In aftermath of Maine, gays step up their attacks on the Church

American Papist ^ | November 5, 2009 | Thomas Peters

[NYer]

Last night, by a comfortable margin of 53-47%, the citizens of Maine became the 31st state to vote down gay marriage (as has every single state that has given its citizens a chance to vote on the issue).

Not surprisingly, the mainstream liberal press is beside itself with frustration, especially because it drives yet another nail in the "inevitability" and "wrong side of history" arguments we are often fed.

As I wrote on National Review this morning, Maine voted for traditional marriage "despite it being a liberal state, despite a 2-1 funding disadvantage, despite aggressive legal action against traditional-marriage defenders, despite unusually high voter turn out, and despite Rachel Maddow and the elite press running interference."

And unlike in California's Prop 8 victory for traditional marriage, proponents of gay marriage can't blame this Maine loss on "Mormons, on African Americans who turned out for Barack Obama, or on confusing ballot wording."

They can however, blame it on Catholics, and some angry members of the gay marriage movement are already doing so.

As I wrote back in September, the Catholic Church in Maine - with the strong leadership of Bishop Richard Malone - effectively and institutionally supported efforts to preserve traditional marriage. I have been told the Catholic Church contributed upwards of $500k to the final $2 million or so that was raised by defenders of traditional marriage.

Now, like what happened to the Mormons in the wake of Prop 8, some gays are calling for a systematic attack on the Catholic Church and her freedoms in retaliation for Maine. In case you have any doubts about what happened to supporters of Prop 8 after that was decided, the Heritage foundation has posted a summary:

Supporters of Proposition 8 in California have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry.

Now read what one gay blogger wrote today in the wake of the Maine referendum today:

"[Maine voters] have bowed their heads to the nameless, faceless financiers of campaigns which continue to sew bigotry, hatred, and suspicion of their fellows. They have bowed their knees to potentates in the Catholic and Mormon Churches and claimed that this was about their freedom of religion.

... The day will come very soon when Maine will regret turning its back on equality. It is time that the legislature of Maine strip the Catholic Church of all its exemptions. It is time to force the National Organization into the light. It is time to purge their dens of iniquity and shame and to force them into the light.

It is time to dismantle those who seek through deception and fraud to repress others."

Nor is such out-in-the-open hatred of the Catholic Church confined to isolated individuals - no less a figure than Andrew Sullivan, an openly-gay and widely-read author for The Atlantic Monthly - and who still claims to be Catholic - wrote today:

"After Maine, where the Catholic church actually organized a second collection to raise money to prevent gay people from having civil rights, the situation shifts again. Using a tax-exempt church to raise money to defeat the civil rights of fellow citizens is not too shocking in the age of Benedict. It is shocking if one believes in a separation of politics and religion, and if one believes that the church of Jesus should stand in solidarity with the marginalized, rather than seeking to marginalize and demonize them still further.

It is time to acknowledge that the Catholic church hierarchy can no longer pretend that it isn't the active enemy of gay people and our families. That this church hierarchy - especially in its more conservative wing - is disproportionately gay itself and waging war against their fellow gays through the cowardly veil of the closet, is not new. But it is, as we flinch with the sting of defeat, harder to take than ever.

It is time to demand that gay priests who are actively fighting against the dignity of gay people own their enmeshment in injustice, stigmatization and cruelty."

The Atlantic is a major publication, Andrew Sullivan is a significant figure. This is serious. And authors such as Sullivan are getting a free-pass for legitimizing lies and hatred against the Church.

All this is especially ironic when one considers how the gay marriage movement tries to cast itself as one that is seeking tolerance and acceptance of all. Well, apparently the Catholic Church isn't a legitimate recipient of such treatment. I would be more encouraged if leaders of the gay marriage movement would call out or apologize for outbursts against the Church like the ones I've cited above.

Nonetheless, in the coming days and weeks, we need to be vigilant for anti-Catholic rhetoric and attacks. Don't be surprised if a lot of damning stories about the Church are published in the short term. Even if the issue of gay marriage isn't mentioned, you can bet reporters who have something against the Church are dusting off their old file folders right now.

Now of course, this oft-repeated smear that the Catholic Church hates gay people and hates equality is completely without foundation. Just look at a portion of the statement Bishop Malone released today:

“These past few months have served as a teaching opportunity to explain to parishioners and the wider community about how and why the Church views and values marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It has also been an opportunity for listening, and I trust that those who voted for such a radical change did so out of concern for our gay brothers and sisters. Respect and acceptance of all people regardless of sexual orientation is not a point of controversy — indeed, it is a teaching of the Church. While the Catholic Church will continue its commitment to work for the basic human rights to which all people are entitled, it remains devoted to preserving and strengthening the precious gift of marriage.”

That sure doesn't sound like hate speech to me. {update: neither does the statement just issued by the US Bishops - for those stumbling across this post, please read it before attacking our position. It has been compassionately thought through.}

For our part, meanwhile, we have to be charitable and confident in the teaching of the Church and be consistent in our own witness to it. Defining marriage as between one man and one woman is not to treat gays as inferior or unequal. This definition has overwhelming historical, cultural, sociological, and religious support.

Such anger and retaliation from the gay community are a sad indicator that they have no more arguments. Nonetheless, whenever the Church is attacked, we must defend ourselves and the Church we love, continuing to articulate the truths of the human person which reason reveal and faith confirms.

Truth, after all, is the foundation for equality, and for every valid social justice movement. So it should not surprise us that the only way the gay community is now attempting to establish its legal "right" to marriage is through power and intimidation.

update - I won't clutter my post with more examples, but I'll add just one more. There are many others:

The Bishop of Maine, Richard Malone, must be quite pleased with himself. He ran a campaign of lies, hate and distortions -- and convinced enough Maine voters to vote with him. It's going to take me a couple days (or more) to get my head around this one. But, for now, suffice it so say: HATE was the winner in Maine. Hate and the Catholic Bishop. But, this isn't over. Time and justice really are on our side.

Luke 6:22.

[ichabod1]

Shaming and harassment is the way they implement ALL of their communist agenda.

[Jeff Chandler]

“How can two people of the same sex being married be a threat to your marriage?”

Straw horse argument. It's not about a particular marriage; it's the institution of marriage which we don't want to be forced to redefine.

A counter question would be, what should the definition of marriage be, and who should decide what that definition is?

[Jeff Chandler]

Was that a Catholic church, and if so, which one?

[Jeff Chandler]

Get the State out of the marriage business and this problem vanishes.

Stop tearing sown societal institutions in order to validate mental illness as healthy and normal and the problem goes away.

[MrB]

I’m definitely with you.

Either marriage is defined objectively as it is in the Bible as one man and one woman,

or there is no objective definition, and whatever anyone of any generation wants it to be, that is what it will be.

There is no way that it will go anywhere but in the direction of

any number of men, their daughters, their pets and the pets’ fleas constituting a “marriage”.

[max americana]

clue on post 34. If you live in L.A., you’ll know it..

[cradle of freedom]

I get a kick out of that “wrong side of history” line. Hah, they are on the wrong side of history! When was there ever same sex marriage in human history?

[RobbyS]

IMHO, one function of the law is to protect rights arising from the relationship between a man and a woman and their relation to their children. Marriage is a institution that predates any state, or any positive law, and one of the obligations of the state is to protect families.

[cradle of freedom]

The more the gays get their way, the worse off they are. They are like so many bratty kids who are never happy. Look what happened when the gay movement brought them out of the closet. They went to places such as San Francisco and New York City where they lived in large gay enclaves. This was the gay Disneyland. At last they were surrounded by people just like themselves. They could do anything they wanted in an environment of total acceptance. And that is exactly what they did - they did everything they wanted with as many people as they wanted and they ended up with AIDS. Be careful what you wish for.

[cradle of freedom]

And if you change the definition of marriage once, how many more times will it be changed?

[1776 Reborn]

I understand what you are saying, and many people think that includes the state granting you the right to get married. When you break it down, the state grants you the equivolence of a legal business partnership. You are partners in law as far as owning property. If the state also would say you are legal partners in the care of your kids too, this would allow them to handle the legal issues through the courts without them taking on the religious role of granting you the right to get married, or conducting marriage ceremonies which is a religous function. Does that make sense to you? Can you see how this would keep gays from leaning on the government for a religious marriage license, or a marriage ceremony from a judge or justice of the peace? I feel this ceremonial part of getting married is the exclusive domain of churches, to conduct as their particular doctrine dictates. Thus, the government would grant legal partnerships, and churches would conduct marriage cerimonies over and above the government issued partnership to hetro sexual couples.

[NYer]

When was there ever same sex marriage in human history?

These relationships were popular in ancient times in Rome and Greece and other civilizations as well. They were probably never elevated to the distinction of marriage but then, historically, were there any truly civil ceremonies to celebrate the union of a man and woman back then? I don't know.

What this teaches us is that, as a civilization, we are crumbling as we return to the pagan roots of society. The Governor the state of NY just issued a Press Release calling for an 'extraordinary' session of the state legislature to resolve certain issues before the end of the year. Among these is 'Providing same-sex couples the same opportunity to enter into civil marriages as opposite-sex couples' As fellow freeper 'massmike' has already pointed out, the governor's ratings can't drop much lower. The legislators have certainly watched the coverage of the vote in Maine and can interpret that to mean votes for or against them in next year's election. From what I understand, there are not enough votes to pass this legislation. Otherwise, you can expect that on next year's ballot, NY citizens will countermand this bill with an electoral vote.

[RobbyS]

“Pagan” if by that you mean a deification of the state, or science. The old pagans, at least, looked for a reality behind appearances. Today’s pagans worship only power.

[RobbyS]

IMHO, gays are mad, in the sense that Paul uses the term in Romans. I don’t like the idea of letting mad men set the rules of our society. But as to marriage, I think it more than a contract, and as I said, an institution with a dignity separate from the dignity of the state, and the primary unit of civil society. I don’t want to see society dissolves into a collective of individuals—the literal atomization of our society.

[1776 Reborn]

I’m trying to defend the institution of marriage by removing it from the government and giving it back to
the churches. The gays will get legal unions (partnerships) ultimately from the government, but they don’t have to be
granted marriages if that is part is returned to the church domain. Some people can’t see the distinction, I think there is a huge one.......

[OriginalChristian]

I’m very sorry to hear it.

[YankeeReb]

It is shocking if one believes in a separation of politics and religion,

Is that the same seperation that happens when dimocRATS campaign in a black church in Harlem? These people are shameless.

[Debacled]

It’s not Benedict’s Church, it’s Christ’s Church. If you have an issue with the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, bypass the shift manager (Benedict) and go right to the owner (Christ).

I love how the “peace and justice” people bastardize Christ’s time on earth- they try to use him as the poster boy for liberal causes. However, there is an inconvenient truth to Christ: he’s politically incorrect yesterday, today, and forever.

Do you honestly think Christ espoused homosexual relations? Christ loves all, but there is a difference between loving the sin and loving the sinner.

Jesus was a devout Jew who held the importance of Jewish moral law. Homosexual acts were/are verboten among the Jewish people. Hell, Jesus confronted the adulterer woman in the Gospels. Do you think he’d be easier on a gay? No. Atleast heterosexual relations are natural.

Christ also said to the adulterer woman “You are forgiven, sin no more”. The whole gay marriage thing won’t stop homosexual acts, but will only perpetuate and normalize them, which is abominable and contradict’s Christ’s message.

[Dilbert San Diego]

There will be no end to their demands.

If they succeed in gaining monogamous same-sex marriage, they will then move on to getting polygamy and group marriage legalized.

This is part of the master plan of gay activists. First, they wanted to establish the legal concept of same-sex marriage, then move on to legalizing other types of relationships.

What’s troubling to me, and seldom addressed, is that they insist that it has to be marriage or nothing for the gay community. I think that the relationships of married couples raising children is more significant to society than two childless adults of the same sex. Thus, I think it’s appropriate for marriage to be opposite sex, while some other status is the norm for same-sex.

Society should not be forced to treat all types of relationships equally. They are trying to force society to treat same-sex and eventually group relationships in the same way, with the same legal status.

[Jvette]

They will also use the legality to try to force churches to perform those marriages. They have used it to force business owners to recognize and subsidize same sex partners. You are right, they will push and push.

As a side note, my daughter is a freshman at SDSU. She loves San Diego!