Queerty – NNJ Archbishop Says Marriage-Equality Supporters Must Abstain From Communion

NNJ Archbishop Says Marriage-Equality Supporters Must Abstain From Communion

Catholic Archbishop John J. Myers of New Jersey released a pastoral letter this week reminding the faithful that “we cannot define and redefine marriage to suit our personal tastes or goals.”
Calling gay relationships “degrading,” he suggested that Catholics who support marriage equality should refrain from taking Communion at Mass,” as they are “unable to assent to or live the Church’s teaching in these matters.”
The prevalence of false ideologies about our nature affects how we think of our bodies. These ideologies have degraded the body, treating it as separate from the identity of the person. Identity appears to rest only mind and will, and the body is regarded as part of a lower order of creation. To some, sexual activity is understood simply as a source of pleasure or recreation, or as a way of satisfying an appetite just like hunger or thirst. Its deeper meaning as a one-flesh unity of covenantal partners is lost.
The loss of the sense of fidelity and permanence within marriage and the loss of the centrality of offspring within marriage (through contraception and abortion) in favor of pleasure, has contributed to the arguments for “same-sex marriage.” Worse, it has undermined the well being of many children and contributed to numerous social problems affecting the common good.
One of the best services we can provide to our Church and our society is to commit or recommit to faithfully and lovingly living out our own commitments to marriage and celibacy for the Kingdom. Our children and our nation need the example of many, many faithful people fulfilling in a joyful and self-sacrificing way their vocations. In particular, I ask all to renew their efforts to be child-focused families where the good of the children comes before career or ‘personal fulfillment…
I urge those not in communion with the Church regarding its teachings on marriage and family (or any other grave matter of faith) to sincerely reexamine their consciences… If they continue to be unable to assent to or live the Church’s reaching in these matters, they must in all honesty and humility refrain from receiving Holy Communion until they can do so with integrity; to continue to receive Holy Communion while so dissenting would be objectively dishonest.”
The issue of marriage equality is being fiercely debated in the Garden State: In February, Governor Chris Christie vetoed a same-sex marriage bill that passed the New Jersey Legislature. Meanwhile, polls have shown U.S. Catholics support legalizing same-sex marriage at a higher rate the general population.
Makes for some pretty empty pews, no?


ABC News

Tasmania’s Upper House debates gay marriage
Updated 29 minutes ago

PHOTO: If passed, the bill could make Tasmania the first Australian state to legalise gay marriage. (Reuters Andrew Burton, file photo)
Tasmania’s Legislative Council sat late into the night, debating a bill that could make the state the first in the country to legalise gay marriage.

The House of Assembly passed the Labor-Green same-sex marriage bill last month, 13 votes to 11.

Debate in the Upper House was led by the independent member for Murchison, Ruth Forrest, who is a strong supporter of marriage equality.

She told the house the bill is about ending discrimination.

“This is social reform that matters so much to so many Tasmanians,” she said.

“It concerns people who are personally impacted, those who are gay, have a gay family member or friend and many others who have no such personal connection but believe in equality, fairness and social justice for all Tasmanians.”

The second speaker was the independent member for Apsley Tania Rattray.

Ms Rattray was one of four crucial undecided votes going into the debate, but she told the house she will not support the bill.

“During my contribution today I asked the question, ‘Has the tide turned enough for me to support same-sex marriage in Tasmania?’,” she said.

“Taking into consideration all the information and views expressed to me, I don’t feel it has.”

Dozens of gay rights campaigners packed the public gallery for the debate.

Campaigner Rodney Croome says Ms Rattray’s position is disappointing, but the bill is not dead yet.

“We’re still to hear from quite a few crucial MLC’s so we’re not giving up hope that this legislation may pass,” he said.

Debate will continue this morning, with a vote expected later today.

Edge On The Net – Ginsburg Predicts Gay Marriage Before High Court

Ginsburg Predicts Gay Marriage Before High Court
by Kristen Wyatt
Associated Press
Thursday Sep 20, 2012

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Source:AP Photo)
BOULDER, Colo. – Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Wednesday that she believes the Defense of Marriage Act will likely go to the U.S. Supreme Court within the next year.

Ginsburg spoke at the University of Colorado in Boulder. She was asked a student-submitted question about the equal-protection clause and whether the nation’s high court would consider it applying to sexual orientation.

Ginsburg said with a smile that she couldn’t answer the question. She said she could not talk about matters that would come to the court, and that the Defense of Marriage Act would probably be up soon.

“I think it’s most likely that we will have that issue before the court toward the end of the current term,” she said.

The 1996 law has been declared unconstitutional by a federal judge in New York and is awaiting arguments before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Those oral arguments are scheduled for Sept. 27.

The law was passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton after the Hawaii Supreme Court issued a ruling in 1993 making it appear Hawaii might legalize gay marriage.

Since then, many states have banned gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, led by Massachusetts in 2004 and continuing with Connecticut, New York, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maryland and Washington state. Maryland and Washington’s laws aren’t yet in effect and might be subject to referendums.

In February 2011, President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder instructed the Department of Justice to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act.

Ginsburg’s remarks came at a conference sponsored by the University of Colorado law school. Ginsburg talked mostly about entering the legal profession when there were few female lawyers and even fewer judges.

The students roared with laughter when Ginsburg told of scrambling even to find a women’s restroom in law school at Columbia University in the 1950s.

“We never complained, that’s just the way it was,” she said to laughter from the students.

Towleroad – Australian Senate Also Votes Down Federal Marriage Equality

Australian Senate Also Votes Down Federal Marriage Equality
Less than 24 hours after the Australian House of Representatives rejected a federal marriage equality bill, the nation’s Senate did the same with a 41 to 26 vote.

One of the lawmakers who voted for marriage, Liberal senator Sue Boyce, later read the riot act to her colleagues, insisting that same-sex couples deserve marriage because, shocker, “gay people are just people.”

“There are good gays and bad gays; rich gays and poor gays; gays who want to get married and gays who don’t; gays who like footy and gays who don’t; gays who want children and those who don’t,” she said, before noting she also supports churches being able to make their own religion-based decision on the matter.

On the other end of the ideological spectrum, opposing Sen. John Madigan claimed equality supporters were unfairly smearing people like him:

Democratic Labor Party Senator John Madigan said he was appalled at the vilification of MPs who opposed the change.

“Under the guise of compassion for the desire of same-sex couples, we have endured a non-stop campaign of denigration against those who have refused to buckle under the weight of an attack designed to pour scorn and guilt on those who have the temerity to refuse to deny their principles,” he said.

Senator Madigan said if the argument for same-sex marriage was based on love, respect, dignity and equality, those advocating the legislation needed to practice what they preached.

He said love should not be the basis for any legislative change.

“Nowhere in the Marriage Act is the word love even mentioned,” he said.

Madigan said the state needs to regulate marriages, because it is “a partnership with social consequences.”

“Marriage is less about the rights of the adult than about the rights and responsibilities those adults have towards the children of the relationship,” he said. Perhaps people who don’t plan on having children should be barred from tying the knot as well, then?

Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/2012/09/australian-senate-also-votes-down-federal-marriage-equality.html#ixzz274BdAU1F