Skip to main content

On August 22 last year, with marriage equality becoming a possibility in Hawaii, Larry Silva, a Catholic Bishop in Hawaii, wrote a letter to Hawaii's Catholics asking them to take action against the proposed legislation, and provided reasons why he opposes marriage equality. The arguments are pretty weak, although at least the letter itself is fairly nuanced, and free from homophobic propaganda like that that we see from NOM and FRC.

Even though it was written a while ago, I don't think any harm can come from responding to the arguments against marriage equality that the letter puts forward.


Dear Brothers and Sisters:

The issue of same-sex marriage is in the limelight once again in our community, with a move for a special legislative session to vote on a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Hawaii.

While the Catholic Church is clear in its insistence that true marriage can only be between one man and one woman, there are many people, even among Catholics, who perceive such insistence as unjust discrimination against our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. Therefore, it is urgent to clarify certain issues.

People with same-sex attraction are a part of our community, even our Catholic community, and they deserve dignity and respect.

That's a good thing to say. But even though you say that, the Catholic Church does not act like that.
Unjust discrimination against them is not acceptable. However, not all discrimination – that is, making distinctions – is unjust. We discriminate quite justly between adults and minors, even though both have equal dignity. We justly discriminate between those who are married and those who are not, because marriage is a special societal bond that assures the continuation of the race in the context of raising children in the loving environment that appreciates the complementary nature of male and female. (If there were no such discrimination, same-sex marriage would not be an issue, since anyone who wanted to apply for any benefits could do so, whether married or not.) There is just discrimination between parents and children, professors and students. While they are all equal in dignity as persons, they are not equal in their roles. We must therefore be discriminating about the very language of discrimination, because there are those who demonize the word and who presume that any kind of discrimination is unjust.
The Catholic Church opposes employment discrimination protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The Catholic Church opposes legislation to protect LGBT students from bullying, even if it has led to nine suicides. The Catholic Church even opposes asking countries that kill or imprison LGBT people for their sexual orientation or gender identity to stop. If anti-LGBT employment discrimination, bullying, state-sanctioned imprisonment and state-sanctioned murder is not unjust discrimination, what is? That's the reason why I find the Catholic concept of "unjust" vs. "just" discrimination to be laughable.
To discriminate between heterosexual and same-sex couples regarding marriage is not, despite the hype on the streets, unjust discrimination.
Even if you believe that some discrimination is not unjust discrimination, all government-sponsored discrimination is unconstitutional discrimination. It is banned by the 14th amendment, which reads that "no state shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Constitution trumps the teachings of the Catholic Church.
If same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land, its implications will go far beyond the relationship of this or that couple. There will be long term and definitive changes in our entire culture. If same-sex marriage becomes the law, it will become “normal” or the norm for our land.
That's true. But where's the problem?
If one may marry without discriminating whether the partner is of the same sex or the opposite sex, then such “non-discrimination” will become the norm in other areas, too.
If you think that that's a bad thing, then that is really sad.
Our school textbooks will have to portray sexual attraction as normal, no matter to whom one is attracted.
And sexual attraction isn't normal? It's experienced by about 99% of people. That makes it normal.
When schools have dances, boys will have the choice of inviting a girl on a date or another boy on a date.
1. So what?

2. How does marriage equality make that more likely?

Our youth, whose sexual identity is formed over time, will be forced to decide prematurely if they are heterosexual or homosexual, thus curtailing normal sexual maturation, with all its stumblings and challenges.
I accept that there can be pressure to decide one's sexual orientation with a label. But I can't see how marriage equality creates that pressure.
If same-sex couples are given the legal right to marry under the pretence that discrimination that excludes them from marriage is unjust, why would people who prefer several spouses at the same time not be afforded the same right?
Because banning polygamous marriages does not discriminate against people based on an immutable characteristic. While banning polygamous marriages does convey the message that they are different to marriage, polygamous marriages are not linked to an immutable characteristic. Therefore, banning it does not discriminate against people, making its ban constitutional. However, same-sex marriage is linked to the immutable characteristic of homosexuality, so banning it discriminates against people with a homosexual orientation.
Why would we taxpayers be exempt from paying for marital benefits for all those spouses?
Because polygamous marriages are not legal.
Why would there be discrimination against those who decide to marry their mother or father, brother or sister, so that they can gain spousal benefits for them?
Because incestuous relationships can produce children with genetic disorders. The practical harm that they can produce means that the government has a compelling interest in regulating them.
Once we give in to the false notion that same-sex couples have a right to marry, how can we reasonably deny the same “right” to anyone who chooses to enter a “marriage” with a close relative, a minor (with consent)?
The close relative would be incest, which I've already discussed. The minor would be pedophilia. A minor cannot give legal consent, even if they say that they do. That's why they would be denied the right to marry: in order to protect them. But an adult same-sex couple is mentally capable of making their own decisions. The state therefore has no interest in "protecting" them by banning same-sex marriage.

Also, the state can ban pedophilia because of the practical harm that it causes. It is harmful for children to be sexually abused.

If same-sex marriage becomes “norm”-alized, would parents be considered bigoted if they raised their daughters to be attracted to boys and their sons to be attracted to girls?
Parents who do that would be considered bigoted regardless of whether or not same-sex marriage becomes normalized. Same-sex marriage will have no impact on that.

The reason that parents who do that are seen as bigoted is that that is a horrible thing to do. Trying to manipulate someone's sexual orientation is extremely harmful to them. Imagine what it must feel like for a child whose parents have tried so hard to make them straight to realize that they're gay.

Or must parents now be completely neutral in steering their children toward the choice of a mate?
Ideally they would be. I think we can all agree that it's best for someone to decide their own life partner for themselves, and not have someone else make that decision for them.
Would people who firmly believe that God made us male and female, and that God has revealed that homosexual ACTS are sinful be allowed to hold such beliefs?
Yes. That is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Marriage equality will not change that. It's not allowed to.
Or would they have to be “re-educated” to think as “normal” people think?
Seriously? You think there are going to be re-education camps? You're not living in North Korea. Calm down.
Would churches that refuse to celebrate same-sex marriage because of deeply held religious convictions be deprived of the freedom to live those convictions?
I'm noticing a pattern here. You're framing many of your concerns as questions. This suggests to me that not even you are sure that these concerns are valid. And if a person making a claim isn't even sure that the claim is valid, then we can dismiss the claim. But I won't.

In response to your question, no. What church in any jurisdiction where same-sex marriage has been legalized has been ordered to perform or recognize same-sex marriages?

Would Christians, Muslims, and others who believe that homosexual ACTS are contrary to God’s law (the law that governs those whom God himself has created in such wonder) be persecuted for holding on to those beliefs that have been so sacred to us for centuries?
1. Again, you yourself aren't even sure.

2. No. This is a free country. But I must say: being criticized or being disciplined by a private employer for saying something homophobic is not persecution.

Will the religious freedom we treasure be only a paper freedom, while we will be told what we may or may not believe?
1. Again, you yourself aren't even sure.

2. No. Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Marriage equality cannot, and will not, change that.

Children will be the greatest casualties, in that they will be deprived of being raised in a loving home by a mother and a father who loves them and whose love cooperated with God’s plan in creating them. When children are deprived of such a home, there will be more poverty, more social ills, more juvenile suicides, and more problems than we can imagine.
The American Academy of Pediatrics disagrees:
There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.
The issue goes far beyond simply the private relationship of this or that couple, and its implications will be far reaching and profound.
All of your concerns were questions. Not even you are sure that there will be far reaching and profound implications.
The language of the proponents is meant to convince us that this is a civil rights issue and that anyone who does not agree is bigoted.
1. That's correct.

2. That's not an argument against marriage equality.

Do not be led astray with such language, and do not allow yourself to be bullied by it. Remember, Adam and Eve themselves fell for the serpent’s manipulative promise that they would be like gods, knowing good from evil, if they just ate the fruit God had forbidden them to eat. The fruit might have been tasty at the moment, but it ultimately brought us all into a very sorry state.
You still believe that? Seriously?
Several legislators who are not in favor of same-sex marriage have told me that the loudest voices on the issue are those who favor it, while those who say they are opposed are relatively silent. They pointed out that legislators do respond to their constituents and do care what they have to say, but if they only hear from one side of the issue, they presume that everyone is fine with same-sex marriage.
Well, the legislature legalized it, so the constituents must be fine with it.
IT IS TIME FOR OUR FAITH COMMUNITY TO MOBILIZE INTO ACTION. The timing is critical, since this issue may be presented in a special legislative session within the next couple of weeks. YOUR LEGISLATORS NEED TO HEAR FROM YOU NOW! I therefore ask everyone to do the following within this coming week:

 Contact both the State Senator and Representative who represent your district, and let them know how you want them to vote on this critical issue for our community. A list of legislators by district is attached to this letter, along with phone numbers and email addresses. Please be courteous, thanking them for the very difficult work they do, but be clear. It is said that some have already made up their minds, and that may be so. But minds and hearts can be changed with the influence of constituents.

 Ask your friends and neighbors who believe that marriage should only be between one man and one woman to contact their legislators as well.

How can an organization that urges political action among its followers call itself a church with a tax-exempt status?
 Pray for your legislators. (But do not let your prayers be mere words! See above.) Pray for the wisdom, courage, and commitment to contact your legislators and let them know what you think. I recommend that all Catholics offer ONE ROSARY (or at the least a decade of the rosary) each day in the next several weeks, so that the power of prayer will shape the discussions and deliberations about this critical issue. If possible, pray at all hours, walking around the block that surrounds the State Capitol (without forming an assembly that would need a permit), so that just as God tumbled down the walls of Jericho, he will be able to do so through the prayers AND ACTION of his beloved people.

 Be understanding and loving toward those who do not agree with you – even Catholic legislators who have committed to vote for same-sex marriage. Pray for a change of heart and the formation of an informed conscience, and let your love be the most powerful agent of change. After all, God is love!

Sincerely yours in Christ,
Most Reverend Larry Silva
Bishop of Honolulu

I was glad to see a case against marriage equality that wasn't offensive. However, it was still not very convincing.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The Catholic church will not be forced to perform (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sfbob, Paragryne, anon004

    same sex marriages any more than the Catholic church is forced to accept women as priests. "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof." Why is it that these guys never understand that the First Amendment protects religious freedom. They are always focused that it just prohibits them from forcing it down the throats of others.

    "That being said, I do agree I am going to hell. But for other reasons. Mostly boring tax stuff ' Amy Pohler

    by Annie B on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 06:27:42 AM PDT

  •  His letter is bullshit. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AJayne, sfbob, kerplunk, YsosadisticGOP

    Just like Republicans, he is trying to scare people with his "questions". He has no argument worth considering.

  •  Outstanding diary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YsosadisticGOP, anon004, BMScott

    I read most of the Catholic documents referenced and it seems to me that in addition to the errors you point out they also err in a couple other ways:

    1)  "Would people who firmly believe that God made us male and female, ..."  It's an error of scientific fact and common observation to think there are only two genders.  If they are "uncertain" of the psychology studies, they can look to individuals born with sexual features of both major genders.  

    2) They play the same argument the NRA plays by assuming one significant step now means an avalanche later of all kinds of unwanted issues.  They need to stay focused on the merits of what is before them.

    3) Not once have I seen them directly address the specific instances of when a denial of rights inflicts suffering on a devoted LGBT couple - hospital visits, inheritance, etc.

    4) They're inconsistent within their own framework.  Seldom do these folks address the real threats to "Christian marriage" and that is within the population of heterosexual people that diverge from the narrow teaching.  IF there is anything to their framework of "protection of marriage"  the public would see a more strident effort on their part to get after the many "dysfunctional behaviors" of heterosexuals in marriage and their concerns might at least have more consistency.  One of the links provided this:

    In contrast to sexual conduct within marriage between one man and one woman — which does serve both the good of each married person and the good of society — heterosexual conduct outside of marriage and, a fortiori, homosexual conduct has no claim to any special protection by the state.
    They actually link heterosexual sex outside marriage to their defense of marriage, which seems a bit helpful, but there is so much else just wrong with the assumptions that produce this.  For example how only babies qualify as a sufficient "good of society".  Long term, stable commitment between two adults, apparently not.

    I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

    by Satya1 on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 08:44:32 AM PDT

  •  Lots of slippery slope (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    fear-mongering, along with a bunch of not-proven assertions.  

    And what's this new "complementarity" argument?  I never heard of it when I went to Catechism back in the 1960s and 1970s.  They just made this up out of nothing to sound like there was some profound Church principle at stake, when there is no such thing.  It's pure bullshit.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site