Well, so? The Catholic Church is a Private Organization and can wield their social & political power - representing their views - because that is their purpose or roll in society. You don't compromise your beliefs just to satisfy the "majority" so why should they? More importantly we should respect the right of the Catholic Church to vet their beliefs publicly, just as you expect the "rights" of the "gays" to be respected. The public should also be respected to choose without government interference, too. Isn't the entire argument about respecting individual choice in the first place?

At yesterday's red mass (teeing up the Supremes before they totter off to start the court's new term) the prelate who delivered the homily went on (and on) in sonorous, pontifical tones about the threat of gay marriage to the foundations of society. Fortunately, only five of the nine "justices" are under the authority of the Roman Catholic church, so we should be okay.

And Mark, your energetic defense of church policy is lofty and sounds good if you say it fast. But I would just note that most of what the church has to say on the issues of gay rights (and abortion and birth control, while we're at it) is rather precisely aimed at imposing the policy of the church on the larger society. That is completely at odds with "individual choice".

"is rather precisely aimed at imposing the policy of the church on the larger society"

If you assume larger society means the Catholic church. I wouldn't stretch into something more sinister.

If the official Catholic church decree is against gay marriage, then sobeit - An opinion and nothing more. I don't believe most Catholics are mindless automatons who heed the call of the top guy if their conscience is truly against it.

They can only say what they think being a good Catholic means. I kinda thought the idea of the Catholic church telling society what to do ended with Kennedy's election 50 years ago.

The Catholic Church is a Private Organization and can wield their social & political power - representing their views - because that is their purpose or roll [sic] in society.

Except that unlike most Private Organizations, they don't pay taxes.

With guys like that making statements presumably as the intermediary for God, it makes you wonder if their communication lines have gotten a bit frayed lately.

Perhaps it all comes down to, "If I can't have it, then nobody else should either."

Interesting link to Wiki given the fact every time a vote to protect the definition of marriage is taken, it always passes.

No voters have passed measures that allows for marriage not between 1 man and 1 woman.

The sky won't fall--because Global Warming keeps it up. Silly you.

I'm all for freedom of religion, but isn't it possible for a good practicing Catholic to believe that his Church should never sanctify a SSM and (at the same time) conclude that there is no good (nonreligious) reason for the government to prohibit it?

History shows us (time and again) that when religion and government are conflated -- bad things happen.

Their organized and systematic protection of pedos, and not just covering for them, but sending them back into work where they have access to more kids, is vile, and utterly nullifies any claim to moral authority they may ever have had. Their lips may be moving, but I can't hear a word they've said.

Pistol - Anonymous votes to restrict the rights of a minority almost always pass and are universally inappropriate.

My policy view is that marriage is a classic institution that has been completely subverted. Tradition has been eradicated. Divorce on a whim, women can own property, you can't beat your wife, ladies can refuse to take your last name, husbands prosecuted for rape etc...what once was is gone, what are we protecting anymore? Nothing. A romantic notion that may have never existed.

In the end the Supremes will shut this whole thing down. So the world won't burn in hell. Yay.

-Jo

PS: I have a personal problem with all of these nitwits defining what my relationships are. They should stick to shaking babies and kissing hands. Leave this up to the individual.

Sam - I just read your post and I laughed some Pepsi out of my nose. Thanks man. I dig your style.

The Catholic church is a non profit, not a private organization. While the Church is far from perfect, that should not be a surprise, for the are human. The Church leader can and should be forgiven, as hard as that is to do.

Remember that the Church is not as evil as many naysayers say in their over reaction. For example, there is no Fatwa placed upon you for your honest opinion and open talk in this forum. Good luck having this dialog in a muslim community or country.

One of the purposes of religion is to establish an ethical and moral framework for one's life. Many people today don't even believe that there is such a thing as right and wrong, least of all one that can be defined by a religion. Perhaps it is the fact that Catholics entrust their priests with their hierarchy to declare what is a sin, and their priests the ability to absolve one of sin. Putting a human face on God's word can make a mere human seem grandiose at best and hypocritical at worst.

I think Americans don't like authority much, so unless they were raised as Catholics, the whole thing with the clergy telling everyone what is right and wrong doesn't sit well at all. The Catholics I know either accept the authority of the Church without much thought or do so in practice but not belief. I am sure there are some die hards, but in every religion you take the good with the bad. What amazes me is that people respond to these bishops as if what they say will change our laws or rights. What is everyone afraid of? Just ignore them and leave the ones who still find comfort in the religion alone - they really are not in a position to hurt you.

What amazes me is that people respond to these bishops as if what they say will change our laws or rights.

What amazes me is that people think that religious beliefs don't affect our laws and rights. I guess Sandra Fluke and that whole - as yet unsettled - debate was just so last summer ago?

No voters have passed measures that allows for marriage not between 1 man and 1 woman.

Give us five more weeks.