This title is a lead-in to discussing the “up is down and down is up” positions of U.S. liberals. Given an opportunity to evaluate these, the Left would undoubtedly assert that three of the four are acceptable and desirable.
Yet in Judeo-Christian reality, the reverse is true. Three out of four are strongly unacceptable.
The first difficulty with the liberal position is the fallacy that “marriage equality” for the homosexual community is equivalent to racial civil rights. Being African-American is not disordered behavior. It is one of several genetic expressions of the human race — everyone of whom has inalienable rights.
The disordered condition of homosexuality1, whether innate or acquired2,3, requires the same compassion as due every other human situation.4 However, marriage is not an inalienable/ civil right and it cannot be viewed as equivalent to the racial civil rights cause.5 There is no justification that it be extended to everyone by civil jurisdictions who have no authority over the definition of this non-secular institution.6
At least most U.S. citizens agree that slavery is despicable. For some reason, however, the evil of abortion is not as readily recognized as similarly heinous. Perhaps it’s because the fallible Supreme Court erred seriously erred in deciding that the killing of the most vulnerable human beings was legal. The era of convenience ushered in by the 1973 decision is so contrary to Judeo-Christian beliefs that it defies logic.7
Given the reversed vision of the Left, why should we trust them to issues like national security, honest elections, the federal debt, religious freedom and wages?
With their inclinations, they are likely to want unvetted immigration from terrorist hot spots, to declare that photo ID’s are more important for boarding a plane or buying alcohol than for voting, to think we can spend ourselves out of economic stagnation without slowing our economy further8, to prosecute those who believe marriage is between one man and one woman and believe that a federal minimum wage is appropriate even though the cost of living in the least expensive state is 38% less than in the most.9
Wouldn’t this be an insane world if the current generation of liberals had their way?
1 – “Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.” Paragraph 2360 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition; Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing, November 2013.
2 – “Being homosexual is only partly due to gay gene, research finds,” by Sarah Knapton, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html, 2/13/2014.
3 – “Homosexuality is learned behavior,” by Manin Brown, http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-755425, 2/29/2012.
4 – “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.” Paragraph 2358 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition; Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing, November 2013.
5 – “But to examine this question further – while a civil right is meant to guarantee equality in particular points of law, that is only one half of the picture. There is an old saying that goes back to Plato – equality for equals, inequality for unequals. In other words, when a right is applied equally to everyone in a given class, it is because it presupposes there are no essential distinctions within that class that would preclude the right from being equally applied. To take an example the same-sex crowd always brings up, this is why the old Jim Crow laws against interracial marriage were struck down as civil rights violations. It was recognized that men were men, and women were women; race is not intrinsic to sexuality, therefore there is no compelling distinction between the races that would preclude them from freely entering into the married state. Essentially, the overturning of the old prohibitions on interracial marriage supports traditional marriage because the law recognized that any man can marry any woman. Therefore the racist Jim Crow marriage laws were true instances of civil inequality because they were proposing distinctions in the application of rights which were in fact irrelevant; any man is capable of entering into marriage with any woman, and the right for any man to enter into the married state with any woman could not be infringed…”
“… Any person can enter into the married state, but not under any circumstances they may choose. The question is not one of civil rights but of the definition of marriage, which is what homosexual activists contest. Since gender difference and sexual intercourse is intrinsic to understanding the institution of marriage, it is no discrimination of civil rights to say that the married state cannot be conferred on those whose relationships do not involve sexual intercourse.” From “Homosexual Marriage is not a Civil Right,” http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/social-teaching/moral-issues/93-social-teaching/moral-issues/445-homosexual-marriage-is-not-a-civil-right.html
6 – “’The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage.’A The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics. Although the dignity of this institution is not transparent everywhere with the same clarity,B some sense of the greatness of the matrimonial union exists in all cultures. ‘The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life.’”
A ,B– From the papal encyclical, “Gaudium at spes,” (“Joy and Hope”) section 48 paragraph 1 and section 47 paragraph 2 respectively, published 12/7/1965.
(Paragraph 1603 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition; Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing, November 2013.)
7 – “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life… Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable… The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation…” Excerpts from Paragraphs 2270, 2271 and 2271, Ibid.