from the archives

By Diogenes (articles ) | Nov 27, 2003

And now Bill Clinton has announced, through his gay-liaison office, that he is "personally opposed" to homosexual marriage. This phraseology, a staple of the abortion debate, is a reminder not to let our premises stand in the way of our conclusions.

Florence King, National Review June 3, 1996.

Sound Off! supporters weigh in.

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!

Show 11 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • Posted by: - Dec. 01, 2003 9:45 PM ET USA

    Pseudo:Thanks much for the referenced link to Fr. Schall's website. Can you suggest a particular piece by him that deals specifically with the subject of the Catholic citizen's relation to the Polis?

  • Posted by: - Dec. 01, 2003 3:18 PM ET USA

    Pseudo: If, for a homosexual couple the passion control vs. cycle problem that you mention is real, I would agree that somewhere there is indeed a disorder, both objective and subjective.

  • Posted by: - Nov. 30, 2003 4:48 PM ET USA

    Thess, The best website for the relation of the Catholic citizen to the polis is either one of the 2 James Schall websites, either at Georgetown or As to homosexuality's objective disorder, reflect for a moment on how a "married" homosexual couple would control their passions in connection with the cycle so as to practice the control of lust and the charitable pro-creation of children.

  • Posted by: - Nov. 29, 2003 3:25 PM ET USA

    Pseudo: Indeed marriage is a sacrament and Heaven itself is a polis. But I am not convinced that homosexuality is an objective disorder, nor that among Catholics this is the consensus fidelium. For Christians the Shema, per Mark 12: 28-33, specifically requires that we love God with all our mind and comprehension. By following Paul's instruction to test everything, we inform our inviolable conscience. To you I am a heretic. Civil law must not impose the precepts of the Church on everyone.

  • Posted by: - Nov. 29, 2003 11:44 AM ET USA

    Thess, Is marriage, or is it not, a sacrament? Does the explicit condoning, by enshrining as a right, an objective disorder (a sin), and the sacramentalizing of that disorder do violence to God's creation? Is the Polis outside of, or inside of, God's Providence?

  • Posted by: - Nov. 28, 2003 7:57 PM ET USA

    frj: I have not proposed that same-sex marriage will benefit society. I asked what damage would be done thereby and what would be gained by suppressing it. Paul enjoined us to test everything and hold fast to what is true. Let the proof come from the test. Did not the Pope counsel Christians not to be afraid? No one has answered my question about the Church having its precepts written into the law. Some might argue to ban Roman Catholicism because it is a threat to democracy.

  • Posted by: - Nov. 28, 2003 6:35 PM ET USA

    Thess -- maybe I'm a bit old-fashioned, but shouldn't the one who seeks to change the status quo bear the burden of proof? Kurtz may not have proven his point to your satisfaction, but can you prove to the rest of us how legal unions between same-sex partners benefit society and should thus be rewarded with the privileges that accrue to heterosexual marriage? Please do not fall back on the "basic human right" argument, since that's circumlocution. I await your proof.

  • Posted by: - Nov. 28, 2003 4:26 PM ET USA

    Pseudo: I have read both Kurtz and Gallegher's latest. I don't believe Kurtz proves his conclusion that "Monogamy will be undermined by gay marriage itself". The law is to allow gender-neuter monogamous commitment. Let advocates for polyamory talk it out, we can deal with their efforts later. My alias derives from 1 Thess 5:19-22, "Despise not prophesying ... Test (or prove) everything. Panta dokimazete!

  • Posted by: - Nov. 28, 2003 12:58 PM ET USA

    I'm relieved to hear the Bill Clinton is "personally opposed" to gay marriage, which means that he won't be marrying another guy anytime soon, but that he's not opposed to other men or women doing it. Most of the Democratic presidential contenders have said the same thing after the Mass. court decision. Do any of these people think before speaking or do they just mouth pieties reflexively?

  • Posted by: - Nov. 28, 2003 9:38 AM ET USA

    Thess, you have an odd metaphysics when it comes to constructing your "rights". Stanley Kurtz wrote an excellent article in the Weekly Standard showing the slope from "gay rights" and "gay marriage" to state sanctioned polygamy. I suggest reading it.

  • Posted by: - Nov. 28, 2003 3:22 AM ET USA

    Diogenes: From this and your earlier post "Touching a Nerve", your opposition to gay rights is clear. Does the Church have a divine commission to have its precepts on marriage incorporated into the law of this pluralistic country of ours? How will society be damaged if two homosexuals are allowed to become legally next of kin? What is the plus side of suppressing gay civil marriage?