The following comes from an August 21 story on the Politico.com website.
TAMPA, Fla. — The Republican platform committee resoundingly rejected an amendment Tuesday that would have endorsed civil unions for gay couples.
The GOP will maintain its official support for a constitutional amendment that would “protect traditional marriage” by defining it as between a man and a woman.
The Democratic National Committee platform has embraced gay marriage, urged on by President Barack Obama’s decision to endorse it earlier in the year.
But here at the Marriott hotel, where Mitt Romney will stay when he accepts his party’s nomination next week, a series of similar amendments were soundly rejected during subcommittee meetings on Monday. Supporters of marriage equality wanted an up-or-down vote before the full body of just over 100 members.
Barbara Ann Fenton, Rhode Island’s representative to the quadrennial session that decides official Republican Party principles, called for a platform plank that would recognize civil union partnerships for heterosexual and homosexual couples.
“As a Roman Catholic, there’s nobody in this room who believes [more than I do] that the definition of marriage is between one man and one woman,” she said. “But those are my religious beliefs, and this country was founded on the separation of church and state.”
“At 31, I don’t see people because of the color of their skin and I don’t recognize them by their sexuality,” she added. “For my own generation, a lot of times homosexuality is not the biggest deal in the world. And that’s okay.”
The room sat quietly as Fenton spoke. Social conservatives respectfully listened.
Then platform committee chairman Bob McDonnell, the governor of Virginia, asked if anyone wanted to speak. A sea of hands shot up.
“Our party has always been the party of defending traditional marriage,” said Sharee Langenstein from Illinois. “We need to continue being the party that defends traditional marriage.”
Indiana representative Jim Bopp called civil unions “counterfeit marriage.”
“The recognition of marriage between a man and a woman when the government does that has nothing to do with the separation of church and state,” he said.
Fenton was one of four people to speak in support of more gay rights in the platform. Aggressively working the halls of the meeting were representatives of the Log Cabin Republicans, a group that supports gay rights. They were overpowered and outmaneuvered by social conservative groups like the Family Research Council. FRC President Tony Perkins, for example, is Louisiana’s male representative to the platform session….
After the civil unions amendment failed, Nevada representative Pat Kerby tried to amend the traditional marriage section to say that every American should be treated “equally under the law” as long as they are not hurting anyone else. He said that the GOP should focus on an economic message, not waging the culture wars.
“I believe this is the most important election of our lives,” said Kerby, a strong supporter of Ron Paul. “I believe this social issues grants Hollywood and the media to paint us as people who aren’t after a free country but kind of theological ‘we want to impose our will on others.’”
Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach opposed the amendment on the ground that government routinely regulates behaviors like drugs and polygamy “We condemn those activities even though they’re not hurting other people, at least directly,” he said….
To read entire story click here.
Barbara Ann Fenton should be told by someone in authority in the Church, that she is not fooling anyone, and that she will soon be an excommunicated Catholic!
She should also seriously ponder Our Lord’s condemation of those who bring scandal.
Please remember her name in case she has ambitions to run for higher Office.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Ms. Fenton should also be challenged on her completely false statement
“this Nation was founded on separation of Church and State” She needs a good History lesson.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
They don’t want so much to change the definition of “marriage” so much – they want to change the definition of the “marriage act”.
Exactly! dybynes.
Another confused “catholic” that was a poor student in the history of our Country as there has never been a separation of Church and State, a idea that even Pope Leo XIII said was dangerous to all, and she doesn’t seem to know about the Teachings of the Church and God about condoning sin. Romney should send those four frauds out to the nearest Chick-Fil-A to buy lunch for all of the GOP members and charge the bill to Obama. GOD WILL NOT BE MOCKED!! +JMJ+
“As a Roman Catholic, there’s nobody in this room who believes [more than I do] that the definition of marriage is between one man and one woman,” she said. “But those are my religious beliefs, and this country was founded on the separation of church and state. Another poorly Catechized Catholic, you don’t leave your moral beliefs at the door, this is the same logic that has allowed 40 million babies to be killed in their mothers womb. We are either Catholic 24/7 or we are not… this poorly Catechized Catholic fails to understand that her Faith must be used to help form a more moral society…God Help us all
All in favor of Traditional Marriage, have a chick-fil-a, all opposed, have a kiss-in. Let’s see how this turns out.
The Democratic Party is not only the Party of Death for advancing abortion, but also the Party of ‘Sodom and Gomorrah’ (Genesis 19),
Their immoral and sinful leadership defies words.
Their immorality will trickle down into everything they do.
CCC: ” 2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.
Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible.
This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger, or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values. ”
Being against gay marriage is not against the free will to commit homosexual acts. Homosexuals can do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes. Do not force the rest of us accept your immorality.
No Christian can support the Democratic Party in any way. Their Platform clearly slaps the direct teaching of Jesus in the face – marriage is between one woman and one man (Mk 10:6-9).
Also sodomy violates the teachings of the Jewish Faith, and the Muslim faith.
QUOTE
CCC: ” 2411 Contracts are subject to commutative justice which regulates exchanges between persons and between institutions in accordance with a strict respect for their rights.
Commutative justice obliges strictly;
it requires safeguarding property rights, paying debts, and fulfilling obligations freely contracted.
Without commutative justice, no other form of justice is possible.
One distinguishes commutative justice from legal justice which concerns what the citizen owes in fairness to the community,
and from distributive justice which regulates what the community owes its citizens in proportion to their contributions and needs. ”
UNQUOTE
Fenton has it dead wrong. Separation of church and state does not allow us to support public policy that is in direct conflict with Church Teachings.
The support of “civil unions” against Church teachings in the name of separation of church and state is dishonest. What she really wants is to be able to regard the state’s position as superior to the Church’s position in this matter, as if we should see the laws of the state as taking priority over God’s laws as taught by the Church. It is, in fact, absurd thinking. She reminds me of Nancy Pelosi.
The Democrat Party is the party of death. Unfortunately, too many Republications are weak when it comes to standing against perversion. Regarding “marriage”, this institution predates the dictionary. That is one of the problems we face in this modern age when everyone has to have a definition of everythig.
Laurette, please re-read the article on this site. The Republican Platform Committee has voted NOT to support gay-marriage (sodomy).
There are only a few Republican politicians who support abortion and gay-marriage.
While most Democratic politicians support abortion and gay marriage (sodomy) – which is in their Platform.
Check the voting record and public statements of your elected officials prior to voting, and please stay up with the latest information.
Laurette,
I faced this many times in my political career, unfortunately all one needs to do to call themselves a Republican is to sign a piece of paper that says one is then a Republican.
Eg: Schwartzeneger, Wilson, Campbell, McCain, that phoney in Alaska, Guilliani etc. etc.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Well, Kenneth, but look at the bright side … at least they’re not Demoncrats? Republicrats but not demoncrats!
Marriege equality?
Barbara Ann Fenton is a very confused woman. Homosexuality is not a religious issue, it is a moral issue. That is why Homosexual acts were considered crimes for much of this country’s history. There were secular laws against sodomy and Homosexual acts all the way up into the last couple of decades. It was an issue of morals and the natural law. That is why even though there is separation of Church and state, secular arguments and laws addressed this moral issue.
Barbara Ann Fenton also doesn’t know her faith. This country has separation of Church and state because it is a Protestant country. Separation of Church and state is not a Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church has condemned the Separation of Church and state as an error in the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX and repeated by Leo XIII, Pius X, among others.
While I’m a practicing Catholic, and do think homosexuality is a sin, I had to say that it’s going to be hard to go against a young woman as respectful, polite, and one with as long a philanthropic history in her young years as Miss Fenton. I was at the platform meeting in Tampa as a volunteer staffer, and not only did MANY other delegates relegate that while she is a social moderate, once you spoke with her, it was hard to be mad at her. She was lovely, & incredibly intelligent re: articulating her argument.
I have to say that as a young Catholic, I’m most concerned about protecting the word and sacrament of marriage. I’m not sure where recognizing civil unions jeopardizes that. I love my God who loves all his children. Maybe we need to stop spewing hatred so much.
Hoyt:
Please consider that “civil union” was the (very brilliant) legal strategy employed to bring about the imposition of same sex marriage in America.
If marriage is between a man and a woman, then there is no civil rights question involved in same sex marriage.
None.
This is the exact meaning of the Supreme Court’s finding in Baker v. Nelson that no substantial Federal question was involved- therefore, no 14th Amendment issue was involved.
Cue civil unions.
The very instant that one decides marriage benefits should be extended to unmarried persons- it doesn’t matter which persons, once they have been extended to any group they will ultimately have to be extended to all (polygamy will be next, but hardly the last of it)- once marriage benefits are extended to non-married persons………
Then it *does* involve a civil rights issue.
To deny the title “marriage” to persons who have had its benefits extended to them is a very powerful 14th Amendment claim.
If gay marriage is ultimately imposed by judicial fiat on this nation, it will have happened exactly because of civil unions.
Hoyt Jackson, any single person has the right to make up a will or power of attorney for their healthcare. Some of it can even be done without an attorney by just going down to any office supply store and getting the proper forms to fill out. The only cost for making out a power of attorney for one’s healthcare should be the price of the forms and the cost of having it notorized by a Notary Republic (no connection to Republicans if he or she is a Democrat, libertairan, etc.).A will might be more compleicated and require an attorney. I do not know, but my husband and I had a will made out by an attorney when we were still working class people. If we could afford it so can two single people.The benefits that were meant to help heterosexual marriied couples to raise a family should not be going to homosexual couples. In fact in some states there is a marriage tax for heterosexual couples which is totally immoral because it discourages people from doing the right thing. It is extremely selfish to deliberately deprive a child of a mother or father so homosexual and Lesbain couples should not be raising children. Single people of good moral character should be allowed to raise them in extreme circumstances. Some treat baby chicks and puppies better, and children are far more priceless. I am assuming that is the thinking of most of the Republicans who voted against civil unions of either the homosexual or heterosexual type. I am in agreement with it. Why should a married couple have to have an STD test, pay for a license and a marriage license and all the other costs before getting married, and another couple get the same benefits for less cost. Talk about unfair!
Hoyt Jackson ,
There is no difference between civil unions and gay marriage. It’s a game of semantics. Instead of calling it marriage, they call it “civil unions”. They don’t want to call it marriage, but it is the same thing, a legal recognition of a Homosexual union. Marriage will always be threatened any time legal and moral recognition is given to a union that is not one man and one woman. Any time Homosexual relationships are even accepted, that means marriage is threatened and not protected.
False. Civil unions between men and women are natural marriages. Gay hookups are abominations.
JLS,
I was obviously talking about Gay civil unions. Marriage between a man and woman is a civil union, but it is given the title of marriage. There is no such thing as a heterosexual civil union as distinct from a heterosexual marriage. The concept of a civil union as distinct from marriage is only given to Homosexuals. The only “civil union” given that very title was created for Homosexual relationships in the year 2000 by the state of Vermont. Vermont created “civil unions” for gays.
JLS, there are Domestic Partnerships (same as Civil Unions) in California that only apply to opposite sex (hererosexual) couples. What the difference between those and a marriage is I do not know, but the answers can be found on line by merely putting in “Domestics Partnerships (or Civil Unions for heterosexuals) in Califonria” in one”s search bar.
Hey, I’ve talked with lots of attractive and “incredibly intelligent” women. So, Hoyt, what do you end up doing at such junctures? Does it make you feel like your calling in life is to “stop spewing hatred”? Do you believe or feel that you and your young generation is the chosen generation to lead the world into peace, end poverty, bless all ways of life, and save the environment? What did I leave out, Hoyt? Oh yeah, solve the economy problems and end death. More power to you, Hoyt.
Hoyt, take care of yourself with the hurricane heading your way. Stay safe.
Thank you for your concern. It seems to have dodged us primarily. Prayers for NOLA!
23) Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals. — Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851. Oh yeah, and Inter caetera, granting most of the New World to the King of Spain was perfectly within his authority. Now, the King of Spain took it as grant of sovereignty, while the Church would like to say it was an investiture that the King of Spain took too far. Ok, but then why didn’t Alexander VI, or his successors, ever bother to clarify that over the next 100 years or so? Could we say this is an over extension of church authority by Papal negligence?
JonJ: It is probably worth pointing out that the proposition you reproduce above is *condemned* by the Pope:
“23) Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals.”
In other words, JonJ, Pope Pius IX is letting you know that if you believe the above, then you believe an error formally condemned by the Ctholic Church and Her heaven-protected magsterium, which cannot err in matters concerning Faith and morals..
Of course, acts of prudential governance on the part of the Church, such as Her granting of investiture to the King of Spain, are not similarly protected.
Hope this helps.
Why beat gums over historic legal squabbles, when it has little to do with what the Church is about. Some people continue to see the Church as some sort of political entity. It’s not. Those churchmen who have given up religion for politics are not really Catholic (to wit, “road to hell paved with skulls of bishops, etc); Catholicism is saving souls. Bishops do not seem to be too concerned with this, which obviously is why the Pope is reining them in with the instruction to become holy. For example, it really matters little if politics are won or lost by Catholics. What matters is whether they are holy. A small number of actually holy people will convert a sea of souls who otherwise would not move towards Christ. It has happened in history, and can happen again. It is not happening now, at least in the west.
I do not know if it’s just me or if perhaps everybody else experiencing issues with your website. It appears as if some of the text within your posts are running off the screen. Can somebody else please comment and let me know if this is happening to them too? This might be a problem with my web browser because I’ve had this happen previously.
Cheers
Bifocal Safety Glasses