Bob Plain is the editor/publisher of Rhode Island's Future. Previously, he's worked as a reporter for several different news organizations both in Rhode Island and across the country.

10 responses to “Bishop Tobin on Gay Marriage: Not Christ Like”

  1. jgardner

    If the Catholic church doesn’t want to marry to homosexuals, then that’s their right, but the Bishop cannot honestly sit there and think he’s going to be taken seriously when he says the gov’t should be allowed to discriminate on who can and cannot enter a contract based on sexual orientation. It’s such a clear violation of the 14th Amendment that any claim to the contrary is laughable on its face.

  2. Justin Katz

    Bob:  “hate springs eternal”?  Are you truly that unable to read an essay with which you disagree so as to understand what motivates the author and disagree on his own terms?  Clearly, the bishop does not think himself to be operating from hate; those who disagree with him ought to be able to do better than whipping out the H word and (as Dyszlewkski does) declaring him not to be a follower of the faith he professes.
    —–
    jgardner: You oversimplify the question, which is the nature of the contract in question.  We can discuss whether the nature of the marriage contract ought to change, but it’s pretty inarguable that it has, in all historical precedent and law, been considered an opposite-sex relationship and still is considered so by most American law and (despite fluctuations) a majority of the American people.  If that is what marriage is, then homosexuals are not similarly situated, in that they choose not to enter into the sorts of relationships that are eligible for marriage, and therefore not the subjects of invidious discrimination.
    The question then becomes, if factions wish to change the law, how they ought to go about doing it.  Your implied view is, essentially, that the process is for you to declare your worldview to be superior and therefore determinative of how the law ought to apply.  That’s totalitarian.

    1. jgardner

      Justin, I understand where you’re coming from. The issue I see is that there is no provision in the US Constitution for the Federal Gov to either define or regulate marriage. Therefore it is an issue left to the States. To that end, it is my understanding that the RI Constitution does not define marriage, nor has there been any law passed that defines marriage. Therefore I’m not sure what law you’re referring to that offers such precedent as to prevent the State’s recognition of same sex marriages.
       
      Your implied view is, essentially, that the process is for you to declare your worldview to be superior and therefore determinative of how the law ought to apply.
       
      I hardly see equal protection under the law as “totalitarian”, but to each his own, I suppose.

  3. DogDiesel

    Hate, biggot, racist, just a few words that have been inappropriately applied and worn out by the left. Sorry but the words have little meaning anymore.

  4. RightToWork

    When discussing personal motivations, I generally take people at their word because to call somebody a liar about their own motivations and emotions requires a very high degree of circumstancial evidence and it usually doesn’t affect the underlying merits of the discussion.

    As somebody who has been called a “racist” by progressives more times than I could possibly estimate accurately, I can tell you that it gets very frustrating being told how you “really” feel about an issue, especially when you know that it is the opposite of the truth. On that particular issue, the fact that it is usually because I oppose overtly racist affirmative action policies in favor of blind merit-based treatment is especially ironic.

    My personal opinion is that conservative opposition to gay marriage is the single most damaging position to their broader cause and credibility, but if they say that it’s out of religious or cultural concern rather than hatred or bigotry, then I am inclined to take them at their word because I would like the same benefit of the doubt extended to me on other topics.

    1. turbo

      “As somebody who has been called a “racist” by progressives more times than I could possibly estimate accurately”

      Huh. Never happened to me. Wonder how come.

      “if they say that it’s out of religious or cultural concern rather than hatred or bigotry, then I am inclined to take them at their word”

      What are the practical consequences of taking them at their word? What are the policy implications?

       

      1. RightToWork

        “Huh. Never happened to me. Wonder how come.”

        For the obvious reason that if you buy into the progressive affirmative action ideology that the ends justify the means, and justify advancing black individuals over white individuals in hiring, admission, promotion, and scholarship decisions, then you aren’t going to be accused of racism by the progressive elite for pushing their policies.

        1. turbo

          Oh! Sure!

          I bet that’s totally the reason! 

          1. RightToWork

            So now you’re just responding to every one of my comments, even when you have absolutely nothing substantive to offer.

            I must have really hit a nerve in one of those other threads to cause such petty retaliatory behavior.

  5. turbo

    Oh…when is it ok for me to respond to your reply to me?

    I mean: let’s see.

    1) you comment.

    2) I comment on your comment.

    3) you comment on my comment. 

    4) I comment on your comment on my comment on your comment–and that’s where I crossed the line!

    From now on, I’ve got to remember: that fourth one, that’s retaliation! 

    Wait a minute–retaliation? Retaliatory behavior? Are you imputing certain personal motivations to me? Are you calling me a racist???

Add Comment Register

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.