Posted on 05/12/2012 7:30:12 AM PDT by markomalley
Bishop James D. Conley of Denver says that the civil unions bill being debated in Colorado is an attempt by the government to redefine and change the public's perception of marriage.
“The purpose of the law is to reorient people’s values,” Bishop Conley told CNA on May 10, “and that isn’t what government should be about.”
The intent of the bill, Bishop Conley said, is not to secure “legitimacy for social arrangements and personal behaviors,” but rather to “change viewpoints” of the general population about the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
The 2012 session of the Colorado House of Representatives ended May 9 amid great controversy.
With the support of one Republican, a civil unions bill unexpectedly passed through a House committee and advanced to the Republican-controlled House floor.
Republicans filibustered the bill and House Speaker Frank McNulty announced an impasse May 8. The civil unions bill, along with more than 30 other bills, died without a vote.
But Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper announced a special session of the legislature and listed civil unions measure on the agenda for the session, which will begin at 10:00 a.m. on May 14.
This action comes after Coloradans voted to define marriage as being between a man and a woman by passing Amendment 43 in 2006.
Revisiting the issue is a dangerous move, Bishop Conley said, not only because it “obviates the will of the people,” but also because it “diminishes the sovereignty of the legislative process.”
If passed, the civil unions proposal could “pave the way for a total redefinition of marriage” by “creating a pseudo-marital institution” which is recognized by the government, he warned.
Bishop Conley said that changing the meaning of marriage “would be like redefining math or physics—some things are objective, unalterable realities.”
Throughout history, he noted, most cultures and religions have upheld marriage as a union between one man and one woman, “not out of disrespect for homosexual persons,” but for the interest of society at large and natural law.
The Denver bishop asserted that the creation of such a union would ultimately “set the stability of our culture at risk.”
And while he admitted that it might sound “like scare-mongering” to make such a statement, Bishop Conley underscored that the act of “redefining ancient and universally held beliefs” puts a culture on “dangerous ground.”
“Marriage has a social value. It protects women, and it protects children. Marriage ensures long-term social stability.”
The civil unions bill would harm those it is intended to help, Bishop Conley said, by promoting a “worldview which is false” by presenting homosexuality as morally permissible.
Supporters of the Colorado civil unions bill believe they have enough votes to pass the Republican-controlled House, including Republican Speaker pro-tem Kevin Priola.
Capitol office: (303)866-2346
Highlands Ranch office: (303) 683-8873
Website (send an email from here): http://frankmcnulty.com/
A century ago when modern psychiatry began to register common mental illnesses homosexual behavior was an original given on the list. Even the nuckledragging Freudians and Jungians knew that the desire for sterile sex—meaning intimate relations with someone or some animal not biologically designed to procreate with one—was a cranial biochemical malady since Natural Selection (Darwin was just gaining ground at the time) could never explain such a centuries old condition so contrary to the evolutionary prime directive of reproduction.
Seventy years later a cabal of Leftist libertine homosexual psychiatrists (a common vocation for the gifted twisted in their search for personal deviance justifications) arbitrarily decided to “abracadabra” remove homosexual behavior from the official “bad” medical lists—the first long recorded and documented disease cured by political correctness alone if you will.
Given this license to hump ugly those who CHOSE to indulge in a traditionally sick and wrong behavior learned that it was not fun for long without corrupting the innocent...so here we are.
When Hick was preparing to appear like a real cowboy during the campaign— he attended a Valentine Day event by the local
homosexuals in Denver and declared then he believed they ought be allowed to marry —this civil union thing is a follow through on that campaign promise to his constituents.
First of all: God defines marriage, not the State. God’s definition of marriage does not include two people of the same sex. So, whatever a State may define as “marriage”, it totally apart from God’s definition.
I don’t want a government that can tell me what I may or may not do in the privacy of my own home or relationships. I take my understanding of sexual morality from Scripture and that is where I learn that God considers sodomy to be an abomination. If a State decides to “marry” two people of the same sex, if that is all that happens, it would not affect me because I don’t have to show my approval.
However, once gays have sufficient influence with a State that it will permit same-sex marriage, gays don’t stop there. They really don’t want marriage, they want approval of their disgusting and revolting life choices and sexual practices. They will use the State to forbid me from showing immoral they are, and from refusing to give them any accommodation in their practices.
If I have children in public school, the State will insist on teaching them that gay marriage is just as normal as godly marriage. You will be sanctioned as a parent if you attempt to remove your child from such indoctrination.
If you run a business that could provide services to gays, you will be sanctioned if you decline to treat them as any other customer. For example, if you run a wedding photography business, you will be sanctioned if you decline to photograph a gay wedding.
In short, gays will jam their lifestyle down our throats because when the State says they are equal it is forbidden for a private citizen to dissent from that status. In doing so, they seek to force me to give them approval for something that I will never approve of. It is that last point that galls gays the most.
The Theologian-in-Chief cited the Sermon on the Mount to show that Jesus approves of gay marriage. So far he hasn’t given his exegesis of Matt. 19.4-12 (”He made them from the beginning male and female...for this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will be joined to his wife and they will be two in one flesh...”).
If every bishop and every priest spoke as one on this issue they would stand a chance of turning the tables on the Leftists and their media. What I am seeing is that this bishop is a rare exception. Pity.
Curiosly, when liberal advocates of gay marriage are asked if their policy also would allow polygamy or polyandry , they recoil in horror and insist that it does not. However, logic demands that it does.
I would ask how same-sex parents are going to react when Utah public schools insist on indoctrinating the children that LDS extended family polygamy is just as “normal” as same-sex “marriage”. The fact that this will be an issue will show yet again that gay “marriage” is not about marriage at all, it is about forcing the rest of us to approve of repugnant sexual immorality.
True, but not just bishops and priests. The people of Colorado, the majority of whom are against civil unions, have got to stand up. Earlier this week left-wingers were spitting on McNulty from the gallery. The left is making this guy's life miserable simply because he's doing what's right. When I talk to friends and acquaintances about making a simple phone call to support this guy, I get shrugs. This is how we lose--state by state--because so many conservatives can't be bothered.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.