Comments for With Friends Like These . . . at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 6 out of 6 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Tue, 21 May 2013 13:43:42 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/with-friends-like-these.html#comment-4454 I have recently had a great experience teaching faith formation to incoming 9th graders earlier this summer. One of the topics in the curriculum was respecting sexuality and all derivative issues branched off of that, including gay marriage. I thought I was well-armored beforehand getting into this heated issue as I prepared the guided discussion with the class, but several students kept pressing the idea that opposition to gay marriage is "discrimination" against them. Being young and obstinate in their views, I had a difficult time as a catechist forming a rebuttal. It's the whole "pity for approved groups" notion that Puccini mentioned that I see already ingrained in the mindset people as young as 13-14. After that day I didn't fully realize how important my job was as a catechist when witnessing the product of influential liberal agendas within my reach of that classroom. The kids were absorbing those agendas before even considering facts and logic: that the sacrament of marriage is holy and must not be compromised. To do so would strip away the sanctity of marriage. Accepting gay marriage would be taking away the God-given gift of procreation that should be inextricably implemented in the sacrament. It's scary that this issue has come to the point of Proposition 8 and grown adults are losing their backbone for ideals many thought they whole-heartedly represented. If hope is lost for political figures then maybe for the many grassroots people, we can thrust the fundamentals of the faith to the young. The young are our future and it is amazing to find out what they are thinking. - MK Mon, 05 Jul 2010 13:13:29 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/with-friends-like-these.html#comment-4442 I knew I didn't like Anthony Kennedy from the day I first read about him. Apparently he couldn't avoid the destiny of his surname. Here's to praying for the reconversion of the American Catholic Church! - Jacob Fri, 02 Jul 2010 04:53:39 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/with-friends-like-these.html#comment-4439 Oy vey. Blankenhorn has been especially important for the effort to preserve marriage, too, because he is a liberal. But, apparently, he, too, has demonstrated the same weakness as other liberals - pity for approved groups is more important than facts and logic. I, too, feel pity - not that it should matter politically - for the tens of millions of parents and children who have lost, and will yet lose, the benefit of marriage due to the sustained liberal assault on the institution. - Puccini Thu, 01 Jul 2010 10:57:48 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/with-friends-like-these.html#comment-4438 I have heard this guy in debates before and this doesn't surprise me. He is weak and wishy washy. I agree. With all the people defendant's counsel could have selected, why him. To see what I mean, check out C-SPAN and see if you can find a debate he once did with a gay activist. I thought he was abysmally weak. Did anyone think of contacting Maggie Gallagher? - Michael Nikolas Thu, 01 Jul 2010 06:19:51 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/with-friends-like-these.html#comment-4437 Ronald Dworkin and John Rawls and a few other folks produced a friend-of-the-court brief in a pair of cases concerning physician-assisted suicide that that made it to the Supreme Court. In their brief, Dworkin et al. quoted the dreamy "mystery passage" from "Planned Parenthood v. Casey" and correctly argued that if we have, as the Court has claimed, a right to choose for ourselves the meaning of the mystery of human life, and if this right in part supports the choice to kill a nascent human being, then surely it supports also the right to kill oneself. After all, if a state bans physician-assisted suicide, it does so by imposing on everyone a conception of the meaning and value of human life that not everyone shares. The Supreme Court ignored its "reasoning" in the "Casey" decision and instead applied its jumped-up "substantive due process" test. Of course, physician-assisted suicide cannot pass the substantive due process test, but then, neither can abortion-on-demand. So the Court uses whatever tool of its own devising it finds expedient in reaching the conclusion the justices wish to reach on personal, ideological grounds. That is precisely what the Junta will do in the case of homosexual "marriage," and we needn't hold our breath awaiting the outcome. Maybe soon, some sentimental people will find a reason not to cry at weddings. - James Danielson Thu, 01 Jul 2010 06:10:39 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/with-friends-like-these.html#comment-4436 In a 7-0 ruling, the Wisconsin Supreme Court June 30 upheld the state's constitutional ban on gay marriage and civil unions. In 2006, voters approved a constitutional amendment that banned gay marriage and civil unions. The amendment was being challenged by a University of Wisconsin - Oshkosh professor, William McConkey, who claims voters were asked to vote on what amounted to two questions, which violates the constitution. In 2008, a Dane County judge ruled the question was valid. Had the State Supreme Court ruled against the amendment that still would not have legalized gay marriage in Wisconsin because state law already defines marriage as a union between only one man and one woman. There will always be some kind of legal hairsplitting when it comes to so-called "gay marriage," an oxymoron if there ever was once, as to how to euphemize it and make it more palatable. "Civil unions" has a nice ring to some, but to most it still sounds like a sneaky way to sanction homosexual partnerships by giving it the kind of judicial gloss that would make the topic go away. Fat chance. Obama is on the cusp of pushing for homosexual marriage, having forced the military to cave in on don't ask, etc., and weaken its recruiting criteria, so it's inevitable it is on his plate as he starts counting rainbow ribbons or whatever they're wearing in the Pride parades. It's all so disgusting that here in 2010 we have to talk about homosexual marriage as if it is genuinely arguable when for thousand of years it has been anathema to civilized societies. - Joe Thu, 01 Jul 2010 04:17:26 +0100