A Catholic friend of mine was very frustrated last night on Facebook. The Archdiocese apparently sent her a "thou shalt vote yes" on the marriage amendment note. And her fellow Catholic friends were there cheering her on. It seems they like their Church, but its intolerance for our fellow humans is starting to drive in a wedge. You would think the Vatican should have learned something from the Reformation.
CNN MN Marriage Amendment
Catholics for Marriage Equality
HP Case for Marriage Equality
Star Trib Arch Bishop Statements
Wiki 95 Theses / Reformation
Also, I was having a discussion regarding this over on Speed's/R-Five's site. You may find it interesting.
Speed Gibson Marriage Amendment
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
The Catholic Church hierarchy has been captured by a very conservative element within the church early in the 20th century, and they have never let go. I think it's a mistake to confuse the hierarchy's view with the views of Catholics, but the conservative faction that controls the church would disagree with that.
--Hiram
The Church was "captured by a conservative element" somewhere around 1556. No need to change when Truth is on your side.
And I say the Church still has truth on its side and that should be a complete defense in the face of the LIES being spread against the Marriage Amendment. That is, a "Yes" vote changes absolutely NOTHING with regard to the rights or privileges of gays in MN.
That is, a "Yes" vote changes absolutely NOTHING with regard to the rights or privileges of gays in MN.
Doesn't it eliminate the possibility of changing the law through the legislative process? If the amendment changes nothing, why was it proposed?
The Republicans are trying to win this election, not by proposing a positive agenda, but by villifying and targeting vulnerable populations, through the two constitutional amendments and hoping that no one will call them on it.
--Hiram
I believe that the Crusaders, the Taliban, the Jihadists, etc all felt they had God and the Truth on their side too. Truth seems to an elusive thing.
If you are interested in the Catholic understanding of the relationship between the teachings of the church and the dictates of conscience, take a look at section 1790 of the Catholic Catechism.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm
--Hiram
CNN Red or Blue Jesus
" If the amendment changes nothing, why was it proposed?"
It is sometimes called the "preservation of marriage amendment." It was proposed to reserve the right to define marriage for the citizens and their legislature, not to an activist court. Look at the states where marriage has been redefined. ALL by court action. It shouldn't happen here.
"The Republicans are trying to win this election, not by proposing a positive agenda, but by villifying [sic] and targeting vulnerable populations, through the two constitutional amendments..."
BS. If the marriage amendment passes, NOTHING happens to the gay population, except they are denied an easy path to impose their will on the majority. If the Voter ID amendment passes, NOBODY is denied the right to vote unless they are already denied that right, are dead, or never existed in the first place. It's been proven in court.
J. Ewing
It was proposed to reserve the right to define marriage for the citizens and their legislature, not to an activist court.
Then it does do something, it prevents courts and the legislature from providing for gay marriage. Thanks, I was unclear on that point.
Views on gay marriage are changing and they are changing very fast. Terrified of that fact, anti gay marriage folks are trying to freeze their views in the constitution, exactly the sort of the thing the constitution isn't for.
I have been getting a lot of anti gay marriage lit lately. What's striking to me is how incredibly lame the arguments they present are. Bear in mind, we are talking about the most fundamental human relationships, the relationship which for many of this is perhaps the most important in our lives. Does it really make sense that how we think of this immensely important issue in all of our lives should be determined by whether someone made a rude remark to a guy living in Canada? I mean really, let's get a sense of proportion about these things, people.
--Hiram
And by the way, where did we get the idea that marriage issues, the most important relationship in many of our lives, are a dispute about the meaning, the definition or redefinition of a word. Why do anti gay marriage activists engage in this trivialization of something that's far more than a word to be defined in a certain way?
--Hiram
If the only concern is that gays be allowed to make a lifelong commitment to each other, then they can do that right now, in church. What is at issue is LEGAL recognition of the union, followed by the LEGAL requirement that everybody else accept those unions as perfectly acceptable. They aren't. When the populace has changed their mind on that issue we can repeal the amendment easily, but until then we do not want the courts making the decision. Look at the states where it is legal today-- all imposed by the courts. Look at where it is NOT-- all imposed by popular vote.
J. Ewing
What is at issue is LEGAL recognition of the union, followed by the LEGAL requirement that everybody else accept those unions as perfectly acceptable.
I propose, just for fun, a thought experiment. take any given argument about gay marriage, and ask whether it could also be applied with equal for to interracial marriage. In the be above case, is the possibility that some people would find it unacceptable, a reason we should deny the right of an interracial couple to get married?
--Hiram
Post a Comment