Archdiocese plans anti-gay marriage committees in every Minnesota Catholic church

someone needs to remind these people that the usa is a democracy- NOT a theocracy.

I am not a Catholic. I do not want Catholic beliefs imposed on me. I’m not Muslim, I don’t want Muslim beliefs imposed on me. I’m not Jewish. or Hindi. Or Greek Orthodox. Or Wiccan.

When are religious people (I’m one, sort of) going to “get” that their ability/right to impose their beliefs on others pretty much stinks.

No religion is required to marry anyone, much less a gay couple. If you don’t want to marry gay people or left-handed people or blonds, then have a religious belief that says you don’t. But that doesn’t mean blondes shouldn’t be able to go to a courthouse and get married. Or left-handed people, or gay people.

Sympathetic joy is when we take delight in the happiness of another instead of begrudging it. Can we allow the lives of others to be different from ours and feel happy for them? Can we rejoice for them as their happiness grows? I do not believe that happiness is a limited resource, that the more someone else has, the less there is for me. I do not believe that heterosexuals have a monopoly on love and commitment. If Ellen Degeneres is happy in her same-sex marriage then I am happy for her too. I say, “Love the religious bigot, disagree with the religious bigotry.”

Interesting how there is no letter telling parish priests to stop molesting children and turn in those who have. Better to support an amendment to destroy families they don’t like. Just how far from the teachings of Christ is this “church” planning to go?

When will the government start treating the Catholic Church like the political organization that it is? End the tax exempt status already.

This is Thier Priority – the Catholic Church THINKS THIS IN NO#1??????? Excuse me- But diodn’t You JUST have a Hea dof your Mythical BS religion Arrested for Concealling KNOWN child mollestors, and this is your no#1 concern????
..or how about ALL those Empyting Food Banks, the Poverty, the poor, the Unemployed???? Ok MN people, you better remind the RCC to keep thier collective noses OUT of Politics….

The commenters so far seem to believe that the Church’s rights end at the sanctuary door. Sorry, but they have the concept of religious freedom backwards. This is not a religious issue, but a moral issue and everyone, including the Church has a right (even a duty) to organize in opposition to any initiative it believes undermines the moral integrity of our society.

The very notion that two men can “marry” is absurd and the Church is right to oppose it. The Church knows more than most the dark side of the gay rights movement as the priestly pedastery crisis was mostly comprised of homosexual predations upon post-pubescent boys. All the platitudes in the world cannot change these unpleasant facts.

Marriage is not a moral issue, it’s a civil rights issue first. Not too long ago skin color dictated which school or water fountain you could use. Again, its a CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE first.

If the Catholic church does not wish to recognize certain marriages, so be it. It already doesn’t recognize many other types of LEGAL marriages right now. One can choose whether or not to be a part of this faith and it’s beliefs.

But if they–The Catholic Church–decides to become politically affiliated with a proposition, they should loose their tax exempt status. Totally agree. There is a separation for a reason.

I am a Catholic, but I am not the Catholic that this particular leader is envisioning. I think we will soon find out that my faith & my catholic vision is shared by MANY.

Jesus would marry anyone, heal anyone, forgive anyone, love anyone, help anyone.

First of all, the Catholic church does not own marriage. They have no right to keep marriage from others that aren’t Catholic. They also do not have the right to define what a family is. Families come in all shapes and sizes. There are millions of children being raised in single-parent households. Yet I don’t hear the Catholic church condemning those parents, or trying to remove those children and putting them in two-parent homes. I’d also like the archbishop to prove that every straight person would make a better parent than every gay person. This is simply wishful thinking on the archbishops part, and has no basis in reality.

If you allow gay couples to marry, that will create MORE long-term monogamous relationships which will obviously be a benefit to society, not a detriment. By the way, nothing is stopping straight couples from getting married and starting families, if gay couples can ALSO marry. One has nothing to do with the other. So this hyperbole about the “family being at stake” is nothing but hogwash.

@ OedipusTex: The Catholic church doesn’t have the right to dictate to the rest of the country what it believes is moral and immoral. Our country is not a theocracy.

“The very notion that two men can “marry” is absurd”. You know what I find absurd? Rush Limbaugh getting married for the 4th time. I guess that whole “till death do us part” thing didn’t really stick, did it? Then there’s Newt Gingrich cheating on two of his wives, and getting married for a 3rd time, then condemning gay people for wanting to marry even once. TV shows where straight couples have a contest to see which one will get to marry the bachelor. Vegas weddings, where virtual strangers can get married by an Elvis impersonator. I also find it absurd that you want everyone to believe that marriage is this sacred union that is so special that only men and women can partake in it, when 50% of the time those marriages end in divorce. You also might want to keep in mind that NON-religious straight couples are legally permitted to marry in our country. So ANY religious argument against marriage equality is invalid, unless you plan on banning non-religious marriages too.

What exactly does child molestation have to do with marriage? Nothing. We are talking about two consenting adults that love each other. Child molestation is about having power over someone that is weaker than you. It has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the attacker or the victim. The idea that gay people are sexual predators is 100% false. The fact that people like you are still trying to sell those lies says more about you than gay people.

Contrary to popular liberal delusion, homosexuals are not a newly discovered race or sex. It is a lifestyle choice, just like smoking or drinking. We don’t pass laws to protect smokers and drinkers on the grounds that they were “born that way”. To the contrary, we restrict their rights to smoke in restaurants and to drive with a beer in their hand. It’s the same way with homosexuality. They have no right to force their lifestyle on the rest of us.

Vote *YES* on the Marriage Amendment in 2012.

Mary,
Christianity is a lifestyle choice too and has already been protected and restricted by the Constitution. You have no right to force your lifestyle on the rest of us.

The fact that you are voting on the Constitutional rights of fellow citizens should make you worry about when YOU and YOURS become the minority, which will certainly happen, albeit non too soon.

Could everyone keep MnIndy’s commenting policy in mind, please:

“Keep discussions respectful: Different viewpoints and opinions are welcome; personal attacks, threats of violence and obscenity are not.”

Hrm. I think anyone should be able to married. But, at least there only doing legal things. It’s like they know it’s a democracy not a theocracy.

The Time for being Nice to these Christo-facist is Long Over…….No one is dictating to them whom they can allow in thier church, or whom they can marry. But they don’t seem to have Nooooo problem trying to dictate to the rest of us FREE THINKING peoples and Our lives. We are NOT a Theocracy….don’t want a Gay Marriage, then don’t marry a gay person… see, easy.
there ARE 10′s of 1000′s of gay/lesbian cpls Married already in this country, and they aren’t going back in the closet, or giving Up thier marriages……so the RCC can Pound sand, and the RCC is gonna Find itself Once again on the WRONG side of History (like they usually do)..heck, you think they’d be worried about thier Mollestation problems, and litigation..the the GAZILLIONS they’re paying out to the Mollested….while still holding thier collective hands out for more $$, from the suckers who keep giving them money.

Oedipus Tex, freedom of religion is the freedom to practice religion as one sees fit, not to use the government to force one’s religion onto other people. Just as Muslims don’t have a right to use the law to force people to adhere to their religious beliefs, Catholics don’t have a right to use the law to force people to adhere to their religious beliefs either. Otherwise it’s not freedom if you’re forced to do it.

Mary,

By “popular liberal delusion” I’m assuming you mean “scientific consensus.” Even Ronald Reagan agreed it wasn’t a lifestyle choice. “Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual’s sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child’s teachers do not really influence this.” – Ronald Reagan, November 1, 1978

George W. Bush also admitted being gay was how someone was born and not a life-style choice. His administration’s stance on gay rights was because of politics and catering to the Right and nothing more.

Mary and OedipusTex, there is another reason to not support this amendment: there is already a ban on same-sex marriage in the state of Minnesota. Also, Oedipus, pedophilia and pederasty are two different concepts, and the pedophilic priests that committed the abuses were by and large straight-identifying, albeit supposedly celibate

As a gay Catholic, it truly saddens me to see the Church taking such action. It’s not so surprising, honestly, but to see our archbishop denying the dignity and humanity of a group of people is disheartening at least, and alienating at most. I have a feeling Harry Flynn wouldn’t have done the same call to arms against the GLBTQ community. But now that Nienstadt is in power, he’s taking the church back a few decades.

I’ll say it again, folks who state that homosexuals marrying is amoral and perverted should take a minute and ask themselves why they are so fixated on the family lives/sex lives of other individuals. To think that these folks are focusing their energies fixating on gay folks makes me sick. Get a life.

Churches are becoming just tax free political action committees. Keep your fairy tale gods and goddesses at home and out of our public life! Adults have civilization to advance.

This archbishop has no credibility whatsoever. His campaign to ratify this hate-inspired amendment will likely blow up in his face. In other words, if this clown recommends voting for it, sensible people will vote no. Simply because of him. I personally have not met any Catholics who would give Nienstedt the time of day (I’m one of them.) I’ve also met several priests who think he’s an incompetent boor. The basis of his homophobia remains a mystery to all. The Church really blew it on this appointment.

I wonder what Bishop Nienstedt’s boyfriend thinks about the bishop’s letter to the priests.

I look forward to the Catholic Church’s equally vigorous prosecution of divorce in America. No one should be allowed to divorce. It is bad for families, children, etc. Furthermore, divorced people should not be allowed to adopt. Nor should they have “special protection” under the law for their “lifestyle choice”. RIght? Right?

After all, no one knows what’s better for Minnesota families than a bunch of unmarried, sexless old men.

““I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ”. ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Mary seems confused.

She wrote,

“Contrary to popular liberal delusion, homosexuals are not a newly discovered race or sex.”

If Mary had any familiarity with gay and lesbian history AT ALL, she’d know that homosexuals have been around since recorded history and that they have been studied for many years as well. There are even scholars who argue that Jesus himself was gay and/or bisexual. See, for instance, The Man Jesus Loved:

http://www.amazon.com/man-jesus-loved-Theodore-Jennings/dp/082981535X

Mary also wrote,

“It is a lifestyle choice, just like smoking or drinking. We don’t pass laws to protect smokers and drinkers on the grounds that they were “born that way”. To the contrary, we restrict their rights to smoke in restaurants and to drive with a beer in their hand. It’s the same way with homosexuality.”

Merely repeating claim endlessly does not make it true. If I were to claim that Mary mercilessly beats children whenever she gets the chance, would this automatically make it true? No.

And lastly,

“They have no right to force their lifestyle on the rest of us.”

Mary, your analogy with smoking and drinking fails, since there’s nothing in same sex marriage that requires heterosexuals to–what?–engage in sex with gays and lesbians, or marry them, or?

Your statement “their lifestyle”, means exactly what? Is it the lifestyle of my gay friend G. who sings in a band and goes to work in finance every day? Or is it my bisexual friend C. who works in education and loves theater? These are very dangerous lifestyles, as you can well imagine.

Nienstedt: “The sanctity of marriage and vital role of the family is at stake.”

This is nothing more than fear-mongering and scapegoating–a self-assassination of any credibility he has left.

I assume Mary can tell us all about that special day when she decided whether to be homosexual or heterosexual and chose to be straight. What factors did you take into consideration, Mary? What made being straight so much better than being gay?

Or maybe you didn’t make the conscious decision, and you were, in fact, born that way? Just like everyone else.

I think one of the main reasons so many people are against gay marriage is not ONLY the fact that it is seen as immoral, but that gay marriage is just the tip of the social iceberg. If gay marriage is legalized, then people who do not accept it as morally legitimate will be forced to accept it in the workplace, with business “benefits” (health insurance, etc.) for gay spouses (increasing business costs), forced hiring/support for gay spouses by institutions like Catholic universities, churches, and even private businesses that are owned by Catholics (or anyone else, really, who does not support gay-marriage); all of these and more will be forced (yes, “forced”) to act against their consciences to support something they see are illegitimate and immoral.

Where’s the freedom in that?

The bigger issue is the fact that the United States of America is no longer a free nation. It appears that all people – left and right – are busting their buns, trying to get someone elected into office that will force their ideas down everyone else’s throats. Get government out of the way. There are PLENTY of religions that perform gay marriages; fine, whatever. I do not support gay marriage, but I cannot force people to stay out of it. AT THE SAME TIME, I detest the idea that I may be forced to accept it if it IS legalized.

Until people embrace freedom, including the freedom to EXCLUDE others (freedom of association), I support what the Catholic Church is doing.

I am not a sexually irresponsible atheistic materialist who cannot draw the most obvious biological conclusions on human sexuality, and do not want atheistic materialist dogma imposed on me. Get a life. By the way…as the 2006 Danish registry study indicates, homosexual attraction is strongly determined by family instability. It’s frankly bizarre to have to point out to people that the male body is not designed for sex with other males. If a person honestly can’t get past the inculturated values to see this obvious fact, it is unlikely that any rational argument will suffice.

The NARTH website addresses the issue of ‘born that way’ theory. This is not to say that homosexual attraction is chosen, but other disordered attractions aren’t ‘chosen’ either. That doesn’t make them healthy or ‘natural’. This is not to judge of condemn persons who find themselves attracted sexually to their own sex, but we move from the sublime to the ridiculous if one imagines ‘marriage’ has any relevance in the situation. Emotional satisfactions are insufficient grounds for insane attempts to redefineg reality. Marriage really isn’t just a temporary social contract between dudes. Ask a child.

PaulB – Well all my nephews and nieces most of whom were preteen when they met my partner were pretty under-whelmed by the idea of two dudes in a committed relationship. What is considered ‘normal’ is taught not instinct.

MN2Cents – I don’t think anywhere has ever been Free in the idealistic way you’re thinking. However if I was applying for a job at a company and they were not gay friendly I would just take my software engineering talents and go apply at the competition.

MN2cents,

Thanks for taking the time to express your view.

A couple replies if I may.

1) The freedom to discriminate based on marital status, race, religion, gender or age would presumably be allowed under your scheme. But note that this would be a gain in freedom, and a trivial one at that, only for those who wanted to discriminate. It would be a LOSS of freedom for those who were subject to discrimination.

2) I (and many others) view opposition to gay marriage as reflecting, not a legitimate moral stance, but simple irrational prejudice, analogous to, for instance, racist or sexist beliefs. We therefore tend to view attempts to stop same sex marriage as the enshrinement of prejudice into law.

Questions:

First, why should religious moral objections have any weight beyond moral stances based not on religion, but on things like lack of religion, pragmatic considerations, or political views? Why should religion be given veto power superior to any other basis for moral judgment? Christians have no inherently better moral judgment than non-Christians: Buddhists, atheists, Muslims, Mormons, pagans or Jews.

Second, why for instance should the cost of a covering a same sex marriage partner under a business insurance plan trump a basic right like the right to get married?

If same sex marriage is finally legalized, which it eventually will be in Minnesota, you’ll never be forced to accept it. Your business may be forced to not discriminate, but you can go on hating same sex marriage all you want and the law won’t stop you.

Lastly, you wrote, “… and even private businesses that are owned by Catholics.” Let’s be clear. There’s no such thing as THE Catholic moral stance on a great many things. Who speaks for Catholicism? Is it the Vatican, or Catholics in America? Conservative Catholics or liberal Catholics? What the institutional church believes or what polls show most Catholics believe and practice?

Who gives a big ____ if someone is born or makes a choice to be gay or straight! It doesn’t matter. What matters is “All Men Are Created Equal” and deserving of every single right as every other U.S. Citizen. It’s just that simple. Majorities have always kept minorities repressed but history has proven that the minority always rises to the top when equality is an issue. Don’t refer to “The Church” as if they are all in agreement on anything. I attend one of the largest churches in California and they totally support and encourage same sex marriages. I have yet to hear one person explain exactly how the marriage of two people of the same gender truly influences the marriage or family of someone else. This was the one question which could not be answered in the latest Federal Court Hearing of Prop 8 when asked to the Traditional Marriage Side. The Catholic church would be well advised to spend their time and money in cleaning their own house and let God judge us all.

To the extent that there is a right to marriage,it pertains only to opposite-sex relationships,as it is specifically by being opposite-sex that they offer the society in which they exist the benefit that entitles them to recognition as marriages.There is no public interest in the existence of same-sex sexual relationships and no benefit to society of giving them any sort of recognition or protection.
It is of no relevance whatsoever whether or not one can help feeling same-sex sexual attraction,one is responsible for what action one takes to gratify what attraction one feels,and honest reason requires admission that the only rational sexual relationships in a sexually dimorphic species are between individuals of opposite sexes and all others are to be deplored.

I am not religious and am largely liberal politically…this is not a religious issue.It’s simply absurd to treat desire to violate a standard of conduct as enrolling one in a protected class against which any public policy in favor of that standard is “discrimination”.The existence of opposite-sex sexual relationships is of enormous importance to human society and that of same-sex relationships unfortunate…their treatment as if of equal worth is inexcusable.

Only 22% of Catholics stand with their church leaders according to a random sampling of 3,013 U.S. households.
http://publicreligion.org/newsroom/2011/03/catholics-more-supportive-of-gay-and-lesbian-rights-than-general-public-other-christians/

@Steven J – I feel like I need a bumper sticker of some sort – “My Catholic Family Supports Their Transsexual Lesbian Witch Daughter.”

[...] the Minnesota Independent we find [...]

Hey MN2cents – No one is making you except anything……dont like same gender marriage…guess what? DON’T Mary someone of the same gender……and also, Gays and Lesbians ARE MARRIED…..10′s of 1000′s of cpls…..yep, they are….ewwww scarey…. Booo Boooo……………what affect are those marriages having on you? I’ll tell you…NONE….ZERO, ZIP, NADDA! Unless you’re invited to attend, and have to buy a gift…..guess what, NO AFFECT on You whatso-ever……..ahhh aint life grand. Now GROW UP

I admire the Archbishop for his actions. Many people tend to forget that the United States is a free nation; the Holy Catholic Church, the man on the street and everyone in-between are allowed to voice their opinions. Some people would like to shut the Holy Church up, they can try like the communists, the Nazis, tyrants and secularists but it will not work.

The Holy Catholic Church loves homosexuals, as God loves all so does the Church, let us not forget that. The Church is simply saying that though everyone has the right to be loved, a union between a man and a man, a woman and a woman is not a true marriage. Anyone can see that. The relationship between a man and a woman is different than a man and a man, women and a woman. A married couple has the potential for child birth; a homosexual does not for example.

Those who speak ill of the Holy Church do so with anger, wrath, disgust and hate. Please realize that these are the same people that are calling the Holy Church hateful and wrathful. Because the Holy Church is going against the tide and has a different view does not give liberty to such statements. To love a homosexual, to care for a homosexual does not mean lying to them and telling them they are truly married, rather it is helping them, supporting them and being with them that is the best display of love. Life is more difficult for a homosexual than a heterosexual, this is why we must love them and protect their dignity.

Dear friends, I ask that we speak of love and respect that those who hate the Holy Church learn to love the Holy Church, as the Church already loves you. Hate is evidence to a restless heart and a restless heart shall not rest until it rests with Thee oh Lord.

Pax tecum,

Christopher

- May Almighty God bless and keep all who comment. May their words be of charity, their heart be at peace, may they find freedom in Truth and rest with our Lord. For the Archbishop we pray, for his efforts we support, and for is holy orders we praise.

Mary Mother of God, ora pro nobis

Christopher; the commenters don’t seem to hate the church. They resent churchmen like Archbishop Nienstad, who should have lived in the 14th century, using the Church as a political action committee to cram their theology down people’s throats. Archbishop Nienstad should turn his attention to errant priests who can’t seem to contain their prurient sexual urges when dealing with little boys. Don’t confuse Churchmen with the Church. There have been too many over the years like Alexander VI, Cardinal Law, and others.

Note to all the hysterical Catholic hatrers and anti-religious posters: How is it that Catholics pushing against something is “imposing their views”, but atheists and political liberals pushing for the same thing is perfectly acceptable and even laudable? Expressing opinions is “imposing” and “forcing” when those opinions go against leftist ideology but ok when supporting them? Wow. Very interesting logic. Your bigotry and your logical inconsistency really shine.

POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK
considering the well known propensity of some Catholic priests for under-age boys, it is ridiculous for their church to point a finger at gays. Jesus Himself said “If any man should harm one of these little ones, it would be better if a great millstone were tied around his neck and he were cast into the sea.”
But their current Pope spent many years covering up for child molesters. he would simply re-assighn them to a different parish and a fresh supply of victims. This, after he was an ardent member of the Nazi Party and Hitler Youth!

Louis,

Your comments consist not of argumentation but mere assertion.

For instance,

—”To the extent that there is a right to marriage, it pertains only to opposite-sex relationships, as it is specifically by being opposite-sex that they offer the society in which they exist the benefit that entitles them to recognition as marriages.”

And what benefit would that be? You don’t explain.

—”There is no public interest in the existence of same-sex sexual relationships and no benefit to society of giving them any sort of recognition or protection.”

Another assertion without reasons to back it up.

A little bit later on in your comment you might inadvertently reveal to us what the actual basis of your moral objection is.

Leaving that aside for just a bit, you write,

—”It is of no relevance whatsoever whether or not one can help feeling same-sex sexual attraction, one is responsible for what action one takes to gratify what attraction one feels,and honest reason requires admission that the only rational sexual relationships in a sexually dimorphic species are between individuals of opposite sexes and all others are to be deplored.”

You seem to be big on the ‘rational’, and yet you don’t indicate how it is that homosexual attraction and sexual relationships must logically from sexual dimorphism. One wonders if you’ve ever troubled yourself to think that through. Nor does it logically follow that homosexuality should be “deplored.” You’re missing a premise or two that would enable you to make that judgment.

And here we get to the core of your ethical universe (or at least I’m willing to bet):

—”It’s simply absurd to treat desire to violate a standard of conduct…”

In other words, there are certain values that some or most people have. Therefore, these are the rules that everyone must follow. These rules don’t need rational examination into where they came from, who benefits from them and who or what they are designed to exclude, their ambiguities, their contradictions with other values, the possibility that these values might be reflective of prejudice or incomplete information, and so forth. These values somehow just exist out there in the world, timeless, absolute, handed down by authorities not to be questioned. No thinking is required. The Authority has ruled, and that’s sufficient. We all must follow.

Is that it or mostly it? Actually, there’s no point in me asking you if this is the case since the authoritarian follower who holds such a view is pretty much by definition incapable of putting critical distance between himself and his views.

phil,

You wrote,

“Note to all the hysterical Catholic hatrers and anti-religious posters: How is it that Catholics pushing against something is “imposing their views”, but atheists and political liberals pushing for the same thing is perfectly acceptable and even laudable? Expressing opinions is “imposing” and “forcing” when those opinions go against leftist ideology but ok when supporting them? Wow. Very interesting logic. Your bigotry and your logical inconsistency really shine.”

1) Show one instance of “hysterical Catholic hat[ing]” in these comments.

2) You mistake your own view of Catholicism for all Catholics when you write, ” How is it that Catholics pushing against…” There is no such thing as a single Catholic view on same sex marriage. You presume to speak for a univocal moral community, but it doesn’t exist.

3) Expressing opinions is not “imposing” or “forcing” at all. Where did you get this impression? Certainly not the comments on this page. It’s only when those views are translated into law that they become an imposition backed by the force of law. Your attempt to find an inconsistency in “leftist ideology” (there’s no singular such beast) is wanting for lack of evidence.

Whether or not gay people are born gay or not is totally irrelevant; frankly, I don’t care if it *is* a lifestyle choice! It still wouldn’t give us the right as a society to take away their CIVIL RIGHTS!
I mean, really? Does there need to be some scientific PROOF that someone in entitled to decency? Equality? Fairness? Based on who they love?

The federal gov’t needs to do it’s job and revoke the tax-exempt status of all religious institutions that act as political organizations. It’s in our Constitution people!

Eric, you are absolutely correct. While the Catholic Church may oppose marriage equality, majorities of Catholics support it, even as reported by the venerable Pew Forum. I have a strong suspicion this move is going to backfire twice, once against the Church as the Mormon support for Prop 8 severely backfired against the Mormon Church, and again by its members who are more supportive of marriage equality than it is opposed. It’s more likely to rip the church apart than it is to help their cause.

http://pewforum.org/Gay-Marriage-and-Homosexuality/Support-For-Same-Sex-Marriage-Edges-Upward.aspx#catholics

I would encourage allies and lgbt members to e mail their pastors too. Many congregations are a silent majority in which blindly accept the teachings of God etc. Though, there are many of these who just don’t speak up for fear of being shunned and rejected. Besides, there is more to the state than just catholic churches. I think that if there is a push to get the youth to vote no on this sucker, we can win. I have changed minds on this subject just by coming out of the closet in the last two years. I don’t think people can as easily rationalize telling someone they know is gay that they are going to hell, though, it does unfortunately happen. http://www.goodasgay.com/2011/10/minnesotans-united-for-all-families.html

The Eucharistic Catholic Church, of which I am Archbishop, supports and celebrates same-sex marriage as it does the blessedness of same-sex attraction and intimacy. It is unfortunate that the Roman Catholic Church, bond as it is by outdated understandings of human sexuality and stultifying claims to truth, continues to trap so many – both clerics and laypeople – into false lives.

The fact the people are even Voting on OTHERS RIGHTS is Disgusting……..its pathetic and Un-american….its gonna go to SCOTUS eventually…..and Hopefully all this will have been for nothing..when LGBT TAX PAYING Americans get the RIGHTS they DESERVE..like every other american.

PaulB,
NARTH is a group of anti-gays who “research” has been discredited. Remember George Rekers, the guy who was caught with a “luggage carrier” who hired from a gay escort site? He was part of NARTH. So is the fraud Paul Cameron. So try quoting from a place that is not discredited by reality.

Disgusted American,

I share your outrage.

I almost can’t believe we’re even voting on whether LGBT citizens have equal rights in this country. Such ignorance and unreason! So many unable to look within and see themselves in the place of other people. The endless lies and misinformation, easily corrected, but repeated anyway. All the religious frauds spewing dehumanizing slurs while wrapping themselves in the cloak of morality and holiness; their endless hypocrisies and contradictions.

This darker side of America has suffered one social loss after another going back over 150 years. They will lose this one too (but not unless we all get active), but I shake my head in disgust at how low our society is dragged by these moral cretins in light of the ACTUAL problems we human face–poverty, starvation, war, environmental collapse, etc. I often ask myself what could our society be doing if we didn’t have waste time fighting against these agendas of profound stupidity.

“The Church is simply saying that though everyone has the right to be loved, a union between a man and a man, a woman and a woman is not a true marriage. Anyone can see that.”

Sorry, Christopher, I can’t see that. A civil society defines “true marriage” as a voluntary union between adults. Whether the Catholic Church chooses to define it that way is a different matter, and one that should not be enshrined in the Minnesota Consitution. The Catholic Church is free to define marriage any way it decides, and to celebrate or consecrate any marriages it chooses, but that does not mean the state has to follow that decision.

Incidentally, my wife was divorced before we married. She didn’t procure an annullment. Is our marriage not a true marriage?

Recently a prominent Roman Catholic archbishop in Minnesota instructed priests to actively support an amendment to the state constitution which would ban gay marriage. This is a strong foray into politics by Archbishop John Nienstedt in saying that the church must “marshal our resources to educate the faithful about the church’s teachings on these matters, and to vigorously organize and support a grass-roots effort to get out the vote to support the passage of this amendment.”

Marriage is not an exclusively religious concern, having a long history of being a civil and secular institution. All marriages are recognized by the state under a civil framework; the addition of a religious scheme is optional. For any leader to insist that the laws governing civil institutions be restricted to the beliefs of a religious institution is an attack on every citizen’s freedom.

There now exist several legal opinions in this country that gay marriage is legal under federal and state constitutional equal protection guarantees. There is no valid reason that gay marriage should be singled out as being exempt from those protections.

Brian Magee
American Humanist Association
Washington, DC

“Life is more difficult for a homosexual than a heterosexual, this is why we must love them and protect their dignity.”

The only reason life is more difficult, is because some parts of society insist on treating us as if we were broken second class citizens who need to be fixed or actively hate and assault us, even going as far as murder. Honestly I don’t care what anyone’s religion says about us. I am an atheist, my birth wasn’t blessed by any religion, no religion will be asked to bless my wedding when it happens and I will die free of religion when my time comes.

MN2Cents = “Until people embrace freedom, including the freedom to EXCLUDE others (freedom of association), I support what the Catholic Church is doing.”

StraightGrandmother= Okay let’s do it your way. Let’s start EXCUDING people shall we?

First let’s exclude all the people who are Chinese. When Chinese men were brought from China to build our railroads all heck broke out when white women started to marry them. So in our most true form of EXCLUSION, which you MN2Cents support, Congress passed a law stating that any American woman who married a Chinese man lost her American citizenship. Ding-Ding-Ding Round One a WIN for EXCLUSIONISTS, yeah everybody clap.

Second let’s exclude all people who have black skin. No marriage for them at all, they can never marry. Ding-Ding-Ding Round Two a WIN for EXCLUSIONISTS, yeah everybody clap.

Third let’s exclude persons with black skin from marrying persons with white skin. They can marry within their race but no black and white marriages. Ding-Ding-Ding Round Three a WIN for EXCLUSIONISTS, yeah everybody clap.

Fourth let’s exclude women. Let’s exclude women from ever owning any property, once they marry. Once they marry what is his is his, and what is hers is his. Ding-Ding-Ding Round Four a WIN for EXCLUSIONISTS, yeah everybody clap.

MN2Cents do you see now that your words of, “including the freedom to EXCLUDE others” is really truly plain old vanilla DISCRIMINATION? As a country we have been there, done that, and have the t-shirt. We need to have more Equality in our country MN2Cents, not more DISCRIMINATION against sexual minorities. It is not you, nor the governments business to tell and two adults who they may, or may not marry, it just isn’t.

I am thrilled the archbishop is taking the initiative to educate the whole Catholic community in Minnesota regarding Catholic teaching on marriage and why the church professes this teaching. I should hope and pray that the electorate will be open minded to hear what our archbishop has to say on this matter before making a judgment as to the right law for our community. The archbishop, given to us by God for the purpose of our good, certainly has this right and responsibility to provide this education on this fundamental grounding of society, which is the institution of marriage. So, people – remain open to hear what he and our local pastors have to say! Let us pray for wisdom to make good and righteous decisions on such serious matters of the law of marriage.

“The sanctity of marriage and vital role of the family is at stake. It is a firmly-held teaching of our church that a marriage is a union of a husband and a wife, and that they together are the ones suited to be a father and a mother.”

That covers what they do in their own church, but it has nothing to do with any other church – or the secular community at large. The authority of a church extends only to its own followers. The government is actually prohibited from taking an interest in their argument, simply because it IS a religious argument.

The Catholics are assuming that they have the right to mold society according to their religious beliefs. This is a view that rejects religious freedom. They can no more tell another church that it cannot perform same-sex marriage than that church can tell Catholics that they must perform such marriages.

The State is not permitted to pick one religious doctrine over the other. In the name of religious freedom, the State must treat both equally.

Minnesota recognizes two forms of marriage: religious and civil.

Religious marriage is the state recognition of a religious contract officiated by a religious authority. As long as there is a church that marries same-sex couples, gays have exactly the same right to marry as opposite-sex couples – and for exactly the same reasons.

Civil marriage is beyond the authority or concern of religious entities. That is, in fact, why it exists. The state interest in recognizing marriage lies in matters of health and social stability. For these purposes, there are no meaningful differences between SSM and traditional marriage.

The State has several reasons to recognize SSM, and no valid reason to deny it.

The Catholic church has one reason to object: SSM offends their religious prejudice. All the rest is just rationalizations.

“That covers what they do in their own church, but it has nothing to do with any other church” Hmm…will you allow the Church this leeway if the argument goes the other way? (One suspects you may not understand the distinction.)
What is the public purpose of marriage? Again, and again, what is the public purpose of marriage? What is the public purpose of marriage? What is the public purpose of marriage?

There are all kinds of “private” purposes and reasons people choose to be married. The public purpose of marriage is to connect children to their biological parents and vice versa. If the state decides by force of law that a ‘private purpose’ will subsequently have legal definition and legal protection, and said state forces, the Justice (sic.) Department perhaps, concludes that certain religious denominations’ beliefs regarding said definition, backed up in force by men in black with fully automatic MP-5′s, are henceforth to be considered “Bigoted!!!”, what then has become of ‘separation of Church and State’? That is, what does anyone think about States’ or Federal govt. forces dictating to established churches what they may or may not believe or say, for or against? And lest any believe this question is preposterous, in western Canada, where homosexual marriage has state support, a small school run by, I believe the Mennonites has been commanded to teach homosexual marriage in their school. Freedom of Religion, yes or no? (After all, the first words in the First Amendment are not “…freedom of speech”, but ,”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…” See that last part, “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Now, let the cries of “Hater, HATER!!!” commence. “IHS”

Please name the school in Canada. If you’re going to throw out such anecdotes then please have the facts and links to back it up. Otherwise it just feels like one of those “scary” emails that gets sent around telling us the sky is falling.

I hope this request wasn’t too hateful for you.

Just a small point of clarification. The archbishop’s letter was only sent to the priests of the Archdiocese ( i.e. those in Ramsey, Hennepin, Anoka, Carver, Chisago, Dakota, Goodhue, Le Sure, Rice, Scott, Washington and Wright counties), not to all the priests of Minnesota. As of now I have not seen a similar action of the other diocesan bishops of the state (Winona, New Ulm, St. Cloud, Crookston and Duluth). A bishop (and this includes Archbishops) has virtually no authority over priests outside of his own diocese.

Again, this is only a clarification. As a Roman Catholic I think his actions are despicable.

” As a Roman Catholic I think his actions are despicable”. Are you saying there are no legitimate arguments against your position? Is it legitimate and rational for me to say you reasoning is execrable? Should the issue is to be decided by persuasion and logic, or some other means…? (And by the way, if the administrator of comments here is editing or suppressing those with which they disagree, I think that is an admission of weakness. Is your argument so shaky that it will not tolerate debate?)

[...] the full letter from Nienstedt — here 0savesSave P.S. – Would you do Courageous Priest a favor and share this info with your friends [...]

“In western Canada, where homosexual marriage has state support, a small school run by, I believe the Mennonites has been commanded to teach homosexual marriage in their school.” And? Canada happens to be a different country, with different laws and different constitutional protections.

Stop trying to muddy discussion with prepared hysteria (yes, I’ve read that same talking point many times).

I believe in respect for every human being, I know we can all be sinners, Marriage is a true union of man and woman, and children. This has and need’s to be respected, when we are aware of a lack of respect towards our own bodies, we usually have given in to feelings of lust. This is a wrong approach towards our own and other peoples bodies. It can even be harmful to us medically, and can damage an unborn child, medically. Marriage is definately not for lustful activety. Marriage is for a loving family, where a couple show security to their children. As for same sex they are just trying to jump on the bandwagon of broken marriages, to help them feel more secure. So sad!!! I know it is a cowerdly approach to not being able to identify with there own sins. Love Karen, I Love you.

‘the freedom to exclude others’

but why can’t gays just exclude any religion that does not recognize the fact that they too love?
This really says ‘the freedom to limit others freedoms’, directly contrary to anything in our constitution as opposed to pressure from another country, the vatican.

The Catholic Church is not a political organization, at least not in the U.S. Priests are forbidden to express political viewpoints. That’s why you hear very little about Pro-life, Pro-choice issues from the pulpit, except from a very few. A few years back the Catholic Bishops in the U.S. (USSCB) introduced a policy that says that anyone who knowingly supports or votes for a known Pro-Choice candidate incurs automatic excommunication. This being said, only one of the outspoken Pro-Choice Catholics currently in the Obama administration has been publicly excommunicated by her archbishop (Sebelius, Sec. of H.E.W.). Why not Pelosi and Biden? Automatic excommunication means that the offendor is excommunicated without the proclamation of a priest or bishop. Since the Church doesn’t support specific political candidates or agendas except Pro-Life, why should it lose its tax exemptions.

Another note concerning priestly contact with post-pubescent boys. A dear friend of mine while he was in the seminary was accused, and ultimately convicted, of having had sexual contact with a then-17-yr. old young man. Long story short, the “kid” who is now in his 40s, was actually involved with another guy in his 20s, and apparently the mom found out about it. But since the boy had been close to my friend she made the assumption that it was he who had had contact with her son. She filed charges claiming to have witnessed the “act”, but later recanted in court. Still, the guy was convicted. One of the jurors was acquainted with this guy’s bishop told him that they didn’t believe the charges but saw a “confession”, which was later discovered to have been forged by someone in the prosecutor’s office. When this bishop told the juror about the forgery she broke down into tears. Now the sad part is this: It’s been 25 years since all this happened. The guy had such a short sentence that he’s been off of parole for 20 years and has had no problems since. He went back to his home town and until a year or so ago had been active as a Lector and Rosary leader in the parish. But a guy in the parish who seems to have some “pull” threw a fit when he found out about this guy’s past and complained to the bishop of their diocese. In short, my friend can no longer serve in any sort of capacity in the parish, except for sitting in a pew. He is also restricted as to who he may associate with and where he may sit. Wow! I just wonder what could be done about this.
Any comments would be appreciated. He has been invited to leave the parish and come to where I live and be part of our Anglican community. I’ll be waiting to see if he does so or not.