|
The Vatican's new campaign, launched at the end of July, warned "Catholic politicians that support of same-sex unions was 'gravely immoral' and urg[ed] non-Catholics to join the offensive," according to the Associated Press. This new Vatican global campaign against same-sex marriage mirrors the Church's no holds barred battle against the sexual molestation of children by Catholic Priests - oh, there wasn't one, my bad! The AP's Nicole Winfield reported that the Vatican's orthodoxy watchdog, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, produced a 12-page set of guidelines - issued in seven languages called Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons "with the approval of Pope John Paul II in a bid to stem the increase in laws granting legal rights to homosexual unions in Europe and North America." The Vatican suggested that not just Catholics get involved in the campaign but non-Christians and everyone "committed to promoting and defending the common good of society" and defending natural moral law should also jump on board. Bush Pontificates Meanwhile, back in the New World, Bush joined the Pope's global assault by appearing to come out in favor of a constitutional amendment codifying marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman. Throwing a major anti-gay bone to his fundamentalist Christian constituency at a Rose Garden press conference before leaving for a month-long vacation, the president stopped short of actually calling for a constitutional amendment, but he did say that the White House legal team was examining all options. Answering questions from reporters, a rare occasion for W, Bush borrowed from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, saying "I am mindful that we're all sinners." He said "And I caution those who may try to take the speck out of their neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own. I think it's very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country." Bush's stance is a finely drawn distinction indeed between moral rectitude and avoiding charges of intolerance. For Bush, welcoming and respecting each individual does not necessarily translate into giving these individuals rights that other individuals have. Bush added: "On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on issues such as marriage. And that's really where the issue is headed here in Washington, and that is the definition of marriage. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I believe we ought to codify that one way or the other and we have lawyers looking at the best way to do that." Codifying marriage as only between one man and one woman is exactly what his fundamentalist - largely Christian - backers have been advocating for quite some time. And they believe, and it appears the president may ultimately agree, that a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage is the way to go. But why ding up the constitution? After all, in 1996, the U.S. Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, a measure banning federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Hadn't Bush heard? Fundies Fume
The Family Research Council, a high-powered fundamentalist Christian Washington, D.C.-based lobbying group, recently sent out an email warning that due to the possible pro-same-sex marriage upcoming ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the FRC was formulating "a contingency plan to defend marriage." FRC vice president, Connie Mackey, and state and local affairs director Kristie Rutherford met "with our Massachusetts allies, including the Massachusetts Family Institute and the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, to prepare a multi-pronged reaction to the court's ruling, which will include work with the state legislature, the media, and with our grassroots supporters. "We will never give up the fight to preserve the sanctity of marriage," the email went on, "and with the media so focused on the 'gay marriage' issue, we have a great opportunity to influence the hearts and minds of this nation." Two recent polls, conducted after the Supreme Court's decision, showed that Americans' support for gay marriage has eroded dramatically. The polled public appears to be saying something like, when those gays didn't have rights we were all for them; now that they've made some gains, it's time to put the skids on. Reaction to the Vatican's campaign and the president's Rose Garden remarks came swiftly. "This new document is intended to intimidate public officials across the globe into doing what the Vatican has not been able to do on its own - stem the growing tide for justice," said Marianne Duddy, executive director of Dignity USA, an organization of gay Catholics, told the AP. "It is a tremendous shame that the leaders of our Church are becoming the vocal proponents for intolerance and continuing discrimination." The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) blasted both Bush's claim that gay people are "sinners," as well as "his call for another federal law banning same-sex marriage." In its press release GLAAD (The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) questioned whether the president knew about the 1996 bill: "The president's comment that administration lawyers are looking at ways to "codify" the "sanctity of marriage" between a man and a woman has come under scrutiny not only because of his invocation of religious language, but because the remarks seem to ignore or demonstrate a lack of awareness of an existing federal law…that excludes same-sex couples from the basic protections, rights and responsibilities of marriage." Maggie Gallagher, a longtime conservative columnist has been a consistent champion of marriage defined as between one man and one woman. She sees the current uproar over same-sex marriage as helping build a "new marriage movement," which she says arrives just in time because "marriage is in crisis." In a recent article in the Weekly Standard, Gallagher takes on the question of how loving and committed couples of the same sex, seeking the same civil and legal rights as heterosexual couples, diminish the sanctity of marriage. The real issue says Gallagher is not the sanctification of same-sex marriage: It's all about the traditional family. Same-sex marriage is at the forefront of twenty-first century culture war battles because it "would enshrine in law a public judgment that the desire of adults for families of choice outweighs the need of children for mothers and fathers. It would give sanction and approval to the creation of a motherless or fatherless family as a deliberately chosen 'good.' It would mean the law was neutral as to whether children had mothers and fathers. Motherless and fatherless families would be deemed just fine." For some unexplained reasons, Gallagher, who also recently launched a new Web site called, MarriageDebate.com, has made a habit of appearing at conferences sponsored by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church. While this doesn't automatically bestow upon her the "hypocrite of the year" award, William Bennett and his profound gambling Jones has salted away this honor, it is troubling to think that she's peddling her version of so-called family values at events paid for by Reverend Moon, the man whose own family is not exactly a shining example of the concept. Although it's unlikely that Pope John Paul II and President Bush will rendezvous with Bravo's five-man queer makeover squad, same-sex marriage has hit the pages of one of the top bridal magazines. In its September/October issue, Bride's magazine - for the first time in its seventy year history - presents a piece on same-sex weddings, making it the "first time that any of the five top-selling bridal magazines has published such a feature," the New York Times noted. Gift subscriptions for the Vatican and the White House anyone? |
George W. Bush meets with Pope John Paul
The Supreme Court's overturning of sodomy laws in the United States opened the door for same-sex marriages, and now the White House and the Vatican are attempting to close that door