The Prop 8 Saga Continues

San Francisco, Calif., Feb 7 (CNA) – The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that California’s Proposition 8 unconstitutionally defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, clearing the way for a possible U.S. Supreme Court hearing on “gay marriage.”

Proposition 8 “served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California,” the federal court said. 

The 2008 California ballot measure garnered 52 percent of the vote. It overturned a previous state Supreme Court ruling which imposed legal recognition of the unions.

Prop. 8 backers may now appeal to a larger panel of the Ninth Circuit or may appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The high court has never heard a case on same-sex ‘marriage’ before but it is believed to be divided on the issue. Many legal scholars believe Justice Anthony Kennedy will be the deciding vote, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The ruling’s effects are likely to be limited to California.

Ahead of the decision, Prop. 8 backer Catholics for the Common Good called for a “massive response” by supporters involving e-mails and calls to radio and TV talk shows and letters to the editor of newspapers.

“Our opponents made an unprecedented request that the court give them 24 hours’ notice before releasing their decision. They are no doubt rallying their troops and want to make the issue about gays and lesbians,” the San Francisco-based organization said.

In May 2009, the California Supreme Court upheld Prop. 8.

However, on Aug. 4, 2010, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the initiative “unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.” He said it fails to advance “any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.”

Judge Walker, an appointee of Republican President George H.W. Bush, is himself homosexual.

His decision declared several findings of fact, including the claim that religious teachings like those of Pope Benedict XVI “harm” homosexuals.

The Ninth Circuit appeals court refused today to invalidate his ruling. Prop. 8 backers had requested the invalidation on the grounds that he should have disclosed he was in a same-sex relationship and could have personally benefited from the decision.


Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 12:52 AM By charlio
In Europe where there is no such controversy, homosexuals hardly bother availing themselves of such imaginary “marriage”. Most homosexuals consider “fidelity” to be a disposable commodity, hardly surprising in view of the fact that their physical attraction wanes as they go beyond carnality and start to approach true friendship; this is the opposite of truly married heterosexuals, the physical dimension of whose love only deepens as their emotional commitment matures. Those who take the time to consider the true stakes, will realize that it is only the destruction of the marital institution that is the goal here, to drag it into the gutter. The common people know what is really happening, that the aping of true human relations is based on really nasty actions unworthy of mention or imagination. “Equality” is no consideration, since the beautiful sacrament of marriage can never be equivalent to something that only brings unhappiness to those who fall into the living lie of perversity.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 3:37 AM By Aaron
Prop 8 is clearly unconstitutional because it takes away rights from a minority population, no matter how disordered you might personally consider them to be. The US Constitution, the 14th amendment provides that all will have equal rights. I have confidence that the US Supreme Court will validate the findings of the Circuit Court in this matter. Next to fall will be the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which prohibits the Federal Government from recognizing gay marriage. Under DOMA, gay couples, even if they have been together for 50 years, are treated as if they are complete strangers: people riding at opposite ends of a subway train. These “strangers” have no rights of inheriting the deceased member’s estate without paying inheritance tax; further, if a home is owned jointly by a gay couple, blood relatives can claim ownership of the deceased member’s property, even if the will of the deceased clearly leaves the property to the surviving partner; blood relatives have legal rights that surmount the will of the deceased “stranger.”. DOMA is a completely ridiculous, prejudicial law designed solely to forever take away civilized rights that the 14th Amendment guarantees to everyone. Hurray for the 9th Circuit Court decision! While some may call homosexuals sodomites, disordered or any of hundreds of other names, gays are people/citizens just like YOU and deserve to be treated equally under the law.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 6:11 AM By St. Christopher
While nothing is certain with the US Supreme Court (remember Justice Kennedy and the Texas sodomy law case), this one might have a chance at reversal. First, it involves an entire state’s popular will, enacted through its legitimate process. Second, it is unclear whether homosexuals and their sexual activity is a protected class, to the extent race has become. Third, Judge Walker was clearly unfit to judge this case, as he was entirely predetermined in its outcome. Although this may not find its way directly into a S. Ct. decision, it will be important background as it tends to discredit the legal process and show a corruption of purpose in the subject litigation. Fourth, the “status and human dignity of gays and lesbians” in CA is entirely a subject standard that can be raised by virtually any group for any purpose. A society is not forced to accept everything that someone or group demands, just because they scream “unfair” or “unjust”. Society has an important interest in ordering its own behavior and expectations. The 14th Amendment should not stand for the principle that every distinction in behavior or societal mores is suspect. Permitting courts to stand as arbiters of what is “fair and just” not the purpose of the judiciary. The case should be reversed. If not, expect homosexual advocacy groups to seek vengeance against the Catholic Church regarding, for example, its tax exempt status (remember the Bob Jones University case, taking away its tax exempt status based on public policy reasons in reversing racial discrimination). Even the Church is successful in such litigation, the tsunami of suits will be ruinously expensive. Satan is very wise and powerful. First homosexuals find their way into the active Catholic ministry, and a wide-scale child molestation occurs. Now, homosexuals take over the legal process leaving legitimate religious beliefs at risk as being “contrary to public policy”. This future is much more dire than responding to the O

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 6:16 AM By Jake
This ruling is a perfect example of judicial tyranny. When a court can change the meaning of a word which has a long and constant meaning within the culture and law then the law is dependent on the rule of fickle men. This ruling destroys the rule of law and establishes the rule of men. God help us all!

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 6:17 AM By Sawyer
Ho-hum, get ready for the pro-homosexual propagandists to ignore or miss or fail to understand that equality of individual rights does not extend to equality of relationships. Same-sex pairings are biologically deficient because they are not ordered to procreation; therefore such relationships can never be considered equal to natural marriage. No right-thinking person would ever call them marriages, and no right-thinking society would ever attempt to pass a law that considered them marriages. A principle of justice is that unequal things are treated unequally. Same-sex pairings are not equal to marriage; therefore justice demands that they not be treated equal to marriage.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 6:20 AM By Ted
If the Supreme Court gets the case, Prop 8 will be upheld. The idea that the 14th Amendment was intended to protect anyone but freed slaves is absurd. Allowing for illicit relationships to be given the same status and rights as the foundation of society – marriage between a man and woman – is absurd. The meaning of that Amendment can not be stretched to that extent. Not by a sane court, anyway.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 6:25 AM By peter
Ted – Are you suggesting that the 14th Amendment is no longer necessary?

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 6:32 AM By Sandra
6:17 AM By Sawyer “DITTO SAWYER – WELL SAID” Ho-hum, get ready for the pro-homosexual propagandists to ignore or miss or fail to understand that equality of individual rights does not extend to equality of relationships. Same-sex pairings are biologically deficient because they are not ordered to procreation; therefore such relationships can never be considered equal to natural marriage. No right-thinking person would ever call them marriages, and no right-thinking society would ever attempt to pass a law that considered them marriages. A principle of justice is that unequal things are treated unequally. Same-sex pairings are not equal to marriage; therefore justice demands that they not be treated equal to marriage.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 6:44 AM By JLS
Good points, St Christopher, but the problem with your thesis is the reliance on the myth that the supreme court makes rational decisions.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 7:24 AM By Mary
Marriage is not a right it is a privilege. This is another example of a renegade judge making a decision based upon his own biases rather than taking into consideration what the majority of people had to say on the issue. Marriage is unitive as well as procreative. Homosexuals do not meet this criteria. They, therefore, cannot marry.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 7:52 AM By Bob One
In our catholic world today, over half of marriages end in divorce. Half of the rest are disfunctional. When was the purpose of marriage to have children? What if a couple don’t want kids? Are they to be denied a wedding? What if a couple simply wanted to be married because they love each other? What is wrong with a commited couple of the same sex wanting to live together? Is it any more wrong than a heterosexual couple that wants to live together in a commited relationship? I don’t know the answers, only the questions.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 8:24 AM By MD
We have to pray harder than ever for the sanctity of marriage. This is NOT about rights, but the promotion of a lifestyle that is absolutely disordered. Comparing homosexuality to being black is an insult and an ignorant statement. A person does not have to follow their same sex desires and chooses to live as a homosexual, whereas a black person has no choice in the matter. This is NOT about civil rights and any denial of rights because a homosexual person chooses to live that lifestyle. The desire requires a conscious act of the will to follow the desire, to put that desire into action, and this is a desire that contradicts the natural order which is expressly clear in human anatomy. Arguing that homosexuality is a natural right is as absurd as arguing the justification and rights of bestiality. As human beings we have the ability to make rational decisions and do not have to succumb to our physical desires and our Lord is the best example of this as He fasted for 40 days in the desert subordinating His flesh to His Most Holy Will. We should pray, fast and making offerings for the US Supreme Court to protect the sanctity of marriage and human sexuality. God Love You.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 8:34 AM By MD
Bob One-Please read Pope John Paul the Great’s Theology of the Body, the book of Genesis and maybe some Scott Hahn lectures on Genesis. The Sacrament of marriage is designed by God for us, man and woman to be closer to and more like God. Love is life-giving and the greatest example of this is when Our Lord laid His life down for His bride the Church. This act in laying down His life was the greatest life-giving act ever. A man is called to do the same with his bride in the marital act. If we are to live a life of love, a life ordained by the Lord in striving to be in union with His Divine Will, then our love must be life-giving. It does not mean you must have children, but it means that you have to be open to life because the love shared in a marital relationship is meant to give life. The life received from this sacrament is twofold, the fact that marriage can be sanctifying if the man and woman strive to keep their marriage centered on the Lord, and the fact that this live is embodied with the gift of human live as the embodiment of their love. If a couple truly have love for one another, then they are willing to die to themselves for that person and accept the gifts of love that result with open arms. God Love You.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 9:16 AM By Caniisius
Bob one , you said you were an orthodox Catholic, ha what a complete joke, homosexuals can live togather, but what you and your crowd want is for society to throw what civilization has defined marriage to be. You do what liberals do best, tear down and destroy all traditions.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 9:18 AM By Patrick
The rulings are part of a continuing attack on religion by the courts and by the homosexual groups who are trying to create a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. To have a so-called judge attack the teachings of the Church and Pope violates his office and the First Amendment to the Constitution, which he pretends is not there.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 9:21 AM By Tip
Marriage is marriage. They cannot fight reality. Three paths remain: conversion, insanity, destruction. Destruction of all those who insist on believing in reality; either by government fiat, social censure, or brute mob force. It is the way it always has been and will always be for those opposing Truth.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 9:26 AM By Ron
A valid marriage is consummated by an act of procreation. Same-sex couples cannot procreate, their so called ‘marriage’ can never be valid.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 9:36 AM By FrMichael
Aaron, Prop 8 takes no rights away from homosexuals. Any homosexual adult of consenting age, with no continuing marriage bond, can obtain a civil marriage with a member of the opposite sex who is similarly free to marry without government interference or discrimination. The agent of the government doesn’t consider at all the sexual orientation of the applicants. No, the issue here is that the GLBT faction wants a legal redefinition of marriage contrary to the will of the majority of Californians, so they run to the corrupt courts.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 9:43 AM By Ron
I have been reading articles for the last 10 years that the Constitution is dead. It seems to conveniently come back to life at times like this.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 9:57 AM By BUD
Aaron, Your usual and customary view “Prop 8 is clearly unconstitutional because” negates everything coming after it. It was’nt “CLEARLY” because you happen to think so. DOMA was the Clinton political answer to re-inforcing state’s rights to making the decision rather than give a presidential or congressional decision. Then judicial fiat steps in…….no case yet has been won by a state’s election. Wins by the gay agendas have been strictly with money and political actions not by the people. The old saying “you can’t make a silk purse out of a pig’s ear” sure applies.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 9:58 AM By Abeca Christian
Jake you are right. I’ll say it again over and over again, Marriage is between one man and one woman! The gays keep throwing it in our faces “oh my finance this and that”. well guess what buddy, I won’t say congratulations to your engagement because it isn’t real! Just because some states have allowed you to “marry” doesn’t mean the rest have to accept it! So if you invite any conservative family member to your wicked union celebration, guess what? I pray that they do not attend, we must make a stand loud and clear, and no wedding gifts either! Can you imagine, a loyal Catholic company that sells wedding dresses may have to sell now to homosexuals or lesbians, it goes against their believes. Now these evil laws that are imposed on people of faith, will also take a hit, the homosexuals will say “conform or lose your business”. This is not the USA, this is pagan times once again under the liberal agenda! As history shows, these laws have destroyed their own, don’t be surprised if this country will someday become history because of the sins of men, especially because they break the natural laws!

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 10:05 AM By Michael
I am continually surprised by the foolish arguments people use in opposing same sex marriage. Procreation? Rule of law? Tradition? Child molestation? I have a question for you: When you meet Jesus at the Pearly Gates, how will you explain your bigotry and hatred?

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 10:37 AM By Fr. Gregory Coiro
The traditional definition of marriage–a union of one man and one woman–never discriminated against homosexuals. Homosexuals were always free to marry an opposite sex partner, and many did. People have never been free to marry anyone they want, as the opponents of Proposition 8 advocate. One may not marry one’s parent, or one’s child, or one’s sibling. One may not marry someone who is already married to someone else. The asinine ruling of this panel of judges must be reversed.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 12:03 PM By JMJ
Don’t count on the Supreme Court to do what is right. Why do you think that the big “o” shoved his people into the Supreme Court so fast & don”t forget that fraud of a Judge that doesn’t even believe in our Constitution (Ginsberg) with all of her misguided beliefs. I had to re-read Fr. Michael twice as I thought that he said something else. Glad I was wrong. We need to pray for those confused people as Bob One & poor Aaron to be touched by the Holy Spirit & come to know Jesus as Lord, Savior and friend and will finally know the truth. +JMJ+

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 1:17 PM By Jimmy Mac
“This ruling is a perfect example of judicial tyranny.” If the ruling had gone the other way, would that also then have been judicial tyranny? Is declaring the removal of civil rights from people who had been granted them to be allowed by popular vote? If you really want to protect the sanctity of marriage, do something about rampant divorces – among Catholics as well. Oh, can’t do that? Might hit a bit too close to home, maybe?

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 1:28 PM By Anne T.
Charlio, your post at the top is exactly correct. Some like to raise a “stink”, then when they get what they want, take off and leave the wreckage for the rest of us who did not want it in the first place. Then they whine about the unfairness of it all when they are riddled with disease from going against nature’s laws. There is no “right” to put body parts where they do not belong and expect the rest of us to approve it and pick up the healthcare tab. If the young men in the 1970s had listened to Surgeon General Koop, a urologist among his many other acomplishments, instead of Harvey Milk, they would still be alive.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 1:47 PM By gravey
Wow! Thanks Michael. Your argument is so well thought out and convincing that I have no choice but to agree with you (not!)

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 1:59 PM By Anne T.
Michael, Jesus Christ as the Divine Son of God kept the Jewish Law perfectly because he gave it and fulfilled it perfectly. One of those laws says, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind. It is an abomination.” He also kept the Kosher Law against eating pork, etc., but he later, through an apparation to St. Peter, made null the Kosher Law for Gentile Chrisians, but he never lifted the moral law for anyone. Your “Jesus” and some of our Jesus are not the same. Yours is more like the pagan god Zeus who was promiscuous. Yes, there are different non Biblical concepts of Jesus. In fact the Lord Jesus in the New Testament said that God made them male and female, and whatsoever (male and female) God has joined together no man was to put asunder. He also said that a man was to leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife, who was always a woman. By the way, I should have said in my last post that the young men of the 1970s MIGHT still be alive. At least they would not have died from the AIDS epedemic.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 2:17 PM By k
Bob One, as Catholic we believe that Holy Scripture is the Word of God and can be trusted. Malachi 2:13-16 says “And this again you do. You cover the LORD’s altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because He no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor at your hand. You ask, “Why does He not?” Because the LORD was witness to the covenant between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Has not the one God made and sustained for us the spirit of life? And what does he desire? Godly offspring. So take heed to yourselves, and let none be faithless to the wife of his youth. “For I hate divorce, says the LORD the God of Israel, and covering one’s garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless.” As Catholics, we believe that the Gospels faithfully transmit the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Son of God made man, the second Person of the Holy Trinity, who is Truth. Matthew 19:3-9 says “And Pharisees came up to Him and tested Him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that He who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the tow shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to put her away?” He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.” Likewise the teaching of the Catholic Church is that marriage bond is a covenant that is irrevocable after consummation. Civil divorce does not end a marriage.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 2:35 PM By k
Bob One, “By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring…” This is the teaching of the Catholic church. A couple must be open to having children to have a valid marriage in the Catholic Church. You know that same sex partners are committing a grave sin if they commit homosexual acts as well as a non-married heterosexual couple commits a grave sin if they commit sexual acts. I think living together chastely is not sinful but one must take into consideration whether the appearance of sin would lead another into commiting sin.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 2:38 PM By JLS
Michael, God condemns those who commit sodomy, has always condemned them and always will. God hardly expects the faithful to fight with perfect spiritual weapons, so obviously as in any war on His behalf, He will pardon those who fight for Him using crude weapons such as hate; for, after all, we are indeed commanded to hate sin. Sometimes sin and the sinner sort of fuse together and the sinner ends up getting a dose of hate, sort of like the hate he or she throws intentionally at God.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 2:40 PM By Aaron
@ Fr. Gregory Coiro. So you suggest that homosexuals who want to be married go seek out a member of the opposite sex to marry? Seems a bit bizarre, since it may not be possible to consummate the marriage – divorce is most likely outcome. I hope you are not counseling people in your parish to follow such a bizarre suggestion. If you had a daughter, would you want her to marry a homosexual? @JMJ: I am not at all confused; I begged our Savior every day of my life from age 20-60 that my ss attraction would go away-it was tough, because I was married and a father of two wonderful children. After my wife died of cancer, I went into counseling for over 1 year, and finally embraced the fact that God was NOT going to change my ss attraction. I have been with my partner in a 100% monogamous/fully committed relationship for 11 years; my entire family adores Tomas and are happy that I finally came to terms with God’s will for my life. My dear wife never knew of my internal struggles; although it was incredibly difficult for me, we had a wonderful 34 year marriage!

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 3:08 PM By MD
Aaron-You made the conscious choice to give into your SS desires and in no were you forced to do so. The desire in and of itself does not make the act natural. You are mistaken because God does NOT will any of his beloved children to sin. You are absolutely correct in saying your SSA is something God would not take away. Remember, Jesus prayed “Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from me; still, not my will but yours be done” because He was well aware of the suffering He was to endure. This is the prayer of those who have SSA as it is a means to unite this desire with our Lord. God did not give you this desire, but allows it for you to make a choice. You are free to Choose Him, to choose life, or a disordered act. God Love You.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 4:14 PM By Bob One
I’m not sure the Supreme Court is ready to take on the Prop. 8 case. It might want to wait for more states to enter the fray. But, if they did, here is my projection for declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional: Scalia, yes; Kennedy Yes,; Thomas, yes; Breyer, yes; Roberts, no; Alito, no; Sotomayor, yes; Kagan, yes. Gingsburg, yes. I may have to eat my words, but … Keep in mind that six of the nine are Catholics. The SC can take the case and decide, refuse to take the case and let the current ruling stand, or send it back for an en-banc review. Maybe a lawyer can add to this discussion.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 4:41 PM By RR
Aaron: God ISN’T going to change your ss attraction. You have to do that. You have free will, therefore, you chose it and still are choosing it. You gave up your fight of your own free will. You have deceived your family and jeopardized their souls by forcing this perversion onto them. Homosexuality is of the devil and I hope you and your family discover this before it’s too late.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 5:42 PM By Delilah
Mary @7:25 am, you are right. Marriage like a license to drive is a priviledge not a right. The difference is that God created marriage between one man and one woman and told them to go forth and multply. Jesus fulfilled the promise of Genesis by doing his very first miracle at a wedding making the marrIage of one man and woman an outward sign of Grace and therefore a Sacrament. Pax

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 5:54 PM By k
Aaron, my condolences on the loss of your wife and I am glad that you have found peace. So I hope I don’t offend you by saying this. We know from Scripture, the Magisterium and natural law that homosexual acts are not God’s will but often times our mind says “God wants me to do what makes me happy”. How do we know that if we follow God’s will as manifested throught these three trustworthy sources, that we would not be even more happy? I am sorry for your forty years of conflict. I am glad that you have come to peace with your ssa but I hope that chastity is a priority for you. I will pray for you and Tomas.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 6:32 PM By JLS
JMac, the judicial rulers are obligated to judge according to the will of God. Obviously the judicial branch is gravely challenged in this regard, and judges pretty much willy nilly. Having more than one judge theoretically is supposed to minimize the random and unGodly judgments, but the course of history shows that this theory does not work all that well. Like democracy, it degenerates to mob rule … look, seating a known homosexual on the high court marks a low point in western history. I can’t say not to hold your breath awaiting the appointment of an open beastiality addict to the high bench either … once a society institutionalizes sodomy, there is no further line of demarkation between it and utter destruction.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 7:43 PM By JLS
Aaron, you completely misinterpreted what Fr. Coiro posted, and you twisted it in a way you could use to plead your hopeless cause.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 7:45 PM By JLS
The most glaring parallel, with your situation Aaron, is the fall of Lucifer. He gave in to temptation, and began to seduce people … just exactly what you are up to, Aaron.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 11:40 PM By Abeca Christian
Jesus loves you, you are better than what this world is offering you. You are loved! All these things are only temporary. Time will come, when life will have to end. Return to that little child, that child that could open his arms and yearn for that hug, that great big hug and love from a parent, but now, it is your Lord, Jesus who loves you more, allow Jesus to transform you into His child. Nothing else matters, nothing more. When you arise in the morning, look outside your window and look up to the heavens, and say to your self ” I prefer heaven”. Then get on your knee’s and invite Jesus back into your life. Let the tears come, let the pain go, give it to our Lord. Ask him to give you the courage and strength, the wisdom and graces, the virtues you need to help you carry your cross here on earth. Ask Him now. He is next to us, sinners. How could it be, for we are so broken, so dirty spiritually due to our sins? Well, with God nothing is impossible my friend, nothing. Jesus is the truth! Nothing can change without your participation. Jesus loves you.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 11:43 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Bob One, 7:52 AM, You know the answers, they are clearly stated by God in His Word, you just don’t want to accept them. Stop trying to portray yourself as innocent, in God’s Court, unless you repent, you will be found guilty for Eternity! God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 12:22 AM By Aaron
@RR. You did not choose to be heterosexual; I did not choose to be attracted to my own gender. Sexual attraction develops from the age of ~3-5 and is intractable. It remains with you for your life & cannot be changed, with prayer, electric shock therapy, ice baths, counseling. No matter what you say, it would be impossible for you to become attracted to your own gender just as it is impossible for me to suddenly become attracted to the opposite gender. It is not something we choose: it is a gift of God. That’s why I find Fr. Coiro’s suggestion to be completely bizarre; those who follow his guidance will find they have ruined their own lives as well as that of their spouse. All of that said, I do not regret my life in any way; it was almost impossibly difficult for me to flee from temptation, avoid situations where I would be tempted. Only through prayer was I able to remain true to my wedding vows. I did NOT have peace until I had the courage to tell my children I am and always have been a homosexual, the most difficult admission of my life. It is no surprise that there are 16 verses in the Bible that declare homosexual love to be punishable by death, since these verses were written by heterosexual men with no understanding whatever of the intractable nature of sexual attraction. BTW, Jesus NEVER MENTIONED homosexuality; HE spoke frequently about divorce, though HIS commands are cast aside by half the Catholics who marry! Jesus also said : “Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.” It would be refreshing if people on this blog would follow HIS command.

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 2:07 AM By Aaron
Personal histories set aside, a reminder to all that the USA is a secular democratic republic, not a theocracy. In order for a democratic republic to work for all its citizens, there will be some laws, some court decisions that will offend. That said, the 9th Circuit Court decision was NOT about the Sacrament of Marriage; rather, it was reestablishing the right for the lesbian couple that lives down the street to purchase a marriage license from the County Clerk, thereby making their relationship into a binding legal agreement. Their marriage license does NOTHING to affect your marriage. Your marriage will survive or collapse based on the behaviors of you and your spouse.

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 3:41 AM By Betty
When bad and immoral politicians are elected, they appoint bad and immoral judges and cronies. All people of good will and moral character had better start paying attention to those they vote for, even if it takes a few hours of research on politicians actions and voting records.

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 6:16 AM By peter
The traditional definition of marriage–a union of one man and one woman–never discriminated against homosexuals. That very statement is asinine.

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 6:56 AM By Canisius
So now Peter is back, spreading his sodomite drivel and pretending that two homosexuals in a bath house hooking up is the same as marriage….Lies are still lies even if they are fashionable

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 7:01 AM By Canisius
Wrong Aaron, we are not a democratic republic like the countries of the old Eastern Bloc, but a constitutional republic. Christ may not have mentioned sodomy but he obeyed the laws of the Old Testament and by default supported them. It’s people like you that must tear down every thing decent in society so you can celebrate your sodomy. You and your boyfriend can pretend to be husband and wife, but it’s all a lie. And Yes I will cast stones and take my chances.

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 7:34 AM By Canisius
Aaron just to follow up, this is what Our Divine Saviour said about marriage ‘God made them male and female.’ or ‘for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife.’…..Dont think he is giving the thumbs up on sodomy, glad to disappoint you, but sodomy and obeying Our Lord don’t mix.

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 8:08 AM By MD
Aaron-Although people have sexual attraction, weather heterosexual or homosexual, each person has a choice on if/when/how they follow this desire. If a man desires to have sexual relations with a woman, it is a sin if it is not a life-giving act within the sanctity of marriage, an act of procreation. This is impossible for two people of the same sex and is a sin. You have the choice, the ability with your freewill to choose to follow your desires. As broken human beings born into original sin, our concupiscence creates desires that are NOT of God and can separate us from Him. Just because you desire to be with a man does not mean you have to, or that it is good for you to do so. One may desire heroin or pedophilia, but some desires have to be recognized is harmful, sinful and not of God and SSA is one of these desires. It is evident in natural law and biology that man was created to be with woman and vice-versa and any argument to the contrary is ridiculous. Read the Theology of the Body. God Love You.

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 10:59 AM By k
Aaron, I would like to remind you that we do not know any of the men-we assume they were men-who the Lord used to “write” the Bible, but the true Author of Scripture is the Holy Spirit.

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 11:34 AM By kaves1
Aaron, Some believe Jesus’ supposed non-mention of homosexuality implies active homosexuality is OK. This reflects a sub-Christian view of Scripture. This wrongly imagines only the Gospels are God’s Word. His disciples’ letters specifically mention homosexuality; Jesus, referring to His disciples says “he who hears you, hears me”. Jesus said nothing specific concerning sex with animals or incest. Are we to presume these are acceptable behaviors ? Jesus may have indirectly referred to active homosexuality when mentioning general immorality (porneia in Mark 7:21-23.). Some scholars believe 1st century Jews understood porneiai as a short-hand means to refer to the list of Levitical sexual prohibitions, which included sex with animals, incest, and homosexuality. Unlike divorce amd adultery, Jewish teaching concerning homosexuality was undivided and the incidents of homosexuality probably scarce, it is more plausible to me that (unlike divorce/adutery) incest, sex with animals, and homosexuality were not prominent Jewish 1st century issues. However, when His disciples preached to the Gentiles, they encountered incest and homosexuality – and preached against it.

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 11:56 AM By kaves1
Aaron, Some pro-homosexuals invite readers to infer that God created homosexuals, apparently because there may be a biological component to homosexuality. However, any biological component is theologically explainable as a consequence of Man’s Fall – Original Sin. Death is now biologically natural, but was never part of God’s created intent for Man. Rather, death, disease, disorders, are consequences of Original Sin even if there are biological components. There is no theological need to assign homosexuality to God’s doing nor is there any scriptural evidence for this. Original Sin had consequences on both our souls and our bodies. If God did create homosexuality, why does He condemn homosexuals acts in both the old and new testaments?

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 12:41 PM By Don Guillermo
The difference between marriage and “same-sex” marriage is unlike the one between right- and left-handedness. In the later case, such persons do the same things with their dominant hand. In the former, such persons do different things with their sexuality. Thus, to distinguish one from the other, and to apply the distinction to whom can marry is not arbitrary and should be legal.

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 12:56 PM By Dave
God created ALL persons with a free will. The freedom to do HIS will or our own, the freedom to choose an eternity with Jesus, or in Hell with the devil. Let there be no mistake that homosexual acts without repentance will send people to Hell. Start with these: Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10.

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 1:03 PM By Jimmy Mac
“JMac, the judicial rulers are obligated to judge according to the will of God.” They are not. They are obligated to judge according to the laws of the land. You version of the will of God has nothing to do with it. Some people thought it was the will of God that women should not vote, that blacks should not vote and that people of opposite races should not marry. So much for the correctness of the “will of God” in these cases. This is a republican form of democracy, not a theocracy, whether you like it or not.

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 1:20 PM By peter
kaves1 – God doesn’t condemn homosexuals acts in both the old and new testaments, man does.

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 1:34 PM By Aaron
If one day your child or grandchild tells you he/she is gay, you will have the opportunity to condemn/toss them out of the house and into the streets, or express your continued love and support for them. Studies show that ~1/3 of the homeless children age 18 or less were disowned by their families/tossed out of the house. I hope you will be more charitable and remember my words: sexual attraction is NOT chosen; it is also intractable. Though you’ll not like my words, the best thing that could happen to this young man or woman is if they were fortunate enough to meet someone with whom they could share a life together as have Tomas and I.

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 4:28 PM By Anne T.
Michael and Aaron, to be more charitable I really should address more of my posts to you instead of others, but sometimes I get exasperated when we tell people over and over again how harmful homosexual acts really are, and they do not listen and go on to corrupt the young. Just as heterosexual sinners are different and some more culpable for their actions than others, so are homosexuals. One of the things I am trying to say is similar to a true story I will relate. When I was in my teen years, I knew a young adolescent who hung around the railroad tracks. The railroad workers told him over and over not to play there as he was going to get hurt or killed. He did not listen, and probably many times he thought they were just being mean, or he thought, in his youthful lack of wisdom, he was smarter than they. Well, one day he found a train that he could not out run and the locomotive engineer could not stop in time. That poor young man lived but lost both his legs — all because he did not listen to those men who really did care for him. That is, as I see it, what happened in the late sixties and seventies. and even sometimes now. Surgeon General Koop tried to tell many young men caught up in the homosexual lifestyle that what they were doing was harmful to their bodies, that it was disease ridden and injurious to their health. Instead of listening, for the most part, to this very wise surgeion, they choose to mock him, call him names and tell him to shut his mouth. Therefore, many of those young men in their foolishness died horribly from many terrible diseases and bodily injuries, all because they listened to the wrong people. That is why those of us who know how harmful such behavior is cannot give our approval of it in any way, even in a so-called marriage. It goes too much against nature and produces too much harm. That is the main reason why the Holy Bible and the Catholic catechsism forbids it.

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 4:36 PM By JLS
k, do you have any evidence that women of thousands of years ago wrote anything at all? Interesting question you’ve raised … any studies supported by hard facts?

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 4:38 PM By JLS
Jesus, who was without sin, caste the first stone, and named him Cephus aka Peter, aka the Rock, aka a stone.

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 5:04 PM By Bob One
I read an interesting article today that raised the possibility that Gingsburg may not be on the court when the Prop 8 case reaches them, which means that President Obama may have a chance to name one more person to the bench. Unlikely that a nomination would make it through the Senate be for the November elections. More grist for the mill.

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 5:19 PM By Mark from PA
Aaron, thanks again for sharing your story with us. It is instructive. Father Michael, I realize that any homosexual can marry a person of the opposite sex. In the past the Church encouraged this. I don’t know if the Church still thinks that gay people should marry people of the opposite sex and “pass” as straight. Some in the clergy think that gay people should be accepted but others think they should join another Church. This is the impression that I get. Lay people in the Church are increasingly accepting.

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 5:48 PM By Canisius
PA what is your evidence that lay people are becoming more ‘accepting” of homosexuality. It is irrelevant if they are or not, as I posted Lies are still lies even if they are fashionable.

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 5:53 PM By JLS
PA, the lay people who you say are “increasingly accepting” gay marriage are in a Church but are thus transitioning out of the Roman Catholic Church. Likely by “Church” you mean the American Catholic Church, a de facto schismatic and heretic organization numbering many millions. The Pope has said the real Church is going to be smaller and holier … obviously meaning that those who have excommunicated themselves for heretical actions such as complicity in abortion, and/or contraception have all but left the Catholic Church and are essentially members of some other Church that may even be a formal Catholic Church although leading members in heresy, schism and sacrilege. By your descriptions that false church is what comes to mind. Read the Letters to the Seven Churches, particularly the two warning people not to get involved in the deep things of Satan: PA, both abortion and sodomy are deep things of Satan.

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 5:55 PM By Mark from PA
Aaron, wouldn’t you consider yourself bi-sexual as you had a wonderful 34 year marriage with a woman? Human sexuality is on a continuum and many people are neither 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual but somewhere in the middle. It seems that you may be somewhere in the bi-sexual part of the continuum. Also my comments to Father Michael also pertain to Father Gregory who also seems to encourage gay people to marry people of the opposite sex. Aaron, I note your comments in this regard.

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 7:16 PM By k
Mark from PA, I can’t believe any clergy member in the Catholic church would want gay people to join another Church. That does not make sense. I do not think any clergy member would recommend a gay person to marry someone of the opposite sex. I think they were just saying that all adults have the right to marry one person of the opposite sex who is a legal adult, not a close relation and not already married to someone else if they also want to marry us. How is your wife doing? Better, I hope.

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 7:26 PM By k
JLS, there are a few ancient writings from other cultures that were done by women. I think the word lesbian derives from one of them. The only thing in the Bible that I can think of is the Song of Mirium in Exodus. But she may not have written it down. I think it has always been assumed that all the biblical writers were men. I should not have said we don’t know who they were. we do know who the New Testament writer were and we know David, Soloman and Moses (although now Moses’ authorship of the Pentatuech is questioned-not by me)

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 7:33 PM By Anne T.
Mark PA, regarding your post at 8:55 PM, if Aaron had a good marriage the first time to a woman, it certainly sounds as if he could have a good marriage to a woman once again when and if he gets out of the homosexual lifestyle. Perhaps he should pray to God to find the right woman for him once again and stop straddling the fence. After all, we all are often attracted to things and people to whom we should not be attracted, and we do learn to overcome that attraction.

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 10:02 PM By JLS
k, looks like Sappho, c. 700 BC, was a woman poet who lived on the Isle of Lesbos, and wrote poetry including about lesbians … Lesbos … lesbian. You call it a culture? It was a cult like Sodom and Gomorrah.

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 10:21 PM By JLS
k, you might consider upgrading your knowledge of the Bible writers some, since you are making arguments about the topic. Typically in ancient times there were professionals called “scribes”, who wrote down stuff such as the Song of Miriam. It is not “assumed” by scholars that Bible writers were all men; the evidence is that there were no women writers in the Jewish civilization. I guess you are not aware that back in the day, people were not so dependent on writing and they actually (gasp) memorized everything. Writers would then write down stuff for money. No money, no write.

Posted Thursday, February 09, 2012 10:39 PM By Abeca Christian
I don’t think that people are becoming more accepting of homosexuality but they are becoming more tolerant. They have been complacent and do not want be confrontational. It’s called training, they are trained to conform for whatever reasons they have embraced for themselves away from truth. Don’t be fooled with appearances, remember most people are lukewarm, becoming more politically correct.

Posted Friday, February 10, 2012 3:29 AM By Andy
Are some sodomists going to sue a Catholic parish because they want to rent a Church hall? Discrimination? Does the Bible contain ‘hate’ speech? It’s coming if we don’t pay attention whom we VOTE for. Next, God made everyone, but we are not to have sex unless we are married – one man and one woman.

Posted Friday, February 10, 2012 4:27 AM By kaves1
Peter, God condemns homosexuality in both the old and new. You are an unbeliever.

Posted Friday, February 10, 2012 5:09 AM By Canisius
Andy that is an excellent point, you can bet that is coming.

Posted Friday, February 10, 2012 7:57 AM By MD
Aaron-I nor many people on here have not argued that sexual attraction is chosen. But with freewill, you have the choice to follow this attraction. You had to make a choice to follow your desires. Did you not make this choice? The issue is NOT the attraction felt to members of the same sex, but the action weather or not to engage in homosexual behavior. You made the choice to engage in that behavior. The desire is NOT as sin, but the engaging in the action is sinful. There is a clear distinction between the desire and action. Does this make sense? God Love You.

Posted Friday, February 10, 2012 8:26 AM By gravey
“Human sexuality is on a continuum and many people are neither 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual but somewhere in the middle.” More hogwash from Mark from PA.

Posted Friday, February 10, 2012 8:36 AM By FrMichael
Aaron, your comment, “Their marriage license does NOTHING to affect your marriage,” is typical of the self-serving same-sex marriage movement. Real marriages produce children, as you and your wife (RIP) once did. Catholic children in public schools of a society with SSM will be taught the evil idea that SSM is the same relationship as what their parents enjoy. That false teaching being imparted upon Catholic youth definitely affects the heterosexual marriage and family.

Posted Friday, February 10, 2012 8:43 AM By FrMichael
Mark from PA: I wasn’t advocating the generally imprudent decision of a person suffering from same sex attraction to get married to a member of the opposite sex. Instead, I was making a civil law argument that people with same sex attractions have the same right as heterosexuals, unfettered by the government, to marry a person of the opposite sex. There is no unlawful discrimination by the government here. If the GLBT folks want to change the legal definition of marriage, then they should do so using the means provided by the CA Constitution. Instead, they run to our unelected wannabe masters wearing black robes.

Posted Friday, February 10, 2012 2:11 PM By Mark from PA
Gravey, I was told that by a priest who is also a psychologist. When I said is common knowledge in the medical community.

Posted Friday, February 10, 2012 2:26 PM By Mark from PA
K. thank you for your concern. Last month was a rough one. My wife has many health issues. We are trying to deal with them and she is getting better but it is a long road. Please keep her and our family in your prayers. God bless you.

Posted Friday, February 10, 2012 2:41 PM By MD
PA-A priest who is obviously not in good standing with the Church as he objects to Church doctrine on homosexuality. The CCC is what you need to trust, not some rogue priest who says whatever he feels is right or what his secular psychology taught him. Remember the root to psychology is theology for God created the human condition and any flaw in the human conditions is a result of sin.

Posted Friday, February 10, 2012 4:09 PM By JLS
PA, do you know how easy it is to get licenced as a psychologist? Do you know that psychology conflicts in many profound ways with Church doctrine? Do you know that psychologists are not above justifying any behavior they choose … such as abortion, contraception, fetal stem cell research, sodomy, evil and all sorts of things. Using what a priest/psychologist said is no more valid than using what you read from any source you choose. The Church is the valid teacher and you keep denying what the Church teaches.

Posted Friday, February 10, 2012 5:05 PM By k
Mark from PA, will do.

Posted Friday, February 10, 2012 6:51 PM By Mark from PA
Thank you very much, K, I appreciate it.

Posted Friday, February 10, 2012 7:03 PM By Catherine
MarkfromPA. Welcome back Mark! I did not know that your wife was ill. Did you post something earlier about it? k, seemed to know all about your wife. Did you let everyone know on CCD so we could have all been praying for her? If you did when did you post that. I missed it.

Posted Friday, February 10, 2012 9:19 PM By Mark from PA
I didn’t say much, Catherine. I haven’t been on here for a while. I haven’t felt well myself so needed a break plus I was busy with everything.

Posted Friday, February 10, 2012 10:50 PM By Abeca Christian
PA I said a prayer for your wife. So sorry to hear.

Posted Saturday, February 11, 2012 2:08 AM By JonJ
This is another application of the natural law and secular law spread that I discussed with Mr. Maguire in another thread. There I proposed a rule of construction that we should be more concerned with secular law prohibiting people from choosing to conform with the natural law rather than using state force to compel people to conform to the natural law. In this case, allowing gay marriage does not prohibit catholics from marrying in conformity with natural law. This is also not a case of using state force to compel gay people not to associate, since the state does allow domestic partnerships that contain the same bundle of legal rights as marriage. In this case what we wish to do is to use state force to prevent gays from obtaining a state sponsored imprimatur proclaiming their relationships are morally/socially equivalent to heterosexual marriages. Or, in other terms, we wish to use state force to compel the state to make correct instruction to society with respect to natural law, and to prevent erroneous teaching. This, I believe, is something of a problematic position, in that there is very little to distinguish it from using state force to compel proper religious instruction (which is a clear establishment clause violation, and starts running into CCC teaching that state force should not be used to compel church attendence). The Church, however, has taken the position that it is moral to use state force to compel the state to give proper instruction with respect to the natural law that falls short of compelling Catholic worship.

Posted Saturday, February 11, 2012 5:35 AM By MIKE
JonJ, all Christians are commanded to love our neighbors by Jesus directly. If we love others, we will want the highest and best for them – the highest good for the sake of the beloved. The highest good is Eternity with God. Charity is love and charity demands this. Therefore, no true Catholic can approve or condon Mortal Sins of any type. This includes but is certainly not limited to: adultary (including divorce from a valid marriage with re-marriage), homosexual acts (including gay marriage), fornication, pornography, abortion/euthanasia, and contraception.. If these MORTAL SINS alone were no longer part of the American landscape, just think how different our Country would be. We can correct some of this by being vigilent about our own VOTING practices, actually working for moral candidates, and encouraging others to vote morally as well. Politicians actions and voting records speak the truth about them.

Posted Saturday, February 11, 2012 7:33 AM By JLS
JonJ, the Great Commission given the Church by Jesus commands the Church to disciple the nations: This means to use whatever means God provides to make the nations respect the will of God. Your homosexual way of rolling over for a corrupt nation is not the way of God, and is abhorrent. Why is it that sodomites intrinsically taunt others to destroy them? Sodom and Gomorrah did this with gay abandon and God deleted them from existence. Why is it, JonJ, that you sodomite apologists insist on bringing destruction to everyone?

Posted Saturday, February 11, 2012 9:48 PM By JLS
JonJ does have a point to investigate, although not his main argument. He brings up the issue of the Church and the use of force to compel people. Force is not outside the legitimate arsenal of spiritual weapons … Jesus told Pilate that His Father in Heaven could, if He were to request it, send nine legions of angels to His rescue. That is compelling force. Jesus also told St Peter, already designated a “fisher of men”, to cast his net in a different place in the sea. Point here is bringing men into the Church in a way that is not forcing them. Here is how it works: St Peter insisted that the fish come to where he had placed his net and jump into it. That is a vain use of force; but Jesus told him rather to put his net where the fish have chosen to be instead. Tough point to make, so I’ll go over it another time. Man cannot be forced to comply; yet often choose to jump into the net without being forced to. Discipline is purposed to communicate the choice available for man to make. And accommodation is purposed to enable him when he does make the right choice.

Posted Saturday, February 11, 2012 9:56 PM By Joe
Most people learn there are places we can’t go – it’s called maturity, the essence of adult behavior. Certain areas are forbidden to every human. For example, the state decrees I cannot fly an airplane, because I’m nearsighted. Shouldn’t I therefore sue? According to Gay logic, my rights are being violated. Or, why can’t I be quarterback for the 49ers? Or, why can’t I be on the staff at MIT? Or, why can’t I walk into a courtroom, and be a judge? Or, why can’t I claim a Nobel Prize? Or, why can’t I be a columnist for the Chronicle (sorry, not a good example, that doesn’t really take talent). The Point is, that maturity and common sense demands that we know our place in the community. Gays seem to not know this – they often lose their bearings and behave in ways which aren’t decent, kind, and understanding. If you doubt this, look at their behavior at the Gay Parade, the Folsom Street Fair, and “Up your Alley”. Then there was the notorious “Hunky Jesus” contest in Dolores Park last Easter. If Catholics got together and behaved like that, and mocked Gays in such obnoxious fashion, they would be arrested, and Gays would be screaming in rage. Grow up Gay people. Sure, it’s tough to act like an adult, and be considerate and polite to other members of the community, and on many occasions, to take a back seat to others, even to children. That is the essence of the civilized person.

Posted Saturday, February 11, 2012 10:09 PM By JonJ
JLS, obviously there are some restrictions on what means Catholics should use to execute the Great Commission. Otherwise, there would be no CCC instruction against compelling church attendence through state force. If God wanted to disciple the nations through force, why didn’t He just conquer the world while He was on earth and set up both a perfect legal system and a perfect set of legal statutes? Why then, leave that job to imperfect man who lacks both omnipotence and omniscience?

Posted Sunday, February 12, 2012 12:03 AM By Abeca Christian
MIKE and JLS great comments!

Posted Sunday, February 12, 2012 12:28 PM By gravey
Joe, If I may add to your point, it is even tougher to be a Catholic.

Posted Sunday, February 12, 2012 8:41 PM By JonJ
MIKE, obviously there is some other standard besides something being a mortal sin that makes seeking to use state force to compel moral behavior a proper act. Otherwise, we should seek to criminalize: 1) maturbation 2) contraceptive use 3) ban divorce (unless the Church grants an annulment 4) making and using pornography 5)gay sex 6) and adultery. However, I submit to you that a state that tried it would be so overwhelmingly totalitarian that our leaders would almost certainly abuse their power. I suspect our lot would be WORSE rather than better. Certainly, the moral limits of human institutions also put a constraint to the correctness of using state force to compel moral behavior.

Posted Sunday, February 12, 2012 8:50 PM By JonJ
JLS, again you use the priviledges of God the Father as an example for human behavior. Notice, omnipotent and omniscient Jesus does not summon the 9 legions of angels, or simply start tossing lightning bolts at whomever opposes him. On earth, Jesus did not use the full range of his Godly powers against his enemies. And, as God who bacame Man, Jesus is the proper role model for human behavior. We should not try to exercise power like God the Father.

Posted Sunday, February 12, 2012 9:25 PM By JLS
There are no restrictions, JonJ, in executing the Great Commission.

Posted Sunday, February 12, 2012 9:29 PM By JLS
JonJ, the problem you are vocalizing is trying to put God in a box. Specifically you seek to formulate what cannot be formulated. There is force, God uses it, the Church uses it, the state uses it, ad infinitum. Many there are who have created one sort of artificial world in which to make rules, and that is what you are trying to do. Better to find out what God has to say about what actually exists and then follow His commands and seek His salvation. Making unique universes is great when one does not attempt to create a new god for it. Make cars, make cities, make farms, make technology … but when you try to make creation, then you end up making an idol.

Posted Monday, February 13, 2012 8:00 AM By MD
JonJ-You miss one key point in your posts, that is Freewill. God gave us natural law as a means of guiding our personal lives, families and countries. God does not force His will upon us because He gives us the choice to follow or deny Him. It is through concupiscence that we fail to recognize natural law. The genesis of law is man’s desire to do what is just, and true Justice is God, obeying and serving God. Any variation from this path is the denial of the natural law written on every man’s heart, but ultimately God’s law supersedes all civil authority. We have a God that loves us so much that He will allow us to choose hell over Him though He truly wants us to spend eternity with Him, but He will not interfere with our freewill. It is up to us as people to seek Him. God Love You.

Posted Monday, February 13, 2012 8:23 AM By JLS
False, JonJ, Jesus not only tossed lightening bolts at His opposition, but smote their fannies at Sodom and Gomorrah, and in many other times and places. Ever heard of St Michael the Archangel, JonJ? By the power of God, he forces Satan into Hell.

Posted Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:11 AM By k
JonJ, a lot of those things were against the law or very restricted. And not because they were a mortal sin, but because they were immoral. As US culture moved towards “live and let live” the laws were not enforced. Adultery is illegal in at least 22 states, although rarely prosecuted. Anti-sodomy laws were struck down in 2003 by the Supreme Court and most states had repealed them before that. Divorce used to be very difficult; one had to prove cause, but I think almost every state has no-fault divorce now. I think every state regulates pornography to some extent, like prohibiting selling it to minors. It is not totalitarianism that does that. The US is more totalitarian now than it was back then. The lawmakers and a substantial percentage of the population indulge in these forms of immorality and no longer wanted to risk prosecution. Cardinal Burke has said “Morality has ceased to exist.”

Posted Wednesday, February 15, 2012 4:10 PM By JonJ
MD, I am not disputing that God’s law supersedes man made law. Certainly, what God wants is moral. However, if God respected our free will, why is it that man seems to think its ok to compel other men to obey what they think is God’s will? Many here seem to think if human institutions use force to compel obedience to god, somehow that doesn’t violate their free will. If God restrained himself from forcing humans to follow his will, I think it is very clear that other human beings should not attempt to force others to obey God’s will, within the constraint of still operating a ordered society in which people are free to choose God.

Posted Wednesday, February 15, 2012 6:12 PM By JLS
Scripture shows over and over that God sometimes seals off free will from some humans. That is what Hell is all about. If a man cannot exercise his free will for the good, then he loses both his free will and the good. The loss of free will is never complete, except in the case of the unforgivable sin where one freely gives over his being to evil. Sodomy is the manifested evidence that man has done so or is close to doing so. When Cdl Burke (if k’s quote is a fact) says, Morality has ceased to exist”, what this means is that there are some in which this is the case, some who have freely given up their free will … the unforgivable sin. How many of those sodomites in the Folsom Street Faire have ever turned away from their sin? My hunch is zero, as many or all have given up their freedom permanently, unforgivably.

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 12:44 AM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Aaron, 12:22 AM, Many great Saints have taught that those in Hell would not want to leave even if they could because they don’t want to serve God. Think about it, your eternal resting place depends on it! God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher