BOSTON, Feb. 24 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following is a statement by Your Catholic Voice national president, Ray Flynn, on President Bush's announced support for the Federal Marriage Amendment:

"It is important for people to know where all of the U.S. Presidential candidates stand on support for the Federal Marriage Amendment."

"What has happened in Massachusetts and San Francisco proves that the courts will ignore state laws. A constitutional amendment is the only way to guarantee that marriage will remain only between one man and one woman."

"It is simply not enough to just say you personally oppose same-sex marriage. It is hypocritical and inconsistent to say you're against same-sex marriage but won't support a federal constitutional amendment to prevent the judiciary from redefining marriage against the will of the people."

for more information: http://www.yourcatholicvoice.com/index.php?id=articles&article=14

Your Catholic Voice (YCV) is the largest and most active Catholic grassroots political and policy organization in America.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 25, 2004

Answers

bump

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 25, 2004.

Yeah. I'm sure the framers of the constitution dreamed of an America where marriage was defined by the federal government.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), February 25, 2004.

Yeah. I'm sure the framers of the constitution dreamed of an America where marriage was defined by the federal government.

You mean in contrast to homosexual judges? [one of the judges in San Francisco ruling in favor of homosexual marriage, is himself a homosexual.]

Seriously, the framers of the Constitution knew that marriage was defined by religious tradition. This is what lead the Supreme Court to rule that our 'institutions' are founded on religious principles.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 25, 2004.

Regardless of their view on gay marriage, I'm sure they wouldn't want the federal government deciding this issue. It's better left to the states.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), February 25, 2004.

Regardless of their view on gay marriage, I'm sure they wouldn't want the federal government deciding this issue. It's better left to the states.

Yea, that is the arguement given by the homosexual activists and the Democrats. Why? Because they are slowly but surely overcoming a few States. So a couple of States will fall, this year. Then because, as you know, we have in the Fed constitution a provision that ALL States MUST recognize the licenses of other States.

Article IV
Section 1.
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

So the law congress passed under Clinton's administration that was suppose to protect marriage, will be challenged in the US Supreme Court AND be overturned. Why? Because it is unconstitutional as the constitution is now written.

So, if we don't ammend the constitution we will end up with national legalized homosexual marriages (and eventually polygamy, and bisexual marriages at least) within 2-5 years. The Democrats know that. They are hoping we are all ignorant of it.

That is why their talking point is to "leave it up to the States."

So, if we 'leave it up to the States, eventually the meaning of the word marriage will be meaningless.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 25, 2004.

Dear Anti-Bush,

Apparently the States are having trouble keeping its judges in line. Therein lies the problem . . activist, lunatic, tyrannical judges that refuse to uphold the law. These guys are truly scary.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 25, 2004.

Yes, Bill, it's all part of a sinister plan to rule the world. MWAHAHAHAHAHA! Chill out, buddy. It's not hurting anyone. Just because YOU don't agree with it doesn;t mean you should be able to impose your morals on everyone else. These are just people like you and me, who happen to be gay, who want the same benefits as same-sex couples. No one is asking religious institutions to accept it, but if they want to go down to the court house and get a marriage license there is nothing wrong with that. You don't like it, don't watch.

Here's a question that I have asked over and over again on this board, and no one has answered it: HOW DOES IT HURT YOU???

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), February 25, 2004.

Anti-bush, you are starting to sound anti-catholic
Marriage is a sacrament. I would speak out against anyone attempting to make any sacrament illegitimate. In this case, the attack is against marriage. Marriage is a sacrament because it is EXTREMELY important for the spiritual morality of the society. So, yes, to elimitate it is to cause a great deal of harm, not only to our society, but to millions of children who deserve a mom and a dad who have a loving marriage. The push should be to reinvigorate marriage, not to dilute it.

The question you need to ask yourself is why did God establish marriage? Was it for the husband and wife alone? Or was it also for the kids? In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 25, 2004.

Yes, Bill, it's all part of a sinister plan to rule the world. MWAHAHAHAHAHA!Chill out, buddy. It's not hurting anyone.

{Odd, in Canada, where the President thir established same Sex marriage, guess what, they are also tryign to ban the Bible as Hate speach, or at leats part of it, and they ar also preventign peopel form takign up bewspaper ads that site Biblical sctipture agaisnt Homosexuality... so, in order to prevent the "Psycological injury" of one mans right ot religion and free speach, they fined him... and the laws their may make it COMPULSERY for ministers to recognise, and perform, same se xunions, otherwise they are guilty of discrimination and an act of Hate. Sentencing coudl lead to two year sin prison...Do we want this in the good old US of A?}-Zarove

Just because YOU don't agree with it doesn;t mean you should be able to impose your morals on everyone else.

{But you and the good old liberals can impose sexcilarism and effectively tell us our morals dotn mattger, and that we MUST see thikngs you way or else... sorry, uout beign a Hypocrite.}-Zarove

These are just people like you and me, who happen to be gay, who want the same benefits as same-sex couples.

{Having long sence discussed htis, we simpley wan tot assure the safety of society, and assure marriage as a sacred rite, and not somethign that can be forcabely difined by a militant state.}-Zarove

No one is asking religious institutions to accept it, but if they want to go down to the court house and get a marriage license there is nothing wrong with that.

{Yes their is, it not only cheapen s marriage and disabilised society, current hisotry in Canada has PROBEN as a FACT that, if given the chance, the same govenrmental forces ( Liberal all) woudl impose their moral veiss on religioys establishements, again look into Canada right now, they ar eliterlaly tryign to impose on Chruches their same sex marriag, and posisbley inact a law that says that religions can neither speak agaisnt it, nor hender it. They want Ministers over theor to perform same sex marriages BY COMPULSION OF LAW, and the same type pof peopel are down here...if it becomes legal, it will be enforced by law, especially since hte majority ar eopposed to it, and it will be a mate rof time before its imposed on the Churches as well.}-Zarove

You don't like it, don't watch.

{Kinda hard not to watch when my tax dollars go to it, and when My churches ar eordered to accept it, and when civilisation begins to decay, kinda relaly hard to not watch when it becomes compulsery that I must acknowledge it.}-Zarove

Here's a question that I have asked over and over again on this board, and no one has answered it: HOW DOES IT HURT YOU???

{It hurts us all to see sin, and this is sin. It hurts me to see htem destory their lives, it hurts me to see my rights taken away, it hurts me to see marriage cheapened, and it hurts me to see tyranny truiumph.}-Zarpve

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 25, 2004.

GAY MARRIAGE ON CROSSFIRE [ from: KJL at NRO]
From last night:

CARLSON: Well, then, let me ask you this question. Cheryl [Jacques, Human Rights Campaign], I want to ask you a question that I've asked

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: I beg your pardon. I want to -- I want to ask you a question. And I want you to answer it. No one ever answers this question. And perhaps you will.

The standards that the Massachusetts Supreme Court set was intimacy. People are intimate, share intimacy, they deserve to be married. Why draw the line at two people, say? Why shouldn't a group of three men, for instance, by that standard, be able to be married? It's an honest question. I'd like an honest answer, please.

JACQUES: Here's an honest answer. Tucker, I'm raising two sons. I want them to be in love with a committed partner. I want them to have a family. I want grandchildren. I want them to take care of each other. I want them to share each other's health insurance. I want, when one of them dies, the other one to be able to receive Social Security survivor benefits, because they'll pay into it, as I do.

CARLSON: OK, but you haven't answered the question yet.

JACQUES: I just answered it.

CARLSON: No, no, why not three?

JACQUES: I want two committed parents, like every family.

CARLSON: But why deny the right of [three] people

(CROSSTALK)

JACQUES: Because I don't approve of that.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: Why don't you approve of it?

BEGALA: Who is asking for it?

HAYWORTH: Well, I'll tell you who is asking for it.

JACQUES: The American Pediatrics Association, all the leading groups say two committed parents.

CARLSON: But give me a reason. I don't understand.

(CROSSTALK)

JACQUES: That's what makes for a healthy family and a loving family and that's what I want. HAYWORTH: Paul asked, who is asking for this? And the sad fact is, right now, polygamists are petitioning the courts in Utah.

JACQUES: That's not what this is about.

(CROSSTALK)

HAYWORTH: No, it's precisely what this is about.

CARLSON: Why isn't that what it is about?

(CROSSTALK)

JACQUES: Because that's a different show with different advocates. This is about two loving, committed people.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 26, 2004.

I believe (as most may do) that marriage is indicative of a married COUPLE rather than polygymism or polyandrism. Cheryl is not quite understood. Again, she refers to a committed COUPLE. She did answer the question.

-- Joseph (joemarious@yahoo.com), February 26, 2004.

I believe (as most may do) that marriage is indicative of a married COUPLE

And some don't believe this. So you are simply saying that the only reason that marriage is between a couple (and not say a bisexual man and another man and a woman) is because of your belief. So you are saying the law should only follow your belief and that your belief trumps other people's beliefs, and that should be the law of the land???? See the problem you get into when you open up this can of worms? Let's just keep marriage defined as a union between a man and a woman, and stop mucking with institutions God has made.

In Christ,
Bill Nelson

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 26, 2004.

lets not forget sick organizations like nambla bill...

what would happen if nambla and the aclu had their way with setting up marraige?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 26, 2004.

"if youre talking about bush, then theres an objection to this in that bush is ALLOWING civil unions but not allowing marraiges."

So your saying that gay marriage is wrong because gays can't have kids. Fine. But then shouldn't you also tell sterile heterosexuals that they can;t get married? Or how about convicted felons? No one is trying to stop convicted felons from marrying and having kids. How is that ok but a gay union not ok?

Zarove,

Cut this stubborn crap out. By allowing gay marriage, no one is forcing anything on anyone. What a dumb thing to say. It's called LEAVING THE CHOICE UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL. How does that impose on you? No one is saying you have to marry a gay person. No one is asking your church to recognize gay unions. How many times do I have to say that???

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), February 26, 2004.

Zarove,

Cut this stubborn crap out. By allowing gay marriage, no one is forcing anything on anyone. What a dumb thing to say. It's called LEAVING THE CHOICE UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL. How does that impose on you? No one is saying you have to marry a gay person. No one is asking your church to recognize gay unions. How many times do I have to say that???

{SO we shuld all do the sensable thing and agree with you, on np other gtpounds than you say that bad things wont happen... and we can just pretend those bad bad thoings happenig in Canada won't happen here.

Look it up, as soon as they allowed same sex marriages in Canada, they later ENFORCED people to agree with it, and PREVENTED people form speaking ahaisnt it peacefully.

A Man was sued and fined for takign an add in a newspaper, with his own money, that quoted scripture. another man was sued for refusing to print up leterhead endorsign a gay and Lesbian group. In short, thes emen where FORCED to accept Homosexuality, one lost the ability to speak agaisnt it, the other lost the ability to refuse to promote it with his company.

Likewise, in Canada, they are NOW DISCUSSING placing parts of the Bible on the Hate speach loist, thus makign its publication and distribution ILLEGAL, they ARE tellign Christain Ministers NOT to mention God, the Bible, or Jesus in public forums such as memorials, ect, the ARE beginnign to tell Christain ministers that they MUST perfom gay marriages in their Chruches. Becaus if they dont,. they are discriminatory.

As to not hurting me, we have been through that, hwo does this NOT Hurt me? How does knowign that the Tazs I send in tot h Govenrment that I worked for and earned is NOW BEIGN USED TO PROMOTGE SOEMHTIGN I AM OPPOSED TO ON MORAL PRINCIPLE? How is it not hurtign me to see people mopcking the whole definition of leghitimate marriage and renderign it meanignless?

How is it not hurtign me to see MY rights and MY voice silenced so that Universal acceptance of this can be maintained by legeslature that cdoenst give a Dman about me, my feelings, my morals, or my fair say? How is loosing my right to speak agaisn thtis not hurting me?

How is it that Homosexual marriages have caused a decline in legitimate opposite sex marriages whrever implemented can be said t NOT hurt me? Gay marriage hurts everyone. Even those who support it.

ALSO NOTE THIS: The majority of the American ppopulace is actually opposed ot same sex marriage. Yet the "Will of the People" which you locve so much is in clear violation here, so how can you support the illegal marriages that have been happening while declarign that you will live by th will fo the people?}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 26, 2004.

We are not talking about simply the ability to have sex and have kids. We are talking about the procreation AND nurturing of children. There are 2 purposes of marriage: a bonding between a man and a woman AND the procreation and nurturing of children. BOTH are elements of marriage. BOTH contribute to a stable society. That is the way it is, was and will always be. If you want have sex outside of this institution, call it that. If you want to have a friendship, call it that, not a marriage.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 26, 2004.

Most people don't keep up with politics until they are affected then they complain. If you want a vision of your future through liberal eyes, see this article in the Nation magazine.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 26, 2004.

Dear Anti-Bush, I too hate and mourn the loss of our liberty, the loss of our economy, the loss of our ecology, and Bush has changed me from being an Independent to a near-rabid wholehearted Democrat. Just loosing the right not to be taken to jail at any time and the right of habeas corpus gets me going. To be able to be jailed with out charges for an indefinite time means that liberty is gone. This has already happened to americans, and if they get away with this abuse the abuse will spread.

But.

This is a rightwing/Conservative forum. One that defines (see above posts) the Catholic Church as a rightwing/conservative church (see all posts from regulars). They have a point: they are here to answer questions about the Catholic faith as they see it, not to be pestered by the politics of you and I. Generally I try to stay close to the forum's intent and not bother them greatly. My replies still bother them, but sometimes there is real dialog and we both get educated.

You should try to either respect their stubbornly defended position or consider bothering someone else.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), February 27, 2004.

"what would happen if nambla and the aclu had their way with setting up marraige?"

If that where the case, Michael Jackson woudl b ahead of his time... Imagine a world in which a 34 year old man has a 9 year old "Spouse" in a committd, same sex relationship that no longer recognises the "Evil" of ageism. Yeah, we aren't on the slippery slope to chaos and anarchy.........

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 27, 2004.

Sean,
I think this list is less 'right wing' as orthodox catholic. We defend the faith of the Church as taught by our magistarium. I don't think that makes us 'right wing', although I am personally a conservative in many areas, others here are not.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 27, 2004.

Bill, that was a great site, thanks!

It really bothered me, though, to see this passage in the article "Holy Matrimony".

"Bush's $1.5 billion package, to be used to hire counselors and offer classes in marital harmony, extends the commitment contained in the 1996 welfare "reform" bill, passed under Clinton, to "end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting...marriage." Women and children, in other words, should depend on men for basic economic support, while women care for dependents--children, elderly parents, disabled family members, etc. Under such a model, married-couple households might "relieve" the state of the expense of helping to support single-parent households, and of the cost of a wide range of social services, from childcare and disability services to home nursing. Marriage thus becomes a privatization scheme: Individual married-couple-led households give women and children access to higher men's wages, and also "privately" provide many services once offered through social welfare agencies. More specifically, the unpaid labor of married women fills the gap created by government service cuts."

What a SHAME that anyone would look at marriage in only this way. And it does a great disservice to all men who care for their children or elderly at home. I was always brought up with the notion that you take care of family out of LOVE, that changing diapers and caring for your parents when they get old you do because you LOVE them.

I would like to see, however, something in the law that provides for one sibling bearing the physical burden of caring for a parent (like actually having them in the home, or being the one checking in on them and doing all the laundry, etc., as you do in nursing homes) to be able to legally get some money from any other siblings. Fact is, usually it is one person bearing all the burden of caring for parents (including in-laws) and the burden, imho, should be shared by all of the blood relative family to a certain extent out of common decency.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 27, 2004.

Liberls talk abou love then reduce the way we show love to political agendas, its happend before.

Liberals in one breath say that Gay coupels shoudl marry, because they love each other, and we shoudltn stop them, and in the next, complain about a man who wishes to support his family, because it is economiclaly privatised. Theu ignore the fac tthat he may be doing this out of Love for his family, and insist that all the affairs of the household shoudl be state regulated, and its all about money.

Marriage, to them, is about economic relationshops, ot love, then they try to lie through their teeth about love when they try to force us to accpt Their own qay..

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.CPOM), February 27, 2004.

Bill,

I understand that your faith teaches that gay marriage is wrong, and I respect that. But there are many other religions that don't beleive it's wrong. Your church does not have to recognize gay unions. No one is asking it to. What they are asking is to allow homosexuals to go down to the courthouse and get a piece of paper entitling them to the same civil benefits as committed heterosexuals. The paper des not have to say "Marriage License". It can say "License of Civil Union". How about that?

Zarove,

The policies you mentioned above are undemocratic and evil. But they aren't a package deal; they don't neccessarily have to come with gay marriage. As far as I know, no Democratic candidate has advocated anything like what is happening in Canada. I certainly wouldn;t want anything like that.

As for your claim that a majority of Americans are against gay unions, show me the figures. I would really like to see them.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), February 27, 2004.

Anti-bush,
Here is your answer from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops:

What are called “homosexual unions,” because they do not express full human complementarity and because they are inherently non- procreative, cannot be given the status of marriage.

Recently, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a statement emphatically opposing the legalization of homosexual unions. Bishop Wilton D. Gregory, President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, welcomed this statement and further articulated our own conviction that such “equivalence not only weakens the unique meaning of marriage; it also weakens the role of law itself by forcing the law to violate the truth of marriage and family life as the natural foundation of society and culture.”

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 27, 2004.

I believe that marriage has served society well, and I believe it is important to affirm that, that marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal. And the job of the President is to drive policy toward the ideal. This is a sensitive debate and it is important that people hold true to their beliefs without condemning anybody else. And so, therefore, I call upon all sides in the debate to conduct themselves with dignity and honor and respect.

But this is a debate that the nation must have. And the people's voice must be heard in the debate.

President Bush in an interview on Feb 27, 2004.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), February 28, 2004.

Anti-Bush

For news on Canada, go to these links.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31080

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/feb/03021001.html

http://www.rense.com/general37/isthe.htm

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/954646/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/912926/posts

here is where a man is ued for postign an ad

http://staging.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/record.html?record=3114

and here, a man is sued for not printing up letterhear for a gay group because it violeated his principles.

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/english/news/e_pr_refusaltoprint.shtml

I even saw one article which I cant find now where a Mayor refused to proclaim Gay Pride day and he Human rights counsil slammed him...

SZo they can silence Christyaisn and FORCE towns to accept Gay Pride day.

Claimign that it wont happen here isnt good enough, what assurances have you hat it wont? Thed fac tthat Canada enforces these things shows how it can be enforced here.

For news on the amount of peopel who are opposed to Gy Marriage int eh USA, go here.

For Massatutets.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/02/22/majority_in_mass_ poll_oppose_gay_marriage/

For the whole nation.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0224GayMarriagePolls24-ON.html

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 28, 2004.

http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSLaw0003/23_mayor.html

Mayor Gray and his resolve.And Canada's federal disaproval.NOTE: I have also read where mayors have refused Chrisain parades as they woudl be "Offnsive" yet demand everyone treat Gay pride parades as a good thing...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 28, 2004.