John Kerry & Gay Marriage

John Kerry is ticked off at the Pope. Why? Because the Pope had the audacity to remind the good Senator of the teachings of the Catholic Church as the US considers the legalization of gay marriage.

Now I don't always agree with John Paul II - I thought he was out of line with his condemnations of the war in Iraq - but in this case I think he did exactly what he is supposed to do as Pope.

He reminded his flock of the principles of the Church.

Kerry, who apparently wants to legalize gay marriage, of course immediately took offense and started preaching about "the separation of church and state."

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the "separation of church and state" prohibits anyone affiliated with the church from participating in the debate and expressing their opinion. If I remember correctly, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. was, well, a reverend. He participated in the process - even brought about a few changes in government. Jesse Jackson is a reverend. And what about that Al Sharpton guy running for President? Isn't he a reverend, too?

And it's not as if Kerry even hinted at the idea that the Pope couldn't participate because of his status in the US as a foreigner. Not that it would matter. We take advice from our foreign allies quite often. Just look at the influence that Tony Blair had on how and when and under what circumstances we prosecuted the war in Iraq.

So why the broadside at John Paul? Is it maybe because he and Kerry disagreed on an issue? Or does Kerry really believe that the church should be stripped of its First Amendment rights to express its opinion?

The church is every bit as much a part of the American fabric as the corner liquor store, strip joints, and adult bookstores. Why would we want to give the latter three a voice while denying the same to the church?

If Kerry doesn't like what the Pope had to say, he should have just thrown out the letter. If Kerry wants to turn his back on the teachings of the Catholic Church, that's his right as a Senator and an American citizen.

But it's the Pope's responsibility to watch over his flock and to try to steer them onto the path of righteousness.

Kerry needs to find something else to rail against. The Pope was in the right here.

However, over the last few days, I've been kind of quietly reading a few of the debates going on about the whole issue of gay marriage and I finally feel myself formulating a fairly strong belief about the issue.

I think that it should be allowed, but it should only be allowed with some other changes being made at the same time.

Now I know that that sounds way out there and will probably just serve to tick everyone off at me, but let me explain.

I was reading Andrea Harris' post in which she takes Glenn Reynolds to task for disapproving of the Pope's stance on gay marriage. And she's right in that you have to expect the Pope to say Popey stuff and that you shouldn't expect the Catholic Church to turn its back on 2000 years of teachings to embrace homosexual unions.

But if two people of the same sex are in a loving, committed relationship why should they be denied the same protections under the law as a heterosexual couple? They don't have a right to have their union blessed by the Church, but they're not the first to run into that issue. Henry VIII had a problem with the Church enforcing its rules on him. So he left and formed the Church of England. But the Catholic Church remained opposed to his divorce and remarriage.

John Kusch put it pretty well in the comments to Andrea's post (3:44 AM, 8/2/03).

But what are the changes I want to see along with the allowance of gay marriage?

I want to see stricter divorce requirements. The problem with the American family isn't homosexual; it's a lack of commitment. People go into marriage nowadays figuring that if they don't like it, they can just get a quickie divorce and move on to the next partner. Marriage, whether hetero- or homosexual, should be a real commitment, not the consummation of an infatuation.

Make divorce more difficult. Make it more consequential - for both parties. Make marriage an institution again, instead of a convenience to be discarded when it's no longer useful.

I think most of the truly committed homosexuals out there would agree with this stance as they are looking not to change the world but to attain the same legal protections as heterosexuals who are married.

Now, of course, if this were proposed we would hear much gnashing of teeth from parts of the homosexual community as there is a sizable ultra-liberal contingent that wants the legal protection, wants to destroy the church, wants to destroy the institutions on which America is founded, but also wants the ease of separation that currently exists. I know that they exist and are prevalent as I work with one of them. He has a different partner every few days. He's had several come into the office to scream at him, call him unfaithful, and other such niceties. But the actions of a few should not reflect on, or deny rights to, the majority

I also work with another one who believes in long-term commitment. He cares more about his partner than quite a few married heterosexuals I've seen.

He is the reason I would support gay marriage. He doesn't want to rip asunder the fabric of our social foundation. He wants to be able to enjoy the same protections as a married heterosexual.

The first guy is the reason I want to see the divorce laws strengthened first. He would be getting married to a different guy every week. He views everything as having no consequence that he can't avoid.

But even if we don't approve gay marriage, they still need to do something to put some teeth into the divorce laws so that it really becomes an option of last resort when every attempt at reconciliation has failed. There is no reason for anyone to be thrice divorced.

I don't agree with the position of John Paul, but he has every right to express it and to contribute to the debate.

It's too bad that John Kerry doesn't want to listen. He might occasionally learn something by being open-minded and listening to the other side.