|
Op Ed Pieces by Your Catholic Voice Members
Letters published by newspapers written by Your Catholic Voice members |
|
Boston Globe, Boston, MA Dear Sir It is a shame that the world's most civilized society has approved the most uncivilized act of gay marriages. Marriage between the same sex is so unnatural, that it is not only against the natural roles of human beings but also an act so reprehensible, we in the developing countries do not even entertain in our own very imagination. Definitely a society that approves this sort of union is in absolute terms underdeveloped. Therefore stop dividing people as developed, developing and underdeveloped on the basis of their economic status. The real underdeveloped people are those who downgrade ethical and moral principles, as in this case. Shame U.S.A. Absolute shame Massachusetts. Do not forget what happened to the Romans at the height of their power, the Greeks, the Egyptians, and so on and so forth.
Mathews Tanat |
|
The Oregonian, Portland, OR Court ignores what's best for kidsJudges are now the new legislators, demanding that Massachusetts make homosexual marriage a right. With their ruling, the court is actually promoting motherless and fatherless households, ignoring that what's best for a child is one father and one mother, as nature, not courts, dictates. In attempts to appease the radical homosexual movement in these politically correct times of promoting the new creed of perversity as diversity and intolerance of opposing opinions, arguments have been made that gay marriage would not affect the institution of marriage or society, which is fallacious, and sympathizers of this argument are naive. If gay marriage is allowed, mark my words, an absolute right to have children through adoption and surrogates will be next. Anyone who is intellectually honest knows that those who pay for adult selfishness from homosexual unions, out-of-wedlock births and too-easy divorces are those who always pay -- the children. And when the children are not protected, society pays.
EUGENIA SLATER |
|
The Buffalo News, Buffalo, NY Opposition to homosexual "marriage" is often characterized as merely based upon religious belief, irrational discrimination, homophobia, and/or an unjust denial of the basic human right to marry that belongs to every human person, including homosexuals. Such claims are logically unfounded. For thousands of years society has offered special privilege and protection to stable heterosexual unions called "marriages," because of their unique public service, that is, the preservation of the species through natural reproduction. Homosexual unions cannot provide this benefit to a nation, and thus, do not merit marital status. Equal rights claims for homosexual unions do not apply because discrimination is not at issue. If the courts attempt to redefine marriage to mean some sort of stable, loving union between any two persons, they will soon be faced with equally logical claims that restricting the contract to the traditional "two persons" is untenable. Despite present protestations to the contrary, various forms of polygamy, limited only by one's imagination, will have equal legal and logical claim to judicial redress.
Dr. Dennis Bonnette |
|
Dorchester Reporter, Dorchester, MA Dear Editor, I hope Rep. Walsh will allow an up-or-down vote on the same-sex marriage issue as your recent article by Jim O'Sullivan implies. According to the article Rep. Wash "champions civil unions and, on an up-down vote on gay marriage, says he would be for it." But supporters of marriage, fighting to achieve just such a vote for the past few years and confident that the majority of Massachusetts voters do not support same-sex marriage, have been blocked from voting on the issue by the highly questionable actions of the legislature. Unfortunately, Rep. Walsh's record does not inspire confidence as the last time around he voted to preemptively adjourn the 2002 Massachusetts constitutional convention, an act orchestrated by those opposed to just such a vote. I encourage Rep. Walsh not to repeat his earlier mistake by fully supporting, through an open and public vote on the issues, the February 11 constitutional convention and allow the question of same-sex marriage to be put before Massachusetts's voters.
Joseph Ureneck |
|
The Nashua Telegraph, Nashua, NH Dear Editor, I believe that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman, for the procreation and education of children, to provide mutual aid and support, and to live together in the way that the Author of Life intended. Leaving the Creator out of it, and just looking at nature itself, it is UNNATURAL for members of the same sex to be acknowledged as a married couple, the same as a man and a woman. I do not consider myself a "homophobic." In a nutshell: Hate the sin, Love the Sinner, Ban homosexual marriages. To do otherwise makes a mockery of the sacred union between a man and a woman.
Jeanine Notter |
|
Boston Herald, Boston, MA TO THE EDITORS: One of the most flawed aspects of the SJC's ruling on homosexual "marriage" is the notion that marriage is a civil right. Marriage is not derived from any political entity. It is a natural right, and not a civil one. The state merely recognizes it legally, and has a compelling interest in it for the continuation of society and social cohesion. Finding its origin in the natural order, marriage is also subject to natural law. Massachusetts can grant licenses to anyone and everyone, but no state or political entity can create marriage or a civil right to marry. You can call a homosexual union "marriage" if you like, but it will never actually be one. Thankfully, no civil authority on earth has as much power as the judges of Massachusetts seem to think they do. I'm just glad that our marriage license was from the far more sensible state of Ohio.
Mrs. Jaymie Stuart Wolfe, married 20 years |
YCV is a Not-for-Profit Corporation. YCV has been granted a recognition of tax exemption under Section 501 © 4 of the Internal Revenue Code.