LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
"Perspectives" is a column I always look forward to, even if I do not agree with the viewpoint, as the columnist is an eminently interesting writer. "Rights due everyone" was no exception. I am particularly interested to learn that he is now championing the "rights of Catholics," without adequately explaining how.
Is not this intellectually dishonest for an editor of the paper which so cavalierly bashes the Church when convenient, disregarding the truth to do so? However let us temporarily set that aside.
There are rights due everyone, such as the inalienable right to life, property interests, speech [properly understood and as taught by the Church, both civil (established as coming from God by the Founders) and ecclesiastical]. Then there are spurious rights or claims to "rights." We need to make critical, necessary distinctions.
Now, much of what he said is indeed true, violence against homosexuals [as such], for example, is most unworthy of a society that purports to be just. If only it were as simple as the columnist asserts. Whenever someone urges passage of a bill that takes away legitimate rights from one group to grant others rights [already protected by other laws] that may be injurious to the first party, experience teaches that it is never so simple as equal for equal.
The problem is not group membership but advocacy of behavior on the part of some individuals. Other "minorities" [militant homosexuals are not a legitimate minority under Supreme Court strict scrutiny standards] are and have been discriminated against on existence, not behavior. Society has a duty to discriminate between some members of groups when differences are relevant, for the sake of a higher good, just as individuals have. Thus, a lightweight person would not be hired if he could not lift the required weight on a job beyond his diminished capability---to ensure that other employees will not be overburdened.
Similarly, if the community is hiring teachers to instruct the young, an abnormal sexual "orientation" [it should be called temptation toward homosexual acts] in an applicant is not irrelevant, and is acutely relevant if the applicant is a professed, militant "gay." Advocacy of the right to unnatural carnal acts is a behavior because advocacy is the normal behavior of the advocate of abnormalcy: His conscience, not completely dead, rather than inform, constrains him to deform others to force acceptance of the unacceptable, thus a vested normalcy that does not exist in reality. Attempting to alter reality is much more than mere speech, it is an act of aggression. Militant homosexuals do not live quiet, celibate lives or the honest striving to do so.
The intended bill in the State of Maine would mandate this vital distinction into oblivion, thus discriminating against heterosexual parents with traditional morals and their children, who also have rights not to have the "gay lifestyle" foisted on them as an acceptable "alternative." The Maine bill allows no exceptions for public schools. The only exception is for religious institutions, and even there only for the ongoing operations of actual bodies, not individual members of those religious bodies. The Bishop is "protected," but not Joe Catholic who is a landlord, a parent of public school students, and so forth. Some Catholics are more equal than others apparently, and only some Catholics have the need to save their souls or live virtuously, at least in the implication of the bill.
Our Bishop wants the right not to compromise while fully accepting that his sheep will not enjoy the same immunity; but why he feels he needs this protection is a mystery because he is already on record as admitting that he "compromises" elsewhere for the sake of government funds in re, Catholic Charities. And he does not seem to mind militant homosexuals in the pulpits of his churches and in the confessionals, among other oddities and atrocities.
Since most people in most situations do not consider "orientation," which cannot usually be known, and do not even discriminate, justly, and since violence is already against the law, we do not need this particularly worded bill as much as we need real tolerance for families that do not want militant indoctrination, sooner or later, but inevitable under the proposed bill, harming their offspring, whose purity and innocence they have a duty under God to protect and promote. A just society cannot exchange the normal for the abnormal, unless it wants to self-destruct.
The editorial, "Halfway approach to gay rights," cannot go unchallenged. There is no halfway approach to "gay rights."
For instance, last year Canada passed "gay rights" legislation Identical to that vetoed in Maine two years ago: It was supposed to be a "reasonable" halfway approach which simply included sexual orientation for protected status on a par with race and gender.
One year later, Canada is now faced with an Orwellian measure about to be introduced into parliament that would grant rights to pedophiles who want to engage in sodomy with 6-year-old boys. NAMBLA [North American Man Boy Love Association] claims that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, a subset of homosexuality and thus merits protected status as long as the boys are not "coerced."
Evil has its own logic. Why discriminate against one sexual deviation over another?
The editorial used a violent incident against two homosexuals as a rationale for the need for "gay rights." While deploring the behavior by the heterosexual against the homosexuals, I cannot help but note that celibate homosexuals or those who do not flaunt their lifestyle, have no need for "gay rights."
As one homosexual activist in Maine said to me, "My orientation is equal to my behavior, I do not make a distinction." Behavior is not accorded Constitutional protection with impunity. To relegate homosexual claims for equality of status in a few selected [for now] areas is to virtually ensure that status would be expanded a little at a time until heterosexuality is discriminated against because it would be just one "option" and not the God-given essential good it is.
As in California, homosexual partners would be given health benefits, etc., eventually. Then unmarried heterosexual couples would claim discrimination [they sometimes cannot marry either] and have to be granted the same, and so forth. In fact, marriage and family life as God-ordered deserve special protection and status because traditional families are the only sure building block of society ordered to the natural law and the common good based on that law. There can be no halfway measures at all, ever.
In response to M --------- who responded to a letter from W --------- on the Maine diocese's support for "gay rights," nowhere in her letter does she address any of the issues raised by W ---------. Her retort appears to be merely a list of grievances against the Catholic Church per se, regardless of the homosexual problem, a pretext for her bitterness.
However, I, too, question the veracity of the Chancery. Nothing has changed in the homosexualist agenda, other than it has become more emboldened. The former "neutrality" of the Chancery was a fiction until the powers that be felt confident they could operate in the open without serious enough opposition to garner national attention, which might require Rome's involvement.
The Vatican wrote a letter to the bishops urging them not to be neutral on "gay rights" legislation. Prior to that, it issued a document on the pastoral care of homosexuals. If the Chancery had wanted to foster the Catholic morality and doctrine of those Vatican directives, it would have followed them, rather than do everything to counter them with mealy-mouthed double-talk and an adamant refusal to provide real pastoral care to homosexuals by way of effective Courage chapters and honesty from the pulpit. Instead, homosexual Catholics are left almost completely to their own devices for encountering God's grace in order to live celibate lives.
The homosexual agenda is alive and well within the Maine diocese, not swept under the rug as H -------- implies. Morality and sound legislative principles continue to be undermined.
H --------- suggests that the Church is not the true Church of Christ because of these evils. Actually, she has it backwards. The very fact that the paper tiger principles outlined by Fr. Henchal & Co. are in operation serves to establish that since the Church is not being followed by its own officials, it is the Church that is on sound ground.
Otherwise, the homosexualist establishment in control in the Maine diocese would have no need to discard Church teaching on the pastoral care of homosexuals.
The most telltale sign of the Chancery double-cross came when a member of the homosexualist clique in the Maine legislature made a revealing remark: "When the diocese went neutral we knew we had a green light."
Now the diocese is no longer neutral and green lights are sending go signals everywhere! HOMOSEXUALS MUST NOT BE ALLOWED "MARRIAGE"
Your syndicated news story, "State legislatures grappling with gay marriage," requires a response.
First, the title
should have had the phrase, gay
in quotation marks, since there is no such thing, ontologically
No law in the universe can undo the natural law that God has given
"Legality" will never make wrong right or a real marriage exist where
cannot be. These so-called "marriages" mock true marriage, which is a
constituted Sacrament between a man and a woman, period. To pursue this
is utter folly; once it would be permitted there could be no stopping
other perversion from being legitimized because marriage would have
its meaning. Once the barrier between normalcy and deviancy has been
it can't be put back. Any attempt would be taken for arbitrariness and
the deviants among us would not stand for it, having attained so much
Second, the report was most revealing and a vindication of those fighting against homosexuality as a justified classification under civil rights legislation. Why? For years, those of us who read the "literature" produced by the homosexual network, have been warning those who don't that the homosexual lobby was really after "gay marriage." The homosexuals kept responding that we were imagining this and trying to scare people.
And lo and behold the truth finally emerges. If wanting "gay marriage" on a par with actual marriage between one man and one woman is not undermining the fundamental family unit, I don't know what is. If homosexual unions are endorsed by the state as a "right," why cannot other kinds of arrangements be so formalized? We start with chaos and end with total societal annihilation, with everything and anything regarded as equally of value, hence no value but valuelessness, a special kind of brute force, so to speak.
Why not marriages between children, children and adults, men with little boys and so on, a man and his dog? How can we say this far but no further; it would be unfair to the sensitivities of and proclivities for the abnormally inclined. If normal is no longer regarded as normal or the standard, then there is no more normalcy in practice. Fallen human nature being what it is, we all know the natural progression on the installment plan, unless we deliberately close our eyes because we have lost the guts for the protracted battle ahead. Once a sham "right" is sanctioned, than there are no more rights in essence, there is only license, will clashing against will.Knowing that most normal people can't bear the thought of what homosexuals actually do, and because they can't, the corollary is that they frighten and weary easily, the lavender hill mob will keep on pushing and pushing until we give up in sufficient numbers. They have nothing to lose and we have everything to lose. We haven't heard the last of this by any measure. We all better pray that my predictions are dead wrong. Heaven help us. Vermont is the face of the coming dark age. How goeth thou, O Maine?
Republished 1994 GUARDIAN Editorials, by Editor Pauly