Vatican takes strong stance against gay marriage after US election

It's not "guilt by association" with bigots. It's the sin of inciting bigotry. The USCCB condemned "unjust discrimination" in the statement you quoted, Gearoid4. But the bishops' own attempt to exclude gays and lesbians from the legal benefits and status of marriage is a form of "unjust discrimination" by the criteria of Gaudiam et Spes: "Therefore, there must be made available to all men everything necessary for leading a life truly human, such as food, clothing, and shelter; the right to choose a state of life freely and to found a family, the right to education, to employment, to a good reputation, to respect, to appropriate information, to activity in accord with the upright norm of one's own conscience, to protection of privacy and rightful freedom even in matters religious." The bishops surely know that their much-publicized, ungodly war against gays is deepening in Catholics and other fundamentalists a determination to hate, exclude, and discriminate. That's guilt-laden knowledge, especially when they manipulate the bigots they create to fight their political campaigns.

One way to solve this matter is to keep "marriage" a religious matter. If the Moslems won't sanction gay marriage then you can find another religion. If you can find a religion to sanction your union then you can be married. The state should only be involved creating legally binding unions between individuals as partnerships or corporation with the members granted special rights. Let's keep religion and government separate.

Eiriamach, you seem to be projecting "guilt by association" on to those who defend honorably the well-understood version of marriage vis-a-vis bigots who vehemently hate homosexual people. The Church has on numerous occasions spoken out against such a hateful mentality as in letter addressed to homosexual people by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(1986)..""It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs." The Admin Committee of the US conference of Catholic bishops in September of 2003 condemned "..all forms of unjust discrimination, harassment or abuse." against gay people. I personally condemn all forms of attacks against anybody, regardless of sexual persuasion. But such attacks should not be used in a calculating way to imply that supporters of the well-understood version of marriage are by extension complicit in such activity, because of the views they hold.

The Vatican opposes, but practises gay marriage.

To add just one more observation, Gearoid4, you've seen many homophobic and gay-bashing comments written by visitors to the Irish Central articles and blogs. You've also see some atheists and Christians alike criticize the bigots' words. But I've never seen you write a comment that defends LGBTs against such verbal attacks. That bigoted speech works, in turn, to support the pope's and bishops' and evangelicals' political campaigns. If the pope and bishop and RC defenders would speak out forcefully against homophobic speech and action whenever it occurs-- including that of religious leaders like Cardinal Francis George of Chicago--then they might convince people of the sincerity of their commitment to a (mistaken) view of marriage as unchangeable.

I'm speaking of the *consequences* of the hierarchy's words and action, Gearoid4. I do not presume to know their states of soul or emotions. I'm not calling them bigots. I'm saying that their words and actions breed or incite or provide a pretext for bigotry and hate speech and even hate crimes in our society. Parents kick gay children out of their homes to disassociate themselves from what the priest calls "sin," and heterosexual teens think they have a license in the pronouncements of religious leaders to bully gay teens. Such are the dynamics of the situation. And it's all unnecessary because the social and political equality of LGBTs would affect no one else's freedom to live, worship, and follow Christ as he or she chooses to do. The Church's political campaign gratuitously inflicts serious suffering, real harm. It makes victims of LGBTs, it damages social cohesion, and it divides the Body of Christ.

Oh please, Eiriamach, you cannot equate genuine homophobia with the heartfelt motivations of people who believe firmly in the well-understood definition of marriage that has served societies so well for well on 2 millennia now. Hatred expressed by homophobes in the form of physical and verbal abuse has to be utterly condemned and the perpetrators jailed. I think that the Vatican's use of language at times in relation to the whole area of homosexuality and marriage, could be expressed in a more refined and sensitive way, but the concept of marriage is non-negotiable in terms of it's constituent core. The Christian opposition to the latest legislative attempts to re-define marriage is not based on any hatred for anyone, but solely on what religious people understand to be the timeless sanctification of the complementary love between a man and woman which is open to procreation. That is the biblical definition of it and one cannot radically alter it's essence without changing it's whole meaning.

Gearoid, your 4:36 statement echoes the Vatican's statement in Friday's l'Osservatore Romano, as reported by Yahoo online: "'The Church is the only institution to say that, while persecuting homosexuals in undoubtedly unjust, opposing marriage between people of the same sex is a point of view that must be respected,' the Vatican newspaper editorial said." I must disagree with both the Vatican statement and yours. As long as research correlates harm (suicides of gay teens, an astronomically high rate of bullying, harassment, and discrimination against LGBTs) to religious leaders' very public opposition to equal rights for LGBTs, I cannot respect such opposition. Moreover, as I've said several times, such opposition is unChristian; it drives young people and others with open minds from the Christian Churches, and it associates Christianity in the public mind with social/political arch-conservatism and intolerance. For these reasons, I cannot respect your position and am compelled to oppose it as harmful and unChristian intolerance.

Where is the "hate" in re-emphasizing the truth about marriage as it has always been understood across different societies down the centuries? The charges of homophobia by some against those who hold on to the vision of marriage between a man and woman which unites them in their complementariness and which is open to procreation, betrays very shallow thinking and a lack of understanding(through ignorance or wilful distortion) of the motivations of others, on their part

When the catholic hierarchy makes hateful statements like these it makes clear they and those who agree with them reject the societal values most of us care about (the recent elections and passed ballot initiatives have made these clear). Statements like these are helping the RCC in it's avowed goal of diminishing itself. I guess it makes sense that way and perhaps can be celebrated as a sign of the growing irrelevance of Catholic mores.

@Eiriamach, I never said that contraception was a direct cause of divorce, but something which contributed to or facilitated acts of infidelity which has been the cause of so much trouble for marriages. This is an indisputable fact. You measure the downside of raising children in terms on monetary value. Is this a valid reason for life-denying contraceptive/abortafacient pills to be ingested by women. While I sympathize with families who have to make decisions concerning spacing out pregnancies in relation to circumstances like financial constraints, this can be achieved by careful family planning in line with observing the natural rhythms of the female body. This also avoids the deliberate act of self-sterilization and the health consequences of the modern contraceptive pill. As regards your take on Jesus' words on marriage as quoted in the gospel of Matthew, the Catholic Church has never taken the Creation story of Adam and Eve literally, but has looked upon it as a figurative/metaphoric story for the coming of humanity on to the Earth as willed by God. Thus one can take Adam and Eve as representing the Creation story of both man and woman without the necessity of explaining the contradictions inherent in a strictly literal reading. In any case, the words of Jesus are pretty clear and are are true for all ages regarding the truth of marriage as consisting of a sacred covenant between one man and one woman. No progressive interpretation of Jesus' words can overturn this.

Gearoid, I just noticed that you quote Matthew 19, which in turn quotes Genesis. Genesis belongs to the genre of creation myth (I do not use the word "myth" to suggest that it is false, only that its truth does not belong to the category of empirical science). It is not the purpose of this genre to impose moral rules. Particularly in the case of Adam and Eve, who had NO human mother or father, it is senseless to suppose that "a man [shall] leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife" commands heterosexual marriage only! On the contrary, that section of Genesis tells us that each generation "creates" anew and that we should not cling to dysfunctional traditions of the past but work with our own generation to renew creation and sanctify it. Progress in political and social equality fulfills that intention of the Creator.

As countless generations of women could inform you, Gearoid, fear of pregnancy is most likely to "break that unique conjugal bond between them" and contraception likely to sustain it. From Bradford Wilson's "The Evolution of Divorce" online, "Raising children is expensive, and has become increasingly so, given rising college and health-care costs. Yet the real value of federal tax deductions for children has fallen considerably since the 1960s. To remedy this state of affairs, ... expanding the current child tax credit from $1,000 to $5,000 and making it fully refundable against both income and payroll taxes .... would provide a significant measure of financial relief to working-class and middle-class families, and would likely strengthen their increasingly fragile marriages" and reduce divorce rates. Nowhere in his article does Wilcox, Director of the National Marriage Project at the U of Virginia and senior fellow at the Institute for American Values, mention birth control as a cause of divorce! Divorce is far more complex than that.

Wouldn't it be nice if the Vatican took a strong stance against poverty or child endangerment. You know, or something Jesus actually wanted them to do.

Pius was speaking of the obedience due to a husband from his wife as warranted in the bible, but this also mean't a reciprocal respect and love on the part of the husband as stipulated in the marriage contract. The husband was seen by him as the head of the household with his wife, as his life-long mate and companion, united in conjugal love and fidelity. Contraception breaks that unique conjugal bond between them and unnaturally breaks the link between the unitive and procreative aspects of the sexual act. It renders sterile what God has ordained to be fertile and live-giving. The Church has been against birth control since the first apostolic centuries and you are in error stating that official Catholic pronouncements against it are just a recent phenomenon. The early Church Fathers taught that any unnatural acts done to prevent conception within marriage was directly against God's will e.g. Clement of Alexandria, a brilliant 2nd century bishop and theologian, in his famous catechetical work the "Paedagogues" wrote.." To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor" Others like St Jerome and St John Chrysostom preached in the same vein.

You misread Pius XI, Gearoid4. He meant to subordinate women; that purpose is clear in text. Some Anglicans (I'm not one of them) have admired the theology of Augustine, who condemned birth control as well as sex for infertile couples. But Pius XI's 1930 encyclical is the first official RC stance against birth control. So unless you equate "Christian doctrine" wholly with Augustine's writings, there never has been a "Christian doctrine" opposing birth control. It's a modern problem; in former ages, high infant mortality rates and epidemic diseases kept population growth slow. Recent advances in medical science, however, made safe, reliable birth control not only possible but necessary. Before 1930, as Lambeth understood, we had fulfilled the Creator's instruction to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Welch succumbed to post hoc reasoning. The rise in divorce and infidelity preceded the pill, which is not poison but nature's own hormones, LOL.

As regards the true nature of marriage, Eiriamach, Christ said this: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?”(Matthew-19:4-5) This leaves room for little doubt as regards the teaching of Jesus on the natural criteria for marriage.

Pope Pius X1 in "Casti Connubii" was speaking of the conjugal affection and filial bonds that are broken by the use of artificial contraception. At the end of the day, it is about a false liberty which the contraceptive pill has given women over half a century or more. One of the celebrity Hollywood actresses, who seen the effects of the so called "freedoms" brought about by the Pill, was Raquel Welch. She unambiguously viewed it as a curse on marriages, because of the correlation between it's widespread use from the 60's and the rise of infidelity and divorce. It has become a mantra for the pro-contraceptive and pro-abort lobby that women should have "control over their bodies", no matter what the social cost. No-one wants women to have multiple births but self-control and the co-operation between marital couples in using the natural biological cycles of a woman's body to conceive, have far more benefits than the use of the poisonous Pill.

You're confused merefalow. Gays and lesbians do not have "parity in civil law." A primary reason they don't have it is the well financed opposition of Catholic bishops to marriage equality. It's churchmen doing the "forcing" "theocratically," not gays.

good.i just cant believe that a union of this nature is good or natural ,but seeing it has achieved every parity in civil law, why are they so focused in forcing their veiws on a faith that believes it to be wrong and a sin be forced to accept something it has preached as wrong morally and theocratically for 2000 years or longer.

More from Casti Connubii: "The same false teachers who try to dim the luster of conjugal faith and purity do not scruple to do away with the honorable and trusting obedience which the woman owes to the man. Many even go further and assert that such a subjection ... is unworthy of human dignity, that the rights of husband and wife are equal; wherefore, they boldly proclaim the emancipation of women.... (We have already said that this is not an emancipation but a crime)." Gearoid, why do you not uphold Pius XI's demand that women be obedient to men along with his prohibition of birth control? Were the Anglicans wrong for rejecting his demand for female obedience, as well as his contraceptive prohibition? BTW: with the USA version of the Book of Common Prayer adopted soon after the American Revolutionary War, ECUSA's marriage ceremony has never included any vow of obedience. (Those Anglicans are such rebels!)

Christ never spoke of birth control or same-sex unions, Gearoid. From 1611, the word "homosexuality" did not appear as English translation in bible passages referring to sexual immorality. Women priests practiced in the early church; the evidence is undeniable, and we've discussed it on IC before now. The Lambeth statement on contraceptives rejected no Christian doctrine but only then-recent papal letters. This is not the first time I've quoted to you from the 1930 encyclical that condemns contraceptives: In Castii Connubii, Pius XI taught that "this false liberty and unnatural equality [of a woman] with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself" as well as harming marriage, children, and society. Against Christ's teaching, he preached that women develop humanity only when completely obedient to men. With the same authority and on the same grounds, Pius XI claimed birth control was wrong and women are incapable of self-governance. If his birch control reasoning is infallible, his obedience-to-men mandate is infallible-- right? Be consistent please.

Where has the Catholic Church departed from Christian doctrine in opposing artificial birth control, Eiriamaach? Christian churches were uniformly opposed to it throughout the history of the religion until the anglican communion decided to break away from this traditional morality, when they lifted their objections to it at the Lambeth Conference of 1930. This was effectively a rejection of Christian teaching in relation to the interdependence of the unitive nature of the sexual act with the procreative intent, as God so designed. The legal attempts to change the intrinsic criteria for marriage across the US and western world is completely at odds with the Christian definition of marriage. The pope would be failing in his duty if he did not re-iterate Catholic teachings in all of these areas and these cannot be compartmentalized into boxes marked "private" or "public", as they effect all of society. @Bignevemo, Indeed the O.T does mention instances of polygamy, which was a tribal social practice in ancient Israel and surrounding lands. But where possible, the authors of the bible cautioned it's practitioners to treat their wives with respect and tried to ameliorate the worst aspects of it. Polygamy was wiped out in western lands by the 19th century and it was only confined to parts of Asia and Africa. It's demise in Europe and the US was largely down to the prevailing Christian influences. Polygamy has always been very much the exception to the rule, that marriage has been consistently seen as the sacred union between one man and one woman in different global societies down the centuries.

Where has the Catholic departed from Christian doctrine in opposing artificial birth control, Eiriamaach? Christian churches were uniformly opposed to it throughout the history of the religion until the anglican communion to break away from this traditional morality, when they lifted their objections to it at the Lambeth Conference of 1930. This was effectively a rejection of Christian teaching in relation to the interdependence of unitive nature of the sexual act with the procreative intent, as God so designed. The legal attempts to change the intrinsic criteria for marriage across the US and western world is completely at odd with the Christian definition of marriage. The pope would be failing in his duty if he did not re-iterate Catholic teachings in all of these areas and these cannot be compartmentalized into either boxes marked "private" or "public", as they effect all of society. @Bignevemo, Indeed the O.T does mention instances of polygamy which was a tribal social practice some of the tribes of Israel and populations of surrounding lands. But where possible, the authors of the bible cautioned it's practitioners to treat their wives with respect and tried to ameliorate the worst aspects of it. Polygamy was wiped out in western lands by the 19th century and it was only confined to parts of Asia and Africa. It's demise in Europe and the US was largely down to the prevailing Christian influences. Polygamy has always been very much the exception to the rule, that marriage has been consistently seen as the sacred union between one man and one woman in different global societies down the centuries.

It looks like word has gone out from Rome for the bishops to double down on Church politics. At a USCCB meeting today, Cardinal Dolan echoed the Vatican's intransigence and said, according to the NY Times, that American bishops will never comply with the HHS mandate for employers to offer insurance that covers birth control. They will file more lawsuits and lobby harder against it. This is another area where RC cuts itself adrift from Christian doctrine, the bible, and the sensus fidelium (without whose agreement there can be no infallible teaching) to impose the pope's will on our laws. These political changes in marriage equality and access to contraceptives help ensure freedom of conscience for all, and while they may offend the pope's sense of political control, they limit no one's religious freedom. They represent progress toward equality and respect for human dignity.

gear...so not true that marriage has always been between one man and one woman. This is from Lawrence O'Donnell...: "O'Donnell noted that the Old Testament made numerous references to polygamy. King Solomon, for instance, was said to have seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. The Prophet Muhammad also practiced polygamy and having multiple wives is still legal in many parts of the Muslim world." so ya see...it aint so!

Obviouisly the Pope still beleives in the Bible.

Marriage has been based since time immemorial on the unitive love with it's procreative potential, between one man and one woman. This has been consistent across all generations, ethhnic and religiou/non-religious populations around the globe for well nigh on 2000 years. Regional variations like the practice of polygamy, as evidenced in Africa or Asia during different times, does not nullify this fact. To extend marriage to same-sex couples would undermine the criteria which has consistently defined marriage, and then it would be marriage no more. Marriage, as it has been well understood had maintained the common good and demographic health of societies for centuries and the series of ill-advised legislative attempts to change it across the western world, will have a detrimental effect on marriage as we know it.

Marriage has been based since time immemorial on the unitive love with it's procreative potential, between one and one woman. This has been consistent across all generations, ethhnic and religiou/non-religious populations across the globe for well nigh on 2000 years. Regional variations like the practice of polygamy, as evidenced in Africa or Asia during different times, does not nullify this fact. To extend marriage to same-sex couples would undermine the criteria which has consistently defined marriage, and then it would be marriage no more. Marriage, as it has been well understood had maintained the common good and demographic health of societies for centuries and the series of ill-advised legislative attempts to change it across the western world, will have a detrimental effect on marriage as we know it.

Why does the church feel so afraid of two people loving each other? What if say, two catholic women find they love each other, even romanticly and want to make it honest by way of marriage. Somehow that's wrong? Love is wrong? Sooo.... atm anyway, the heads of the Catholic church are against true love in it's purest form. :-/ Srsly guys, grow up.

I had to laugh out loud on reading that the Vatican is unalterably opposed to gay marriage and views homosexual acts as "intrinsically disordered." This goes way beyond ordinary everyday hypocrisy. The Church has known for centuries that pedophilia was rampant within its cloistered walls. It knew that this horific behavior was intrinsically disordered but accepted it as almost an entitlement - and concealed it and protected the perpetrators even when the horrors came to the light of day. The victims were demonized for attacking Our Holy Mother The Church for monetary gain - until this defense was totally discredited. This is hypocrisy squared.

Male virgins in lacy dresses and fur trimmed cloaks telling everyone else how to live. There is no such thing as Church "teaching". It's just a collection of Dopey Popey opinions fuelled by overblown arrogance.

I wonder what the Catholic Church would have to say if the government passed a law requiring all religious officials to be married? How would that be any different than the Roman catholic church trying to require that all marriages / civil unions be between a man and a woman? In many cases the marriages / civil unions are out of necessity to enable the partner and children to have health benefits etc. If the church would keep their opinions within the church walls and only express them in regard to their own parishioners, then there would not be this great backlash against the church. The gall of the pope and his cronies is endless. Surely they must be aware that they are the laughing stock of the world for their outrageous insolence. Do they really think that their own parishioners believe the countless lies they tell? It's time they are taxed just like any other business. Hopefully the hypocrites will burn in Hell.

In respect to the question of gay marriage, who really cares. There are hundreds of thousands of people in the world who partake in many different types of sex and relationships. Why don't all the religions stick to tending their own flock. What business have they interfering in the lives of people who are not a member of their church? For the pope to comment on civil matters is irresponsible. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." How can these self righteous pedophiles preach anything about marriage when they launder mobsters money, condone impregnating nuns and rape children? And then to top it all off, they protect the pedophiles, rebuff their parishioners instead of helping them, deny the molestations are taking place and take actions to severely limit the financial liability of the church to the victims. IT'S TIME FOR ALL THE CHURCH HIERARCHY FROM PRIESTS TO THE POPE TO UNDERGO LIE DETECTOR TESTS TO DETERMINE THEIR ACTIONS AND KNOWLEDGE OF WRONGDOING IN THE CHURCH. They are great at denying participating in or having knowledge of the atrocities, but I'll wager they don't have the guts to own up to their actions. Their motto is "DO AS I SAY, DON'T DO AS I DO."

I wish I could say that I share their pain, but I can't. Sorry, boys, but until you can share the pain of raped children, nothing you can say to me will make any difference. Be real: the Vatican is adamant in its oppositon of gay marriage. What is their stand on priest-boy (same sex) marriage??? Their self-absorbed ignorance defies sympathetic comprhension. Does "authority" allow them to defy basic logic?? Guess God and the Nazi had taught them to think so.

1 Corinthians 14 [33b] "As in all the churches of the saints, [34] the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the Law says. [35] If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." Interesting how we don't hear this Scripture verse mentioned much. I guess this is one of those parts of the Bible considered "outdated".

I am giving up commenting here at Irish Central. Far too many idiots who cannot write, comment, and say the most ridulious things. Staff writers are sophomoric. Goodbye

The actual term 'gay marriage' is not proper. As it implies it is something different or special. "Equal access to marriage" is more correct. In terms of those who favor the concept of Civil Unions as opposed to Marriage, one should only think about the aspects of 'separate but equal' and its unfairness. It is also a disoriented jump by those in opposition to claim that this will lead to polygamy as the result. That actually has no real connection as it only deals with 2 men or 2 women who want to be legally recognized for inheritance, taxes, and benefits. Afterall, if anyone wants to speak about misuse of matrimony, one only needs to look at Elizabeth Taylor rather than try to be negative about a John and Harry or a Louise and Anita who want to be recognized for their love & devotion. In terms of polygamy, one only needs to look at the history of Romney's faith. CASE CLOSED! (Though not LDS, the prophets' FIRST wife, Emma Hale, was my m-in-l's g-g-aunt)

1 Corinthians 13 New King James Version (NKJV) The Greatest Gift 13 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned,[a] but have not love, it profits me nothing. 4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. 13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

You don't seem to realize, hermitT, that you enter a public forum on question like same-sex marriage. Here, you do not have the right to silence anyone! And you overstep greatly when you accuse others of "stalking" simply because they express opinions that you find obnoxious. Learn the rules we all play by. Authoritarianism gets no respect in debate. So in response to your words "If you are no longer a member leave the Church alone, stalking in any form is obnoxious and in this case, immoral," I say if you have no response to the arguments on the other side, then the counsel of propriety is for you to remain silent until you do.

HermitT: the question is when--if ever--a religious official may intervene in political decisions, viz, should LGBTs have the same rights under the law as others and equal treatment in social institutions such as marriage & adoption? No law will compel any priest to marry a same-sex couple; the question is "social and political," a family matter with no consequences for anyone else. Jesus' silence on such questions should guide us. Just as he rejected stoning the woman taken in adultry (they took her in flagrante delicto and let the man escape? Sure!), equal treatment DOES matter. If it doesn't apply equally to all sexes and orientations, it isn't a moral rule.

This is a test.

HermitTalker: the question is when--if ever--a religious official may intervene in political decisions, viz, should homosexuals have the same rights under the law as others and equal treatment in social institutions such as marriage & adoption? No priest can be compelled to marry a same-sex couple; the question is "social and political," a family matter with no consequences for anyone else. Jesus' silence on such questions should guide RC. Just as he rejected stoning the woman taken in adultry (they took her in flagrante delicto and let the man escape? Sure!), equal treatment DOES matter. Moral rules apply equally to all sexes and orientations.

The church always state that, in regarding to adult men and women. How does it stand on buggering children, with the expose on the 70% of sickos in john o gods in Australia. What does Benny the leader have to say about that. Do not forget Benny was the enforcer.

There are some very good comments below! I favor Civil Unions, but am against gay marriage. Civil Unions award the benefits described by jimgordo1. Marriage is rightfully between a man and a woman. I fully agree that anybody who takes Leviticus literally is somewhat disturbed! The gay issue aside, does anybody really want to see a single girl (or guy) stoned to death, as was actually (shockingly) practiced in the Colonial days? This reeks of modern Muslim fanaticism! I have a theory, concerning Fundamentalists: They are intelectually challenged! This applies to Christians, as well as Muslims, or any other religion, for that matter. Common sense should prevail, not a blind devotion to an ancient tome, be it the Bible, Book of Morman, or the Koran!

Let the Catholics practice their religion and have their sacrament of marriage, but stop trying to impose their religious beliefs on those who do not subscribe. In fact some religions and governments do support polygamy by the way. In stead of saying "civil marriage" or "civil union" just realize they are not Roman Catholic.

the vactican needs to SHUT UP....and worry about ALL THOSE RAPING OF CHILDREN priests in the CATHOLIC CHURCH....OD MADE EVERYONE, AND THAT INCLUDES "GAYS"....i'm sick of the bible thumpers trying to CONTROL the world. alisa

Should we live by the social attitudes and codes of 2000BC? Who cares what a bunch of old patriarchs wrote in a book about who gets to do what 4000 years ago?

Leviticus commands that all adulterers, male or female, be put to death. It also says that any girl who has pre-marital sex must be put to death. Until I see Catholics practicing these Commandments, despite their being forbidden by the government, I cannot take seriously any other part of Leviticus or catholic claims to be following Leviticus.

Thank you jimgordo for the accurate history. There is eiriamach clear biblical teaching against male lying with male. - no specific reference to women - and to bestiality as well as death by stoning for willing heterosexuality between the unmarried and which was punished in the Colonies. Also slammed in Paul's Romans. Your Vat document quote is not remotely relevant, re-read it. The Obama HHS Mandate is a direct assault on the First Amendment freedom from Government butting into religious teaching and one's conscience! if murder and theft and rape are wrong civilly and by religious authorities who also forbid same-gender activity as against the Natural Law, same as abortion - both moral evils now being legalised which does not make them morally acceptable. Respect for all humans, making legal protections for same-gender couples is perfectly acceptable and practical but marriage is M and F. The regular attack on the RC Church on every topic on IC is both not fair, nor is it now or ever way prevalent. It is also common in every profession, female and male, married and single, clergy of all denominations. But any stick to beat the Catholic horse to death suits some of you repeating posters. If you are no longer a member leave the Church alone, stalking in any form is obnoxious and in this case, immoral.

There's no core Christian doctrine at stake in same-sex marriage. The Vatican has cut itself adrift from Christian doctrine, on the stormy waters of the culture wars, where political progress is swamping their fishing boat. A decade ago, they knew their limits: "Christian faith has never presumed to impose a rigid framework on social and political questions, conscious that the historical dimension requires men and women to live in imperfect situations, which are also susceptible to rapid change" ("Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life," 24 Nov 2002). At least with this RC media blitz, they can't complain about Catholics being deprived of religious liberty.

Where is the strong stance against child molestation by your clergy little miss Prada?

Just once I would like to hear my Church announce that they are taking a "strong stance" against pedophilia among the clergy and those who protect the the clerical pedophiles! The Church could become more credible if they emptied the Vatican of the Cardinals and bishops who are hiding there to avoid prosecution. Send (cardinal) Bernard Law back to Boston to stand trial. Send (cardinal) Richard Levada back to San Francisco. Etc.

Where has Benedict been? The problem in the US is not that women have two husbands. It is that children have "two mommies". There is no doubt that the American Catholic Church is on a different page than the good pontiff. There is no longer any sin whether it be between men and women or between two peas in a pod. It is all about social justice and sin seen in the eyes of Sigmund Freud. Is it any wonder that Catholics voted 50-48 for a Marxist when the American version is being run by radical Jesuits, dissident nuns, and a gay hierarchy with an espoused Bernardin theology of the "seemless garment" which is more deChardinian than Christian.

rpbrown -- Except for the pedophilia scandal, you're talking about ancient history. As for "starting countless wars," you need to read European history -- the Thirty Years War was all about having "established churches" after the Reformation. I also can't recollect any instances of where the Catholic Church condoned any invasions of Ireland by either Europe or England. Ireland was invaded by "Great Britain" after the Reformation (James VI/I and Cromwell). As far as punishing "heretics," there just as many heretics put to death by Protestants after the Reformation as under the Inquisition (which incidentally took place ONLY in Spain.) As far as gay marriage goes, let the State recognize these unions as "civil unions" with all the rights of survivorship, etc. that go with marriage because, in the end, that's what it's all about. If you're not a family member you can't visit a person in ICU, there's no right of inheritance if a partner dies intestate, etc. That's actually what this "gay marriage" is all about. I'm not in favor of "gay marriage," but I understand what drives it.

does it work

A bigot is a bigot even when he wraps himself in the cloth of holy orders which should be about bringing people to a better understanding of their god. CIVIL marriage, like religious marriage is about supporting the unions of people who are willing and ready to commit their lives to each other. Such unions are the bedrock on which the stability of our society rests, they are NOT merely about breeding or marriages would be null and void if the partners chose not to procreate or could not. Merely because one church's dogma (although, God knows, not their practice) frowns on the form the love which prompts some of those unions takes CANNOT be the basis for barring such unions from official recognition. THAT genuinely undercuts ALL marriages.

This is all coming from an organization that has murdered millions of "heretics" in the Inquisition, started countless wars, ignored child molestation, encouraged Europe and England on several occasions to invade Ireland and on and on. This is an organization of terror as much as it is one that offers a modicum of salvation to its followers. Luckily people have learned to "consider the source".

The Catholic church should just back off. If these laws were about the SACRAMENT of MATRIMONY I would certainly understand the stance of the vatican and the Catholic church. But these laws are about the civil union of marriage so as far as this recovering Catholic is concerned, the vatican can KMA!

They'll never give up their opposition to it? Once they realize they can make some cash from it you'll start to see a change of attitude. They like to police other people's sex lives and ignore every rule themselves.