Manhattan Diary


Church lost on gay marriage because they’re wrong

Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2011 at 10:09 AM

RSS


Recent Posts

Archives

submit to reddit

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.


60 comments

Next Previous Page 2 of 5 pages
Marriage is not an absolute right for everyone who desires it i.e recognized criteria which is union between one man and one woman and open to life. As the saying goes, if it walks like a duck, if it quakes like a duck, then it is a duck. No law can redefine something into what it isn't.
So IowaMike thinks that it's OK for 95-98% of the population to make the relationships of 2-5% of the population illegal? Actually, the gay/lesbian population is much larger than IowaMike thinks it is, but the size of the group is irrelevant. The majority does not have the right to trample on the rights of the minority. If it did have that right, discrimination against immigrants-- "No Irish Need Apply" signs and other tyrannies of the majority-- would happen every day; if it did, African American children would still be in segregated schools and their parents prohibited from using "Whites Only" drinking fountains, rest rooms, and lunch counters; we'd still have prohibition of alcoholic beverages by Constitutional amendment, which the majority voted for every time it was put to a vote, etc. On matters of basic civil rights, we've learned the lesson of giving the majority that kind of power. If you don't like it, you have the right not to do it, but not the right to prevent someone else from doing it until and unless it interferes with your right to have the kind of relationships you prefer.
Helllooo. How many gay people does God have to create before you realize he wants them around?
Interesting....I see bashing of Archbishop Dolan, the Catholic Church, anyone who dares speak against gay marriage and homosexual relationships. Those in favor of homosexual marriage et al support their views using rationalistic arguments. They twist the meaning of Natural Law insisting that they are a product of nature....helllloooo. The author of life is God not nature and it's God's law that you'll be accounting to one day. Surprisingly what's missing in this comment stream is references to His word.... let me help: Lv 18:22, Lv 20:13, 1 Cor 6:9, 1 Tim 1:9-10, Rom 1:27 and I could go on. Homosexuals are estimated to be 2-5% of the population, homosexual marriage is all about the tail wagging the dog.
Well, the NY Assembly passed the Marriage Equality Act by a vote of 80-63 and the Senate passed it by a vote of 33-29. To reverse this bill opponents would have to replace at least 18 pro-equality Assembly members and 3 pro-equality Senators (incumbents all) with anti-equality challengers, get a majority of both chambers to approve a proposed amendment, maintain the anti-equality majorities through another election, then get the majority of both chambers to vote anti-equality for a second time. Then the question would go to the voters, who already overwhelmingly support marriage equality. Good luck, bigots. So no, they won't be gone in 2012.
Six states are pro-gay marriage. 31 states still against it. Still a high mountain to climb. The 2010 elections in the 6 states saw many pro judges voted out of office. The NY Repub. politicians who voted for it are now under attack. They may be gone in 2012.
@anybody - Someone once said "Truth will set you free" but of course that implies that you are willing to experience that truth in the first place, whether it be about Gay rights,the lies and inaction of the Catholic Church in respect of clerical sex abuse, or the refusal of strands of Irish Republicanism to accept that "their day has come" and they are now doing harm to the very cause they espouse. Truth is truth, be it in the State Legislature, the Vatican or on the streets of Northern Ireland!!
Because grimchieftain, and I expect this will surprise you, there are people who are Irish who are also gay. Now take a seat somewhere and come to terms with it. And, as the writer here says, if you don't want to help them achieve legal equality then just get out of their way.
Why is an Irish news site becoming the mouthpiece for a people-group who don't even amount to 5% of the worlds population? I want to read about Ireland...I get enough gay propaganda from liberal U.S. news stories.
Bigots were very upset when whites and blacks were allowed to legally marry in the USA but eventually, reluctantly, they came to accept interracial marriage because they had no choice. Racial attitudes in America had changed. It's the same with gay marriage. The bigots will whine, moan and groan and predict the end of the world, but eventually they will have to accept the inevitable because they have no choice. Gay rights have been embraced by the elites as a human and civil rights issue. The bigots will inevitably lose many more battles in favor of gay rights in the years to come, so they had better get used to it.
Guess you will find out someday who was wrong.
Sociologists like the eminent Steven Nock, a University of Virginia professor found the conclusions and methodology employed by the authors of such studies wanting on a number of levels. He explained it thus: "..Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that 1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research...." It has been noticed that a lot of the literature which is pro-same sex marriage tends to compare single lesbian mothers with single heterosexual mothers and this does not deal with the outcomes of children raised with a mother and father to children raised from birth by same-sex couples in terms of comparison. Also the pro-same sex marriage literature also does not feature representative sample data concerning the long-term outcome of children raised by a same-sex couple.
"It's more about the quality of the parenting than the gender of the parents," says Prof. Judith Stacey of NYU, who co-authored an international study published in Journal of Marriage and Family (Jan. 2010). Sharon Jayson reviewed Stacey's work in "USA Today." Other studies show that children growing up with same-sex parents are not more likely than others to become lesbian or gay. Their behavior, however, is less modeled on traditional male or female gender roles. I consider this a healthy development. Other studies show that children in same-sex homes are far less likely to be abused by their parents than those in hetero homes. We should be more concerned about lesbian and gay children living with heterosexual parents because they may lack support for their orientation. A study by Mark Hatzenbuehler of Columbia Univ., published on April 18 in Pediatrics journal, shows that "of nearly 32,000 11th-grade students in Oregon ... LGB youth were more than five times as likely to have attempted suicide in the previous 12 months, as their heterosexual peers (21.5 percent vs. 4.2 percent).... Hatzenbuehler found that LGB youth living in a social environment that was more supportive of gays and lesbians were 25 percent less likely to attempt suicide than LGB youth living in environments that were less supportive." This is an urgent reason to change laws that discriminate against homosexuals with regard to marriage and adoption since such laws make intolerance the norm.
Gearoid4, what studies are you referring to when you claim that children raised by heterosexual husbands and wives are better off? It's true that the increasing number of children raised by mothers alone are often disadvantaged by poverty. One solution to that problem, however, is for fathers to be responsible enough to stay with their families at least until the children are grown. The studies I've seen of children raised by same-sex couples show that they are not disadvantaged. From webmd's synopsis: "The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual.... In some ways [they] actually may have advantages over other family structures." Ellen Perrin, MD, professor of pediatrics at Tufts, has studied such children over many years. One advantage they have is that they are generally open-minded and can get along with many different kinds of people. And there is no reason to think that same-sex marriage will lead to legal incest or child marriage in Western countries. We have dealt with such cases already and made polygamy illegal even though a large religious group practiced it. We see the harmful consequences of Asian child brides dying in childbirth. We are in no danger of sliding into an "anything goes" mentality with regard to marriage, so perhaps you should worry less and give creative thinking a try. We can always improve on our past.
Eiriamach, I don't quite see how your analogy concerning a slave owner who sells the children of his slaves or hides the children produced by rape enlightens the present debate. Indeed you are right that the above instances show a debased instinct but these are not natural in relation to how we understand a functional, civilized society. I think that I should have clarified the connection between the laws of nature and what was termed our 'natural instincts'. The laws of nature relate to the pre-ordained order of our environment(nature if you will) which influences our thoughts, culture and morals. Our 'natural instincts' tell us that for example murder, raping, cheating etc are wrong and thus this is reflected in our laws and in our hearts. But instincts can range from bad to good and we violate these laws once we are influenced by evil. Since childhood I've come to understand both through religious and societal attitudes that families are bested reared by a husband and wife in a marital union. It is not simply my opinion but a legacy of centuries of empirical belief as well as spiritual wisdom which has still not been bettered.
Next Previous Page 2 of 5 pages




Log into IrishCentral with your Facebook account


or sign-in directly

E-Mail:
Password:
 Remember me Forgot my password
Not a member? Register Now!
print this article Print
email this articleE-mail