Today The New York Times published Bishop R. J. Malone’s response to an article written on June 25th, namely “Second Time Around, Hope for Gay Marriage in Maine.” The article stated: “the Roman Catholic Church plans to be less active than it was in 2009, when church officials were criticized for being too involved.”
In his response, Bishop Malone clarified:
I have not backed down in the church’s defense of marriage. Although not a member of the current political action committee, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland is playing a crucial role in November’s vote, launching a communication and educational effort based on my pastoral letter. This document is intended to educate all people of good will about the truth and beauty of marriage as it has been preserved for millenniums by society and various religions. Objectively, the essence of marriage can only be the union of one man and one woman open to the new life of children, whom they nurture in their irreplaceable roles as father and mother. Faithful Catholics will continue to defend God’s plan for marriage through its preaching and teaching and in the public square.
Among other things, “Second Time Around” mentioned that a decision on the wording of the ballot is due at the end of July. Carroll Conley Jr., executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine and a board member of Protect Marriage Maine stated:
When it’s framed as ‘Should people be able to marry regardless of sexual orientation?’ you see a significant change from five years ago,” he said. “But if you ask, ‘Should marriage be defined as one man, one women?’ we don’t see significant changes.
The way in which wording affects voters (specifically those who remain undecided on the issue) comes to the fore in canvassers’ attempts to explain that it is about “love and family”; it is ultimately a matter of “humanizing” the issue. Perhaps the implication being that those who vote against same-sex marriage are against such values?
July 2nd, 2012 | 3:58 pm
The way in which wording affects voters (specifically those who remain undecided on the issue) . . . .
A contributor over at Mirror of Justice responded to one of my questions by referring me to the Religions Clause Blog, which has an interesting post titled Ballot Title For Minnesota Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment Creates Controversy. It is too complicated to explain here, but the secretary of state intends for the title on the ballot to be “Limiting the Status of Marriage to Opposite Sex Couples,” whereas backers want it to be “Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman.”
July 2nd, 2012 | 4:17 pm
‘Should people be able to marry regardless of sexual orientation?’
Yes.
‘Should marriage be defined as one man, one women?’
Yes.
The first question is horrible as both sides of the debate should vote yes, with completely different understandings. I suppose that is the point.
July 3rd, 2012 | 10:26 am
It has long been known and demonstrated that the wording of poll questions can seriously affect their results, i.e. move them beyond the bounds of statistical significance. This fact should give both sides in the SSM debate pause when they read the latest poll in the press — in particular, the side that is crowing the loudest on the basis of some new data point.
July 3rd, 2012 | 11:08 am
The title on the ballot should be “State Marriage Laws Should Discriminate Against Same-Sex Couples,” because as the Catechism says, it is only unjust discrimination that is objectionable. In Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says:
Discrimination should not be seen as something wrong per se. For example, we might say someone has a discriminating palate, and it would in no way imply the person was unfair or unjust.
So it is perfectly legitimate to say that banning same-sex marriage is discrimination.
July 3rd, 2012 | 3:32 pm
Davis Nichol said: ‘The title on the ballot should be “State Marriage Laws Should Discriminate Against Same-Sex Couples,” ‘
This is an inane assertion, as the rhetorical form “discriminate against” implies unjust discrimination in its very usage. It is, in other words, begging the question.
FWIW, “banning same-sex marriage” is about as intellectually coherent as banning square circles, and as such also begs the question. An intelligent person will discriminate between squares and circles, and surely not conflate them, but the only reason to speak of “banning” them is to assert, against the silent witness of reality itself, that such an absurdity exists. It does not.
July 3rd, 2012 | 8:16 pm
I recommend Bishop Cordileone’s recent comments on the redefinition of marriage. Bishop Cordileone leads the U.S. bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage. He explained that Church teaching against the redefinition of marriage on a civil level as well as a sacramental level is a matter of justice.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/calif-bishop-says-gay-marriage-unjust-to-children/
July 4th, 2012 | 9:15 am
Describing marriage laws as a banning of something is like trying to define something by saying what it is not. That law’s title would get pretty long and not even come close to defining marriage.
July 4th, 2012 | 4:17 pm
The presence of Catholics who do not see why gay marriage is both paradoxical and destructive is a clear sign that nobody is doing a good enough job making clear what marriage is and/or why it matters.
These people genuinely think they can change the ground rules of anything they like, and the one variable will change while all the other variables obediently stay in place.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact