DOMA Grows Weaker

I just heard about this and thought I'd share it with others. Apparently, today, Obama ordered the Department of Justice to stop defending section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in their litigation. The following is a link to an article describing the transition:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... tml?r=news

This came about due to the DoJ's defense of DOMA in two cases where plaintiffs claimed DOMA unconstitutional. The two cases, unlike previous cases, were in jurisdictions where there was no prior judicial decisions regarding whether sexual orientation, as a class, was subject to a heightened scrutiny. In previous cases, it was judicially pre-determined that sexual orientation was subject to the least rigorous form of judicial review, rational basis. This meant that the DoJ never had to actively engage itself in a legal battle of whether sexual orientation was suspect class (given heightened scrutiny) or not (where it would receive rational basis). However, with these two cases currently pending, the DoJ actually has to argue the issue of how to classify the class of sexual orientation. It is this added piece that has led to the DoJ's stance on DOMA.

One thing the article mentions, which is worth mentioning here, is that the DoJ, while it will stop defending the law in court, will continue to enforce DOMA out of respect for the previous Congress that voted yes to this abortion of a law. It will not stop enforcing the law until Congress repeals it or the SCOTUS declares it unconstitutional.

Honestly, I don't really know what the above distinction means. It certainly is a good thing to have the White House declaring DOMA section 3 unconstitutional and will, therefore, stop defending it. Whether this amounts to anything due to the "enforcement" language is something yet to be seen.

One last thing, this declaration regards DOMA section 3, which is the provision stating that marriage, for federal government purposes, is only between a man and a woman. The other major provision of DOMA, section 2, states that no state has an obligation under the Full Faith and Credit Clause to recognize the same-sex marriages of other states.

Children of Gay Parents in Catholic Schools: the Situation in Colorado

The Catholic Church is throwing itself into a whirl of turmoil. All the while, the Church acts cutely and passively, martyring itself for the good of its followers. Yet another issue arose last week in Colorado where a Catholic school rejected the already-enrolled children of a family headed by two women. The head priest at the school and the presiding archbishop stated they couldn't allow the two children, one in kindergarten and one in 5th grade, to continue their education at the Catholic school because their parents lived an openly gay lifestyle which was hostile to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

I call bull pucky.

Notwithstanding the obvious and egregious double standard the school is applying to these children, there are other concerns that I find more interesting and worthy of discussion. The fact is, private schools are not bound by the civil rights codes that govern other public bodies. Now some may question whether that is fair, and I for one do not like broad arbitrary selection capable of any organization serving a public purpose. I do, however, ultimately come to the conclusion that the school is doing nothing wrong per se when rejecting the children of gay parents. Although it's a tragedy, it's the consequence of having a separation between church and state. It's stupid and silly but it isn't wrong, and it certainly cannot be illegal.

With the above said, I do think it is important to note the consequences of the CO school's decision. While no legal nor moral wrong may have occurred (I realize this is debatable), to me it seems like such a weird thing with which the school would fight. First, private schools aren't funded by the government, aside from the basic necessities, such as water, trash disposal, heat, etc. Private schools are even allowed to receive public funding for bus transportation for their students and other academic basics. Overall however, private schools receive little funding from local, state, and the Federal governments. Thus, the bulk of their funding comes from private sources. This was a big reason for the introduction of parochial schools, those attached to and directed by the parish of a church. Donations to the church could be shared with the school. Further, students' tuition payments are another large source of funding. A private school really needs those students.

I remember during my years at Benilde there were so many students whose academics were way below standards. These students were often unruly, incompetent, and insolent. Students, parents and teachers were floored at the fact these kids were never expelled. Indeed, many of them should have been kicked out. However, if a school were to get rid of all its bad apples, it would accrue a big loss in tuition dollars. It also didn't help that a lot of the bad apples at our school came from wealthy families. Those kids could have torched the school and been sent to jail, but they would not have lost their "enrolled" status given the amounts of money their families donated.

Given the situation at my school, I can't imagine how any private institution would want to turn away the tuition dollars of students, let alone students who would succeed and do well in a school (homosexual students, specifically boys, have statistically higher GPAs than heterosexual students). Some might call that greed, but I see it as practicality. In order for a private school to fund it students' education and supply the school with contemporary equipment and supplies, it needs money. Tuition brings in money. Money helps a school assist its students in succeeding.

The next problem I have is with familial privacy. As was said above, private institutions do not have to adhere to the laws public institutions must follow. So yes, legally, that means a private school can discriminate the hell out of its students. Ugly? Nope. Whiney? Gone. Antsy? Poof. There is no end. Private schools may even be allowed to discriminate on the basis of suspect characteristics, such as race or national origin, when not in receipt of public funds. Thus, this school has every right to discriminate against the children of same-sex parents. But again, is this a wise decision on the school's part?

I certainly think no, and even if it wasn't necessarily imprudent, it's arbitrary and a waste of time. A private school simply shouldn't be making scrutinizing glances at its students, especially when it comes to private matters within the home. It can, such scrutiny may be legal, but it shouldn't. What's really stupid about the whole situation in the CO school is that if it simply thought the children were raised by a single mother, there wouldn't have likely been a problem. Admittedly, I do not know the specifics of this particular instance. If the two women were going into the school announcing their homosexuality or engaging in some direct behavior to counter the school's Catholic teaching, that would change my opinion. Based on my limited research (surprisingly, there was not a lot of press covering the facts leading up to the children's ouster) this was probably not the case. The articles I read stated the two women and children were not revealing their identities and keeping a low profile to protect their family. This says to me that there was no intent to create tension or fluster the school's administration as opposed to a staged attempt of activists wishing to garner attention. It also does not sound like there will be any pursuit of a legal remedy, if there would even be one available. Thus, it sounds like the school simply made its decision without effect by the couple. I am guessing here, but it seems like the school "caught wind" of these kids' setup and decided to take action in an attempt to garner support from the larger Catholic/Christian community.

I don't think it's an illogical, unsupported conclusion. The Catholic Church has a very strange way of throwing itself into the gay rights issue in really passive aggressive ways. Jut a few months ago, the Washington D.C.-based Catholic Charities decided to close the doors of its adoption agency after the government granted marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. They felt there was no other option because they were given no religious exemption and would have been legally compelled, if ever compelled, to place children with gay parents. Either that, or lose their funding. Let me make clear that this decision to close the adoption agency did not arise in the wake of a complaint against the agency. The directors just decided it was time to give up. I do not believe for one second it was because they were worried about the above consequences. I think they were passively attempting to prove a point, and at the expense of children desperately in need of good homes. Even if a married gay couple had initiated a lawsuit, the least Catholic Charities could have done was fight in court in order to preserve their ability to help parentless children. Further, no articles I read made any mention of attempts to secure replacement funding for government money that may have been lost as a result of a refusal to place children with gay and lesbian couples. It's irresponsible and most certainly NOT Catholic.

This passive resistance on the part of the Catholic Church is damaging to it. The Catholic Church has been around for a long time. No one thinks any Christian religion is bearing the brunt of unjust discrimination, at least not from the country as a whole. Maybe the Mormon Church of Latter Day Saints, but even that's a stretch. Indeed, that would probably be a hard claim to prove. These knee-bending attempts by the Church to protect its teachings from intrusion by secular law make it out to look like a group comprised of buffoons, not as the weak, oppressed and unpopular. No one thinks the Catholic Church is getting a raw deal. Thus, the Church looks really bad to people outside the Catholic sphere. It also looks bad to people inside the Church. In the case of CO school, a significant part of the governing church's congregation protested at mass and showed support for the couple and the children. A number of quotes from parishioners and other parents from the school expressed great disappointment towards the school's treatment of the children. The vast majority of articles written on the subject condemned the decision of the school. When it comes down to it, the public, and even some people within the church, do not like it and it is weakening the Church. To what extent I don't really know, but reliable statistics do tend to show that the Catholic church is losing followers and support. People are starting to wonder why the Church can't seem to figure out a way to deal with these changes.

Part of why I feel the above arguments have merit is simply because of my own experiences with Catholic schools. The majority of my educational years have been in Catholic institutions. Throughout those years, I've come across many types of families with different beliefs in my schools. One of my close friend's parents are and always have been raging atheists. They hate Catholic teaching, they think its a horrible, oppressive religion that serves no good at all. Yet, their daughter (my friend) attended high school at Benilde with me. One of my friends came from a Judaism-practicing family. I don't think there is anything more unChristian than Judaism, given the fact that they have no appeal to Jesus as religious authority. Yet, she attended Catholic school. One of my good friends was conceived by her mother outside of marriage, and never did marry. No problem there either, nor should there be.

Although I see the point the CO school was trying to make, in reality it's a non-issue. Catholic schools don't generally teach their students what is considered unCatholic behavior, or what groups of people are unCatholic. Rather, schools inject a reasonable amount of Catholic teaching into the lessons as a way to foster in children an appreciation for the Catholic Christian way of life. It's a take or leave situation. The school doesn't have to teach that two women or men who are married are a good thing, but it's unlikely their marriage is going to be taught as a bad thing in schools. It's just not going to come up. Benilde didn't teach me that my friend's atheist parents were evil and unCatholic, but that a belief in God is Catholic, that I should believe in God. It would have the same situation had there been a kid with gay parents. They wouldn't have taught us that it was bad, but rather they would have taught us that Catholicism accepts man and woman unions as marriage. That's probably how the situation in CO would have played out had the children continued their education there. It just doesn't make any sense to deny admission to students for those reasons. Its arbitrary and a big waste of time because the school addressing a situation that will never have an impact.

Of course a big part of the problem is that gay marriage is a hot, controversial issue and will continue to be for probably several decades more. No one really cares whether there are children with atheist or Jewish parents because those groups don't really spark frustration like gays and lesbians do. It certainly could happen however. While it's legal and may not be morally objectionable according to Christian standards, it resounds in one's ears as unsettling. It upsets me especially because I love private Catholic education. If and whenever I have children, I would like them to go to a private Catholic school. It scares me that a school could basically cut short my kid's education whenever it wants because I'm gay. Another reason why this situation is so upsetting is because these children were already enrolled in the school. They have to go through whatever pain they might experience as a result of leaving their friends and favorite teachers. It's sad. It's one thing for the school to say they don't want children of gay parents attending the school BEFORE the children start. It's another thing to uproot them after they've started their education.

As I've said before in previous entries, I have no problem with Christian groups to attacking gays directly. Indirect attacks towards them through people associated with gays and lesbians, i.e. their children, is a completely different animal. I am not surprised that the couple screwed over by the school is laying low. How embarrassing that debacle must have been for them as a couple and as parents. There is no bigger slap across the face than seeing your children suffer as a result of your decisions (or, in the instant case, something beyond your decision). I can take whatever the Church has to dish towards gays, but this just wreaks of impropriety and makes me so angry. Those poor women and those awful people at that school . . . I truly hope other private schools don't accept this school's actions as precedent. It helps no one involved.

I also want to say that I tried posting some of these argument on the Catholic Online. Not a single one met the approval of the editors per usual. But this one did:

"Archbishop Chaput is one the strongest shepherds of the Church whom Jesus appointed to lead us today when there are so many false ideas around. People in lesbian and homosexual relationships must know that they are injecting a moral conflict into the classroom of a Catholic School. The whole thing is very unfortunate for the children of the "couple," but the Archbishop has a moral obligation in charity to the rest of the class and families to do as he did. The Archbishop clearly gave a biblical response to a situation that cannot be permitted in a Catholic School."

Perry v. Schwarzenegger: What Does It All Mean?

It has been done, something that no person on either side of the gay marriage debate was expecting. A federal constitutional challenge on issues surrounding gay marriage. In the past couple months, I've noticed that a lot of people really do not understand what this trial was about and what questions were actually being decided by the judge. I think a discussion of that would be in order because it really is an interesting challenge.

A little background: In November of 2008 Proposition 8 was passed in California which amended the state's constitution limiting the word "marriage" to the traditional definition of one man and one woman. This came after, and thus overturned, an earlier holding from the California Supreme Court declaring that limiting marriage to one man and one woman was unconstitutional (under CA's constitution).

There were many problems with the proposition 8 campaign. One was described by Dale Carpenter, a Constitutional Law scholar and professor at the University of Minnesota. http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/31740.html He wrote an article describing the issues of changing California's constitution. California law allows two different ways to change its constitution. One is through an amendment process, which simply requires a majority vote from the people. The other is called a revision, requiring a 2/3 majority from both houses of the state's legislature before introducing it to the public vote. The latter process is more difficult because of the extra legislative hurdle. Thus, it is said that the revisionary process is reserved for issues of great constitutional change (I am not using legal terms or quotes from the court, but rather describing this generally), whereas the amendment process is used for changes of less import.

What followed the passage of Prop 8 was a major legal battle about whether the change to the constitution was proper under California law. As most people already know, the California Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the Constitution's amendment was valid and Prop 8 would stand. Much of the battle was whether Prop 8 should have gone through the amendment process, or the more rigorous revision process. Although I am not sure of the actual holding, I believe the court decided that the marriage change was indeed an amendment.

Then came the unlikely team of Theodore Olson and David Boies to challenge the passage of Prop 8 under the federal Constitution. It is an interesting fact to note that these two lawyers, who are fighting together on the plaintiffs' side, were once adversaries in the famous Bush v. Gore case. Olson was President Bush's lawyer.

The plaintiffs' complaint stated, very simply, that the passage of Prop 8 violated the plaintiffs' (and more broadly, gays and lesbians in general) Equal Protection and Due Process rights guaranteed under the 5th and 14th Amendments of the Federal Constitution. For most people, the previous statement means practically nothing. The words carry some weight and they resonate in one's ears, but their meaning is unknown.

To understand why Due Process and Equal Protection were violated, it would help to have a brief discussion about the passage of Prop 8 and what happened in those months before November 2008.

It is well-known that a large source of opposition to gay marriage comes from religious groups in America. In particular, Christian religions have a poignantly difficult time with the extension of marriage to same-sex couples. It is alleged that Christian religions had a great deal of influence regarding the pro-Prop 8 ads that were shown to voters, although the extent to which they had control is a topic that is often debated. However, much of the pro-Prop 8 literature and media advertising had a religious tone to it. Sometimes those tones were subtle. Often times they were not. Several of the ads painted gay and lesbians as quasi criminals, bad people from whom mothers and fathers should keep their children away. It is this kind of advertising that gave rise to the Perry case.

Basically what Olson and Boies argued was that pro-Prop 8 groups (particularly religions) used outdated, harmful ideas of gays and lesbians in their advertising, generally slandering them, in order to win the Prop 8 vote. They're basically asserting "you fought dirty and that's not fair." They are alleging that the use of these tactics violated the Plaintiffs' Due Process and Equal Protection rights. It is not the fact that Prop 8 simply passed that violated rights (although I think there is an argument for that), it's that the passage of Prop 8 was passed in the way it was. The argument is that a state can pass a constitutional amendment, but it has to be passed by their own rules and not in a way that is repugnant to the system.

The court made a point of looking at evidence regarding the advertisements for Prop 8 and heard testimony from expert witnesses from sociological and psychological fields describing the negative effects gays and lesbians have felt because of such discrimination represented in the ads. The court was determining what was in those ads, and if that content was indeed harmful and incorrect.

On the defendants' side, the argument was that Prop 8 was properly enacted by a majority vote of the relevant public. If it's what the people want, this is what the people should have, even if they might be wrong. Further, they argued that this is not an issue for resolution under Constitutional law. If the court to makes a judgment against Prop 8, it's a substitution of the court's will for the people's, which it is not supposed to do. Lastly, the CA government contends that it is not homophobic. It has one of the most extensive legal regimes of any state for same-sex couples' rights. They are simply asking, "just leave marriage alone."

One should also note that a similar case came before the United States Supreme Court in 1996. Romer v. Evans regarded an amendment to the Colorado constitution that declared gays, lesbians, and bisexuals as non-suspect classes for purposes of rights discrimination. This basically meant that no law could be drafted to afford special protection to gays and lesbians as are enjoyed by cultural minority groups in our country. The Court struck the amendment down, finding no rational basis that connected the law to its stated purpose. This was one of the rare times that the Court held the law in question failed the rational basis test. The reasoning of the Court was simple. You can't gang up on an unpopular group of people and makes laws discriminating against them just because you don't like them.

The decision of the Court mentioned above certainly is not without criticism, which was well-voiced by Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion. In his mind, this was simply a majority vote based on general public morals with which the federal judiciary does not normally involve itself. He further stated that no rights were being taken away from the GLB community, but rather the rights of that group of people needed to go through the legislative process. This is a constant battle between the conservative and liberal sides of the bench.

The difference between the two laws in Perry and Romer is subtle. Romer dealt with a blanket exclusion of gay rights from achieving redress through the courts. Perry dealt with a single right. Further, the right to marry, although fundamental, has always had the man-woman ideal attached to it. Thus, Perry may not turn so much on whether the discrimination of gays is wrong, but, rather, whether the right in question is really something that belongs to the gay and lesbian community.

One final note: I was one of those gay people that was in the dissenting camp. When I heard about Perry, I wasn't exactly thrilled. Although I am gay, I am firm believer in the democratic system and that rights not addressed under the Constitution should not receive Constitutional scrutiny. That's not to say that if Perry had a good outcome I'd be upset. I am a firm supporter of gay marriage, and not solely because I am gay. Actually, my being gay has relatively little to do with my want for gay marriage. Marriage is a good thing, it makes people better, it gives them responsibility, companionship, it's sex with a person that you trust and with whom you feel safe, it's better financially, etc. (marriage can also suck too, of course). Yes, marriage does generally bring about kids, but honestly, who cares. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. If marriage does good for the gay and lesbian community, even if it slightly damages the institution of marriage for heterosexuals and their kids, I am perfectly fine with that and I think heterosexuals, religious or otherwise could live with that.

Why Don't Devout Catholics Do What They Should?

I am ticked . . .

I follow the Catholic Online articles and often comment on them. My purpose in doing this is not to trash-talk the Catholic faith, intentionally stir-up controversy (although I do not think that necessarily a bad thing) or boost my ego. The truth is, I find the debate between conservative Catholicism and the secular population very interesting. I enjoy tossing around different ideas simply for the sake of intellectual enrichment. My purpose is not to degrade any religious beliefs, or even argue against the validity of Church teaching. Indeed, I myself am a Catholic and do follow its teachings generally. However, I do not like the blind adherence to religious principles exhibited by so many on the site. Further, I think blind faith without test and tribulation leads to a very uninformed zombie.

The Catholic Online, I've gathered, does not appreciate this quality in me. In the past several weeks, I have tried to post numerous comments on their boards. For sure, most of them extend my disagreement with the rigid Catholic teaching exhibited on the site. As most people know, I am not what I would consider a "devout" Catholic, in the generally accepted meaning of that word. Thus, I have great disagreement with people on the board. Further, I just graduated from law school, I don't really like discussing problems and issues that end up in useless agreement. That's boring. It's so much more fun to turn heads.

Of the comments I've tried to post on the board (I believe there were 5 or 6), only one was posted, and it was an addendum to a larger comment I had posted earlier (that never made it up) so it didn't make much sense. The board has its "disclaimer" that states any harassing comments or false representations of the teachings of the magesterium will not be posted. Personally, I don't think my comments fall into this category. I can certainly get heated up and will often write from the heart, especially regarding issues that mean something personal to me. I will flat out say, none of my comments harass, and none of them misrepresent established Church teaching. Indeed, most of my comments do not even touch on Church teachings simply because I do not know enough about them where I would feel comfortable writing on them.

My comments are nothing more than opinion, occasionally littered with relevant facts. Yet the moderators of these boards seem to think they are inappropriate. I have e-mailed Catholic online twice and even tried to call them in an effort to figure out why my thoughts are being rejected. Nobody on their end wants to discuss it.

This is where I get infuriated. If the Catholic Online wants to be some kind of "praise Jesus" site with no discussion whatsoever and everybody agreeing with one another, I think that's fine. However, that is not what they make themselves out to be. In their disclaimer they say they allow robust discussion. Well that is apparently not true, at least not in my case. Apparently, they do not like any kind of adverse thought antithetical to Church teaching. My question to them is "why?" I am not conceited, I do not think I am going to write some fabulous argument countering the authors' words that is going to change the faith of others on the board. I suppose it could happen, but that's probably unlikely.

What bothers me about this is it is simply bad form in argument. A debater cannot pick and choose which of its opponent's arguments it's going to defend against, and then slyly ignore the other hard ones.

For example, I was reading an article about gay marriage and the writer stated within that homosexuals engage in dangerous sex practices. I do not disagree, there are many gay men (and women) out there that practice unsafe sex. For sure, in my comment I did not dispute his assertion. However, I felt it necessary to clarify that homosexual men are not the only group of people that engage in dangerous sex. Heterosexuals are equally, if not more, guilty.

Now, obviously I wasn't in an actual debate with the writer of the article. However, I do think it appropriate to make comments like that, pointing out false assumptions that people are making, as in a debate. Basically, what this website is doing is allowing its writers to assert these horribly suspect opinions and statements of fact, but blocking a dissenter's ability to write out corrections. This is very bad.

I found this interesting. While talking to one of the representatives of Catholic Online on the phone, he told me that their publication was larger than the New York Times. This very well could be true. However, one thing I wanted to say to him is that I could never imagine the New York Times, a renowned journalistic publication not allowing some form of correction, i.e. letters to the editor. The Catholic Online might be a large publication, but it is not a paradigm of journalistic integrity and objectivity, and certainly not in the same echelon as the NYT. I literally almost laughed out loud when the guy said that.

A larger question looms however. Why is this conservative publication so afraid of valid comments that oppose statements in its articles to the point that their haphazardly censoring what ever "feels" bad? Honestly, I do not actually know. I think there is a concern for other readers. They are obviously reaching out to the Catholic conservative audience and I suppose they may lose more and more readers if people are reading posted comments that offend their beliefs, thinking it is the website condoning what these people are writing. I think it could also be the whole, "Crap, this guy's writing some good stuff that puts us Catholics in our place, we shouldn't let this out." This is even worse because the editors are assuming that their readers are a bunch of idiots and cannot defend the Church's stances against criticism. Having been in contact with Catholics all my life, I realized very early on that it isn't hard to stump them when it comes to contradiction in teaching. It has happened to me when defending the Catholic faith against criticisms I do not like.

My personal opinion is that the Church is filled with bad debaters. Part of the problem is that followers of the Church see it as having this infallible authority, and the Church makes itself out to be just that. Justice Jackson once said of the United States Supreme Court: "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are fallible because we are final." This concept doesn't exist in the Catholic Church. There is no "we might be wrong." The Church basically closes itself off to public debate, at least from within the Catholic community. Indeed, if you question, you cease to be a Catholic. I've seen this happen many times. It scares me. One, because the Catholic Church is basically leading itself unprepared into a very important debate, and two, it makes the Church look like a bunch of idiots.

If the Church really wants to start being a practical and important part of the debate on Catholic issues, it has got to step out of the strict authoritarian role and it needs to venture out in to the land of secular law. It has to understand that its teaching and rules only apply to those who choose to follow them. The Church has no armies or police to enforce its rules, its only power over people on earth is stating "you will not inherit the kingdom of God." I am not saying that this is not an effective mechanism, indeed, a lot of people do keep strict adherence to Church teachings for that very reason. However, it doesn't really work against those who don't believe it. Thus, I think the Church needs to start making its way into the secular debate, and giving more substantive arguments than "the bible says so." Yeah, the bible does say it, but the bible is simply not relevant authority to a lot, and a growing number, of people.

This is what bothered me a few months back regarding the abortion debate I was having with people on those boards. People kept saying, abortion is murder, murder is bad, it should not be allowed. Well yes, that is one way to look at it, but then secularists (who do not follow biblical teachings as closely) say it falls outside the definition of murder, because murder is the intentional killing of a human person and that doesn't include an embryo or fetus. Then the religious argument goes all to hell because religious arguments do not work in a secular debate. At some point, you have to stop saying "God hates abortion" and start making some other claim.

I do want to mention that I think the religious argument is a valid and important argument to assert in debates concerning public morality. However, it cannot be the only source of argument, especially not in a system that makes use of far more secular views than Catholic/Christian views. It concerns me that devout Catholics wont go out and venture beyond their religious identity. And it certainly doesn't work to keep ignoring secular arguments, good arguments, simply because they're not religious. This is what Catholic Online is doing and it makes the Catholic Church look like a very weak opponent in the debate. I think they should rethink who and why they censor.

Amazing Comments from Catholic Online

Good morning,

So I just went through about 10 days worth of e-mails from my online subscription to Catholic Online. Although I love the articles, my favorite part is reading the comments. As I've said before, the reader of Catholic Online tends to be the more devout Catholic. Once in a while, I come across some really great comments that dare to counter what the usual readers write. The following paragraphs show my favorites from what I read this morning. Just so you know, I copied and pasted the comments from the website, so all spelling and grammar mistakes are original.

The first comment I read was from a person identified as Schuyler. The article he or she commented on was one that raved about this new therapist who claims he can "change" gay men and women. I put the word "change" in parentheses because the article never actually said anything about regaining heterosexuality. It just said the patient would no longer be gay. I feel like a lot of these psychologists and therapists spouting these words are being over-general. Here is the article, if anyone wants to read it.

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=33842

Now as most of you know, I think the whole changing gay people to straight is ridiculous, an utter pipe dream. In all honesty, I can't believe there are doctors and scientists making such statements. Also what I find very strange is that I thought doctors were no longer able to treat homosexuality as a disease due to definitional changes. Granted, this thought comes from a comment I read on the IMDB "Prayers for Bobby" page, so I don't actually know for sure. Perhaps, if a patient comes willingly to a doctor and asks him or her to treat his homosexuality, then it is OK? Regardless, it's weird. Anyhow, here's the comment I read that touched my heart.

"I have trouble with this article. It seems to me that both sides make assumptions and expect homosexual person to act on them. I do have same sex attraction and I have suffered much emotionally from both sides of the argument. I do not know why I have same sex attraction and it kills me when both sides of the argument make these statements that almost always lack credibility from my own personal knowledge. This mystery of sexuality I assume has to do primarily with love and my attraction to the same sex does not deny that love, even though it may not meet its logical end. Even life ends in death because of original sin. I can just hope as jesus saves us from death he can save us from all our futile actions. I just hope and pray people on both sides will remember they are messing around in the dark at the core of sexual persons and that they have a little more humility and compassion and stop going from a bias to a conclusion. All these men who want to fix us should look to themselves and see that i am still a brother. This is a political issue in america. A culture war and I get the feeling that I and other homosexuals are just a trophy fought over. I am a catholic fully believe all the church teaches but I wish people would stop biting and devouring one another and feed, help, a brother whos smallest problem is his predominant attraction."

-Schuyler

I think the part that touches me the most is the "I can just hope as jesus saves us from death he can save us from all our futile actions." Whoever this person is, they are my hero. He touches perfectly on the futility of making the homosexual-to-heterosexual change. He, of course, does not say anything extraordinary. However, the simplicity with which he says it makes the message come across as very poignant. It feels good to embody the person you are meant to be. Jesus doesn't hate us because we are gay. No. Even if he deems it a sin, he knows gay men and women are doing their best. I know many Catholics repeat, over and over again, the "God loves the sinner, but hates the sin" mantra. To a certain extent, I think that is true. But when the so-called sin is something so personal and challenging . . . ? I just don't think God would put people in THAT difficult a position.

I also very much like when he says that so much of what is said on both sides of the argument is so out of line with general common sense. It sometimes feels like that. People who say homosexuals choose to be homosexual are, flat-out, rejecting common sense. It's old and it's cliched, but no one chooses to be gay in a world where so many people see being gay as weak, strange, despicable, etc.

The Trophy Comment . . . Gold. So true.

The Next comment came from a woman named Emma. Like Schuyler's, it was also very simple, and with some grammar issues. This one actually brought tears to my eyes. I just love it when people think God loves them regardless of our problems. Darn right! Emma commented on an op-ed article, written by a lay-member of the Catholic Church. The article warned its readers to beware of the new morality that requests accepting homosexuality as normal. To read, click below:

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=33803

I've read articles by this particular writer before. She's a good writer, I will give her that. However, her articles are extremely biased and have shaky support. Thus, I only read her articles specifically to trash-talk them in my comments. Anyhow, here is the comment I read after this particular article.

"iam gay and i have a lot of trouble living as gay and expressing my sexuality because iam not accepted as being gay by my family or some other people not that iam very open about it because fear of persecution not just in society but within the church. i find it very hard to go to church and i find it hard to date.i think god accepts me as iam i have felt his great love.that is what is important salvation i have brought many to the lord just as iam. just wish my life was a lot easier . love is the key."

-Emma.

Again, this comment does not bring anything new to the table. However, what I like about Emma's comment is that it demonstrates the self-acceptance that many Christian homosexuals need in order to function as a good and moral person.

Much like Emma, I too have ultimately realized that God loves me as a gay man. I know so many people, mostly men, who are gay (some I know they are for sure gay and some I just suspect they are gay) and have such horrible struggles with their sexuality. Often times, it isn't even a struggle with God, but a struggle with one's own wish to be "normal." Indeed, I think the vast majority of closeted gay men and women aren't saying to themselves "If I am gay God will hate me." Rather, it's probably something like "I don't wanna be gay, no one will like me." However, something quelling comes from the realization that God loves the gay men and women, even if the bible tells us homosexuality is wrong. I just feel so bad for this woman because, even though she's accepted her homosexuality, she does not seem comfortable living as a gay woman. Poor thing, bless her heart.

One thing more I'd like to add is that I often forget about the struggles of so many gay men and women in this world. I have a very easy life as a gay man compared to so many others, even many others with whom I am close. I have a supportive family, many years of education, including a legal education that is a killer mechanism, and great friends. Even though I am a Catholic, born and bred, I've really learned (and in some ways been empowered) to scoff at much of what has been taught to me in my Catholic education. Indeed, there is a lot of stuff in the bible that's utterly incredible.

I remember riding the bus in Arizona one day, and there was a woman and her daughter (maybe grand daughter). The woman was literally yelling at the child, no more than 5 or 6 years old, to read her scripture passages out-loud and memorize them. The little girl would finish, and then ask her mother if she could read her secular book about dogs, or princesses, or whatever. The wretched woman would not let her read her favorite book, but instead kept screaming at the child to read over and over again the same bible passages. It seriously reminded me of that scene from Carrie when the mother is beating her daughter and demanding she repeat the scriptures the mother was reciting (" . . . and Eve was weak"). I remember almost crying at my observation, this sweet little girl being badgered by her homely mother. I hope that little girl isn't gay. Isn't it sad that I even think that?

The Conservative Catholic's Scriptural Stance Against the Cultural Advance of Gay Men and the Validity of Those Arguments

I am an avid follower of the Catholic Online. While most people close to me know that I am not a devout Catholic, I do like knowing what is going on in the Catholic Church and the positions it holds on certain political issues. Further, the vast majority of my education has taken place in Catholic institutions and I did have a modestly religious upbringing in my parents' household. Thus, Catholic thought has a great deal of influence on my thinking and my views.

Having followed the Catholic Online articles for over a year now, I have been exposed to many different opinions from Catholics, ranging from devoutly conservative to progressive. Catholic Online, from what I have seen, tends to attract the more devout Catholic. I often will see, in the member comments below the articles, phrases like "Praise be God" or people praising the words of anti-gay opinions. What tends to bother me the most with these types of comments is that they are shamefully unsupported with any kind of authority. If I've learned anything in law school, it's that an opinion or argument is bogus without any support. Worse, these people are creating a gap between Catholic homosexuals and the Church that they revere and adore. Indeed, many of these men and women, like me, have grown up in the Catholic Church and have grown to love its guidance. Now we have people telling us that our sin is so great that we are doomed. This creates a great tension that I feel ultimately drives homosexuals from the Catholic Church. I ask those people, by what authority do you suggest my sin to be so much greater than yours? 

I think most homosexual Catholics have felt the tension with the Church regarding issues of gay marriage and the questionable, if not utterly incomprehensible, arguments asserted against gay marriage. For gay men like myself who grew up in the Catholic faith going to mass, going through the rites of passage in the Church (i.e. baptism, first communion, first reconciliation and confirmation) and also participating in the mass as cantors and choir singers, alter servers, gift bearers and other functions lay people serve as members of the Catholic Church, the realization that one is gay brings about a great deal of concern and doom for one's faith. What makes it even worse is that a large part of the Catholic Church is not concerned with making their homosexual members comfortable with being gay and being Catholic. Actually, the leaders of the Catholic Church make statements condemning and damning the homosexual; basically, if you are gay, you cannot be a Catholic. 

We all know where this comes from and it is common and stable in Catholic minds. The bible proscribes homosexual conduct. I realize there are a lot of people, good people, who use semantics to try and override those biblical passages they claim only allegedly condemn homosexual behavior. I personally believe the does-the-bible-really-demand-heterosexuality argument useless and unconvincing. I personally believe, for purposes of scriptural analysis, that arguments of human bias and outdated mentalities are more convincing in the debate. However, this is not what this entry is really about. For many devout Catholics the bible says what it says and the meaning behind its words is timeless. Thus, when the bible says men shouldn't lie with other men as they do with women, it's basically saying acting on homosexual sexual urges is against God's command.

I do not dispute that. For Catholics, the words of the Lord are law. When we break those commands we sin. This includes men lying with men the way a man lies with a woman. However, the words of Jesus condemn a great deal of behavior besides acting on homosexual urges. The bible states that we are all born sinners and Jesus died so that our sins may be forgiven. Even though we sin, it is not a sentence to hell. This is something that devout Catholics conveniently forget when raising their scriptural arguments against gay marriage and homosexual conduct. 

Inherent in the scriptural arguments against homosexuality is this idea that sexual conduct between members of the same sex is some kind of super-sin, that it is way worse than any other sin. It is this idea with which I take issue. I will admit that I am not a biblical scholar or a theologian. I am not an expert on canonical law. However, in my many, many years of Catholic education and in my many years of being a "good Catholic boy" I have never come across this hierarchy that Catholics always seem to depend on when urging scriptural proscriptions of homosexuality. Devout Catholics seem to think that the practicing homosexual, who has led a good Catholic life despite acting on his or her homosexuality, is way worse off than the heterosexual who has led a moderately Catholic life. I just cannot fathom where this logic comes from. We are all sinners, we all are born with it, and we all commit it. No one is pure in the eyes of God. Although Catholics like to shout out that any amount of sin will lead to our eternity with the Devil, those people conveniently forget that they themselves sin too. Nowhere in the bible have I ever seen or heard a passage referenced that says if a man or woman lies with another person of the same gender they are doomed to hell.  Where does it say that active homosexuality is a deal breaker? Where does it say that the liar, the cheater, or the violent are safe as long as they don't sleep with a person of the same gender? Although I am not one hundred percent sure, I do not think it says anything of the sort. We all live with sin, committing it often, if not daily. For anyone to go around saying that another person's sins are greater than their own is truly not acting under proper authority. Indeed, in the story of Mary Magdalene, Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Even the most non-religious people, with the poorest of religious backgrounds and upbringings have heard that passage referenced many times. If someone can point out to me some passage in the bible that says the good homosexual person is damned to hell because homosexuality is the kind of sin that is just utterly unforgivable and worse than the everyday sins we all commit, then I would be more inclined to believe scriptural arguments. I do not think I will ever come across the person that can find it. 

I do wonder if the Pope himself, described as God's human presence on earth, could change the Catholic views to support such an idea. I think he could. He probably could make some kind of papal decree that would support the sin hierarchy. However, he would have to admit that such a statement would ultimately be scripturally unsupported. If anything, the bible delineates a loose hierarchy to a certain extent. Catholics, and other Christians, are taught the Ten Great Commandments and the Seven Deadly Sins (these are never explicitly mentioned in the bible in one single place, but rather compounded by scholars). Not one of those Great Commandments is "Guys should not nail other guys." Not one of the Seven Deadly Sins is "sex between two men." I suppose some could argue that the sin of "Lust" might encompass homosexuality. I do not know enough about it though to make an argument. However, I cannot say I have ever come across such an argument. 

Even if the Pope decided to make such a decree, it would most likely not come without difficulty. For sure, there would be tremendous scriptural debate, probably a debate as to whether the Pope can change scripture (unless higher authority states he is able to do so), and most likely a backlash against the Church by progressive members. At any rate, it would be foolish for the Church to ostracize members based on particular sins.