Comments on: DC Same-Sex Marriage Bill: An Imposing Agenda http://blog.adw.org/2009/11/dc-same-sex-marriage-bill-an-imposing-agenda/ Connecting the dots between Catholic faith and culture Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:15:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: BYWHATRIGHT http://blog.adw.org/2009/11/dc-same-sex-marriage-bill-an-imposing-agenda/comment-page-1/#comment-7148 BYWHATRIGHT Sun, 07 Mar 2010 12:46:00 +0000 http://blog.adw.org/?p=4361#comment-7148 The new District of Columbia SAME-SEX “Marriage” Law is Invalid and Meaningless. The DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) removed the ability to construe the phrase “all rightful subjects of legislation” in the DC Home Rule Act to mean the DC Home Rule Act delegated legislative power to pass an ordinance on a subject of legislation that defines “marriage” to mean anything other than a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. The DOMA specifically states: “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, . . . the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” It is noted that DOMA does not say “In determining the meaning of the word marriage as used in any Act of Congress”. Rather, the scope of DOMA is plenary and extends to every provision of any Act of Congress. So, let’s turn to an Act of Congress called the DC Home Rule Act the enactment of which preceded DOMA. Section 302 of DC Home Rule Act specifically states: “Except as provided in sections 601, 602, and 603, the legislative power of the District shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation.” Hence, no meaning may be given to such phrase that construes it to extend legislative power to the District to pass an ordinance on a legislative subject that provides “marriage” means anything other than a legal union between one man and one woman as husband. While the DC Home Rule Act’s use of the phrase “all rightful subjects of legislation” could perhaps have been construed, when originally enacted, to encompass same sex marriages inasmuch as sections 601, 602, and 603 did not then exclude legislation on that subject; the DOMA, upon passage, reached back into time and repealed by implication any part of the DC Home Rule Act that conceivably may have held any meaning inconsistent with the meaning subsequently decreed by DOMA that any Act of Congress may mean. This includes any provision of the DC Home Rule Act, to include Section 302 granting DC legislative powers, which section cannot, by reason of DOMA, be construed to mean legislative power is granted to the District to pass an ordinance permitting same sex marriages. Furthermore, SEC. 602 (3) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act provides that the District of Columbia has no authority to “enact any act, or enact any act to amend or repeal any Act of Congress, which concerns the functions or property of the United States or which is not restricted in its application exclusively in or to the District.” It is obvious that the application of DOMA is not restricted exclusively in or to the District. Therefore DC has no authority to amend or repeal the DOMA and, in turn, Congress has no authority under DC Home Rule Act to amend or repeal DOMA by approving (by inaction) DC’s unauthorized ordinance. The new District of Columbia SAME-SEX “Marriage” Law is Invalid and Meaningless The new District of Columbia SAME-SEX “Marriage” Law is Invalid and Meaningless.

The DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) removed the ability to construe the phrase “all rightful subjects of legislation” in the DC Home Rule Act to mean the DC Home Rule Act delegated legislative power to pass an ordinance on a subject of legislation that defines “marriage” to mean anything other than a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

The DOMA specifically states: “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, . . . the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” It is noted that DOMA does not say “In determining the meaning of the word marriage as used in any Act of Congress”. Rather, the scope of DOMA is plenary and extends to every provision of any Act of Congress.

So, let’s turn to an Act of Congress called the DC Home Rule Act the enactment of which preceded DOMA. Section 302 of DC Home Rule Act specifically states: “Except as provided in sections 601, 602, and 603, the legislative power of the District shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation.” Hence, no meaning may be given to such phrase that construes it to extend legislative power to the District to pass an ordinance on a legislative subject that provides “marriage” means anything other than a legal union between one man and one woman as husband.

While the DC Home Rule Act’s use of the phrase “all rightful subjects of legislation” could perhaps have been construed, when originally enacted, to encompass same sex marriages inasmuch as sections 601, 602, and 603 did not then exclude legislation on that subject; the DOMA, upon passage, reached back into time and repealed by implication any part of the DC Home Rule Act that conceivably may have held any meaning inconsistent with the meaning subsequently decreed by DOMA that any Act of Congress may mean. This includes any provision of the DC Home Rule Act, to include Section 302 granting DC legislative powers, which section cannot, by reason of DOMA, be construed to mean legislative power is granted to the District to pass an ordinance permitting same sex marriages.

Furthermore, SEC. 602 (3) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act provides that the District of Columbia has no authority to “enact any act, or enact any act to amend or repeal any Act of Congress, which concerns the functions or property of the United States or which is not restricted in its application exclusively in or to the District.” It is obvious that the application of DOMA is not restricted exclusively in or to the District. Therefore DC has no authority to amend or repeal the DOMA and, in turn, Congress has no authority under DC Home Rule Act to amend or repeal DOMA by approving (by inaction) DC’s unauthorized ordinance.

The new District of Columbia SAME-SEX “Marriage” Law is Invalid and Meaningless

]]> By: Peter Wolczuk http://blog.adw.org/2009/11/dc-same-sex-marriage-bill-an-imposing-agenda/comment-page-1/#comment-6127 Peter Wolczuk Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:35:39 +0000 http://blog.adw.org/?p=4361#comment-6127 From the commentary in the main web site of the Archdiocese; "Some advocates for same-sex marriage even proposed that religious organizations simply stop activities that would place their rights in conflict with the new law. In other words, that religious organizations and individuals withdraw from the public sphere despite centuries of legal precedent in favor of respect for religious liberty." Sounds remarkably like a call for a "gag law" to me. Are they trying to limit the Constitution's stated right to freedom of speech. From the commentary in the main web site of the Archdiocese;

“Some advocates for same-sex marriage even proposed that religious organizations simply stop activities that would place their rights in conflict with the new law. In other words, that religious organizations and individuals withdraw from the public sphere despite centuries of legal precedent in favor of respect for religious liberty.”

Sounds remarkably like a call for a “gag law” to me. Are they trying to limit the Constitution’s stated right to freedom of speech.

]]> By: Msgr. Charles Pope http://blog.adw.org/2009/11/dc-same-sex-marriage-bill-an-imposing-agenda/comment-page-1/#comment-3083 Msgr. Charles Pope Fri, 04 Dec 2009 22:22:28 +0000 http://blog.adw.org/?p=4361#comment-3083 yes, well it would be very hard to deny that no Christian every misused Scripture and some of them may even have been a bishop. I had rather extensive dialogue up above i thse comments with George about scripture and if you haven't you might wish to. However, to your point, that scripture may have been used by some in the past in less than ideal ways ways cannot wholly exclude the use of scripture now. If scripture goes off the radar we're not left with much except subjective and purely personal conclusions as to what God wants and even who God is. I am unaware the Church ever using Scripture one way or the other in the question of women's sufferage. As for slavery, I commented on that above with George. The crusades are another matter. Now it is common to make a blanket condemnation of the Crusades today. Some of the later expeditions were indeed horrific and they contributed greatly to a breakdown of relations with the Orthodox in the East. However, of they began as an attempt for Christians of the middle ages to libertate their brethren in the holy Lnad from rather horrible oppression and violence from the Muslims occcupying the land at the time. Say waht you will about recourse to military action, but it remains Church teaching that there are times when recourse to it is regretably necessary and that it should be conducted within just parameters. In the end, all I want to say about the crusades is that they were a series of actions over many decades and it is primarily the later crusades that declined into barbaric and disorganized pillaging. I don't think scripture is to blame for all that. Back to my main point which is that scripture cannot be merely set aside. In the matter of Homosexual activity and heterosexual activity outside of marriage, Scripture is clear, consistent and not difficult to understand or interpret. Deep down inside I am sure you must know this. No amount of parsing the text or bringing experts to reinterpret it in ways that please us can really take away the plain and simple meaning. That other texts may have at times been misused or misunderstood cannot shake to fact that Scripture simply gives no basis to approve sexual relations outside of marriage. Neither does scripture any even come close to affriming or even ginving hte basis to affirm the plain meaning of what God has written, namely that fornication displeases him greatly as does homosexual activity. It just ins't that hard. Such things are wrong, plain and simple. The only way to sidestep these issues is to set aside scripture. I do not recommend it since then you are in a make it up as you go scenario, a kind of desinger religion results, and God is simply made into the great affirmer in the sky, made to our image and likeness. If you want a designer religion have at it but that is waht results if we take scripture (and as a Catholic I would include Scred Tradition) and just kick them to the curb. In that end ther is no basis for a shared faith, even a conversation really. As for you dishonoring God. I do not deny that one would draw that conclusion from my remarks. But what I was REALLy reacting to was your assertion that you are glorifying God and honoring him. I think that is rather a bold assertion given his explicitly revealed will for you to say such a thing. However perhaps we don't need to set up a pleased/displeased honoring/dishonoring dichotomy. Perhaps there is a more humble position in the middle which avoids declaring at all what God thinks of you. You are not a judge in your own case. I think both you and I and everyone on this planet are going to need a lot of mercy when it comes to judgment day. So my point was that you (and I) should avoid statements declaring how happy God must be with us. Better to hope for his mercy, try to learn his revealed will and beg for his help to follow it. And when we fall short (and we all do) ask for grace and mercy. But it seems to me the worst thing we can do is to simply start declaring that things are right which God has called wrong and then to dig the hole deeper by arbitrarily asserting that God is actually pleased with us when we do this. In effect you become the legislator, the interpreter and the judge in your own case. There are many conflicts of interest in such an approach as I hope you can see. For me, I can only say be careful! It seems you've gone way beyond your bondaries when you make such bold and unfounded (it seems to me) assertions. yes, well it would be very hard to deny that no Christian every misused Scripture and some of them may even have been a bishop. I had rather extensive dialogue up above i thse comments with George about scripture and if you haven’t you might wish to. However, to your point, that scripture may have been used by some in the past in less than ideal ways ways cannot wholly exclude the use of scripture now. If scripture goes off the radar we’re not left with much except subjective and purely personal conclusions as to what God wants and even who God is. I am unaware the Church ever using Scripture one way or the other in the question of women’s sufferage. As for slavery, I commented on that above with George. The crusades are another matter. Now it is common to make a blanket condemnation of the Crusades today. Some of the later expeditions were indeed horrific and they contributed greatly to a breakdown of relations with the Orthodox in the East. However, of they began as an attempt for Christians of the middle ages to libertate their brethren in the holy Lnad from rather horrible oppression and violence from the Muslims occcupying the land at the time. Say waht you will about recourse to military action, but it remains Church teaching that there are times when recourse to it is regretably necessary and that it should be conducted within just parameters. In the end, all I want to say about the crusades is that they were a series of actions over many decades and it is primarily the later crusades that declined into barbaric and disorganized pillaging. I don’t think scripture is to blame for all that.

Back to my main point which is that scripture cannot be merely set aside. In the matter of Homosexual activity and heterosexual activity outside of marriage, Scripture is clear, consistent and not difficult to understand or interpret. Deep down inside I am sure you must know this. No amount of parsing the text or bringing experts to reinterpret it in ways that please us can really take away the plain and simple meaning. That other texts may have at times been misused or misunderstood cannot shake to fact that Scripture simply gives no basis to approve sexual relations outside of marriage. Neither does scripture any even come close to affriming or even ginving hte basis to affirm the plain meaning of what God has written, namely that fornication displeases him greatly as does homosexual activity. It just ins’t that hard. Such things are wrong, plain and simple. The only way to sidestep these issues is to set aside scripture. I do not recommend it since then you are in a make it up as you go scenario, a kind of desinger religion results, and God is simply made into the great affirmer in the sky, made to our image and likeness. If you want a designer religion have at it but that is waht results if we take scripture (and as a Catholic I would include Scred Tradition) and just kick them to the curb. In that end ther is no basis for a shared faith, even a conversation really.

As for you dishonoring God. I do not deny that one would draw that conclusion from my remarks. But what I was REALLy reacting to was your assertion that you are glorifying God and honoring him. I think that is rather a bold assertion given his explicitly revealed will for you to say such a thing. However perhaps we don’t need to set up a pleased/displeased honoring/dishonoring dichotomy. Perhaps there is a more humble position in the middle which avoids declaring at all what God thinks of you. You are not a judge in your own case. I think both you and I and everyone on this planet are going to need a lot of mercy when it comes to judgment day. So my point was that you (and I) should avoid statements declaring how happy God must be with us. Better to hope for his mercy, try to learn his revealed will and beg for his help to follow it. And when we fall short (and we all do) ask for grace and mercy. But it seems to me the worst thing we can do is to simply start declaring that things are right which God has called wrong and then to dig the hole deeper by arbitrarily asserting that God is actually pleased with us when we do this. In effect you become the legislator, the interpreter and the judge in your own case. There are many conflicts of interest in such an approach as I hope you can see. For me, I can only say be careful! It seems you’ve gone way beyond your bondaries when you make such bold and unfounded (it seems to me) assertions.

]]> By: Kristin http://blog.adw.org/2009/11/dc-same-sex-marriage-bill-an-imposing-agenda/comment-page-1/#comment-3081 Kristin Fri, 04 Dec 2009 21:15:06 +0000 http://blog.adw.org/?p=4361#comment-3081 Thank you for your willingness to dialogue on this issue. We are eventually going to have to agree to disagree. But I want to leave you with one thought. Please consider how often the Church has used scripture for its seal of approval in its own horrific acts (i.e. justifying crusades, slavery, patriarchy, and more). Scripture actually does justify much of the above, but that doesn't necessarily make it right of course. Arguments to marginalize and exclude a group of people based on scripture has never panned out well for the Church, so perhaps you should be more cautious when you suggest that I am dishonoring God according to scripture. You could have argued in 1920 that God does not want women to vote because the man is the head of the household. You could have seen those ending women's suffrage as employing "fanciful thinking" because scripture could never conceive of women have the right to make important decisions (or own land). Now 90 years later, such a view is offensive, unjustifiable, and even laughable. So too will it be for GLBT rights. May God be honored as we all seek to follow Him. Thank you for your willingness to dialogue on this issue.
We are eventually going to have to agree to disagree.
But I want to leave you with one thought. Please consider how often the Church has used scripture for its seal of approval in its own horrific acts (i.e. justifying crusades, slavery, patriarchy, and more). Scripture actually does justify much of the above, but that doesn’t necessarily make it right of course.
Arguments to marginalize and exclude a group of people based on scripture has never panned out well for the Church, so perhaps you should be more cautious when you suggest that I am dishonoring God according to scripture. You could have argued in 1920 that God does not want women to vote because the man is the head of the household. You could have seen those ending women’s suffrage as employing “fanciful thinking” because scripture could never conceive of women have the right to make important decisions (or own land). Now 90 years later, such a view is offensive, unjustifiable, and even laughable. So too will it be for GLBT rights.

May God be honored as we all seek to follow Him.

]]> By: Msgr. Charles Pope http://blog.adw.org/2009/11/dc-same-sex-marriage-bill-an-imposing-agenda/comment-page-1/#comment-3040 Msgr. Charles Pope Fri, 04 Dec 2009 06:03:03 +0000 http://blog.adw.org/?p=4361#comment-3040 Ok Kristen well, I guess we agree that circumstances DO matter in terms of such therapies. I am sorry that the whole process caused you difficulties. I need to say however that your final comment about bringing honor to God cannot simply go unremarked. There is a tendency today for many people to make declarations that God is pleased or honored by what they do. Of itself this is not a problem in that we are called to give glory to God. However, when statements are made to the effect that God is glorified, or pleased by something that is directly contrary to his stated will in scripture then what I think we have is fanciful thinking. Kristin, you may struggle with your orientation and you can call it anything you want or judge it anyway you want but I would avoid snatching God's seal of approval out of his hand in matters that directly contradict what he teaches us in the Scriptures. You or I may think God is happy about this or that, but these are subjective notions. The most objective crtieria for what God really thinks is in His revealed Word. If you or I struggle with any sin, that is one thing, but it is another far more serious matter to call good what God has called sin. I would avoid declaring God is honored by what he has stated is contrary to his will. I am glad you do not hate yourself, but there more to life than feeling good about what we do. In the end, God wants obedience more than even sacrifice. Ok Kristen well, I guess we agree that circumstances DO matter in terms of such therapies. I am sorry that the whole process caused you difficulties.

I need to say however that your final comment about bringing honor to God cannot simply go unremarked. There is a tendency today for many people to make declarations that God is pleased or honored by what they do. Of itself this is not a problem in that we are called to give glory to God. However, when statements are made to the effect that God is glorified, or pleased by something that is directly contrary to his stated will in scripture then what I think we have is fanciful thinking. Kristin, you may struggle with your orientation and you can call it anything you want or judge it anyway you want but I would avoid snatching God’s seal of approval out of his hand in matters that directly contradict what he teaches us in the Scriptures. You or I may think God is happy about this or that, but these are subjective notions. The most objective crtieria for what God really thinks is in His revealed Word. If you or I struggle with any sin, that is one thing, but it is another far more serious matter to call good what God has called sin. I would avoid declaring God is honored by what he has stated is contrary to his will. I am glad you do not hate yourself, but there more to life than feeling good about what we do. In the end, God wants obedience more than even sacrifice.

]]> By: Kristin http://blog.adw.org/2009/11/dc-same-sex-marriage-bill-an-imposing-agenda/comment-page-1/#comment-3038 Kristin Fri, 04 Dec 2009 03:17:23 +0000 http://blog.adw.org/?p=4361#comment-3038 To clarify, I was not forced to attend re-orientation therapy. I chose to attend it because I did not want to live the rest of my life with "unnatural inclinations". I wanted to be faithful to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, and therefore I tried to pray the gay away. I spent time discerning my vocation hoping that I would receive the call to serve the Church as a religious sister. I continued to struggle with my sexual orientation, and I finally entered into re-orientation therapy to help me because I was miserable. No one made me go. You are right that individual circumstances play a role in all of this. However please know that for 8 years I put a smile on my face and gave talks at churches about how great it was to be healed of my homosexuality. Someone like you could have met me 5 years ago and think that I was a story of success. But what I really want you to know is that in spite of my happy face and my moving story of struggle and triumph, internally I hoped that I would die. I hid my pain and my same-sex attractions because my story gave people hope. The false dichotomy you criticized was my lived experience...it was my individual circumstance. I am now in a loving same-sex committed relationship, and I truly believe that my relationship brings honor to God. I have been healed; healed of my self-hatred. To clarify, I was not forced to attend re-orientation therapy. I chose to attend it because I did not want to live the rest of my life with “unnatural inclinations”. I wanted to be faithful to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, and therefore I tried to pray the gay away. I spent time discerning my vocation hoping that I would receive the call to serve the Church as a religious sister. I continued to struggle with my sexual orientation, and I finally entered into re-orientation therapy to help me because I was miserable. No one made me go.
You are right that individual circumstances play a role in all of this. However please know that for 8 years I put a smile on my face and gave talks at churches about how great it was to be healed of my homosexuality. Someone like you could have met me 5 years ago and think that I was a story of success. But what I really want you to know is that in spite of my happy face and my moving story of struggle and triumph, internally I hoped that I would die. I hid my pain and my same-sex attractions because my story gave people hope.
The false dichotomy you criticized was my lived experience…it was my individual circumstance.
I am now in a loving same-sex committed relationship, and I truly believe that my relationship brings honor to God. I have been healed; healed of my self-hatred.

]]> By: Msgr. Charles Pope http://blog.adw.org/2009/11/dc-same-sex-marriage-bill-an-imposing-agenda/comment-page-1/#comment-3031 Msgr. Charles Pope Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:03:33 +0000 http://blog.adw.org/?p=4361#comment-3031 Thank you for your encouraging words! Thank you for your encouraging words!

]]> By: Julia Poblete http://blog.adw.org/2009/11/dc-same-sex-marriage-bill-an-imposing-agenda/comment-page-1/#comment-3022 Julia Poblete Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:13:43 +0000 http://blog.adw.org/?p=4361#comment-3022 Msgr... for those of us trying to follow God's ways, your clear and insightful commentary is exactly what we need. The Church is suffering deeply from an attitude that we have to compromise with the world to be good Christians. From everything from abortion to birth control, we need our Church leaders to rise up and lead in the ways of God... in the world, but not of the world. May God continue to bless you with holiness and peace. Msgr… for those of us trying to follow God’s ways, your clear and insightful commentary is exactly what we need. The Church is suffering deeply from an attitude that we have to compromise with the world to be good Christians. From everything from abortion to birth control, we need our Church leaders to rise up and lead in the ways of God… in the world, but not of the world.

May God continue to bless you with holiness and peace.

]]> By: Msgr. Charles Pope http://blog.adw.org/2009/11/dc-same-sex-marriage-bill-an-imposing-agenda/comment-page-1/#comment-3012 Msgr. Charles Pope Thu, 03 Dec 2009 02:16:16 +0000 http://blog.adw.org/?p=4361#comment-3012 Not sure I've ever heard of NARTH. But I don't know if I'm willing to challenge "re-orientation" without any distinctions. I think that such things really depend on individual circumstances. Some people are probably simply Gay, and to try to "re-orient'" them is not called for. However, some have only leanings, or are not absolutely and unalterably living in the Gay lifestyle. It sounds like such an approach was wrong in your case and may have been forced or imposed to some degree. But I have personally given spiritual direction to people who were working on orientation therapies and for them it was beneficial. It was not something imposed on them nor did they go because I personally recommended it. Rather they came to me after embarking on the therepy since spiritual direction was part of it. So I just won't categorically denounce it. I am not aware of any Church teaching on this matter. It is rather a matter of personal discretion and decision. Surely it should not be imposed. I don't know anything specifically about the NARTH program you mention. Also, Kristin, I might encourage you to avoid false dichotomies. There is some middle ground between "Hoping God will strike you dead" and "entering into a loving and committed same-sex relationship." Other options exist than just these two. Not sure I’ve ever heard of NARTH. But I don’t know if I’m willing to challenge “re-orientation” without any distinctions. I think that such things really depend on individual circumstances. Some people are probably simply Gay, and to try to “re-orient’” them is not called for. However, some have only leanings, or are not absolutely and unalterably living in the Gay lifestyle. It sounds like such an approach was wrong in your case and may have been forced or imposed to some degree. But I have personally given spiritual direction to people who were working on orientation therapies and for them it was beneficial. It was not something imposed on them nor did they go because I personally recommended it. Rather they came to me after embarking on the therepy since spiritual direction was part of it. So I just won’t categorically denounce it. I am not aware of any Church teaching on this matter. It is rather a matter of personal discretion and decision. Surely it should not be imposed. I don’t know anything specifically about the NARTH program you mention. Also, Kristin, I might encourage you to avoid false dichotomies. There is some middle ground between “Hoping God will strike you dead” and “entering into a loving and committed same-sex relationship.” Other options exist than just these two.

]]> By: Msgr. Charles Pope http://blog.adw.org/2009/11/dc-same-sex-marriage-bill-an-imposing-agenda/comment-page-1/#comment-3011 Msgr. Charles Pope Thu, 03 Dec 2009 02:03:37 +0000 http://blog.adw.org/?p=4361#comment-3011 I'll sign up for being right. However I think it is possible to be right and kind. People who are right are not necessarily unkind. And Kind people are not necessarily wrong. Maybe we are dealing with another false dichotomy here? I’ll sign up for being right. However I think it is possible to be right and kind. People who are right are not necessarily unkind. And Kind people are not necessarily wrong. Maybe we are dealing with another false dichotomy here?

]]>