9

Obama, Same-Sex Marriage, and Bioethical Fallout

Yesterday President Obama threw his support behind same-sex marriage. Thank God! The mask is off, six months before the election and about a year since he announced that he was willfully violating his Oath of Office by ordering the Justice Department to cease defending the law in court. Specifically, he ordered an end to defending The Defense of Marriage Act.

It is the duty of the Executive Branch to see to it that the duly constituted laws of the land are executed and defended by attorneys general. Hasn’t that been the battle cry of Catholic governors who plead their personal opposition to abortion, but must uphold the law of the land with all of the resources of the Executive?

What Obama has done is actively define dictatorship by the selective upholding and prosecution of the laws. This eviscerates the legislative branch of government and turns the law into the personal prerogative of one man. If anyone claimed ignorance in voting for Obama the first time, he has made his agenda plain for all to see this time around. In not defending the Defense of Marriage Act and now openly declaring support for the redefinition of marriage, the president has declared war on the central institution of all organized religion. The question arises in many quarters…

“So What?”

It’s actually not so benign. For openers, heterosexuals have made a mess of marriage, with no-fault divorce and divorce rates hovering in the 50% range for decades. Still, if we have made a mess of our institution, the truth remains that it is OUR institution to fix.

A core reason for marriage is the universally recognized need of children to have a biological mother and father, each of whom brings their complementary strengths to bear on the formation of their new human beings. Modern research has overwhelmingly borne out the truth that children do best when raised by their biological mother and father, who both reside with the child under the same roof. The pathologies in children increase in proportion to the degree to which the biological parents drop out of the child’s life. That’s not conservative talking points. That’s well-established social scientific data.

Part of the pathology of gay/lesbian marriages (and most divorces in heterosexuals) is the belief that a child can do just fine without a mother or a father. At least in divorce the reality of one-parental involvement is a tragic consequence. In gay and lesbian unions it is a principled and celebrated world-view.

Worse still is the implicit validation of what some in the homosexual community call heterosexuals aloud: breeders. Gay men who donate sperm for IVF and surrogate motherhood merely use women as barnyard livestock. (So do the heterosexuals who pioneered and grew this beastly industry.)

Breeders.

Lesbian couples seeking sperm donations for either insemination or IVF do as much with men: Stud animals.

The entire affair signals the collapse of Western/Christian Civilization. We have lost sight of who we are, what our children require, and have subordinated their needs to our narcissistic and hedonistic obsessions.

There is nothing sweet and benign about two men determining that they are just as good as a mother. Such belief betrays their hostility toward women at the biological and metaphysical core of womanhood. The same for lesbians with men.

Bioethics has as a prerequisite that we know who we are, what our nature is and is not. It is concerned with the right use of technology and prudential judgement. When society embraces such institutionalized pathology it is impossible to have a coherent national discussion about how we treat ourselves and one another.

If we can’t agree on who and what we are, then anything goes.

If we cannot agree on who and what we are, then we will have that dictated to us by the government. Never in the history of any human civilization has a dictatorial government acted with beneficence or charitable forbearance. They have all treated their people as so much livestock. This time around, it is the people who have thus defined themselves. Tragically, there will always be a willing dictator ready to oblige.


Dr. Gerard Nadal is Science and Health Education Policy Advisor for the Bioethics Defense Fund. He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology with a minor in Philosophy from Saint John's University, New York City. After his post-baccalaureate sciences at Columbia University, New York City,  Dr. Nadal returned to Saint John's University where he received his Master of Science in Cellular and Molecular Biology, Master of Philosophy in Biology, and Ph.D. in Molecular Microbiology. Also a member of University Faculty For Life and the Catholic Writers Guild, Dr. Nadal is a columnist for Headline BistroDr. Nadal also serves on several advisory boards, including the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, Good Counsel Homes, and the Children First Foundation. A Fourth Degree Knight of Columbus and unapologetic Roman Catholic loyal to the Magisterium, Dr. Nadal and his wife home school their three children. He blogs at Coming Home.


  • florin

    Polls supposedly tell us that the majority of Americans support gay marriage. I simply do not believe this. Many may support civil unions but not gay marriage. Male and female bodies are made to complement each other, to fit each other…that is the purpose for which God created them this way..to fit, to bring forth children in love. Shep Smith on Fox News breathed a sigh of relief declaring that Obama has finally come into the 21st century. What does that even mean? That morality is ‘evolving’; that morals depend on polling? Well, Mother Teresa told us that once we legalize the killing of human babies, what will we not do? Indeed..what’s next? The legalizing of pedophilia? Obama already has as his school czar Mr. Jennings, who supports man/boy sex and who wants to introduce homosexuality and its practices into the curriculum of elementary schools. It is being said that Catholics are again going to vote for Obama – beware!!!

  • “This time around, it is the people who have thus defined themselves.” Well, not in North Carolina where on May 9th the people voted 61 to 39 percent against SSM, and also against same-sex civil unions.

    Great article. I’m sure Dr. Nadal did not mean to blame the victims, i.e. “we the people.”

    • florin

      May 10th…I do not believe for one minute that the polls are correct. Every question on some of these polls is either vague or completely skewed so the pollsters get the answer they want. Also, many people do not want to admit they are against gay marriage so they say yes on the poll but vote against gay marriage.

  • florin

    Obama is going to lose a lot of voters but I am thinking that perhaps he no longer cares. One thing I do believe is that those who might have remained on the side lines in the upcoming election are going to come out in droves to unseat the man who stands defiantly against God and the moral code embedded in every human being.

  • Tarheel

    Marriage, a Sacrament, a gift from God, is under attack.

    We must fight back. It is our institution to fix so let’s fix it. We know how. We have been given instructions. We must teach these instructions to our young people.

    On another note I fear many people of today are terrified of libel suits if they speak out against certain groups. And way to many lawyers will “jump on this band wagon” to get a name for themselves. I think it must be a power trip for them.

    If I speak out against a homosexual lifestyle or same sex marriages I am not showing hatred. I am standing up for what is morally right.

    The sin you commit offends me, but you the sinner I will show love for as Christ teaches us to. I will keep you in my prayers.

  • Folkpunch

    The western definition of marriage is a social invention anyway, designed for the proper distribution of property. Family lines have to stay intact so that the power and property can be handed down. It’s a no brainer. If gays get rich and have no heirs then it’s a problem for the state.

    By the way, those Catholic priests who bugger little boys, are they gay? I didn’t think so.

    • florin

      We’re not talking about a western description of marriage or a politcal definition of marriage. We’re talking about having been created male and female as complement bodies, created to ‘fit’ each other–as I have said before, a key is created to fit into a lock not into another key. We can manipulate and distort our bodies to do what they were not created to do – that is unnatural. No one completely understands why a man wants to have sex with another man or a woman with another woman..and they are entitled to do what they want in the privacy of their homes. But we cannot redefine everything whenever a group demands this. Everyone desires something but we can’t have everything we desire. A man who desires another man’s wife has no right to have the wife; a man who wants multiple wives is not permitted to have them. And as to your crude question about priests who’bugger’ little boys, about 1% of all priests, an independents study was done thoroughly and it found that very few were cases of pedophilia. The majority were cases of homosexual priests having sex with adolescent boys…terrible to be sure, but pedophilia, in my eyes, is worse.

  • Folkpunch: On the pedophile issue and the question of whether mainstreaming sodomy into the culture will inevitably lead to more and more pedophilia, see my “Homosexuality/Pedophilia Correlation?”
    http://www.catholiclane.com/homosexualitypedophilia-correlation/

  • The tragic fact is that the Church let its guard down; whereupon homosexuals infiltrated the seminaries to
    prey on vulnerable, naive people, including children.