Location: Vienna, Virginia, United States

A graduate of Dartmouth College (2005) and Washington and Lee University School of Law (2010). These are my personal blogs, and the musings expressed on them do not reflect the positions of my employer. They do reflect my readings, thoughts, and aspirations, which I figure is good enough.

Saturday, December 18, 2004


The leader of the Catholic church, famous because he is named after half of the quartet that made up the Beatles, today called gay marriage an "attack on marriage and the family, from an ideological and legal aspect".

Besides being surprised since he rarely makes a coherent statement nowadays, I am also surprised by the America-centric nature of the Pope's statement. The largely Catholic Spain has nearly finished legalizing gay unions, and America is really the locus of all the fight right now in gay marriage rights, 11 states having banned gay marriage in November's elections. Even though one might cite some cynical numbers regarding our divorce rate, it still remains a fact that gay couples deserve the right to call themselves married on a piece of paper, therefore getting, if not a feeling of legitimacy, then certainly an equal standing in tax codes.

But what I find really amusing is this following section of the article:

"The Polish Pope on Saturday also condemned abortion, artificial procreation and equal status for cohabiting couples as undermining the marital state."

See, this here is where Catholics get in trouble. People in certain states are already laughed at when they confuse religion and evolution. What about religion and the law? If we can see the melding of religion and science as ridiculous, isn't mixing religion and the law worse?

"She's a Witch!! She turned me into a newt"

"A Newt?"

"I got better"

Sections of the Bible are used to combat homosexuality. But I can cite other sections that argue that Christians should smite anyone that is not of their faith, and yet others that prohibit lust. The only person in the past century that spoke out about lust was Jimmy Carter. And most Americans tend to laugh at his statements today, even as we become more morally corrupt.

The point is that if you can't just do one thing. If you're going to argue that the Bible prohibits sexual relations between people of the same gender, you also need to consider the statement that the Earth is 7604 years old (or something like that) or the concept of an eye for an eye. You can certainly believe otherwise, but those are parts of your religion that you have to come to terms with.

Many people in America that are against gay marriage believe in evolution. And yet many will sagely nod when they hear someone say that the Bible speaks out against gays, nevermind that love thy neighbor crap.

The Pope says that gay marriage is bad. Theoretically, Catholics should follow his decision, which is not anything new for the Catholic church. (although as John Kerry almost managed to show, legal matters and religion should never be mixed; he actually had a very nice statement about personal faith and political belief in the second debate)

The Pope says that abortion is bad. Theoretically, Catholics should follow this, and screw cases like miscarriage and rape, and screw the woman's right to control her uterus.

He speaks out about stem cell research, and if you're a Catholic biologist that follows the Pope, you might want to stay away from California and its 3 billion dollar fund for stem cell research. And if you're a Catholic with Parkinsons, you sure as hell better hope your faith is strong, because if you rely on science and stem cell reserach, you're going to hell.

He says that cohabitation is bad, and if you're a Catholic, you might want to move out of your girlfriend's apartment, lest you pay for it in the afterlife.

Where do you draw the line? When does religion become merely another tool, another excuse that you can use to repress those that don't believe as you do? If you're a devout Catholic, how much of the Pope's words do you take as religious directive, and how much do you ignore because it's more convenient for you to ignore it?

Why doesn't the Pope speak out against skinny, artificially enhanced pop-stars that corrupt our nation's youth while maintaining a facade of religious piety? (Jessica Simpson's father, a former minister (not Catholic though), recently said something to the effect of "My daughter has big boobs. No one can ignore her Double D's". No joke. They're real, and they're spectacular). Where does the tirade end? Because if we're talking about the fabric of society, I'll argue that it's been ripped to shreds by Carson Daly, Ron Artest, and Britney Spears.


Post a Comment

<< Home