At the Republican National Committee’s spring meeting in Hollywood this weekend, a resolution on marriage will be voted on, according to Chris Moody of Yahoo News. Click the image below for a larger image of the text of the resolution.
Think Progress has an article condemning every point of the RNC’s proposed marriage resolution. Their basic claim is that the institution of matrimony — one man, one woman — is in no way better than a homosexual union. In other words, they claim that for me to say that it is almost always better for a girl to have a relationship with her father than not to have a relationship with her father is a bigoted statement. It puts me into the category of “bigot” on the same level as a person who would hang a “Whites Only” sign in a store window. Any Republican worth his stuff would work to push bigotry out of the party because it would be the MORAL thing to do. To push morality out of the party because it’s reclassified as “bigotry” would be insanity.
On a side note, the Republican Party has a platform that was voted on by delegates. I see no point for this resolution whatsoever. Why do RNC officials think they need to vote on a resolution when the party has a platform? What is the platform for if not to determine the position of the Republican Party on issues? Why is the RNC deciding what the position of the party is going to be on marriage? It’s already been decided in the platform. This is why conventions are held.
I identify as a Republican because, as John Prine’s Grandpa would tell you, Lincoln won the war. I am not a bigot.
Six months after Republicans took a drubbing in the 2012 elections, the party now has a clear picture of what must change to win future contests. With a long postelection era of lost-in-the-wilderness philosophizing behind them, party leaders say they are ready to set their new plan for action into motion.
Activists from around the country will gather at the Loews Hollywood Hotel in Los Angeles beginning on Thursday for the Republican National Committee’s three-day spring meeting. There, amid continued intraparty tension over issues like immigration reform and gay marriage, they plan to plunge headfirst into the gritty details of the business of winning elections.
Aren’t they cute? The RNC thinks they can win elections. Like I said, I’m glad Allen West will be there, but I have a feeling a lot of money is going to be spent on this to do everything but the right things.
An unidentified Cardinal puts ash on Pope Benedict XVI’s head during the celebration of Ash Wednesday mass at the Basilica of Santa Sabina, in Rome, Wednesday, Feb. 17 2010. Ash Wednesday marks the beginning of Lent, a solemn period of 40 days of prayer and self-denial leading up to Easter. (AP Photo/Alessia Pierdomenico, pool)
I think all of us were distressed by the fragility of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI when we saw him greet his successor, Pope Francis. The footage was almost too painful to watch. Now, according to the excellent Fr Ray Blake, a Spanish newspaper says he is suffering from something “very severe”, and that “we won’t have us with him for very much longer”. His condition has apparently continued to decline.
A Twitter conversation between myself (Lisa Graas, @CatholicLisa) and A Liberal Catholic (@farleftflank) may help readers understand why it is that the Left actually would throw Catholics in jail for being Catholic, even with liberal Catholic support. The reason is that it is the logical application of their views. The liberal view is that “hate speech” should be prosecuted under the law, and that refusing to accept “gay marriage” is “hate.” Conclusion: Priests and other Catholics who publicly oppose “gay marriage” (which would include a refusal to marry a “gay” couple) would be hauled off to jail if liberals get their way on this, that homosexual marriage is equivalent to interracial marriage, and if “hate speech” is prosecutable. My conversation on Twitter with “A Liberal Catholic” bears this out.
“A Liberal Catholic” admits that he believes his conscience, when it agrees with the government, trumps mine when it is obeying Canon Law in that he would not defend me from being arrested by police for being vocally opposed to “gay marriage,” nor defend any priest who is taken to jail for refusing to marry a “gay” couple or for opposing the HHS contraception mandate. He says that priests are not currently being hauled off to jail, but clearly admits that he would not defend them if they were, nor defend me for publicly stating my Catholic belief on this. While he insists that priests will not be “forced” to perform “gay marriage” ceremonies, he supports their being taken to jail if the civil law classifies any vocal opposition to “gay marriage” as prosecutable “hate speech.” This is the ultimate result of the policies of the Left, if they were to become civil law — the arrest of priests and other of the Catholic faithful, while “liberal Catholics” look on because they view opposition to “gay marriage” as being equivalent to discrimination against blacks.
I’ve decided to post large excerpts for context.
A Liberal Catholic: A question. You said if gay marriage becomes the law of the land “doors will close”. Which doors?
Lisa Graas: Many already have.
A Liberal Catholic: I ask b/c many believe that churches will be forced to perform marriages, which is demonstrably false.
Lisa Graas: Legal arguments made at SCOTUS suggest otherwise. They (falsely) claim it’s like refusing to perform interracial marriage.
A Liberal Catholic: not by churches, the claim was made from a governmental/ civil perspective. Whether that is constit. will be settled by SCOTUS
Lisa Graas: Either way, it made refusal illegal.
A Liberal Catholic: not by churches, only businesses. A church can refuse to marry anyone for any reason.
Lisa Graas: But the argument being presented is that it is “hate” to refuse to marry them.
A Liberal Catholic: And I agree, but a church cannot be compelled to marry anyone. Priests say no to couples for all kinds of reasons.
Lisa Graas: But if the same people calling for prosecution of “hate speech” call Catholicism “hate” it means priests go to jail, dear.
A Liberal Catholic: can you identify anyone going to jail for just ‘hate speech’? Wouldn’t Klan members be in jail already? Speech is protected.
Lisa Graas: Care to see video of a Catholic priest being hauled off Notre Dame campus by police?
A Liberal Catholic: the obvious question is what was he charged with? Speech can only get you arrested for a limited number of circumstances.
Lisa Graas: He was on campus praying in protest of Notre Dame inviting Barack Obama to speak. He was arrested by police.
A Liberal Catholic: yes, because he violated laws about where you can protest and where you can’t. I just looked it up.
Lisa Graas: You’re proving my point. You’re okay with a priest being arrested on Notre Dame campus for praying.
A Liberal Catholic: actually I’m agreeing, protest is really valuable. he shouldnt have been arrested unless he was posing a danger to the POTUS.
Lisa Graas: He posed no danger. He was on the lawn outdoors praying.
A Liberal Catholic: but my point stands, no priest can be arrested for refusing to marry someone. And if they try I will protest along side you.
Lisa Graas: If “x” is illegal and Catholicism is “x” then priests go to jail. Do the math.
Lisa Graas: I didn’t say they are being jailed.
Lisa Graas: What I know is that the left calls for prosecution of “hate speech.” Do you not know that? And that Catholicism is “hate.”
A Liberal Catholic: that is the definition of illegal. Breaking laws, facing punishment.
Lisa Graas: Which law has more authority to you? Canon law? Or Civil law?
Lisa Graas: http://tinyurl.com/bm7apyb Military chaplains told not to read archbishop’s letter on HHS mandate
Lisa Graas: As you can see, a key point of this letter was edited out. http://tinyurl.com/bm7apyb
A Liberal Catholic: that s the military, you do not have full civil rights as a service member. Your speech can be denied, and does frequently.
Lisa Graas: The point is that the Obama administration demanded that a bishop’s words to Catholics be changed.
A Liberal Catholic: Civil law is the only thing the government should be concerned with, and it is the only thing that you can be punished over.
Lisa Graas: You are saying that one cannot be both a faithful Catholic and a soldier, that one must submit to government, not God.
A Liberal Catholic: and they both have authority over different areas, different consequences. I hold MOST canon laws in higher regard.
Lisa Graas: I’m asking YOU if you obey Canon Law or civil law when the two conflict. You personally. Which is higher to you.
A Liberal Catholic: in most cases, canon law. I have disagreements with some, but we have discussed this at length.
Lisa Graas: But you would support government taking me to jail if I obeyed a Canon law you disagree with that contradicts civil law?
A Liberal Catholic: I’m saying that even as a Catholic, if you violate civil law you will and should face punishment. That’s the social contract.
Lisa Graas: That does not answer my question.
A Liberal Catholic: I find the whole HHS mandate a glorified kerfuffle, what does it have to do w/ the military?
Lisa Graas: If I am following a Canon Law you disagree with, and police take me to jail, you would not defend me?
Lisa Graas: Please answer the question.
Lisa Graas: I’ll keep checking back to see if you answer the question.
A Liberal Catholic: If as a citizen you break a civil law, you will and should face civil penalties. That is separation of church and state.
Lisa Graas: You are saying that you are okay with the government punishing me for following my conscience which obeys the Church.
Lisa Graas: You are for “freedom of conscience” ONLY provided that one’s conscience AGREES with yours and/or the government.
Lisa Graas: That’s hypocrisy, plain and simple.
A Liberal Catholic: That’s not hypocrisy, that’s citizenship 101. You are free, but not free to discriminate, we settled that in the 60′s.
During the 2012 presidential primary, the “gay” movement was very active in what we might call “Operation: Silence Santorum.” Because Rick Santorum is opposed to legislation that redefines marriage to include homosexual couples, activists attempted to “redefine” his name via Google in order to prevent people from finding out who he really is. It was an attempt to silence his voice from the political sphere. It failed, of course, and Rick Santorum came in second for the GOP nomination. Operation: Silence Santorum continues, however, as Grosse Pointe Public School System Superintendent Dr. Thomas Harwood, who agrees with Rick Santorum on protecting traditional marriage, is deferring to his “gay” brother by…you guessed it…revoking an invitation to speak.
An upcoming speech by former presidential candidate Rick Santorum has been canceled by a school district in Michigan, citing an unwillingness to accept the former Pennsylvania senator’s supposed “divisive” stances on traditional marriage. [...]
[...] Superintendent Harwood told [Young America’s Foundation’s Vice President Patrick] Coyle that they were canceling the event.
Coyle explained to Harwood that the school district already approved Senator Santorum’s speech and its topic on leadership. However, when Senator Santorum’s speech was announced, teachers within the school district sent videos to administrators showcasing some of Senator Santorum’s past statements on traditional marriage and education.
As the conversation continued, Coyle said that the administrators became more and more agitated as Coyle hopelessly explained that Senator Santorum’s speech would be about leadership. Harwood then said that he supports traditional marriage, but has a brother who is gay, and he finds Santorum’s views “extreme.”
If Mr. Harwood supports traditional marriage, great. I’m glad. Unfortunately, he also supports “Operation: Silence Santorum,” which is very “gay.” I’ve been involved in U.S. politics long enough to understand that “gay” in the political context is best defined as irrational intolerance toward those who support traditional marriage, particularly if they happen to be Republicans, particularly if they happen to be Christian, particularly if they happen to be Catholic Christians, and especially if they happen to be Rick Santorum, the greatest defender of the family that America has ever known.
Rick Santorum came in second in the 2012 Republican presidential primary and, as such, is poised to potentially become the next President of the United States. Harwood is robbing students of the opportunity to meet a man who could be president, even though he supports Rick Santorum’s position on marriage. That’s “gay.” It’s what “gay” is in American politics today: silencing the opposition.
My heart goes out not to Rick (he is used to this) but to the students at Grosse Pointe South High School who are learning from their school administration that the way to deal with political opponents is to silence them. What a tragedy.
This is actually the main reason that support for traditional marriage is so important. The opponents of the upholding of traditional marriage have proven time and time again that they are not about “equality” but about pushing out those who disagree with them, like the many Catholic adoption agencies that have had to close their doors because they cannot place children with homosexual couples. The Catholic Church, the largest charitable organization in the world, will be closing many doors if “gay marriage” becomes the law of the land. Government cannot force a church to sin, so the doors close. That’s why traditional marriage needs to be supported, because to support the “gay” movement is to support tyranny. It is to support pushing out anyone who believes the family must be upheld. This revoking of Rick Santorum’s invitation is just one of countless examples of that.
Courant.com reports that a Connecticut Department of Children and Families (DCF) social worker failed to report a “more extreme” sexual abuse claim made against a “gay” married couple, George Harasz and Douglas Wirth, by their adopted son. Once investigators learned of the claim, the social worker was asked pointedly why she had failed to report it. Her response, saying that she thought it was “part and parcel,” indicates that she brushed it off. After this came to light, the DCF commissioner “revealed,” the report says, even more claims of sexual abuse.
Is this a case of social workers protecting pedophiles whom they allowed to adopt nine boys? You decide.
The new allegations of abuse revealed in the pre-sentence investigation are “dramatically different and more extreme,” the judge said.
“[The son said] he has scars from being held down and raped and that those injuries were inflicted by a weapon,” Zagaja said, quoting the report.
Alexander also had pointed questions for a state Department of Children and Families lawyer. She asked why a DCF social worker, who accompanied the victim to the interview with a probation officer, heard the new allegation of sexual assault and did not report it to law enforcement. State law requires DCF officials to report such allegations to law enforcement within 12 hours, she noted.
Matthew LaRock, a DCF attorney who was in court Friday, responded that the DCF worker thought the allegation was part and parcel of the criminal case pending against Wirth and Harasz.
Alexander called the response “disingenuous.”
The victim noted in the interview that he had never told investigators about the incident, the judge said. “How could that be interpreted as part and parcel,” she asked.
Later, DCF Commissioner Joette Katz, who was also in court, said the new allegation would immediately be referred for investigation. She also revealed that three of five younger children the couple adopted have alleged abuse by Wirth and Harasz to counselors.
It gets worse. The two men had already agreed to plead guilty to lesser charges of sexual abuse before these new claims came to light, but the children making the claims are being dragged through the mud.
Russell Wirth described his son and Harasz as “loving, dedicated parents” who were destroyed by the false allegations of the children they sought to help.
“Take responsibility for your actions,” he said to the three older brothers aligned against Wirth and Harasz. “You know the truth. The truth will set you free.”
[Defense attorney] Santos said there are school reports that outline lying by the accusers and hallucinations on the part of one.
Dwyer, the attorney for Wirth, said that at a trial witnesses, including therapists, would undercut the allegations the brothers have made against Wirth and Harasz.
As if that were not enough, it seems DCF may have violated state law in allowing these two men to adopt nine children. Wirth has two biological children. That is a total of eleven children, but according to DCF’s website, a maximum of six children are allowed to be in the home of adoptive parents. Courant.com reports that the judge made note of this.
The judge also noted that DCF also departed from its own rules in allowing Wirth and Harasz to adopt so many children. Twice, the couple was granted waivers to adopt more children, she noted.
I think this post is the hardest one I’ve ever had to write in over four years of blogging. I don’t know what to say beyond what I posted above.
On the “gay” married couple in Connecticut who are charged with sexually assaulting five of nine boys they legally adopted, I now have local news video showing the grandfather of “some of the boys” stating, “I don’t believe they’re innocent at all.”
His statement to local news station WTNH begins at 1:25 in the video.
I no longer subscribe to cable tv, so I have no idea if this is being reported on any national news networks, but I suspect that it is not, and I am hearing from others that it is not. That is a great reason to cancel your cable television, folks.
Voted 2nd Best Catholic to Follow on Twitter, After the Pope
Make a One-Time Donation
…Or Make a Recurring Donation
If you have been threatened, harassed, or made to feel afraid because you believe in traditional marriage, contact Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance
I am just a teeny, tiny, broken Passionist who loves Jesus very much. Please take what I say here with a grain of salt. I mess up a lot. -- Lisa Graas
'Your prayer ought to be continual. The place wherein we ought to pray is the spirit of God.' - St. Paul of the Cross