When is Marriage not Marriage?
I'm reading these remarks made by the Catholic Bishop of Portland, Maine, Richard Malone, and it perplexed me. Several times I was perplexed.
I am deeply disappointed in the Maine Legislature and the Governor for making same-sex marriage legal in our state. We believe that the vast majority of Maine's people believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and that calling same-sex relationships marriage doesn't make them so.1 Marriage as we have known it for millennia has served as the cornerstone of society.2 The family, consisting of mother, father and children, has served throughout the ages as the natural place for the healthy development of children into well adjusted and productive citizens.3 Same-sex marriage is a dangerous sociological experiment that I believe will have negative consequences for society as a whole.4
[quoted in "Maine's Bishop Malone: Gay Marriage 'A Dangerous Sociological Experiment'", Queerty, 8 May 2009.]
1 In his first sentence Malone points our that "marriage" between same-sex couples has been legalized in Maine. But then, in this sentence he says that calling it "marriage" doesn't make it so. This is certainly a quandary. So, I ask myself, if calling it "marriage" (even though the bishop seems to think that it is, indeed, "marriage"–see previous sentence) does not make it "marriage", what's the bishop so upset about? He's just said that it's not actually "marriage" even if it is called "marriage", despite the fact that he refers to it as "marriage". Honestly, most catholic doctrine is much easier to figure out than this.
2 Too easy, of course, since marriage as "we have known it for millennia" — as documented in the bible itself — has rarely been restricted to the simple, binary man+woman thing. Hoo boy!
3 Cheap shot: all pedophilic catholic priests had one-woman/one-man parents but are not usually recognized as "well adjusted and productive citizens".
4 I'm still confused. Earlier, in that blindingly Jesuitical tour-de-force the bishop established that same-sex "marriage" is not actually "marriage" even if it is to be called "marriage", and yet he now seems concerned about this "dangerous sociological experiment" that, apparently, is not only called "marriage" but is actually "marriage".
You know, I'm thinking it's really much easier being an atheist.
In: All, Current Events, Faaabulosity, Laughing Matters
3 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Sunday, 10 May 2009 at 11.11
Permalink
I really think I hurt myself trying to parse footnote #1.
on Sunday, 10 May 2009 at 11.19
Permalink
Sometimes it takes a rocket scientist, I guess.
on Sunday, 10 May 2009 at 23.34
Permalink
When talking about a basic human right, what the vast majority of a state's people believe isn't the arbiter of what squares with state and U.S. constitutional protections and guarantees. If popular sentiment were determinant, you'd still have segregated schools and colleges across much of the South.
On a more practical note, it appears the bishop prefers having gays and lesbians cruise bars and bathhouses seeking, at most, quickies and one-night stands — those being well established as better for individual and public health and emotional well-being than entering into longterm, even lifelong, mutually supportive and sustaining relationships recognized by the state, legally, and by society in all ways.
There' something dangerous here all right. It's Bishop Malone's tradition-bound narrow mindedness.