The Coming Battle

marriage-licenseIf you are like me, you are in mourning. Not merely for a battle lost, but for the thousands of misguided souls who may be lost due to the Supreme Court’s misguided attempts at fairness.

The legalization of same sex marriage is not a sudden event, however. Judging by the reactions on both sides, it is certainly a seismic cultural shift, akin to Roe v Wade or the Plessy v Ferguson decision (legalized segregation).  But it should not come as a shock to observant people of faith.

Society has been sliding downwards into the abyss for five decades, and the shudder you felt at the decision is society’s morality hitting bottom. Or so we hope.

The legal recognition of homosexual marriage is the fruit of a degradation of marriage which began in the 1960’s when the contraceptive pill drove a sword into the heart of marriage. Codified in Griswold v Connecticut, which legalized contraception use in marriage (yes, it was once unthinkable and banned by all major religious groups), the pill slowly sucked the life out of traditional marriage. Rather than assuming that children were at the heart of marriage, they are an option for couples pursuing careers, travel and the home of their dreams.

My next door neighbors on Long Island told me that they were getting a dog instead of a second child, to enable the husband to buy the boat of his dreams. The grandparents actually threw a baby shower for the puppy! Their lonely little guy used to gaze through the picket fence at my two girls playing in our yard. His father put up a six foot stockade fence to stop him.

When I sold purebred Labrador Retrievers, I quickly understood that I was cooperating in this childless culture. Many young couples would come to buy a dog to “practice being parents” and hold off the urge to procreate. I could see the seething resentment in the women’s eyes. I stopped breeding dogs and had another baby.

Procreation has been cut out of the very essence of marriage, and what remained of marriage’s God-given meaning and purpose was left to wither in public opinion until it became a loose association of two adults in love. Add five decades of the promiscuity of the sexual revolution, aided by no-fault divorce, and we arrive at a society with a 40% illegitimacy rate, where millions of confused, suffering children search amid the emotional ruins of the once-strong family structure for the love of a father and mother.

I taught in an inner city high school while I was engaged to be married. Not one of my students had ever met a person in their social circles who was married. We heterosexuals seemed to have no use for marriage, other than some nostalgic image on a Hallmark card. Marriage was up for grabs.

Times change, so why not marriage?

If companionship and not babies was the sole aim of marriage, and babies could be made in a laboratory (via IVF and surrogacy) by any one with the money to do so, what made marriage so unique that it could only be shared by one man and one woman?

The question became: Why not grant homosexuals the right to enjoy such companionship and economic security?

We allowed the same sex marriage lobby to frame the argument in terms of rights for adults, forsaking the needs of children. We wanted to be seen as fair, loving, tolerant people.That is how public opinion went from 80% opposed to same sex marriage to 50% in favor in a few short years. The institution of marriage was on shaky ground indeed.

So when the question is asked “who is responsible for the Supreme Court’s approval of same sex marriage?” the only honest answer is: I am. I did not fight hard enough against contraception, no fault divorce and for a traditional understanding of marriage. I did not feel badly enough for the children who suffer from the lack of traditional family structure to be their advocate even when study after study confirmed this. I did not fast and pray enough for God to change the hearts of all Americans who stood idly by, consumed with their entertainment devices,  and allowed the family go on life support.

It was too lonely a battle to defend traditional marriage amid the disdain and mockery of my family and associates. Hollywood, academia, many churches and politicians had given way, so I did as well. I was censored on Facebook for a few days for posting an article on same sex marriage so I stopped posting on it. There were other battles to be fought, I thought. I was wrong. Nothing is more important than retaining our right to not only worship freely but to live out our faith in the public square.

I attended a lecture by a Little Sister of the Poor on the history of religious freedom in America. The right to worship as Catholics was not ensured in the Colonies, but thanks to fair minded James Madison the father of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, we have it in our most fundamental document. But then the majority in the Obergefell v. Hodges decision found a right to homosexual marriage in the Fourteenth Amendment, which did not exist. So much for the Constitutional protections!

But here’s the good news.

The battle is far from lost. Neither Roe v Wade or Plessy v Ferguson settled the matters they proposed to decide.  They created movements which caused disruption in society until the wrongs they caused were rectified (the abortion industry is losing steam at this time). It took commitment, courage and faith to overcome the degradation of segregation. It will take perhaps even more effort to help homosexuals find love and healing within the arms of God and to restore the true meaning and beauty of God’s plan for marriage for heterosexuals who lost faith in it.

And thanks to many public declarations where Christians of all denominations and races have expressed solidarity with traditional marriage, we will find new friends at our side as we work to rebuild what has been torn down.

Good people of faith forged many alliances on the freedom rides, on the sidewalks of abortion mills and in the streets of our nation’s capital. We expect to be joined by fellow believers who did not believe us when we warned that the family was in trouble, as our freedom of conscience is drastically eroded. It will take sacrifice and pain, real pain. Will it take the arrest of our local clergyman for refusing to perform a same sex wedding to wake us up? Perhaps.

But the awakening is coming. The darkness of our culture of relativism has become sufficiently dark for the light of Christ to stand in stark relief.
As Blessed Archbishop Oscar Romero, a  martyr for the truth in El Salvador said,

The Church must suffer for speaking the truth. For pointing out sin, for uprooting sin. No one wants to have a sore spot touched, and  therefore a society with so many sores twitches when someone has the courage to touch it and say, ‘You have to treat that. You have to get rid of that. Believe in Christ. Be converted.

Please join me in praying, fasting, and bearing joyful witness to the love of Christ expressed in your marriage. We will join the battle this time.

Leticia Velasquez is a wife and homeschooling mother of three daughters. Leticia is a freelance writer whose articles have appeared in Faith and Family magazine,  a columnist for Celebrate Life magazine, and blogger at Cause of Our Joy and at Catholic Media Review. She is the editor of A Special Mother is Born: Parents Share How God Called Them to the Extraordinary Vocation of Parenting a Special Needs Child.

  • Guy McClung

    Dear Leticia, Thank you for so positive an article, especially the words “sufficiently dark for the light of Christ to stand in stark relief.” Like Alphonse Daudet’s little she goat, that fought a wolf all night til the dawn, we stand and fight until Jesus’s light shines, brilliant. Thank you and Happy 4th. Guy McClung, San Antonio, Texas, once USA, now USSA.

  • cminca

    “So much for the Constitutional protections!’

    Exactly–precisely–what have you lost? Have priests been jailed? Have churches been shuttered?

    • Pax

      1) we will be forced to either withdraw our children from public school, which can be impossible for some or to teach our children to be at odds with their teachers and the things they condone. Esp if those teachers are homosexual.

      2) We may be forced to shutter catholic colleges and schools and hospitals or compromise the mission of these same institutions, because they must refuse to acknowledge marriage of same sex couple and they must refuse to contribute to the ‘building up’ of homosexual marriages.

      So in short there has been millions of dollars and literal thousands of lifetimes spent building institutions that are meant to better society those institutions may be loose accreditation, grants and funding and be shut down for not complying with notions of marriage that go against their mission of spreading the catholic faith.

      3) we are forced to hide our deeply held religious convictions or face loss of the ability to work and take care of our families. Possibly the ability to contribute to society in positive ways.

      • cminca

        #1–is your religion so fragile that it can’t hold up to discussion of any conflicting information? Do Catholic schools deny the existence of protestants and Jews?

        #2–seems to me that there were plenty of Catholic schools and hospitals that had no problem with health care or homosexuals until Obama got elected. Maybe the USCCB should have kept its nose out of politics.
        But the real answer to #2 is stop conflating civil with personal. Isn’t there something about “rendering unto Caesar” that could direct you in this area?

        #3–you mean you are concerned that you may be treated the way gays were treated by you? The people that had to hide who they were or face loss of work and the ability to contribute to society (like, say, losing your long standing job as choirmaster at your church)? You mean like that?

        No one is coming after you with pitchforks and torches. You are not being persecuted. And if you scream “I’m dying” from a paper cut you are not going to be believed about real persecution.

        • goral

          Your LGBT comments and practices would be better received on NPR websites. They are repulsive to any moral and thinking person. Just because BHO has changed the national consciousness from a position of nobility to one of perversity doesn’t make it right. Sodomy will always be sodomy and never love. Only a depraved mind thinks otherwise.

          • Struble


          • cminca

            “Sodomy will always be sodomy and never love.”

            You don’t know what love is.

          • goral

            Quite right, my LGBT friend. However, I do know what love isn’t.
            It isn’t base instincts and desires that focus on self-gratification.
            It isn’t altering nature and reality to suit an opportunity.
            It isn’t even ecstasy and exhilaration that we experience with someone who is close to our heart.
            We know that Love was nailed to the cross. This is what we have been taught. In our small understanding we hold to this truth because, quite simply, our conscience then allows us to get a good night sleep. A good nights rest allows the mind to think clearly……
            It just goes on and on….

          • cminca

            You contradicted yourself.

          • goral

            Back to front minds always see contradictions in perfect logic. The Cross is in fact a contradiction. The “compassionate” self-styled catholics thought that the mixed-up gay BLT sandwich would only be served at the Gay Gourmet on the corner of Sodom and Gomorrah. Now it is being served on the corner of Church and State. Governor Gaylord and Rev. O’Lordy often dine there. Still not good enough for you mixed-up sandwich types. You want to force feed everyone with your poisonous fare.
            There are plenty of us who prefer the bread of life instead. You just know that we’re going to fight you all the way. This non-gay guy does not digest gay guacamole with sprinkles. So just thtop it!

        • Pax

          hmm… i guessing you haven’t posted on catholic exchange very often. Welcome.
          I will take the time to address your post more fullyin a seocond post , but first I wanted to note something. Your orignal question was ‘what was lost’ as near as I can tell your response was in no way a disgreeement with my answer, it was more like a set of reaons I should not be upset by what is lost. Can we at least agree that we have answered the first question?
          Also , I think we should both take notice of the fact that at the core each of your responses is the assumption that what my Relgion teaches in incorrect.
          We should probably establish some context otherwise my responses in the next post won’t be very useful to you and probably will not help us get any closer to seeing eye to eye, which is my goal in any conversation.
          So because I know nothing about you would you please tell me a little more about yourself. I think our reasons for disagreement will be more clear, and our discussions more useful.
          1) Do you believe in the existance of some kind of supernatural being/beings?
          2) If so you believe that entity intentially created human?
          I hope, because I call myself a faithful catholic that my answers to those questions are already known and self evident.

          • cminca

            I think we should both take notice of the fact that at the core each of your responses is the assumption that what my Religion teaches in incorrect.

            No–I think you should take notice that the US is a pluralistic, secular democratic republic with a constitution that is intended to provide the same freedoms for all.

            And that the definition of “for the betterment of all” does not necessarily mean Catholic doctrine.

            And that, if your institutions cannot promote civil equality for all, then they don’t deserve to receive funding from those they would exclude.

            About $2Billion a year from the Faith Based Initiative. You don’t want me to have civil equality–stop taking my money.

            To answer your final two questions—my beliefs are NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

          • Pax

            Your beliefes and my beliefes are precisly what the issue is in the conversation. What else are we talking about?
            Pluralsim, by definition, means many. From what I can tell it is YOUR intention to exclude form the MANY anyone who does not wish to take actions that are not consistent with your moralistic/ political philosopy.
            What you seem to be missing is the fact that the reason they don’t want to take those actions is because of thier moral/ political philosophy.
            So, unless you like waisting your time and typing things up just for your own benifit. It is a perfectly reasonable question to ask you why you think what you believe is superiour to what I believe and why it is you think what you believe should have the force of law but what I believe should not?

          • cminca

            “From what I can tell it is YOUR intention to exclude form the MANY anyone who does not wish to take actions that are not consistent with your moralistic/ political philosopy.”

            Not at all. And that is precisely where we are different.

            My beliefs don’t limit other people’s choices (even deny them equal civil rights and benefits). Yours do.

            I’m not trying to legislate my beliefs. You are.

          • Pax

            I don’t see where you can make that claim.

            Let me explain it to you this way: “suppose two men
            walk into a county clerk office and ask for a marriage license”. Are you
            really trying to suggest that your beliefs do not advocate for a law that limit
            the choice of the clerk in the office? I’m not saying law shouldn’t limit his actions,
            you have claimed “My beliefs don’t limit other people’s choices”. Your
            claim is false, it limits the choice of the clerk.

            Again, suppose someone goes to a man who rents out
            apartments do you really claim you do not believe in legislation that limits that
            man’s choice when it comes to who he does and does not allow to stay in the properties
            he owns? Again, I didn’t say the law shouldn’t but you claimed “My beliefs don’t limit other
            people’s choices”, obviously they limit the choice of the person who rents the
            property unless you believe he should be able to deny housing to anyone he
            feels like for whatever reason pleases him.

            The reality is that all laws force someone’s beliefs
            about something on someone else that disagrees with them. So changing laws
            based on the idea of ‘not imposing belief’ on someone else is nonsense. It
            isn’t possible.

            you disagree i would challenge you to find a single law that does NOT impose
            someone else beliefs on others.

            you have exposed so far provably false idea based on a flimsy premise.

            seem to think that living in a pluralistic society means no one can have or
            express any belief, or at least non based on religion. The reality is there is no belief anyone can
            claim to have that doesn’t extend from the metaphysics they hold to be
            true. So your idea of what pluralism
            should be is also provably false, because you start with a false premise.

            go a step further and suggest that it is very rare person who actually has a
            philosophy that truly centers on not limiting other peoples choices. The only
            person who has such a philosophy fully would be an anarchist who believes there
            should be no laws of any kind not even laws against murder? Is that what you

            if that is what you believe you have failed to account for why believing that
            is any better than believing in laws that are meant to server the purpose of the
            common good. The reason anarchist reject
            the idea of law is because they reject the idea that there is any such thing is
            ‘good’ and therefore any such thing as common good.

          • cminca

            ” “suppose two men walk into a county clerk office and ask for a marriage license”. Are you really trying to suggest that your beliefs do not advocate for a law that limit the choice of the clerk in the office? I’m not saying law shouldn’t limit his actions, you have claimed “My beliefs don’t limit other people’s choices”. Your claim is false, it limits the choice of the clerk.”

            It doesn’t limit the choice of the clerk because the clerk has no right to make a choice about the article in question. It is his JOB. A job no one is forcing him to hold. And if he cannot do his job, due to his religion or for any other matter, than he needs to find another job.

            No one is forcing the man to rent apartments either. Or bake cakes for weddings, or photograph weddings.

            Would we even be having this conversation if the clerk, the landlord, the baker, or the photographer was refusing to service someone because of their race–their sex–or their religion?

            A singles law? Sure–the laws that say you cannot be in business and discriminate.

            You see–I’m not forcing my philosophy on anyone because NO ONE is forced to go into business. No one is forced to offer goods and services to the public. If they don’t like the laws that do define those actions they are free to go live in the woods–work for someone else–become a writer–do a plethora of other things.

          • Pax

            So you are saying no one is forcing people to conduct business or work for other people?

            By your logic, no one forces people to want to be married, so by not allowing some people to be married no ones choice is violated. Also, since no one is forced to work, there would be no harm done by making it illegal to hire homosexual. Fortunately for you I disagree with YOUR logic, because you logic is provably false.

            The laws that say ‘you cannot be in business and discriminate’ are based on the moral aka religious principle that discrimination is wrong, most of them were advocated for and passed by people because of their belief in God and the equality of human persons who all bear the image of God.

            You can’t hope to successfully defend such a law unless you can define under what circumstances and why discrimination is wrong. Obviously it can not be a complete blanket principle. Should banks be required to not discriminate against hiring repeat bank robbers at banks? How about kleptomaniacs as retail clerks?
            The saddest part about what the justices have done is to undermine the principle of anti-discrimination, but creating a category of ‘people’ to not discriminate against who are defined by nothing but an action they take. So the question becomes why not some other action? It concerns me the very real possibilities that such laws will be mealiness or entirely repealed in a generation or two, because people no longer understand why they exist at all.

            So I agree that discrimination is wrong and should be illegal, i disagree that it is discrimination to prevent people from doing things that are wrong and hurtful to themselves and others is discrimination, even if they want to hurt themselves. When it comes to that specific law, that is where we disagree. We disagree on moral grounds, your religion vs mine, which is fine and normal and healthy part of the democratic process.

            what is less so is the idea that you should be able to discriminate against me because you don’t like what I have to say or what I believe is wrong. It contradicts itself, it is non-sense.

          • cminca

            Here are the facts, honey……
            The law says the clerk cannot discriminate against two men or two women who want to get married.

            The only questions right now is whether or not the county and its taxpayers want to ACCOMODATE the clerk’s religious bigotry by hiring someone else to do the clerk’s work.

            Because the clerk and the county aren’t ACCOMODATING the two people who want to be married. They are following the law.

            The clerk isn’t being discriminated against. This isn’t a first amendment issue. You are so busy being “persecuted” that you have lost what little understanding of legal principle you might have had–which I’m guessing was never much.

          • Pax

            I agree with you that the clerk should fallow the law. Do you disagree that what the law says he/she should do is anything other then 1 groups moral opinion? My point was the latter not the former.

          • Pax

            I’d like to take a moment
            and point something out about this sentence.


            The reality is no one has
            any business calling themselves a catholic if they don’t believe the above
            sentence if false.

            Catholicism in not only a
            religion, it is a religion that comes from and re-enforces a philosophy.

            More over part of the required belief in that philosophy
            is the belief that all people are bettered by having full knowledge and
            relationship with Truth. (I hope we can at least agree on that)

            Also, Catholics believe that
            the doctrines (a word that only means teachings) of the Catholic Church are
            true. If you did not believe what the Catholic
            Church teaches is true you have no business calling yourself a catholic.

            So unless a catholic were
            to somehow claim that is was ‘better’ for people not to know and act on what is
            ‘true’ they would have to disagree with your statement.

          • cminca

            So you think it would be “better” for me to be celibate. And you think that you and your church are in a position to not only decide what is better for me but to legislate it.

            Sorry–you may decide that Catholic doctrine is for the “betterment” of Catholics but you cannot decide, or state as fact, that it is for the betterment of all.

            Because we aren’t all Catholics. And neither YOU nor YOUR CHURCH get to decide what is “better” for ALL.

          • Pax

            I think we would both agree that it is ‘better’ for people to know what is true and live in a way that is consistent with what is true. I’d hope we can both recongnize that our differences stem from a disagreement about what is true? I would suggest that the reason it is better for people to know what is true and act according to those truths is because not doing so increases the likelyhood they will hurt themselves or others.

            I would also, hope we can both agree that it is better for people not to do things that hurt and damage themselves and other people.

            So the logical conclustion is that _IF_ what the catholic church teaches is true _THEN_ it is better for everyone to believe it. Do you think our disagreement is about anything other then the IF?
            but to make a statement like ‘we aren’t all catholics’ is no different then makeing the statment , we don’t agree on what is true.
            Why do you keep avoiding the discussion of what is and is not true?

            If you want to understand how I know that homosexual sex is harmful both to you and to other people I certainly am able and willing to explain it, but there isn’t much use in my trying if you don’t have an open mind.
            My belife about what is true is based on 1) science, 2) natural law and sociology 3) religious theology and princple.
            You have yet to even being to attempt to articulate why you disagree with me or think what you believe to be true is better then what i belive to be true.

          • cminca

            “…why you disagree with me or think what you believe to be true is better then what i belive to be true.”
            Because your “truths” are the medieval voodoo of a multinational centuries old scam that preys upon bigotry and fear in order to make the brainwashed “pray, pay, and obey”.
            That cover it for you?

          • Pax

            your name calling does very little to convince me to change what i think. You make me wonder if you have any real thinking at all behind what you say. I am interested in what is true. You don’t seem to be , you seem to be very closed minded and unloving in your approach so I’m not sure what you hope to accomplish.

          • cminca

            You believe the only truth is established through the Catholic Church. I’ve been trying to show you that 1.) The CC doesn’t define truth; 2.) that in a pluralistic, secular democratic republic some people don’t get to define “truth” for everyone.

            The US constitution attempts to provide civil equality for all citizens, even when some other citizens don’t like it.

            In Dorothy L. Sayers’ book “Gaudy Night” two Oxford graduates are attending a college reunion dinner. They are discussing a third member of their class, who has entered into a bizarre religious cult, become a nudist, and published a book of ranting verse.

            One of the characters questions why fancy religion always has such a negative effect on people’s syntax. The other posits that a sort of mental rot sets in.

            Think about it.

            Over and OUT.

          • Pax

            well, now here you have finally said a few interesting and intelligible things. I 100% agree with you that the Catholic Church does not define the truth. In fact no one can ‘define’ the truth , it is constant even if human beings don’t exist to define it. However, you and I disagree on weather the things the catholic church teaches are true, which is a very different discussion.

            If by ‘civil equality’ you mean ‘equal protection under the law’ I am in full agreement with you. If you think people should be forced into participating in religious ceremonies or supporting speech they interpret as hurtful or hateful against another group of people then I have to question where you get your idea of equal from, they don’t come from the constitution, or anyone who was involved in writing it’.

            You can denigrate ‘religion’ all you want, but the fact will remain true that all law is based on moral philosophy ( aka ethics) . So you can’t correctly argue for or against the interpretation of a law without exposing a specific moral philosophy. The purpose of the constitution was never to repress moral sentiment, but instead to provide an avenue by which it could be negotiated in common so people didn’t need to kill each other over it as they often did in the past.

        • Pax

          I’d like to preface this
          with some context that will hopefully help you understand better the Why of the
          answers I am going to give, I’m not looking for your agreement, I’m guessing
          you won’t agree fully, if at all, and that is a much different and deeper
          discussion, but this gives context and hopefully you can at least see, that
          starting from this set of assumptions the rest of my response are reasonable. I’m stating facts about what Catholics
          believe which are intentionally light on reasons why , for the purposes of saving space, I would like to suggest that if
          you want to get into the why’s it would be much easier for us both of us if
          rather they trying to refute these statements I claim to be fact, you ask

          So here is a short lesson
          on catholic moral theology.

          The first rule is Love,
          Love of God, and Love of neighbor should be the cause of every other action.
          The opposition of the love of God would be one way to define sin, failure to
          love neighbor is always opposition to the love God has for ones neighbor.

          The world Love is also,
          sometime translated charity, so the type of Love I’m talking about is the love
          that wants to do what is good for other people.
          So knowing what IS good is also very important, because it becomes the
          basis for what you do, or do not do.

          Catholic teaching is that
          the all loving and all powerful God who knows everything and does not do
          anything by accident, created man and woman , in short he created family and
          with it sexual intercourse for the purpose of generating family. Any relationship or action that violates that
          plan acts in a way that is harmful to love of family, love neighbor and love of
          God. So even if married people,
          masturbate, or have anal or oral sex, or use contraception, they are doing what
          is morally wrong. The reason they want
          to do those things is really important.
          Everyone is born broken and so everyone wants to do things that wrong. It is important however, especially for this
          discussion to distinguish between what people are and what they want. What you ‘want’ to do does not define ‘who
          you are’ rather what you do about it
          shows, who you have chosen to be.

          #1–is your religion so
          fragile that it can’t hold up to discussion of any conflicting information?

          No, the religion I
          practice has existed for over 2000 years, and will exist long past this Nation,
          as it has many others. My point was that
          now Catholic parents are in, much more than ever before, the position of teaching their children that
          what their teachers, and the public schools teach , is morally wrong and a
          wrong way to think about the world. This
          is bond to either undermine the child’s relationship with the school and
          teachers or their parents basically making them choose. That is a very bad situation
          for any child and unfair to them, so when possible the most loving thing to do
          is for a parent to withdraw their child from public school, because no parent
          can be expected to not teach their child what they believe to be true.

          #2 Do Catholic schools deny the existence of Protestants and

          No, in many ways catholic schools and hospitals exist because
          of them, or rather for them, as well as homosexuals and Catholics who are also
          sinners. The purpose of both of them,
          however imperfectly it may be implemented, is to show the Mercy and Love of
          Jesus to other people in personal way, to model it and by example to show people what true good
          is with the hopes that through the work of God on them , their hearts and minds
          will be drawn closer to what they see and they will embrace the full truth,
          that ends with becoming members of family God created in the universal gather
          of people which is the translation of the Latin words ( catholic – universal)
          and (church – gathering of people) . As
          noted before, to teach people, by their actions doing things that hurt
          themselves like, killing, stealing, or committing adultery (which includes
          homosexual sex and using contraception) is inconstant with their mission,
          because it is decidedly unloving and rejects the love of God to take those actions. They have an obligation to discourage any
          such actions.

          No one is coming after
          you with pitchforks and torches. You are not being persecuted. And if you
          scream “I’m dying” from a paper cut you are not going to be believed
          about real persecution.

          You are correct, they are coming after us with, fines, jail
          time and criminalization/ stigmatization in an attempt to violate our God
          giving right, which no law can take away, to teach through our actions and
          words what is true while attempting to stop us from acting in a loving way
          towards our children, friends, associates, customers and co-works. In short right now, they are ONLY violating
          the free practice of our religion and freedom of speech, and claiming that is somehow
          consistent with ‘equal protection under the law’.

          You are also,
          correct that it is much worse in other countries, China comes to mind, it is
          against the law to be a catholic there, and to a lesser extent Canada, if
          someone wants to see where this could go in this country that is a good model. In
          Canada Catholic priests have been jailed for reading from the catechism of the Catholic
          Church while in their churches at mass, for committing ‘hate crimes’.

          Do you really expect us to anything less than all that is in
          our power to ensure that does not happen in this country?

          • cminca

            “My point was that
            now Catholic parents are in, much more than ever before, the position of teaching their children that
            what their teachers, and the public schools teach , is morally wrong and a
            wrong way to think about the world.”

            So if your child had a Jewish teacher you think that that puts the Catholic parents in a position of teaching their children that their teacher “is morally wrong and a wrong way to think about the world”? Tell me–if they are Asian do you make the same assumption because they may be Taoist? Would you require all public school teachers to fill out a form stating that they are heterosexual Christians just so YOU are more comfortable?

            You live in a pluralist, secular, democratic republic. It is time for you to recognize that there may be things you don’t get to control.

            You are correct, they are coming after us with, fines, jail
            time and criminalization/ stigmatization in an attempt to violate our God
            giving right, which no law can take away, to teach through our actions and….”

            No–you are being expected to follow the SAME LAWS AS EVERYONE ELSE. Because otherwise I’m going to exercise my “God given right” and dust off my “no Catholics need apply” sign.

            “Canada Catholic priests have been jailed……” Citation please. I’ll respond when I see it.

          • Pax

            if you wan’t to dust off your ‘no catholics allowed’ sign I wouldn’t be bothered by it. What is upsetting to me is when you try and require by law that CATHOLICS put up ‘no catholics’ allowed signs.

          • cminca

            You won’t be bothered by it? How about when I deny you housing or fire you from your job? (Which, by the way, is legal against the LGBT community in multiple states.)

            How about I do it to your children? Would it bother you then?

          • Pax

            I think you
            misunderstand, until about 100 years ago those things were normal for Catholics
            even in this country. Our communities were stronger then, so no , it wouldn’t bother me. So long as we are free to worship and live according to our faith.
            Even then it wouldn’t bother me because persecution historically has always made Catholicism grow.

            Also, perhaps you don’t know that Catholics were instrumental in removing most of the anti-sodomy laws in this country because we viewed them as being used to discriminate against one kind of sinner, when catholic principle is that laws, to be just and fair, should apply equally to all people.

            Catholic principle is that homosexual people are first and foremost people, who should be treated
            with the love and respect that all people deserve because THEY ARE IMAGES OF GOD. Catholics believe homosexuals are images of God just as much as anyone else, and just like anyone one else they are tempted to sin , and just like anyone else they are done a favor by anyone who helps them not to sin.

            What i find disturbing is
            the attitude that, which you have expressed that basically goes

            “I am right, you are
            wrong, and you should be forced to do what I want, without complaint, and I should
            not have to explain why.”
            You have come to a website dedicated to examine catholic isses and made a claim that ‘we should not be upset’ about the court doing what we view as being wrong. What I am have repeatedly ask you for is some kind of evidence that what you claim is true. You have so far failed to offer any.

          • cminca

            Yes, until 100 years ago you COULD see “No Catholics….” signs. But now we have anti-discrimination laws that protect ALL religions.

            And you are screaming “persecution” because you are being held to the same laws–as everyone else.

            So why don’t you address that?

          • Pax

            The difference is the law depending on how interpretation it, now specifically states that we are required , under certain circumstances, to PARTICIPATE in ACTIONS we consider immoral. The law is being specifically crafted to silence and degenerate a portion of the population, not unlike Jim crow laws of the past.

            Even as they are, they aren’t too bad yet, i would agree. However, The law was intended to protect people from discrimination based on characteristics beyond peoples control. It was never intended to compel people to assist in religious ceremonies or to be a vehicle for the government to declare certain actions to be moral and force that morality on other , violating freedom of religion. The courts latest ruling basically puts the constitution in conflict with itself.

            And opens up various avenues of possible discrimination against people, who are only attempting to do what think is kind and right and just.

          • cminca

            “The law was intended to protect people from discrimination based on characteristics beyond peoples control.”
            If that was indeed the case we would have to remove “religion” from protected classes.

          • Pax

            Have you read the 14th amendment (equal protection under the law) it doesn’t mention religion. That is a separate amendment from the 1st amendment and exists for a different reason. However, what the supreme court has done is to read the constitution in such a way as to put the two amendments in conflict. That was never the intent by anyone who was involved in writing them.

        • Guy McClung

          And so if there are any efforts, city, state or federal to make it a hate crime for me to read on a public street corner either the Bible or the Catechism of the Catholic Church, peacefully and in violation of no other law, you will oppose such “hate crime” legislation that would deny me free speech?

          • cminca

            Yes I would–depending on WHAT ELSE YOU WERE SAYING AND HOW YOU WERE SAYING IT. Because if you quote a passage of the bible and then “peacefully” tell people to enforce–say–stoning a woman who committed adultery–then you have stepped over the line of “free speech”.

            The idiocy here it that you think that such a law would ever be passed or would ever be enforceable (let alone enforced) by any federal, state, or local authority.

            You are all soooooo scared of “Sharia law” when, what you really want, is the “christian” equivalent.

  • guest

    The root of all evil is not contraception, or any kind of birth control. And gay people have no need of it. The love of money still is the root of all evil.
    Contraceptive birth control has allowed women to have a fuller lives. Like anything else it can be used wrongly, but that is no reason to throw out the baby with the bath water, so to speak.

    • Pax

      The root of all evil is pride. Which shows itself in the rejection of the will of God. The use of contraception is the rejection of God’s will for human sexuality. So is masturbation or in the case of homosexuals mutual masturbation. Contraception does not allow women to have fuller lives. It allows them to have shallower lives and less life. It allows them to more easily be treated as objects and allows them and the men they entertain to partially escape the natural consequences of their actions, but there are many other consequences that are less visible but worse.
      Contraception has caused the divorce rate to skyrocket. It has cause to rate of abortions to increase.

  • goral

    Exactly, precisely. Catholics can still worship the god of their choice. They can go trad or go V2. They can cheer on Scalia and Thomas or Kennedy and O’Connor. They can follow Pope Francis or Pope Benedict or even pope Pelosi.
    All are valid, tolerant and compassionate. They can even salute the fag flag that was shown hoisted Iwo Jima style by (men) in shorts. The choices are there. There is however an internment camp waiting for the baker who will not put two
    (men) holding each other’s, let’s say hand, on a wedding cake. He who will not sing -gay love I will give to you, better watch his backside.
    Yes, even the wise Greek philosophers who struggled with similar dispositions weren’t smart enough to take on Nature and her laws. We are!
    Hell’s gate, we have arrived and we understand the inscription – down here there is no right or wrong, it’s whatever works for you. Oh my nether god! the choices!