Pastor's Page
By Fr. George Welzbacher
September 30, 2012

With respect to the ongoing debate over the proposed amendment to our state's constitution vis-á-vis the definition of marriage, what it all comes down to is the answer to one question: What has been the paramount goal of the institution known as marriage from time immemorial? If you think that the purpose of marriage is first and foremost to put the world on notice that you feel a strong romantic attachment to another person, an attachment so intense and seemingly so reciprocated that it provides grounds for a reasonable expectation of a long-standing commitment, and, stopping right there, if you think that this is all that marriage means, that this is "the whole shebang", then same-sex marriage may seem to make sense, as long as Biblical pronouncements count for little or nothing in your decisions. 

If, however, you think, as President Clinton once observed, that "marriage has something to do with having kids", that the main purpose served by the institution of marriage down through the ages has been to solve society's perennial problem, namely that one by one its present members are going to die, and that to solve that problem what is needed is the never-ending creation of NEW generations, generations whose members will share the values on which society depends for its vigor and cohesion, generations that will also possess the skills that will make it possible to contribute to society-if you think that this is what constitutes the most important purpose served by the institution of marriage, then granting same-sex unions the name and status of marriage makes NO sense. Same-sex marriage fails utterly to meet the first requirement: the transmission of new life. And, given the emotional stability and the sense of responsibility that are by and large the product of homes that enjoy the beneficent interaction of both a father and a mother in their distinctive roles, a two-father or a two-mother home will arguably be less successful in transmitting the social values just named, values that a strong society requires.  The years-long and highly demanding task of properly bringing up the next generation is difficult and daunting. Which is why society has seen fit to encourage dedication to this all-important task by surrounding the institution of marriage with special honor and privilege. It therefore seems appropriate to reserve this honor with attendant privileges to those who, in the general scheme of things, conform to the pattern that leads to the transmission of new life and to the more effective formation of character in children born in the normal course of nature. One might note that it is a fundamental characteristic of human nature to attend more enthusiastically to what we perceive in some special way to be our own. Of course most assuredly an important but in terms of benefit to society a secondary purpose of marriage is to secure for those united in the marriage bond the loving companionship, with all attendant spiritual, emotional, sensual and financial advantages, that marriage can provide.

What I have just said represents, in my judgment, the understanding of marriage that emerges from a thoughtful reflection on human history. Divine revelation emphatically confirms this view, and for those who accept God's word as definitive, same-sex marriage, and homosexual behavior across the board, will forever be judged to be intrinsically disordered. And because human life is sacred, any deliberate disorder in the use of the sources of human life is accordingly no negligible sin.

A further consideration is that--absent the protection  for traditional  marriage that a constitutional amendment would provide--it is likely that, in the moral climate that prevails today, legal agitation will succeed in gaining for committed same-sex unions enjoyment of full parity with marriage. Of this the logical consequence would be the legal requirement that, even in violation of conscience, clergy must officiate at same-sex marriages and that owners of private businesses, such as for example, photographers, caterers and inn-keepers, will he compelled to participate at various levels in same-sex marriages, under pain of the penalties contained in existing anti-discrimination laws. Moreover since law functions not only as enforcer but also as teacher, the sanctification of the same-sex life-style would encourage behavior that would ultimately contribute to the undermining of society's very foundation, the family, and to the serious imperiling of immortal souls.

For all of which reasons my urgent recommendation is: VOTE YES!

*          *         *         *         *
A basic tactic in the propaganda campaign being waged against The Marriage Amendment is to focus on the "limiting" that passage of the amendment would impose, viz the restriction of the name and privileges of marriage to a committed relationship of one man and one woman. The suggestion of irnposing a "limit" of almost any kind is offensive to the left-liberal mindset. Katherine Kersten, a regular columnist for the Star Tribune, brings clarity to this issue in the article she composed for the paper's edition of September 23rd. May I share her comment with you here.

*          *         *         *         *
Really? Don't Limit Freedom to Marry?
By: Katherine Kersten
Star Tribune, September 23, 2012

Really? Don't limit freedom to marry? We already do-for a reason-so those orange lawn signs are misleading.

On November 6, Minnesota voters will decide whether marriage will be protected in our State Constitution as the union of one man and one woman.  Opponents' reason for fundamentally redefining our bedrock social institution appears on yard signs that dot the metro area: "Don't limit the freedom to marry."

Now, Minnesotans are nice folks, and we don't like to think of ourselves as needlessly limiting another's freedom. The truth is, however, we "limit" marriage in a variety of ways. You can't marry your sister or your father. You can't marry a 12-year-old, or two people, or someone who's already married to someone else.

Why do we "limit" the freedom to marry this way? Is it because we harbor a dislike for sisters or 12-year olds, or for folks who wish to express their love and commitment in groups of three?

Of course not. All social institutions have boundaries, or defining characteristics, that are integrally related to the FUNCTION they perform. The vital role of marriage--in all times and places--has been to link men to women and TO the children produced by their sexual union, in order to create the optimal environment for rearing the next generation.

It's misleading, then, to frame the debate over one-man/one-woman marriage in terms of "limiting" the "freedom" to marry of people in configurations that aren't consistent with the institution's mission. It's like claiming that the color blue is somehow "limited" because it's not the color purple.

The human race's two sexes-male and female-have much in common, but they also differ in fundamental ways. In the bearing and rearing of children, men and women complement one another physically, socially and emotionally. Women give birth to babies, and men beget them. Mothers tend to nurture, while fathers tend to encourage risk-taking. Boys and girls need -- and deserve -- both a father and a mother to model how to love.

Same-sex-marriage supporters deny the bedrock biological truth of human sexuality: complementarity. Society should be wholly indifferent as to whether a child has a mother and a father, they say. Any two (or three?) people will do.

The idea that men and women are interchangeable--fungible--is the unspoken axiom on which the argument for same-sex marriage is based. This idea has profound implications for the way we view the world, the family and human relationships. If sarne-sex marriage makes its way into law--the strong arm of the state will be required to impose this counterintuitive vision on society.

We've already seen glimpses of what our "brave new world" may hold:

When the president of Chick-fil-A spoke out against same-sex marriage, the mayor of Boston publicly declared that there's "no place" for the company in his town. The mayors of San Francisco and Washington D.C. echoed his sentiments.

Our public schools face growing pressure to promote unisex ideology--often under the guise of "anti-bullying" education.  In Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington, D.C., Catholic Charities' public adoption and/or foster care programs have been compelled to close, because of claims of discrimination.

Scholars are discovering that questioning the new orthodoxy may end their careers. At corporations like Target and General Mills, employees who believe children need a mother AND father increasingly fear that making their views clear could threaten job advancement.

Meanwhile, in California, Governor Jerry Brown is poised to sign a law saying a child can have three legal parents.

Same-sex marriage advocates assure us that they oppose "limiting" the freedom of others. Really? It's time for them to look in the mirror.

The Minnesota marriage amendment ensures that the PEOPLE of our state will retain the power to define marriage. Without it, politicians and judges will SEIZE that power.

Currently, a lawsuit claiming that one-man/one-woman marriage is unconstitutionally discriminatory is winding its way through our state court system. Governor Mark Dayton is a strong supporter of same-sex marriage, and in recent years some legislative leaders have given high priority to pushing bills that would redefine marriage. Depending on the outcome of the upcoming legislative elections, we could have a change in the law as soon as January 2013.

If that happens, and you believe that children need both a mother and father, be prepared to be declared "persona non grata" in civilized society. Be prepared to live with a target on your back, proclaiming in bold letters: "BIGOT."
[Emphasis added].
*          *         *         *         *
Gay actor:
 'I Can't Think of Anything Worse Than Being Brought up by Two Gay Dads'
LifeSiteNews, Tue Sep 18, 2012
Carolyn Moynihan

British actor Rupert Everett says he "can't think of anything worse" than two gay men bringing up a child together-an opinion that is probably held by vast numbers of people who would not dare to say so in public. But, thanks to the magic shield of celebrity, actors can get away with speech "crimes" that the rest of us would (metaphorically) hang for.

Being gay himself also deflects criticism-Everett came out as a homosexual 20 years ago and has said that this damaged his acting career. His comments on gay parenting were made in an interview with the [London] Sunday Times Magazine last weekend (alas, The Times is only accessible to paid subscribers so we rely on The Telegraph here).

Everett, probably best known for his role as a gay man in the 1997 film My Best Friend's Wedding, says his mother, Sara, who was also interviewed for the article, "still wishes I had a wife and kids. She thinks children need a father and a mother, and I agree with her. I can't think of anything worse than being brought up by two gay dads."...

*          *         *         *         *