Your Catholic Voice

Letters-to-the-Editor by Your Catholic Voice Members

Op Ed Pieces by Your Catholic Voice members
Please submit your published op ed pieces to letters@yourcatholicvoice.org. *

Manchester Union Leader  Manchester, NH
Columns - February 19, 2004

Another View:
Marriage does not exist to fulfill individual desires

MARRIAGE IS not an individual right. Marriage doesn't exist for mere personal fulfillment or the purpose of self-expression. We are not free to marry whomever we wish or as many as we wish. Marriage is a more than 4,000-year-old institution consisting of a man and a woman who pledge fidelity to one another for the purpose of raising families, which are the fundamental building blocks of all civilized societies.

This is the case for all the major peoples of the world and all the major religions ? including Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism and Confucianism ? all of which oppose homosexual unions. The fact that not all marriages result in children is the exception to the rule and doesn't negate the rule nor ignore the definition of marriage as being between a man and woman.

Homosexual activists claim that they are being denied a right and are therefore not being treated equally under the law. This is not so. Everyone who is an adult and chooses to marry, which means engaging in a matrimonial union with an adult of the opposite sex, is free to do so. New Hampshire Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson did so, and he was married for 20 years and fathered two children. The fact that later in life he chose to pursue his same-sex attraction and abandon his marriage does not entitle him or other activists to have his new lifestyle sanctioned by the state and society by redefining marriage.

It's understandable that he and others yearn for public approval of their choice to create some semblance of the appearance of marriage, but the reality is not changed if the state, by judicial fiat or otherwise, collaborates in the pretense and calls it marriage.

In the Scandinavian countries that adopted same-sex unions as equivalent to marriage in the early 1990s we have seen the rapid dissolution of two-parent households and an uptick of broken families where women and children are increasingly more dependent on the welfare state, because marriage is now looked upon there as an archaic, useless institution. "Gay marriage" helped solidify this perception in the society and accelerate the dissolution of marriage in general there.

The raison d'etre for the millennia-old institution of marriage composed of husband and wife derives from what the American founders referred to as an "ordered" liberty. Children should have a father and a mother. Each provides a distinct and necessary role model for children to grow up healthy and happy.

Unfortunately, they don't always have this, but this is the ideal toward which society should strive. Numerous studies bolster this view and show that girls without fathers in their lives are far more likely to be promiscuous, acquire STDs, get pregnant and commit suicide. Boys are more likely to become delinquents and criminals. But equally, both boys and girls need the unique affection that only a mother can give. Homosexual adoption or parenting is therefore a sad deprivation we should not further normalize or encourage as a society or government. "Gay marriage" seeks to do this.

Finally, the institution of marriage and its future is a debate that must be had and decided by "We the people." When unelected, activist judges, on 4-3 decisions, ignore state and federal constitutional precedents and circumvent the amendment process to advance what they deem to be an "enlightened" or "progressive" agenda, then we are no longer a self-governing people living in a democratic republic. Sovereignty rests with the people, as the preamble to the U.S. Constitution lays out, and the political process, requiring debate and deliberation, is the proper venue for making such far-reaching and profound decisions affecting all of American society.

We cannot continue to allow judges to ignore the will of the people and rule over us by decree. This is a denial of everyone's rights. We should not be required to amend our constitutions unnecessarily as our last resort to defend democratic rule from the whims of an unelected and unaccountable elite who seek to redefine the very nature of civilization itself along their anarchistic, utopian vision.

Judges who, like potentates, ignore their oaths by dictating new law must be reined in, and impeachment exists for that purpose. It's about time that the people's representatives in Massachusetts and across the nation begin to reestablish the separation of powers doctrine, fundamental to democracy, before we lose all of our rights to govern ourselves as we see fit.

William Asbell is an educational consultant who lives in Dover.

WILLIAM ASBELL

DAILY NEWS TRIBUNE  Waltham - Newton, MA
Published Feb. 14, 2004

To the editor:

It was with a deep sense of remorse to have viewed the marriage amendment debacle that took place in the state house last week. The inability of pro amendment forces to be given an opportunity to vote in the final session leads one to believe that the Senate Majority leader, under the pretense of "fairness", allowed a gay organized and sponsored filibuster to prevent a vote on the revised senate and house amendment. This miscarriage of justice reminds one of a similar historical issue described by the famous satirist, Juvenal, who recognized in the secularized, godless Rome of his day, "that same sex "marriage" was not merely a crime against nature and a corruption of marriage and family, as not merely a symptom of moral decline, but a function of a morally sick society that included diseases primarily transmitted by anal intercourse". As history generally repeats itself, we find ourselves heading, as is in the popular cliché described, as "sliding down the same slippery slope" of secular anarchy.

Having worked in the State government for 10 years, it was a commonly accepted theory and probably still is the norm often expressed by politicians that basically, "the people really don?t care".

Please wake up and show your representatives that you really do care by doing your civic duty. The Archbishop reminds us that we, in the final analysis, " have to stand before the Almighty and defend our actions".

Anthony Mangini
Waltham, MA

Killeen Daily Herald  ,
Published: December 13, 2003

Gay marriage decision threatens country's core beliefs

I'm going to take a giant leap in to what has become "politically taboo" in circles that embrace "political correctness. I'm going to take on the recent decision in Massachusetts which legalizes "Gay marriage."

Let me begin by stating emphatically that I'm am not against "Gay" people. I deplore discrimination. However, like most people in this world I have been shaped my religious beliefs and I believe that the moral fabric of our nation has been based on Judeo-Christian principals and morals. I would add that most, if not all of the world?s major religions have declared sodomy (i.e., homosexuality) to be an immoral abomination in the eyes of God. As such, I am against the sin but not the sinner. I feel the same way about the sins of adultery, sexual promiscuity, pornography, etc. Hence, I am not a "homophobe" except perhaps to those extreme and mean spirited types within the homosexual community whom demand that everyone "accept the Gay life style" as opposed to simply "accepting Gays."

While the Massachusetts justices said that marriage should be open to homosexuals, they limited their reading to include couples only. However, their ruling has opened the door to legitimize incest and polygamy. Any decision which recasts marriage is totally arbitrary; otherwise, why would the court reject some distinctions and embrace others?

The Massachusetts court opinion implies that limiting marriage to a man and a woman is constitutes an outdated prejudice that should be end. The court said that "the marriage restriction is rooted in persistent prejudices against persons who are (or who are believed to be) homosexual," and that "the Constitution cannot control such prejudices but neither can it tolerate them.... The law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect."

This opinion ignores thousands of years of history and the core teachings of the world's major religions. Has the whole civilized world bee prejudicial for thousand of years? Have we been rooted in our own backward prejudices throughout history as the court suggests? I think not.

It is now common that speaking out against homosexual marriage will now get you labeled a bigot and extremist. Free speech seems to stop at the door of churches and the bible. The bible is at risk of being designated extremist literature that should be banned incident to ruling such as this. Do you remember when Sen. Rick Santorum drew fire for his statements expressing concern over homosexual acts? It became all too clear that traditional Christian (and Jewish and Muslim) morality was no longer tolerated in the political sphere. Not only that, if this Massachusetts court decision is allowed to stand, opposition to homosexual marriage will officially and legally become an issue of discrimination. The law will not tolerate those who disagree with it. For example, institutions will now have to change their employment policies and benefits packages to recognize homosexual partners. Christian Church's, Synagogue's, and Mosques, with all their schools, hospitals, and charities, would be subject to these new legal rulings. And yet to recognize these unions would go directly against their beliefs.

This decision goes far beyond merely recognizing same-sex couples legally; those who disagree with the validity of same-sex marriages can be censored for their beliefs. So what do we do now? The faithful is obligated to fight this decision by all legal means available, in the courts and in the court of public opinion. Much is at stake if we lose this battle. We do not do this to attack "gays." Rather, because our entire belief system which is founded in historical, biblical, and scriptural tradition is under attack we are left with no choice but to defend our faith. Our rights as people of faith have been placed at risk to facilitate the imposition of Gay marital rights. This is a very dangerous precedent.

We have 3,000 years of recorded history supporting us. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman ... and our constitution and laws should reflect that. Now is the time for everyone to appeal to our elected legislators to once and for all put an end to this sort of judicial activism. It is long past time for these magistrates to be brought to justice at the state and federal level. The law provides for impeachment and our elected representatives need to get busy impeaching those judges who take it upon themselves to "invent" laws such as this. Unless and until this happens, we are all at risk.

ED COET is a retired army officer, a profesional educator and a frequently published free lance writer. He riesides in Bell County. Texas. He can be reaced at PatriotEdd@aol.com.

Ed Coet