Gays, Catholics and marriage

As a Catholic, it pains me when church leaders get diverted by issues manufactured by politicians to increase their power. “The desire to rule is the beginning of all heresies,” (St. John Chrysostom). The “Marriage Amendment,”clearly intended to discriminate against a group of people, betrays the church’s long-standing commitment to social justice.

As a libertarian, it appalls me when a religious or political leader proposes laws revoking any God-given right and betraying the fundamental American principle that all persons are created equal.

Government has no right to “license” or give permission for marriage. Marriage is a sacred undertaking, a sacrament, instituted between two persons, before God — not the state. Mary and Joseph did not have a marriage license. Martha and George Washington did not have a marriage license.

An interesting historical note: States began issuing marriage permits as a way to prevent interracial marriage, just as they introduced gun permits to stop African-Americans from using guns to resist oppression.

Brian Irving
Cary

---------------------------------------------------------

In her Feb. 25 column “Bishops stand by ban,” Ruth Sheehan blathered on sanctimoniously about those speaking for an amendment to the state Constitution banning gay marriage and two Catholic bishops who stood by them.

Had Sheehan learned anything in the Catholic schools she attended, she would have known from studies in the Old Testament that our “loving God” (a term used to nullify Scriptures speaking against unnatural sexual activity) puts up with disobedience just so long before he permits his people to suffer consequences.

Mismanagement, self-exaltation and greed have put so many of our people out of jobs, yet she, along with some denominational liberals, want to add another curse.

Evelyn Holland
Cary

---------------------------------------------------------

Since when is it anti-gay to defend traditional marriage? Ruth Sheehan (Feb. 25) uses the same old acerbic, activist propaganda that makes this debate so wearisome: twisting the facts to make traditionalists look like the bad folks. It is laughable to call traditionalists intolerant after watching the tolerance of the activists in California after Proposition 8 passed, a state which had a defense of marriage law that activist judges over-turned. That is why we need a constitutional amendment and Sheehan knows it. To suggest N.C. does not need to protect marriage is dishonest and part of the activist strategy.

Redefining family and marriage into some malformed alternative that fits peoples’ personal preferences is what we traditionalists are opposing. Homosexual and heterosexual people will form their own types of relationships as they always have, but attempting to re-fabricate and/or legislate marriage into something it can never be for homosexuals is doing violence to natural human social order. Marriage is for one man and one woman, most of whom then procreate. Ruth further cites divorce statistics as though they are relevant to the marriage definition debate. That is a red herring and more social engineering propaganda.

There is a small minority in N.C . who do not care what the vast majority has believed or valued for centuries. I thank God our Catholic bishops are courageous enough to stand with time-tested truth. Now I pray that their flock pays attention to their bold leadership, whether they be elected or voting.

James Anthony
Raleigh

-------------------------------------------------------

I am writing to comment on Ruth Sheehan’s excellent column of Feb 25 headed “Bishops stand by ban.” She is absolutely right about the incongruity of these two prelates supporting an anti-gay actio0n that is not only unnecessary (gay marriage is not legal in N.C.) but also inappropriate. Clerics should be careful about taking political stands that could jeopardize the tax-exempt status of their organizations.

Since his arrival Bishop Burbidge, unlike his predecessors, has displayed an unfortunate tendency to wander across the boundaries separating the purely ecclesiastical and the purely political worlds. However, since he still expects me to support his Annual Bishop’s Appeal, I am having doubts as how he intends to use the financial support he is requesting and doubts as to his motives and purposes.

Francis Joseph Hale
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

At a time when our state is facing the toughest economic times our leaders decide it would be necessary for us to put a Marriage Amendment to a vote.  I would like to ask the sponsor and co-sponsors why we are doing this at the current time.  I find it despicable that the state that I live in still harbors such discrimination against a minority group that it would like to take away rights that they don’t even have.  Whatever happened to the Separation of Church and State?

I am hoping this gets knocked out before a vote, but otherwise I say we need to ask questions and march in uproar!!

David Massey
Raleigh

------------------------------------------------------

The despicable anti-Christian bias exhibited by Ruth Sheehan in her column of Feb. 25 shows the true colors of such left wing liberals as her and most news “journalists.” I don’t recall ever reading a worse diatribe against honorable Christian leaders and those who stand for the truth. I am so grateful to the Catholic Bishops who are speaking the truth, and all the other leaders who join with them to do what Christians are supposed to do,  stand for our God and His law as revealed in Holy Scripture.

As a Christian I resent the constant bashing of Christians and our beliefs and I implore you to admit to the anti-Christian bias and make amends.

J. Russell Capps
Raleigh

-------------------------------------------------------

I disagree with Ruth Sheehan’s column “Bishops stand by ban.” She criticized N.C .Catholic bishops as out of place participating in a Capitol news conference on the bill to allow citizens to vote on a constitutional amendment defining marriage. She said that it was just plain sad that the bishops would join with the bunch promoting this referendum.

Her one-sided article avoided the key point. We are in a social debate about marriage, and the church’s core belief is that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. This is biblically based on natural complementarity of husband and wife, cooperation of spouses with God in the creation of new life, and the fact that stable, loving relationships of a mother and father are best for children. This is not a biased view; rather it is a refutation of same-sex marriage as equivalent to traditional marriage. Making same-sex unions legal will undermine the biblical and societal understanding of marriage as the exclusive union between one man and one woman at one time.

All citizens including Catholics have a civic responsibility to speak up and present their views on public policy questions. Bishops are standing up for a key church theme in this societal debate. Authorizing a referendum on this issue is reasonable and, I believe, preferable to judicial redefinition of marriage as between same sex individuals

James Haag
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the column by Ruth Sheehan regarding support for a constitutional ban on gay marriage, which calls the issue politicized, unnecessary and, one might add, ultimately unconstitutional. One supporter continually expresses disappointment that “North Carolina is the only state in the South that has not adopted a constitutional marriage amendment” banning gay marriage.

Happily, North Carolina was also the only Southern state that refused to pass an anti-evolution law, due in large measure to the influence of a devout Baptist biologist and president of Wake Forest College, Dr. Billy Poteat.

This probably accounts for the fact that North Carolina is regarded as “the” progressive southern state.

Why were anti-evolution laws passed only in Southern states? Were there no Bible-believers in Minnesota or Massachusetts? The answer is that the same “Bible-belt” mentality, rural, racist and ill-educated, also resulted in laws making inter-racial marriage a criminal offense, and now proposes forbidding gay marriage —  both based on the argument that they are destructive of the institution of marriage and against God’s “plan.”

The Supreme Court struck down ( -0) the ban on inter-racial marriage as discriminatory on its face.

Any lessons for us regarding gay marriage?

Bernie Cochran
Raleigh