Thanks to all of you who have sent your thoughts on the “Pray for Guidance on the Wisconsin Marriage Amendment” piece. Here are some of the responses:
8/29/2006
As our blessed Scriptures so eloquently point out, there "is one pillar and foundation of truth, the Church." And if you know anything about a pillar on a building, or the foundation of a house, they both hold the whole thing up. The Church has carefully guarded the truth from it's inception, and Christ's words are surely being fulfilled as if they were prophecy, "the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." Through schism and scorn, through plague and apostacy, through "Reformation" and deformation, the Catholic Church has stood firm. Truth is not as you would imply, something that requires a "new judgement call" during "a new time."
Time spent on this issue dialoging is pointless. Your cry for sympathy is sad. Sexual sins are sins not only against God, but against ourselves. Greiveous in nature, and selfish. God created the sexual relationship to populate the world, not for pleasure. Your view on this subject goes completely counter to your own arguments. Example, you say that "as our understanding of ourselves and human nature evolves, so should our Church's traditions evolve." Citing, and supporting, evolutionary change on your part is completely self-inihilating as a homosexual relationship will never, and can never, ensure the survival of the species. Your arguement is completely counter-intuitive.
The bottom line is that sin is sin. We are called to turn from it at all costs. The Devil is real, and there is a battle going on for the souls of all human kind. Calling for the relaxation of God's law (this isn't a "Church Tradition" issue as you try to establish) is like telling your employer to ignore your pension to steal from the office because you believe you were born that way and there's nothing you can do about it. All sin can be defeated. All sin is forgiven. Jesus' blood ensures that.
I hope, no, I pray, for the leaders in Wisconsin to make the right choice and
protect the sactity of marriage and establish what human nature already knows to be true. One man, one woman.
Jeff
9/5/2006
Just read your viewpt in "The Voice". I think we have a fairly liberal parish in most regards but nonetheless I think it was a courageous act on your part to write your views on the upcoming amendment. (I hope you also support net neutrality).
I remember back about 30 yrs ago when I attended the first in a series of such unions between friends or family of mine that were celebrated by a priest or pastor. It was quite radical and only a select few attended. I thought at the time, well why not; these people obviously love and care about each other so why not make it more or less official. Everyone was happy and there was great fanfare. The couples had a great support group and in my heart I wished them the best. Then I watched over the ensuing years each of those relationships dissolve and I thought to myself, boy, there was a lot of joy, excitement and fanfare in the uniting ceremony but only sadness without ceremony in the breakups. I thought, what's the point of having this celebration and then having it just end so unceremoniously; heck, maybe if it was blessed by the state and it was harder to get out of, it might have encouraged a renewal of commitment. At least in a state recognized union there has to be an official declaration of termination and I am sure that this may give some pause for reconsideration. Who knows?
In one of the cases the individual decided to go it again with a different partner; once again they had a religious ceremony. They have been together now for at least 12 yrs and are doing great; trouble is, there's nothing in the law to protect them and they have no rights as a couple under the constitution. Also, I don't know how the proposed amendment is going to affect those with common law marriages where for one reason or another people don't want to get married. Hell, I know that I'm never going to get married again; but that doesn't mean I'll never want to share my life with someone and there are all kinds of restrictions to a relationship of this kind without constitutional protections. I agree with you wholeheartedly when you state, "altering it (the Constitution) to restrict the rights of individuals is an even bigger move". At this time in our history all I see is that this represents another smoke screen to hide the many of our rights that are being suppressed by the current administration's ideology of neofascism which, instead of being steadfastly fought against is being aided by this type of foolish legislation.
Joe
8/31/2006
Cheers for your column! I agree with you. I am particularly impressed that you made your arguments based on just the first sentence of the amendment. Although I agree with the points you made, it is the second sentence of the proposed amendment that truly strikes fear into my heart. In also ruling out civil unions or other arrangements that would give committed couples any of the legal benefits of marriage, that second sentence truly restricts the rights of citizens of this state. The second sentence imperils the gains already made, such as the health and insurance benefits offered by a number of municipalities and corporations to committed or registered couples.
Wisconsin law currently provides for marriage as an act only between a man and a woman. There is no need of a constitutional amendment to enforce or "protect" that.
As you pointed out, altering the constitution ia a big deal, not to be undertaken lightly. Never has the Wisconsin constitution been amended to restrict rights, only to expand them. But certainly the consitution should not be amended to deprive citizens of current rights!
Thanks for your column -- and thanks to The Voice for printing it.
Here's to strengthening our rights,
Kit Halloran O'Meara
