Fr. Mike Ryan has taken huge heat for supporting gay and lesbian folk. His strong support of Archbishop Hunthausen, who welcomed "Dignity," a pro-gay Catholic organization, to St. James many years ago, likely doomed Fr. Ryan to life as a cathedral dean, rather than as an archbishop or cardinal. He has long supported equal rights for gays and lesbians and made a home for them at St. James, even against the wishes of his superiors, i.e. Archbishop Brunett. I'm sad the staff at St. James panicked at your presence, Dominic, but Fr. Mike Ryan is one of the Catholic church's best, and he's dealt with far more difficult issues than a Stranger reporter hanging around looking for a quick quotation.

This Gandhi quote continues to be relevant. "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

Celebate clergy who molest children are FAR more of a threat to humanity than loving same-sex couples who wish to protect one another by entering into civil marriage. But I don't expect the pedophile squad to see reason on this.

It's kind of amazing that the same catholic church which once claimed the right to crown kings and burned people at the stake over minor differences in the interpretation of scripture is now panicked by the thought of stating their beliefs in public.

Great post - sorry you stood around in the snow. And you win Neverending Slog Headline of the Day yet again.

Doesn't calling for - and running it sounds like - a political campaign violate the tax-free status of the church? I say we make them pay taxes.

Look, I'm all in favor of local church leadership resisting the Vatican, but it sounds to me as if Mr. Holden isn't going to be happy unless Fr. Ryan and others go on public record in this paper with direct opposition to a directive from the higher church.

Mr. Holden must know that he's asking local Catholic officials to risk defrocking or worse when he demands public, on-record repudiation of the Vatican.

There is a lot a local priest can do to support gay rights that falls short of direct, public confrontation with the high church leadership. But Mr. Holden is demanding more.

That's fine, of course, but would it be too much to ask Mr. Holden to acknowledge that he's demanding other people take on significant risks for his cause, in this particular battle?

A) Yes, you are naive.

B) @8, just to make clear, you're saying we shouldn't expect a priest to do what's right if it may hurt his career?

In the eyes of these Catholic clergy, gay marriage will result in the "decline of the species". This would be hilarious if not so pathetic.

OF COURSE these Catholic closet cases see a threat - they are all gay themselves, and in their self-imposed deprived sexual state (of confusion), by extension they see a human tsunami toward homosexuality.

The real joke is that anyone continues to support this bizarre & corrupt organization that wants to take us back to the Dark Ages. Dumb, dumb & dumber!

@7, no, they just can't campaign for or against a candidate.

http://www.boardsource.org/Knowledge.asp…

@7 ftw

Ah, yes, the old "we don't agree with the Vatican's morally unsupportable positions, but we can't talk about that." I can tell that civil equality is a real moral imperative for these folks.

There's little practical difference between a bigot and a coward. One usually accompanies the other anyway.

If the country weren't ruined already I'd say that the Catholics were going to destroy it over the next 100 years or so...

Re the 'not appropriate' woman: Those catholics and their inappropriate touching. They just can't help themselves.

@9

I am suggesting that Mr. Holden (or anyone else) should acknowledge the risks he is demanding others take.

I offer no opinion on whether it's better for a priest to work for a cause within the system, or to risk expulsion by confronting church hierarchy for that cause. There's a place for both radicals and liberals*, in my book.

 

* I am using "liberal" in the sense of "leftist, but preferring to work within established structures." The term is sometimes used this way, and pejoratively, by radical leftists.

@13

The difference between a bigot and a coward is that not all cowards are bigots.

"I was only following orders."

I hate, hate, hate the remodelling job they did on St. James.

Im not in Seattle, but how difficult would it be to have one or two people stand outside their office (in shifts if it takes that long), till that priest comes out and answers a few predetermined questions?

It must suck to have no free will.

@1...

Mike Ryan ought to have been Archbishop...but his affiliation with Archbishop Hunthausen did that one in.

Ryan is a good guy in a tough spot...as you noted, as are lots of Catholic clergy who don't agree with this despicable authoritarian regime.

As for Brunett and his ilk...fuck 'em. That is NOT the "Lord's Work" they are doing.

@17, excellent distinction.

@16 and Jesus said, "fuck that, I don't wanna get crucified... I'm not the Messiah!"

Well said in the penultimate paragraph. Politics ain't beanbag, and if you take a side in an active political conflict you are not going to be treated with kid gloves. Scrutiny, criticism and even vicious insults are the natural price of political involvement and if you can't handle that, stay out of the game.

I don't blame her for trying to take your pen. If I recognized you out in the world and you were writing something, I would smack that crap out of your hands too.

@24: No, he did what he had to do, much like Father Ryan is doing here.

if you did that, @26, you'd better hope i'm not standing next to dominic, as i would smack the crap out of YOU.

They've been warned against your ilk since 1886. from Liberalism Is A Sin @ liberalismisasin.com originally El Liberalismo es Pecado by Don Felix Sarda y Salvany, a priest of Barcelona.

The press has grown so omnipresent nowadays that there is no escape from it. It is therefore important to know exactly how to steer our course amidst the many perils that beset Catholics on this score. How then are we to distinguish between journals that merit or do not merit our confidence? Or rather, what kind of journals ought to inspire us with very little and what with no confidence? In the first place it is clear that such journals as boast of their liberalism have no claim to our confidence in matters that Liberalism touches on. These are precisely the enemies against whom we have constantly to be on guard, against whom we have to wage perpetual war. This point then is outside of our present consideration. All those who, in our times claim the title of Liberalism, in the specific sense in which we always use the term, become our declared enemies and the enemies of the Church of God.

@1 agreed. I really had no idea how good I had it at St James until I moved off of Capitol Hill.

@26: I assume you're 10 years old. Does your mother know you're using her computer?

The stranger's well known position on religion doesn't exactly build bridges. There's probably a middle ground between virulent atheism and dogmatic religion that exists for a broad swath of our society.

@8: Robobslave, regardless of whether Mr. Holden will be happy with a supportive or with an opposing statement from Mr. Ryan, it seems Mr. Ryan has avoided making any statement, and went so far in his cowardly avoidance that he left Mr. Holden standing in the snow for an hour and a half. I wish I'd been there with Mr. Holden to attend to the back door and remind Mr. Ryan of his visitor.

@24

Sure, Jesus was a radical. That's not exactly a novel observation.

I've noticed, though, that of the Christians I've had disagreements with, a lot more of them have been trying to Be Like Jesus, rather than just live according to the guy's teachings.

Fuck if religious apologists aren't the most insufferable people in the fucking world. So the fuck what if Dom and The Stranger aren't known for pleading fealty to your magic sky god, ya'll are the ones with the holy book that says to love your neighbor, that choosing to do nothing when you could be helping is the sin of omission. If you find it so hard to follow your own fucking rules, pick an easier religion to follow for christ's sake.

@34

I think we might be getting a bit ahead of ourselves there, Phil.

We don't know that Fr. Ryan was even told that Mr. Holden was waiting for him; from the behavior of the busybody who identified herself as a church official, I wouldn't be at all surprised if she didn't pass the message on.

And once we're sure that Mr. Holden's demand has in fact reached Fr. Ryan, I don't think I'm going to agree with you that a refusal to provide an "up or down" response to that demand constitutes "cowardice."

Mr. Holden wants a public statement from Fr. Ryan that either affirms or rejects a directive from the Church. Fr. Ryan may want to continue his work to promote gay rights without publicly repudiating that directive (nor affirming it). Though you, personally, may feel that that approach would be "cowardly," I would not agree with your characterization.

I'd have no complaint, though, if you wanted to call the behavior of anonymous-pen-grabbing-lady "cowardly."

@33) I though the nuance was apparent given the context, but your complaint is fair enough. I've updated that part to make the distinction clear between the bishops and the church staff.

That woman was committing assault and battery upon you. You should file a police report.

Wow, Public Relations 101 failing grade. The quote for me, however:

He didn't necessarily believe the bishops' procreation argument, either, and pointed out the church's hypocrisy in targeting gay people. "Would the bishop say, 'If you are divorced one or two times, leave the church,' or, 'If you have used contraception, leave the church'?" he posed the question. "But we don't do that."

The Bible is MUCH clearer on the sins of adultery and fornication, but if the priests/preachers started throwing people out for committing those sins (and let's be clear, thinking about committing those acts are a sin, too), there would be nobody left. There is more than a fair bit of hypocrisy going on.

@39

I dunno about battery, but there was assault, and a try at theft, too. I think I'd go with attempted robbery, in our imaginary, purely rhetorical police report.

@38

When you do an update changing the text of your post, could you at least mark the parts that have been changed? There's a substantial difference between misreading what you've written, versus fairly reading something objectionable or incorrect that's since vanished.

@42) The second-to-last paragraph changed from what @33 copied and pasted to what it says now, making clear the distinction between church staff and church leaders. Again, I thought it was clear within the context of the post, but I agree that, taken alone, it could have been ambiguous. So I changed it.

For all of you who never were Catholic or went to Catholic school in a major city, let me say that its mostly a case of rather conservative attitudes when it comes to what is said, and rather tolerant attitudes as far as what is done.

@43

Thanks!

If Father Ryan wants to continue his work on behalf of gay/lesbian people, there are plenty of venues in which to do that work besides the Catholic Church. He needn't continue the hypocrisy of staying in the Church and obeying his superiors, but helping those awful gays/lesbians out of the public eye.

I can't forget that when testifying about the pedophile priest who was transferred from Spokane over here, he said the equivalent of "we didn't know it was wrong back then."

Hypocrite plus shaky moral compass equals someone I can't respect.

And this isn't Dom Holden's cause, this is--or should be--everyone's cause.

They said that allowing same-sex marriage would result in "no special laws" for hetero couples and the decline of the species.

While this is, of course, ludicrous, it would be great if it would result in the decline of our species. Maybe then other creatures (and flora) could catch a break.

@46

Do you know where I can find a transcript of that testimony? "we didn't know it was wrong back then" is a pretty damning paraphrase; I'd like to see if it fairly reflects the actual quote.

I think I'm OK with Fr. Ryan (and other liberal Catholics) working for gay rights without leaving the Catholic church. I can see how you might regard that as "hypocrisy," if you harbor a fairly one-dimensional view of the church, but I respectfully disagree.

Gay rights isn't Mr. Holden's cause, certainly, but in the narrow matter of squeezing a "for 'em or against 'em" public statement out of liberal local Catholic leaders, well, Mr. Holden is the one who came up with that demand, and he is using his position at The Stranger to pursue it, so I think it's fair to call it Mr. Holden's demand (not "cause").

These people sound more like Scientologists.

Also, doesn't the fact that the leadership admit they have to "toe the line of Rome" sound just a little creepy (/totalitarian/out of place) to people who believe their Creator endowed them with free will?

@49

It's only creepy if you don't understand (or choose to ignore) the broader context of Christianity in general, and the Catholic faith in particular. Submission to SuperJesus is the basis of salvation in the former, and receiving the big J through the church hierarchy is central to the latter. Papism certainly isn't everyone's cup of tea, but for those who drink from it, deferring to Rome is definitely internally consistent.

Of course, this doesn't make the structure of the Catholic church any less hierarchical; if you're the sort of non-Catholic person who gets the willies at the prospect of any submission to authority at all, then yeah, Catholicism is going to look pretty much like the Prussian Army.

Oh, and it's probably worth mentioning that deference to Rome has historically been one of the things that Protestant bigots have used in order to bash prominent Catholics, politicians particularly.

Hypocrisy is everywhere, at St. James, at The Stranger, in my house.

That said, we all have to make a choice at some point of where we draw the line between our jobs, organizational associations, and our belief system. Father Ryan seems to have made a partial choice to support gay rights over the advancement of his career, and should be applauded for that. And now he might have to decide if he needs to go further. And so maybe should the members of his church (they could support him on this by starting a break away congregation). It seems to be a time that he needs to choose between his job (paycheck, benefits, home, retirement account, etc) and what he really believes to be morally correct. This is no easy choice. And I am sure his personal struggle with this is great. This is the stuff of a great novel or documentary.

Dom, It's good to ask others like Father Ryan to stand up to the sort of hypocrisy he's being called out on, but we should all be a little careful not to cast too many stones.

Now let's just get all the Dems in the State Senate to vote for Gregoire's bill and then we won't need to worry what antiquated institutions like St James has to say anyhow. Or maybe none of us should be Dems since that party seems to be anti-gay marriage too.

@31

First, in the Catholic church, you can't have a "break away congregation." Those would be called "Protestants." It might seem a nit-picky point, but it's actually a pretty important part of Catholic belief. That aside...

Morality is a lot bigger than gay rights alone, and your churchy types tend not to be single-issue believers.

Unless you're prepared to tell all liberal Catholics, including the laity, that it's time to choose between their support for gay rights and their faith, then you can't really tell Fr. Ryan that the time has come, either.

Well, not without being hypocritical, at any rate.

"Working from within" an authoritarian organization will only yield further authoritarianism. Jesus was an authoritarian. Do all the good work you want, but in the end, associations do matter.

@46 Sarah70 has it exactly right. Want to work for gay rights? Then put your energy where it can be amplified, not minimized. The Catholic Church is not a good platform upon which to build a foundation of respect for human rights. It's simply structured differently.

...and Meinert, there's a huge difference in supporting a democratic institution like the democratic party than supporting an authoritarian institution like the Catholic church. The Democratic party is built specifically to allow for change and evolution, so "working from within" is entirely consistent even where the democratic party may be completely wrong.

@53 - yeah, the Democratic party can change, however slowly, and however it's positions are ultimately tied to it's big money contributors. It's elected leaders have been wrong on this issue forever, and while some seem to be changing, it's possibly not enough of them to pass this legislation.

I have no love for the Catholic church, but for some reason I have some empathy for this particular priest's struggle. I personally left an Evangelical church, and I understand the struggle someone can have with conflicting personal beliefs and their membership in an institution they don't always agree with. Through in this man's personal relationships, community, and financial situation and try at least to have a little empathy. How many of us have worked for companies that don't always do what we believe they should? Do you just quit?

If it were up to me I'd completely do away with the Catholic church. But there are some real people with real lives trying to do some good things there, and we can encourage those folks to push the envelop or attack them for cheap press. But then I don't get paid for controversy. I get paid for effectiveness.

Empathy, yes. Been there, done that. I too had a decade long struggle with my religious association. I had to make tough choices that affected my association with family, friends and job opportunities.

I can't take away the difficulty that change would cause Mr. Ryan. But I can say that his work in the Catholic Church, if his goal is human rights for all & democratic governance, is entirely counter productive. But, that may not be his goal, and he may not be my ally.

@53

You seem to be using several different definitions of "authoritarian" in that argument. I'd be interested in how your concept of "authoritarian" applies to the Catholic church, but not the Democratic Party; both are strictly hierarchical, rich, controlled by powerful entrenched bureaucratic factions, have open doors for anyone who wants to join or quit, choose their leaders via representative conferences, etc...

I'm not saying you can't call one authoritarian and not the other, but I'm curious as to what distinction you're making.

I also respectfully disagree that Catholicism is "not a good platform upon which to build a foundation of respect for human rights". The Catholic church seems to be far better than many other institutions at doing things like opposing the death penalty, fighting poverty, providing health care to the destitute, and so on. They do some pretty awful shit, too, obviously, but on the evidence, the nature or structure of the institution does not appear to be preventing it from advancing humanitarian causes.

@50, Robotslave wrote, "the broader context of Christianity in general, and the Catholic faith in particular" By "faith," did you mean to refer to religion, but in a more palatable way? Religious beliefs are no less nutty when you call them "faith".

57 comments about a religious institution and its associated religion, and mine is only the 4th to use the word "religion" or "religious."

@57

Yes, by "faith" I did mean "religion" in the particular bit you cite there. I use "faith" in other senses elsewhere.

While it's true that religious belief is no less nutty when you call it "faith," I would suggest that it's also true that faith is no more despicable when you call it "religious belief."

In the discussion we've been having here, I think that I've mostly been referring specifically to "religious belief" when I use the term "faith," and not to "religion." I don't think it amounts to much more than a preference for concision. For what it's worth, I'll try from here on out to refer to the underlying mythology and/or theology as "religion," and reserve "faith" to describe only a person or group's belief in that religion.

I do think I've been fairly consistent in referring to the institutional social structure associated with a religion as a "church," and I think I'll stick with that usage, if you don't have any objections.

So- a far left proponent of the destruction of marriage goes to a catholic church expecting.... what exactly? A papal bull recanting the Biblical proscriptions against homosexuality? Maybe a whiskey with the Archbishop who frankly acknowledges that Dominic Holden knows more about Catholic doctrine than the Catholic church? A promise of canonization as Saint Dominic?

You don't have to agree with Catholicism or Christianity or even some notion of a divinity. I don't have to agree with your anti-Christian bigotry. But expecting an institution with a 2000 year history to change just for special little you is a bit much, no? Here's an idea, Holden. Don't like the Catholic church? Don't go to one.

In re Father Ryan- If you sincerely think your organization wrong on something you have some choices. You can accept their position on the belief that it doesn't fundamentally matter to the institution itself. You can fight the position, and accept the institutions verdict on your fight. Or you can leave the institution. The church can also (and in my opinion should with regard to Ryan, ask that you publicly accept the position while you work out your doubts, or remove you from ministry until you decide what you wish to believe. From the point of view of the church, Ryan isn't just working out his own issues. He is the equivalent of a shepherd leading his charges to destruction rather than to safe pasturage or a harbor pilot knowingly guiding a ship onto a reef.

In this and most things Holden and the rest of the Stranger dilletantes beating the 'gay citizens are more equal than others' drum puzzle me. I realize many homosexuals think themselves the favored sons and daughters of fortune, imbued by their lack of a creator with the right to set social and political terms for the majority from their self selecting 3% of the population. I just don't understand why they expect anyone else to take them seriously in this delusion.

@50 That's the one thing Protestants got right: you can't trust Papists.

@60

Can you offer any reason that we shouldn't call your assertion there "bigoted?"

It occurs to me that the two women who reacted so strongly to Mr. Holden's presence come across as scared and protective, not vicious or bigoted. I find it highly unlikely that staff at a large and notoriously gay-friendly church would hold opinions in direct opposition to the very widely recognized opinions of their pastor. I find it highly likely, however, that such staff are scared and protective. If I were a member of a gay-friendly Catholic church, I'd be scared and protective as well.

I've read several of Fr. Ryan's writings this morning. He is clearly a highly intelligent and kind man, and one deeply invested in equality.

Motherfucker @ 59 shows his face after the "Gay Marriage Debate" debacle.

Stupid, bigotted and nervy is NOT an attractive combination...throw cowardice in there and you see a real jackass.

@61 Ask Ben.

Seattleblues - Your failure to address challenges to your assertions borders on trollery. It would be one thing if you engaged in debate, and another if you allowed challenges to shame you into silence. Instead, you continue to leave challenges unanswered, then re-state the same assertions as though no challenge actually surfaced.

So, first and foremost--in what sense does the expansion of the civic contract of marriage (already separate from the spiritual institution of marriage, which itself varies from group to group--my wife's and my marriage, for instance, is every bit as "spiritual" as yours, but not on the same terms) "destroy" marriage? Please be specific.

In what way does finding that the core premises or tenets of Christianity are factually suspect or counter-intuitive, and/or that the doctrine espoused by one or all of the churches ostensibly founded on those premises, constitute anti-Christian bigotry? Please be specific.

The church can also (and in my opinion should with regard to Ryan[)], ask that you publicly accept the position while you work out your doubts, or remove you from ministry until you decide what you wish to believe.

Do you think anyone actually chooses what he or she believes? Let's try a thought experiment: believe that you are made of cheese. Go ahead; I've got work to do, but I'll be back, so take your time. Hold it to be true (the definition of belief) that you are made of cheese. Can't do it? Of course not. One discerns what one believes; one does not decide. "Evidence" may be intuitive or experiential, rather than empirical, but one cannot "believe" what counters intuition or "known fact," though one can use any contradictory assertion as an opportunity to confirm or refute what one intuits or holds true.

Finally, in what way do gay marriage advocates suggest that "gay citizens are more equal than others"? What rights would gay citizens possess that you currently do not, should the right to civic marriage be granted? How does a change in the civic contract of marriage effect the (already subjective) definition on your spiritual and/or familial union; to expand on that, how does the recognition of gay marriage differ from the recognition of childless marriages, marriages between the elderly or infertile, marriages between atheists, and so on?

As always, please be specific.

robotslave - I agree that there's a lot of needless anti-Catholic sentiment; the organization has much to answer for, but the one real jump it has on much Protestantism is that it isn't hobbled by that pesky sola scriptura dogma that keeps the average Calvinist (for instance) from being literate in anything but the Bible. As a result, Catholic scholarship is second only to Jewish scholarship in both breadth and depth.

I think the real problem is not Catholicism in particular, Christianity in general, or religion at large, but the proper limitation of the scope of government. The state should stick to navigating demonstrable utilities, and keep its hand clean of subjectively defined and apprehended institutions like morality or marriage (to the degree that, while I see utility in civic marriage, I would gladly see it eliminated--see the state out of the marriage business all together--rather than see it continue to be offered on an unequal basis as it is now).

Dominic,

Nice work man, seriously, it sounds like you gave it a really good try, and probably froze your balls off in the process. I commend you for being firm, but respectful to the tards that kicked you out. You were a lot nicer than I would've been:) Good Job!

@52:
Actually, there are a whole bunch of breakaway Catholic churches in both Europe and the USA which, I believe, claim unbroken apostolic succession but reject Papal authority. See:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-…

At least some of the are quite GLBT-friendly and ordain female and/or gay and/or married priests.

Thanks for the link Susan.

@65

Entertaining myself observing the thought processes of some on the far left and the fuzzy chaos that passes for thought with most doesn't mean I owe you or anyone else a defense for real marriage against the current barbarian attacks. As I've written before, YOU folks want change, so it's down to you to show what problem you're solving, why the rest of us should care about that problem, and how your change solves it. I don't have to do a damn thing. However, power restored means I can play with answering you for the fun of it.

So, tell me. Why is gay marriage needed? Why should 97% of the population care that a lifestyle choice of the remainging 3% means they can't marry? Why is 'equality' even an issue, when any gay man or lesbian can marry, they just chose romantic pairings that exclude it? Why, in short, should the majority care about the childish whinings of a tiny self selecting minority seeking to avoid the consequences of their own decisions?

As for the nature of belief, whatever your philosophical beliefs are, they are beside the point. Whatever heresies Ryan chooses to embrace, true Christianity has a duty to ask that he select the heresy or Christianity. This would be true were he a Catholic layperson loudly asking that the sin of homosexuality be treated as a beneficent thing for the sinner. It's very much more true when he guides those seeking his counsel into sin rather than away from it as a priest supposedly speaking for his church.

Which gets to the rabid anti christian bigotry displayed so commonly with leftists. Childish at nature, desirous of escaping any possible effect of their financial or career or personal choices, of course they abhor the Christian church. After all, the core of Christianity is a personal acceptance of your errors, and an attempt through grace to seek absolution and repentance. A leftist can't repent of any error, since they consistently refuse to accept the error as personal. Poor? Well, that's the fault of Walmart or BP or the 1% or Congress or anything at all but their own life choices. Career went nowhere? That's the fault of your degree or the structural inequity of the workplace or anything but your work ethic or even basic mediocrity. Gay? No choices there, nossir! You just drifted into bed with some guy or some gal with no volition whatever. And anyone who asks that you act like an adult and accept the consequences of your sexual choices is a bigot or hater (my favorite for it's utter childishness, btw) or whatever the MSNBC catchphrase of the day is.

No, it's no wonder the childrens crusade that is the gay marriage movement despises any organized effort, like Christiainity, to assign personal responsibility. It's no wonder they should hate such efforts, since their entire worldview is built upon the effort to avoid responsibility in every way possible. The wonder is why rational adults should care about their bigotry.

You certainly don't owe anyone anything at all, Seattleblues, so fair enough, as far as that gets you. But you if you aren't willing to compromise, change will be forced upon you, as it was in 1776. Our "founders" were willing to take up arms over a say in how they were taxed; what we're discussing here goes to something far more fundamental, to all appearances.

Why is gay marriage needed?

Why is marriage needed? We reward opposite-sex pairs for committing to building households via a state sanctioned contract, even in the absence of children--indeed, even in the absence of capacity to have children, in the cases of the elderly, the clinically infertile, or those who have had procedures like vasectomies or hysterectomies.

This isn't just a matter of my answering a question with a question--the answer to my question is, in fact, the answer to your question. The joining of individual resources by way of the marital contract, the capacity of each partner to access the support or resources of the other partner's immediate or even extended family, the weaving of smaller family units into clans and tribes, has distinct advantages from just about any perspective: evolutionary, social, civic, spiritual. Married people burden health services less; they tend to work longer (more hours and more years), produce more, commit less crime, pay their own way, have fewer health problems (which is a social benefit disguised as an individual one), and so on. That 97% with whom you seem so concerned benefits from same-sex marriage for the same reason they benefit from my marriage--being married may not guarantee that individuals will behave in a manner becoming to a good citizen, but staying married all but necessitates it, in most cases.

While one exercises choice in narrowing down potential romantic pairings, one doesn't really choose the set from which one is narrowing. I chose to marry my wife; in doing so, I chose to honor my love for her differently than I have honored my love for others. But I did not choose to love her. Romantic compatibility is not a matter of self-selection. If one lacks heterosexual interest of any kind, the alternatives to homosexual pairing are celibacy or loveless breeding. What is your vested interest in forcing this minority into those corridors? Moreover, since the "consequence" of being unable to have a same sex union recognized on the same basis as a heterosexual couple's is entirely dependent on an artificial construct--civic marriage--asking why we maintain this construct at all, and offer it to childless heterosexual couples, is an absolutely legitimate avenue of debate.

As for what you call anti-Christian bigotry . . . I grew up Catholic. Some of our closest family friends were priests. As a Nichiren Buddhist, I find myself standing side-by-side with Christians at many functions. I go to church with my mother when I get to visit her, and sometimes even to Mormon functions when visiting our in-laws. There is no escape from any of our choices in the metaphysical system we currently follow, a system based entirely on the principle of cause & effect. Owning up to choices isn't mutually exclusive with recognizing structural inequities or institutional injustices . . . but that's another discussion, and it's illustrative of your fundamental dishonesty and/or your towering self-regard that you're dancing away from the topic at hand to make your despite for liberals known.

Where homosexuality is concerned, it's already been pointed out to you where volition comes in (and where it doesn't). But even if, for argument's sake, it were 100% chosen, if the "consequence" being discussed is based entirely on a civic construction, isn't it worth asking why we (as in society) bear the "expense" of this construct, and whether it would be both wise and equitable to offer access to this construct to partnerships indistinguishable from many of those that already enjoy this recognition, but for the sex/gender of the individuals involved?

And for the record, I challenge you to find where, in any post I've ever made, I've ever referred to you, or anyone, as a bigot or a hater. Whatever I think of you (and make no mistake, some part of me, a part of me in which I assure you I take no pride, surely looks upon you as an inferior), I'm not going to waste energy or sacrifice credibility in vilifying an opponent when I'm clearly adept enough at illustrating that he's wrong.

To everyone else: sorry for the length of the post. If I cannot shame a middling logician into silence, I figure I can, at least, leave no individual fallacy unanswered.

@70: Yes, we're the ones trying to enact change. YOU are the one trying to prove your points. Do not expect to be taken seriously or at all respected if you demand that we take your word for it and refuse to provide supporting evidence for your (by now universally-discredited) positions.

So ... do groups campaigning *for* marriage equality get property tax exemptions and tax-deductible contributions, too? Or can the Catholic Church continue to enjoy them because being against gay marriage is not its "primary purpose"? Is because they're not endorsing a specific candidate?

Fr. Ryan is a wonderful priest who truly welcomes all to St. James. Take a listen to his homilies on the St. James website and you will undertand what I am talking about. I highly doubt he tried to slip out the back to avoid the reporter...his departure might have had more to do with the snowy weather. Now that we have an archbishop that recently required all parishes to put ads in their bulletins asking parishoners to protest against same sex marriage, I would guess that the women were in a protective mode due to the spontaneity of the reporter's appearnce. As messed up as it might seem to people outside the Catholic Church, good priests could be given the boot for being too outspoken on certain issues. Believe me, this angers me....considering that abusive priests were protected and shuffled around, but a priest who speaks out on behalf of CIVIL rights for gays can be booted out. To be honest, I worry about who will stand in Fr. Ryan's place once he retires. There seems to be such a wave of traditionalism/conservative politics coming through the church these days and a return to heavy top down control. We are truly blessed to have a priest like Fr. Ryan who walks the path of Jesus in his love for ALL people. He doesn't have an ounce of fear or hatred in him...only love for God and his neighbor. You are barking up the wrong tree in condeming anyone at St. James...continue to contact the Archbishop.