Self Government Repudiated in Washington DC

Counterfeit marriage can only be sustained by counterfeit arguments. Get this headline from the Washington Post:

Same-sex marriage in District narrowly upheld by D.C. Court of Appeals

But here are the two lead paragraphs to the article:

"The D.C. Court of Appeals narrowly sustained same-sex marriage in the District in a 5 to 4 vote Thursday.

The nine judges were asked to determine whether the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics acted lawfully when it rejected an initiative by opponents of gay marriage to have the matter voted upon in a referendum. The D.C. Council approved same-sex marriage in December."

So "same-sex marriage" was not upheld at all. The headline and first sentence of the article are completely false. What the ruling does is prevent the people of Washington DC from voting on the issue. It is quite possible that the people of DC would have voted to allow counterfeit marriage. And the Post is not alone. Here is the headline from the Christian Science Moniter:

DC's gay marriage law survives court challenge

Again, utter falsehood. Had the Court allowed the people to vote on whether to recognize counterfeit marriage, the law which legalized counterfeit marriage, passed in March, would still be on the books. And again, it is quite possible that the people of DC would have voted to allow counterfeit marriage.

Counterfeit marriage is just that--counterfeit. It has no basis in reality. Hence the ongoing need for intellectual contortions by its supporters.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Good and Better: Obama Refuses to Defend Marriage

It's good because he never was going to anyway. It's better because hopefully now someone really will.

It was obvious from the beginning that President Obama was lying about his support for counterfeit "marriage," and that his justice department was not going to defend marriage. So it is just as well that he has come clean.

Andy McCarthy, writing today in "The Corner" agrees with this:

"On balance, I far prefer that Obama’s Justice Department openly advocates for the outcome desired by Obama’s base, as it is finally doing with DOMA. This way, the court can appoint lawyers who will truly defend the statute with the best legal arguments available.

Obama's action further shows that he, and counterfeit "marriage" supporters know that they are losing. They cannot allow the issue to have a fair hearing--and this is not only true of marriage but of other issues as well.

It is instructive to reflect on how the supporters of counterfeit "marriage" show time and again they have no concern for the right to self government nor for the common good of society.

William C. Duncan, noted this today, writing in The Corner:

"There is something about the marriage issue that provokes an “any means necessary” approach from its proponents (among whom I believe we can count the president, notwithstanding campaign rhetoric to the contrary)."

That's been the case right from the start, when Mayor Gavin Newsom unilaterally and in violation of the law decided to start issuing counterfeit "marriage" licenses.

It continued when opponents of Prop8 filed suit to have the measure removed from the ballot. Prop 8 went to the voters anyway.

It continued when then-Attorney General Jerry Brown changed the title of Proposition 8, in order to weaken support for it. Prop 8 won big despite the change.

It continued when Attorney General Brown refused to do his duty and defend Prop 8, passed by a significant majority of Californians.

It continued in Massachusetts when the state legislature refused to allow the people of the state to vote on a constitutional amendment defending marriage, despite the record number (170+000) of signatures.

This is self-interest denying the common good, and the right of the people to self-government.

I said above that this uncivil attitude of the Left is evident in other issues as well. It is all of a piece of what we are seeing in Wisconsin. In Wisconsin, Governer Walker and the Republicans ran on a platform promising to address the budget crisis and reform the state's government. They won big. What happens? Do their opponents say "This is America. We are a democracy. The people made a choice. We have to abide by it if we are to remain a democracy. We don't like it, but there are other elections, and if we make our case to the people we can win, and then offer our own solutions." Not on your life.

The Democratic legislators try to prevent government by functioning by leaving the state. Teachers Union members walk off their jobs (illegally) and occupy the capitol. Sympathetic doctors violate their professional ethics, and probably the law as well, by writing phony excuses so the teachers can say they were sick, thus defrauding the taxpayers.

President Obama, Congressman Pelosi et al. side with those in Wisconsin, just as they side with those who support counterfeit "marriage." On the other side are the American people.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Sleazy Tactics by Counterfeit "Marriage" Supporters: Minnesota Version

 Proponents of counterfeit "marriage" in the state of Minnesota are resorting to the sleazy tactics that have become their hallmark. Mark Ritchie, the Democratic Secretary of State has changed the wording of the Minnesota Protect Marriage Amendment, hoping to confuse the voters. As we posted on April 27, 2012, they tried the same type of deception  in North Carolina, and in California. It did not work in those states, and, pray God, it will not work in Minnesota. In any event, YOU can help the good people of Minnesota by contributing. Just hit the "Minnesota for Marriage" button on the right hand pane to help them as they fight for the family.

Here's our April 27 post in full:

Same-sex “marriage” activists in North Carolina are resorting to outright deception in order to advance their cause. As Brian Brown, of the National Organization for Marriage writes:

“…in North Carolina they've conceded defeat on the main question—should marriage be a union of husband and wife?—and are blanketing the airwaves with lies to scare voters into thinking the amendment will somehow strip women of protection from domestic violence”

A thorough refutation of such hysterical claims has been presented by three professors from the Campbell University Scool of Law. It may be read here.

Such behavior is typical same-sex “marriage” activists and it is a good indicator of 1) their inability to win the issue on the merits; and 2) their lack of concern for the common good of society.

On November 29, 2011, the New York Daily News reported on a ruling by New York state Judge Robert Wiggins codemning the tactics of the Cuomo administration in ramming through same-sex “marriage” legislation in violation of the state’s “Open Meetings” law:

“It is ironic that much of the state’s brief passionately spews sanctimonious verbiage on the separation of powers in the governmental branches, and clear arm-twisting by the Executive on the Legislative permeates this entire process,' Wiggins wrote."

Such tactics are nothing new, of course. In 2007, the legislature of Massachusetts even refused to allow a constitutional amendment proposing to overturn Massachusetts' court-imposed redefinition of marriage to be put on the ballot. This was in spite of the fact that a record 170,000 citizens had signed the petition. But the legislature refused to even allow Massachusetts citizens to vote on the matter.

In California, the sleazy tactics used to force counterfeit marriage down the people's throats began long before Proposition 8 even reached the ballot, and it continues long after the people of the state passed it:

• When Mayor Gavin Newsom unilaterally and in violation of the law decided to start issuing counterfeit "marriage" licenses;

• When opponents of Prop8 filed suit to have the measure removed from the ballot. Prop 8 went to the voters anyway.

• When then-Attorney General Jerry Brown changed the title of Proposition 8, in order to weaken support for it. Prop 8 won big despite the change.

• When then-Attorney General Brown refused to do his duty and defend Prop 8, passed by a significant majority of Californians.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Counterfeit Claims from Counterfeit Marriage Advocates

Same-sex “marriage” activists in North Carolina are resorting to outright deception in order to advance their cause. As Brian Brown, of the National Organization for Marriage writes:

“…in North Carolina they've conceded defeat on the main question—should marriage be a union of husband and wife?—and are blanketing the airwaves with lies to scare voters into thinking the amendment will somehow strip women of protection from domestic violence”

A thorough refutation of such hysterical claims has been presented by three professors from the Campbell University Scool of Law. It may be read here.

Such behavior is typical same-sex “marriage” activists and it is a good indicator of 1) their inability to win the issue on the merits; and 2) their lack of concern for the common good of society.

On November 29, 2011, the New York Daily News reported on a ruling by New York state Judge Robert Wiggins codemning the tactics of the Cuomo administration in ramming through same-sex “marriage” legislation in violation of the state’s “Open Meetings” law:

“It is ironic that much of the state’s brief passionately spews sanctimonious verbiage on the separation of powers in the governmental branches, and clear arm-twisting by the Executive on the Legislative permeates this entire process,' Wiggins wrote."

Such tactics are nothing new, of course. In 2007, the legislature of Massachusetts even refused to allow a constitutional amendment proposing to overturn Massachusetts' court-imposed redefinition of marriage to be put on the ballot. This was in spite of the fact that a record 170,000 citizens had signed the petition. But the legislature refused to even allow Massachusetts citizens to vote on the matter.

In California, the sleazy tactics used to force counterfeit marriage down the people's throats began long before Proposition 8 even reached the ballot, and it continues long after the people of the state passed it:

• When Mayor Gavin Newsom unilaterally and in violation of the law decided to start issuing counterfeit "marriage" licenses;

• When opponents of Prop8 filed suit to have the measure removed from the ballot. Prop 8 went to the voters anyway.

• When then-Attorney General Jerry Brown changed the title of Proposition 8, in order to weaken support for it. Prop 8 won big despite the change.

• When then-Attorney General Brown refused to do his duty and defend Prop 8, passed by a significant majority of Californians.

Minnesotans Will Have Right to Defend Marriage

The Minnesota legislature has decided to allow the citizens of the state to have their say on whether or not the reality of marriage--a union of one man and one woman--shall be enshrined in the state's constitution. A remarkable number of legislators, almost all Democrats, voted to deny the people of the state their right to even vote on the issue.

Given a recent poll which claim the majority of Americans support counterfeit "marriage," one would think counterfeit marriage activists would welcome having the issue on the ballot. But apparently not!

But as we have noted before, when the defense of marriage is on the ballot, support turns out to be stronger than pre-election polls indicate. That's because of the foolish attempt by counterfeit marriage activists to portray those who defend marriage as bigots, and to punish those who publicly support natural marriage. See here, here, here, and here. Those methods don't work in the privacy of the voting booth.

Iowa's Counterfeit "Marriage" Judges Get the Boot

In the midst of all the election news there is a very important story. Tonight, Iowa voters struck an important blow for self-government and against activist judges: all three of Iowa's Supreme Court Justices who were up for retention lost. How unheard of is this? Last week the Des Moines Register quoted a Vanderbilt University law professor who said

“It is virtually unheard of for a judge to lose a retention race.”

From tonight's Des Moines Register:

"Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and her two colleagues are on pace to lose their seats tonight in the wake of last year’s unanimous decision to legalize same-sex marriage.

Ternus has 46 percent support, with 1,362 of 1,774 statewide precincts reporting. Justice David Baker has 47 percent, and Justice Michael Streit has 46 percent.

Their removal would mark the first time any Iowa Supreme Court justice has not been retained, since the merit selection and retention system was adopted in 1962."

They lost because they had inflicted counterfeit "marriage" on the citizens of Iowa. We had blogged about this back on September 19:

Civics Lesson Iowa: Counterfeit "Marriage" Judges on Ballot"

In the post we quoted Matthew Franck:

"When judges create a right to same-sex marriage out of whole cloth, that’s more than 'overstepping.' That’s a direct assault on the constitutional order, and the effort to defeat the offending Iowa jurists in this year’s retention elections is understood by its advocates to be an attempt to restore something severely damaged by the judges... As for the 'peril of subjecting judges to voters’ whims,' how about the peril of subjecting voters to judges’ whims?"

As Iowa for Freedom campaign manager Chuck Laudner said:

“It is the citizens’ right to vote their conscience...Election Day is their turn to be the judge.”

God bless the good people of Iowa!

UPDATE: the great Ed Whelan comments on the Iowa story, and has more about elections involving the judiciary.

Counterfeit Marriage Updates

Our friend Bill May writes today on the cowardly action of the law firm of King & Spalding and the dignified action of attorney Paul Clement, who is defending the Defense of Marriage Act.

"On April 17, Speaker of the House John Boehner announced that former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement was hired to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Within the week, Clement had been forced to resign from his law firm. This is just the latest example of the heavy-handed tactics of gay rights' groups in their effort to redefine marriage and stifle any dissent."

You'd think they would have learned something from Gavin "Whether ya like it or not!" Newsom, but apparently not. They're quickly reaching the status of "nobody likes them, not even their friends": see here, here, here, and here.

On February 23 I noted how little understanding of the common good is shown by same-sex activists:

"It is instructive to reflect on how the supporters of counterfeit "marriage" show time and again they have no concern for the right to self government nor for the common good of society.

William C. Duncan, noted this today, writing in The Corner:

"There is something about the marriage issue that provokes an “any means necessary” approach from its proponents (among whom I believe we can count the president, notwithstanding campaign rhetoric to the contrary)."

That's been the case right from the start, when Mayor Gavin Newsom unilaterally and in violation of the law decided to start issuing counterfeit "marriage" licenses.

It continued when opponents of Prop8 filed suit to have the measure removed from the ballot. Prop 8 went to the voters anyway.

It continued when then-Attorney General Jerry Brown changed the title of Proposition 8, in order to weaken support for it. Prop 8 won big despite the change.

It continued when Attorney General Brown refused to do his duty and defend Prop 8, passed by a significant majority of Californians.

It continued in Massachusetts when the state legislature refused to allow the people of the state to vote on a constitutional amendment defending marriage, despite the record number (170+000) of signatures.

This is self-interest denying the common good, and the right of the people to self-government."

Prediction: Paul Clement will win the DOMA case.

Meanwhile the attorneys defending Proposition 8 have taken the advice of Ed Whelan and have filed a motion asking that Judge Walker's ruling be vacated because he was in a long-term same-sex relationship while he was hearing the case.

Counterfeit Connecticut "Marriages"

Now, Connecticut judges think they are the masters of reality. Bishop Wenski of Orlando commented on this attitude back on July 1:

"(Bishop Wenski) characterized the 'culture wars' as a conflict about 'the understanding of man and his relationship to truth and reality.' One side, which, he argued, includes homosexual marriage advocates, 'holds that anyone can essentially create his or her own reality. This side holds for a radical autonomy by which truth is determined not by the nature of things but by one's own individual will.' This position, in the bishop’s view, is a 'recipe for tyranny.'

And once again, the only time same-sex "marriage" advocates get anywhere is through the courts. They maintain their perfect record: zero victories whenever the people get to have their say.

Just as counterfeit money debases a currency, counterfeit marriage debases the institution of marriage. Let's pray that our fellow citizens in Connecticut get a chance to exercise their right to self-government.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Kristor on counterfeit "gay marriage"

Kristor writes over at the Othosphere:

"...no one is ever really fooled by such linguistic or legal circumlocutions and euphemisms. Whatever it is that homosexuals will get when homosexual marriage becomes the law of the land – as seems likely to happen this summer, when the Supreme Court takes up the matter – it won’t be the true and honest social approval for their arrangements that is given to real marriage, and that they so want. None of the actual, ineluctable differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality will be changed by the legal fiction. Thus it won’t be homosexual relations that are ennobled by the new PC code; rather, the term 'marriage,' and all the social appurtenances thereto, will be debased, in exactly the way that currency is debased by artificial inflation."

It's the argument we have been making for years. It remains to be seen if counterfeit marriage becomes the law of the land, of course. If so, not only does the term marriage 'and all the social appurtenances thereto' become debased, the law itself becomes debased, just as the term 'American' is becoming debased.

Pope Francis: Same-Sex "Marriage" is "A 'move' from the father of lies"

We know Pope Francis's stance on same-sex "marriage." Here is his 2010 statement opposing the bill that would make same-sex "marriage" and adoption legal in Argentina:

"In the coming weeks, the Argentine people will face a situation whose outcome can seriously harm the family…At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.”

Cardinal Bergoglio continued: “Let us not be naive: this is not simply a political struggle, but it is an attempt to destroy God’s plan. It is not just a bill (a mere instrument) but a ‘move’ of the father of lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

We bring this up to expose the lies that the supporters of counterfeit "marriage" tell. The Illinois Legislature just legalized counterfeit marriage in their state, and some of them are attempting to justify their votes by citing Pope Francis's off the cuff statements. From the Chicago Tribune:

"Advocates soon received additional help from Pope Francis, who warned that the Catholic Church could lose its way by focusing too much on social stances, including opposition to homosexuality.

"If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge him?" Francis said in July.

The comments sparked a wave of soul-searching by several Catholic lawmakers who had battled to reconcile their religious beliefs with their sworn duty to represent their constituents who were increasingly supportive of gay rights even as Cardinal Francis George remained opposed.

"As a Catholic follower of Jesus and the pope, Pope Francis, I am clear that our Catholic religious doctrine has at its core love, compassion and justice for all people," said Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia, a Democrat from Aurora who voted for the bill after spending much of the summer undecided.

 So they deliberately twist the Pope's message of love for of all people into support for same-sex "marriage"--despite the fact that the Holy Father said:

 "At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.”

Cardinal Bergoglio continued: “Let us not be naive: this is not simply a political struggle, but it is an attempt to destroy God’s plan. It is not just a bill (a mere instrument) but a ‘move’ of the father of lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

 

The Supreme Court v. Reality

The American Supreme Court has repeated the error of Roe v. Wade: they have overruled tens of millions of citizens and have forced a non-reality upon an unwilling populace. And, like Roe v. Wade, the action guarantees ongoing conflict.

But God is writing straight with crooked lines. Many Catholics have left the faith, and the culture of the West needs to be Evangelized. Catholicism is about reality. Catholicism is Reality. By allowing the ongoing cultural embrace of non-reality, God is opening up an avenue for us to reach our brothers and sisters. As a non-Catholic cleric said "we must offer our views until the time comes when our friends and neighbours, their doctrines broken on the anvil of reality, are humbled enough to listen."

We have often referred to same-sex ‘marriage’ as ‘counterfeit marriage.’ That's insufficient. To counterfeit a thing requires a belief in the thing’s reality. We live in a time when our so-called ‘elites’ believe that reality itself is defined by the perceiver. Theirs may be the first culture in history using solipsism as a guiding principle.

It is suggestive that same-sex 'marriage' coincided with the waning of marriage to an unprecedented low point. The people who believe that same-sex 'marriage' exists do because they no longer believe in marriage.

It is also suggestive that same-sex ‘marriage’ coincided with the popularization of ‘virtual reality.’ Although the term only became widely used with the coming of computers, it was actually coined by the influential (and mentally ill) French dramatist Antonin Artaud in 1938. For Artaud, “imagination was reality.” Sound familiar?


This man imagines he’s a woman:

This woman imagines she’s black:

These guys imagine they’re married:

Our 'elites' accept these things as true. Normal people don't. If they weren’t so destructive, one could almost feel for the LGBT activists. Their ‘victory’ required the redefinition of reality, but they’re not the only ones who can play that game. Look at those pictures: all you can do is laugh.

Same-sex ‘marriages’ themselves will have little import: only a small portion of the 3% of Americans who are same-sex attracted will choose to avail themselves of it. The problem of course is the warping of society as misguided people try to twist others into accommodating the false reality

For us lay Christians, our job as always is to defend and preach reality, which is Christ: the Logos--the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

For our hierarchy, as Archbishop Cordileone has said, their job is to remain true to Christ, and above all to protect the reality of the faith from the heretics who are attempting to redefine it. That’s why his leadership in trying to re-Catholicize our schools is so important. 

A Vote for Kagan is a Vote for Counterfeit Marriage. Catholics MUST Oppose

President Obama has nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Catholics MUST oppose her.

Ms. Kagan is "an ardent abortion supporter" according to Charmaine Yoest, the president of Americans United for Life. Maggie Gallagher, of the National Organization for Marriage, said "A vote for Kagan is a vote against marriage."

Today's press release from the "Human Rights Campaign", the largest homosexualist lobbying group in the country, bolsters Gallagher's point:

Human Rights Campaign Praises President Obama’s Nomination of Elena Kagan to the United States Supreme Court

"We are confident that Elena Kagan has a demonstrated understanding and commitment to protecting the liberty and equality of all Americans, including LGBT Americans" said HRC President Joe Solmonese...

Issues that are critical to the LGBT community may reach the Supreme Court in the next few years, including issues related to marriage equality, the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law, the Defense of Marriage Act, and the new federal hate crimes law. When issues like these come to the Supreme Court, it is vital that we have fair-minded judges to rule on these cases."

Kagan seems dishonest as well. When questioned by Senator Jon Cornyn on February 10, 2009, during her Solicitor General confirmation hearings, she appeared to deliberately camouflage her position on counterfeit marriage. The Senator asked her:

"'Given your rhetoric about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy—you called it “a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order”—let me ask this basic question: Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage?'

Answer: 'There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.' "

But many legal experts have pointed out that her answer pertains to the Constitution as currently understood, not as it would be interpreted by, say, Justice Elena Kagan, when ruling on a case, say Perry v. Schwarzenegger, where the question actually comes up.

Kagan's answer even temporarily fooled the honest Professor William Jacobsen. But he is already rethinking his position, based on Kagan's letter to Senator Arlen Spector of March 18, 2009, where she wrote:

"Constitutional rights are a product of constitutional text as interpreted by courts and understood by the nation’s citizenry and its elected representatives. By this measure, which is the best measure I know for determining whether a constitutional right exists, there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

But that is not a single "measure." Kagan has introduced three things that may well be in tension: "interpreted by courts" vs. "understood by the nation's citizenry" vs. understood by "its elected representatives." We know that in Maine and California the citizens asserted their rights to self-government in opposition to the interpretation of the courts and elected representatives. In Massachusetts the elected representatives refused to even let the citizens, their masters, vote on the issue. The question of same-sex "marriage" is subsumed under the larger issue of the American people's right to self-government.

It should also be noted that Kagan was approved on March 19, one day after the above letter was written, so I think it is safe to say she knew the confirmation was in the bag, and felt free to be a little more honest.
______________________________________________________

Kagan's horrific record on abortion is public record.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the pro-life women's group Susan B. Anthony List told LifeNews.com, "In the past Kagan has been a strong supporter of the pro-abortion agenda. She has vigorously opposed the de-funding of taxpayer-funded clinics which promote abortions, despite the fact that a majority of Americans do not want their tax dollars to fund abortion providers."

As Tom Peters said yesterday: "Again, Catholics helped elect this President who is systematically entrenching an ideology which holds responsibility for the deaths of millions of babies. Elections do matter."

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Kevin Williamson Smacks Down "Transgenderism"

Counterfeit marriage, and now even counterfeit men and women. For liberalism, the enemy is reality itself.

Kevin Williamson writes at National Review Online:

Bradley Manning is Not A Woman

Dennis Avner was not a tiger, and Bradley Manning is not a woman. Mr. Manning, who upon his sentencing for his role in the WikiLeaks case announced that he desires to live out his days as a woman called Chelsea, is what he is, and no amount of pronoun play, psychotherapeutic doublespeak, or wishful thinking can make it otherwise....

We have created a rhetoric of “gender identity” that is disconnected from biological sexual fact, and we have done so largely in the service of enabling the sexual mutilation of physically healthy men and women (significantly more men) by medical authorities who should be barred by professional convention if not by conscience from the removal of healthy organs (and limbs, more on that later), an act that by any reasonable standard ought to be considered mutilation rather than therapy....The duty of the medical profession is not to encourage and enable delusions, but to help those who suffer from them to cope with them.

It is worth noting here that as a matter of law and a matter of social expectation, the fiction of sex change is treated as the paramount good: We are not expected to treat those who have undergone the procedure as men who have taken surgical and hormonal steps to impersonate women (or vice versa) but as people who have literally changed sex, which they have not — no more than Dennis Avner, the famous “Stalking Cat” who attempted to physically transform himself into a tiger, changed species.

A society of enablers, enabling insanity! 

It is a measure of the intellectual degradation of our times that the physical reality of these cases is considered, if it is considered at all, a distant second to the subjective impressions of people who are, not to put too fine a point on it, mentally ill and in need of treatment.

But what caused this "intellectual degradation?" Men's desire to be as gods. In our post of July 1, 2008 "The Roots of Same-Sex 'Marriage'" we quoted Bishop Thomas Wenski:

"(Bishop Wenski) characterized the 'culture wars' as a conflict about 'the understanding of man and his relationship to truth and reality.'

One side, which, he argued, includes homosexual marriage advocates, 'holds that anyone can essentially create his or her own reality. This side holds for a radical autonomy by which truth is determined not by the nature of things but by one's own individual will.'

This position, in the bishop’s view, is a 'recipe for tyranny.'

The other side, the bishop argued, thinks men and women are 'not self-creators but creatures.'

'Truth is not constructed, but received and thus must reflect the reality of things,' he said. This position promises freedom that is achievable only 'through adherence to objective truth which we do not, and could never, invent.'”

CCCYO Ex-Director Comes Clean, Supports Counterfeit Marriage

Brian Cahill, immediate past Executive Director of Catholic Charities of San Francisco published an op-ed in last Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle, declaring his support for counterfeit marriage, and reavealing that he had donated financially to the opponents of Proposiition 8.

Of course, to the readers of "A Shepherd's Voice" this is no surprise--we revealed it back in October of 2008.

For new readers, Mr. Cahill is the guy who thought it would be a good idea for Catholic Charities CYO to provide staffing to an organization that advertised for adoptive "dads" on the s/m page of the Bay Area Reporter and the "Porn" page of the San Francisco Bay Times, two homosexualist publications. That action outraged even the city government of San Francisco--which is not easy to do.

Thankfully, Mr. Cahill's tenure at Catholic Charities ended in 2009, along with CCCYO's partnership with Family Builders by Adoption. But as this post about his CCCYO going away party shows, much more needs to be done.

For an in-depth report on the how this situation arose, visit our sister website "Homosexual Activism in the Archdiocese of San Francisco."

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Counterfeit Marriage Requires Counterfeit Reality

We've said it before.

On October 15, the great Matthew J. Franck, at Public Discourse, continues to explore the irrationality that is the inevitable result of calling black white, up down, and same-sex unions marriage:

Same-Sex Marriage Makes Liberal Judges Irrational

"A New Jersey judge’s contorted and nonsensical decision that the state is responsible for the federal government’s failure to recognize same-sex marriage highlights the irrationality that permeates the campaign for “marriage equality.”

One of the most striking features of the campaign for same-sex marriage has been the prominence of its assault on reasoning itself. The logical relations of legal categories with one another, as those categories represent persons, their interactions, and their rights and duties, are at the heart of all legal decision-making and ideally inform legislative and administrative policymaking as well. But the impulse to redefine marriage so that it is no longer understood as the conjugal union of a man and a woman has been consistently heedless of logic and the rational relations of legal categories.

Begin with the steadfast refusal of same-sex marriage advocates even to define what “marriage” is now supposed to mean....

 Rather than say what marriage is—which anyone can see is an absolute prerequisite to saying whether “equality” demands its availability to partners never before thought capable of marrying—these advocates simply shout “marriage equality” ever more loudly, point to an array of “government benefits” linked to marital status, and make their desire for the thing substitute for an argument about what the thing is that they want."

Read the whole thing.

Vive la France V: "Common sense has woken from a deep sleep"

Nice post at The Thinking Housewife today about the French people's refusal to accept the imposition of counterfeit marriage on La Belle France:

"These photos of Sunday’s Manif Pour Tous demonstration in Paris are exhilarating. It’s not just the huge crowds or the fact that all different ages are represented or the regional flags and patriotic colors or the Parisian buildings and streets. It’s the signs people are carrying: “Everyone is born of a mother and father,” “No, to the destruction of civilization,” “One mother and one father: It’s hereditary,” “Yes to human dignity,” “I am not for sale” and many more.

Common sense has woken from a deep sleep. That’s how it seems when reading these banners. Or as Tugdual Derville, a leader of Manif Pour Tous and a father of six children, recently said, ”It is the soul of France that is waking up.”

Homosexual “marriage” is now legal in France, but it never will be a settled or accepted institution there. Such is the power of truth, once it is embraced by large numbers of people.

By the way, notice the absence of Muslims in these pictures despite the large Muslim presence in Paris and the absolute Islamic prohibition against homosexuality. Why aren’t they here? The answer is simple. They do not see themselves as Frenchmen."

The last point is significant, and I think gives a hint as to why there is so much more of a popular uprising in France against the imposition of counterfeit marriage than there has been so far in America. I'll post on this when I get my thoughts in the proper order.

On Russia's New Law

I was working on a post on Russia's new law defending their culture from homosexualist propaganda, but Pat Buchanan beat me to it. Back in July 30, 2012 Matthew Franck wrote a piece at Public Interest called Truth and Lies, Nature and Convention: The Debate Over Same-Sex Marriage. Mr. Franck quoted same-sex “marriage” supporter Jon Corvino:

“Whichever side prevails in this debate, the other’s views will be marginalized. There’s no getting around that.” 

So it is a question of which side should be marginalized. One side has built civilizations, the other side has built nothing, and exists parasitically within the civilization built by its enemies. In concrete terms: who will be marginalized, Dan Savage or Baronelle Stutzman? Savage, an ill-mannered lout (caution: link has vile content), is invited to the White House, while Ms. Stutzman is being sued by the state of Washington for refusing to provide flowers for a counterfeit “wedding”--and she's not alone. We have been covering the events in France. On June 12, 2013 LifeSiteNews ran a story about the Mayor of a French town willing to go to prison rather than participate in the charade (his word) of counterfeit marriage:

“The mayor of a small town in France’s Basque region has announced his refusal to carry out a ‘marriage’ between two men who reside in his jurisdiction, becoming the first mayor to defy the country’s new law that applies the name and rights of “matrimony” to couples of the same sex. 

Jean-Michel Colo, a conservative who heads the town of Arcangues in the southern Basque region of Pyrenees-Atlantiques, faces the possibility of a prison sentence of up to five years and a fine of 75,000 euros (100,000 USD), according to French media sources. However, he appears to be unafraid of the consequences of his stand, telling the media that he will ‘go all the way to the gallows’ to oppose the law.

‘I don’t give lessons, I’m not inciting other mayors to follow my example, but I won’t enforce an illegitimate law,’ says Colo. ‘My seven councilmen and I are completely in agreement in saying that we will not participate in this charade.’”

 

So Mayor Colo, too, has been “marginalized.”  That won’t be happening in Russia. Instead, homosexual activists are being marginalized. Mr. Buchanan's article was called "Post v. Putin--Whose Side Are You On?"

"The culture war has gone global.

And the divisions are not only between, but within nations.

“Suddenly, homosexuality is against the law,” wailed Jay Leno. “I mean, this seems like Germany. Let’s round up the Jews. Let’s round up the gays. ... I mean, it starts like that.”

Leno was speaking of Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Obama eagerly agreed:

“I have no patience for countries that treat gays or lesbians ... in ways that intimidate them or are harmful to them. ... Nobody is more offended than me by some of the antigay and lesbian legislation that you’ve been seeing in Russia.”

(Note: As a commentator to Buchanan's article observed, Obama has endless patience when it comes to Christians being slaughtered in Muslim countries, something which is immeasurably greater than any persecution suffered by homosexuals.) Buchanan continues:

Leno and Obama were referring to a new Russian law prohibiting “homosexual propaganda.” Moscow is also warning foreigners, including visitors to the winter Olympics in Sochi, that propagandizing for gay rights can get them two weeks in detention. No kiss-ins allowed.

“Medieval,” howled The Washington Post. “Mr. Putin’s war” on gays and lesbians is “part and parcel of his lapse into xenophobia, religious chauvinism and general intolerance....

What this reveals is the distance America has traveled, morally and culturally, in a few short years, and our amnesia about who we Americans once were, and what it is we once believed.

Only yesterday, homosexual sodomy, which Thomas Jefferson said should be treated like rape, was outlawed in many states and same-sex marriage was regarded as an absurdity.

Was that America we grew up in really like Nazi Germany?

In the Catholic schools this writer attended, pornography—let alone homosexual propaganda—would get one expelled.

Was this really just like Kristallnacht?..."

 

Pat's last points are important. What has happened to America? How did the moral vacuum come into being? President Putin is a Russian nationalist. That's why he cares about what happens to Russia. Makes sense. But what is President Obama? What about us? We've gone from Jefferson's "We hold these truths..." (an assertion which, as Willmoore Kendall taught, presupposes a belief in Truth with a capital "T") to Anthony Kennedy's "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life..."

In his 1978 autobiography "In Search of History," the legendary liberal journalist Theodore H. White wrote of the changes he had seen:

"The old English political culture had lost control over … the polyglot peoples of America [who] had no common heritage but only ideas to bind them together… What would be really at issue was whether America would be transformed, in the name of Opportunity, simply into a Place, a gathering of discretely defined and entitled groups, interests and heritages; or whether it could continue to be a nation, where all heritages joined under the same roof—ideas of communities within government."

Well, the answer seems pretty clear. America has come to be "a gathering of discretely defined and entitled groups, interests and heritages" and the most politically powerful interest group wins. For now, that group has proved to be homosexual activists.

Archbishop Wenski on Counterfeit "Marriage"

The young people over at CatholicVote.org continue their fine work.

They have a great post on an editorial in the Sun Sentinel by Archbishop Thomas Wenski of Miami. We have great admiration for His Excellency and have long contended that he articulatess the motivations underlying the push for counterfeit "marriage" as well as just about anybody:

"In our nation's culture wars, the two sides are fighting about the understanding of man and his relationship to truth and reality. One side — and today, "gay marriage" is its poster child — holds that anyone can essentially create his or her own reality. This side holds for a radical autonomy by which truth is determined not by the nature of things, but by one's own individual will. The other side holds men and women are not self-creators, but creatures. Truth is not constructed, but received and thus must reflect the reality of things. Or, as the Book of Genesis says: "Male and female, He (God) created them." (Genesis 1:27)."

You can read the post at CatholicVote, which includes an hysterical response to His Excellency's well written column, by going here.

The post is titled "Archbishop Wenski’s words made true by gay writer who viciously attacks him for defending reality of marriage" but could just as easily have read "Archbishop Wenski’s words made true by gay writer who viciously attacks him for defending reality."

"Traditional marriage has never lost on the ballot in any state. We expect it to prevail in Maine.”

Back in May, Maine, legislators passed and the governor signed LD 1020, attempting to legalize counterfeit "marriage." But Maine gives the people a chance to have their say. Opponents of counterfeit "marriage" had a 90 day window to gather 55,000 signatures to put LD 1020 to a "people's veto", which means the measure is put on hold once the signatures are collected and certified. The measure will then be put on the ballot in November. We can help by contributing to: Stand for Marriage Maine

When LD 1020 passed, the Archdiocese of Portland, Maine said:

"We believe that the vast majority of Maine's people believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and that calling same-sex relationships marriage doesn't make them so...."

Yep! and:

"Same-sex marriage is a dangerous sociological experiment that I believe will have negative consequences for society as a whole. Children will be taught in schools that same-sex marriage and traditional marriage are simply different expressions of the same thing, and that the logical and consistent understanding that marriage and reproduction are intrinsically linked is no longer valid." - Bishop Richard Malone.

Yesterday's Catholic News Agency reported on the repeal effort:

“In just four weeks, we've gathered more than 55,000 signatures from Mainers who believe they, not the legislature and governor, should have the final say on the definition of marriage," said Marc Mutty, chairman of the coalition supporting the ballot proposal and Public Affairs Director for the Catholic Diocese of Portland.

“There has been an extraordinary outpouring of support from voters across the state. This response gives us momentum that will lift us over the first hurdle of putting the issue before the people and, ultimately, carry us to victory in November.”

Bob Embrich, an executive committee member of Stand for Marriage Maine and founder of the Maine Jeremiah Project, said the speed with which the signatures were gathered suggested that Maine citizens want to restore marriage “to its historical and time-honored definition as between a man and a woman.”

“We look forward to submitting the measure for certification and engaging Mainers in a vigorous defense of marriage.

More Common Sense: Ab. Vigneron: Counterfeit marriage supporters should not receive Communion

Detroit's good Archbishop Allen Vigneron  teaches it. From the Detroit Free Press, via Fr. Z:

Catholics who push same-sex "marriage" should not receive Communion

“For a Catholic to receive holy Communion and still deny the revelation Christ entrusted to the church is to try to say two contradictory things at once: ‘I believe the church offers the saving truth of Jesus, and I reject what the church teaches.’ In effect, they would contradict themselves. This sort of behavior would result in publicly renouncing one’s integrity and logically bring shame for a double-dealing that is not unlike perjury.”
Vigneron said the church wants to help Catholics “avoid this personal disaster.”

Amen!

Back in 2008, Archbishop Vigneron was one of the California Bishops who spoke out against counterfeit marriage in the Marriage Matters to Kids video's. You can watch His Excellency's video here.