Often when we explain why (regardless of any attempt to the contrary in civil law) there is no such thing as “gay marriage”, we are asked this question. The position suggests that we are not harmed by gay people getting married. Our marriages remain unchanged and no one is forcing us to change our religious viewpoint. Even people sympathetic to our faith feel that “separation of church and state” and general “fairness” dictate that such marriage should be permitted. To oppose it is nothing less than unjustly forcing our religious views on others.

There is so much wrong with that! A very poor understanding of separation of church and state for one. A complete lack of understanding of not only the religious purpose of marriage, but of the purpose of civil protections for it. That this is a very recent concept is ignored.

Putting all that aside for now, how indeed does “gay marriage” hurt others? That question is clearly addressed in a January 12th open letter from leaders of the largest US religious communities. It is signed by 39 representatives from Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, Evangelical, Jewish, Lutheran, Mormon, Pentecostal and Evangelical communities. That number includes 4 US Catholic bishops: Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York and President of the USCCB; Bishop Salvatore Cordileone of Oakland, Chairman of the USCCB Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage; Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, Chairman of the USCCB Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty; and Bishop Kevin Rhoades of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Chairman of the USCCB Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth.

The full text of the letter (with my bold highlights):

Dear Friends:

The promotion and protection of marriage – the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife – is a matter of the common good and serves the wellbeing of the couple, of children, of civil society and all people. The meaning and value of marriage precedes and transcends any particular society, government, or religious community. It is a universal good and the foundational institution of all societies. It is bound up with the nature of the human person as male and female, and with the essential task of bearing and nurturing children.

As religious leaders across a wide variety of faith communities, we join together to affirm that marriage in its true definition must be protected for its own sake and for the good of society. We also recognize the grave consequences of altering this definition. One of these consequences – the interference with the religious freedom of those who continue to affirm the true definition of “marriage” – warrants special attention within our faith communities and throughout society as a whole. For this reason, we come together with one voice in this letter.

Some posit that the principal threat to religious freedom posed by same-sex “marriage” is the possibility of government’s forcing religious ministers to preside over such “weddings,” on pain of civil or criminal liability. While we cannot rule out this possibility entirely, we believe that the First Amendment creates a very high bar to such attempts.

Instead, we believe the most urgent peril is this:forcing or pressuring both individuals and religious organizations – throughout their operations, well beyond religious ceremonies – to treat same-sex sexual conduct as the moral equivalent of marital sexual conduct. There is no doubt that the many people and groups whose moral and religious convictions forbid same-sex sexual conduct will resist the compulsion of the law, and church-state conflicts will result.

These conflicts bear serious consequences. They will arise in a broad range of legal contexts, because altering the civil definition of “marriage” does not change one law, but hundreds, even thousands, at once. By a single stroke, every law where rights depend on marital status – such as employment discrimination, employment benefits, adoption, education, healthcare, elder care, housing, property, and taxation – will change so that same-sex sexual relationships must be treated as if they were marriage. That requirement, in turn, will apply to religious people and groups in the ordinary course of their many private or public occupations and ministries – including running schools, hospitals, nursing homes and other housing facilities, providing adoption and counseling services, and many others.

So, for example, religious adoption services that place children exclusively with married couples would be required by law to place children with persons of the same sex who are civilly “married.” Religious marriage counselors would be denied their professional accreditation for refusing to provide counseling in support of same-sex “married” relationships. Religious employers who provide special health benefits to married employees would be required by law to extend those benefits to same-sex “spouses.” Religious employers would also face lawsuits for taking any adverse employment action – no matter how modest – against an employee for the public act of obtaining a civil “marriage” with a member of the same sex. This is not idle speculation, as these sorts of situations have already come to pass.

Even where religious people and groups succeed in avoiding civil liability in cases like these, they would face other government sanctions – the targeted withdrawal of government co-operation, grants, or other benefits.

For example, in New Jersey, the state cancelled the tax-exempt status of a Methodist-run boardwalk pavilion used for religious services because the religious organization would not host a same-sex “wedding” there. San Francisco dropped its $3.5 million in social service contracts with the Salvation Army because it refused to recognize same-sex “domestic partnerships” in its employee benefits policies. Similarly, Portland, Maine, required Catholic Charities to extend spousal employee benefits to same-sex “domestic partners” as a condition of receiving city housing and community development funds.

In short, the refusal of these religious organizations to treat a same-sex sexual relationship as if it were a marriage marked them and their members as bigots, subjecting them to the full arsenal of government punishments and pressures reserved for racists. These punishments will only grow more frequent and more severe if civil “marriage” is redefined in additional jurisdictions. For then, government will compel special recognition of relationships that we the undersigned religious leaders and the communities of faith that we represent cannot, in conscience, affirm. Because law and government not only coerce and incentivize but also teach, these sanctions would lend greater moral legitimacy to private efforts to punish those who defend marriage.

Therefore, we encourage all people of good will to protect marriage as the union between one man and one woman, and to consider carefully the far-reaching consequences for the religious freedom of all Americans if marriage is redefined. We especially urge those entrusted with the public good to support laws that uphold the time-honored definition of marriage, and so avoid threatening the religious freedom of countless institutions and citizens in this country. Marriage and religious freedom are both deeply woven into the fabric of this nation.

May we all work together to strengthen and preserve the unique meaning of marriage and the precious gift of religious freedom.

I am not optimistic that this letter will have much impact on our politicians. Not even the “gay marriage” supporting Catholic politicians. They place their agenda and base of support above all else. Hopefully, it will change the hearts and minds of voters.

The letter and all signatories are here on the USCCB website, along with their press release.

We are blessed to have some truly outstanding bishops. Excellent shepherds who are not afraid to speak-out on issues of faith, knowing they will be vigorously attacked by secular interests (and “progressive” Catholics too). I gave some examples back in November 2010.

Likewise, we also have some exceptional priests. One such man is Father Michael Rodriguez of the Diocese of El Paso. John Quinn recently made a list of Fr. Rodriguez’ quotes about homosexual acts on his excellent Courageous Priest blog:

1. I urge all of the Catholic faithful to treat homosexuals with love, understanding, and respect. At the same time, never forget that genuine love demands that we seek, above all, the salvation of souls. Homosexual acts lead to the damnation of souls. Any Catholic Who Supports Homosexual Acts
2. Furthermore, a Catholic would be guilty of a most grievous sin of omission if he/she neglected to actively oppose the homosexual agenda, which thrives on deception and conceals its wicked horns under the guises of “equal rights,” “tolerance,” “who am I to judge”,” etc. Any Catholic Who Supports Homosexual Acts
3. Remember: Every single Catholic, out of fidelity to charity and truth, has the absolute duty to oppose (1) the murder of unborn babies, and (2) any and all government attempts to legalize homosexual unions. Any Catholic Who Supports Homosexual Acts
4. I was ordained to the Catholic priesthood to offer sacrifice and teach the only truth which brings salvation and happiness…   The priesthood is my greatest joy. In the present circumstances, I intend to try even harder to be a good, holy priest. Obedience to my bishop is essential to the priesthood. Bishop Publicly Disciplines Fr. Rodriguez
5. Today, throughout 21st century America, elementary school children are being indoctrinated by homosexual activists that there are “different kinds of families.” Jesus Christ preached against the man who looks upon a woman and lusts after her. (Mt 5:28). Today, 21st century man, a slave to the fires of his passion and lust, cries “equal rights” in order to justify the abomination of male-male or female-female “unions.” The stench of moral decadence surrounds us, and yet we insist on spreading the lie that we of the 21st century are “enlightened and progressive” because we’ve “moved beyond the prejudices of the past. The Truth About Homosexuality, Part IV
6. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin. We wish to make it clear that departure from the Church’s teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. The Truth About Homosexuality, Part IV
7. Above all, we are to show love and compassion towards homosexuals by leading them to the truth, and helping them to reject sinful homosexual activity. Remember, it’s about saving souls! We must be firm, yet humble, patient, and caring. Love and compassion means assisting the homosexual person to live chastely, form wholesome friendships, and grow in the virtues: peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity, mildness, faith, and modesty. (Gal 5:22) Happiness and self-fulfillment can never be gained through sinful relationships and disordered sexual activity. The Truth About Homosexuality
8. Under no circumstances can sinful homosexual acts ever be approved. Woe to the Christian who denies the reality of sin! It is never loving and respectful to lie to homosexuals by telling them that homosexual behavior is o.k. or “normal.” Don’t be fooled by the well-orchestrated campaigns of misinformation and deceit by pro-homosexual groups which have infested the media. Instead, trust in God and His commandments! Trust in the teachings of His Church! Homosexual acts were, are, and always will be an abomination before God and man. This is an infallible moral teaching of the Catholic Church to which every Catholic must give assent. The Truth About Homosexuality, Part II

The embedded links go to the full Courageous Priest posts. View them for the complete context. The quotes were posted in Father Rodriguez’s 2011 Top Eight Quotes

Note that Fr. Rodriguez’ efforts were strongly supported by the faithful in his parish, but political and other forces were arrayed against him. Unfortunately, he did not enjoy the support of his liberal bishop. His Excellency Armando X. Ochoa reassigned Father to a small parish in a far corner of the diocese.

Fr. Rodriguez has introduce the EF (Latin) Mass in his new, smaller parish and continues to teach the authentic Catholic faith. Bishop Ochoa is no longer in the El Paso diocese.

I have always had a profound disinterest in spectator sports. Yet, I now know about the Denver Broncos, “controversial” Super Bowl ad star and Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow. I know about him because of his “scandalous” behavior, at least in the view of the militantly secular world.

In a year when the big professional sport news is athletes boldly “coming out of the closet” to announce their homosexuality, we have Tim. Where the former is fawned over by the media, the later is ridiculed. In a world where athletes routinely demonstrate the poorest morals, we have a shining example of one who does not. The liberal media hates him.

It started with a Super Bowl pro-life ad. Tim’s mom suffered a life threatening condition during pregnancy which required a powerful drug to wake her from a coma. Doctors expected Tim to be stillborn and pushed for an abortion. Obviously, she refused. Fast forward to the Super Bowl ad. Pro-abortion groups and their liberal media allies were having a meltdown in anticipation. All manner of threats were made and editorials decried this vulgar, anti-choice spot. When it aired, abortion was not even mentioned but embracing life was displayed – embodied in Tebow’s simple existence.

The “problem” with Tebow is that he openly lives his life as a Christian. When asked in interviews, he admits he will remain a virgin until he marries. He acknowledges God as the source of his success. On the field, he recognizes that by briefly going down on one knee and pointing skyward. Many call this “Tebowing,” but the effect is more like sprinkling holy water on evil. That seems to be the seething reaction of many.

Colleen Carroll Campbell wrote recently about Tebow:

That this former Heisman Trophy winner and famously devout evangelical Christian quarterback has become a Rorschach test for our attitudes on religion in public life was never more apparent than in the wake of Sunday’s game, when Tebow’s feverish detractors rushed to the airwaves and blogosphere to exult in his defeat. Tebow’s unexpected success, and his habit of publicly thanking Jesus Christ for it at every opportunity, drove his critics crazy. His loss on Sunday restored their sense of cosmic justice – not that they believe in such nonsense.

[…]

It is odd that the clean-cut, perpetually grinning preacher’s son who spends his summers caring for orphans and publicly touts his plan to eschew premarital sex inspires such widespread fear and loathing, given how forgiving Tebow’s critics often are of the thuggery common in the NFL. Pundits horrified by Tebow’s pious persona have shown far less alarm at the antics of such gridiron stars as Brett Favre, caught harassing a female television commentator with unsolicited pictures of his private parts; Adam Jones, connected to multiple violent episodes in strip clubs; and Ben Roethlisberger, implicated, though not charged, in two sexual assaults. Doping, drunk driving, beating women, abusing dogs – you name it and there is an NFL star who has been caught doing it, only to issue a cursory apology, serve his time (or not) and scamper back to the huddle, usually to raucous public applause. But Tebow opens press conferences with praise for God and ends touchdown drives with genuflections of thanksgiving? Now that crosses the line.

In the end, both Tebowmania and Tebowphobia say far more about us than about this rookie quarterback. Tebowphobia tells us that for all our pretense to tolerance in 21st century America, many Americans harbor little tolerance for public figures who take their religious commitments too seriously, elaborate on them too specifically or live them too publicly – especially when those commitments are connected to traditional moral values.

As for Tebowmania, it reminds us that Americans are still hungry for heroes, still inspired by leaders whose optimism and grit allow them to overcome great odds and still captivated by that rare professional athlete who plays for love of the game while remembering that it’s not all about him and it is, at the end of the day, just a game. Tebow’s football star soon may fade, but the truth he has revealed to us – both about ourselves and about the power of an authentically lived faith to capture the imagination – will endure.

Read the whole article at Catholic Lane (reprinted from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch): Rorschach Test for our Attitudes on Religion.

Steve Gershom is a faithful Catholic, witty, knowledgeable and interesting. He is also gay. Well, “gay” is a bit ambiguous. He is a young man (late twenties) who is attracted to other men. We call that same sex attraction. SSA, of itself, is NOT sinful.

God has created us all to live chaste lives, no exceptions. Sexual relations are properly ordered between a man and a woman in marriage, for unitive and procreative purposes. They strengthen the loving bond of marriage and (usually) bear a family as their happy fruit. Not everyone is called to the vocation of marriage. For those, living a chaste life means living a celibate life. Examples are priests, other religious men and women, consecrated virgins, single people everywhere and those with same sex attraction – like Steve.

Last summer, Leila Miller at Little Catholic Bubble asked Steve to write about so called “gay marriage”. (BTW, Leila is a Catholic “revert”. Her specifics are in my Convert Stories database.) Steve responded:

I have heard a lot about how mean the Church is, and how bigoted, because she opposes gay marriage. How badly she misunderstands gay people, and how hostile she is towards us. My gut reaction to such things is: Are you freaking kidding me? Are we even talking about the same church?

When I go to Confession, I sometimes mention the fact that I’m gay, to give the priest some context. (And to spare him some confusion: Did you say ‘locker room’? What were you doing in the women’s…oh.) I’ve always gotten one of two responses: either compassion, encouragement, and admiration, because the celibate life is difficult and profoundly counter-cultural; or nothing at all, not even a ripple, as if I had confessed eating too much on Thanksgiving.

Of the two responses, my ego prefers the first — who doesn’t like thinking of themselves as some kind of hero? — but the second might make more sense. Being gay doesn’t mean I’m special or extraordinary. It just means that my life is not always easy. (Surprise!) And as my friend J. said when I told him recently about my homosexuality, “I guess if it wasn’t that, it would have been something else.” Meaning that nobody lives without a burden of one kind or another. As Rabbi Abraham Heschel said: “The man who has not suffered, what can he possibly know, anyway?”

Where are all these bigoted Catholics I keep hearing about? When I told my family a year ago, not one of them responded with anything but love and understanding. Nobody acted like I had a disease. Nobody started treating me differently or looking at me funny. The same is true of every one of the Catholic friends that I’ve told. They love me for who I am.

Actually, the only time I get shock or disgust or disbelief, the only time I’ve noticed people treating me differently after I tell them, is when I tell someone who supports the gay lifestyle. Celibacy?? You must be some kind of freak.

Hooray for tolerance of different viewpoints. I’m grateful to gay activists for some things — making people people more aware of the prevalence of homosexuality, making homophobia less socially acceptable — but they also make it more difficult for me to be understood, to be accepted for who I am and what I believe. If I want open-mindedness, acceptance, and understanding, I look to Catholics.

Is it hard to be gay and Catholic? Yes, because like everybody, I sometimes want things that are not good for me. The Church doesn’t let me have those things, not because she’s mean, but because she’s a good mother. If my son or daughter wanted to eat sand I’d tell them: that’s not what eating is for; it won’t nourish you; it will hurt you. Maybe my daughter has some kind of condition that makes her like sand better than food, but I still wouldn’t let her eat it. Actually, if she was young or stubborn enough, I might not be able to reason with her — I might just have to make a rule against eating sand. Even if she thought I was mean.

So the Church doesn’t oppose gay marriage because it’s wrong; she opposes it because it’s impossible, just as impossible as living on sand. The Church believes, and I believe, in a universe that means something, and in a God who made the universe — made men and women, designed sex and marriage from the ground up. In that universe, gay marriage doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t fit with the rest of the picture, and we’re not about to throw out the rest of the picture.

There is more, so read the complete piece: Gay, Catholic, and Doing Fine. The (500) comments that follow it are interesting too.

Steve also has a blog. Check out SteveGershom.com. Note that Steve Gershom is a pseudonym (a sensible precaution considering the militancy of some in the “homosexual lifestyle”).

It has been a presidential tradition to “pardon” a lucky turkey before Thanksgiving. The tradition may have started in some form as early as the Truman administration in 1947. Regardless of how or when it got started, in recent times it has become an expected presidential action.

Such as it is, the president has the opportunity to address the nation. Regardless of the current political scene, he or she has a chance to reflect on Thanksgiving – what it means to both the nation and to himself. It is a moment to remember the sacrifice that made America great and the continuing sacrifice that is selflessly given. It is a moment to remember their own bountiful blessings. Most importantly, it is a moment to humbly thank God.

Turkey pardons are not addresses to congress, the UN, or a live nationwide audience. They are far less formal and polished. What we get are comments from the heart of our leader, an unguarded window into their unmanaged self.

It is interesting therefore, to compare this year’s pardon with that of the immediately preceding president. Both are professed Christians. Kathy Schiffer did this on her Seasons of Grace blog:

The difference in these two pardons was a metaphor for the stark difference in their presidencies. One is self-absorbed, clownish, mocking of faith, jokes about “luck” but forgets to mention “thanks.” The other — well, see for yourself. I’m including the video, which makes me really yearn for bygone days.

ONE WAY TO GRANT A PRESIDENTIAL PARDON TO THANKSGIVING TURKEYS:

• Talk about the spared turkey as “lucky.” Note that your family, in a photo op, will deliver “unlucky” turkeys to a food bank.
• Make a mocking, “funny” Sign of the Cross over the pardoned bird – an obvious disregard for the importance of this sacred symbol for Catholics and people of faith.
• Disregard your daughters, standing beside you in bored complacency. Instead, focus your attention on the cameras.
• Use the opportunity to obliquely criticize the United States Congress. Say things like “Some of you know that recently I’ve been taking a series of executive actions that don’t require congressional approval. Well, here’s another one.”
• Use the opportunity to criticize the media. Say things like “They received the most important part of media training, which involves learning to gobble without saying anything.”
• Never mention God, or thanks, or grace, or the American people. Never mention anything noble. Keep the attention on yourself.

ANOTHER WAY TO GRANT A PRESIDENTIAL PARDON TO THANKSGIVING TURKEYS:

• Thank the men and women in uniform and talk about how proud you are of them.
• Thank the armies of compassion – volunteers who feed the hungry and shelter the poor, teachers and nurses and pastors and firefighters, and others who serve their neighbors and better their communities.
• Thank your wonderful and supportive family, and talk about the blessing they have been in your life.
• Thank your wife for her love.
• Thank your two daughters, “Thanksgiving blessings” some 27 years ago.
• Express your thanks that your mother is doing well.
• Express your thanks for a new son-in-law at the dinner table this year.
• Thank the American people for the tremendous privilege of serving as President.
• Wish all Americans a Happy Thanksgiving, and ask God to bless them.

Kathy’s piece is The Turkey Pardon: Metaphor for the Entire Obama Presidency. Thanks go to The Anchoress (Elizabeth Scalia) for spotting it.

I am reminded that one day the humble and the self-righteous will both stand in judgment. Some may have been powerless and others may have been kings, but station in life will not be relevant.