and the light. None of these man made traditions that Catholics put so much focus on are necessary and to me are a slap in the face to Jesus’ and his Apostles teachings. As if to say his dying in the cross wasn’t good enough.

jawkneemusic on March 10, 2013 at 1:35 PM

When you request that someone pray to God for you, you are praying to them. A prayer is nothing more than a request. You will note that the 10 Commandments adminishes us to have no gods before Him.

The saints are not gods.

Now, you say that most Christians understand that redemption only comes through repentence and a dedication to Christ and his work.

Hmm. Have I said anything different from this? Our traditions work to dedicate us to Christ — and that dedication requires us to understand what Jesus did upon this earth, what travails he endured. It also requires us to understand what travails other Christians have endured in their attempts to follow Jesus.

When we make the Sign of the Cross, we make it just as the early Christians did — as a visible sign of our commitment to Jesus. It was a hard thing to do in those old times — for making the Sign to the wrong person might lead to your death. We here in America don’t have that problem — well, not often, anyway, but we still do it — to remind ourselves of how dangerous it sometimes was and is in many places in the world to be a Christian.

Now, when Jesus was asked how to pray, he recited the Lord’s Prayer. Do you ever pray in ways different from the Lord’s Prayer? At meals, do you not bless each person at table and thank God for their presence? Do you not pray for the sick who cannot be present at table? At a funeral, do you not pray for the soul of the departed? If so, where are you getting these actions, which undoubtedly has been repeated in all Christian households since the beginning? They are tradition, and if you aren’t doing it, well — I feel really sorry for you.

Now, Jesus did not say that he would have more than one Church, so which one is it?

You have chosen, and I have chosen, and we shall see at the end who chose better.

unclesmrgol on March 10, 2013 at 11:17 PM

Workingclass,

I agree with you. The problem with Latin America is its economy and too many do believe that big government is what it is needed. I do not disagree with you. However, Latin America has a strong social conservative side to it.

I would say, as a practicing Roman Catholic, that the problem is the misunderstood believe of helping our fellow human being as taught by Christianity. People start believing that the only way to help people, to fulfill the Christian tenant of helping our fellow man, is through big government.

We are suppose to help our fellow man, through our own Free Will and out of our own choice. Government should not force us to help others, in the eyes of God, this is meaningless.

Cpt. Kirk on March 10, 2013 at 8:40 PM

Charity has always been best expressed in the province of the Church.

The Church has sought to work cooperatively but also independently with the state with regards to Charity. This is as old a battle as any in the long history of Church-State relations.

The State has sought to control the application of charity to suit it’s own agenda regardless of how effective it is because to the State this is just another civil problem to be solved using civil means. This modern version of an evolving process can be seen in Church-State relations after the French Revolution in France.

The Secular State cannot fulfill adequately the role of Charity…It doesn’t understand it beyond the utilitarian function of quelling unrest.

True Charity does not create dependency…It fosters community and the dignity of individuals acting positively in community spirit to uphold the dignity of each person involved to mutually benefit.

True Charity heals first the spirit.

To benefit from Charity is to be uplifted and to regain the spirit as God would have us love our neighbor as ourselves and then continue independently to contribute to the community as it continues it’s charitable works.

Father Damien is an excellent example of Charity to the Lepers in Hawaii.

First he worked using the Grace of God to heal their spirits…and then they worked together in community.

The secular folks delude themselves with a utopian ideal that cannot work because it only imitates charity.

God is the Principle and we are his agents.

workingclass artist on March 11, 2013 at 1:04 AM

Workingclass,

Also, what is helping our fellow human being?

Is helping our fellow human being giving him food to eat each day and not helping him to work? Giving him free money that he/she did not earn?

I do believe that at some point, it is actually wrong to help someone who refuses to help himself. You can actually add to the vices of this individual and this is by no means the Christian help that we Catholics, that all of us Christians, must adhere to.

Government giving and giving and giving and giving, from our tax dollars, to individuals who refuse to obtain an education, who refuse to even struggle to become better individuals, is morally wrong.

Cpt. Kirk on March 10, 2013 at 8:47 PM

In Catholic Tradition and History Charitable works must involve several aspects that help a person.

For example…

In times of famine Monasteries and Churches fed the Poor at least one meal daily,Celebrated Mass and allowed for safe haven at night for pilgrims,overflow for Market days or transient families searching for work.

The Poor were expected to seek work during the day…They were chased out of the Church after Mass to work.

Hospitals were set at these locations during epidemic outbreaks.

Orphans were taken in until they could be adopted out by families if possible.

In exchange the community would give certain days in labor to help bring in the harvest…or work in the maintenance of the buildings etc. Those that made profits tithed so that charitable works could continue.

It wasn’t a perfect system but it was an evolving system that stabilized Europe after the Fall of the Roman Empire when the secular system failed. It was a working system in place already since the founding of the Church.

workingclass artist on March 11, 2013 at 1:25 AM

Sorry Ed but until the church tells these people that what they are doing is a sin and it will impact their eternity, the church will become more watered down. We are headed towards a state run church and it could possibly end up being this faction of the Catholic church that becomes the state run church along with the watered down lefty Episcopals, Methodist Presbyterians, Lutherans and evangelicals. The Catholic church has allowed the lefty theology way too long worrying about offending the politicians like kennedy, pelosi et al that claim to be Catholic and are closer to pagans than the true Catholic faith. I had a discussion with a Catholic woman not too long ago that had not even heard of Sodom and Gommorrah. She thought having gays in movies and on television was refreshing. She did not even consider the sin involved. Tell them to repent and turn away or communion will not be given to them. Start with pelosi and the lying politicians that claim they are Catholic yet espouse killing babies and homosexuality. Until then, we only can wait till we get to the other side or Christs return because left to man we can forget it.

crosshugger on March 10, 2013 at 9:12 PM

Although there will be coercion by the State…The RCC will not become a State Church in this country.

To achieve that there would have to be a severance with Rome.

The Soviets didn’t kill the Church in Poland did they?

The Chinese have tried it.

They have an official State Church while they persecute Catholics linked to Rome. They imprison priests while they try and coerce the Pope. The Government does not understand or know exactly how to deal with these fervent Catholics and is puzzled by the Pope who will not back down in protecting The Church and his flock.

Chinese Catholics will do what we’ve always done…we thrive in spite of the persecution and we wait…and emerge stronger after the persecution ends and rebuild.

workingclass artist on March 11, 2013 at 1:36 AM

the only true state interest in marriage, from a secular point of view at least, is enforcing paternal parental responsibility,

Which, of course, could be handled outside of marriage by having a parent registry in place of marriage.

In areas where abortion (choice) is allowed, only the mother would be responsible for the child.

In areas where abortion is not allowed, or where the father must agree to it, both the mother and the father would be responsible.

If the child were given to the state, nobody (or, rather, everybody) would be responsible.

In the case of adoption, the adoptor(s) would assume responsibility.

In other words, all the laws would revolve around the child rather than any putative parental relationships.

Those relationships would be left to contract law.

As far as what now passes as spousal benefits — social security, pensions, etc — those would be handled contractually. For example, to maximize my social security benefit, I could assign a partnership in it to one of my minor children — they would then obtain the benefit upon my death. Such interesting arrangement needs outline the problems with having a Social Security benefit in the first place…

That gets religion out of the picture entirely — everything is expressed in terms of contractual obligations — between a responsible party and the child, and between two or more people (aka a trust). Marriage becomes sacramental to the church, but the contract associated with the marriage becomes civil in nature.

unclesmrgol on March 11, 2013 at 1:44 AM

” We fully expect the media to continue harping on this cassock-and-dager stuff in order to create material for their daily coverage of the Church during the conclave, but it’s important to keep our eyes on the true stakes of this election, which matters to non-Catholics across the globe as much as it matters to Catholics.

In the West the standard rap on Catholicism is that the Church is collapsing as its adherents drift from the faith or convert to evangelical Protestantism. This may be true in the West, but globally there’s a much more complicated story. The Church remains a powerful and growing institution despite its relative decline in the West due to important gains in fast-growing regions like Africa and China. And as the largest non-governmental organization in the world, it’s easy to underestimate what the Church does in terms of promoting international understanding, working for peace in troubled parts of the world, and caring for the poorest of the poor. It is often imperfect in its pursuit of these goals, but it does all of these things in areas where almost nobody else is doing them…”

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/03/09/scandals-are-only-one-half-of-the-catholic-story/

workingclass artist on March 11, 2013 at 1:53 AM

You know what? So f’ing what? The country is going belly up. I couldn’t care two figs whether Dave and Fred want to marry each other. If we can’t stop the adolescents in control from squandering every last bit of wealth my grandchildren might create, none of this is remotely relevant.

Arnold Yabenson on March 11, 2013 at 2:23 AM

Don’t look at me — I was the one arguing that the state should get out of the marriage business entirely, and that the only true state interest in marriage, from a secular point of view at least, is enforcing paternal responsibility, which has no connection to same-sex relationships.

A pointless and impossible argument that pretends the gay activist lobby will be happy if we just have the government pretend there is no such thing as marriage.

It’s impossible. Marriage is the single most common institution in existence. It spans religions, cultures, and races. It leads to children. It changes the ownership of assets, and leads to the production of new heirs to those assets. It predates governments, churches, schools, synagogues, businesses, corporations, stock markets, banks, armies, police, fire departments, and so on.

The government is not going to “get out of the marriage business,” which is a meaningless platitude in the first place.

There were no same-sex marriages around that the government simply refused to acknowledge. The demand is for the government to create a new form of marriage where there is no husband and wife, and no possibility of children.

There is only one responsible conservative position to take, and that is to decline to have the government take any part in redefining marriage as it exists.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 11, 2013 at 2:40 AM

Anyone who really believes this nonsense needs to contact me about a bridge in Brooklyn. I simply don’t buy the argument that peoples opinions change like this. The country has been taken over by a progressive leftist tyrannical establishment bent on control and domination. They control the government, the media, the polling companies, and most importantly the voting machines.

bgibbs1000 on March 11, 2013 at 6:03 AM

You know what? So f’ing what? The country is going belly up. I couldn’t care two figs whether Dave and Fred want to marry each other. If we can’t stop the adolescents in control from squandering every last bit of wealth my grandchildren might create, none of this is remotely relevant.

Arnold Yabenson on March 11, 2013 at 2:23 AM

Yes the country is going belly up. And that’s exactly why crap like homosexual marriage is important. It’s part of the overall breakdown of societal norms that has caused the eventual collapse of our country. A little here, a little there, pretty soon the whole damn thing is gone.

bgibbs1000 on March 11, 2013 at 6:46 AM

People tend to think that if a robot is created, it automatically has these laws programmed into them.

cptacek on March 10, 2013 at 11:55 PM

I don’t find that even marginally true. I’ve never met anyone who thought that. I find more people believe that The Terminator scenario is more likely.

Oldnuke on March 11, 2013 at 7:09 AM

Don’t look at me — I was the one arguing that the state should get out of the marriage business entirely, and that the only true state interest in marriage, from a secular point of view at least, is enforcing paternal responsibility, which has no connection to same-sex relationships.

excerpt: Ed Morrisey

.
If we’re going to get the government altogether out of the business of “recognizing God”, then I guess that’s the way to go.

I’m opposed to our government “NOT recognizing God”, and that includes the institutions that transcend from him.

What “earthly” institutions from God are more important than marriage?

listens2glenn on March 11, 2013 at 7:23 AM

The argument in favor of traditional marriage is failing badly in influencing public opinion.

Need to push an argument for traditional marriage that is NOT religiously based.

My suggestion: Go all out in promoting the truth that every child deserves a mom and a dad. True, children can be raised well in other situations, but mom+dad is obviously ideal.

The question has been reframed to “should people be allowed to love each other and marry” (the same-sex marriage argument will win with this EVERY TIME) and ought to be “what is best for children and what do they deserve.”

Denigrating other sexual orientations is wrong and a sure loser, and the pro-traditional marriage argument is too closely associated with religion.

bluegill on March 11, 2013 at 7:33 AM

I’m opposed to our government “NOT recognizing God”…
listens2glenn on March 11, 2013 at 7:23 AM

You mean recognizing YOUR god. I suspect you’d be quite upset if the government gave recognition to Brahma or Odin, for example.

People who want to believe in the spirit world have the right to do so. They should expect no endorsement(recognition) from the secular government.

chumpThreads on March 11, 2013 at 7:37 AM

You mean recognizing YOUR god. I suspect you’d be quite upset if the government gave recognition to Brahma or Odin, for example.

People who want to believe in the spirit world have the right to do so. They should expect no endorsement(recognition) from the secular government.

chumpThreads on March 11, 2013 at 7:37 AM

Remove “In God We Trust” from our currency.
Quit taking oaths of office.
Quit with a pray before the Senate convenes.
Stop with the “God save this honorable court”
Tax religious organizations.
No more state funerals.
No more military chaplains.
Get all churches out of the District of Columbia.

I could go on and on but if you want God out of the government then get him the hell all the way out.

bgibbs1000 on March 11, 2013 at 7:45 AM

I’m suspicious of this poll. The Catholics in name only (as some one already posted) are to blame for this abiblical position.

Mojave Mark on March 11, 2013 at 7:46 AM

Can I marry my goat.
Elchasebo on March 10, 2013 at 12:38 PM

^ dumb, ineffective and, in fact, counterproductive “argument” in favor of traditional marriage.

It’s basically saying, ” yeah, I’m having a hard time coming up with arguments for why homosexuality is bad, but just imagine what COULD come later.”

The issue is that homosexuals were persecuted in the past or were treated as if they didn’t exist. That had to change and thankfully has mostly changed. Have to reckon with the fact that homosexuals cannot be ignored. The country is in a different place than 20 years ago.

But none of this changes what we should regard as the ideal environment for raising children.

That’s where the focus of everyone should be.

Saying “God is against gays getting marriage and homosexuality” is not enough of an argument for maintaining traditional marriage laws.

bluegill on March 11, 2013 at 8:00 AM

I’m Catholic and most of those I know who are also are in-line with the views of the Church (i.e., do not agree with any variation of the definition of marriage as anything other than that between one man and one woman — also are prolife, among other views).

YET, there are a number of Catholics I know and know well (among which is one in a religious order) who are Democrats and refuse to change that party association even when asked about how they can possibly (my word) remain registered Democrats given the DNC’s party platform.

When asked about that (DNC’s party platform, and that platform demonstratively counters many aspects of the Church’s views and beliefs), these Catholics continue to explain that they’re Democrats “because my family has always been Democrats” and one of them actually gets angry when pressed beyond that, refusing to even listen to what the DNC’s party platform even IS (and that one Catholic one is even in the League of Mary).

I don’t understand how individuals can claim to be Catholic, can attend Mass, say the Rosary, stand and serve in Church, administer the Host to the sick and homebound (as does the League of Mary), can profess to the Apostles Creed and a whole number of other fidelities as Catholics and yet then “serve” or associate with by choice the DNC, as Democrats: the latter cancels out all the former by oath, pledge and practice, especially as to where donations go and who candidates are that are elected to political office (who then go about doing the opposite of what the Church believes and what members of the Church as Catholics swear to believe, also).

Lourdes on March 11, 2013 at 8:06 AM

The argument in favor of traditional marriage is failing badly in influencing public opinion.

Need to push an argument for traditional marriage that is NOT religiously based.

My suggestion: Go all out in promoting the truth that every child deserves a mom and a dad. True, children can be raised well in other situations, but mom+dad is obviously ideal.

The question has been reframed to “should people be allowed to love each other and marry” (the same-sex marriage argument will win with this EVERY TIME) and ought to be “what is best for children and what do they deserve.”

Denigrating other sexual orientations is wrong and a sure loser, and the pro-traditional marriage argument is too closely associated with religion.

bluegill on March 11, 2013 at 7:33 AM

Actually when people are being sued for their religious beliefs in the name of gay marriage and tolerance than religious freedom, religious tradition, and religious opinion is a perfectly valid reason to fight against gay marriage.

melle1228 on March 11, 2013 at 8:07 AM

Saying “God is against gays getting marriage and homosexuality” is not enough of an argument for maintaining traditional marriage laws.

It’s in God’s Word, the Bible, as to how God defines marriage, and how He judges homosexuality.

The Catholic Church has tried recently this “tolerance” method of “including” people engaged in homosexuality by (1.) claiming they are welcome in the CHurch as long as they (2.) are chaste and practice celibacy.

In other words, the Church has been engaged in a welcoming effort to not exclude people involved in homosexuality by asking them to not be involved IN the acts of homosexuality, which makes no sense to me because the acts are what and how they are defined (as homosexuals).

It’s a gross effort and a wrong one, in my view, to both ‘acknowledge’ from a politically correct method people involved in homosexuality by vainly asking them not to be — and of course they are involved in it and then also continuing as “Catholics” which is sin in and of itself to be so deceitful in one’s dedications, claims to belief and more.

The belief in marriage as between one man and one woman is based in religion, yes, but it is also a cornerstone of human civilization and is based in religion — while even prior to religion, the understanding of what marriage is/was continued generally as between one man and one woman, however with age differences in the past compared to now.

So it isn’t merely “just the Bible” that defines these terms, it is also human civilization for quite a while even prior to the Old and New Testaments.

I know of no human society that engaged in “marriage” between anyone other than a male and a female — granted, some crazed Roman rulers thought they could marry their horse but they were also very easily deemed nuts by most of their society present in those times.

Lourdes on March 11, 2013 at 8:14 AM

^ dumb, ineffective and, in fact, counterproductive “argument” in favor of traditional marriage.

It’s basically saying, ” yeah, I’m having a hard time coming up with arguments for why homosexuality is bad, but just imagine what COULD come later.”

The issue is that homosexuals were persecuted in the past or were treated as if they didn’t exist. That had to change and thankfully has mostly changed. Have to reckon with the fact that homosexuals cannot be ignored. The country is in a different place than 20 years ago.

But none of this changes what we should regard as the ideal environment for raising children.

That’s where the focus of everyone should be.

Saying “God is against gays getting marriage and homosexuality” is not enough of an argument for maintaining traditional marriage laws.

bluegill on March 11, 2013 at 8:00 AM

And you are fundamentally missing the “goat” argument. First off if taboos are suddenly subjective, then BDSM needs state recognition, incest needs state recognition, polygamy needs state recognition— and if you object when then you are a bigoted fool who just has moral objections because you are a “dinosaur.”

The argument is that gays are not the ONLY group that has been not licensed by the state. If the state is suddenly restricted from licensing marriage under equal protection then the slippery slope is here. That is the LEGAL REALITY. And the goat argument is already being used in court in Florida under privacy rights and orientation.

melle1228 on March 11, 2013 at 8:15 AM

Actually when people are being sued for their religious beliefs in the name of gay marriage and tolerance than religious freedom, religious tradition, and religious opinion is a perfectly valid reason to fight against gay marriage.
melle1228 on March 11, 2013 at 8:07 AM

That’s not a religiously-based argument then. What you described is not appealing to people’s faith. It is appealing to a sense of fairness or to people’s belief in religious freedom/tolerance. And I never said it was invalid. It is valid!

What I am saying is that you have to appeal to people’s reason, not just their religious faith.

bluegill on March 11, 2013 at 8:18 AM

Saying “God is against gays getting marriage and homosexuality” is not enough of an argument for maintaining traditional marriage laws.

Another of the current and “legal” arguments promoting “‘gay’ marriage” is that marriage can’t be “denied” people engaging in homosexuality “because of tradition…you can’t use ‘tradition’ to defend marriage as between one man and one woman.”

That “argument” can be said, however, about EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING. ALL language is from and by “tradition” — language is an accrual of tradition, that is, as are customs, human civilization, all practices in all societies…all things deemed “human” from a socio-behavioral practice is a form of tradition, is from an accrual of such.

So the whole “you can’t use ‘tradition’ to defend marriage” is NONSENSE. It’s another one of the Left’s “mantras” that is nonsense and when examined closely, specifically, IS indeed nonsensical except that most people don’t examine just what they’re repeating, so they repeat it as if it makes sense (which in this sense, does not make sense, not academically).

One can’t use “tradition” to defend marriage…means, so the Left wants it to mean, one can’t have any preconceived understanding or definition of what marriage means, I guess, even when you’re getting married or afterward: it’s all some sort of impromptu whatnot doing whatever for zippy reasons and zapped purposes because, you know, no “tradition” allowed there.

Lourdes on March 11, 2013 at 8:20 AM

^ dumb, ineffective and, in fact, counterproductive “argument” in favor of traditional marriage.

It’s basically saying, ” yeah, I’m having a hard time coming up with arguments for why homosexuality is bad, but just imagine what COULD come later.”

Actually that’s a pretty damn good argument. Just because you are attempting to make it irrelevant doesn’t make it so.

The issue is that homosexuals were persecuted in the past or were treated as if they didn’t exist. That had to change and thankfully has mostly changed. Have to reckon with the fact that homosexuals cannot be ignored. The country is in a different place than 20 years ago.

No that is not the issue. The issue is whether degenerate behavior should be accepted as another normal. That’s the issue. And no it shouldn’t as degenerate behavior is just that, degenerate behavior. Using the courts or whatever else in an attempt to alter what is reality will always result in a false premise.

But none of this changes what we should regard as the ideal environment for raising children.

That’s where the focus of everyone should be.

Saying “God is against gays getting marriage and homosexuality” is not enough of an argument for maintaining traditional marriage laws.

bluegill on March 11, 2013 at 8:00 AM

Last time I checked homosexuals can marry any time they want. And just like everyone else they can only marry someone of the opposite sex.

bgibbs1000 on March 11, 2013 at 8:21 AM

The argument is that gays are not the ONLY group that has been not licensed by the state. If the state is suddenly restricted from licensing marriage under equal protection then the slippery slope is here. That is the LEGAL REALITY. And the goat argument is already being used in court in Florida under privacy rights and orientation.
melle1228 on March 11, 2013 at 8:15 AM

I’m just saying it’s not a politically effective argument. It doesn’t really address why homosexual unions between consenting adults should not be seen as identical in all ways to heterosexual unions, particularly when children are involved. And, come on, it’s highly inflammatory.

bluegill on March 11, 2013 at 8:22 AM

If marriage is merely a license, then there’s no alteration to licensure to begin with since every individual has the same right to obtain a license as everyone else: you have to qualify for the terms of the license.

No one is asked when applying for a marriage license what their sexual activities are. A man can be licensed to marry a woman and vice versa. It’s the gender considerations that society has established because marriage is a social contract for purposes of defining family, protecting property and providing and insuring the provisions for children (parentage, etc.).

Contracts can be engaged in by anyone with anyone of their choice. But as to people engaged in homosexuality wanting “marriage” with others doing likewise, what they’re trying is to force a declination by religious organizations to modify the term, “marriage,” and that’s the goal.

Lourdes on March 11, 2013 at 8:24 AM

That’s not a religiously-based argument then. What you described is not appealing to people’s faith. It is appealing to a sense of fairness or to people’s belief in religious freedom/tolerance. And I never said it was invalid. It is valid!

What I am saying is that you have to appeal to people’s reason, not just their religious faith.

bluegill on March 11, 2013 at 8:18 AM

Most people don’t reason bluegill. That is where you make your first mistake. Most people base decisions- even political by emotions, hence why most gay marriage discussions usually involve opponents being called homophobes.

Even if we came at it your way where we said that children deserve a mom and a dad; you do realize that their next line of attack would be to cite the research where that isn’t true. In fact, they even have research that says that children do EVEN BETTER with gay parents, and YOU would be the homophobe for even suggesting that a mom and a dad is needed in childrearing.

melle1228 on March 11, 2013 at 8:24 AM

One can’t use “tradition” to defend marriage…means, so the Left wants it to mean, one can’t have any preconceived understanding or definition of what marriage means, I guess, even when you’re getting married or afterward: it’s all some sort of impromptu whatnot doing whatever for zippy reasons and zapped purposes because, you know, no “tradition” allowed there.
Lourdes on March 11, 2013 at 8:20 AM

Use “tradition” but be sure to defend it and explain why it is right. “Tradition” alone is insufficient justification for certain laws. That’s all I’m saying.

bluegill on March 11, 2013 at 8:26 AM

Even if we came at it your way where we said that children deserve a mom and a dad; you do realize that their next line of attack would be to cite the research where that isn’t true. In fact, they even have research that says that children do EVEN BETTER with gay parents, and YOU would be the homophobe for even suggesting that a mom and a dad is needed in childrearing.
melle1228 on March 11, 2013 at 8:24 AM

You are right, but it is an important fight that must be waged. It is incumbent upon us to demonstrate why our position is right.

bluegill on March 11, 2013 at 8:29 AM

I’m just saying it’s not a politically effective argument. It doesn’t really address why homosexual unions between consenting adults should not be seen as identical in all ways to heterosexual unions, particularly when children are involved. And, come on, it’s highly inflammatory
bluegill on March 11, 2013 at 8:22 AM

I agree it is imflammatory, but so is being called a bigot or a homophobe, and frankly most opponents are sick of it. And most proponents like to deny the slippery slope which incidentally is already here in legislation, lawsuits, and the court system.

Homosexual unions and heterosexual unions even when children are involved are not identical. You said it yourself. Children do best with a mom and a dad. The state if it gets involve in ANY private relationship should be endorsing the best possible scenario for children. Becayse when you get into anything else then you get into subjective territory.. why should polygamous groups be treated like heterosexual couples. Why should incestuous couples?

melle1228 on March 11, 2013 at 8:31 AM

melle1228 on March 11, 2013 at 8:15 AM

I’m just saying it’s not a politically effective argument. It doesn’t really address why homosexual unions between consenting adults should not be seen as identical in all ways to heterosexual unions, particularly when children are involved. And, come on, it’s highly inflammatory.

bluegill on March 11, 2013 at 8:22 AM

No, bluegill, it is not “highly inflammatory.”

It’s only “highly inflammatory” to people who are already highly inflamed.

Their objective is to force their intrusive, wonky notion of what they “can” do to religious organizations. If they actually only wanted a lifetime of binding relationship with another adult, they’d rush out to engage in contractual unity with that other person.

BY forcing the “redefinition” of marriage, then, religious organizations who extend that ceremony to some would be bowed to overriding and ignoring the very theological text they are organized by and that’d be the Bible.

Some denominations are already in that area, having turned their back on the very theology they pretend to be organized by, referring to the Bible as some sort of tome that should be ignored and even cast aside, yet continuing to claim “Christianity” as their form of organization.

It’s humanism, it’s New Age, it’s even in some cases atheism masquereding as Christianity, same as some who claim to be Catholic, do the ceremonies, play the roles, walk around with the trimmings and yet actually believe and support ideas and causes that are contrary to the Church.

If people involved in homosexuality want lifelong, binding, legal relationships with someone else also so involved, if that was really what they wanted, they’d have contracts drawn up to that effect and file them with their local courthouse.

Lourdes on March 11, 2013 at 8:31 AM

Use “tradition” but be sure to defend it and explain why it is right. “Tradition” alone is insufficient justification for certain laws. That’s all I’m saying.

bluegill on March 11, 2013 at 8:26 AM

Actually most laws are based on tradition. It’s when groups attempt to use fairness and moral relativism to create special laws for those groups that problems start to arise.

bgibbs1000 on March 11, 2013 at 8:33 AM

melle1228 on March 11, 2013 at 8:24 AM

You are right, but it is an important fight that must be waged. It is incumbent upon us to demonstrate why our position is right.

bluegill on March 11, 2013 at 8:29 AM

One either is sincere in their profession of faith, whatever it is, or one isn’t.

You can’t claim to be Christian and reject the Bible or try that “I’ll pick a part I like and the rest, I’ll ignore because it’s old or it’s not trendy or it just doesn’t make sense to the people I want to be accepted by or…”

You can’t claim to be Catholic and then reject the Church, claim the Vatican is disagreeable in belief and attitude to what you “prefer” or that you like the ceremony but think the Profession of Faith and the Apostles’ Creed are icky…

Even Ted Kennedy tried that route. He lived his adult life funding and promoting abortion and then tried in a letter jsut before he died to beg permission from the Pope to be OK with the Church because he’d done “much for the poor” or something like that.

Pelosi, people like her, like Kennedy, like so many more of those, they promote things that are demonstratively sinful and yet pride themselves in being Catholic.

One either believes in God’s Word or one doesn’t. Marriage is in there, we know what God wants and how He judges what He doesn’t want and what He even considers “abominable”.

One is either sincere and loyal to that advice or one isn’t.

Lourdes on March 11, 2013 at 8:38 AM

Use “tradition” but be sure to defend it and explain why it is right. “Tradition” alone is insufficient justification for certain laws. That’s all I’m saying.

bluegill on March 11, 2013 at 8:26 AM

Actually most laws are based on tradition. It’s when groups attempt to use fairness and moral relativism to create special laws for those groups that problems start to arise.

bgibbs1000 on March 11, 2013 at 8:33 AM

My point above is that ALL of human civilization is based on “tradition.”

There isn’t one practice that is considered to be defining of “being human” THAT ISN’T “traditional” or defined by, explained by, TRADITION.

To dispel and discount the concept of “tradition” from explaining anything as to human civilization and specific societies is to claim that all human grouping and behaviors, individually and with other humans, is somehow spontaneous like combustion, that nothing has a prior understanding, that there are no customary understandings or that customs don’t exist so everyone is doing some herky-jerky nonsense from one moment to the next.

Lourdes on March 11, 2013 at 8:42 AM

The other aspect to this argument is the newfound, newly coined adage that “homosexual” is the equal of a new gender or a new race or a new species of human being.

One isn’t “homosexual,” one is engaged in homosexual activity. The argument that people are birthed as “homosexuals” is ridiculous: no one springs forth from their mother singing “YMCA” or fitted with Lada Gaga playing in a set of earbuds.

There’s nothing “innate” about homosexual behavior as there is about race and gender. Yet that’s the pretense being used by some to rationalize everything else: they’re “innately” that way so they are to be specially fitted with what they demand as if they’re a new race of humans or some distinct species other than.

Lourdes on March 11, 2013 at 8:46 AM

As to Catholics driving this mess…

It’s not Catholics, it’s people who are posed as Catholics. They’re not Catholics, they’re liars.

Lourdes on March 11, 2013 at 8:48 AM

This is why Catholics, just like myself, need to look at themselves for the reasons why our numbers decline so quickly. Many of our brothers and sisters became very liberal, historically Catholics and Jews lead in socialist movement before the movements turn on them, while attending church less and less.

I really hope that with new Pope we will get better leadership on all levels and we purge our ranks (by excommunication) of people like John Kerry (who left his sick wife for an even wealthier one) and Nancy Pelosi(s) of this world who miss-represent church’s stand on abortion and same sex marriage, and those who think that second and third marriage/family is just fine.

And yes, I am pretty sure that Quinnipiac ‘performed some magic’ (or miracles – if we want to use Catholic lingo) over sampling in this poll.

ktrelski on March 11, 2013 at 9:04 AM

Saying “God is against gays getting marriage and homosexuality” is not enough of an argument for maintaining traditional marriage laws.

bluegill on March 11, 2013 at 8:00 AM

.
Saying, “I’m an atheist, and don’t believe in God” is not enough of an argument for defiance of the “staus quo” in America (as pertains to marriage) for the last 237 years.

listens2glenn on March 11, 2013 at 9:04 AM

And yes, I am pretty sure that Quinnipiac ‘performed some magic’ (or miracles – if we want to use Catholic lingo) over sampling in this poll.

ktrelski on March 11, 2013 at 9:04 AM

Agreed. The “results” are used as rudimentary tools by the Left to push their affront on marriage and also to push their assault on the Catholic Church: it’s called, “hey, look, most Catholics are corrupt!”

Lourdes on March 11, 2013 at 9:10 AM

I’m opposed to our government “NOT recognizing God”…

listens2glenn on March 11, 2013 at 7:23 AM

.
You mean recognizing YOUR god. I suspect you’d be quite upset if the government gave recognition to Brahma or Odin, for example.

People who want to believe in the spirit world have the right to do so. They should expect no endorsement(recognition) from the secular government.

chumpThreads on March 11, 2013 at 7:37 AM

.
The recognition of the Christian God is how the U.S. started.

It is the “original status quo”. It was done without demanding that citizens believe in the Christian God, or go to Church, or even belong to a Church.

The “recognition of God” was in the laws, as regards standards of morality. Standards of “right and wrong”.

listens2glenn on March 11, 2013 at 9:33 AM

“Same-sex marriage” or “gay marriage”? Why are these terms used interchangeably? They are not the same. One requires homosexuality as a condition for marriage, the other just requires two of the same gender. To my knowledge, no gays have to demonstrate a homosexual act in order to get the license where it is permitted. So what other “arrangements” does that open up for recognition, especially since we can’t “tell people who to love” or “define” their marriage for them? Or are we just shutting off our brains and just giving gays whatever they are arm-flailing for?

Saltyron on March 11, 2013 at 9:44 AM

“Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven” (Matt. 23:9).

Pragmatic on March 11, 2013 at 9:55 AM

All right gang we’re going to build a house. But for the sake of equality and equal rights we cannot discriminate in our use of tools. Hammers are now equal with saws and you must use a saw to hammer nails with and a hammer to saw boards. Drills are to be used to scrape and scrapers are going to be used as drills. Now let’s build that house!

Herb on March 11, 2013 at 10:01 AM

“Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven” (Matt. 23:9).

Pragmatic on March 11, 2013 at 9:55 AM

I don’t know where the tradition of referring to Catholic Priests as “father” came from, but their TITLES are “Reverend”.

Lourdes on March 11, 2013 at 10:05 AM

“Only 31% in this sample attend Mass every week, and another 12% “almost” every week. By contrast, 39% either “never” attend Mass or only attend a few times a year, with 18% only attending “once or twice a month.”

Couple that with the fact that most Catholics live in blue states and the number is not surprising.

bw222 on March 11, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Homosexual unions and heterosexual unions even when children are involved are not identical. You said it yourself. Children do best with a mom and a dad. The state if it gets involve in ANY private relationship should be endorsing the best possible scenario for children. Becayse when you get into anything else then you get into subjective territory.. why should polygamous groups be treated like heterosexual couples. Why should incestuous couples?

melle1228 on March 11, 2013 at 8:31 AM

Well, that “slippery slope” thing can work the other way. If you say that only man-woman marriages are permitted because that’s the best environment for kids, then you’ll be passing laws that only a mom-dad team can raise kids. Then you’ll be giving single parents a deadline to find a spouse or be fined. Then you’ll be tearing kids away, kicking and screaming, from single parents. All in the best interest of the children, right?

Sound ridiculous? Well, so does the slippery slope into legal recognition of people marrying horses or armchairs.

TMOverbeck on March 11, 2013 at 10:24 AM

All right gang we’re going to build a house. But for the sake of equality and equal rights we cannot discriminate in our use of tools. Hammers are now equal with saws and you must use a saw to hammer nails with and a hammer to saw boards. Drills are to be used to scrape and scrapers are going to be used as drills. Now let’s build that house!

Herb on March 11, 2013 at 10:01 AM

Yeah, because human relationships are equivalent to inanimate objects.

Thread winner for most embarrassingly stupid analogy.

chumpThreads on March 11, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Unjust laws are bound to be disobeyed.

Again, you have lost this battle, and you have lost this war, but in even fighting the battle in the first place, you have lost far more than just this war.

I expect that Democrats will be in the ascendency for the next few decades just on the basis of the immigration issue.

And that’s a shame, but a shame you and yours have brought upon us.

unclesmrgol on March 10, 2013 at 11:01 PM

Wow, I’d like to hear sometime how our immigration laws are unjust and therefore worthy of being ignored with impugnity. What’s been “brought upon us” is by the liberals and similar f*ckwits who seem to think that lawbreaking is just fine so long as it serves their own selfish ends. Seriously, you think this problem is the fault of people who think observing and following the law here is a good thing? Hitting the crack pipe a little early today, aren’t you?

Midas on March 11, 2013 at 10:43 AM

The recognition of the Christian God is how the U.S. started.

Wrong. It started with a rebellion against the Crown. That early colonists were Christian does not and never has made this a “Christian country”.

It is the “original status quo”. It was done without demanding that citizens believe in the Christian God, or go to Church, or even belong to a Church.

Wrong again! The original status quo would have been established by the native peoples who were already living here when the colonists arrived. Christians didn’t establish a religious status quo on this continent; they preempted the status quo already in place.

The “recognition of God” was in the laws, as regards standards of morality. Standards of “right and wrong”.

listens2glenn on March 11, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Wrong yet again! Congrats, you’re three-for-three in one post.

The basis of our laws is established in a secular document, the Constitution.

It is the responsibility of government to provide the means for people to worship freely, not to “recognize” one deity over another.

chumpThreads on March 11, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Well, that “slippery slope” thing can work the other way. If you say that only man-woman marriages are permitted because that’s the best environment for kids, then you’ll be passing laws that only a mom-dad team can raise kids. Then you’ll be giving single parents a deadline to find a spouse or be fined. Then you’ll be tearing kids away, kicking and screaming, from single parents. All in the best interest of the children, right?

Sound ridiculous? Well, so does the slippery slope into legal recognition of people marrying horses or armchairs.

TMOverbeck on March 11, 2013 at 10:24 AM

Not at all. Legal recognition is a far cry from criminalization. Endorsement is a far cry from putting someone in jail. State marriage is completely different from staying out of someone’s home. State marriage is inviting the state into your home.

No one is arguing that gays can’t be together. Heck, I am not even arguing that incestuous couple, polygomous groups can’t be together. I am arguing that the state does not need to recognize every sexual pairing under the sun.

When in fact you make marriage on the basis of equal protection with the state to have NO RESTRICTIONS based on equal protections than the there is NO LEGAL BASIS to deny any other sexual pairing one else protection of marriage. Just because you feel it will stop at homosexuality does not make it the legal reality.

And just because you believe the slippery slope is ridiculous, does not mean it is.. Please see the Florida donkey case where the guys is arguing privacy rights and orientation against the charge of bestiality.

melle1228 on March 11, 2013 at 11:13 AM

The Catholic Church was a pretty good organization until John XXIII and Vatican II came along. John XXIII was the Barack Obama of Popes. He “fundamentally transformed” the church.

bw222 on March 11, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Q-poll: Catholic voters are leading US to same-sex marriage

Hmm?

bgibbs1000 on March 11, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Well, that “slippery slope” thing can work the other way. If you say that only man-woman marriages are permitted because that’s the best environment for kids, then you’ll be passing laws that only a mom-dad team can raise kids. Then you’ll be giving single parents a deadline to find a spouse or be fined. Then you’ll be tearing kids away, kicking and screaming, from single parents. All in the best interest of the children, right?

Sound ridiculous? Well, so does the slippery slope into legal recognition of people marrying horses or armchairs.

TMOverbeck on March 11, 2013 at 10:24 AM

Oh and furthermore, we have about 300 year of case law to say that the above slippery slope that you propose did not and will not happen.. Gay marriage not so much.

We do, however, have Massachusetts where after 8 years of marriage legalization gay marriage/GLBT tolerance has now jumped into parental rights and individual rights even more with the introduction of even more anti-discrimination law. Please see the new transgender decree that the Massachusetts school system has now put into effect where children are forced to change with opposite gender children who believe they are transgender and if they refuse can be punished for insensitivity.

You mean that GLBT tolerance slippery slope?

melle1228 on March 11, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Don’t look at me — I was the one arguing that the state should get out of the marriage business entirely,

I’m so tired of this lame libertarian-esque attempt to be fore “gay” marriage while not actually being for it. If the government gets out of marriage, than no one will stop 12 yr olds from getting married, brothers marrying sisters, or people marrying their pets. I know you brainy HA bloggers think that’s ridiculous, but marriage is not a right, it’s a privilege , licensed by the government, for which you must meet certain criteria:
1 – be of opposite sex
2 – be 18 or older
3 – be of distant or no blood relation
4 – be currently unmarried

So we’re getting rid of #1 in the name of “equality”. What about the other three you bigots?

Nutstuyu on March 11, 2013 at 11:30 AM

All right gang we’re going to build a house. But for the sake of equality and equal rights we cannot discriminate in our use of tools. Hammers are now equal with saws and you must use a saw to hammer nails with and a hammer to saw boards. Drills are to be used to scrape and scrapers are going to be used as drills. Now let’s build that house!

Herb on March 11, 2013 at 10:01 AM
Yeah, because human relationships are equivalent to inanimate objects.

Thread winner for most embarrassingly stupid analogy.

chumpThreads on March 11, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Pretty sad when you, the supposedly animate object, can’t understand why it’s bad when things are not used for what they were designed. Or are you one of those science deniers?

Nutstuyu on March 11, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Nutstuyu on March 11, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Chump buys extension cords with a male plug on each end, and then wonders why they don’t work.

kingsjester on March 11, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Chump – you should be careful of singling out your points – it makes you look all the more unwise:

The country was built on a judeo – christian fabric. All of their legal references to god were done in that manner. This was and still is a Christian country – however, it is not a Christian theocracy. You should be more careful when you read.

We weren’t talking about the continent, we were talking about a country. Keep your references carefully in the right spot. The founders of this country are not the peoples who were here when the first europeans began arriving so their religious attitudes are of no bearing in this discussion.

That secular document made a pretty strong reference that the laws were god-given – not politically given. It would seem you slept though your basic history class – have you forgotten the document?

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,”

It was upon these truths that the Consitution was drafted. Yes, it is a political document for how the country is to be run – but the rights it aimed to protect, including the bill of rights, were acknowledged to come from God.

Try again.

Zomcon JEM on March 11, 2013 at 11:53 AM

Wrong yet again! Congrats, you’re three-for-three in one post.

The basis of our laws is established in a secular document, the Constitution.

It is the responsibility of government to provide the means for people to worship freely, not to “recognize” one deity over another.

chumpThreads on March 11, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Really? Government should provide the means for people to worship freely? Here’s a question. How can people worship freely if the means has to be provided by the government? Answer, they can’t, no matter how convoluted an answer you can come up with, they simply can’t.

Oh and the basis our law is not the Constitution. The Constitution was written to limit what government can do.

bgibbs1000 on March 11, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Can I marry my goat.

Elchasebo on March 10, 2013 at 12:38 PM
…I need to get health insurance for my pets…they’re getting old…and the one cat has been eyeing me lately!

KOOLAID2 on March 10, 2013 at 12:50 PM

My dog is definitely interested in my leg.

Nutstuyu on March 11, 2013 at 12:05 PM

Chump buys extension cords with a male plug on each end, and then wonders why they don’t work.

kingsjester on March 11, 2013 at 11:38 AM

LMAO!

Really? Government should provide the means for people to worship freely? Here’s a question. How can people worship freely if the means has to be provided by the government? Answer, they can’t, no matter how convoluted an answer you can come up with, they simply can’t.

Oh and the basis our law is not the Constitution. The Constitution was written to limit what government can do.

bgibbs1000 on March 11, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Why do liberals never understand the basis premise of the government? The government is not there to do it for you. It is not there to recognize you, pay for you, or attaboy you. It is there to get out of your way and make sure everyone else gets out of your way as well.

melle1228 on March 11, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Chump buys extension cords with a male plug on each end, and then wonders why they don’t work.

kingsjester on March 11, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Lol. My husband who is an engineer has a simple response to the issue of homosexual marriage when asked. He considers the mechanics and purpose and simply dismisses it with the comment, “Sorry, wrong parts.” It really is as simple as that.

Also, the Catholic church in Canada is already being attacked for merely preaching against homosexual marriage:

http://catholicexchange.com/catholicism-a-hate-crime-in-canada/

It is interesting to note that this occurred in 2008. This will continue until, at the very least, the gays are successful in silencing the Catholic church about this issue.

KickandSwimMom on March 11, 2013 at 12:19 PM

Please stop calling these people Catholics. They are CINOS.

Catholics In Name Only

potvin on March 10, 2013 at 5:44 PM

I totally agree…

RedInMD on March 11, 2013 at 12:25 PM

The problem with the CINO category is that most U.S. Catholics seem to be members. Just look for whom they vote. For the most part they really don’t understand what RC teaches or are counting on the confessional to save them from the eternal roasting at the end.

Like most religions it is an inherited belief which shares the one common truth with all the other religions; they are all false. It may take the naming of a transvestite pope for Catholics to understand this.

Annar on March 11, 2013 at 12:30 PM

Will American Citizens allow the US Constitution to be undermined in it’s protections.

It’s that simple.

If the Supreme Court decides by fiat to make Homosexual Marriage the law of the land any traditional religion will be compromised in refusing to comply by exercising Religious Liberty.

The State will use force to enforce capitulation…Like it did in other countries throughout the long history of the Church. The State will imprison opponents,seize assets,close orders, and make it illegal to practice religious doctrine unless said doctrine has been altered for state approval.

This strategy of undermining the Constitution is already underway with the HHS mandate but the religious liberty case has not made it’s way to the Supreme Court yet.

This strategy of undermining the Constitution is underway with the current assault on the 2nd amendment and Federal overreach with regards to the 10th amendment.

This is a Fascist Puscht to make irrelevant the US Constitution.

workingclass artist on March 11, 2013 at 12:33 PM

This is a Fascist Puscht to make irrelevant the US Constitution.
workingclass artist on March 11, 2013 at 12:33 PM

While I agree with everything you said in your post the above has already been accomplished. The constitution is already irrelevant.

bgibbs1000 on March 11, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Yawn.

That secular document made a pretty strong reference that the laws were god-given – not politically given. It would seem you slept though your basic history class – have you forgotten the document?

Really? Where?

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

Good Lt on March 11, 2013 at 12:44 PM

You don’t hate who I hate.. obviously you’re not a true believer!

religion in america, folks

kinda seems like religion in iran, too.

triple on March 11, 2013 at 12:48 PM

triple on March 11, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Yeah, you gotta watch out for us Southern Baptists. We might make you eat a piece of fried chicken.

Muslims just behead you.

Idjit.

kingsjester on March 11, 2013 at 12:50 PM

Yeah, you gotta watch out for us Southern Baptists. We might make you eat a piece of fried chicken.

Right! Just ask Marco McMillian.. oh wait you can’t, he was dragged, beaten, and set on fire because he was gay and black and had the audacity to run for mayor.

triple on March 11, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Right! Just ask Marco McMillian.. oh wait you can’t, he was dragged, beaten, and set on fire because he was gay and black and had the audacity to run for mayor.

triple on March 11, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Really because gheys have never killed anyone out of hate. They are saints who don’t hate.. Right?

melle1228 on March 11, 2013 at 1:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3