We should lead fight for marriage (Presecuted Catholic Bishop not backing down!)

Calgary Sun - Canada ^ | Sunday, May 1, 2005 | Bishop Fred Henry

[GMMAC]

CALGARY SUN
Sunday, May 1, 2005

We should lead fight for marriage

By Bishop Fred Henry

Results of recent polling indicates that, by almost two-thirds, same-sex marriage is unacceptable to Canadians, an oxymoron.

Now, in an attempt to regroup, appealing to our sense of tolerance and justice, proponents of same-sex marriage have attempted to shift the focus of the debate, opting for "equal marriage."

However, all the packaging in the world doesn't alter substance.

There are many kinds of friendship open to all, but that particular kind of friendship that is marriage, involves gender complementarity and the life-creating potential that can be found only in the relationship between a man and a woman.

To construe anything else as similar to marriage or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and the family is to confront an insurmountable biological impossibility.

A marriage is a union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.

Nevertheless, according to Bill C-38, the social institution that has always symbolized our society's commitment to the future -- our children -- will be transformed into an institution that symbolizes our commitment to the present, the needs and desires of adults.

Marriage will have a new primary purpose, to validate and protect sexually intimate adult relationships.

Legislation which redefines marriage cannot achieve the impossible.

It cannot alter the simple reality that there is a fundamental difference between a relationship that, by its nature, has the potential to create a child and a relationship, that by its nature, absolutely does not.

It is not unjust, or a limitation of anyone's legitimate rights and freedoms, to insist marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman.

If one were refused such positions because of race or religion or ethnic background, or something not related to the nature of the reality at issue, then that would indeed be an injustice and a denial of individual rights.

If, however, one were refused because one excludes basic elements of the role itself, that is not in any way an injustice.

The Supreme Court of Canada did not state in the reference case that opposite-sex marriage was discriminatory against same-sex couples.

It merely stated the government may, as a matter of policy, extend marriage to same-sex couples, but it did not require the government to do so, on the basis that it was an equality or human-right issue.

In one of my previous pastoral letters, I wrote: "Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the state must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in the interests of the common good."

Each, in its own way, undermines the foundations of the family. My list was never meant to be exhaustive as the Catechism of the Catholic Church also mentions: Divorce, fornication, rape, etc.

The state obviously responds to each of these threats to family life in different ways as it exercises its coercive power.

The government has a solemn obligation to protect, not re-engineer, an institution that is more fundamental to human life than the state.

In a word, it must "build fences" to protect the institution of marriage.

The coercive power of the state extends to traffic laws, tax policy, education curriculum, communication regulations, and a whole host of other areas including marriage.

For example, in the case of marriage, federal legislation prohibits people from marrying if they are related linearly or as brother and sister, whether by whole blood, half blood or by adoption.

Specifically, a woman may not marry her grandfather, father, grandson, son or brother. A man may not marry his grandmother, mother, granddaughter, daughter or sister.

The time has come for the government of Canada to use its coercive powers to legislate that a couple being married must be one man and one woman.

This is not a fascist or Hitler-like position, nor even an anti-homosexual stance, but it reflects Christian teaching on the primordial status of marriage and family life.

As an Albertan, I am afraid we have been so concerned with the Bill C-38, communicating with and attempting to influence federal politicians, that we have neglected the provincial scene.

As a result, Premier Klein and our provincial government continue to flip-flop on traditional marriage.

One minute, posturing as the champions of traditional marriage, and promising to renew the notwithstanding provision of the Alberta Defence of Marriage Act, and the next moment, allowing the notwithstanding provision to expire on March 22.

The ultimate argument being that provincial legislation would end up being a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Such an argument is hollow as there is no better place for Alberta to invest its money than in the defence of marriage and family life.

It is time to be pro-active, not reactive. We don't have to wait for the federal government to act.

We should renew the notwithstanding provision of the Alberta Defence of Marriage Act and add an amendment to the existing Marriage Act stating that in order for a marriage to be solemnized in Alberta and a marriage licence issued, the couple needs to be a man and a woman.

The issuing of marriage licences is a provincial right and this is where our power resides.

[GMMAC]

Support Bishop Henry (Website)

Human Rights Complaint Filed Against Catholic Bishop for Defence of Traditional Marriage

[GMMAC]

"Faith and Family" PING!

[goldstategop]

Its a commentary on the times marriage even has to be defended in the first place. As recently as a decade ago, the subject was not even open to debate.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[risk]

It's mainly the leftist press that's bringing a heretofore unmentionable topic into our living rooms.

[pissant]

Keep Fighting, good Bishop

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

Looks like good words from a good man.

Let me know if you want on/off this pinglist.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

BTTT!

[GMMAC]

(Denny Crane: "Lock and load!") ... for Faith & Family!

[goldstategop]

I like your second tagline, my friend. We really do need to lock and load - something forgotten even in Boston. Come to think of it, the old phrase "Banned In Boston" has acquired an entirely new meaning today.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[CelticLord]

Former Canadian PM received an award friday in
Philadelphia from a GAY RIGHTS ORGANIZATION.
Totally true.
This is the same lame brain who thinks the kyoto accord
is a good investment when all the worlds leading scientists
are completely refuting this blatant lie.
And Martin and the other political leaders seem
to also be going the wrong way with respect to this.
If this gov't spends 10billion on some lame waste of
skin kyoto project I really believe there will be a severe
fallout up here in Canada like you have never seen before.
Canadian Nature of Things host David Suzuki (notice the
last name.....suzuki......kyoto) was a big pusher of
this disgusting waste of taxpayers money.

[supercat]

A wedding is a joining of two families, and of two principles who can become the legitimate mother and father of any children they may happen to produce or adopt. Although not all marriages produce or raise children (and some marriages may be considered exceptionally likely to do so), marriage is the only institution by which children can be made legitimate.

A child who is anonymously adopted(*) by two men will be motherless and thus illegitimate; a mother who is anonymously adopted by two women will be fatherless and thus illegitimate. A child who is adopted by a properly married couple, however, will gain a married mother and a father, and thus become legitimate.

(*) If a child of known parentage is orphaned and the only surviving relative who wants the child happens to be gay, such adoption may not be unreasonable. The gay relative would be aunt/uncle so-and-so, and the partner would be no relation. The child's mother and father would remain who they always were, as they should even if the child were adopted by a married aunt/uncle.

Why is it so hard for people to recognize the significance of a child having a mother (and mother's family) and father (and father's family)?

[In The Crease]

Canada's next cardinal!

[NYer]

Bishop Henry

Homosexual "Marriage"

True marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Legal recognition of any other union as "marriage" undermines true marriage, and legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement.

"When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral" (UHP 10).
UHP Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons

Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[victim soul]

Thanks for posting this courageous and good bishop's website address.

[m4629]

Bravo bishop Fred Henry.

When first ordained a bishop he served under the wishy washy liberal bishop John Sherlock in the diocese of London, Ontario. BTW, Sherlock stated his "second career option" would have been a politician if he had not pursued The Call. It sure looks like bishop Sherlock achieved both his career goals.

Anyway, bishop Fred Henry kept his mouth shut and very low key during his tenure in the London diocese, was never impressive. Perhaps he was smart to wait out his time and now, teaching like a bishop should.

He has been quite vocal on life issues in the past decade or so. Good for him, and good for the Church. Perhaps we will see more good things from him.

Pray for this good guy.

[bourbon]

Nevertheless, according to Bill C-38, the social institution [marriage] that has always symbolized our society's commitment to the future -- our children -- will be transformed into an institution that symbolizes our commitment to the present, the needs and desires of adults.

This is an excellent statement. I thought y'all would be interested in it.

[wardaddy]

It cannot alter the simple reality that there is a fundamental difference between a relationship that, by its nature, has the potential to create a child and a relationship, that by its nature, absolutely does not.

[dixiechick2000]

Both of your statements are excellent.

Thanks!