Saturday, January 30, 2010

Governor John Lynch and same-sex "marriage."

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its Instruction entitled "Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons," has this to say in nos. 2-4:

"The Church's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.

The natural truth about marriage was confirmed by the Revelation contained in the biblical accounts of creation, an expression also of the original human wisdom, in which the voice of nature itself is heard. There are three fundamental elements of the Creator's plan for marriage, as narrated in the Book of Genesis.

In the first place, man, the image of God, was created "male and female" (Gen 1:27). Men and women are equal as persons and complementary as male and female. Sexuality is something that pertains to the physical-biological realm and has also been raised to a new level — the personal level — where nature and spirit are united.

Marriage is instituted by the Creator as a form of life in which a communion of persons is realized involving the use of the sexual faculty. "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh" (Gen 2:24).

Third, God has willed to give the union of man and woman a special participation in his work of creation. Thus, he blessed the man and the woman with the words "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:28). Therefore, in the Creator's plan, sexual complementarity and fruitfulness belong to the very nature of marriage.

Furthermore, the marital union of man and woman has been elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament. The Church teaches that Christian marriage is an efficacious sign of the covenant between Christ and the Church (cf. Eph 5:32). This Christian meaning of marriage, far from diminishing the profoundly human value of the marital union between man and woman, confirms and strengthens it (cf. Mt 19:3-12; Mk 10:6-9).

There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts "close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."

And in an Instruction entitled "Some Considerations Concerning The Response To Legislative Proposals On The Non-Discrimination Of Homosexual Persons," issued on July 22, 1992, the CDF had this to say: "'Sexual orientation' does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder and evokes moral concern." (No. 10). And again: "Including 'homosexual orientation' among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person's homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights." (No. 13).

Governor John Lynch, a Roman Catholic, crossed into active promotion of homosexuality when he signed a same-sex "marriage" bill into law on June 3, 2009. In a statement issued that same day, Governor Lynch said, "Today, we are standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear that they will receive the same rights, responsibilities - and respect - under New Hampshire law....It is my hope, and my belief, that New Hampshire will...come together to embrace tolerance and respect, and to stand against discrimination." See here for the Governor's complete statement.

Marriage is a natural institution not a human convention. As Aristotle said, "Between man and wife friendship seems to exist by nature; for man is naturally inclined to form couples - even more than to form cities, inasmuch as the household is earlier and more necessary than the city, and reproduction is more common to man with the animals. With the other animals the union extends only to this point, but human beings live together not only for the sake of reproduction but also for the various purposes of life; from the start the functions are divided, and those of man and woman are different; so they help each other by throwing their peculiar gifts into the common stock. It is for these reasons that both utility and pleasure seem to be found in this kind of friendship. But this friendship may be based also on virtue, if the parties are good; for each has its own virtue and they will delight in the fact. And children seem to be a bond of union (which is the reason why childless people part more easily); for children are a common good to both and what is common holds them together." (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, bk. VIII, ch. 12, 1162a 16-28).

St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica, builds on this passage while casting the idea into a more formal type of argument:

"That is said to be natural to which nature inclines, although it comes to pass through the intervention of the free will; thus acts of virtue and the virtues themselves are called natural; and in this way matrimony is natural, because natural reason inclines thereto in two ways. First, in relation to the principal end of matrimony, namely the good of the offspring. For nature intends not only the begetting of offspring, but also its education and development until it reach the perfect state of man as man, and that is the state of virtue. Hence, according to the Philosopher we derive three things from our parents, namely existence, nourishment, and education. Now a child cannot be brought up and instructed unless it have certain and definite parents, and this would not be the case unless there were a tie between the man and a definite woman, and it is in this way that matrimony exists. Secondly, in relation to the secondary end of matrimony, which is the mutual services which married persons render one another in household matters. For just as natural reason dictates that men should live together, since one is not self-sufficient in all things concerning life, for which reason man is described as being naturally inclined to political society, so too among those works that are necessary for human life some are becoming to men, others to women. Wherefore nature inculcated that society of man and woman which consists in matrimony." (Summa Theologica, III, Supplement, q. 41, a.1).

The sexes are complementary. This is a common sense truth. But one which Governor Lynch has decided to jettison as he caters to the radical homosexual agenda. Homosexual sex is unnatural. And there are many health risks associated with the "lifestyle." See here. Apparently the Governor isn't concerned about these health risks either.
Karen Testerman is a Christian who respects both human life and the Natural Law. She is running for Governor of the State of New Hampshire. Her website may be found here.
Related reading here and here.


Marilyn said...

Dr. Diggs notes that "Men having sex with other men leads to greater health risks than men having sex with women not only because of promiscuity but also because of the nature of sex among men." He then describes in graphic detail the nature of homosexual sex and the various medical problems associated with this aberrant lifestyle.

Does this concern the governor at all? If not, why not?

John Ansley said...

Saint Isidore of Seville said that, "Natural law is common to all peoples in that it is had by an instinct of nature, not by any human agreement, as the marriage of man and woman, the begetting and rearing of children, the common possession of all, the one freedom of all, the acquisition of those things that are taken in the air or sea or on land; likewise the restoring of property entrusted or lent, the repelling of violence by force. For this or whatever is like this could never constitute an injustice but must be considered in accord with natural equity."

John Lynch has proven himself to be no respecter of the Natural Law. His decision last year constitutes an attack on the Natural Law and, by extension, the Common Good.

Anonymous said...

One bishop spoke out when the situation demanded:

Hawaii bishop blasts homosexual civil union proposal

Catholic World News
January 20, 2010

Bishop Larry Silva of Honolulu has urged Catholics to inform legislators of their opposition to a bill that would create homosexual civil unions.

“The truth is that God made complementary sexes, that he gave the power of procreation to be used responsibly by a man and woman, and he wants both father and mother, when possible, to contribute to the healthy nurturing of children,” Bishop Silva noted. “This special role of man and woman has been recognized for millennia by societies as marriage, the stable, committed relationship of man and woman giving themselves to each other totally and bearing the fruit of that love in the procreation and education of children. This is a truth that goes beyond religions, because it is built into the very nature of our human being. It is a reality that has been safeguarded by the laws of societies in virtually all cultures of the world.”

He continued:

In many places throughout our country and the world, and now here in Hawaii, some are attempting to distort this natural relationship by claiming the right of persons of the same sex to marry. They point out that it is discriminatory to allow opposite-sex couples to marry but to disallow the same for same-sex couples. And they are correct! It is discriminatory, making distinctions between one and another. But not all discrimination is unjust. Some is quite justified because it is based on reality and truth. While every person, no matter his or her sexual orientation, is worthy of dignity and respect and has certain inalienable rights given by the Creator, there is no right for people of the same sex to call their unions marriage. (“Civil unions” is simply a euphemism for same-sex marriage.)

Anonymous said...

His Excellency's comments were effective:

Hawaii nixes same-sex civil unions bill
The Associated Press
Friday, January 29, 2010

HONOLULU -- Hawaii lawmakers declined to vote Friday on a bill that would have allowed same-sex civil unions, effectively doing away with the measure.

State House leaders said a narrow majority of representatives would have voted for civil unions, but they decided to indefinitely postpone a decision on whether to grant gay and lesbian couples the same rights and benefits the state provides to married couples.

Civil union supporters in the crowded House gallery on Friday shouted, "Shame on you!" while opponents cheered.

"It's an election year, and they're more concerned about keeping their seats than doing what's right," said Stephen Nagle of Kaaawa, wearing a rainbow lei in support of civil unions.

The state Senate had approved a civil unions bill last week. But House leadership wavered on pushing the controversial issue. Last year, 33 of 51 House members voted in favor of civil unions.

Civil union opponents, who have staged several large rallies at the Capitol, wore red "iVote" stickers and white shirts to show unity.

"We're a very tolerant society, but I don't think we're willing to accept same-sex marriage, or as they call it, civil unions," said Dennis Arakaki, head of the Hawaii Family Forum and Hawaii Catholic Conference.

No roll call was taken on the decision to postpone the vote, which shielded representatives from having their positions on the record. Instead, lawmakers shouted "aye" or "no," and Vice Speaker of the House Michael Magaoay then ruled that the motion to delay a vote had passed.

The voice vote defers further action on the bill unless two-thirds of lawmakers vote to reconsider it; otherwise, Hawaii's debate on the issue is over for this year.

"You can call me a coward, but we are all not cowards. We'll make our tough decisions as we go ahead," Democratic Speaker of the House Calvin Say said he told civil union backers. "But members were concerned, and that was my role as the speaker to make that determination and decision to do what we did today."

Republican Gov. Linda Lingle had refused to say whether she would have vetoed a civil unions bill if lawmakers had approved it.

"Something so divisive at the beginning of session wouldn't be a good thing, so I'm glad they made that decision," Lingle said.

Had a civil unions bill been enacted, Hawaii would have joined California, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington, all of which grant essentially all the rights of marriage to same-sex couples without authorizing marriage itself. Five other states permit same-sex marriage: Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut.

People from both sides said they were disappointed they didn't get closure with a vote, and they pledged to fight just as hard if civil unions are proposed again next year.

"The decision not to vote on the issue, because it is an election year, it was a good idea on their part," said Leona Kaapuni of Nanakuli. "The fact that it's not settled is still kind of discouraging. It's just an issue that's going to continue."

The Aloha State has been a battleground in the gay rights movement since the early 1990s. A 1993 Hawaii Supreme Court ruling nearly made it the first state to legalize same-sex marriage before voters overwhelmingly approved the nation's first "defense of marriage" constitutional amendment in 1998.

The amendment gave the Legislature the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples. It resulted in a law banning gay marriage in Hawaii but left the door open for civil unions.

Ellen Wironken said...

Karen Testerman on the issues:

Marriage and family
"The natural family is the fundamental building unit of society. To build a solid society, we must build strong families who foster personal responsibility, good citizenship and for the perpetuation of society through new generations. I will support action from the General Court to allow the people to vote on defining marriage between one man and one woman.

NH has a long history of defending the rights of the innocent and vulnerable. Recently though we have seen this erode through the actions and attitudes of many of our leaders. The attack on parental rights is just one example, but it is best demonstrated by the endorsement of our current leadership by the proponents of abortion.
I will ask our General Court to reintroduce a Parental Notification bill and to reopen hearings on end of life laws that threaten our elderly. I firmly believe that we must protect the lives of ALL NH citizens, young and old, born and unborn.

Private ownership of lands, with appropriate public access, should be favored over public ownership of lands.
Conservation and appropriate use of our natural resources should be high on the list of all NH citizens. Common sense should be applied to all actions. Citizens should be aware of how their personal actions impact the environment, and the lasting legacy those choices pass to future generations.

Income taxes and gambling are currently viewed as sources of revenue. What we as a State face is a problem of spending not the production of revenue. I do not support gambling as a source of revenue.

State Sovereignty
I believe the Federal government has violated its constitutional role and taken away many rights that are reserved for the states and the citizens. This has made us dependent at many levels.
We must carefully investigate and understand what strings are attached to any federal monies, particularly those that are short term. Where the acceptance of them is not in our best interests, we should assert our independence and responsibility to control our own destiny.
Some state legislatures have issued proclamations declaring their sovereignty. I would not oppose this. However, it should not be necessary since I believe this is a basic right and fact."

Support Karen Testerman for Governor of New Hampshire.

Site Meter