Catholic official likens same-sex unions to abortion

Ping.

"It could very well be as big an issue as Roe v. Wade," says John Green, a University of Akron political scientist who studies the intersection of politics and religion. The 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe established abortion rights and has provoked a fierce debate ever since. Gay marriage sets up a similar conflict between rights and values.

One other factor that White House aides say has had some impact: Vice President Cheney has an openly gay daughter who runs his campaign office.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-11-19-wedge_x.htm

Also:

Among those who want to see a Democrat elected in 2004, however, there is no consensus: 46% favor gay marriage, and 48% oppose it.

Strong, divided opinions mark clergy response
By Michael Paulson, Globe Staff, 11/19/2003

The Catholic bishops of Massachusetts, representing the state's largest religious denomination, denounced as "radical" the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling yesterday in favor of gay marriage, and called on the Legislature to reverse the decision.

"It is alarming that the Supreme Judicial Court in this ruling has cast aside what has been . . . the very definition of marriage held by peoples for thousands of years," said Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley of Boston. "My hope is that legislators will have the courage and common sense to redress this situation for the good of society."

But the state's major non-Catholic denominations hailed the ruling, which they declared a victory for civil rights.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2003/11/19/strong_divided_opinions_mark_clergy_response/

Liberal scumbags are very funny people - where you have absolute scientific and medical certainty that life begins at conception, and absolute scientific and medical certainty as to when brain waves start, heartbeat starts, etc., yet they shut their eyes, put their hands over their ears, and shout, "My body, my choice".

On the opposite end, there is absolutely no scientific or medical FACT that homosexual behavior is anything but a developmental behavioral disorder. The closest science get is nothing more than mere hypothesis. And the "studies" that have been done (Hamer's, twins, etc.) were exposed as frauds. Yet, liberal scumbags continue to shut their eyes, put hands over ears, and shout, "It's not a choice". If not, then why not try intensive psycho-therapy (and get better haircuts).

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/19/marriage/index_np.html

Nov. 19, 2003 | For conservative Christians, it's got to feel like the walls are closing in. In June, the United States Supreme Court struck down laws that criminalized oral and anal sex between consenting homosexuals. In August, the Episcopal Church appointed an openly gay man to serve as a bishop. And Tuesday, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the Commonwealth cannot deny homosexual couples the right to marry.

"It's a challenge holding back the forces of evil," the Rev. Louis Sheldon, head of the ultraconservative Traditional Values Coalition, told Salon Tuesday. "One of the responsibilities of the church is to be a resisting force, and I feel like a resisting force right now against those who would like to call evil good."
- - - - - - - - - - - -

You are redundant, but correct. :)

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/19/MARRIAGE.TMP

Massachusetts court allows gay marriage
Bush says he will lead fight to ban unions
Washington -- The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled 4-3 Tuesday that gays and lesbians have a right to full civil marriage, igniting a ferocious political battle over the most controversial social issue of contemporary America.

Fallout from the historic ruling is certain to affect the contest for the presidency -- where social conservatives have made support for a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage a litmus test for Republicans -- and trigger legal battles that ultimately will be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

President Bush quickly issued a statement from London signaling that he would lead the fight for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a step he had hesitated to take until now.

"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," Bush said. "Today's decision ... violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."

In a strongly worded ruling that gay advocates said left no room for such alternatives as civil unions or domestic partnership laws, the court gave the Massachusetts state Legislature 180 days to amend its marriage laws to include same-sex couples.

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, called for amending the Massachusetts Constitution to overturn the decision, a measure that has been endorsed by the speaker of the state assembly.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall declared that for same-sex couples, "history must yield to a more fully developed understanding of the invidious quality of the discrimination,'' citing the nation's first decision to lift the ban on interracial marriage by the California Supreme Court in 1948.

"The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals," the majority wrote. "It forbids the creation of second-class citizens."

The state, the majority held, "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples."

Supreme Court ruling

The long-delayed ruling, expected since last summer, made frequent reference to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in June striking down state sodomy laws.

Holding that denying marriage to gay and lesbians violated due process and equal protection rights under the state constitution, the decision emphasized that religious and cultural views, however deeply felt, have no bearing on the civil right of marriage conferred by government and the hundreds of legal benefits and obligations it construes.

The court specifically noted Canada's recent granting of full-fledged marriage rights to gay couples, saying, "We concur with this remedy."

Gay rights advocates argued the court went much further than the Vermont high court in 1999, when it allowed the state's Legislature to forge a compromise civil union that mimics every aspect of marriage between gay and lesbian couples but stops short of calling it that.

"The court was quite clear today that civil marriage in Massachusetts will happen," said Winnie Stachelberg, political director of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay lobbying group.

According to Stachelberg, the state Legislature does not have to act to amend the marriage laws, because the court's decision is definitive. She said the only way the Massachusetts Legislature could overturn the ruling would be to call a constitutional convention, which could only happen in 2006 at the earliest.

Mary Bonauto, the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders attorney representing the seven Massachusetts plaintiffs, agreed, saying the Legislature's task now would be to change marriage laws to conform to the ruling.

If that reading is correct, then the decision puts Congress and the White House squarely in the middle of the premier civil rights question of the day, and Bush's statement left no doubt about where he stands.

His statement Tuesday mirrors his comments in late July that administration lawyers were looking for a way to "codify" marriage as between one man and one woman and strongly implied he was merely awaiting the Massachusetts decision to determine how to proceed.

The ruling "now makes absolutely crystal clear that the only way to stop this and prevent its exportation to the rest of the country is to amend the constitution,'' said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a leading religious conservative group.

A Federal Marriage Amendment has been introduced in Congress, where passage would require approval by two-thirds of the House and Senate and three-quarters of the state legislatures, a daunting hurdle achieved only 17 times in U.S. history.

"This becomes a major political issue for the up-coming election cycle if not the issue," Perkins said.

Perkins said he had discussed the question with Bush and believed the president would support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Some gay Republicans who helped Bush reach out to gays in the last election have warned the White House that such a step would instantly cost Bush their support and turn gays unalterably against the Republican Party.

Most oppose gay marriage

But a comprehensive new poll on American attitudes about homosexuality released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center found that public opposition to gay marriage has grown since last summer, when the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door to assaults on all laws discriminating against gays and lesbians when it struck down a Texas sodomy law. The poll found 59 percent of the public opposed to gay marriage, up from 53 percent in July, with 32 percent in favor.

Senate minority leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., denounced the Massachusetts decision. The leading Democratic presidential candidates stated their support for equal rights for gay couples but did not back gay marriage. Only Al Sharpton, Carol Moseley Braun and Dennis Kucinich, all trailing at the back of the pack, support same-sex marriage.

Daschle applauded the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which passed on an overwhelming 85-14 bipartisan vote in the Senate and was signed by President Bill Clinton. DOMA, as it is known, defines marriage as between a man and a woman for all federal purposes such as tax and immigration law.

But Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who is leading the move in the Senate for a constitutional amendment, said that DOMA was "in peril" and that "we have no choice but to confront that threat."

California Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein voted against DOMA. Feinstein and Boxer said Tuesday that marriage laws were firmly in the realm of the states and should remain so.

Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay GOP group, is urging "all our friends and allies'' to wait until the Massachusetts Legislature acts before "taking a crayon to the U.S. constitution," he said.

Guerriero warned that a fight over a constitutional amendment would "take up a lot of oxygen in the re-election campaign ... and lead to difficulties with swing voters and independent-minded Americans who don't like a creepy social agenda at center of the national debate."

Grover Norquist, a leading GOP strategist with close ties to the White House, said the Massachusetts ruling could "force the House and Senate to try to pass a constitutional amendment. And then it becomes a major issue in the 2004 election, in which case the presidential election is front and center in the culture wars."

'Combustible issue'

Bill Kristol, publisher of the conservative Weekly Standard, said the entrance of gay marriage into the 2004 campaign added "a combustible social and cultural issue" to an election already riven by sharp differences on tax and foreign policy. However, he said, the issue favors Republicans, who can argue they are merely defending the status quo against attacks from the courts.

But Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom To Marry, argued that most Americans would support same-sex marriage "now that it moves from a hypothetical blown up by scary right-wing rhetoric to the reality of families being helped and no one being hurt."

Most people "will embrace this just as we have embraced other civil rights strides in American history," he said, "allowing interracial couples to marry, granting women equality in marriage, allowing people to make decisions about whether to use contraception without government interference, and now we will soon have the reality of married gay couples in Massachusetts. Once people get a chance to see the sky doesn't fall, they will support it."

Court action on gay marriage
Here is a list of major court rulings on same-sex marriage:

May 5, 1993: Hawaii's Supreme Court rules that prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying is an apparent violation of the state's constitutional ban on sex discrimination and could be upheld only if justified by a compelling reason.

Dec. 9, 1999: Hawaii's Supreme Court closes the door to gay marriage by ruling that a 1998 amendment to the state constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage took precedence over the courts.

Dec. 20, 1999: Vermont's Supreme Court becomes the first court in the nation to rule that gay and lesbian couples have been denied their constitutional rights and must be granted the same benefits and protections as people in heterosexual marriages. The court stops short of legalizing gay marriage, but it instructs the state Legislature to come up with a way to extend equal protections to same-sex couples.

June 11, 2003: An Ontario court knocks down Canada's legal definition of marriage -- the union of a man and a woman -- declaring prohibitions against homosexual marriage unconstitutional.

June 26, 2003: Calling it an affirmation of gay equality, the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down a Texas sodomy law, proclaiming for the first time that gay Americans have a constitutional right to their private sexual relationships without fear of being punished as criminals.

Nov. 18, 2003: Massachusetts' highest court rules that preventing gay couples from marrying is not permissible under the state's constitution. It gives the state legislature 180 days to find a way to make it possible for gay and lesbian couples to get married. The 4-3 decision marks the first time that a state high court has ruled that same-sex couples are legally entitled to marry.

-- By Charlie Malarkey

Library Researcher

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/19/national/19RULI.html?ex=1069822800&en=332372c29cd5f768&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Supreme Court Paved Way for Marriage Ruling With Sodomy Law Decision
By LINDA GREENHOUSE

Published: November 19, 2003

— In its gay rights decision five months ago striking down a Texas criminal sodomy law, the Supreme Court said gay people were entitled to freedom, dignity and "respect for their private lives." It pointedly did not say they were entitled to marry.

In fact, both Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, in his majority opinion for five justices, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in her separate concurring opinion, took pains to demonstrate that overturning a law that sent consenting adults to jail for their private sexual behavior did not imply recognition of same-sex marriage, despite Justice Antonin Scalia's apocalyptic statements to the contrary in an angry dissent proclaiming that all was lost in the culture wars.

The Texas case "does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter," Justice Kennedy wrote. And Justice O'Connor wrote: "Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations — the asserted state interest in this case — other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group."

And yet, despite the majority's disclaimers, it is indisputable that the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas also struck much deeper chords. It was a strikingly inclusive decision that both apologized for the past and, looking to the future, anchored the gay-rights claim at issue in the case firmly in the tradition of human rights at the broadest level.

And it was this background music that suffused the decision Tuesday by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that same-sex couples have a state constitutional right to the "protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage." The second paragraph of Chief Justice Margaret Marshall's majority opinion included this quotation from the Lawrence decision: "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code."

"You'd have to be tone deaf not to get the message from Lawrence that anything that invites people to give same-sex couples less than full respect is constitutionally suspect," Professor Laurence H. Tribe of Harvard Law School said in an interview. Professor Tribe said that had the Texas case been decided differently — or not at all — "the odds that this cautious, basically conservative state court would have decided the case this way would have been considerably less."

The Massachusetts decision was based on the state's Constitution, which Chief Justice Marshall described as "if anything, more protective of individual liberty and equality than the federal Constitution." She said the Massachusetts Constitution "may demand broader protection for fundamental rights; and it is less tolerant of government intrusion into the protected spheres of private life."

Clearly, the state ruling, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, was not compelled by the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas and, given its basis in state law, cannot be appealed to the Supreme Court. Whether it will influence other state high courts remains to be seen. A similar case in the New Jersey state courts was dismissed this month at the trial level and is now on appeal.

Yet just as clearly, the Massachusetts decision and the Lawrence ruling were linked in spirit even if not as formal doctrine. The Goodridge decision "is absolutely consistent with and responsive to Lawrence," Suzanne Goldberg, a professor at Rutgers University Law School who represented the two men who challenged the Texas sodomy law in the initial stages of the Lawrence case, said in an interview. Ms. Goldberg added: "It's impossible to overestimate how profoundly Lawrence changed the landscape for gay men and lesbians."

Professor Goldberg said that sodomy laws, even if not often enforced, had the effect of labeling gays as "criminals who deserved unequal treatment." With that argument removed, discriminatory laws have little left to stand on, she said, adding that the Supreme Court "gave state courts not only cover but strength to respond to unequal treatment of lesbians and gay men."

The Massachusetts court considered and rejected the various rationales the state put forward to defend opposition to same-sex marriage. These included providing a "favorable setting for procreation" and child-rearing and defending the institution of marriage.

"It is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of civil marriage," Chief Justice Marshall said. Noting that the plaintiffs in this case "seek only to be married, not to undermine the institution of civil marriage," she said, "The marriage ban works a deep and scarring hardship on a very real segment of the community for no rational reason."

The decision will usher in a new round of litigation. The federal Defense of Marriage Act anticipated this development by providing that no state shall be required to give effect to another state's recognition of same-sex marriage.

On the books since 1996, the law has gone untested in the absence of any state's endorsement of same-sex marriage. With 37 states having adopted laws or constitutional provisions defining marriage as between a man and a woman, same-sex couples with Massachusetts marriage licenses may soon find themselves with the next Supreme Court case in the making.

You did a perfect posting job. The bold print tells the tale.

Spiritual violence? These activists are quick, aren't they? A new "buzz" term hath been born.

Religion codified into law. Yes, that's the origins of marriage.

This is a win for the GOP and particularly our President Bush. Let the homosexuals drive the democrats right into a corner or out on a limb. Either way, it's put-up ir shut-up time for the democrats. Civil unions won't fly until pigs fly.

Thank you.

Spiritual violence = hate speech = hate crime - atheism as state policy. Ask Canadians.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20031118.shtml

Marriage Redefined
Cal Thomas (archive)

November 18, 2003 | Print | Send

It is not as if the ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court permitting the "marriage" of same sex couples came as a surprise. If Massachusetts doesn't care about the sexual practices of some of its politicians, why should it care about what some of its lesser citizens do?

The 4-3 ruling, which orders the state legislature to write a law permitting arrangements similar to what the Vermont Supreme Court approved in 1999 when it allowed "civil unions" the same benefits as marriage, is further evidence that G.K. Chesterton's warning has come true: "The danger when men stop believing in God is not that they'll believe in nothing, but that they'll believe in anything."

Marriage was not invented by the postal service as a convenient way to deliver the mail. It was established by God as the best arrangement for fallen humanity to organize and protect itself and create and rear children. Even secular sociologists have produced studies showing children need a mother and a father in the home.

The first mention of marriage is in Genesis 2:24: ".a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling, which will be used by gay rights groups to lobby for striking down all laws limiting marriage to heterosexuals, is just the latest example of a society that has abandoned any and all authority outside of itself.

History, logic, theology and even the dictionary have defined marriage as: "the mutual relation of husband and wife; wedlock; the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family" (Merriam-Webster); or "a legally accepted relationship between a woman and a man in which they live as husband and wife" (Cambridge).

These classic examples are being updated to reflect the mood of the times. The online Encarta dictionary defines marriage as a "legal relationship between spouses; a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners." That's a big difference.

What is happening in our culture is an unraveling of all we once considered normal. Anyone who now appeals to virtue, values, ethics or (heaven forbid!) religious faith is labeled an enemy of progress, an intolerant bigot, a homophobe and a "Neanderthal." There is no debate and no discussion. By definition, anyone who opposes "progress" in casting off the chains of religious restrictions on human behavior - which were once considered necessary for the promotion of the general welfare - is a fundamentalist fool, part of a past that brought us witch trials, slavery and back-alley abortions.

But the problem is deeper than the courts. Some of the people who most loudly proclaim the standards by which they want all of us to live have difficulty themselves living up to those standards. A culture is made up of people, but if large numbers of them no longer "hunger and thirst after righteousness" (to invoke a biblical metaphor), neither will their government.

The constitutional way out of this in Massachusetts and in Washington is an amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Whether sufficient numbers of politicians have the courage to vote for such an amendment in the face of stiff opposition from gay rights advocates and much of the media will soon be determined.

What is most disturbing about this latest affront to tradition and biblical wisdom is that those who would undermine the old have nothing new to offer in its place. It is like morally corrupt ancient Israel when there was no king "and everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25).

Is that the way we should live? Do we get to vote? Not if the courts play God. Voters can decide in the next election if they want to continue in this direction, or pull the country back from the precipice. Marriage defined should be the social-issue centerpiece of the coming campaign.

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1231727.html

Pro-Family Groups Say Mass. Ruling Undermines Marriage
Robert B. Bluey
Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) - Conservative and pro-family leaders expressed outrage and warned about the dangers of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decision Tuesday granting same-sex couples the right to marry.

Even though the court declined to issue marriage licenses to the seven same-sex couples that sued, the ruling still enraged cultural conservatives who said they feared it would undermine the meaning of traditional marriage.

"The homosexual activist movement, which has achieved virtually every goal and objective it set out to accomplish more than 50 years ago, is now closer than it has ever been to administering a devastating and potentially fatal blow to the traditional family," said James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family.

Dobson said it was unbelievable that homosexuals have been able to achieve their objectives. Just a few years ago, he said, same-sex marriage was only a pipe dream, but now, "it has become a tidal wave that is sweeping around the globe."

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said the Massachusetts court fit into the pattern of a "tyrannical judiciary" that sought to redefine marriage "to the point of extinction." He also accused the justices of carrying out a "pro-homosexual agenda."

Having suffered two major defeats in the legal arena this year - the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed sodomy laws in June - pro-family groups like the Family Research Council vowed to turn their attention to legislatures.

Constitutional amendments - both at the state and national level - would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Such measures have already been introduced in Massachusetts and the U.S. Congress.

"If we do not amend the Massachusetts state constitution so that it explicitly protects marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and if we do not amend the U.S. Constitution with a federal marriage amendment that will protect marriage on the federal level, we will lose marriage in this nation," Perkins said.

The debate over homosexual marriage in Massachusetts has been brewing for several years. Republican Gov. Mitt Romney has said he believes marriage should be between one man and one woman, and Democrat House Speaker Tom Finneran supports the constitutional amendment.

Last year, Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage lobbied for a voter referendum asking the citizens about the definition of marriage. The group's attorney, J. Edward Pawlick, wasn't able to get the referendum on the ballot after a fight with the Legislature and the Supreme Judicial Court.

"The arrogance of these lawyers is without bounds," Pawlick said of the four justices who sided with the same-sex couples. "They know that the citizens are against gay marriage, and the only way it will happen is to force it upon them. We are witnessing the collapse of a once-great society, not from an invading army but from decay within."

On the national level, proponents of traditional marriage had anticipated the possibility of a decision similar to the one issued Tuesday. More than 25 pro-family groups staged Marriage Protection Week last month, hoping to galvanize support for their position.

Groups like the Alliance for Marriage and the Southeastern Legal Foundation called on federal lawmakers to amend the U.S. Constitution to clarify the definition of marriage.

"What we will see now is a veritable rush to the courthouses of various states by gay partners and the gay lobby to seek constitutional rights' status for gay marriage," said L. Lynn Hogue, chairman of the foundation's legal advisory board. "A federal constitutional amendment is the best way to ensure against a hodge-podge of state laws."

Lawmakers also called for action Tuesday. U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said the court's decision leaves Congress little choice but to enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage.

"On an issue as fundamental as marriage, it is the job of the American people, through their legislators, to decide - not the Massachusetts courts," Cornyn said.

U.S. Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-N.C.) said the ruling was yet another attack on American values. He said it would "only further the resolve of those of us who seek to protect the sanctity of marriage."

Meanwhile, homosexual activist groups hailed the court's decision. Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, said the ruling gives same-sex couples the same protections and rights as other citizens.

"This is about whether gay and lesbian couples in long-term, committed relationships will be afforded the benefits, rights and protections afforded other citizens to best care for their partners and children," Birch said. "This is good for gay couples, and it is good for America."

Birch said the ruling also means that homosexual partners will be able to visit each other in hospitals, make health care and financial decisions for each other, file joint tax returns and be able to take advantage of tax laws for married couples.

See Related Stories:
Mass. Decision Encourages Federal Marriage Amendment (Nov. 19, 2003)
Same-Sex Ruling Causes Democratic 'Heartburn,' Says Political Analyst (Nov. 19, 2003)

See Earlier Story:
Massachusetts Court Says OK to Same-Sex Marriage (Nov. 18, 2003)

Listen to audio for this story.

Spiritual violence? These activists are quick, aren't they? A new "buzz" term hath been born.

I think you're right on that one! I'll be waiting to see more of it.

However, I wouldn't be too sure that gay "marriage" will be rejected by the voters. Most people, after having been told by the media in a relentless campaign that they are practicing "spiritual violence" by opposing it, will go with the flow. Since the media controls what is perceived to be the flow, I think we know how that's going to turn out.

"The problem is when they want their religion codified into law," she said.

Which one must presume is a heinous act compared to trying to codify one's perversion.

Regrettably, your fears are well founded. Thus far, all polls indicate that gay marriage is one incursion too far. People, even non religious people, see gay marriage as an affront to society.

They're already trying to sell 'civil unions' --- I'm not buying that either.

The bishops' statement says a same-sex union contradicts the purpose of marriage because "it is not based on the natural complementarity of male and female; it cannot cooperate with God to create new life; and the natural purpose of sexual union cannot be achieved by a same-sex union."

Ladies who have passed through menopause, please take note: This guy doesn't think you should be allowed to marry.

On the opposite end, there is absolutely no scientific or medical FACT that homosexual behavior is anything but a developmental behavioral disorder. The closest science get is nothing more than mere hypothesis. And the "studies" that have been done (Hamer's, twins, etc.) were exposed as frauds. Yet, liberal scumbags continue to shut their eyes, put hands over ears, and shout, "It's not a choice"

And they always refer to "new understandings based on science" or "the results of modern scientific research", although such new understandings are based on desire, not science, and although the research to which they refer constantly is either nonexistent, nonpublished, or fraudulent.

I actually care more about the prostitution of what they call "science", and about the coup d'etat aspect of the courts assuming control over the legislatures than I do about the underlying issue.

But Bishop J. Kevin Boland of the Diocese of Savannah insisted the document, to be distributed to Catholic churches in pamphlet form, was not intended to condemn homosexuals. "We respect their dignity as persons," Boland said at a news conference. "We know that, with some individuals, it's not their choice to be gay.

The Roman Catholic bishops of America (is there such an organization?), beginning with Always Our Children, have accepted wholeheartedly the liberationist view of "sexual orientation" as a fixed attribute which is both necessary and sufficient to describe a person.

This view, which is almost certainly wrong, is also accepted by all 3 branches of the United States government and many other sources of authority.

This view overturns millenia of common wisdom about human nature, as it must, since it is part of the great project to abolish the natural in man and to replace it with the dictates of the state.