Bishops' draft pastoral warns of dangers to marriage

2009-10-15T11:56:00.000-07:00

http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/bishops-draft-pastoral-warns-dangers-marriage

Because if you are all going to burn in Hell anyway, what is the point of a little love?

Prop 8 Lawyer "Doesn't Know" How Gay Marriage "Threatens Conventional Unions"

2009-10-15T11:25:00.000-07:00

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/15/prop-8-lawyer-doesnt-know_n_322429.html

"A federal judge challenged the backers of California's voter-enacted ban on same-sex marriage Wednesday to explain how allowing gay couples to wed threatens conventional unions, a demand that prompted their lawyer to acknowledge he did not know... "

"The question is relevant to the assertion that Proposition 8 is constitutionally valid because it furthers the states goal of fostering "naturally procreative relationships," Walker explained.
"What is the harm to the procreation purpose you outlined of allowing same-sex couples to get married?" Walker asked."

"'My answer is, I don't know. I don't know,' Cooper answered."

A Step in Faith

2009-10-09T10:57:00.000-07:00

"Evangelical Christian Brent Childers explains his journey from believing that homosexuality was an abomination to marching in a pro-gay march on Washington."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/216910

Naming it for the evil that it is

2009-10-08T11:29:00.000-07:00

Montana Supreme Court, Kulstad v. Maniaci, 2009 MT 326
October 6 2009
Justice James C. Nelson (appointed by a Republican governor), specially concurring.

¶99 Maniaci and her defense team1 attempt to avoid the one issue that makes this case uniquely important—the elephant in the room: whether homosexuals in an intimate domestic relationship each have the right to parent the children they mutually agree that one party will adopt (or, presumably, conceive).2 The District Court and this Court have properly answered that question in the affirmative based on the facts of this case and on the statutory scheme discussed. I agree with the District Court’s decision, and I concur with this Court’s decision.
¶100 Sadly, however, this case represents yet another instance in which fellow Montanans, who happen to be lesbian or gay, are forced to battle for their fundamental rights to love who they want, to form intimate associations, to form family relationships, and to have and raise children—all elemental, natural rights that are accorded, presumptively and without thought or hesitation, to heterosexuals.
¶101 The Court’s decision is grounded in the statutory scheme which was raised and argued. I remain absolutely convinced, nonetheless, that homosexuals are entitled to enjoy precisely the same civil and natural rights as heterosexuals as a matter of constitutional law. I wrote extensively on this and on the discrimination homosexuals face daily in my special concurrence in Snetsinger v. Montana University System, 2004 MT 390, ¶¶ 38-111, 325 Mont. 148, 104 P.3d 445 (Nelson, J., specially concurring). I argued that this Court should recognize: (a) that laws and policies which deny people their fundamental rights on the basis of gender or sexual orientation violate the inviolable human dignity clause of Article II, Section 4 of the Montana Constitution; (b) that classifications of persons on the basis of gender or sexual orientation are sex-based and are, therefore, arbitrary and suspect under conventional equal protection analysis; and (c) reading Article II, Sections 4 and 34 together (which I believe is the better approach), that classifications based on gender or sexual orientation are suspect classifications in their own right and are in addition to those enumerated in the third clause of this State’s equal protection provision. See Snetsinger, ¶¶
¶102 I stand by my concurring opinion. Unfortunately, though, nothing has changed. I am convinced that until our courts, as a matter of law, accept homosexuals as equal participants with heterosexuals in our society, each person with exactly the same civil and natural rights, lesbian and gay citizens will continue to suffer homophobic discrimination. Regrettably, this sort of discrimination is both socially acceptable and politically popular.
¶103 Naming it for the evil it is, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is an expression of bigotry. And, whether rationalized on the basis of majoritarian morality, partisan ideology, or religious tenets, homophobic discrimination is still bigotry. It cannot be justified; it cannot be legalized; it cannot be constitutionalized.
¶104 Every person in Montana is entitled to human dignity; every person in Montana is entitled to individual privacy; and every person in Montana is entitled to seek happiness in all lawful ways. These are fundamental rights guaranteed, respectively, by Article II, Sections 4, 10, and 3 of the Montana Constitution, and no person may be denied these elemental, natural rights because of his or her sexual orientation. Indeed, while it will, no doubt, come as a shock to some, the fact is that lesbian and gay people are not excepted out of the protections afforded by the Montana Constitution. Lesbian and gay Montanans must not be forced to fight to marry, to raise their children, and to live with the same dignity that is accorded heterosexuals. That lesbian and gay people still must fight for their fundamental rights is antithetical to the core values of Article II and speaks, in unfortunate clarity, of a prevalent societal cancer grounded in bigotry and hate.

http://fnweb1.isd.doa.state.mt.us/idmws/custom/sll/sll_fn_home.htm

Unwittingly Slip Into Love

Bishops' draft pastoral warns of dangers to marriage

Prop 8 Lawyer "Doesn't Know" How Gay Marriage "Threatens Conventional Unions"

A Step in Faith

Naming it for the evil that it is