Catholic official likens same-sex unions to abortion

SAVANNAH - A Roman Catholic bishop who co-authored a statement opposing same-sex unions, approved by U.S. bishops last week, said Monday legal gay marriages would be "another diminishing of society, just like abortion."

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. But at the same time a gay person, just like a heterosexual person, may be obliged to chastity."

At their annual meeting in Washington last week, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops adopted a four-page statement explaining why Catholics should oppose legal recognition of same-sex unions. As chairman of the bishops' Committee on Marriage and Family, Boland was one of the document's authors and sponsored it before the full conference.

The bishops' statement, approved by a 234-3 vote last Wednesday, comes as Congress considers a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Vermont allows civil unions between gays, and laws in California and Hawaii extend some economic benefits to same-sex couples. Last summer, gay rights groups scored a major victory when the Supreme Court struck down bans on gay sex.

"Marriage is, in many ways, in a crisis in this country," Boland said. "... I see it as another diminishing of society, just like abortion."

An interfaith gay advocacy group, Soulforce, has called the document "confusing, harmful and spiritually violent."

"Sending that pamphlet to every single parish in the Catholic church hurts gay people," said Laura Montgomery Rutt, a Soulforce spokeswoman. "It's spiritual violence saying, 'You're not as good as us.' They can say they're not condemning gay people, but they certainly are."

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."

And though Boland said the pamphlet is intended as an educational tool, not a policy statement, it argues against government granting same-sex couples the same economic and social benefits as married people.

The pamphlet also urges Catholics to vote their religious convictions, saying "participation in the political process is a moral obligation."

"This is particularly urgent in light of the need to defend marriage and to oppose the legalization of same-sex unions as marriages," the statement says.

Rutt said the Catholic church, like any religious denomination, can decide for itself what marriages it wants to recognized.

"The problem is when they want their religion codified into law," she said. "They're mixing politics and religion in a way that we believe is wrong."

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.

What amazes me is that a bishop actually says that "it's not their choice to be gay", when he of all people knows that God's Word so consistently speaks otherwise. He is one of the "elect" that is leading the sheep astray.

Whatever happened to "No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, and with every temptation will provide a way of escape so that you will be able to endure it"???

Sure hope they've ordered up an adequate number of millstones.

Hat-Trick

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/123/32.0.htmlWeblog:
Ontario Court Throws Out Marriage Definition
Plus: A teacher fights to evangelize kids after school, church attacked in India, and other stories from online sources around the world.
Compiled by Ted Olsen | posted 06/11/2003

Christian groups respond to Canadian court's redefining of marriage
The Ontario Superior Court ruled yesterday that Canada's legal definition of marriage—"the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman"—is discriminatory, unconstitutional, and violates homosexuals' human rights guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"The restriction against same-sex marriage is an offense to the dignity of lesbians and gays because it limits the range of relationship options available to them," wrote Justice Harry LaForme. "The result is they are denied the autonomy to choose whether they wish to marry. This in turn conveys the ominous message that they are unworthy of marriage. … I find that there is no merit to the argument that the rights and interests of heterosexuals would be affected by granting same-sex couples the freedom to marry. I cannot conclude that freedom of religion would be threatened or jeopardized by legally sanctioning same-sex marriage."

The new definition of marriage, at least in Ontario, is now "the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others."

It's the latest in a series of Canadian court decisions supporting gay marriage. Last month, the British Columbia Court of Appeal also ruled that the definition of marriage must be changed, but gave the government until July 12, 2004, to do it. A Quebec Superior Court judge issued a similar ruling last fall. But yesterday's ruling in Ontario offered no grace period for the government—homosexual marriages were instantly legal. They took place almost as instantly, as dozens of couples raced to be among the first.

The court decision legalizes two homosexual marriages from January 2001 that occurred at a Metropolitan Community Church in Toronto, but the first new marriage was that of prosecutor Michael Leshner and Michael Stark. "Today is the death of homophobia in the courtroom as we know it," said Leshner.

It's the death of something, agreed Christian groups in Canada and the U.S.

"This change in the common law is not an incremental step

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.