Church lost on gay marriage because they’re wrong
Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2011 at 10:09 AM
RSS 
Recent Posts
- Will New York Senator Chuck Schumer ditch gay couples for an immigration deal?
- If nobody's happy, it's working – the abortion debate and Irish politics of stalemate
- Conservative news entertainment complex claim Barack Obama leader of Al Qaeda
- Why Irish grudges are passed on - a long tradition of never forgetting
- Boston man confronts Infowars conspiracy nuts over 'false flag' claim
Archives
The problem with gay rights is there is no way to seek them - and there’s certainly no way to deny them - without getting personal.
You’re not talking about abstract but important things like zoning laws or tort reform, you’re talking about something profound and deeply private – you’re talking about your own heart, you’re talking about you.
There are forces out there that believe my 14 year relationship with my partner is massively destabilizing to the United States, to the point that America will soon resemble totalitarian states like North Korea.
It was the states top Catholic, Archbishop Timothy Dolan, who used that ridiculous analogy last week, believe it or not. Thanks to the gays agitating for legal equality America would soon become like communist North Korea, Dolan wrote, where “government presumes daily to ‘redefine’ rights, relationships, values, and natural law.”
Natural law? Where does the Archbishop think gay people come from if not nature? Here’s a question I’d like the Archbishop to answer: why would God condemn what He has in fact created? If God doesn’t like gay people forming relationships then shouldn’t He really blame Himself - and heterosexuals - for making so many of them?
I suspect these ‘natural law’ quotes are just code words to sugarcoat what the Archbishop is really up to: creating two tiers of human being, the natural and the unnatural. That’s a very dangerous game to be playing, and I rather wish he’d stop.
Because I don’t know about you but I really don’t appreciate being compared to a foul regime that has set protestors alight in public stadiums, and I have to wonder at a man of God who makes this comparison so lightly. Doesn’t the Archbishop know that condemnation fosters contempt?
As more and more people are discovering, talking about your gay son or daughter, your gay nephew or niece, in that kind of overheated language robs them of their personhood, it reduces them to an unfortunate conundrum, it argues against their full expression as people, and it seems profoundly anti-family to me.
That’s why marriage equality passed in Albany this week – because there is no legal justification for denying gay couples the rights that heterosexual couples take for granted. Personal or religious animosity isn’t sufficient grounds. And besides, gay couples are pressing for legal unions, not religious ones, and that is why they have and will ultimately prevail. We’re not looking for your approval; we’re looking for our own rights.
The assembly members in Albany understood that important distinction this weekend and they voted accordingly. Today it’s New York; tomorrow it will be the nation.
But like I said, you move very quickly from the political to the personal when you talk about marriage, gay or straight. If gays had full legal equality they wouldn’t have to have this discussion. I would like not to have this discussion. I am about as private a person as you could ever meet. I didn’t ask, nor would I seek, a platform for my private life. No one means for their life to become an illustration, something that you can stand on one side or the other of. Who would volunteer for that if the alternative were a life free from insult and injury?
Meanwhile the bill for New York was only approved on Friday evening and already I’ve been inundated with questions about when my partner and I will get hitched (a photographer friend has even volunteered to take the photos on the big day for free as a wedding gift).
I haven’t been able to answer their requests because I was completely taken off guard by the bills sudden success. Let’s face it if you’re born Irish you spend most of your life bracing for impact; if you’re born Irish and gay you spend your life anticipating impact and the next full on assault. Being gay is not a job for sissies.
This weekend I saw and felt the euphoria when the bill was passed. I was moved by the celebrations that took place outside the historic Stonewall Inn in the west village. And as I watched all the tears and the laughter I remembered my shaky teenage self, moving cautiously through the late 1980’s in Ireland. At that time it was considered so unthinkable to be gay that you could actually hide in plain sight. People would pretend they were not seeing what they were seeing. Unwed mothers, abortions, abuse, neglect, gay sons and daughters. It wasn’t happening. The whole of Ireland was a massive confidence trick. At that time being gay was considered so impossible that no one would even dare accuse you of it.
Back then it was my unexpected little gay story versus the babies and weddings and GAA narrative of my tribe. I didn’t stand a chance. It was not that they were hostile to me exactly; they just didn’t have room for me in the story. And the Irish are all about stories. Growing up in Ireland showed me you can become trapped in stories, your own or your nations, Ireland taught me that stories can be snares.
So these days I have a profound respect for anyone who tries to get a word in, particularly if powerful forces have prevented from doing so in the past. It takes guts of a kind rarely seen to clear your throat and stand up for yourself at the best of times, but it’s doubly so when almost everyone would prefer to shut you up. So, irate commentators, do your worst. If you can’t bear to hear gay people talk about their ongoing plight then either help them win their full equality or get out of their way.
You’re not talking about abstract but important things like zoning laws or tort reform, you’re talking about something profound and deeply private – you’re talking about your own heart, you’re talking about you.
There are forces out there that believe my 14 year relationship with my partner is massively destabilizing to the United States, to the point that America will soon resemble totalitarian states like North Korea.
It was the states top Catholic, Archbishop Timothy Dolan, who used that ridiculous analogy last week, believe it or not. Thanks to the gays agitating for legal equality America would soon become like communist North Korea, Dolan wrote, where “government presumes daily to ‘redefine’ rights, relationships, values, and natural law.”
Natural law? Where does the Archbishop think gay people come from if not nature? Here’s a question I’d like the Archbishop to answer: why would God condemn what He has in fact created? If God doesn’t like gay people forming relationships then shouldn’t He really blame Himself - and heterosexuals - for making so many of them?
I suspect these ‘natural law’ quotes are just code words to sugarcoat what the Archbishop is really up to: creating two tiers of human being, the natural and the unnatural. That’s a very dangerous game to be playing, and I rather wish he’d stop.
Because I don’t know about you but I really don’t appreciate being compared to a foul regime that has set protestors alight in public stadiums, and I have to wonder at a man of God who makes this comparison so lightly. Doesn’t the Archbishop know that condemnation fosters contempt?
As more and more people are discovering, talking about your gay son or daughter, your gay nephew or niece, in that kind of overheated language robs them of their personhood, it reduces them to an unfortunate conundrum, it argues against their full expression as people, and it seems profoundly anti-family to me.
That’s why marriage equality passed in Albany this week – because there is no legal justification for denying gay couples the rights that heterosexual couples take for granted. Personal or religious animosity isn’t sufficient grounds. And besides, gay couples are pressing for legal unions, not religious ones, and that is why they have and will ultimately prevail. We’re not looking for your approval; we’re looking for our own rights.
The assembly members in Albany understood that important distinction this weekend and they voted accordingly. Today it’s New York; tomorrow it will be the nation.
But like I said, you move very quickly from the political to the personal when you talk about marriage, gay or straight. If gays had full legal equality they wouldn’t have to have this discussion. I would like not to have this discussion. I am about as private a person as you could ever meet. I didn’t ask, nor would I seek, a platform for my private life. No one means for their life to become an illustration, something that you can stand on one side or the other of. Who would volunteer for that if the alternative were a life free from insult and injury?
Meanwhile the bill for New York was only approved on Friday evening and already I’ve been inundated with questions about when my partner and I will get hitched (a photographer friend has even volunteered to take the photos on the big day for free as a wedding gift).
I haven’t been able to answer their requests because I was completely taken off guard by the bills sudden success. Let’s face it if you’re born Irish you spend most of your life bracing for impact; if you’re born Irish and gay you spend your life anticipating impact and the next full on assault. Being gay is not a job for sissies.
This weekend I saw and felt the euphoria when the bill was passed. I was moved by the celebrations that took place outside the historic Stonewall Inn in the west village. And as I watched all the tears and the laughter I remembered my shaky teenage self, moving cautiously through the late 1980’s in Ireland. At that time it was considered so unthinkable to be gay that you could actually hide in plain sight. People would pretend they were not seeing what they were seeing. Unwed mothers, abortions, abuse, neglect, gay sons and daughters. It wasn’t happening. The whole of Ireland was a massive confidence trick. At that time being gay was considered so impossible that no one would even dare accuse you of it.
Back then it was my unexpected little gay story versus the babies and weddings and GAA narrative of my tribe. I didn’t stand a chance. It was not that they were hostile to me exactly; they just didn’t have room for me in the story. And the Irish are all about stories. Growing up in Ireland showed me you can become trapped in stories, your own or your nations, Ireland taught me that stories can be snares.
So these days I have a profound respect for anyone who tries to get a word in, particularly if powerful forces have prevented from doing so in the past. It takes guts of a kind rarely seen to clear your throat and stand up for yourself at the best of times, but it’s doubly so when almost everyone would prefer to shut you up. So, irate commentators, do your worst. If you can’t bear to hear gay people talk about their ongoing plight then either help them win their full equality or get out of their way.
60 comments
Next
Page 1 of 5 pages
helmet365 | Dec 27, 2011, 04:49 AM EST
Don't lose sleep over the Church they have had their day and going down hill fast as it is built on man made rules, God has got nothing to do with it. This and other issues will be normal in a very short time as shown in the past. We make the changes they go along with them or they close down. The Church must change or die. It is happening so fast now and they know it. Notice they spend most of their time apoligizing for past mistakes.
Report abuse
JOHNTOBIN | Dec 20, 2011, 05:43 PM EST
I agree with the comments made by IowaMike.As a further point of interest,in my own country Australia the sister of a prominent member of the Australian Labor Party Federal Goverment resigned from being a member of the Labor Party because she did not agree with some of its policies favourable to Homosexual Marriage,to use her own words.It was widely reported in the Press here and the torrent of abusive comments that were made by sections of the pro Gay lobby was sickening.Mark my words,if the extreme left gain power the rights of other people who disagree with them will be trampled on.
Report abuse
hollabackgurl | Jul 13, 2011, 12:13 AM EDT
It's historically inaccurate to claim that the original 'intention of marriage' was the mutual love of one man and one woman. Love was, historically, not a factor in the majority of cases - property and inheritance were (and in many cultures still are). It was a binding legal union for the benefit of many, not just the two principals. Romantic love, as we understand it, is a historically new addition (and still not a consideration in the majority of world culture).
Report abuse
seamusdenais | Jul 12, 2011, 08:56 PM EDT
He who has not sinned should not cast the first stone. I've good friends who are gay.
Report abuse
barneyjo | Jul 10, 2011, 10:02 AM EDT
I just love the fact that Arch-Bishop Dolan is the latest in a long line of pompus princes of the church that have been humbled by God, and yet they neither feel or show any sense of contrition for their pitiful and failing attempts to denegrate a section of humanity which God called them to love and minister to ( or maybe not!!!!!)
Report abuse
barneyjo | Jul 10, 2011, 10:02 AM EDT
I just love the fact that Arch-Bishop Dolan is the latest in a long line of pompus princes of the church that have been humbled by God, and yet they neither feel or show any sense of contrition for their pitiful and failing attempts to denegrate a section of humanity which God called them to love and minister to ( or maybe not!!!!!)
Report abuse
rugbyplayer | Jul 08, 2011, 09:43 AM EDT
I said it before, R.C. Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York is a pompous, arrogant and mean-spirited man. He should not be the R.C. Archbishop of New York. The best cardinal NY had was the late and much beloved Terence Cardinal Cooke. Send Dolan to the Vatican where all the other hard-nosed bishops work on a daily basis to upset things.
Report abuse
errigal | Jul 07, 2011, 10:25 AM EDT
CONGRAULATIONS.
Report abuse
eiriamach | Jul 05, 2011, 06:09 PM EDT
Many of the ancients-- read Plato's Symposium dialogue, for example-- respected homosexual relationships and gave them legal protections, Phaenius. We can cite texts on both sides of the question, so ancient discussions of homosexuality are not decisive on this issue. I do not understand your comment about "self-evident": what do you think is self-evident about same-sex marriage? What's self-evident to me is that the state ought not to discriminate if it sets up a legal apparatus for marriage and gives any special status to married couples. The same status should be available to all. Gay orientation, bisexuality, heterosexuality-- these are all "normal." So I do not know what you mean by "normalize the gay death style." The rest of your recent post also befuddles me-- the letters of the Greek alphabet are very different from those of the Roman alphabet that the medieval Germanic language we call English uses. In any case, what is the relevance of citing this person or that person who would not condone the freedom of a gay person to make the same kinds of choices and have the same political and social status as heterosexuals? Nothing you've written constitutes an objection to anything in the article above, nor does anything you've written add up to an argument against same-sex marriage.
Report abuse
Phaenius | Jul 05, 2011, 05:06 PM EDT
Why eiriamach, I do declare...what do you ever mean "What is Phaenius going on about?" It does not help to have an artifact of a discussion that has been pulled because the content is too self evident and even plausible to completely destroy your attempts to normalize the gay death style. I doubt even Phaenius Farsaidh the pagan scythian that created the script for the people the Hebrews got their language and script from, and became the basis for the ALPHA BET of the Greeks, and that of the English, much of that which is found in my very comment, would have condoned recognizing the gay lifestyle as normal. At least one of his descendents TUATHAL the Legitimate, understood what is right in society.
Report abuse
errigal | Jul 05, 2011, 09:27 AM EDT
Hi
Report abuse
maloney | Jul 04, 2011, 05:23 PM EDT
A wee bit defensive are we hollowbutt? I was stating the facts, not hoping for anything. "Good luck bigots" is what I would expect from you though. Showing your true colors as usual.
Report abuse
eiriamach | Jul 03, 2011, 08:41 AM EDT
What is Phaenius going on about? There seems to be no rhyme or reason to it.
Report abuse
eiriamach | Jul 02, 2011, 12:33 PM EDT
In any nation where state civil law regulates marriage, marriage is the equal right of all citizens of the state. I don't know what "absolute right" can possibly mean, if it means anything at all outside of a hair-splitting religious doctrine. But I do know that marriage is a civil right which ought to be equally available to all consenting, competent adults-- mixed sex, same sex-- equally available to all. If religious organizations wish to discriminate against some types of couples, they have the right to do so, but the state has no right to sanction discrimination under civil law. It's wrong to discriminate; the papal encyclical Gaudium et Spes calls "every form of discrimination" rejected by God: "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 only moral issue at stake in NY State's passing marriage equality into law is respect for equal freedom, privacy, and dignity, and NOT any "matters religious." Therefore, it's wrong to try to impose any religious sect's criteria for matrimony on the law of the state, which govern us all.
Report abuse
Next
Page 1 of 5 pages
60 Comments

Report abuse