![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Gay Marriage Thoughts
Jan. 3rd, 2007 12:22 amIn keeping with the ruling of the Supreme Judicial Court the Legislature of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in special session as a Constitutional Convention, approved the amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. It must do so once more before a popular referendum is held.
And frankly, it's about time.
The legislature has been avoiding a vote because they are to the left of their constituents on this (and unwilling to debate it in front of people like State Senator Barrios) and that know that the odds are good if not great that the people, when they vote, will vote the amendment in, ceasing gay marriage and creating a whole new flurry of legal issues. Whether that's actually true is irrelevant, because everyone is acting as if this is the case - the people for gay marriage said they were scared about the consequences of this vote.
Wait a minute. Members of the Legislature were afraid of letting the electorate decide an issue? Surely Massachusetts hasn't become that communist, has it?
Gay Marriage is not a civil rights issue. The SJC overstepped its bounds and ignored the law in order craft this decision, and they did it poorly. Enacting Gay Marriage is the right of the legislature - when and if they chose to exercise this right is up to the people we put into office when we vote. If there is popular support, then the legislators would vote or face being voted against in favor of candidates who promise to. That's how our system works. You convince everybody, and when everybody's convinced the legislators legislate. If you don't want to live in a democracy, Turkmenistan needs a new dictator, and they totally don't want or need your input (although if you're charismatic and really out of touch with reality, you might be a viable candidate). If the people don't want gay marriage, we shouldn't have gay marriage, and that's the way it works in life under the dictatorship of the numerical majority.
The minute the government fears the will of the governed, we need to elect a new government, because it isn't their job to tell us that we think the wrong thing, their job is to vote. If they don't like what their constituents think, they should convince them or find new constituents, because this attitude about keeping government function away from the masses of normal people is bullshit, it's unAmerican, it's anti-Democratic, and it needs to stop now.
I didn't think I was going to get madder about this issue until I saw that Cardinal Sean made a statement. The Roman Catholic Church is not a Political Action Committee, and it degrades the dignity of a Prince of the Church for him to be devoting his time to the profane matters of the day rather than the mandates of the Godliness to which he is called. The priests of the Church should be beyond reproach, which is why I'm so fearful of becoming one. It shocks me that someone who loves the faith enough to give his life to it would see the physical sign of that faith be cheapened into some spiritual Political Action Committee. If he wants to testify before the legislature, he should talk about the plight of the poor, or the state of our schools, or the care of the sick, or the decay of our morality - the things that Francis talked about when he founded the order to which O'Malley belongs. It abuses the Sacrament and God's House when the pulpit is used to bully and politics follows scripture. Pastoral care impels not to further jeopardize the name of the Church. Our Bishops should be different, they should be examples of charity and holiness in all things - the Greeks called it Arete, Our Lord called it Righteousness, but we are all called to it, and none should exemplify it more than the heirs of the Apostles. It's not Franciscan, it's not Pastoral, it's not priestly, and it's not Episcopal, and his Eminence should shut his mouth.
And frankly, it's about time.
The legislature has been avoiding a vote because they are to the left of their constituents on this (and unwilling to debate it in front of people like State Senator Barrios) and that know that the odds are good if not great that the people, when they vote, will vote the amendment in, ceasing gay marriage and creating a whole new flurry of legal issues. Whether that's actually true is irrelevant, because everyone is acting as if this is the case - the people for gay marriage said they were scared about the consequences of this vote.
Wait a minute. Members of the Legislature were afraid of letting the electorate decide an issue? Surely Massachusetts hasn't become that communist, has it?
Gay Marriage is not a civil rights issue. The SJC overstepped its bounds and ignored the law in order craft this decision, and they did it poorly. Enacting Gay Marriage is the right of the legislature - when and if they chose to exercise this right is up to the people we put into office when we vote. If there is popular support, then the legislators would vote or face being voted against in favor of candidates who promise to. That's how our system works. You convince everybody, and when everybody's convinced the legislators legislate. If you don't want to live in a democracy, Turkmenistan needs a new dictator, and they totally don't want or need your input (although if you're charismatic and really out of touch with reality, you might be a viable candidate). If the people don't want gay marriage, we shouldn't have gay marriage, and that's the way it works in life under the dictatorship of the numerical majority.
The minute the government fears the will of the governed, we need to elect a new government, because it isn't their job to tell us that we think the wrong thing, their job is to vote. If they don't like what their constituents think, they should convince them or find new constituents, because this attitude about keeping government function away from the masses of normal people is bullshit, it's unAmerican, it's anti-Democratic, and it needs to stop now.
I didn't think I was going to get madder about this issue until I saw that Cardinal Sean made a statement. The Roman Catholic Church is not a Political Action Committee, and it degrades the dignity of a Prince of the Church for him to be devoting his time to the profane matters of the day rather than the mandates of the Godliness to which he is called. The priests of the Church should be beyond reproach, which is why I'm so fearful of becoming one. It shocks me that someone who loves the faith enough to give his life to it would see the physical sign of that faith be cheapened into some spiritual Political Action Committee. If he wants to testify before the legislature, he should talk about the plight of the poor, or the state of our schools, or the care of the sick, or the decay of our morality - the things that Francis talked about when he founded the order to which O'Malley belongs. It abuses the Sacrament and God's House when the pulpit is used to bully and politics follows scripture. Pastoral care impels not to further jeopardize the name of the Church. Our Bishops should be different, they should be examples of charity and holiness in all things - the Greeks called it Arete, Our Lord called it Righteousness, but we are all called to it, and none should exemplify it more than the heirs of the Apostles. It's not Franciscan, it's not Pastoral, it's not priestly, and it's not Episcopal, and his Eminence should shut his mouth.
