North Carolina bishops criticize Obama statement on marriage amendment
CWN - March 22, 2012
Less than two months before North Carolina residents will vote on a state constitutional amendment that would define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, President Barack Obama blasted the amendment as discriminatory--prompting criticism from the state’s bishops.
“While the president does not weigh in on every single ballot measure in every state, the record is clear that the president has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same sex couples,” Obama campaign spokesman Cameron French said in the statement. "That’s what the North Carolina ballot initiative would do--it would single out and discriminate against committed gay and lesbian couples--and that’s why the president does not support it.”
“Last week, President Barack Obama took the unusual step of commenting on a state ballot initiative,” Bishops Michael Burbidge of Raleigh and Peter Jugis of Charlotte said in response. “His stated opposition to the referendum on the marriage amendment in North Carolina is a grave disappointment, as it is reported to be the first time that the President has entered into this issue on the state level, further escalating the increasing confusion on the part of some in our society to the very nature of marriage itself … While we are respectful of the Office of the President, we strongly disagree with [his] assessment.”
“As Catholics, we are for marriage, as we believe it is a vocation in which God calls couples to faithfully and permanently embrace a fruitful union in a mutual self-giving bond of love, according to His purposes,” they added. “It is not only the union itself that is essential to these purposes, but also the life to which spouses are called to be open, the gift of children. Children have the right to the indispensable place of fatherhood and motherhood in their lives as they grow, are loved, nurtured and formed by those whose unique vocation it is to be a father and a mother through the bond of one man and one woman in marriage.”
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Progress toward our June expenses ($15,085 to go):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: trini -
Mar. 22, 2012 7:52 PM ET USA
There is a colossal illogicality in all the 'same-sex marriage' proposals.Same-sex unions are essentailly sterile, whereas marriage between a man and a woman gives the benefits of mutual love and also, and essentially, founds a family, which is the bedrock and foundation of any state, and in fact through its children is essential for the very continuing existence of the state. Same-sex union is simply not 'equal' to hetero-sexual marriage, biologically or logically or socially. Forbid it.
Posted by: dagbat -
Mar. 22, 2012 2:32 PM ET USA
Mr. Obama is being forced into showing his true colors. That he is at heart an anti-religious secularist. It is an election year and Mr. Obama knows that he needs to placate his base if he wants to win in November. This is forcing Mr. Obama to come out into the open and take positions, many of which are going to be shocking to people who only know Mr. Obama by his public persona. Folks are going to finally see how radical Mr. Obama is in his thinking, and come November most of them are going to realize that this is not the person who they want running the country for another four years.
Posted by: tucsonjay6028 -
Mar. 22, 2012 8:52 AM ET USA
This president asserts that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman; others in his administration claim his ideas are "evolving" (wink, wink). He has expressed opposition to a federal marriage amendment on the grounds that he thinks these matters should be decided on the state level, but when a state (like California, or now North Carolina) does attempt to decide the matter, the president speaks out in opposition to that. What contempt this president must have for our intelligence.