I’m all for civil rights for homosexuals, and I have no problem if homosexuals want to form a civil union, but it is impossible for homosexuals to get married. It’s just as impossible to, as I said earlier, create an equilateral triangle that isn’t equiangular, or have 2+2=5. No matter how much you want it to be, it just isn’t true.

But YES, leaders in the church at the time reacted way too harshly (although most accounts from what I’ve read are very exaggerated from reality) and that was very wrong. That is why JPII apologized and “cleared [Galileo's] name.” Regardless, it is a total mis-characterization to portray the Church as against science by pointing to Galileo – as you tried to do. Not only does it show a lack of historical context of the Catholic Church and its participation in the advancement of science (arguably more than any other organization in the world) but it misses the underlying primary issues of the Galileo incident itself.

And I’d love to read your thesis on it, would you mind sending me a copy?

And I respect your family’s dedication to the Church in the past and your continued dedication today. But whether that happened or not you still have the right to disagree. But I believe it’s a contradiction to say that you are a faithful or “loyal” Catholic when you are dissenting on dogma of the Church. If you meant that you are loyal in other ways to the Church, that is fine. But that’s different than being a loyal Catholic. So maybe I just misunderstood you.

And on the other stuff: Maybe my use of the word “right” was confusing or inconsistent. I’m sorry about that. I did emphasize that homosexuals have every right to be couples because our country is FREE and protects that. Our constitution protects that because it ultimately is a “negative” document – limiting the power of government and leaving the rest to us and the states. WHen I was speaking in this context I was speaking in terms of federal rights – not state. But I don’t believe we have a “right” to extra-constitutional benefits or protections from the government. That is outside the limited powers of the federal government and is not a “right” found in our federal constitution. But THAT is what those trying to redefine “marriage” are advocating – that they do so based on a “right”. In this sense, i do not believe it is a “right” to be granted these things from the government. And when a State passes a law (like prop 8 ) that defines marriage as between a man and a woman (making gay marriage ILLEGAL), they appeal to some “right” to gay marriage. That right does not exist (and you even admit above that something is a right, unless it is ILLEGAL).

And when speaking in terms of majority you are mixing numbers and terms again. Every poll i have seen shows that Americans want Marriage to be between a man and a woman and are against gay “marriage.” If you want to talk about civil unions, as I mentioned above, that’s an entirely different debate. And some states have shown they support civil unions, like in California where homosexual couples are afforded all the same benefits as married couples. But even in California, one of the most liberal states in the country, they confidently just passed Prop 8 which protects marriage as between a man and a woman and codifies a protection to prevent gay marriage from being legal.

Can you please provide the “respectable poll” you are citing that shows a majority of people in our country support gay “marraige” (not just civil unions)?

I appreciate your link summarizing a brief history of the controversy of Galileo and the Church. Having read several books on Galileo prior to now and written a thesis on the subject, I will say that is perhaps the worst and most biased rendition of the story I have ever read. I wish there was a more respectful way to say that but there is not.

The paper does not address how the Jesuits were persecuted for their free thinking with regards to science or the fact that John Paul II in 1979 to finally officially cleared Galileo’s name. His writings were still on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum when it was abolished by Paul VI (in 1966).

Bruno’s writings are now taught at Catholic Universities (I know I attend one) and even though the Catholic Church burned him at the stake. (I believe there is now a monument to him on that exact spot).

And as for loyally disagreeing, I will do so till I die. I would give my life for the Church; my family has in the past when they fought for Catholic rights against the British. My family still maintains exile status from Ireland after we were forced to flee persecution. The blood of my forefathers was spilled for the right to worship; I think that earns us the right to loyally disagree.

There is a right to marriage in this country. It was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Loving v Virginal. It was not the direct issue of the case but it is stated in the dicta of the majority opinion as well as the concurring opinion authored by Justice Stuart. Just because it is not in the Bill of Rights does not mean that it is not a Civil Right.

Under our system of government rights can be established by rulings of the Supreme Court of each state and that of the nation. It has been so since the Constitution was written.

And if you want to argue it is not in the constitution still, I will then start arguing with you about why the whole Bill of Rights does not apply to state governments. (Originally the Bill of Rights as we know it and take for granted only applied to the Federal government. States could violate all those rights and often did. It was not until the process of selective incorporation began in the 20th century that the states were forced to abide by the Bill of rights).

And yes we can call everything a group of people want to do a right, unless it is illegal. That is how our system of government is set up. If there is no law against your activity it is your right to do it.

As for your majority of Americans who have spoken, it is not a majority. Most respected polls show the number of people opposed to gay marriage and civil unions to be at 49% as of 2003. A majority would be 51%.

I think there is a misunderstanding of what rights truly are in this forum.

And I would encourage you to really read what happened in the Galileo “incident”. (Good write up here) The idea that the Catholic Church is scared of the “s word” (science) as you put it shows an unfamiliarity of the Catholic Church and its history. The Catholic Church has been one of the biggest fans and contributors to science in the history of mankind. All of the teachings of the Church are consistent with science. After all – science (reason) and faith work together to discover truth. This is a fundamental belief of being Catholic. I think you might be delightfully surprised at how scientific the Catholic faith is if you give it a little harder look.

ANd it takes very seriously all of the scientific advances concerning homosexuality and any other thing. But as Bill stated, that doesn’t change the theology of our bodies or the morality established by God. It just gives us, as all of our imperfections and challenges in life do, some obstacles to overcome. Just because some seem harder (like homosexuality) does not mean we should give in and just say that it’s “ok”.

This post was about the redefinition of MARRIAGE – not civil unions. Whether or not civil unions should even be allowed, it should be left up to each state, etc. is an entirely different conversation.

In California – the premise of this post – civil unions and any so called “rights” anybody is talking about are currently granted to homosexuals. The passing of prop 8 did not change any of that. It just recognized MARRIAGE (something entirely different) as between a man and a woman. My overall point had to do with the continued protest and deeper agenda of the homosexual movement to attack MARRIAGE – NOT to lobby for any rights they believe they should have (because in Cali they ALREADY HAVE THEM but yet they still protest).

There is no RIGHT to marriage in this country. Further, every person, regardless of sexual orientation, already has the same opportunity to marry as anyone else – that is to join in union with a member of the opposite sex in a marriage.

Whether or not the state should promote, recognize, or benefit people that choose to be in a same-sex relationship is an entirely different issue. And it is not a civil RIGHT. Nowhere in our constitution does it guarantee a right for people of the same sex to be joined in a union recognized by benefits from the state. To characterize it as a “right” is false – I don’t care how many lawyers say otherwise.

And I believe all of the parallels that people try to draw between this issue and racial issues of the past are insulting. They are ENTIRELY different. Racial issues concerning marriage and other injustices stemmed from the fact that Blacks were not recognized as PEOPLE or were treated as lesser people!

We can’t just go around calling everything a group of people in our country really want to do a “right.”

The majority of Americans have spoken and decided that it is not good for our society to promote, recognize and give benefits to same-sex couples. This is because we believe it will be overall bad for our society. Because we’re a free country people are still allowed to be in same-sex couples. But we don’t want to encourage it because we believe it to be unhealthy for our country. This is not a denial of any “right.” That’s just how some like to refer to it so that they can get judges to force the issue against our will. There are many bad things in our society that we ALLOW. But the government chooses NOT to encourage or promote those things because they are not good for our society.

We can debate whether or not same-sex unions are good or bad for our society. And we can leave it up to the states to decide how they want to recognize such things (as our constitution was setup). But it doesn’t have to do with any federal civil “rights.”

What I am talking about is denying civil unions. And by denying civil unions there is a denial of civil rights. All the Amendments that ban gay marriage also ban a civil union. The words are used to interchangeably. It is a mistake I often make, but let me explain what I mean for each:

Marriage: one of the seven Sacraments that involves a man a woman, a priest, and God.

Civil Union: AKA Common Law Marriage, AKA Court Marriage, a secular equivalent to the Sacrament of marriage that simply recognizes that the two are committed to each other for the rest of their lives and also have the same rights as those people who are married in a Church.

I am also opposed to an Amendment banning gay marriage also because different religions may allow gay marriages. Such and amendment would conflict with the First Amendment and thus the government would be intruding on religion, our most sacred right (that is why it was put first). Marriage is a religious word used by many religions, each religion should be allowed to define marriage as it sees fit.

As for sexual activity outside of marriage, that is the only choice that gay couples have if they are both Catholics because the Catholic Church won’t marry them. So though they commit a sin, I believe it is between them and God; not between anyone else, them, and God. Just as any other sin is.

In closing, in case I have been misunderstood; I do not support the Catholic Church marrying gay couples in Catholic Churches. I just do not understand why we feel the need as Catholic to vote against homosexuals having civil unions.

You asked, concerning reported differences between the physical brain anatomies of gay and straight men, “So I am left asking myself; how can something that is not the choice of the person be a sin?”

The difference in anatomy is not a sin. We don’t actually know if that difference is the cause of homosexual behavior. What is a sin is sexual activity outside of marriage. That is just as true for straight people as it is for gay people.

I would maintain that marriage is a religious institution, not a civil one. It is up to churches to define their institutions and their sacraments, not the government. Civil unions are not marriage. I don’t think anyone objects to civil unions, and in many, maybe all, states, they are legal. Partners in civil unions have rights. In your example of the couple where one is murdered, the other partner has or should have every right to sue for wrongful death. But that’s because of the fact that the couple had a civil union.

Civil union probably is a civil right. Notice the parallel in the names. Denying gay couples a church marriage is not a violation of their civil rights, first because marriage is not a civil institution, and second because the state cannot dictate to churches who shall and who shall not be eligible to receive the sacraments.

As to sin, gay men and women have the same problem as straight men and women when it comes to adultery and fornication. It’s wrong for all of us. Is that a difficult standard to live up to? Yes. Is it impossible? No. Furthermore, to the extent that it is a challenge, it is also a cross to bear, just as we were asked to pick up our crosses and follow Jesus.

Seems pretty simple to me. Even if I wasn’t all that brief. (And yes, I am well aware that “simple” does not mean “easy.” As the GySgt used to be fond of telling us, “The easy path is where they put the land mines.”)

I do know what His Holiness teaches and has decreed regarding gay marriage. And I say it is ill-founded, and I respectfully and loyally disagree with the Church on that dogma. (After all this is the website Fallible Blogma)

Indeed, my primary reason for so disagreeing is science. I know as Catholic we are often scared of the “s word” but it the past we have found ourselves to be on the wrong side of the argument. (Galileo)

I avidly read each new publication concerning whether or not homosexuality is a matter of free will or it is determined by birth. Overwhelmingly, all the papers I have seen authored by respectable scientist from respectable institutions have concluded that a person’s sexuality. Many of these studies have found differences in the brain structure between gay and straight men. These studies have also been reproduced which I see as essential to their credulity. (As a side comment they have determined that studying the brains of women is not a dependable because women are more flexible in their sexuality and thus though claiming to be lesbians are not. Reasons for this include that lesbianism is more socially acceptable because it is often seen as a turn-on for many straight men.)

So I am left asking myself; how can something that is not the choice of the person be a sin? How can their love be a sin?

I have read certain Christian scientific work and I find it severely lacking and relying instead on the concept that animals are not gay. However, this is an unfair comparison since animals mate on instinct humans love, the love you have for fellow man, friends, family, and spouse is a special gift from God. John Paul II in his writings said the enjoyment of sex in marriage is a gift from God. I agree with that.

However, I also know there is enjoyment of sex is not contingent on marriage. I don’t need a book to tell me that. However only three animals in the world have been found to enjoy sex and to have sex outside of mating season, those are chimpanzees, dolphins and bonobos (bonobos mate with all member of their social groups male and female in a social bonding ritual of some kind that is still not fully understood). Also very few animals are monogamous for years and years on end the way humans are. So to compare human sexuality to that of animals shows a poor understanding of sexuality in the first place.

Now, on to the second section of this document. IT IS ABOUT CIVIL RIGHTS. I have a degree in American History with a minor in American Political Science, and I am currently studying to be an attorney. Unless you are a lawyer, my guess is that I have a better understanding of the evolution of civil rights, what they are preciously, and how they are applied.

When Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, in some states it was still illegal for a black man to marry a white woman. I am just saying that to add some perspective to my argument.

I do not know how much you know about tenancy by the entirety and right of survivorship. It is a special type of property ownership between a husband and wife; marriage sis an essential element for its establishment. In T&E situations both spouse enjoy the right of the full property because they are seen as one. When one dies, the entirety of the property passes to the survivor in the form of a fee simple absolute. When this happens the government cannot tax the property. This is not the law in all states, but in many of the states in which this is the law, it does not apply to gay couples, therefore they have to pay taxes that others wouldn’t.

Too vague? In tort the ability to sue for severe emotional distress caused by the injury to a loved one is limited to those with close family relationships, often simply phrased as kindred in the restatements and statutes. In states that do not recognize civil unions of gays, a partner suffering from this type of distress cannot recover because the court will not recognize the relationship.

To vague still? Back to tort. Four members of the Ku Klux Klan enter into the house of a gay couple and tie them both up. While one watches the Klan members murder the other. They will go to jail possibly, but I though OJ would go to jail (the first time). Under tort law in many jurisdictions the surviving partner would not be able to recover in a wrongful death suit even if the couple had been together for 50 years. Why? Clearly it is a wrongful death action; there is now defense against that. However, The Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows for a motion for a dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted by the court. The reason the court would be forced to accept this rule is because the state does not recognize any relationship between gay couples which is a necessary element of wrongful death suits in many cases.

There is also denial of health care benefits to a spouse of a gay person because these jurisdictions do not recognize their union.

Now I could go on for hours listing these small rights you may have never heard of. Nonetheless they are Civil Rights, maybe not the kind that are bought to mind when we think of the Black Civil Rights movements of the 19th and 20th centuries, but still no one should be deprived of them. It says so in our Constitution, just look at the 14th Amendment.

And I will retract on my previous statement concerning hate. It is a very strong word and should not have used it so lightly. In my defense though, some of your opinions are very similar to those of Fred Phelps, and a mistake can easily be made there.

What will really happen if we allow homosexuals to have civil unions? What is the consequence? We do not have to like or approve of the unions, but do we have to go to efforts to make sure they don’t exist?