tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3256165281863652253.post2803679169613917045..comments2023-10-24T07:38:47.024-07:00Comments on A Shepherd's Voice: Los Angeles Bishops' StatementA Shepherd's Voicehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16743324067287303823noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3256165281863652253.post-76387696452416336362008-06-17T11:55:00.000-07:002008-06-17T11:55:00.000-07:00I agree with the comment above. I find the L.A. bi...I agree with the comment above. I find the L.A. bishops' statement to be quite weak. <BR/><BR/>I hope that when it comes time to really support the marriage amendment the L.A. Bishops are a little more energetic--both vocally and financially. But I think it is up to us, the laity, to make up for any lack of fortitude on the bishops part. I'm thinking about directing my donations between now and November to the amendment instead of the collection.Struggling Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269517738133994771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3256165281863652253.post-54691036966291899952008-06-17T10:51:00.000-07:002008-06-17T10:51:00.000-07:00While the Archdiocese is right that we cannot disc...While the Archdiocese is right that we cannot discriminate unjustly against people who have same-sex attractions, there is a fine line between non-discrimination and permissiveness. Should a Catholic landlord be forced to rent an apartment to a homosexual couple? On the one hand, one could argue that the Church's non-discrimination stance requires it; on the other hand, isn't the landlord forced into implicitly tolerating immorality?<BR/>Regardless, the Archdiocese is flat out wrong in recommending extensive partnership rights for gay couples. If you read the California Supreme Court decision (which few on either side of the issue have done), you will see that California state law's extensive partnership rights were a major part of the Court's reasoning in extending marriage to gays. Gays have been given nearly every right to which married couples are entitled, the Court argued, so refusing to give their unions the <I>name</I> marriage is merely unjust bias. Domestic partnership rights were not, to the activists, a compromise to accept, but the catalyst to bring about marriage rights. They are not stupid, and their plan was obviously a great success. That the Archdiocese cannot see this is a concern.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com