Joel Connelly reports on Archbishop of Seattle, J. Peter Sartain’s opposition to marriage equality.
God is the “author of marriage,” the archbishop argues in the video, posted on the Archdiocese of Seattle website.
The state’s three Catholic dioceses are intensifying their campaign against same-sex marriage in the form of bishop’s statements, “teaching” documents and videos — none of which show up in report’s to the state’s Public Disclosure Commission.
Yet, the instruction of how to vote is unmistakable in Sartain’s video, which can be viewed at http://www.seattlearchdiocese.org/Conscience/Statements.aspx He says:
“We urge our Catholic people to uphold our consistent Catholic teaching on marriage for the good of the Church, society, husbands and wives and their children. Therefore, we bishops reject the redefinition of marriage as a ‘civil contract between two persons’.”
Well, the marriage in a church isn’t a civil contract. So when you marry a lady and a gent, they’ll be married in the eyes of God. If that’s meaningful to them, well, great. But those people have always had the opportunity for their marriage to just be a contract. If R-74 passes, it’ll just expand that to gay couples too, but the Catholic Church can keep not marrying gay people.
Now, don’t get me wrong: I hope the Church will reconsider who they marry, if R-74 passes or not. They’re simply wrong about this one. Every time they say a gay relationship is less than a straight one, it’s harmful to the least among us*, and it’s awful when a Christian organization does that. But that’s their right, if R-74 passes or not.
* There was some discussion in the comments, so just to be clear: gay and lesbian couples are as legitimately couples as any other. I was referring to how society generally treats them, and the Church’s obligations to its members who are considered less than by society. The wording made it sound like I might think gay couples are less than or that they ought to be considered less than, and that’s not the case.
This, like so many other issues, the Catholic Church wants to be the tail that wags the dog. The world revolves around “our” religious sensitivities. Can’ we just tax them and have them fill out the long form at the end of the year so we can see what they are actually spending their donations (including millions in public funds) on? Like Willard, I suspect that transparency would be most uncomfortable for them.
@1 I suspect nowadays a lot of their money goes for paying settlements to former boys whom priests used for man-boy sex.
If you disagree with what Washington voters want, thats cool.
If you wish to change the will of the people, put Your people on the street.
I think you will find that there are not that many Catholics left to back up your political agenda.
I think the Archbishop Sartain is once again bordering on his tax exempt status. These guys love to talk about Jesus, but do little to follow his example.
Time for them to start paying taxes, since they’re not openly playing in politics.
Here’s the video:
http://www.seattlearchdiocese......ments.aspx
Oops, that should read:
Time for them to start paying taxes, since they’re now openly playing in politics.
Marriage in the eyes of the state is a contract between two people that creates kinship where it doesn’t naturally exist. Or some shit like that, anyway. The state has all sorts of contracts that people can sign and gay people can sign every single one of them, except marriage.
So, the question is: if we can stop people from signing a marriage contract because their gay, what other contracts could be placed off limits?
Carl, I get what you’re trying to say here, but the way you’ve phrased it is really problematic, almost offensive. “The least among us” is a problematic phrase anyway, since “least” implies the person, not her/his circumstances. But even given the intent and the Christian context, it’s usually applied to economic matters – not to something like marriage equality, which is a subset of gay rights issues usually involving social and legal – but rarely economic – discrimination. (And where it does involve social status in the Bible, that doesn’t transfer to legal issues – it’s like arguing that whores are the least among us and therefore prostitution should legalized. There are arguments for legalizing paid sex work, but that’s not really one.)
The only folks who think gays are inherently inferior are the Christian bigots, and they’re making that judgment based on behavior, not who a person is – since most of them think queer attractions are something people choose to do, not an orientation. So if you’re trying to use it in a Christian context, it doesn’t work because fundies see Teh Gay as a matter of sin, not circumstance.
For anyone else, the phrase at minimum begs for clarification, and at worst calls up exactly the sort of judgmentalism we’re fighting, the notion that gays are both despicable and on society’s lowest rung. The former’s not true (though they are despised in many places), and the latter, economically speaking, also just isn’t true. Just sayin.’
@7
I ‘heard’ that too as I read Carl’s post.
I agree his intent was otherwise, but, indeed, as Geov says, being gay, per se, does not make you ‘least’.
However, the Roman Catholic church is on the side of evil on this one, and that’s the big issue.
A number of religions, and a number of clergy in religions that have taken no broad stand, have wanted the exact right the Catholic Church has: that every single marriage they perform be given the same legal standing in the state. The day I see the Catholic Church standing up for the freedom of religion of those clergy who want the right to perform gay marriages is the day I’ll listen to anything else that particular church has to say about its religious rights.
Worth reposting
Being Liberal on FB posted this gem:
Being angry that someone else’s marriage because it’s against the rules of your religion
is like
being angry at someone else eating a doughnut because it’s against the rules of your diet.
@6 and 7,
I was referring to how society treats gay couples. But I can see how I should have done a better job clarifying that, and how it came across. Yikes.
Sartain’s taking a tack here that could easily backfire. Essentially, he’s claiming that “canon law” doesn’t mean anything unless it’s backed up in civil statutes. This implies that all the church’s writings and every word preached by its clergy, by themselves, don’t mean a thing even to Catholics, unless the rest of the world is forced to observe them as well. I’d say a great many people thought that issue had been settled by Henry the Eighth, Martin Luther and Calvin a long time ago.
To hell with Bishop Sartain’s instructions to his flock. I’ll side with George Carlin’s brilliant explanation of religion. “When it comes to bull$hit, big time major league bull$shit one has to stand in awe of religion”
see the rest of his funny but sadly true video at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RT6rL2UroE