Faith drives activism for gay rights supporters

"A lot of the bigotry that we as LGBT people face is based on religion," she said.

So WHY do GLBTQ people waste their time seeking approval/permission/justification from antiquated institutions that continue to persecute them using their holy books as the rationale?

Are the LCWR, CTA, and NCR co-sponsoring this?

Good for the marchers. I cringe every time I hear the Church does something against the GLBT community (most recent was the CCHD pulling funding to some organization in San Fran who wanted Prop 8 defeated).

It will take time to change prejudices. Some of the rejection is politically motivated, some of it is still part of a fallout to the sex scandals, (many bishops and up do not differentiate between homosexuality and pedophilia), and some of it is a generational matter, as more younger people than older people support GLBT causes (though in the Church that renewal will come from post-Benedict XVI priests).

Part of the Catholic Social Justice teachings is to reach out to the poor and marginalized, to see them in you, and that is what I use to work against institutional prejudice. I am hopeful in the long term that things will turn around as hard as the short term will continue to be until the fear of the unknown fades away at the highest levels of Rome and a new Pentacost comes for GLBT people in the Church and wider world.

For me, it's more of an equal-right/equal protection sort of thing. If the bishop has a problem with that - he needs to become a better American. Those who want to live in a Christian theocracy can move to the Vatican -that is if the Vatican will take them. Otherwise - I guess it's Ave maria, Fl where they can live in their little all-Catholicism/all the time, totally non-gay (yeah, they wish) world.

Clearly, a distinction has to be drawn between support for "gay" marriage and support for gay rights. I'm not addressing moral or religious issues here. The issue of homosexuality is problematic in many ways and reasonable people can disagree on how the law addresses this issue.

But marriage is something very special and important in a society. To me the concept of "gay" marriage is irrational on its face. Procreation should be central to the concept of civil marriage which it always has been until fairly recently with the push for "gay" marriage. Only a heterosexual couple has the potential to procreate naturally. Civil marriage doesn't require procreation but it expects the potential to be there.

Homosexual couples simply cannot procreate naturally. Admittedly lesbians can be artificially inseminated but they are not capable of any form of intercourse. Gay males can have unnatural intercourse but they are incapable of bearing children. So when it comes to marriage the bottom line from a civil perspective is that gay couples are unqualified. Hence to deny them marriage is not to discriminate against them.

This story begs the question "What is marriage?" What is civil marriage, what should it be and why? What is the Roman Catholic sacrament of marriage, what should it be and why?

Over the last 100 years there has been greater & greater divergence between the civil marriage and the Catholic sacrament. Does change in one definition require change in the other definition? That's not clear.

The civil definition of marriage in, say, California, seems to have changed to say that marriage has more to do with "family of choice," serial monogamy (at best), fiscal/tax/legal benefits, and does not necessarily imply or require reproduction.

None of this is consonant with the Catholic definition of a sacramental marriage. The Catholic rejoinder to changes in civil marriage is that social & cultural change to a "pre-legal" institution is asking for trouble; the lack of stability in marriage and (if there are children) family has a demonstrable, measurable social impact.

The trouble is not everyone believes in that demonstrable, measurable impact. Some like and favor change. And some don't care - some people regard this as a private issue & decision and simply want to do what they want and be left alone, by other people, by the state and by religion. What response does the Catholic Church make to this position in and for itself? What response does the Church make in and for society, in terms of social impact? What response does secular society make, regardless of what the Church or other religious institutions say?

If marriage is only a "construct" then marriage can be whatever we want it to be. So, what do we want to marriage to be, and does the Catholic Church have anything to say on the issue? The Church says yes, it does have something to say and offer. So do other people, institutions and organizations. Those sayings and offerings are often diametrically opposed to each other. Again, does the Church have anything to say about these differences, and does what it has to say matter, especially to that segment of people who simply want to live their lives and be left alone?

Faith is expressed in many ways, to be sure, but there's no specifically Catholic news being reported here, national or otherwise. Why a story that simply informs us that some people are preparing for a political march, without even a mention that the subject matter is controversial, to say the least, amongst Catholics? In addition to being for all practical purposes an advertisement of the event, unchallenged are the legal, ethical, and theological views of the participants, which are in contrast with the teaching of the Catholic Church. Fair reporting would, at a minimum, solicit at least one quote from a person or organization that holds a different perspective. Being that NCR is a Catholic entity, albeit an independent one, I would expect that perspective to be Catholic.

NCR should refrain from expressed advocacy and focus on journalism.

And additional thought;"So when it comes to marriage the bottom line from a civil perspective is that gay couples are ungualified. Hence to deny them marriage is not to discriminate against them." Well according to how you have built a case for this based on gay people's inablility to procrate, it would also not be discrimination to deny marriage to women who are past child bearing age, to younger women who, for one reason or another, are unable to conceive and to men, who's sperm count may be too low to father a child. So, until medical procedures are able to change some of these situations (even though some will always remain), the potential to procreate is not there. Therefore these people are "unqualified", hence no marriage allowed for these couples as well.

Now, if you are willing to allow marriage for these couples, you are stating that marriage has a value other then procreation.

Clearly, all straight couples who cannot have children should be denied the "right" to marry as paulte the previous poster implies. Equating marriage with procreation is the most ridiculous notion entertained here. Platonic love has just been thrown out the window by this homophobe. So was that of nuns being married to Christ ...

Meanwhile, in Maine, the bishop ordered special collections during Mass to repeal the law allowing same-sex couples to marry, a law that was passed by the legislature & signed by the governor. With all the poverty in the world, the bishop adds to suffering instead of alleviating it.

So the "message" here is that whatever any small group of people want, the surrounding majority of folk MUST accept as correct and change all their laws, customs, opinions, habits, etc. to cater to the whim of the few, right?

So tomorrow, using the GBLT crowd's precise arguments, we must accept polygamy as totally permissible "plural marriage" on par with any 1+1 paring. To refuse them would be to be bigots and engage in indefensible discrimination.

What about temporary marriage ala prostitution? Who says marriage has to be permanent? Why can't it be for a couple of hours?

What arbitrary age restrictions? If an 8 year old girl may have an abortion without her parents' knowledge, why can't she exercise her right to a temporary marriage?

But it's even better. If any small minority of people can arbitrarily re-define words and force any majority to accept this new definition, why can't "neo-cons" re-define the word "citizen" to include anyone from any part of the world who agrees with their policies such that they can win local elections by help from folk across the world? If taxation is the quibble, I'm sure alot of foreigners would be delighted to pay a fee to vote in American elections!

Or we could re-define the word "Rights" to mean "whatever the governing political party thinks is OK" and since there is no hard and fast meaning to any word beyond challenge by any minority group, ultimately this would come down to power, would it not?

This is not reducio ab absurdo - it's entirely likely to occur. You think gays ought to be married. Some Mormons (and Muslims) think they ought to have many wives....who are young. Others think Prostitution ought to be legal. Others think they ought to be free to opt out of taxation but still enjoy all the priviledges of citizenship.

It's hard to see how - other than a Constitutional amendment process wherein one side convinces an overwhelming majority of their fellow citizens to agree with them via force of persuasive argument and free voting - the current practice of ramming through re-definitions via courts will end without some form of open conflict. People don't like being told what to do. Gays don't like it do they? Well, neither do "straights". If it's rammed down throats via courts it'll spark an endless culture war and backlash. If it's won via the ballot box.... not so much.

So a word of wisdom...if you are so right, others will come to agree, freely. If you're wrong, then all the power in the world won't keep defeat from ultimately finding you.

I was pleased to support the Bishop in Maine, and glady donated twice to Stand for Marriage Maine. When we passed the marriage amendment here in Wisconsin, I told those who were supporting the "A Fair Wisconsin Votes No" that a rational Wisconsin voted yes on the amendment. The Bishops blew it on the sex abuse crisis. That doesn't mean that the no longer can teach us on moral issues.