Wisconsin Bishop’s Inane Screed Against Marriage Equality


Last week a federal judge overturned Wisconsin’s ban on same-sex marriage, following the lead of every other judge to consider such a ban since the Supreme Court ruled on DOMA last year. Bishop Robert C. Morlino of the Madison, Wisconsin diocese released this absurd statement about the ruling:

Marriage is, and can only ever be, a unique relationship solely between one man and one woman, regardless of the decision of a judge or any vote. This is not based on any private sectarian viewpoint, but on the natural moral law that is universally binding on all peoples, at all times, and inscribed into our human nature, as man and woman from the beginning of creation. It behooves us to safeguard the sacred ecology of all nature, especially of our human nature.

So the idea of marriage only for straight people is based on the “natural moral law” that is “inscribed into our human nature” — except of the hundreds of millions of people who think otherwise, of course. We don’t count. Apparently it wasn’t “written on our hearts” in good enough ink.

In striking down the constitutional amendment in our state which protects marriage, the court has, once again, shaken one of the most precious and essential building blocks of our civilization.

Protects marriage from…well what, exactly? From people who want to get married?

Marriage, between one man and one women with openness to children, is an element of the very first “domino” of civilization. The very nature of marriage naturally generates life. When that first “domino” falls, everything that is good, true, and beautiful, which is rooted on the natural family, is seriously threatened. If the “domino” of true marriage falls, then fall all subsequent “dominos.”

Great. Now if you could just provide some sort of plausible argument by which allowing gay people to get married will have any effect whatsoever on marriages between men and women, we might take you seriously. But you can’t. And you know it. That’s why you rely on this vague and ludicrous rhetoric.

Comments

  1. scienceavenger says

    Marriage is, and can only ever be, a unique relationship solely between one man and one woman

    Right, and heavier-than-air flight is impossible. See no reality, hear no reality…

  2. Mr Ed says

    With apologies to Lewis Carroll

    When I use a word natural moral law,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

    I like how natural law, something so obvious it need not be questioned, always agrees with the speaker’s ideas.

  3. John Pieret says

    The very nature of marriage naturally generates life.

    Humans were generating life long before we started using fire and tools and long before there was any institution like marriage. Generating life is the easy part, we’ve done rather too much of it. Setting up stable homes for children is hard. All the evidence to date is that gays are as good at it as heterosexuals and should be given the chance

  4. throwaway says

    “Sacred ecology of all nature” he says? Makes since, I suppose, since all those storms and hurricanes and wildfires and earthquakes are often ecological disasters, brought on by teh gayez.

  5. gshelley says

    Or perhaps he could provide evidence that marriage is “between one man and one women with openness to children”

  6. throwaway says

    That was of course “sense” not “since”.

    And I have a feeling that this bishop is only paying lip-service to sacred ecology, anyway. Otherwise, why is his abstaining from marriage not also a sacred ecological shortcoming?

  7. Kevin Kehres says

    Well, since a goodly proportion of the biosphere does not reproduce sexually, I’d say the bishop has a tad little bit to learn about biology’s “natural laws”.

  8. says

    This is not based on any private sectarian viewpoint, but on the natural moral law that is universally binding on all peoples, at all times,

    Except for Catholic bishops, who take vows to never get married, never have children, and never have sex (with women, at least). How is that not a violation of the natural moral law?

    Now if you could just provide some sort of plausible argument by which allowing gay people to get married will have any effect whatsoever on marriages between men and women, we might take you seriously.

    I’ve challenged numerous people to explain what effect same-sex marriage would have on my heterosexual marriage. So far, not a single answer.

  9. steve84 says

    Why should we listen to lectures on morality, sexuality and family by someone who is at best a celibate, old virgin and worst a child rapist? Catholic clergy talking about marriage is like a blind man talking about colors.

  10. dingojack says

    So marriage is between one man and one women, eh? Except in all those cultures where it isn’t, like the Khoisan (polygyny for those that can feed multiple wives), for example.
    Face it, humans do a wide range of weird and wonderful stuff, especially when it comes to sex and marriage. One more variation isn’t going to make the least bit of difference, is it?
    Dingo
    ——–
    Coming from an unmarried priest, the whole argument about who is, or isn’t, really married simply becomes more and more ludicrous

  11. says

    “from the beginning of creation”

    I suppose he can point to the bit in the OT where Adam and EvanEve are reported to have got married?
    I mean if it’s that important it must be there. Otherwise they must have just cohabited.

  12. busterggi says

    Why if you allow two persons of the same sex to marry next two persons of different religions will want to do so too.

  13. dingojack says

    richardelguru – on the other hand….

    1 Samuel 18
    1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
    2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father’s house.
    3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
    4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.

    Dingo

  14. says

    Marriage, between one man and one women with openness to children, is an element of the very first “domino” of civilization. The very nature of marriage naturally generates life. When that first “domino” falls, everything that is good, true, and beautiful, which is rooted on the natural family, is seriously threatened. If the “domino” of true marriage falls, then fall all subsequent “dominos.”

    This sort of reminds me of the arguments for the Vietnam war… and the subsequent modern evacuation of Saigon, as they realize they can’t keep up the fight… even if people were still arguing for it… all the meanwhile, taking losses from the struggle.

  15. D. C. Sessions says

    Mr. Ed @2:

    Didn’t Humpty Dumpty say something else when Alice challenged him on that? Somehow I don’t remember what he told her.

  16. D. C. Sessions says

    When that first “domino” falls, everything that is good, true, and beautiful, which is rooted on the natural family, is seriously threatened. If the “domino” of true marriage falls, then fall all subsequent “dominos.”

    So this is the hill the Church will defend to the end. The hill that you and all of yours will die on. No matter the odds, no matter who falls by the wayside, the Church will do whatever it takes or will go down into oblivion trying.

    Works for me. Pass the popcorn, someone?

  17. sinned34 says

    Apparently it wasn’t “written on our hearts” in good enough ink.

    No, Ed. It’s written on your heart. Everybody knows that God exists and that homosexuality is the greatest evil ever inflicted upon humankind. Unless you don’t, which just means that you’re blinded by Satan and can’t see the truth.

  18. Larry says

    So what does natural moral law say about supposedly celibate old men diddling young altar boys. I mean, other than its OK to ship the old men off to other locations, once they’ve been found out, so they won’t be subject to actual secular laws where said diddling took place.

    The Catholic church is not exactly your one-stop shop for lectures on morals.

  19. billydee says

    “In striking down the constitutional amendment in our state which protects marriage, the court has, once again, shaken one of the most precious and essential building blocks of our civilization.”

    I wonder what other building blocks the courts have shaken. Except for the occasional mild earthquake here in Los Angeles, I haven’t felt any shaking caused by the courts.

  20. Synfandel says

    The very nature of marriage naturally generates life.

    The very nature of sex tends to generate life. If you are married and you have sex, there is a certain probability that you will reproduce. If you’re unmarried and you have sex, you have exactly the same probability of reproducing. So, what does “the very nature of marriage” have to do with it?

  21. stever says

    Didn’t someone post a list of Biblical definitions of marriage? I can’t recall all of them but they included:

    One man and as many women as he could purchase from their owners fathers. This included rape victims, in which case the price was fixed at fifty shekels of silver.

    A man and as many women as he could take as prizes of war.

    There were about half a dozen others. I’m continually amazed that the outfit that ran the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the assorted atrocities that have recently come to light in Ireland is still seen as a source of moral authority, They didn’t even excommunicate Hitler.

  22. marcus says

    sinned34 @ 18 Bwahahaha! That’s a good one! Someone who didn’t know better might think you actually believed that stupid fucking crap.

  23. RickR says

    I’ve pointed it out before, and here it is again- the last-gasp whine of the loser-

    Marriage is, and can only ever be, a unique relationship solely between one man and one woman, regardless of the decision of a judge or any vote.

    They’ve lost, they KNOW they’ve lost, and this is their parting shot as they retreat back into their churches.

  24. whheydt says

    “…with openness to children…”

    What? Can’t his–supposedly omnipotent–god make a man pregnant?

    FYI…that quote is standard RCC-speak for “contraception is forbidden” (except the rather unreliable “rhythm method”), which leads to the old joke… What do you call a couple tha practices the rhythm method? Parents.

  25. gog says

    @scienceavenger: there’s bound to be a religious person somewhere in the world that regards Bernoulli’s principle as heresy.

  26. DonDueed says

    D C Sessions @16:

    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

    “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

    “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”

  27. grumpyoldfart says

    That’s why you rely on this vague and ludicrous rhetoric.

    Vague and ludicrous rhetoric is exactly what his target audience is looking for. One of the attractions of religion is that you don’t have to think and you don’t have to work things out on your own. You just do what you’re told when you’re told. Millions of people have embraced that lifestyle and the bishop surely takes advantage of it.

  28. Kimpatsu says

    Apparently it wasn’t “written on our hearts” in good enough ink.
    It’s a palimpsest. Mine’s been overwritten with a strong love of equality.

  29. anubisprime says

    They are so cute when they are rattled…and they reveal the true face of dumbfuckery,.

    RCC clowns are the easiest onion to peel.

  30. hunter says

    Oh, let me see. . . .

    “This is not based on any private sectarian viewpoint”

    Sure looks like Catholic doctrine to me.

    “. . . but on the natural moral law that is universally binding on all peoples”

    Which has nothing to do with anything that happens in nature, but is actually the way a bunch of theoretically celibate bishops think nature should be like.

    Also too, there’s nothing “natural” about marriage. It’s entirely a human construction. And if you go back through the history of marriage, it seems that “benefit of clergy” has almost always been optional.

    “with openness to children”

    Unless the couple is infertile. And what the hell does “openness to children” mean, anyway? Does it include adoption? Big hole in the argument there.

    “The very nature of marriage naturally generates life.”

    That’s so ridiculous I don’t even need to comment.

    “When that first “domino” falls, everything that is good, true, and beautiful, which is rooted on the natural family, is seriously threatened.”

    This from a man who’s preaching false, mean and ugly.

    Another Catholic bishop spouting Church doctrine as though it had some relevance outside the church. They don’t seem to like America and the way we do things here very much.

  31. dingojack says

    Hunter – Asked: ‘And what the hell does “openness to children” mean, anyway?’

    Coming* from a Catholic Bishop, almost certainly something like this.
    Suffer the little children unto me’.

    :/ Dingo
    ——–
    * yep, it was intended

  32. tfkreference says

    richardelguru@12: I’m guessing that a fundagelical would point to Gen 2:24, despite its following surgery, not a wedding.

  33. =8)-DX says

    All I can say is that if you’re trying to build human society out of dominos, you’re doing something wrong.

    I say we choose legos instead. Also, it’s much more fun with a lot of different coloured legos, so in my inclusive society, I’m going to need good strong pieces of many different colours, shapes and sizes.

    (btw, why *hasn’t* there been a full on support of diversity from LEGO? I always seem to end up reading things like this anyway…)

  34. caseloweraz says

    http://uniquenfun.blogspot.com/2012/09/men-with-most-wives.html

    On the farthest fringes of the central Congo rain forest lives fat King Lukengu, monarch of the peace-loving Bakuba and their subject tribe, the Bakete. Far as he is from the fighting and feuding in the new republic’s cities, King Lukengu has nonetheless been roughly handled by democracy. Reason: his 800 wives.

    Step aside King Solomon. Modern day playboy King Lukengu, monarch from Congo of the peace-loving Bakuba just dethroned you for world record of most wives. King Lukengu with 800 wives… Wow… He’s fat and happy. They sing his praises, dance at his orders, embroid the exquisite raffia tapestries on the walls of his jungle palace, and when he sneezes they applaud as royal protocol prescribes. Yes, he’s living the good life… and is the ultimate polygamist/playboy of our time. King Lukengu.

    (I’ve edited the quotation slightly.)

    I remember a one-page novelty story in Life about King Lukengu Bope Mabinshe. He was described in much the same terms. I don’t remember how many wives he had, but it was in the hundreds. Gee, could it be that women naturally were regarded as property, to be bought with wealth or stolen as the spoils of war, and the man who collected the most got to feel superior?

    [Googles…] Ah — the number was the same: 800. Apparently it was a tribal tradition. See Life magazine 12 December 1960. (This is more story than I remember…)

  35. MartyM says

    This from a guy who is barred by the RCC from participating in one of the 7 sacraments of the RCC. Marriage.

Leave a Reply