Nicely worded statement. Especially the following, “Protecting marriage between a man and a woman has nothing to do with denying basic rights to anyone, though it is often framed in such terms.”
The framing of argument by the gay rights leaders has been disingenuous and it is good to see this noted in the document.
We can use framing productively in the resolution of conflict, but it can also be used destructively for partisan political ends.

Jesus made a point to be present to the outsider and to those who were judged by society whom he did not judge. Those he called on the carpet were the religious authorities of his day who tied millstones around the necks of the ordinary people. He would do the same today. I am ashamed of my chuch for their hateful stand.

James…
It’s worth noting that Jesus also pointed out the sins of ordinary men and women and admonished them to “go and sin no more.”
Or maybe that was “hateful,” too?
Dcn. G.

*If sin is to be identified with love, mutuality, building a life together, the word has lost its meaning.
*How can the church can oppose discrimination and yet fight to bar gay and lesbians from the over 1000 rights conferred on heterosexual marriage?
*The biological reductionism in this piece makes it hard to take it seriously as a basis for moral thought. But as a basis for civil law that coerces people who are not members of the church it’s worse.
*I’m not sure what moral contexts, the church allows for gay and lesbians. Even celibacy is starting to come under fire by the church, at least when it comes to its religious leadership.
I think we have to come to the conclusion that the church is one of the most significant enemies of the well being, what less equality of gay and lesbian folks both in and out of the church. And if you think otherwise consider this golden rule example: If you are married and heterosexual, when has gay and lesbians sought to legally nullify your marriage?

Alright dear Deacon, While you are busy gloating over your churches “victory” what do you propose to do with all those evil gay people ? Yes I am angry.

Anyone who has really read the Gospels knows that Jesus didn’t preach the sort of ‘family values’ that the bishops are trying to describe. Your wife and your biological family is a distraction from the Kingdom of God.
The “go sin no more” remark is a pericope added into the Gospel of John and was never uttered by Jesus. Instead, he hung out with prostitutes, tax collectors and the like, I can’t see how they could have tolerated him if his quest to moralize these people as intensely as the bishops are trying to do.
To me, the best scripture to think about concerning this issue of gay marriage is the parable of the leaven. We can see how something small can turn into something big once the leaven is worked into the dough, but it has another meaning missed by most Christians. To the Jews that Jesus preached to, leaven was an unclean thing. So, the Kingdom of Heaven is made up of the bread (clean) and the leaven (dirty) at the same time. You can’t see the leaven once its worked in either, but its there like gays in the Church.

It’s laughable that Catholic bishops would make any claim to having an interest in the wellbeing of children. Jesus said, “Feed my lambs,” but he didn’t say to feed them to wolves.

I look forward to the bishop of Maine going to the statehouse and working to promote civil unions since his problems seems to be the word “marriage.” Or address the inequalities faced by same-sex couples.
We will be able to see his character by his actions, not words.

These comments are stupid, illiberal, immature and mostly ignorant.
Stop crying. Stop being drama queens. Stop accusing the church of “hating” gays. The church does not hate gays, but you cannot expect her to “love” the gay lifestyle, and you cannot expect the church to condone sexual activity that deviates from the procreative norm.
If you insist on these unreal expectations, you’re just silly, unserious people, or perpetual adolescents who like to cry, because you’re attention meter is set to “make noise, get response. You can go join the Episcopalians, you know. They’re everything you want the Catholic church to be. No “hate,” no strong stands on anything. Why are you waiting?
Unless, of course, you don’t actually want the things you say you want, but want only, instead, to be annoying little pustules of whining.
“Jesus never said ‘go and sin no more…’” Okay.
I recently heard a gay man say that gay sex “is not a sin.”
When asked what he thought about the fact that we are all called to chastity, straight-singles as well as gay, he had nothing. The sexual revolution, having removed the whole notion of “sin” from illicit sex and has conferred a sanctified status on all of it.
So, if you’re a gay man and you go to Fire Island and hang out at the meat racks, let yourself be used (or use another) for anonymous sex, there is “nothing wrong with that.” It’s not sinful.
Except it is. Using another person as that that person were a thing is sinful.
Gay marriage? Jesus said (unless, of course, your commenter, who seems to have more information than the rest of the world, declares that he never said it) “man shall leave his parents, a woman leaves her home, they cleave together and the two become one.” With all due respect, that makes sense. That is how you create another person and form a family. Gay sex does not do that; it does not NATURALLY create family.
You want the “rights” that go with marriage? Well, you can have that straw man in a civil union, but the truth is, there are few “rights” (beyond health insurance and custodial battles) to which a gay couple are not already entited, without “gay marriage.” In fact many employers already have provisions for “partner” coverage of unmarried people, whether gay or straight.
But if you’d like the higher taxes that come with being married, well, that’s fine. For the rest of it, you can just draw up a will, you know.

Now, if you REALLY want something to cry about, cry about this:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/crabby_cabby_boots_same_sex_lovebirds_elzOqITxWd7Y7q2HLFiSFP
It’s easy as hell to carry on about the “hateful” Catholic church (you know, the one that opened AIDS hospices in the early 1980′s when no one else would come near AIDS patients because they were afraid) but the REAL problem gays are going to have is with the Muslims.
While you’re carrying on about the church, (and undoubtedly, once upon a time you were carrying on about George Bush’s unilateralism) you have nothing to say about the people who would just as soon imprison you as look at you.
It is “safe” to criticize Catholics, though. All they’ll do is feed you and hide you from the ones who’d kill you if they could.

Bravo Dana!

Dana -
While I appreciate your zeal to spread the gospel, please don’t mix it up with any scuffles that anyone has with the former president. I wasn’t in favor of his unilaterialism, either.
It is quite different to be in favor of traditional marriage and not be in favor of the decision to go to war against Iraq, with all due respect to the men and women who have put their lives on the line for us in doing so.
I think that the message of the USCCB was quite just and loving, as it echoes our Lords words and actions.

First of all I find that many people cannot understand that many words can have multiple meanings. Marriage is one of them. First there is a civil marriage licensed by and defined by the state. This is what the election in Maine concerned. Then there is the sacramental marriage that the Church defines and limits to baptized couples of the opposite sex that are capable of having sex together. I am not sure what state the Church considers those that are married but incapable of consummating the marriage.
The state does have the right to define who can get married, and does. I sets limits concerning the degree of relationship between couples and previous marriage history for example. It determines what obligations and what rights a married couple has, and in some cases even decides who will inherit their property when they die.
It seems to me that the Church has decided that if gay couples want to live together, they should co-habitate rather than enter into a legal relationship defined by the state. I do believe that this is a denial of civil rights, note I say civil and not religious rights.
But what bothers me even more is that the Church has spent uncounted dollars and effort to block a civil law, and has ignored its own people. Marriage is deteriorating as can be seen by the drop in Catholic marriages, by the number of children born to single women, by the number of couples co-habitating (of which gays are now forced to be). Yet little effort seems to be going into supporting Catholic marriages or marriage in general. There are several excellent programs available to help strengthen marriages such as Marriage Encounter and Marriage Enrichment. Yet those of us working in such ministries find little or no support from the Church. Priests cannot be bothered with promoting or announcing such programs from the pulpit, much less participate in them. The number of advertisements that we can post in the Catholic papers are limited, and we have to pay for them.
I feel disappointed that the Church can spend so much energy on a civil matter, and give only small support to its own. I wonder, could it be that the Church really doesn’t value marriage as a spiritual relationship, only as a sexual relationship. Oh yes, the Church talks about marriage as being the model of the relationship between Christ and His Church, but I really don’t see sex or gender as being an important part of that relationship. Are you telling me that two men, or two women cannot form the same kind of spiritual relationship as Christ and his Church? Or is that spiritual relationship not really part of marriage?

There are different frames that can be placed around the conflict.
One frame that goes unnoticed recognizes the right of heterosexuals to retain the word “marriage” to describe their union and their role as spouses and parents.
Gays are attacking this right, a right that belongs to heterosexuals. Gays, in this instance, are being intolerant and out of line.
Gays who demonize and vilify heterosexuals for wishing to retain their right to recognize the uniqueness of their bond as man and wife are being hypocritical.
To most — even most gays — it is obvious that it is hypocritical to attack the rights of another and then complain you are the victim.
Most people do not wish to deny gays civil rights. On this point there can be huge agreement resulting in significant progress in remedying inequities and injustices that exist. On this men of good will can agree. Heterosexuals and homosexuals can work together, arm in arm, to make sure civil rights are not denied.
The effort to insure civil equality is inhibited by the disingenuous few who pretend they are the victims when they attack the rights of heterosexuals to retain the name of marriage to uniquely identify their union.
The homosexual community should reel in their leaders and point out the damage they are doing to their own interests through the misguided attack on the interests of others.

Gabriel, my point was meant in the larger context: these folks are having conniptions about Catholics not kowtowing to the gay agenda, but they also had conniptions about taking a war to the very people who would hang gays from the highest rafters if they could.

I have several sincere questions for those who believe that there is or should be a right to marriage for homosexuals, which are as follows:
1. Do you believe that a bisexual person has or should have the right to marry a man AND a woman? If not, then why not?
1A. If gender is incidental to a marital union, then isn’t the number of parties involved as well, especially given that there is historical precedence in multiple cultures for polygamy? If not, then why not?
2. Should homosexual brothers be allowed to marry? If not, then why not?

Dana..I’m not interested on what the Catholic Church “feels” about gay and lesbians. Ok well, I am concerned for GLBT folks in the Catholic Church. But I’m not a Catholic and I don’t think I can say or do much of anything in that regard. On the other hand, when the Catholic Church decides to use state laws to coerce it’s views on everyone else and in the case of Maine was the biggest financial and otherwise supporter of legal discrimination against gay and lesbians, don’t be shocked if the church is critiqued, their stances called into question. Because now it affects the rest of us as well.

Dwight, how was the gay community’s “using the law to coerce a new definition of marriage” different from the Church remedying that coercive law change? Not sure I understand your thinking on this?
How do you distinguish between activist gays using the law to change customs from the Church supporting a repeal of such activist changes?
I can understand a complaint regarding a difference in civil rights, when such exist. That is something that most agree should be remedied. One does not gain support for such a cause, however, by attacking the rights of another group. Wouldn’t you agree on that?

Greg
I’m not sure how heterosexuals were affected by the law either way? In other words, there never was a question of whether heterosexuals could marry or receive a certain set of responsibilities and benefits through the government. Had this vote gone either way, nothing would have changed for them. Nor did the law in any way affect the church’s own set of practices. Had it gone either way, the Catholic church would have been free to marry only heterosexuals. So the work to include gay and lesbians did nothing to limit heterosexuals. On the other hand, the effort to strip marriage away from a whole group does affect gay and lesbians in this case. Adversely.

So since the Bishops support legalized discrimination based on some quote from the Old Testament, surly they will support a ban on Maine lobsters based on:
Leviticus 11:9-12
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Deuteronomy 14:9-10
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.
So, God hates shellfish? You know what’s a shellfish? Lobster.

As a gay man who has been in a long term committed relationship for the past four years and in my 20s, I am deeply saddened by the Catholic Church and its lack of tolerance and respect for same sex couples to obtain CIVIL rights and benefits as any loving, long-term commited relationship should obtain. I agree that churches should not be forced to marry same sex couples if it is counter to their believes; however, it it not right to force a segment of society to live as second class citizens because of your intolerance.
It’s viewpoints like these that have caused me to no longer be a member of the Catholic Church and probably never will. This is a personal act of hostility toward me and others. This is by no means a threat to children or a cause of confusion. It protects the fundamental believes of equality, individual freedom, and respect for diversity that are very important to me.