by Carl, 12/12/2012, 8:02 AM

I hate that the Catholic Church in Western Washington is emphasizing that it won’t participate in marriage equality. I hate that they aren’t for it and I hate that they feel the need to reemphasize it.

Seattle Archbishop J. Peter Sartain has laid down Roman Catholic church law on same-sex marriages now allowed under Washington civil law: The church will have nothing to do with such “marriages” — apostrophes courtesy of the Archbishop.

I’m glad the law gives them that right. I wouldn’t want the state dictating to churches how to perform their sacraments. But that doesn’t put the churches that aren’t marrying gay folks on the right side of history.

8 Responses to “A Right To Be Terrible”

1. wharfrat spews:

Make a deal with you ArchB….when you stop defending the child molesters in you ranks, when you clean up the Vatican Bank, when you make amends for the post WWII Nazi ratline to South American, then I might consider what you have to say. Until then, as far as I am concerned, they should prosecute your sorry asses and send every single one of you to jail.

Sincerely,
recovering at age 66 from 10 years of Catholic boarding schools

2. MikeBoyScout spews:

http://rising-hegemon.blogspot.com/2012/12/wheres-entertainment.html
I have one question, why does your doodled Coat of Arms looks like a censored penis drawing (with a French Tickler no less) and how has Gawker missed that? Is it considered a Miracle — or just an insight into an underlying condition?

3. Zotz sez: Marriage does not require sanctification. spews:

The wingnuts hate this and if you dig this is what their opposition really boils down to:

Marriage is a secular contract. Marriage does not and has not ever required sanctification in any of its myriad dogmatic forms.

Until relatively recently (the last 150 years or so), the only people who actually got married were rich people with assets to merge and maintain. Pretty much everyone else shacked up.

Even the pedophile priests must be authorized by the state to perform a marriage. Otherwise the marriage has no legal status.

Fuck the church. It’s irrelevant.

4. Roger Rabbit spews:

Carl! You’re seeing a half-empty glass where you should see a half-full one! Be grateful the Catholic Church is stuck in the 19th century and not the 15th century — they don’t burn people at the stake any more.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Avvakum_by_Myasoyedov.jpeg

5. wharfrat spews:

I gotta an idea….in Las Vegas, wacky wedding capital [capitol?] of the galaxy, you have to pass a test and get a license in order to legally marry people. We could do the same requiring the signing of a non-discrimination clause. Someone who wanted only to preside over certain kinds of marriage [kosher, non-whites only, vegan, etc.] could be issued a provisional license requiring said couple to finalize the step with an appearance at the local County office.

6. Dondegroovily spews:

The law allows churches to refuse to do gay marriages. I wonder what people would think if a church refused to marry a black and white person.

7. ian spews:

Another nail in the coffin of the relevance (and, hopefully, of the longevity!) of the Catholic church!

8. Merkava spews:

So you are mad at the Catholic Church for being the Catholic Church….lame.