Brouhaha In Sterling Heights

[Dave]

This is part of Karl Keating's weekly e-letter"

BROUHAHA IN STERLING HEIGHTS

In Michigan consideration is being given to an initiative that would

amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union between one

man and one woman. On November 5 the Sterling Heights city council passed

a resolution encouraging state representatives to vote in favor of

putting the initiative on the November 2004 ballot.

"Gay rights" organizations and lobbyists deplored the vote. No surprise

there. But another opponent of the resolution was the pastor of St.

Blase Catholic Church.

Fr. Randall R. Phillips wrote to the council, saying he was

"disappointed" by its action. We live in troubled times, he said. "When people are

fearful, they cling to what is certain. Marriage is one of those

certainties. But we deceive ourselves, however, with a false sense of

security if we think that a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a

union of a man and a woman will support married life."

Fr. Phillips (who, according to his parish's web site, is referred to

as "Randy," in preference, apparently, even to "Fr. Randy") said he knew

what really would support marriage. Not a law defining it in its

traditional sense. No, what will support marriage are raises in the minimum

wage, "affordable health care for all citizens," and the passing of the

"regional mass-transit initiative."

These measures, he said, "unlike the definition of marriage, will

actually do something to help families." I confess I never had thought of

helping marriage by increasing the number of buses. I suppose the idea is

worth consideration. But, still, even if the measures Fr. Phillips

supports were put into effect, wouldn't it be good to have marriage clearly

and unambiguously defined? What harm would that do?

Plenty, said he. "When families are fearful they tend to lash out at

the groups they perceive to be a threat. Recall the interment of

Japanese-Americans during World War II, McCarthyism in the 1950s, and the

attacks on Arab-Americans following September 11th. In retrospect, we

realize these actions were wrong and, oftentimes, immoral. Fear and

uncertainly often blind us."

The Sterling Heights city council needs to be clear-eyed about the real

purpose of the proposed constitutional amendment, said the priest. "It

is not directed toward supporting marriage; it is directed at not

recognizing the unions of gay and lesbian persons."

This won't do, Father. We have laws against burglary. Such laws "are

directed at not recognizing" the legitimacy of breaking into homes and

stealing other people's property, but they also have a positive side:

They protect the security of homes and the right to peaceful enjoyment of

property. Anti-burglary laws, like nearly all laws and like the

proposed amendment, have positive and negative aspects. So what?

Fr. Phillips said the city council should remember who these "gay and

lesbian persons" are. "They are our sons and daughters, sisters,

brothers, nephews, nieces, and in some instances our mothers and fathers. They

are the fruit [no pun intended, I'm sure] of the union of husband and

wife. If we fail to invite these family members to the table on

Thanksgiving, or at any other time, we undermine the very concept of marriage

and family that we claim to be upholding."

No need to be so breathless, Father, and what need was there to be so

heavyhanded? World War II interments? McCarthyism? Attacks on

Arab-Americans? Why didn't you list the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the War of

Jenkins' Ear? And why didn't you make clear your own status? (Your

hysteria suggests you have more than an academic interest in the

discussion.)

No one can predict today whether the amendments under consideration

will be adopted, but it is certain that the odds of their adoption will be

reduced if leaders of the Catholic Church--particularly bishops, but

also priests--send out the wrong signals.

The Church is unequivocal in her regard for marriage. After all, she

says Christ raised marriage to a sacrament. The unequivocal Church does

not need to have equivocating priests writing letters to city councils.

[frozencell]

How can you be Christian and advocate gay rights? I've pondered this one for years, and I'm still left without an answer (except you can't). :huh:

[phatcatholic]

i'm glad keating tells it like it is

[Peppermint Patty]

How can you be Christian and advocate gay rights? I've pondered this one for years, and I'm still left without an answer (except you can't).

A LOT of Christians support gay rights, either because they feel that God actually created people that way, or else because they have taken the term "separation of church and state" out of context. Not sure how they justify it through Scripture, though.

[frozencell]

A LOT of Christians support gay rights, either because they feel that God actually created people that way, or else because they have taken the term "separation of church and state" out of context.  Not sure how they justify it through Scripture, though.

I don't think God would ever creat a person who was gay from birth because He wanted them to be. That would nullify half the Bible that speaks on marriage between a woman and man. Not to mention the verses against homosexuality. Even the practice of sodomy gets it's name from a city God destroyed due in large part to there being so many homosexuals.

Also, the "seeperation of chuch and state" has been so grossly distorted through the years that I don't see any of it's original meaning. It was meant to state that the government could not use religion for political influence or cohersion. Taking God out of everything has ruined a lot of things that could have been so beautiful.

[Peppermint Patty]

I don't think God would ever creat a person who was gay from birth because He wanted them to be. That would nullify half the Bible that speaks on marriage between a woman and man. Not to mention the verses against homosexuality. Even the practice of sodomy gets it's name from a city God destroyed due in large part to there being so many homosexuals.

Also, the "seeperation of chuch and state" has been so grossly distorted through the years that I don't see any of it's original meaning. It was meant to state that the government could not use religion for political influence or cohersion. Taking God out of everything has ruined a lot of things that could have been so beautiful.

I agree that God would not create a person homosexual, since it contradicts His very nature. I am open to the idea that perhaps some people are born with homosexual tendencies, due to the sin that has corrupted humans for thousands of years. But I also believe that God can easily heal a person's heart and help them become the person He wants them to be. The person has to, of course, be willing to allow God to change them.

From my understanding, the separation of church and state came about because church clergy used to have influence in the government simply because they were clergy members, not necessarily because they were voted into office. Something like that. It's hard for me to grasp though. In any case, it does not mean that God's morality should be tossed out the window any time issues of government arise.

[frozencell]

I agree that God would not create a person homosexual, since it contradicts His very nature.  I am open to the idea that perhaps some people are born with homosexual tendencies, due to the sin that has corrupted humans for thousands of years.  But I also believe that God can easily heal a person's heart and help them become the person He wants them to be.  The person has to, of course, be willing to allow God to change them.

From my understanding, the separation of church and state came about because church clergy used to have influence in the government simply because they were clergy members, not necessarily because they were voted into office.  Something like that.  It's hard for me to grasp though.  In any case, it does not mean that God's morality should be tossed out the window any time issues of government arise.

Ditto.

[hyperdulia again]

I think the origins of homosexuality are a bit off the subject of this thread, but here's thought. God does give some people a homosexual orientation as a cross to bear, as a means of growing in holiness and in love.

The Catholic Church does not go so far as to venture an opinion on the origin of homosexuality, She does however say that homosexuals, like all Christian people, are called to Chastity.

[Dave]

I think the origins of homosexuality are a bit off the subject of this thread, but here's thought.  God does give some people a homosexual orientation as a cross to bear, as a means of growing in holiness and in love.

The Catholic Church does not go so far as to venture an opinion on the origin of homosexuality, She does however say that homosexuals, like all Christian people, are called to Chastity.

Amen and amen!!!

*gives Hyper a high five

[hyperdulia again]

bet you thought you'd never see the day you'd be high-fiving me for a homosexuality post :lol: