New York State has taken an important step forward in our nation's never-ending quest to remake ourselves as a more decent, more inclusive, more just and more moral society. Looking back from the future, our grandchildren will surely see the legal recognition of same-sex marriage as an inspiring chapter in America's story, a story in which we have progressively abolished slavery, ended state-sponsored racial segregation, prohibited laws against interracial marriage, protected equal rights for women, promoted religious diversity and tolerance and outlawed discrimination on the basis of disability. There is no doubt that, in the long run, the United States will follow the lead of New York State. The challenge, though, is to make the long run short.
The most vehement opponent of marriage equality in New York was the Catholic Church. Indeed, in the heat of the debate in the state legislature, the New York State Catholic Conference issued a ringing proclamation: "The Bishops of New York State oppose in the strongest possible terms any attempt to redefine the sacred institution of marriage. Marriage has always been, is now, and always will be the union of one man and one woman. Government does not have the authority to change this most basic of truths."
That the leaders of the Catholic Church take this position is certainly their right, but it is a sorry testament to their understanding of their Church's own history in this nation. If anything, one would expect those leaders to be leaders in the fight against bigotry and intolerance, rather than voices in support of prejudice and discrimination. After all, as the historian Arthur Schlesinger, Sr. once observed, prejudice against Catholics has been one of "the deepest bias[es] in the history of the American people."
Sadly, this was so from the very beginning. In the mid-seventeenth century, both the Colony of Virginia and Massachusetts Bay Colony enacted laws prohibiting Catholic settlers. In the 1830s, prominent Protestant leaders attacked the Catholic Church as an enemy of republican values, and in the 1840s the "nativist" movement was whipped into a frenzy of anti-Catholicism that led to mob violence, the burning of Catholic property, and the killing of Catholics. Anti-Catholicism reached a peak in the mid-nineteenth century when Protestant leaders became alarmed by the heavy influx of Catholic immigrants.
Rabid anti-Catholicism continued into the 1920s, when anti-Catholics fumed that Catholicism was incompatible with democracy. When Al Smith ran unsuccessfully for president in 1928 as the first Roman Catholic candidate, Protestant ministers warned that the nation's autonomy would be threatened if he were to be elected, because he would listen not to the American people, but to the pope.
Many Americans opposed Smith because they believed the Catholic Church was "unAmerican." In an influential manifesto, the Lutheran Dr. Clarence Reinhold Tappert warned about "the peculiar relation in which a faithful Catholic stands and the absolute allegiance he owes to a 'foreign sovereign' who 'claims' supremacy in secular affairs and who, time and again, has endeavored to put this claim into practical operation."
In 1949, Paul Blanshard wrote in his bestselling book, American Freedom and Catholic Power, that the Catholic Church was widely seen as an "undemocratic system of alien control" in which the lay were chained by the "rule of the clergy." Even today, when things have clearly changed for the better, only 45 percent of Americans have a positive view of the Catholic Church (as compared to 53 percent who have a positive view of same-sex marriage).
In light of that history, one would have hoped that the leaders of a religion that has been so vilified and discriminated against would have been able to take a step back and recognize similar bigotry and prejudice when it is directed at others. Instead, the bishops' proclamation does precisely what the critics of the Church have long condemned. According to the proclamation, marriage is a "sacred" institution -- that is, an institution set apart for veneration by God -- and government therefore "does not have the authority to change" it. In other words, in a self-governing society, the democratically-elected representatives of the people do "not have the authority" to change the law in a way that conflicts with the religious beliefs of the bishops. That is not a winning argument.
Ironically, it is not a winning argument even with Catholics, a substantial majority of whom reject the Church's position and support same-sex marriage. Indeed, whereas 53 percent of all Americans now support same-sex marriage, approximately 60 percent of Catholics now take that position. It is heart-warming and inspiring when the adherents of a religion -- any religion -- are more decent, more wise and more moral than the "leaders" of their religion. It's enough to give one faith in the future.
New York Assembly passes bill to legalize gay marriage 80-63 ...
Gay marriage: New York votes to allow same-sex marriage - latimes.com
Gay marriage backers: NY vote has national impact - Yahoo! News
OKing gay marriage could pump $184 million into New York economy ...
The only thing inaccurate about this statement is that faithful Catholics have any "absolute allegiance" to Rome, even though Rome would appear to want it that way. Rome DOES claim supremacy in secular affairs and has time and again endeavored to put that claim into practical operation. Returning contributions from law makers who don't vote the way they want them to is just the latest round. Denying communion has been another favorite tactic. Even the response to the pedophile scandal demonstrates Rome's commitment to being a secular law unto itself and above all other authority.
My dental hygienist is a sweet lady with a hard working husband and two teen age children. She attends mass regular. When election time comes and the priest gets up and tells her for whom to vote based on a single issue she gets deeply offended. The church is unAmerican. To say so is neither vilification nor discrimination. But lay Catholics are not the church.
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/6/27/is_new_york_equal_marriage_bill
Marriage hasn't been exclusively heterosexual in the U.S. since 2004.
They may have realized this if they took a little time off from raping children and peered outside their own foggy windows.
The Bishops are showing great love in that they would rather be spit on by the likes of Mr Levi, than allow one soul to die. They have nothing to profit from their steadfast adherence to Christ's teaching, unlike the writer and the politician.
Mr. Levi and the world are telling folks with gay tendencies they can be "normal", the church tells them they can be Saints . . .it is one or the other, because no Saint ever cared about being "normal"
If you TRULY believe that the catholic church is about the almighty savior and not all about the almighty dollar, might I suggest that you haven't been paying attention. At all.
But I'm just guessing here...
would-be church-demolishers would do
if Jesus Christ showed up tomorrow and began proclaiming the gospel?
They'd crucify him.
To any other posters who read this: Keep in mind that many of us opposing gay marriage do not hate anyone. I know I don't. Our resistance is based on our belief that scripture informs us of God's condemnation of the lifestyle. For many, it comes down to either following the will of the masses or walking in faith. God's law doesn't stop being the law because secular humanism has become the more popular philosophy in our cultural development than faith.
According to Christianity, marriage is defined as a life long union between a man and a woman. Looking at the precept that its' government/constitution/set of laws is what defines any specific, soveriegn nation, then passing into law a mandate to recognize the sanctity of gay marriage is equivalent to declaring that something named as a grevious sin by scripture (in both Testaments) is acceptable to our nation, which millions of Christians believe will further separate us from God' grace. Even Jesus sternly warned us to repent.
Given a choice between honoring God with my obedience and going with the flow because that's the popular choice,I'll choose to remain unpopular. Put another way..narrow is the path. Just sayin'.
They preach what their requirements and rules are and they want believers to follow them. That's not easy to do but where is the democracy in that arrangement?
Shouldn't separation of church and state actually mean that government should not concern itself with religion and religion should have no part in government? Roger Williams was persecuted for that idea and not much has changed.
political and financial benefits, and has helped lead many into a moral swamp, that he has
earned formal excommunication from the Catholic Church. Will the Pope and bishops have
the guts to do this? Probably not. He ought to practice intellectual honesty and leave the
Church and become a Protestant Episcopalian where his beliefs and practices fit better.
Specifically, what does and does not constitute the "sacred" has been deemed irrelevant to maintaining a just and orderly society that guarantees the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of property ("happiness"). Those are the minimal values of our secular-civil path/way/religion. In that political order marriage is no more and no less than a basic civil right. Period.
What I find perverse is that the vested authorities of the sacred are now championing the exclusion of fellow citizens (their neighbors) from a fundamental human right, while society moves forward, arguably more faithful to the spirit of the Glad Tidings than the letter of the Law, by endorsing the idea that what sanctifies a union is love, not heterogeneous genitalia. The legitimation Church and State confer is parasitical on love's revelation in the hearts of men. What could be more spiritual (and civil) than that?
The "divines" of Catholic officialdom are left defending marriage on the basis of an atavistic obedience to authority and an exclusionistic purity fixation that do nothing to promote the public good. Their day of reckoning approaches and they're going to have a lot of explaining to do.
People who profess religious beliefs should set an example and tend to the needs of the elderly, disabled, homeless, or those impacted by floods or other disasters. That's a good place for the Church people to get involved.......stay out of the the bedrooms.