Catholics and Mormons: a shotgun wedding

Strange bedfellows indeed. I understand that the Mormon declaration against polygamy was a change of discipline but not of theology. If so, why didn't Cardnal George point out that the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church disagree on a very fundamental issue regarding marriage? Because it would have interfered with his desire to rally the troops against gay marriage.

One man, one woman for the Mormon's? The ones who practiced polygamy until it was outlawed for them? The ones who still have outposts of fundamentalists who practice it? They believe in one man, many women and the man is in charge of whether his wife gets to go to heaven! Give me a break! They are not the best to decide this whole marriage thing. Period!

People do not have to agree on everything to work together and I think the shotgun wedding analogy goes a little bit too far. As far as "denying" gays and lesbians the right to marry. Let's be clear that it's not Mormons or Catholics doing the "denying", but God himself. The Bible makes it very clear that homosexuality is wrong and that marriage should only be between men and women only. Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Jesus said in Mark 10: 6-9, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” In 1 Corinthians 11:11 the apostle Paul said “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” Jude 1:7 “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” The city of Sodom is where we get the word sodomy. You also have Genesis 19:5, Deuteronomy 23:17, Isaiah 3:9, Romans 1:27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1Timothy 1:10.

Imposing one's religious definition of marriage on people of different (or no) faiths is not 'defending religious freedom.' That is simply a lie.

It is no more nor less than the imposition of a religous belief by the state.

Particularly ironic considering that both Catholics and Mormons emigrated (to America and to Utah) to escape religious persecution.

And now they've united to engage in religious persecution of those who would ask that their same-sex marriages be recognized by the state.

"fear or hatred of gay and lesbian people and their desire to marry"

My God, that is some succint but a little off the point description of the theology of marriage and human body as taught by the Holy Mother Church.

Since no one is forcing the Catholic church or the Morman Church to marry gays and lesbians, I fail to see how uniting to deny them the right to marry can be considered protecting freedom of religion. There are religions that allow gays and lesbians to marry, what about their freedom of religion? This is just another example that "freedom of religion" is often code for legislating laws of one religion into the laws of society, it has nothing to do with freedom of religion, nothing at all.

Oh please! Spare us all your drivel about "God, Himself, denying gays and lesbians the right to marry" You hypocrite! You have no idea what the mind of God thinks on this subject or any other subject. There is ONLY one thing that Christ could not tolerate and that is the hypocrite. You are preaching a theology of hatred instead of love, of exclusion instead of inclusion, and of disenfranchisement and marginalization. Cardinal George should be ashamed of himself for getting into bed with the Mormons, who are very good at EXCLUDING and are really not Christians at all. This is shameful and the bigots who preach hatred in the name of Christ or God are committing violent and hateful acts against a group of people who are different. You can[t call yourself disciples of Jesus if you behave this way.

Perfect FIT:
a RED HAT drumming up business and support in a RED STATE!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/feb/26/mormon-cathol...

UT SINT UNUM?
May they all be ONE?
When it comes to the ECUMENISM envisioned by Vatican II, one might observe that Cardinal George et al. are definitely marching to a hermeneutic of RUPTURE and DISCONTINUITY.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700011507/LDS-Catholics-must-defend-r...
BLEST be the ties [of hatred] that bind!

While I see the sense of all the objections made to this "ad hoc" partnership, I can't help thinking of the oft-spoken words of Blessed John XXIII: seek what unites; leave aside the things that divide; trust in history, the great teacher of life.

"The gathering in Provo is driven by a different agenda, one rooted in either fear or hatred of gay and lesbian people and their desire to marry." So anyone who disagrees with Mike Sweitzer-Beckman is held captive by either fear or hatred. What a dangerous psychological condition this author seems to have.

This is not the only "odd bedfellows" meeting of late. Perhaps the most outspoken pugnacious conservative member of the RC episcopal bench, +Chaput of Denver lectured at a Southern Baptist university recently. Incredible as it may sound to the average John and Mary Catholic, he trashed JFK as the author or at least the original agent of anti-faith secularism in the public square.

He then called for an alliance of all arch-conservative denominations to smite the dragon of secularism and achieve a diminution of separation of church and state to the extent such separation keeps "traditional values" from a controlling position in public life. Now, most Baptists in the southern USA don't even regard Roman Catholics as Christian and even when they do, they dispute core theological beliefs which are irreconcilable between the faiths. Our popular culture is indeed toxic in many ways, but is an alliance of RC reactionaries with their Baptist Christian or cultic(Mormon)counterparts anything but a gathering of highly political activists? It's certainly not a group discussion on the Papal ministry or role. Politics a mile wide; faith a convenient veneer.

The reason they can agree on marriage as only between a man and a women is because conjugal relations were not only defined in the New Covenant or in the New Testament writing. They are part of Natural Law which arises from the Eternal Law. Conjugal relations only between a man and a women are "written on the hearts of men". Jesus did not have to define it, the Ten Commandments did not even have to define it or lay it down, it is part of the Christian anthropological precepts.

For a list of what is natural to man, or what he can know without the New Testament, refer to the Ten Commandments.

Mr. Sweitzer-Beckman states, "the gathering in Provo is driven by a different agenda, one rooted in either fear or hatred of gay and lesbian people and their desire to marry,". Of course, he gives no evidence that the religious groups in question, Roman Catholics and Mormons have a feeling of "fear or hatred" directed toward gay and lesbian people. But, in our society today, all someone has to claim is "hatred" and that is enough to render arguments moot. In other words, if some group is advocating a position that I disagree with, all I have to do to shut them up is to claim that they are promulgating a message of "hatred".

It never occurs to people like Mr. Sweitzer-Beckman, and others, that there are some people who actually take Church teaching seriously. It never occurs to them that people of good will might actually disagree with a modernist notion of homosexual marriage (a concept that has not been heard of in 2000 or more years). It never occurs to them that there might be real and carefully considered reasons that folks might disagree with their agenda.

No, the consensus represented by folks like Mr. Sweitzer-Beckman and others on the "progressive" side, seems to be that, if one is thoughtful and open-minded, "compassionate" and intelligent, then one must always support the movement toward gay and lesbian marriage (as an example). Only people who are fearful and hateful, close-minded, mean-spirited and, generally, uncaring and evil, could ever really believe in denying gay and lesbians their "right to wed" (I would love to see where that right is enumerated in the Constitution, but save that for another time).

It's such a shame that the "progressives" are so close-minded and hateful that they cannot, or will not, respect the right of others to disagree and debate with them without also calling them names in the hopes of silencing that very debate.

"The gathering in Provo is driven by a different agenda, one rooted in either fear or hatred of gay and lesbian people and their desire to marry."

Mike, just keep telling yourself that and maybe someday it will become true. Never mind the volumes of theology that defend the Church's position that Marriage as a sacrament can only happen between a man and a woman. It has nothing to do with fear or hatred. Why read when you can write?

I think it is wonderful to seek out commonality of good religious people. Catholics and Mormons love gay and lesbian people, they just don't condone calling their decision to unite as "marriage".

Marriage defined as a Sacrament is supported by traditional church teaching, but that is not the question. The question is whether the state has a right to define marriage in a different manner. Yes, the state does.

.

The author, a graduate of JSTB in Berkeley, is another example of why that school should be shut down. It's graduates are harming the Church.

Why is the issue of "gay marriage" always framed as denying equal rights to gay people? The opposition to "gay marriage" comes from the belief that this concept is contrary to God's law. You can't deny something to a person who has no right to it in the first place. Or maybe I should say, has no right to his version of it. Gay people are not really denied the ability to marry; many of them are married. Whether that is a good idea is questionable but it can't be denied that plenty of gay men are married to women. So the discrimination argument fails. Not all gay people are exactly the same. There is variation in that subgroup.

The bottom line though is that the concept of "gay marriage" is a false concept. It is an oxymoron & it is clearly against the law of God. This is the reason it must be opposed. Opposition to this concept does not constitute discrimination against gay people.