Here’s What Will Happen if Marriage is Redefined…

Editor’s Note: The following are the prepared remarks given by Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. on January 15, 2013 to the Rhode Island legislature during hearings on the proposed redefinition of marriage. It is provided by The Ruth Institute.

Almost two years ago, I came to this place to plead with you not to remove the gender requirement from marriage.[1]  I predicted that children would have three legal parents[2] and that custody disputes would involve three or more adults.[3]  I predicted greater attacks on religious liberty for those who resist your war against the gendered nature of the human body.[4]  I predicted the systematic removal of gendered language from the law. No more husbands and wives, only spouses. No more mother and father. Only Parent 1 and Parent 2.[5]

All of these things have come to pass in other places.

Tonight, I have returned.

You will little note, nor long remember what I say here.   The rich people in our country have decided that we are going to have what you call same sex marriage.[6]  You will do what you have come to do.

So tonight, I have a few more predictions.

Some of you are in this fight for power, some for love.

For those of you who are in it for the power: I predict that even if you do not have enough votes this time, you will keep coming back until you do.

I predict that you will continue to remove any recognition of sex differences from the law.  The very bill you are considering tonight replaces “husbands” and “wives” and leaves only “parties.”   Banning a father daughter dance will seem like child’s play,[7] by the time you and your allies are done using the law to purge every last hint of sex differences from society.

I predict that you will grow more aggressive in attacking the natural bonds between parents and children.  You will continue to blur the distinction between “parent” and “non-parent.”[8]

But some excluded fathers will want a relationship with their children.[9] Some mothers will find sharing their child with another woman to be far more difficult than they expected.[10]  And some children will want to know their missing parent.[11]

No matter. Genderless marriage commits the state to taking sides against the natural parent and in favor of the socially constructed parent.

I predict that you will block any meaningful reform of the IVF Industry.  The IVF industry is guilty of grotesque exploitation of the poor by the rich, including the outsourcing of surrogacy to India.[12] I predict you will turn a blind eye to this and other abuses.

I predict that you will follow Quebec in its attempts to prohibit the belief that heterosexuality is normal.[13]  Wiping out a belief in something that is actually true will certainly open up vast vistas of government involvement in civil society.   Redefining marriage opens the door to increases in government power that could never be achieved any other way.

I do not know if any of these things are your intent or your wish.  But I predict they will be the outcome, the logical result of your marriage policy.

For those of you who are in it for the love, I have a few predictions for you too.

Many of us in the marriage movement are survivors of earlier phases of the Sexual Revolution.  We found that it didn’t work for us, the hook-ups, divorce, single motherhood, marital infidelity, cohabitation, as well as the contraception and abortion that made it all appear to be possible.  Only a few of us were wise enough to see from the beginning that this would end badly. And those who did see it, drew on the wisdom of the ancient Christian churches, churches that take a far longer view of things than most people do.

It would be astonishing if the steps you are contemplating tonight will work any better for you than the earlier stages did for us.

I predict that none of it will make you happy.  Not redefining marriage. Not the attempts to smother sex differences and biological connections. Not the further suppression of churches, religious organizations, and faith-filled private citizens. If normalizing homosexual activity were going to make you happy, it would have done so long ago.  You would not be so desperate today for affirmation from strangers.

And if any of you come to realize that the Sexual Revolution has been one empty promise after another, we will embrace you.  We will welcome you to our ragtag  ranks of  refugees, defectors and displaced persons from the great social civil war of our time.

Perhaps I will be mistaken, and you will never have a moment’s doubt for the rest of your lives.  In that case, we must continue to oppose you, to try to contain the damage we believe you are doing.

Even if we should lose this particular fight on this particular evening, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength on the airwaves, we shall defend our beliefs, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight in the churches, we shall fight at the ballot box, we shall fight in the schools and in the courts, we shall fight on the web; we shall never surrender.

As for me, I shall sleep soundly tonight, knowing that I have done my duty to God and my country and to future generations. And with that, I wish you all, a good night.

[1] My testimony from February 2011 is available on-line at the Ruth Institute Marriage Library,

[2] California passed a bill permitting a child to have three legal parents if in the opinion of the judge, it was in the child’s best interest.  This particular law did not require the consent of any of the parents.  Governor Jerry Brown vetoed this bill, saying, “I am sympathetic to the author’s interest in protecting children. … But I am troubled by the fact that some family law specialists believe the bill’s ambiguities may have unintended consequences. I would like to take more time to consider all of the implications of this change.”  See my analysis of this bill, and the situation that gave rise to it, “Why California’s Three Parent Bill was Inevitable,”  The Public Discourse , September 10, 2012. a shorter analysis, see “A Little Girl Named M.C.,” available on-line at:

[3] For a Canadian case involving three parents see here:

For a British case involving four parents, see here:

[4] For example, an innkeeper in Vermont, , a minister in Ontario, Canada,  For more complete analysis  of the religious liberty implications of this bill, I defer to my learned colleague from the Alliance Defending Freedom, Ms. Kellie Fiedorek.

[5] Washington State’s new marriage bill replaces “husband” and “wife” with generic  “spouses” throughout the law.

The U. S. State Department attempted to introduce Parent 1 and Parent 2 on US Passports. After a public outcry, the attempt was abandoned.  But the attempt is still significant because it illustrates the momentum for removing gender-specific language from the law.

[6] To cite just a few examples, in New York, Wall Street Republicans contributed the money necessary to redefine marriage in the legislature.  In Washington state, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos contributed $2.5 million to pass the referendum redefining marriage.  Contributions of this magnitude made it possible for the proponents of genderless marriage to outspend the advocates of conjugal marriage many times over.

[7]The Cranston,  Rhode Island school district banned a father daughter dance, under pressure from the ACLU, that such a dance would be improper gender discrimination. ” Father-daughter dances banned in R.I. as ‘gender discrimination’” Los Angeles Times,  September 18, 2012,,0,2172144.story

[8] Family law radicals are already paving the way for the redefinition of parenthood, to go along with the redefinition of marriage.  One way to blur the distinction between parent and non-parent, and to break down “bionormativity,” is to create and/or expand the concept of “de facto parent,” in which a judge can decide whether someone unrelated to child either through biology or adoption, can nonetheless count as a parent.  “Court upholds woman’s ‘de facto’ parental rights,” Delaware on-line, April 18, 2011, The Delaware statute ”is not specific to same sex couples, but applies to other unmarried partners and stepparents.” NEWS01/104190347/Court-upholds-woman-s-de-facto-parental-rights?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Home|s;  State of Minnesota, A05-537, May 10, 2007, In re the Matter of Nancy SooHoo, Respondent, vs Marilyn Johnson. See also,  In re parentage of L.B., a Washington case creating a four part test for definition of de facto parents.

For an academic defense of multiple party parenting by contract, see Associate Professor at Michigan State University College of Law, Melanie B. Jacobs, “Why Just Two? Disaggregating Traditional Parental Rights and Responsibilities to Recognize Multiple Parents,” 9 Journal of Law and Family Studies 309 (2007).  The media are also attempting to normalize the redefinition of parenthood. See this puff piece,  “Johnny has two mommies—and four dads,” in the Boston Globe, October 24, 2010,

[9] The In re M.C. case arose in part because the biological father came forward to try to care for his daughter after the birth mother went to jail for accessory to attempted murder of her former partner. “Why California’s Three Parent Bill was Inevitable,”  The Public Discourse , September 10, 2012.

[10] This is probably a factor in the drama in the background of the in re M.C. case.  It is surely a factor in the celebrated Miller-Jenkins custody dispute.    “FBI arrests Tenn. Pastor in Vt.-VA custody case,” Sign On San Diego, April 22, 2011. news/2011/apr/22/fbi-arrests-tenn-pastor-in-vt-va-custody-case/ “Vermont: ruling in Lesbian Custody Case,” New York Times, January 22, 2010,

[11] See the many blogs and websites started by Donor Conceived Persons, such as,,

[12] On the outsourcing of surrogacy to poor countries, see the following articles, which vary in their approval of the practice. Forbes considers it just another business. “The Newest Wave in Outsourcing to India: Surrogate Pregnancies,” Forbes, July 23, 2012.

The Center for Bioethics and Culture considers it exploitation. “Biological Eugenic Colonialism,” citing a story from May 2012,

WebMD just reports, “Womb for Rent: Surrogate Mothers in India,”

[13]“The Quebec Policy Against Homophobia,” also pledges to eliminate “heteronormativity,” which is the belief that heterosexuality is normal. http://

Jennifer Morse


Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. is the Founding President of the Ruth Institute, an educational organization promoting lifelong married love to college students and young adults. She thanks Mr. Austin Muck, her 2011 Blackstone Legal Fellowship intern, for his assistance with the legal research on "In re M.C."

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • Judy

    Thank you so very much for getting this on Catholic Exchange — we must, with all our might, fight to protect the sanctity of marriage!

  • This argument presupposes a few things.

    1. That the fringe radicals who support gay marriage represent the whole. This is not the case.

    2. That most same-sex marriages will lead to a bitter custody case over children. Not only are there many young same-sex couples who don’t have kids, but having three parties in a custody battle is hardly limited to gay marriage. When I was a teacher, a mom brought her new husband to her kid’s parent-teacher conference, even though the dad was there, too. I know that’s anecdotal evidence, but I have a hard time believing that such a case is exceptional. My point is that bitter custody cases are the result of divorce, not gay marriage.

    3. That the people who want gay marriage are engaged because they want to take something away from you. There is scant evidence of that, other than a few exceptional cases. These predictions fall under the categories of arguments taught as logical fallacies to first-year philosophy students: non sequitur, appeal to fear, appeal to tradition, hasty generalization, and since this is a list of “predictions”, slippery slope.

    I would like to offer a prediction: Same-sex marriage will become the law of the land, there will be a lot of pouting from reactionaries, and then we will all move on with our lives. It happened a half century ago after the Civil Rights Act passed. It will happen again, and you will find yourself among the George Wallaces and Bull Connors of the world.

  • Laurie

    It is sad to think that what we believe and fight so hard for within our own homes, the sanctity of family, my husband, myself, our children, does not matter to anyone in our government, once we step outside our door.

  • catholicmom

    We may “move on with our lives” for a short period of time, but I don’t believe that will last. As the Pope pointed out in his Christmas speech (see, our culture is seeking to deny the very nature of human beings—that we were created as male and female. (Genesis 1:27: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”) A denial of our very nature will inevitably lead to something that impacts all of us in a very real way.

    Just one way that we will undeniably be impacted is the suppression/oppression of Christians. Just one example among many is that recently the European Court of Human Rights ruled that homosexual rights trump the rights of Christians (see This will end badly for the faithful, no doubt.

  • andreagregorio
  • More

    Dave Montrose, your belief that this is just another phase in the civil rights battle seems naive and silly. I’m surprised you can’t see the nature of what is at stake here. The most fundamental relationship is being redefined, and those who are doing the redefining will not rest until all march in lockstep to their strange vision. There will be no religious freedom if they are successful. No opposition will be tolerated. How is it you cannot see the obvious?

  • and why exactly SHOULD the “sanctity of your family, husband, and children” matter to anyone except you and your family, husband, and children? It’s no one’s job but your to keep the sanctity of your own marriage.

  • Mike

    “Traditional marriage” with a 50% failure rate, has made us all so happy.

  • Peetem

    It was only a matter of time before someone made the ill-fated and error-filled comparison of homosexual behavior to civil rights. I honestly can’t believe people still believe that line of thinking actually holds water.

    1) The recognition of homosexual “marriage” by the state is an approval of a mortally sinful behavior. Its an offense against truth both in the teachings of the Church (and most mainstream Christians) and against God. We are our brother’s keeper and should always, either through the state or other means, seek to help him/her live the virtuous life as much as possible without “twisting of arms”.
    2) The Church defends the inherent dignity of homosexuals as a condition of existence but does not defend the behavior. However, being a minority carries no inherent sinfulness either as a state of being or as a behavior. Therefore, comparing sinful behavior to an un-sinful existence is an flawed argument on the moral level.
    3) Removing the religious aspects of the debate – no one would ever know if someone is a homosexual unless they were told [by the homosexual]. However, one cannot hide the color of their skin, eyes, hair and etc.. Therefore, the nonsensical debate that homosexuals need to be treated fairly has zero basis. If folks just kept their mouths shut, nobody would know [or care] how a person chose to live their life. I don’t around shouting out to folks that I like to have sex with the lights on. Why do homosexuals feel the need to tell the world they like to have sex with their own sex?

    I wish those in the cafeteria line would quit whining about the service – either accept the menu or go somewhere else.

  • standtall909

    I think what she was saying, Tara, was that inside the home we are perfectly free to raise our families and instill in them our own values, but once we are outside our own doors we MUST ADHERE TO GOVERNMENT RULES EVEN IF THEY GO AGAINST OUR BELIEFS. It’s called “Religious Freedom” which we are quickly loosing.

  • CW

    What a bunch of paranoid crap. Lets sum up this drivel. “Think of what will happen if we don’t keep “teh geyz” in their place!” Paranoia, bigotry, absolutely disgusting ideology at work.

  • catholicexchange

    But no one is arguing that the divorce rate is a good thing. The whole reason the divorce rate is so depressing is because we all know that a lasting, committed marriage is an unequivocal good. The question is “do we continue to define marriage as between one man and one woman or not?” The divorce rate has little to do with that question. In fact, if our society were to return to a more serious approach to marriage, including the insistence on its proper definition, we could reasonably expect a decline in divorce.

  • catholicexchange

    Articulate, insightful, well-reasoned and irrefutable. Our cause is doomed.

  • CW

    A gay couple being married has no impact on the quality of the marriage of a heterosexual couple.

  • CW

    When you’re argument is that in order to maintain what you think are your freedoms at the expense of others and the oppression of others. Then you have plainly and fully put yourself into the role of the tyrant. The day that LGBT fellow citizens can be marriage in all the states cannot come soon enough. Regardless of what those who would keep them as 2nd class citizens would want.

  • Lynda

    Matthew 24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The
    rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against
    that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the

    Pray for our Church (we who are that Church), that as the day grows short and we seem surrounded by the thick veil of night, that Her Light shines even brighter, the House of the Lord Who stands on the Rock. Who can despair when they see that Light, who can not have Hope?

  • Peetem

    Who is keeping people as 2nd class citizens? Homosexuals have the same inherent dignity as any other person. They are no better and no worse – they are all loved by God.

    1) There are no penalties for not being married. Millions of people live together without being married across this country without issue. If you want to visit someone you love in the hospital, then that patient simply tells the hospital who can and can’t see them. If you want to will someone everything you have, then do it. There are ZERO gains for the homosexual to marry except making themselves feel better and believe they are now “accepted” by society.
    2) Recognition by the state of a sinful behavior does not mean that the majority of the populace will suddenly “see the light’ and believe it [the behavior] is now “OK”.

    No one is being oppressed. Its against the law to discriminate.

    However, being an active [e.g., engaging in the act] homosexual is sinful.

    Why would a good and Godly people want that to be recognized as acceptable?

    Tell you what, let’s legalize polygamous marriage. While we are at it, let’s allow people to marry their sister, brother or heck, their own parent. hese people are oppressed. They are being discriminated against. Its not fair!

    Sounds silly and gross doesn’t it.

  • CW

    Who is keeping people as 2nd class citizens? Homosexuals have the same
    inherent dignity as any other person. They are no better and no worse –
    they are all loved by God.

    We’re talking about the rights given to U.S. citizens, empowered by the U.S. government. You’re ideas about your made up deity not with standing. Also, you’re a liar as well. Who is keeping people as 2nd class citizens? Those denying marriage.

    1. Still lying. Denial of marriage, and marriage benefits is a reality whether you want to admit it or not.

    2.You’re theocracy has NO place in our Constitutional Republic. Leave it in your book of mythology.

  • Peetem

    I’m a liar? Wow. Not sure how that’s possible. What un-truth have I told? You could say I am mistaken, but certainly not a liar.

    And I certainly don’t want a theocracy either. Is prostitution legal in most states? Is heroin use? No, these things are not legal. Why not? Is the state being a theocracy is making these illegal? Of course not….

    But you are still dancing around the issue. So answer me this –

    “Should a man be allowed to marry his mother?”

  • BillinJax

    “Do we need to explore the effects of the loss of respect for life and
    for morality in our society?”
    Exactly! That is the national debate we should be vigorously involved
    with today.

    But the media has no taste for it. In fact, the secular progressives who
    literally own the mainstream media, television, and Hollywood
    want no part of a national examination of our moral conscience. That could possibly shed light on their coveted anti-Christian agenda which the adoring liberal democrats’ exposed at their national convention this past fall when they willingly desired to remove any mention of God from their platform. Our government run public educational system assisted by the media today have produced an effective majority of ill informed and morally deficient voting populous
    which now blankets our society hiding the light of truth from the eyes our people and chocking out reason and spiritual aptitude needed for a respect for life.

  • Lynda

    Actually our “Constitutional Republic” is built on a foundation of standards set into our social fabric by God. We the people are not islands unto ourselves and have followed, since humans have existed, many basic “rights given” to us by God (not the government) and you are “empowered by” God (not the government) even with the very life that pulses within you. You seem to be confusing the One True God with the U.S. Government, that can be dangerous for any of us as the U. S. government, any government, makes for a very bad “God”. Oh yes, you can say “there is no God, He is a made up deity” but so you can say there is no gravity as you jump off the cliff. Still you will fall, and great will be that fall! (Matthew 7:24-27)

  • BC31

    Yes but the sinful behavior we are ‘forcing’ christians to accept is only sinful to christians. some sects of judiasm accept gay marriage, sikhs and other groups don’t have problems with gay marriages. You are endowed by the rights of god and I suppose must abide by god’s values but the constitution does not mention which god’s laws you must abide by nor does the constitution ever mention the holy book’s laws as important as constitutional laws. The bible does mention marriage between cousins is fine, marriage between a rapist and the person whom he raped is fine so long as the father’s permission is theree. I may consider that your marrying a cousin is a sinful behavior because the religion i believe in might say so but that does not mean I can prevent you from marrying your cousin because I am ‘endowed by the creator certain unalienable rights’ my creator or what he teaches is not better than what your creator teaches. if I’ve got a problem with you marrying your cousin or marrying a person of the same sex than i have to shut up and deal with it. The bible says abstinence before marriage is a rule to live by, so what should we break into everyone’s houses with a secret police and regulate everyone have marriage before having sex and punish anyone who ‘sins’ because we are ‘endowed by our creator certain unalienable rights’ and we must live under laws that the bible and the creator would approve of. Let me put it another way if you are so hard line against sinful acts and want to deny marriage to certain people whose behaviors you consider ‘sinful’ why not deny the title and right of marriage between all people who have had sex before marriage no matter who they are. Isn’t a man and woman who engage in sexual acs prior to marriage committing sin, if so how is that worse than the acts between a man and a man aren’t they both sinful and considered unholy of the bible’s title of marriage. therefore shouldn’t a person whose had sex with his partner and various other partners before he has been married be barred from being married because he has committed a sinful act. The sanctity of marriage according to strict interpretation of the bible is that marriage should be between heterosexual people who have not had sex with any other people or even themselves before marriage everyone alse should not be allowed to be married because they do not abide by the ‘definition of marriage or biblical standards. they have sinned and cannot be married either because like gays they are disobeying god and should not have the right to join in a sinful marriage. Unless of course the standards of sin only apply to homosexuals because you have some specific problem with their sins.

  • Lynda

    Oh my! I truly do Love you! and God in His Perfect Love truly does Love you!! He is not “barring” us from anything, you see He has given us free will just because His Love is so great, so perfect, that He does not want to be ruling over us like a tyrant but He wants to be like a Loving Father who we will want to please. His commandments are not for His benefit, they are for ours. So my example of the cliff, if we so choose we can jump the “cliff” to our own destruction. God needs nothing, not even us, but He wants us. And yes, there are those who sin before, during and after marriage, who sin in every way, every deed, in the mind and heart, in the most horrendous things, but God forgives because He is greater than we are, He forgives where we would not see it possible to forgive. But if we choose to go our own way, the way of our own choosing, to worship ourselves, to worship other people, to worship idols of material possession, to worship sex, money, drugs, the list is endless, then God will let us because He has given us free choice, He does not want us to be prisoners of His Love, He wants us to be children, heirs of His Great Love and all the Joy that brings to us. Dear soul, come to God and you will never be sorry, you will know True Love and what seemed so valuable here in this world will become as dust, as nothing. For God’s Love is Greater than anything, anyone else, His Joy is complete and everlasting. (Please read if you will the parable that Christ told in Luke 15:11-32, it is the very example of God’s Love for us).

  • You’re forgetting the basics of rights. See rights only extend insofar as to where they impede on someone else’s rights. Your right to religious freedom ends as soon as it impedes on another person’s right to religious freedom. You have not lost ANY religious freedom. No one else is responsible for your religious belief except you either. You are simply seeing others acting under their own religious beliefs (not yours) as an attack on you, but really the only thing attacking Christianity today is itself.

  • They removed God from the platform as a political move… and a good one too. You see, there’s a rapidly growing chunk of the population who are terrified of Christians, Christianity, and what the leaders of various christian faiths are doing to abuse their power. It was VERY obvious last election that Christian leaders are laughing at the laws of their non-profit status and telling people vote for _________ or you’ll go to hell. That’s TERRIFYING. People actually listen to them and believe that. The rest of us see that as culty and mind controling and you are going to start to see the REAL war on Christianity because of it. All honesty though, with all the leaders of your faith are doing… they kinda deserve it, and I hope it gets them back in line as I’m sure abusing power like that is a major sin!

  • only if you think religious freedom means you can force others to obey your beliefs. that you’ll lose definitely since it’s not actually a right!

  • BC32

    No, but the bible allows people to marry their cousins, that may be gross to some but I don’t care because it is your right to engage in marriage. The problem is marriage has a certain connotation of religion with it , that marriage is rooted in religious beliefs and if the government forces you to accept a sinful act as being allowed you are losing your freedom. Keep in mind marriage may be a term for others but let’s say the majority of people believe in religion and the religious definition of marriage between one man and one woman. All other marriages are prohibited because they are ‘sinful’ to you and the rest of the religious people and forcing you to accept it would be a violation of your religious freedom. But let’s say another group of people believes that marriage should be between one man and one woman who have never had sex with each other and anyone who disagrees with their specific definition is sinning and their definition of marriage is above all. Then nearly everyone’s rights would be violated as they would not be allowed to marry because they do not fit that group’s definition of marriage. See they may believe your premarital acts are sin and not worthy of their definition of marriage as they believe in from the old testament or Torah or Sikh book of religion or Hindu religion and they could bar you from getting married because of this. Would that be fair or would you feel angry about that because your only biblical argument against it is that forcing you to recognize sin is against your religious freedom. Well another group could claim the same thing and claim religious freedom, so stop with the nonsense about marrying relatives, yes that’s gross but so is pre marital sex when it gets to an extreme point yet they have rights, just because homosexual acts may be sin to you doesn’t mean the countless Christians who have pre marital sex isn’t sin to others yet we don’t deny your groups from getting married. I don’t believe your book is mythology because mouth doesn’t teach values but the hyocritcism and ridiculous arguments you make are wrong.

  • standtall909

    ????? OK………Let’s take the HHS Mandate for instance. It requires people of faith (if they own and operate a business) to pay for contraception, sterilization, and abortion producing drugs for those employees who wish to receive such services. Christian employers do not want to pay for such services for them. THEY ARE STILL FREE TO HAVE THESE SERVICES FROM THEIR PHYSICIANS. NO ONE IS STANDING IN THEIR WAY!!!! NO ONE HAS OVERTURNED ROE V WADE!! Christian employers who do not believe in such proceedures just don’t want to pay for them. Contraception BTW is very inexpensive. I think they can purchase BC pills for less than $9 a month. If they want such drugs and proceedures……………….then they can go for it. But don’t step on MY religious convictions and force ME to PAY for these things!!!! If their “religious convictions” mandate that they have access to these “reproductive services” then they can go ahead and HAVE THEM. But they have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to require ME TO PAY FOR THEM when my convictions are the opposite.
    The only way that Christianity is attacking itself, is if they CHANGE THEIR RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS to match those who are DEMANDING that we PAY for their proceedures.

  • standtall909

    As for MY FAITH (which is Catholic Christian) no Priest or Deacon or Clergy of any sort was telling people to vote for _____or they would go to hell. What they WERE SAYING was that it was a serious offense to vote for any candidate that was pro abortion or pro gay marriage. No sin in the Christian faith is irreconcillable or unforgivable. But they were telling people to STUDY THE CANDIDATES and find their voting records etc, to make an INFORMED DECISION before going to the polls. There was no one that I am aware of that named Candidates by name and told people who to vote for and who not to vote for. Maybe in some of the Protestant denominations, I’m not sure about that, but no one in the Catholic Church named names. They went into great detail as to why it is wrong to put people into positions of power that have anti life policies. As for getting Christians back in line………….well, if Christians are proclaiming the truth of the Gospel that doesn’t change.
    Truth is truth and NO ONE can change it. The truth of Christianity comes directly from the Word of God. We didn’t make it up.

  • CW

    As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense,
    founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of
    enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen ,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from
    religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony
    existing between the two countries.

    Shall we add a new commandment. Thou shalt not lie.

  • CW

    Non Sequitor. And yes, you’re a liar. It is with great pleasure that U.S. Christianity is losing the youth of the country and that the Nones are the fastest growing demographic involving religion in the U.S. You’re losing the culture, you’re losing the fight on marriage equality and you’re going to keep losing.

  • Peetem

    We’ll try this again:-

    1) Where did I tell a lie. Please quote my comment and provide evidence that I have lied; that is, knowingly told a falsehood.

    2) “Non Sequitor” – Do you know what this means? What conclusion have I drawn from my line of reasoning? None. I haven’t yet presented my reasoning for my belief.

    Now, this is how this process generally works – I ask questions, you ask questions. We answer each other. Conclusions are drawn based on the arguments presented. So here I go –

    Ground Rules –

    1) No personal attacks. I’m not making them, neither should you.

    2) I will not use religion. Please keep it off the table as I did in my last post.

    Questions requiring answers:

    1) Is the state a theocracy by keep prostitution and heroin use illegal? Let’s ask this further – is the state a theocracy not allowing a 40 year old male to copulate with a 12 year old female?

    2) Should a man who has fallen in love with his biological mother be allowed to marry her if she feels the same?

    Once you answer these, I’ll answer your questions.


  • Peetem

    I haven’t used a “biblical” basis for anything in my last two posts. Please quit building up your straw man based on something I didn’t post (perhaps earlier, but not now).

    Please also don’t presuppose to know where I am headed in my logic. You assume I have a biblical basis; I don’t. I asked a question directly related to the topic at hand (e.g., marriage). Don’t make more out of it than it is.

    You didn’t answer the question either, you just attacked it.

    Answer the question….and please leave the bible out of it.

  • BC31

    1) Is the state a theocracy by keep prostitution and heroin use illegal? Let’s ask this further – is the state a theocracy not allowing a 40 year old male to copulate with a 12 year old female?

    No but those are usually state laws that ban prostitution and heroin use which are for public safety however according to libertarians who believe in the constitution strictly being interpreted the federal government should not be allowed to do so. In other words, there is no rule in the constitution that says heroin use and prostitution should be illegal and in reality strip clubs and plenty of other outlets are available for people who want to engage in sinful or illegal behavior. But usually we have state laws for the public good banning bad behavior. . As far as a 40 year old having sex with an underage person that is extremely bad behavior which we have to protect minors they are for public safety. So you want federal laws banning same. Sex marriage because they vile acts like a forty year old having sex with an underage girl. Well the constution probably does not enable that though there could be amendments and federal laws for underage sex and vile acts that the public considers wrong and bad but homosexual sex does nor fall into that category. But let’s say you consider homosexual acts as a danger to a society because they are sinful and lead to a degraded society. Your going to have to prove how homosexual acts endanger the community as a whole and it is going to be difficult because the majority of people know marriage has a high divorce rate that society is already degraded and perhaps homosexual divorce rates could be lower than heterosexual divorce rates. I could put a law forward that says marriage should be between a man and a woman who have never had sex with each other before that would probably be better for public as there would be less pregnancies out of wedlock and more committed relationships but it would cause a lot of people to be prevented from marriage. Same sex marriage will not result in a degraded society any further than it is and in fact there are probably as many committed homosexual couples as sexually active couples who have had sex with partners and themselves hundreds of times. There are people who have sexual acts with people other than their spouses and go along to get divorced reengage in premarital sex with another person and then get married with two different men. Are their acts less degrading to society than a homosexual couple who remains faithful to each other their entire lives and commits themselves to charity? Are there acts Not considered sinful to religious or non-religious people, more sinful to many than the homosexual acts leaving the bible out of it they are more vile acts. As for the question I have no problem with you marrying your cousin, sister, brother, because the bible and quran allow you to do so. It is not the job of people to judge your acts though we may disagree with them and consider them gross. As far as marrying your parent yes that is probably gross and wrong and should be prohibited but can you really say that is the same as homosexual marriage. Where does the line stop then because than I could say marriage between people who have had sex with each other before marriage is wrong because it violates my religious view of marriage. So now that those questions have been answered, at least the first one answer this, the number one argument is that marriage should be between one man and woman because that is how ti is defined in the bible. First show me in the bible where it says clearly marriage should be between one man and one woman, show me the definition as being between one man and one woman. The only thing you have said is that homosexuality is a sin, well I outlined how pre marital sex is also a sin but everyone is perfectly fine with people who have pre-marital sex then becoming married even though they have sinned. Why do they have the right to married even though they may have had sex plenty of times with the same and different partners before being married whle homosexuals don’t. Are their sins any different than homosexual sins and haven’t they violated the biblical guidelines for marriage. Show me a clear reference of homosexual marriage being banned in the bible, not a proclamation of homosexual acts being sin because pre marital sex is a sin however they are not prohibited from being married show me a clear statement.

  • BC32

    Also the only biblical book calling of sin for lesbian activity is Romans, homosexual acts may be called bad and sinful or corrupt but so is adultery and pre marital sex why the difference in treatment

  • Gallibus

    The government that promotes funny-ha-ha-marriages is on a fast track to become a funny-ha-ha-government that renders itself illegitimate.

  • Gallibus

    Removing God from the platform is to ‘build one’s house on sand’ since God is a reality that won’t go away. Self-inflicted blindness to the Wisdom of God’s law and His unalterable reality will show up with the first drops of rain that wash away the pitiful foundation of deception, causing the whole edifice to totter and crash in a humiliating disaster. Those that want to fantasize about aspects of reality will inevitably eat the bitter bread of disillusionment; better sooner than later. The old story of the Emperor with no clothes is worth remembering at this time – how many have the guts to say that the Emperor is naked?

  • Gallibus

    “No, you do not understand My Language not more than you understand
    My wonders, because you have preferred the devil; whatever I say or ask does not penetrate in you since you have lost the sense of the language of My Spirit”. Message True Life in God March 27, 1992. Point to ponder!

  • Gallibus

    ” ..but how hard it is for those who are slaves of their mind to enter into the mysteries of Wisdom! …” Message True Life in God March 27, 1992

  • Gallibus

    Actually, we simply ask others to obey the Supreme Ruler – for their own good, and allow us to do the same. It is foolish to call evil good and good evil. There is an article showing a different point of view that is very wise and authentic and can be read on the www site catholicbooksanddevotionsdotcom and is titled ‘I gave you marriage as a sacrament…:
    Perhaps you would benefit from reading and pondering this rather unique view of things.

  • Peetem

    OK – very long answer to a very short question. Thanks. If I may be allowed to distill the response down to the essentials:

    1) A society can make laws to protect itself (e.g., not allowing sex between a 40 year old and a 12 year old) if we have studies that prove the behavior is unsafe.
    2) The federal government shouldn’t make law if its not defined in the Constitution?

    Fair enough.

    To answer these responses I need to understand your position on these things:

    1) Who decides if a behavior is unsafe and that the study if said behavior is legitimate (e.g., not biased to the point of providing reliable results)?

    2) We are a Constitutional republic. As such the Constitution was never designed at the Federal level to answer all questions of rights and laws. Rather, it contains a list of “negatives” – that is, things the government cannot do to the individual. Therefore, the states are allowed to decide those things which do not violate the constitution and which are not provided for in the list of “negatives”. Therefore, can the states decided what is safe and unsafe behavior (e.g., not wearing your seat belt)?

    3) You never answered the question – is OK for a man to marry his biological mother?

    Now, to your questions – I politely asked that we remove the bible from the conversation and you brought it back up. I am not discussing sin and the bible, so let’s please get that back off the table until a later time. At that time I will respond to your questions or sin and so forth. Thanks!

  • Jack

    A culture built on the immoral basis echoed by the opponents of real marriage will simply cease. No civilization in history has lasted when built on anything other than what is referred to as the “Trustee family”. Those civilizations (like our current one) that have held to this reality last around 350 years on average. Our time is up. The states move to the more “atomistic family” is nearly complete. The entire gay agenda is simply a suicidal psychology which will again destroy the civilization-as it has always done.

    From this emerging garbage heap, true marriage will arise again as the only real response to building a civilization. We should fight, but realize no civilization in history has ever “come back” from the madness of destroying the Trustee Family. Not one. Nor will this one.

  • Peter Nyikos

    You didn’t read the article, did you, Mike? If you had, you would have noticed that your sarcasm was anticipated by the author as follows:

    “Many of us in the marriage movement are survivors of earlier phases of
    the Sexual Revolution. We found that it didn’t work for us, the
    hook-ups, divorce, single motherhood, marital infidelity, cohabitation,
    as well as the contraception and abortion that made it all appear to be
    possible. Only a few of us were wise enough to see from the beginning
    that this would end badly. And those who did see it, drew on the wisdom
    of the ancient Christian churches, churches that take a far longer view
    of things than most people do.

    “It would be astonishing if the steps you are contemplating tonight
    will work any better for you than the earlier stages did for us.”

  • Peter Nyikos

    Where do you get the idea that there is a difference in treatment? The only difference is that the battle against things like no-fault divorce was lost long ago. And trying to repeal a law, even (or maybe especially) one that allows adulterers to unilaterally divorce their spouses without suffering consequences, is a lot harder than stopping new laws, that further erode marriage, from taking effect.

    The Catholic Church forbids adultery and premarital sex and many of the other things that a godless “straight” society winks at. Apologists for same-sex marriage love to pretend this is a battle between a corrupt society and people who want more corruption, only of a different sort.

  • BC31

    There is adifference in responses. The battle to stop same sex marriage will be just as difficult if not more so than repealing laws. They will come in droves for their rights so you might as well begin fighting to repeak thode laws instead of looking like a hypocrite who discriminates

  • Peter Nyikos

    What you call “rights” are privileges. Civil marriage is a privilege that states have the authority to withdraw any time. In fact, I wonder how many further erosions of marriage (polygamy, incest, lowering of age of consent, etc.) it will take before states decide that the whole institution is not worth the trouble of upholding.

  • CW

    I see that Peet still doesn’t know what a non sequitor is. Also slippery slope fallacy.

  • I’ve been on your side of the argument before. I’m much more at peace now that I’ve repented. Get to know the people whom you feel so disgusted about and you will change, too. I believe that’s what this whole Christian thing is all about.

    1.) It is not the state’s place to decide what is sinful. That’s what separates us from countries like Iran.

    2.) There is no need to argue this issue, because this post is about gay marriage as a legal institution.

    3.) I’m not sure where you get this from, so I’ll operate under the assumption that you just made it up. Nobody is trying to change the church. All gay couples want is the ability to go to city hall and get that sheet of paper signed so they can visit each other in the hospital and file joint tax returns like you and I get to do with our spouses. If they want a church wedding, there are already denominations that perform them. That is the civil rights argument. The USCCB would do well to stop making a big deal out of the issue, lest more people “go somewhere else” and the Church continues to spiral further towards irrelevance.

    Meditate on this. Your anger that you express hardly comes from a position of love. Remember that Catholicism is a Christian denomination, and Jesus’ teachings go before the pope’s.

    And for those of you making an Old Testament argument about this, bear in mind that the Old Testament definition of marriage is polygamy.

  • Love Is Real

    Oh Marriage dear marriage. I want you and I need you.
    But why are you here? Have you come to destroy us?  What is your agenda? Your purpose? 
    With these things in mind,  I fear that I do not know you.  But even if I do,  why do I think that I deserve you?  What makes me so special? What separates me from the animals that swim and crawl on this earth?  Or will I, like them whose needs are driven by primal instinct, live and die without a true goal nor an everlasting end?  Will I survive without you?  I can only hope. Will I, along with the rest of mankind perish forever without you? I dread the day!

    Nevertheless,  I implore you to forgive this  infinitesimal creature who so selfishly sought the benefit of the “I” and the “me” and not the authentic good of the “other” whom I so graciously intended the “want” and the “need” for.  And if you allow it, I can only dream that you take all of my solipsism away and replace it with a magnanimous, self-sacrificial  heart that neither wants nor needs anything in return. 

  • “it was a serious offence to vote for any candidate that was pro abortion or pro gay marriage” READ AS: VOTE FOR R MONEY OR YOU ARE GOING TO HELL. Considering there are 2 main parties and one is pro-gay rights and the other isn’t. I’m not 5. I understand what they were doing and how wrong it was, how can you not?

  • then please. I would like to stop paying taxes for your faith. make your churches pay their taxes so I can stop covering their share and pay for my own contraceptives.

    The employer pays for insurance, what that covers is not the employers business. I pay my taxes which goes towards military which I am morally and spiritually against in all forms, but I do not pay for war… I pay my taxes. I have no say where that money goes from there besides writing congressmen. If you can say no to birth control, a witness employer can refuse employees life saving blood transfusions in emergency situations. Your right to religious freedom ends when it infringes on another’s right. Since it is a prescription drug, contraceptive is a medical/health product. Medical needs are covered by health insurance. If you would argue it isn’t, feel free to write your congressman so get it over the counter and not a medical need. Until then, I pay my taxes to cover wars I don’t support, children I don’t have going to school, churches telling people how to vote (but kinda not because God and sin ya), yes I expect the least I can get back is $30 towards my only thing I use my insurance for.

  • Thank you, I would quote you some equally condescending words about how wrong you are for your faith because it is not like mine… but in the circles I run in, it’s extremely rude to shame people through your beliefs. Yes I know, you’re not… it’s what your God said and he’s the only one true amazing god… I get it, doesn’t make it any less condescending and off-putting. I would categorize it under “If you don’t have anything nice to say…”

    I believe it is better to be open to other’s faiths because you may never know when they will teach you something new about yours. Because I think it would be mean and a waste of my time to sit here thinking you are just wasting your time naked in Christianity and I should totally call you out on your new clothes.

  • “Actually, we simply ask others to obey the Supreme Ruler – for their own good”

    Yes, that is called forcing your beliefs on someone that’s exactly what I meant.

    Also, I read the christian mythology piece. My religious faith believes marriage including gay marriage has been around since way before Christianity was a thing, so why should your religious belief get to pass a law that violates my religious belief? you need to learn to celebrate YOUR faith with YOURself. Your faith cannot dictate how other people live, only you are responsible to it. If you need more then that, I suggest you consult with your lord about your control issues,

  • Gallibus

    Re: “I believe it is better to be open to other’s faiths because you may never know when they will teach you something new about yours.”
    Reply: Right on!
    Also it is impossible to shame anyone who knows no shame.

  • Gallibus

    God, the Supreme Creator and Almighty Power pre-dates everything and governs everything in great order and beauty – He has power over everything – but you are right – if He allows us to choose Hell, then no-one has the right to guide us to happiness against our will. It is a stupid child that wilfully refuses guidance and one that will inevitably reap the disastrous results of its stubbornness. Alas!

  • Gallibus

    One who spreads disorder is a cancer in society.

  • Gallibus

    Out divorce rate is a result of our disobedience to God and our unhappiness is a measure of our spiritual woundedness and poverty which is evident in our weak ability to follow God’s way of love. It is so hard to follow Jesus’ invitation to be perfect – just as our Heavenly Father is perfect – but that is the reason and mission of life here on earth.

  • standfirm777

    Believe it or not, I can see your point on the taxing of our Church. There are already some of our religious groups that are now refusing any government monies for the purpose of not having to comply with their anti life policies. Problem is……… won’t make a difference. They will be obliged to comply regardless. If anyone thinks that the entire problem could be alleviated by the Church paying taxes, they’re kidding themselves. And I also agree there are SOME instances of contraception therapy that are indeed medically necessary, but I think there may be ways to get around this, and still pay for people that have a medically necessary reason for taking them, and not for birth control reasons. It shouldn’t be hard to do. That said, it would be wise for the medical community to do some research on different drugs or hormones that may help these people without causing CANCER. According to the AMA itself artificial contraceptive drugs are a CLASS A CARCINOGEN, completely the opposite of what our fearless leader stated in a National Statement in Feb. of 2012 that birth control pills fight cancer. Just the opposite according to ALL the medical data.

  • standfirm777

    It IS a serious offense. If a serious Christian is to look at God’s Law which coincides with NATURAL LAW, it is a logical conclusion that you are going against the law to be complicit in their promotion of any anti life policies. In voting for that candidate, which ever party they belong to, is to be complicit with their policies. If the situation were reversed, and the Democrats were the Party of LIFE, our clergy would be saying the exact same thing they said in 2012……..”you must vote for the candidate that has pro life values, according to the law of God”. The protection of human life is the antitheses of what God demands………..HE IS AFTER ALL, THE CREATOR OF LIFE.

  • Proteios1

    Sounds like you have a caricature of Christians based on the worst of us. You then hold that up as the image of all of us. It’s like any stereotype used to dehumanized others. It’s been used to justify slavery, hatred of groups, be they gay or different colors, ethnicities, etc. So you feel justified in hurting us all unless we behave to your standards. Sad. Because your comments rail against us Christians for behaving in ways that you appear to recommend as a reaction to Christians. It’s not unique to you, it’s all to common. I get told I don’t know anything because Christians deny science. Then I tell them of all the catholic scientists. They say, well that was then. I then say, I’m a scientist…well funded because of my ideas. That usually ends with some rationalization to retain their preconceived notions….you the condemn Christians for. It’s all the same crap really. Idiots complaining about other idiots.

  • Ok first off, before you talk about anything scientific/medical online do a google search for it just to make sure what you remember isn’t internet rumors. Contraceptives very VERY slightly raise your cancer risk… and it goes back down about ten years after you discontinue use. If you are worried about this risk, I will tell you that on the same list you referred to is “wood dust created in cutting and shaping wood”. Now here’s the past where I PROVE my statement.
    Anything you’ve read to make this look worse or like the pill is as likely to cause cancer as say smoking a pack a day is just extremest fear-mongering.

    Also, Churches paying taxes will add about $71,000,000,000 a year according to the write offs. Since last number I saw was that Americans spend an estimated $200 mil a year on contraception… looks like religion is taking a MUCH bigger cut of free funds then us women looking for coverage for all our medical needs.

  • I did not use a Christian stereotype at all, I didn’t even refer to the average Christian,actually. I only addressed the leaders who are in the public eye that I read about, follow, and know from seeing first hand are corrupt. Seems like you’re projecting.

  • ahhh touche! 😛

  • QuoVadisAnima

    The homosexual agenda has already deprived many of their right to free speech and the free practice of their religion. How can you argue for “equal rights” on an issue that has already proven to do exactly the opposite?

  • Gallibus

    Re: ‘but those are usually state laws that ban prostitution and heroin use which are for public safety’
    Reply: Yes; you could equally say they are there to preserve public order. In the same way, as Owner and Creator and Governor of the Universe, Almighty God, has laws that are there to preserve order in His Universe, of which we are a small part: these laws are known as the Ten Commandments – they are not ‘the ten suggestions’. They are Universal Laws that override all others in lower orders of government. To refute them is to oppose the all-powerful God, who, although slow to anger, has been known to overturn Kings, rulers and governments that opposed His plan and caused disorder.

  • Gallibus

    Re: ‘why not deny the title and right of marriage between all people who have had sex before marriage no matter who they are. Isn’t a man and woman who engage in sexual acts prior to marriage committing sin,’
    Reply: A problem is that it is not generally possible to determine whether or not a man has had sexual relations before marriage – frankly, I wish it were possible then women would equally be able to know what they were getting by way of spouse. As it is, only the woman can be ‘inspected’ for virginity (which is a disgusting and outrageous invasion of privacy, in my view) and that has always led to blame and shame only being attributed to women even though it takes two to copulate. In the past, both were stoned – and even today in some countries, but most often the man gets away with it – it should be both or none in my humble opinion.
    Another problem with your argument is that while sinful couples can repent and submit themselves to God’s law concerning marriage, a homosexual couple, by definition, can never do that since their continued sexual activity continues to be in violation of God’s law.

  • Gallibus

    Re: “Your anger that you express hardly comes from a position of love. Remember that Catholicism is a Christian denomination, and Jesus’ teachings go before the pope’s.”

    Reply: Rather than allow a loved one to continue on the path of disorder and self-destruction, love chastises. It is a prevalent deception of satan that there is no chastisement and that disorder is allowed to continue uncorrected in the name of love. That way, satan has you in his grasp preventing repentance and leading you to a fatal fall. Obedience is demanded by God; the original human catastrophe was caused by disobedience (Original Sin). Final unrepentance incurs the final punishment and eternal separation from the all-holy God.

    Secondly, the Catholic Church is fully aware that it has Jesus’ mandate to teach only His teachings – hence the Pope is not permitted to accept popular ideas of right and wrong – unlike the imposter churches. Popular culture regards this as being tyrannical – so be it.

  • Gallibus

    Equally, a roving homosexual is a ticking time-bomb for those around him/her. Just as one keeps toxins out of one’s home to preserve health, so one does not want to have toxic spiritual matter in one’s vicinity or close to our loved ones.The same goes for other serious offenders – that was why jail was invented – to separate the toxic rubbish out of society.

  • Jeff

    Please help me out. What rights does a same-sex couple gain, by being able to marry? I’m from California, and from what I can see, same-sex couples already have the same rights as hetero sexual couples.

  • Joe America

    All the things you predict have already happened. Ever child has 3 parents a mother a father and the state.

    The real problem heterosexual marriage. Damage to it is caused by the states meddling and laws designed to destroy marriage. It has been in trouble for decades, its on a sharp decline in the West. Illegitimacy has been on a continuous rise for decades now.

    Gay marriage does not matter, few people will do that, the numbers are tiny.

    There is a simple way to prove this, ask yourself do you Personally know anyone who is gay and is going to be married, personally this is something I have never seen,

    How many heterosexual marriages are you familiar with Personally? I cant even count. How many heterosexual marriages have been wreaked by the state, you know that meat grinder called family court?

  • William C

    So, when you disagree with the government it is a direct attack on your religious freedom, but if you agree with the government, it isn’t? Not everyone in this country is Christian or Catholic, so the government can’t possibly have rules that please everyone. True Catholics do not recognize any marriage that isn’t performed sacramentally in the church, so Catholics have a different definition of marriage as well.

  • William C

    The same things happened when the government got rid of traditional freedom (slavery) and traditional voting (voting by males of age). People said dogs would be abe to be free and able to vote.