Archbishop Makes Terrible Anti-Equality Argument


Salvatore Cordileone, the archbishop of San Francisco, is beside himself over the state of Rhode Island becoming the 10th state to legalize same-sex marriage. And he’s offering a transparently ridiculous argument in opposition to it. This is just staggeringly stupid and hypocritical:

Cordileone, the chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, described the law as “a serious injustice.” He suggested that marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples would be harmful to children, who deserve to have both a mother and father.

“Marriage is the only institution that unites a man and a woman to each other and to any child conceived of their union,” Cordileone said. “While those making great sacrifices to raise their children in less than ideal circumstances need and deserve our love and support, we cannot claim to have a just society if we do not look out for the most vulnerable among us: children.

Let’s leave aside the obvious absurdity of a Catholic bishop worrying about the welfare of children; if you gave a damn about children, you’d leave that criminal organization. Even granting that his argument is valid and sincere, how about the hundreds of thousands of children of gay parents? Wouldn’t they be better off with two parents with shared responsibility for the child? All of the reasons that you claim stable, two-parent households are good for children are true whether those parents are straight or gay. This isn’t about protecting children, it’s about inflicting the barbaric moral code of the Bible on gay people.

Comments

  1. steve oberski says

    As some commenters over at Raw Storey so aptly put it:

    Why does the church protect and promote these douchebags?

    What other choice do they have? Where are they going to find someone who isn’t a douchebag?

  2. says

    You know, conservatives usually claim to want incentives tied to results as much as possible. But when it comes to marriage, they want to give the benefits to people who aren’t raising children (heterosexuals couples without kids, by choice or biology), while denying the benefits to many who do (same-sex parents).

    Strange, isn’t it?

  3. melissajones says

    Of course those children stop deserving a mother if theirs has the misfortune to need a lifesaving abortion in a catholic hospital. So the church really should stop acting like they care about anyone, cause they don’t. They do like other peoples suffering though.

  4. whheydt says

    His remarks are not going to be well received in San Francisco. He’s setting himself for some interesting encounters, ranging from local politicians to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Maybe he will find some of them…enlightening.

  5. steffp says

    (Ghastly organ music) “Oh, the children!”
    According to an analysis of the Washington Times, today, one-third of American children – a total of 15 million – are being raised without a father. Nearly five million more children live without a mother. Can’t see any initiatives of the godbotherers to ease their situation, except for the occasional discrimination against sinful single mothers.
    “Marriage is the only institution that unites a man and a woman to each other and to any child conceived of their union,”
    Well, biologically speaking, children are not conceived of a spiritual, canonical, or legal union. They are conceived by a cell-merger. A process that even works in a test-tube, and between otherwise unrelated persons. No blessings, rituals, legal procedures needed.
    But 50% of all marriages in the US lead to a divorce, Bishop. The institution you are proposing as the only possible form of union fails half the time. If you were indeed interested in defending that gloomy institution (a rather modern sacrament instituted at the Catholic counsel at Trent, 1545-63. after the reformation), then he should be welcoming a few more contestants at that hopeless 50/50 chance race. As things are, gays are not very likely to marry out of pure whim, and there are practically no gay shotgun weddings, so their contribution to the wedding pool might very likely increase marriage’s success rate.

  6. dan4 says

    “…the Promotion and Defense of Marriage,…”

    Huh? Even conceding that, to Cordileone, the word “marriage” applies only in a heterosexual context, there are plenty of marriages that he (and the Catholic Church in general) would not “defend” or “promote.” Example: a couple marrying where at least one of them has been divorced.

  7. steve84 says

    Also the absurdity of a Catholic bishop making any comment about family, procreation or romantic relationships.

  8. Freodin says

    And here I was to think that he had some new> terrible argument… silly me.

    Can’t these people just have one coherent thought? (Rethorical question, I know)

    What does he think happens? Smiling children living happily with Mom and Dad being ripped from their loving parents to be distributed among same-sex couples? Seriously?

    But they really don’t care. What happens to children is completely irrelevant for these guys. It doesn’t matter if they don’t get their “deserved” mother and father… as long as they only don’t get some of these God-hated gay couples as parents.

    Bah… of all of those terrible arguments against fully equal same-sex-marriage this is the one I despise the most. It will come back to haunt us for a long time after the the issue of marriage has been settled and poison the question of the “worth” of different adopting couples.

  9. dingojack says

    “Salvatore Cordileone,”- He’s gonna make you a union you can’t reuse.
    Dingo

  10. sailor1031 says

    “it’s about inflicting the barbaric moral code of the Bible on gay people.”

    No. It’s about inflicting the barbaric moral code of the bible on all of us!

    Cordileone? I think it’s a misprint. Should have been Cordilegno.

Leave a Reply