How about a counter march against sex abuse against children in the catholic church?

Are they going to burn witches or gay people at the end of the march?

Ewe.

Great idea Nona!!! I wonder where the new Pope stands on this march?

I am so lucky...In my life I have always been surrounded by people that are committed to their faith and support love, understanding, forgiveness and equality...Luckily I was never taught hatred, intolerance, condemnation or inequality...I thank those that have given me the strength to oppose inhumanity and teach my children that it’s the “religious” that teach the negativities in life not the “faithful”...

I grew up catholic.Was in catholic school all my life.An important thing I was taught was not to judge people,that was God's job.I dont understand why its necessary for them to march,walk in front of planned,parenthood.All of this is God's Business,not the Catholic church's.

tt- Aren't you, the church, God's body, his hands and his feet? I know that is what we are called to be...Sounds like you are just sitting on yours..

If catholics have a belief system, why wouldnt they express it? When has gay marriage exsisted in history, but for modern times? Its the gay agenda thats pushing itself. If people want to do what they want, with who they want so be it. A catholic perspective would be that they have to answer to god. But why do gays find it so important to be married? With increasingly hetro couples avoiding marriage, what do gays hope to get? Money? Benifits? Justification? Why do gays get to force thier beliefs on others by insiting they are refered to as husbands or wifes?

Not a Catholic but I am a christian. I think its wrong to think that the same sex can be a legally married couple. Those of us who are married made a pledge to each other and to god. Whomever the god that we choose to believe in. What's next we can have multiple husbands or wives because we want to? Because we can't help or choose who we love and if it's more than one person... when does it stop? One question though how do all these same sex couples plan to repopulate the world?

Seems to me that the Catholic Church has every right to organize sponsor, attend, etc any lawful demonstration in support of its beliefs. The dichotomy between its public protest against gay marriage and its past hiding of pedophile behavior is obvious to even the casual observer. That changes nothing in terms of the protest. While I personally support gay marriage, I easily understand why devoutly religious persons see it as an abomination. They see marriage within the context of faiths and religion. Others, like me, see marriage as a civl contract. We do get marriage licenses from the state not the church. That fact helps to answer the question about what to gay people hope to gain from marriage. Answer: the same legal protections that straight people have. Additionally, to the "repopulate the world" question all I can say is that there are lesbians out there who have babies. Oh, and, as far as I know, none of us who have made or will make children are RE-populating the world, unless the human race died off at some time in the past. It amazes me how faith and legal rights can create such turmoil.

Thanks, Richard. So glad to see an eloquent, logical response after two very close-minded and misinformed comments. I don't undersand why so many people who are opposed to same-sex marriage suddenly assume that their churches are going to automatically have to perform them. Marriage is a civil right and should be extended to everyone. Asserting that same sex marriage is going to lead to polygamy is absurd, you might as well use the standard argument that people are going to want to marry animals.
The Catholic Church can offer its support to whatever causes it wants. The fact of the matter is that most young people (and about 58% of the country) support same sex marriage and I feel like the Church will prove to be unsustainable in the long run as a result of their antiquated beliefs. I was raised Catholic and attended Catholic school and while I respect the Church and truly believe it does many good things, I fully support everyone's right to marry whomever they love.
And to the previous commenter who I won't dignify by mentioning their name, how are they going to repopulate the world? Maybe when straight people stop having so many gay babies, they'll all eventually die off and you won't have to worry about how they're affecting your own, sacred, Christian marriage.

It is the Catholic Church why does anyone question it, why is our culture so out of reach and longs to go with the flow and want to adapt to media....the Church is made up of the people and our beliefs and what the Bible teaches us - not just priests. I'd bet that all that are throwing stones here, don't even bat an eye lash at the opposite of these protest when they walk around half naked with feathers on their back and rainbows hats. Point being don't be a hypocrite and until you are Perfect in every action and breath you take, don't judge and make such small minded comments.
Secondly, shame on this writer of this post - way to draw in the negativity and pose folks against each other to argue and tempt small minded thinking with the wording of your opinion. I guess I should expect nothing less of someone in the media today.

Lets stay on the subject. I guess there alot of stupid, bitter people out there. I t"s great that the Philly Catholic Church is throwing thier support behind this march. Why wouldn't any "church". Homos are preverts. It's bad enough to have them around for children to see let alone them raising kids???!!! As citizens they have thier Constitional Rights. BUT THAT SHOULD BE ALL. Don't put them above normal people.

Bigots on parade! If you want to protect marriage - ban divorce, i would think thats a bigger threat.

No one has answered my question. How do same sex couples plan to keep the world moving forward with offspring? I say let them have marriage. And every sperm donor should be forced to read about the guy who donated to the two ladies who then split up and sued him for child support. Moral decay of a once proud nation.

The new communist religion called secularism says, "if you don't think like us, you're a bigot." Catholics can believe whatever the heck they want to. No one is preaching harm or violence towards gays. If a religion believes something is wrong, fine. Don't be Catholic if you don't like it.

Marriage allows health information sharing between doctors & spouses of patients. It allows Joint Tenants with Right of Survivorship property ownership. Marriage allows certain tax advantages.

The Catholic Church does not endorse child sexual abuse for all of those who counter with that pathetic argument. Christians support tolerance and forgiveness not gay-bashing.

This is about a minority group demanding new special rights & recognition.

This is about the State officially endorsing same-sex marriage, about church, synagogue & mosque members voicing a grievance with the State. Let's also call these another "minority," for who can trust polls saying the majority of Americans support gay marriage. Homosexuality existed in 1776. Gay marriage was never a right from the country's founding.

The beautiful thing about this country is that it started as a minority with improper representation in Parliament. Founders created a Constitution protecting minority rights, so that a majority (polls) could never remove them.

Gay marriage was never a right from the start. Gay is old: special rights are a new invention. Gays DEMAND the state to say, "it's ok to act gay." Finally they want the church, representing God, to say it's ok, so they can feel "normal." Pedophilia feels natural & normal to many. Whips & chains. Lusting animals.

You think this could ever happen in Russia? Ha. They are laughing at Americans over this issue. NO SPECIAL RIGHTS

I am a Christian and support the Archdiocese of Philadelphia doing this. There are many other Christian denominations who also believe in marriage being intended by God as a union of one man and one woman (and some denominations who do not care what God said in the scriptures). To satisify those who do not care what God says about "rights", then governments could assure the common law arrangements provide the same "rights" to the two gays as they extend to traditional marriage.

When did marriage become a civil right? Two guys love each other- so they have a "right" to marry each other. Okay, why not poligamy? A group of people want to marry each other, which must be a civil right as well, its all good. A guy and his father want to marry- who could challenge that? After all its thier "civil rights." Whats funny/scary is that gays and gay supporters say thier not talking about these situations and are distgusted when brought up. Like they have room to judge! Ha!

Whatever happened to "Separation of Church and State"?

I was born and raised Catholic, and I was taught that God loves ALL of his children and they are ALL equal in his eyes. Nowhere in the New Testament have a read a passage where Jesus condemns gays. Although if we want to get technical, in the Old Testament you were allowed to sell your daughters into slavery for livestock, or force a woman to marry her rapist because she was now unpure. If you want to take the bible literally, you need to take it all, not pick and choose what suits your needs.

As for the article topic, the church has every right to express their beliefs, just as every gay can express theirs as well. Where you get into trouble is when you starting forcing your beliefs on other people.

If the government decides that all of it's citizens are equal and can have the same rights, how does that affect the church? It doesn't, they can still go on their way excluding and ostracizing gays, no problem.

Just a factual comment, in the New Testament, several Letters of Paul to early churches specifically condemn acting on homosexual impulses. As for Old Testament, Jesus refers back to it often and teaches that some laws (Love God above all, love neighbor, do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, honor your father and mother - in other words the Ten Commandments) were of God, and other laws and practices such as the ones you reference, were given to the people by elders, and even mentions Abraham giving the practice of circumcision. It seems many people get hung up on this. Stoning of violators, etc. If you'll recall, Jesus squashed those laws given to men by men with a simple sentence, "He among you that is without sin cast the first stone." Snap. An old law given by men, not God, forever crushed.

The biggest danger I think of Church is allowing others to read and interpret scripture for you. Best practice is to read it (and anything else) cover-to-cover and then draw your own conclusions.

Since when does it follow that someone who wishes the legal definition of marriage to remain as between one man and one woman would be a "gay-basher".
The concept of marriage is rooted in natural law, thruth and biblical beliefs and values and throughout history has proven to be a necessary cornerstone of families and civil society.
I am a Catholic and the father of a gay daughter. We respect each other's beliefs and values, love and support each other, but disagree on this fundamental issue. It's Ok. Also there are many Christian gays who understand and accept the concept of marriage and the legal definition as between one man and one woman.

I can only imagine what I could accomplish if I had time to care about what other people do.

And, if you've really got this much free time, why not go serve the poor, or the sick, or the needy?

I am exhausted from reading the above dialogue. Makes me think: "Religion is the opiate of the people (Chairman Mao, I believe)." "Render unto Caesar. . ." "Judge lest ye not be judged. . ." I'm going to go blast Kris Kristofferson's "Jesus was a Capricorn" on my ancient tape player to cleanse my mind of such animosity and supercilious sanctimony and then turn on my "Jesus Christ Superstar" video and chill. Cancer destroys from within. So do words. Jesus said: "Love one another as I have loved you" without the word "except . . ." Take a hint, people. Right from the Top Guy!

Criminal acts by Govt, Churchs silent. Home searches/inspections OK?

As Jamie P points out, "Marriage allows health information sharing between doctors & spouses of patients. It allows Joint Tenants with Right of Survivorship property ownership. Marriage allows certain tax advantages." There are many other benefits which the government gives to married partners but, under present law, denies to same-sex partners. Those who advocate same-sex marriage don't ask for special treatment; they just want the government to treat them the same as heterosexual partners by allowing them to marry and receive the same government benefits.

They are not demanding that any church conduct any ceremonies that are against its beliefs. As long as the Catholic Church believes that marriage is limited to opposite-sex couples, they will not be required to conduct marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples. The same-sex couples can marry in civil ceremonies or in ceremonies conducted by religious organizations that welcome them.

But, if the government is going to attach certain benefits to being married, it should not deny those benefits to same-sex couples who are willing to undertake the same marriage commitments as opposite-sex couples. As for populating the world, I wonder whether we really want a lot more people to help use up the planet's limited resources.

It may be interesting, Bill. if given your rationale, you would agree to mollifying both the defenders of one man-one woman "marriage" and homosexuals by changing the status to "civil union" limited to two same-sex people. Simply a legal contract with all the same Federal down to state rights currently recognized under "marriage," but minus the dignity, clarity, security and power of the word "marriage". Yes, no?

Jamie Yes - It seems like this should satisify the "rights" issue unless the LGBT leaders are really after bringing down the traditional definition of marriage and I sense from a few of the responses in this string that many LGBT folks would be comfortable with this.

Perhaps they will use some of the large sum of money that was given to them by a Haverford family in order to rename St. Dennis / Annunciation to Cardinal Foley.

Your original questions:
Do you think traditional marriage needs this kind of support? YES
Do you think the Archdiocese is correct in its support of the march? YES, of course! We support traditional marriage!
Should the Supreme Court Overturn Proposition 8? NO, the people have spoken!
See below:
Proposition 8
Initiative Constitutional Amendment Election results:
Yes or no Votes Percentage
Yes 7,001,084 52.24%
No 6,401,482 47.76%
Valid votes 13,402,566 97.52%
Invalid or blank votes 340,611 2.48%
Total votes 13,743,177 100.00%
Voter turnout 79.42%
Electorate 17,304,428 Source: California Secretary of State

I have no problem with a march in support of "traditional" marriage. I support gay marriage 100%, and would gladly march for that cause, but I know that not everyone would. Everyone has a right to march about whatever they want - as long as it is peaceful. I feel that it won't be long before the government takes gender out of the equation when it comes to marriage. 10 years maybe? Hopefully less. Churches will generally stick to the status quo and will not allow marriage for homosexuals for the next millenium. That is up to them - they have a right to believe what they choose.

Crazy idea: Focus on the poor.

Jamie P asks me the reasonable question, whether I would "agree to mollifying both the defenders of one man-one woman "marriage" and homosexuals by changing the status to "civil union" limited to two same-sex people. Simply a legal contract with all the same Federal down to state rights currently recognized under "marriage," but minus the dignity, clarity, security and power of the word "marriage". Yes, no?"

My answer is "yes" if the name of the status conferred by commitment ceremonies conducted by judges, mayors and other public officials were changed to "civil unions" for everyone -- opposite sex as well as same-sex couples. It would be fine to reserve the term "marriage" for religious ceremonies, while using the term "civil unions" for all civil ceremonies "tying the knot," but there seems to be something unequal to call a ceremony conducted by a judge "marriage" for opposite-sex couples but "civil union" for same-sex couples. Sort of like having "separate but equal" water fountains, toilets or lunch counters.

TheRoman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia says on their website, "we care about protecting marriage."

How does supporting a march against other loving couples who should have the right, as a free citizen of the United States of America, to enter into a personal commitment with all the same responsibilities and benefits of marriage endanger marriage?

Due to the fact that religious organizations are free to preach the tradition of one man one woman as their belief of marriage to their flock and are free to decide who they will or will not perform marriage ceremonies for, due to separation of church and state this sponsorship of a "marriage march" is engaging in an attempt to pressure state government to support a religious organizations personal beliefs, which violates that separation of church and state.

It seems to me that if the Archdiocese want to "protect" marriage they should be doing much more in addressing the high number of divorce rates and addressing both the financial and personal responsibilities of those divorced heterosexual couples that have brought children into the world, as those responsibilities do not go away with a divorce.

When will taxes be levied on these religious organizations who have increasingly and actively engaged in political activity in an attempt to influence politicians votes?

If Jamie P opposes "legislating morality," why does he reject my suggestion to apply the term "civil unions" to all commitment ceremonies which are conducted by government officials? Why should those ceremonies be called "marriages" for opposite-sex couples but "civil unions" for same-sex couples? If couples want to have a ceremony called a "marriage," they can always go to a religious authority. That right is protected by the First Amendment. On the other hand, the 14th Amendment requires government officials to treat all couples equally.

In fact, the present law irrationality limits the religious freedom of religious organizations (such as the Episcopal Church) that are willing to consecrate same-sex unions. The government denies same-sex couples who are married in their ceremonies the same rights as opposite-sex couples married by those or other denominations.

Finally, Jamie P keeps emphasizing the vote of the people of California against same-sex marriage. That is significant, but 50 years ago the popular vote in several states opposed racial equality. I believe Jamie P would agree with me that we did the right thing to stand for justice against that popular sentiment. I suggest that justice also demands equality for sexual minorities today.

Excerpts of an article written by non-Catholic Sam Miller - a
prominent Cleveland Jewish businessman:
R U a CATHOLIC?

“Why would newspapers carry on a vendetta on one of the most important institutions that we have today in the United States , namely the Catholic Church?

Do you know - the Catholic Church educates 2.6 million students everyday at the cost to that Church of 10 billion dollars, and a savings on the other hand to the American taxpayer of 18 billion dollars. The graduates go on to graduate studies at the rate of 92%.

The Church has 230 colleges and universities in the U.S. with an enrollment of 700,000 students.

The Catholic Church has a non-profit hospital system of 637 hospitals, which account for hospital treatment of 1 out of every 5 people - not just Catholics - in the United States today

con't

But the press is vindictive and trying to totally denigrate in every way the Catholic Church in this country. They have blamed the disease of pedophilia on the Catholic Church, which is as irresponsible as blaming adultery on the institution of marriage.

Let me give you some figures that Catholics should know and remember. For example, 12% of the 300 Protestant clergy surveyed admitted to sexual intercourse with a parishioner; 38% acknowledged other inappropriate sexual contact in a study by the United Methodist Church, 41.8% of clergy women reported unwanted sexual behavior;
17% of laywomen have been sexually harassed.

Meanwhile, 1.7% of the Catholic clergy has been found guilty of pedophilia. 10% of the Protestant ministers have been found guilty of pedophilia. This is not a Catholic Problem.

A study of American priests showed that most are happy in the priesthood and find it even better than they had expected, and that most, if given the choice, would choose to be priests again in face of
all this obnoxious PR the church has been receiving.

con't

The Catholic Church is bleeding from self-inflicted wounds. The agony that Catholics have felt and suffered is not necessarily the fault of the Church. You have been hurt by a small number of wayward priests that have probably been totally weeded out by now.

Walk with your shoulders high and you head higher. Be a proud member of the most important non-governmental agency in the United States .

Then remember what Jeremiah said: ‘Stand by the roads, and look and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is and walk in it, and find rest for your souls’. Be proud to speak up for your faith with
pride and reverence and learn what your Church does for all other religions.

Be proud that you’re a Catholi

Blessings!

Ethelyn

Two points:

1) If the Catholic Church wants to help coordinate a march, I don’t have a problem with it. I don’t agree with the topics of most marches and parades anyway, but people have a right. If one wants to march against same-sex marriage, go for it. If one wants to play dress-up on New Year’s Day and “strut” on Broad Street rather than watch football, go for it.

2) Because same-sex sexual activity is not illegal, people are born with their sexual orientation, and gay citizens are still citizens; one simply needs to look at the section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to settle the issue. Look at the text:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Not allowing gay citizens to marry as part of any state or federal law is a violation of the Substantive Due Process rights of those citizens.

That is one way to interpret the law of the land, Mike. We can all agree that the Founding Fathers did in some ways have a crystal ball and included language to thwart future attempts at corrupting the intent of the Constitution to protect all citizen's basic rights. Some situations foreseen, some not; thus the Supreme Court perpetually exists to interpret the document in matters of conflict. One might imagine that if they did have a crystal ball, the document would be 21,000 pages long.

Even if the document defined marriage as between one man and one woman (thwarting polygamy and gay marriage), still it would not have foreseen 50 year old males marrying 16 year old females, for example. This is legal and happens today in some states though not in most. Many states residents feel this is wrong. They may lack the ability to articulate exactly why it is wrong, but they support minimum ages of consent and don't rise up to challenge state laws on the books.

Homosexuals are taking on the entire country by pushing Prop 8 to the Supreme Court despite that Californians have already decided for themselves not to accept gay marriage in their midst.

You quote the 14th Amendment as though States have no right to their own laws, or that when a group rises to challenge, the Supreme Court must return to the 14th and always rule in favor of the challenger.

Where do California's citizen rights figure in to your rational argument? Just curious.

Tim Lewis asks what protections are denied to LGBT persons. There isn't nearly enough space here to list them all. I'll list a few, and you can find a more complete list at http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/from-why-marriage-matters-appendix-b-by-evan-wolfson:
Death: If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items in the absence of a will.
Family leave: Unmarried couples are often not covered by laws and policies that permit people to take medical leave to care for a sick spouse or for the kids.
Health: Unlike spouses, unmarried partners are usually not considered next of kin for the purposes of hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions. In addition, they can't cover their families on their health plans without paying taxes on the coverage, nor are they eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage.
Retirement: In addition to being denied access to shared or spousal benefits through Social Security as well as coverage under Medicare and other programs, unmarried couples are denied withdrawal rights and protective tax treatment given to spouses with regard to IRA's and other retirement plans.
Taxes: Unmarried couples cannot file joint tax returns and are excluded from tax benefits and claims specific to marriage.