.

Readers Disagree with Cardinal George's Stance on Same-Sex Marriage

Many readers say marriage is not strictly a religious institution and there should be a separation of church and state.

 

Patch received more than 100 comments in response to an article about Cardinal Francis George’s letter that says same-sex marriage is “against the common good.” 

In his letter, George urged Catholics to voice their objections, arguing that because same-sex marriages cannot be consummated and are not undertaken for the purpose of conceiving children that government, "has no power to create something that nature itself tells us is impossible." 

Many readers agreed with the Cardinal commenting that same sex relations are against nature. 

“Same sex marriage is awfully odd and against common sense and natural order of life,” Patch reader John Godson wrote. “This same sex stunt is unsustainable because of its crudely raw and animalistic instincts.” 

Harry Gio wrote: “The Cardinal George is 100% right... Same sex marriage is without a doubt AGAINST the common good... I don't care what the gays do between one another, but their "Ways of Life" should most certainly NOT be honored or praised.” 

Patch reader Tony S disagreed writing, “The ‘against nature’ argument is simply invalid. Homosexuality has been documented in over 2,500 animal species. It would appear that homosexuality is rather common. Also, the fact that our planet is becoming overpopulated is completely unsustainable. Homosexuality is one of the most sustainable population control measures ever.”

Definition of Marriage 

Some readers say the church is not against homosexuality, but that marriage is defined as "between a man and a woman."

“I am not against legal union where gay people in a committed relationship have the same legal rights. I do, however, agree with the Church. That marriage is NOT to be redefined,” Patch reader Matt wrote. “The Church loves gay people as much as hetero people.” 

Other readers, however, disagreed. 

“If the state of marriage was strictly a religious signification Cardinal George would have a very valid argument. But it's NOT just a spiritual issue,” Patch reader Jennifer Wilson wrote. “Upon marriage, I get a better tax deal. I have immediate rights to inheritance. My spouse is automatically my next of kin. My husband can make revisions for me if I am not able to without question ... We use marriage as a legal status in this country and religion should not affect that legal status.” 

Church and State

Wilson also wrote a blog post sharing why her family would not be attending Mass over the weekend. Wilson says religion has no place in politics. 

“You, Cardinal George, do not get to tell me how to vote.  You, Cardinal George, do not get to dictate which citizens in the state of Illinois enjoy the civil benefits and responsibilities of marriage.  You get to refuse people the sacrament of marriage, but not the civil right to it.  Kindly respect the separation of Church and State,” Wilson wrote. 

llwvrt echoed Wilson’s sentiment for the separation of church and state, writing, “The cardinal can say whatever he wants but the common good promotes stability and happiness. I have no problem with gay marriage.” 

 “As the leader of Chicago Catholics, Cardinal George has a duty to tell his followers what being a good Catholic means. But that is not what he's doing,” Patch reader IMHO wrote. What he's doing is instructing Catholics to pressure legislators, and pressuring them himself, joined by like-minded clerics, to craft laws that force non-Catholics to follow Catholic doctrine. That makes it everybody’s business. It is the right (duty?) of non-Catholics to resist religious notions being imposed on Illinoisans through law.”

Patch reader Procrustes' Foil says if religious institutions want to get involved in politics, they should pay the price. 

“In order to keep their tax-exempt status, religions are supposed to refrain from involvement in politics and legislation,” Procrustes’ Foil wrote. “Sounds like there are several religions that should start paying taxes!” 

Essence of Marriage

Other readers were also outraged that George equated the essence of marriage to procreating. 

“His stance is basically that there should also be a fertility test before a straight couple can get married,” RB wrote. “If they are unable to bear children, they can't get married. Adoption? His position does not consider that either.” 

“Oh heavenly father, Cardinal George, numerous opposite sex couples cannot conceive also, should their marriages be extinguished?” Patch reader Lou wrote. 

If Illinois passes a same-sex marriage bill, it could become the 10th state in the country to allow such marriages. The legislation passed the Senate Executive Committee Thursday, sending it to the full Senate, but it’s unclear when a vote would take place there, the New York Times reported.

MT January 10, 2013 at 03:06 AM
Cardinal George is 100% correct, but people have a hard time swallowing the truth. Marriage has been defined since the beginning of time by The Creator of everything between a man and woman. Refer to the Bible. It is offensive to the Catholics who hold the sacrament of marriage so close to their hearts to be attacked by many for sticking to the same beliefs that they've held for over 2,000 years. When the rest of the world is wavering the Catholic Church holds strong to their beliefs no matter what government says. It's not being hateful, it's about being truthful. I know many people who are gay, but I do not judge them. It is no one's place to judge. I care for them and love them as I do everyone in my life, but it does not mean that I have to agree with their lifestyle, nor do they have to agree with how I live my life. I will always stand for the truth and people who speak on this topic against Cardinal George are simply uniformed or no little about our faith. I will pray for my brothers and sisters in Christ and expect to be attacked again for The Truth. God bless everyone.
John Faikowski January 10, 2013 at 03:35 AM
God created man and woman in the beginning. You can't deny that since we are told that in the bible. We allow ourselves to be blinded by untruth so much that this simple truth is distorted to no end. I mean homosexual throughout the bible is spoken about as being a sin. So, we understand that if it is a sin then if your to move forward with God you need to ask forgiveness of this sin and become reborn again! How can you ever believe that marriage between those two men in a church is ever being blessed by God? God already knows that homosexuality is a sin and that marriage between homosexuals is only creating a wider rift. So, many hate the fact you may say someone needs to change in order to be saved but they don't realize if that person dies they will face the truth. There is a hell and there is a heaven. For not repenting of your sins means you are unholy and you will not go to heaven. Heaven is a place of complete perfection and you must be cleansed in order to be apart of that!
Chad Torgerson January 10, 2013 at 04:00 AM
First of all, the title is misleading. I know that controversial titles bring more readers (the exact reason I found it), but there seemed to be just as many supporters of Cardinal George as naysayers. Let's discuss some fundamental issues. Cardinal George is simply pointing out that, scientifically speaking, homosexuality is not part of the natural order. Unfortunately, many of those who hide behind science for their political arguments deny basic facts, such as these, when it is inconvenient (i.e. life begins at conception - not 20 weeks... but I digress). Now, someone is going to come back and say, "what do Catholics know about science?" Well, Augustinian friar, Gregor Mendel, founded the genetic theory; Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest, proposed the Big Bang Theory, and one of the largest telescopes in the United States belongs to, you guessed it, the Vatican. Catholics run a third of the US hospitals and invented the university system. We are more than a group of religious zealots. Scientifically speaking, homosexuality does not support population growth, which is the primary purpose of marriage. From a cultural perspective, we have defined it as marriage for thousands of years. Now, some want to redefine science on the basis of being politically correct.
Chad Torgerson January 10, 2013 at 04:01 AM
The article stated, "The law would force no religious institutions to perform same-sex marriages," which may be true - for now. In a similar issue, same-sex couples have been given the right to adopt in Illinois. Just last year, in Illinois, Catholic organizations were forced to provide adoptions to same-sex couples or lose funding - essentially forcing them to leave the state. They chose not to violate their beliefs, and now, thousands of children are without homes because some of the largest adoption organizations in the state are faith-based organizations that also refused to comply. Based on the slippery slope rule of adoptions, within a few years, I predict that same-sex couples will petition to be married in Catholic churches. When the churches fail to comply, they will lose their licensing to perform these ceremonies for the state. Then, getting married in the Catholic Church would actually require getting married twice - one in the farse of a civil system, and then again for real - in the Catholic Church, before God, where it actually matters. You can deny that our religious liberties will be infringed like this, but let's look at the HHS Mandate. Religious organizations are being forced to provide abortion-causing contraceptives against their will and belief system or face stiff penalties. Hobby Lobby is going to face fines of $1.3 million per day. If that lasts long enough, they will surely be run out of business.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »