61 Comments

• bigladdy | Dec 28, 2011, 09:20 PM EST

  know what ireland was like in the seventies , thought your article very informative, excellent, keep up the good work.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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).

• 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.

• 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!!!!!)

• 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!!!!!)

• 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.

• errigal | Jul 07, 2011, 10:25 AM EDT

  CONGRAULATIONS.

• 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.

• 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.

• errigal | Jul 05, 2011, 09:27 AM EDT

  Hi

• 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.

• eiriamach | Jul 03, 2011, 08:41 AM EDT

  What is Phaenius going on about? There seems to be no rhyme or reason to it.

• 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.

• Gearoid4 | Jul 02, 2011, 12:27 AM EDT

  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.

• eiriamach | Jul 01, 2011, 12:36 PM EDT

  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.

• hollabackgurl | Jul 01, 2011, 10:03 AM EDT

  Helllooo. How many gay people does God have to create before you realize he wants them around?

• IowaMike | Jul 01, 2011, 09:46 AM EDT

  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.

• hollabackgurl | Jun 30, 2011, 11:25 PM EDT

  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.

• maloney | Jun 30, 2011, 07:01 PM EDT

  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.

• barneyjo | Jun 30, 2011, 12:24 PM EDT

  @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!!

• hollabackgurl | Jun 30, 2011, 09:22 AM EDT

  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.

• grimchieftain | Jun 30, 2011, 04:31 AM EDT

  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.

• Rebelforce | Jun 30, 2011, 12:12 AM EDT

  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.

• JimMcGarity | Jun 29, 2011, 11:33 PM EDT

  Guess you will find out someday who was wrong.

• Gearoid4 | Jun 29, 2011, 11:30 PM EDT

  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.

• eiriamach | Jun 29, 2011, 10:27 PM EDT

  "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.

• eiriamach | Jun 29, 2011, 08:58 PM EDT

  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.

• Gearoid4 | Jun 29, 2011, 08:24 PM EDT

  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.

• Gearoid4 | Jun 29, 2011, 08:03 PM EDT

  Freedom is very fine as long as we know how to use it. Liberty in itself is good as long as we do not see it as a license to try to overturn the tried and tested,received wisdom that has been handed down to us through the generations. In this case the wisdom is that marriage between one man and one woman is the irreplaceable cornerstone of society. At our peril, we tamper with this, using the pretext of extending 'human rights' or 'freedom' to other types of relationships. Where do we draw the line? Do we include other relationships that are now rightly seen as taboo e.g brother and sister liaisons? I'm not being alarmist but simply demonstrating that once we include certain set-ups within the umbrella of marriage, what is to stop legislation being passed to bring in others? We are not living in the antebellum period in the US where slavery was an accepted practice in certain states. How do we measure the value of a child? In Catholic Christianity we do not see this in purely materialistic terms i.e financial worries but as God's gift to the married couple.

• eiriamach | Jun 29, 2011, 07:51 PM EDT

  And natural law is not based on "our natural instincts." The "natural instinct" of slave masters, for example, was to sell the children of their slaves. They thought that the parents would have an incentive to escape to freedom if they had children. Also, slave owners did not want their wives to see the children that resulted from the owners' rapes of female slaves. No one can say that those were good instincts, yet generations of slave owners followed them. Human beings have all kinds of 'disordered' instincts about families. Natural law requires that we think through to find principles that can guide us toward progress. Marriage equality is in harmony with natural law though it may not match up with everyone's "natural instincts."

• eiriamach | Jun 29, 2011, 07:22 PM EDT

  No, Gearoid4, I did not say that change is always positive. Too often, child bearing choices are limited by lack of money or the disappearance of a partner. Our idea of "family" must change to deal with challenges. Generations of slaves in the USA brought children into the world even though they knew those children would literally "belong" to a slave owner and would not be 'family' for them. They lived in hope that their descendants would find the freedom to have 'family.' The point I'm trying to make is that freedom is the cornerstone we build on as a species. So the great pitfall, our worst temptation, is to use law or any other means to limit each other's freedom. It's too easy with our limited human judgment to make a mistake. For many centuries, popes wrote that the duty of slaves was to obey their masters. Not until the 19th century did a pope condemn slavery as sinful though it always was a sin. If you can find a scripture passage where Jesus condemns homosexuality or tells the disciples to work to get a law forbidding same-sex marriage, tell us where it is! On my reading, however, Christ taught us the "freedom of the children of God." In other words, we need to think and decide what is good rather than passing laws that impose any one idea of 'good' because those who have the natural law in their hearts can benefit most from the freedom to follow it. Jesus never recommended using the law of the state to try to limit anyone's freedom, quite the contrary.

• Gearoid4 | Jun 29, 2011, 06:24 PM EDT

  Yes, Lokionline, the natural law is how society organizes itself according to acceptable precepts as evidenced by our natural instincts. Marriage has been organized on that basis for well nigh on 2000 years across different creeds, cultures and ethnic groups. It is not only my 'brand of religion' as you call it that thinks like this. Other major monotheistic religions like Judaism and Islam have beliefs along the same lines. Eiriamach, So you think that the constant, confusing re-configuration of families 'change and develop' in line with modern modes is positive? Children born of surrogate mothers who do not know who to call 'mother' and living in a set-up with a couple of the same sex. You may call my idea of natural law 'weird' but it is based on observable phenomena that recent studies have shown to be the best arrangement for the future prospects of children, namely marriage between a single man and a single woman. The Church endorses it because it works and we can see how this parallels how the young are raised in the rest of the animal kingdom.

• jacersagain | Jun 29, 2011, 06:14 PM EDT

  Sorry, olovely – that’s a crass stupid comment. People can get married anywhere in the world without spending a single cent. Las Vegas works to take any stoopid person’s last cent and still make them believe that they have won. I think Gearoid4 made the simplest yet profound truthful statement. He forgot (or chose in humility not) to add that Jesus is the Son of God and therefore of God and therefore God personified. Lookit – there is a reason why there’s a speed limit sign in everybody’s neighbourhood or open roads: it’s too dangerous for all, including ourselves and our children, to go beyond it. That’s why the Church (indeed all Churches) will never lose its arguments against what is patently wrong. Cahir is off his rocker again. Sorry, Cahir – do come back to reality and to Jesus’ love for you and throw that most horrible Satan out of your life (yes, that means your partner of 14 yrs who has led you up the Swanny River for the last 14 yrs of yr life; bring him home to yr mammy or daddy – both of whom will be glad to give you and him a good red-neck for yr stoopidity of being so gullible).

• eiriamach | Jun 29, 2011, 06:02 PM EDT

  Lokionline, thanks. I'm enjoying your debate with Gearoid4! (You're clearly winning.)

• lokionline | Jun 29, 2011, 05:57 PM EDT

  Well said eiriamach! I couldn't agree more...

• eiriamach | Jun 29, 2011, 05:49 PM EDT

  Lokionline asks about "gay agenda," "Could someone who has used that term please explain to me what the 'Agenda' is?" I do not use this term because it is clearly a loaded term. It seems to me that the people who use it are trying to suggest a conspiracy theory, such as that gays and lesbians are trying to "take over" something that belongs to heterosexuals. I can't think of anything that "belongs" to one group to the exclusion of the other, can you?

• lokionline | Jun 29, 2011, 05:46 PM EDT

  Gearoid4, you wrote: "The 'Natural law' is observable in terms of our instinctive reactions to certain modes of behavior and thinking. The traditional idea of a married man and woman raising a family seems to be the most natural thing in the world". The words 'instinctive', and 'seems' are very relevant in this statement. What seems instinctive to you is apparently not instinctive to a great many other people and what seems to be the most natural thing in the world to you does not seem to be the only natural way to be in the world to a great many others. When will you get over thinking that you and those that share your opinions have any business interfering in the lives of those of us who disagree with the premises and assumptions on which you base your arguments.

• lokionline | Jun 29, 2011, 05:38 PM EDT

  Well Gearoid4, I guess we can leave you to worry about the relevance of the "Keys of Peter". Those of us who think the "authority of Peter" is a peculiar idea, relevant only to those who remain in the catholic church will just get on with our lives and leave you and your fellow catholics to worry about all that 'authority' stuff, that you seem to like so much. Just don't try to impose your version of authority on the rest of us and we will get along fine, that includes claiming that the term and idea of marriage somehow belongs only to religion and your own particular brand of religion at that. What an idea! I think the concept of marriage predates your little cult by a few hundred thousand years.

• eiriamach | Jun 29, 2011, 05:37 PM EDT

  Gearoid4, If you think human nature belongs to a different category than Nature-nature (like little crawly things and green growing things), then you really shouldn't define natural law in terms of instinct. You wrote, "The 'Natural law' is observable in terms of our instinctive reactions to certain modes of behavior and thinking. The traditional idea of a married man and woman raising a family seems to be the most natural thing in the world. A same-sex couple with a family born through surrogate mothers cannot replace or compete with that perennial model of family life." *Your* instincts, and your sense of "natural thing" maybe, but these are not my instincts or sense of "natural" and not those of most Americans, IMO. And why would you think that gays are trying to "replace or compete with" Mom/Dad-type families? Our ideas about what "family" can be are not straight-jacketed by tradition. We have *human* nature: unlike the rest of Nature, we can change and develop and extend our humanity and our notions of "family." Our idea of natural law began, as far as we can trace it, in ancient Greece, in literature and philosophy. We're still working on it because we, and sometimes Nature-nature, change (consider global warming as an example of Nature changing). I don't know where you got your weird idea of natural law from, but it's not what most people mean by natural law. It sounds like religion to me, and it's a good idea to keep that separate from law (church-state separation).

• stanJames | Jun 29, 2011, 05:21 PM EDT

  NY did the right thing - society gets endless benefits from people forming stable family relationships. But why does the church so oppose gays being treated equally? Because they need a victim which gives them ammunition to rile up their people and divert attention from their own endless crimes. see the links........... http://jurist.org/paperchase/2011/01/milwaukee-archdiocese-files-for-bankruptcy.php Jan 2011 (Endless hidden molestation of children that happened in DOLANS former diocese. http://www.philadelphiadistrictattorney.com/images/Grand_Jury_Report.pdf this is link to Philadelphia grand jury report on catholic church abuse. More horrible results then one could imagine, including kids ending up as mental patients in institutions. Around the world................. http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1992502_1992500,00.html 9 sexual abuse scandals around the world by the church. Includes Ratzinger involvement in the cover up

• Gearoid4 | Jun 29, 2011, 04:39 PM EDT

  Well O'Lovely, it seems that you are the one that is confused. My remark was in the context of a legalized union being a suitable compromise to guarantee the rights of couples rather than marriage which is reserved for one man and one woman. Marriage is a sacred bond in religious terms but it's redefinition in secular terms will not have an inconsiderable effect on how it is regarded. As for your flippant remark regarding my reference to Peter's authority, it is a mandate that has had relevance in all succeeding centuries from the time Christ gave it up until the present.

• Gearoid4 | Jun 29, 2011, 04:32 PM EDT

  I think that you are the one that is confused O'Lovely in relation to the point that I'm making. The unions in question are called 'marriages' if though this is within a secular and not strictly religious context. My point is that a union could have been an honorable compromise and it would not have undermined the definition of marriage. As for your flippant remark about my reference to the Keys of Peter, it is a mandate that has had a relevance through all the centuries right up to the present.

• olovely | Jun 29, 2011, 04:12 PM EDT

  Did you know you can get married for $25 bucks in Vegas Geroid4? Banging on about the Keys of Authority to Peter makes you sound like a blast of the 15 century. In any case you're talking about religious unions not legal ones. Try to keep them separate in your head dear heart, you'll be less likely to confuse yourself.

• Gearoid4 | Jun 29, 2011, 03:44 PM EDT

  Marriage is not an absolute right for anyone and one cannot simply redefine it by trying to make it pertinent to other relationships which it never had any connection to. The institution of marriage has always been to ceremoniously seal the love of one man and one woman with an openness to begin a family. 'Same Sex' relationships do not fit that criteria and simply cannot be shoe-horned into the category marriage. A legalized union with all the concomitant rights belonging to a couple would have sufficed. The 'Natural law' is observable in terms of our instinctive reactions to certain modes of behavior and thinking. The traditional idea of a married man and woman raising a family seems to be the most natural thing in the world. A same-sex couple with a family born through surrogate mothers cannot replace or compete with that perennial model of family life. Lokionline, your disparaging description of the Catholic Church as a 'rather less-than-ancient cult' betrays the impoverishment of your history and theology. The Church goes way back to it's Founder, Jesus Christ who gave the Keys of Authority to Peter(Simeon).

• lokionline | Jun 29, 2011, 03:38 PM EDT

  I notice a lot of reference to the 'Gay Agenda' in these posts. Could someone who has used that term please explain to me what the 'Agenda' is? All I see are folks who would like to live their lives without the state,or worse... a religion, interfering with their happiness. Perhaps like Bishop Dolan you think homosexuals are trying to turn the US into a totalitarian communist country? Well... I am afraid that any reasonable person can see - that argument is just an inflammatory position and those who express it should be doubly ashamed. Once for standing in the way of the love and happiness of your fellow humans and secondly for defaming a group with comments that are patently hateful and inaccurate.

• lokionline | Jun 29, 2011, 03:26 PM EDT

  I really love (not) that term 'Natural Law'. As lifelong observer of nature with a degree in biology to give me some perspective and a love of learning. I have noticed that nature is anything but opposed to animals of the same sex combining for mutual support in relationships that could be described as 'marriage'. The 'Natural Law' that the catholic church keeps talking about is the invention of their rather less-than-ancient cult and is a very man-made idea. By the way... mrkennedy, did you know that Capital letters in a post means you are shouting? Who do you think listens to a man who shouts?

• MarcoLuxe | Jun 29, 2011, 03:18 PM EDT

  Nice article; thoughtful and accurate. To CitizenWhy: The religious carve-outs or exemptions to the marriage equality law is a red herring. The 1st Amendment already protects religious organizations from government intrusion for all but the most extreme cases, as even peyote use in not illegal for bona fide religious purposes. All those "necessary" exemptions are redundant. Religions can discriminate in their core religious practices. However, if a church operates a business, it must follow generally applicable non-discrimination laws.... and why shouldn't they!

• eiriamach | Jun 29, 2011, 03:03 PM EDT

  Dolan has a warped (mis)understanding of natural law. Human laws *need* an objective basis, and in a pluralist society, that basis is generally natural law. But natural law is not the same as Dolan's catechism. He should read Dr. Martin Luther King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail," where King asks, "How does one determine whether a [human] law is just or unjust? A just law ... squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is ... out of harmony with the moral law." By "moral law or the law of God," he means natural law, the same thing Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by Nature or Nature's God with inalienable-- and equal-- rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness and that the primary duty of government is to protect these rights. While not everyone would agree on all principles of natural law, King recognized several: 1) human law must promote human dignity and not damage the human personality, 2) human law must pertain equally to all: no individual or group is above or outside the law, 3) we have the right to consent to the civil laws that demand our obedience (gov't must give a voice/ vote to the people), 4) law must provide for freedom of conscience-- the right to disobey & work to change unjust laws, 5) no group may use law to deprive any other group of equal rights to life, liberty, and happiness (e.g., segregation law, prohibition, or restriction of marriage to heterosexuals). Dolan would have violated natural law by imposing a 'law' of his religion in place of the civil laws we need in a diverse society. And Cahir's probably right about why he'd do that.

• SCVMal | Jun 29, 2011, 01:03 PM EDT

  The Church did lose - severely! Not ALL of their demands were incorporated into the final law (Thank God)! Cahir, you are a well-researched and thought out writer and a wonderful spokesperson for those who happen to be gay. Go plan that wedding, and my creator God bless you both with a lifetime of joy, happiness, love and inspiration. Slainte!

• SingleDonald | Jun 29, 2011, 12:50 PM EDT

  PhlutiePhan, It is very true that children are a great by-product of heterosexual union. However, the sex act itself should never be limited to pro creation. It is also an expression of love, affection & communication, between the two partners. I have already said that Jesus was wrong if he meant Matthew, 5:28 to be taken literally. If he wants to send people who engage in sexual fantasies to hell, he has a serious problem, and is nothing but an ego-maniac control freak. I don't believe Him to be that way, but if he is, I boldly say: "Donald -Right; Jesus-Wrong", concerning human sexuality! A benign deity will cut humankind more slack, and not concern Himself with such mundane things as sexual thoughts, and healthy sexual interactions.

• Somerville | Jun 29, 2011, 12:07 PM EDT

  Great piece, Mr. O'Doherty, By the way, Trelach, lesbians have been breastfeeding babies for a while now. Readers might want to read more about the RC church and the equal marriage legislation at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-somerville/new-york-marriage-equality_b_884969.html

• John G. Hogan | Jun 29, 2011, 11:40 AM EDT

  I am going to let HIMSELF be the judge of who won and who lost!!!

• PhlutiePhan | Jun 29, 2011, 11:39 AM EDT

  The Catholic Church traces its orgin back to Jesus Christ who happened to be a Jewish rabbi. Children are the basis of society based on the natural law. "License" is not society. The sexual act is not the basis of society. Children because of the sexual act is the basis of society. Let gays have their "civil unions". AB Dolan only defends the "natural law" as ordained by God through his messenger-Son. Charlton Heston and Moses both said the same. The Red Sea was the result for those that opposed Moses.

• TexasGal | Jun 29, 2011, 11:26 AM EDT

  God never makes mistakes man does and in the beginning God make one man and one women. And God will judge the world not man and God will judge sin not man. If the church stands with Gods word it will never lost its way. And NATURAL LAW give me a brake moron!

• kilgara | Jun 29, 2011, 11:01 AM EDT

  You are assumming that people are born gay. Many, if not most people,believe that gay is a lifestyle choice fueled by a heavily gay mass media.The N.Y. Daily News poll showed well over 80% of respondents disapprove of the so called gay marriage bill. The thought that these throughly corrupt jokers can change the natural law is laughable.

• jamieLM | Jun 29, 2011, 10:52 AM EDT

  Iowa legalized gay marriage on April 3, 2009. Overall, it's been a non-issue among most Iowans. Some of the newspapers are printing engagement and wedding pictures and "write-ups" of gay/lesbian couples along with straight couples. Life has gone on.

• hollabackgurl | Jun 29, 2011, 10:50 AM EDT

  That's a very thoughtful post and I like CitizenWhy's reply too. But I do think the Church has lost the argument if not its legal application, quite. New York was a turning point for wider legal equality and the nation knows it.

• joan1954 | Jun 29, 2011, 10:18 AM EDT

  I think the situation is that people don't like the issue being forced down their throats. If anything, the activists need to tone down their rhetoric.

• CitizenWhy | Jun 29, 2011, 10:05 AM EDT

  The Church didn't actually lose, although it thinks it has. The New York legislation legalizing gay marriage was written as a model of how to protect religious groups who do not accept gay marriage from coercion and from discrimination law suits for refusing to marry gays or let their facilities be used for gay marriages. In addition, if a court invalidates any part of the law then the entire law is abrogated. This is extraordinarily well thought to be fair to both sides. Since gay marriages will become inevitable, the church has actually won by getting these protections. Other states can copy the NY law.