Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Did SCOTUS gay marriage decision put Catholics in the closet?

Did SCOTUS gay marriage decision put Catholics in the closet?

Catholic Vote’s ad ‘Not Alone’ ruffles mainstream feathers over gay marriage

Out of the sea of rainbow-frocked Facebook profile photos, corporate logos, and colorfully lit buildings emerged a seemingly innocuous black and white video.

With a mission to, “educate and inspire Americans of all faiths to prioritize the issues of life, faith, and family,” Catholic Vote is the brains behind the video that has publications like Ad Week up in arms.

Billed with the hashtag #SpeakTruthWithLove and filmed as a coming out video of sorts, ‘Not Alone’ illuminates the flip-side side of the gay marriage coin — those who believe in traditional marriage.

“I am a little nervous about people hearing that I am this way and people thinking, well, you know, she’s not welcome here,” says one woman. “Most people probably already think I’m weird anyway, so I don’t think society’s impression of me is going to change drastically based on one or two discoveries that come to light after this video,” expresses another. “It’s pretty scary, you know? You wonder how many people can I really, truly, honestly be open with?”

The big confession? “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.”

Take a look:

Not everyone is amused.

Professing love for gays but still believing in traditional marriage is spreading a, “message of intolerance” said Ad Week. Ad Week then went on to pitch a hilariously self-awareless fit over Catholic Vote’s “appropriation of LGBTQ themes to marginalize LGBTQ people.”

These Catholics are nervous about revealing their stance on same-sex marriage because they’re (spoiler alert!) against it.

That stance is nothing new. And everyone is entitled to their opinion, as long as it doesn’t lead to legislation that discriminates. No, what’s galling about the ad is its appropriation of LGBTQ themes to marginalize LGBTQ people.

The ad, with a straight face, position Catholics as a persecuted group for not having their message of intolerance (here blatantly recast as its opposite) widely accepted these days. It even plays like a coming-out video for Catholics who are afraid to take the “brave” step of voicing their objection to equality. That’s a pretty audacious tactic—disingenuous and disrespectful, to say the least.

Beyond that, it is rather illogical. You can’t reposition a group as oppressed when there is no movement to oppress them. And you certainly can’t equate being called a bigot for spouting intolerance with anything near what members of the LGBTQ community have experienced for decades.

Gee, why would Catholics have cause for concern over voicing their support for traditional marriage? It’s not like religious institutions are imperiled by the Supreme Court’s ruling on Obergefell v. Hodges or anything. Oh wait

The best part? Without realizing it Ad Week proved Catholic Vote’s point. Well done, Ad Week. Well done.

gatsby-bubbly-toast

Follow Kemberlee Kaye on Twitter

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Well done! Too bad most leftists lack any sense of self-awareness. This will only confuse their tiny little brains.

“And everyone is entitled to their opinion, as long as it doesn’t lead to legislation that discriminates. ”

WRONG! Everyone is entitled to their opinion, PERIOD! No exceptions, no qualifiers.

They don’t just say that you cannot _express_ an opinion they disagree with, you may not even _have_ an opinion they disagree with.

Who’s “intolerant”?

    Milhouse in reply to SRaher. | July 1, 2015 at 12:15 am

    In other words, “everyone is entitled to their opinion, so long as it agrees with us”. This is kind of like what the Supreme Court said in Romer.

    Voyager in reply to SRaher. | July 1, 2015 at 12:47 am

    One of the most powerful images of the post klan era was a klansman demonstration, being separated from an angry mob of counter-protesters by a line of police. For a final touch, the officer standing the the center of the line was black.

    At a stroke it captured how completely ridiculous the klan was, and how, despite the vast majority opposing them, anyone is still permitted to have an opinion, and have a voice, so long as they inflict no harm on others.

    Pundits say that the gay lobby is trying to treat this the way race was, but civil rights weren’t won by silencing anyone who had the debate; they were won by having the debates, and convincing people that it was right.

    If they have won, why are they trying so hard to silence anyone who disagrees with them?

      mariner in reply to Voyager. | July 1, 2015 at 2:48 am

      Because they didn’t win by convincing enough other people they were right, so they forced their views down our throats using the judicial branch.

      anoNY in reply to Voyager. | July 1, 2015 at 7:06 am

      “At a stroke it captured how completely ridiculous the klan was, and how, despite the vast majority opposing them, anyone is still permitted to have an opinion, and have a voice, so long as they inflict no harm on others.

      Pundits say that the gay lobby is trying to treat this the way race was, but civil rights weren’t won by silencing anyone who had the debate; they were won by having the debates, and convincing people that it was right.”

      I enjoyed the analogizing of the anti-gay marriage crowd to the Klan! However, criticizing people for holding silly conservative-religious opinions on gay marriage is not “silencing”. In fact, that criticism is a response to the “voice” of the religious “klansmen”.

        Voyager in reply to anoNY. | July 1, 2015 at 4:30 pm

        And yet still, you make no argument to support your position, only accuse those you oppose of being monsters.

        What are you so afraid of?

    eMVeeH in reply to SRaher. | July 1, 2015 at 9:01 pm

    Right Right on! We wouldn’t need the 1st A if we all agreed.

Well, here is a picture I made today, in case anybody want to use it, or make a cartoon of it (hint. hint. A.F.Branco!)

https://squeekyfrommgr.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/gayjihad.png

or this one, which is off-color, sooo it is just good for teasing SCOTUS with:

https://squeekyfrommgr.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/scrotum.jpg

Sooo, I hope everybody enjoys these. Because they are sadly true.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

After regulating marriage to include homosexuals, “equal” is scrambling to rationalize selectively excluding others.

It would appear that after the Left’s performance in California and now nationally, people are motivated to be heard despite their bullying actions, JournoLists overriding their voices, and activist threats to legal, fiscally, and socially flog them. I wonder if the Left’s intent to force an American schism will instead end with their divided and broken Party. That would be poetic justice.

Marriage is the legalized union between a husband and a wife.
It has been in the dictionary from the beginning of times.
A husband is male.
A wife is female.

Now, thanks to progressives, I became a bigot full of hate overnight. Now I will probably have to keep my opinion to myself or else.

The truth is, I have always believed that gay couples deserve the same legal protections that we, straight couples have.
But we don’t need to call their unions “marriages” for that. They’re not!
We don’t need to change the meaning of words for that.
We don’t need to be confrontational and defy people’s beliefs for that.

Unless, of course, the issue is not really about equal rights, but about defying traditional beliefs, about being confrontational, and about changing the meaning of words just to piss off “the others”.
And since that seems to be the case, I can’t continue to support their cause.

    Juba Doobai! in reply to Exiliado. | June 30, 2015 at 11:29 pm

    “Marriage is the legalized union between a husband and a wife.
    It has been in the dictionary from the beginning of times.”

    Um, no. Marriage is the sacramental union of a man and a woman. That means, long before dictionaries ever were, there was God giving marriage to us as His spiritual and sacred gift. Marriage, therefore, given its origins, does not need and should not have the State legalizing it.

      Midwest Rhino in reply to Juba Doobai!. | July 1, 2015 at 10:44 am

      It’s all good and well to give the Christian marriage its dues, but the civic institutions also have a long history of confirming marriages, and that history also was man and woman.

      The whole “render unto Caeser” thing recognizes the separation of the Biblical/spiritual institutions and the civil world. Later the Pope and then the King of England merged political and biblical, but not really. The spiritual is always direct between man and God, with JC the only one making intercession.

      Our government is unique in recognizing that, at least at the federal level and in our US constitution. We don’t want to remove God from government, but the laws passed are agreements among all men (or five black robes), they’re not ordained of God.

      The Catholic priest that appears on FOX was saying he thinks priests may need to remove themselves from their legal authority to marry, and only perform the “religious” ceremony. Otherwise they are acting as an agent of the state, as well as an agent of the church.

      It is indeed true that Christians, so far as they themselves are concerned, are subject to neither law nor sword, and need neither; but just take heed to fill the world with real Christians before ruling it in a Christian and evangelical manner. This you will never accomplish for the world and the masses are and always will be unchristian.
      Martin Luther, Works, Vol. III, p. 237.

The Left is clever, I’ll give them that. Through appropriating words such as “freedom,” “liberty,” and “equality” they believe they win the argument without actually having to win it, since anyone who opposes them must automatically favor “oppression,” “discrimination,” and “intolerance.”

    Exactly. They frame their narratives as arguments for positive rights, notwithstanding that they are actually for negative rights. They escape responsibility by controlling the narrative in politics, press, schools, and popular culture.

The Catholic Church views the sacrament of Holy Matrimony as the union of a man and a woman. Period. It is clearly written as such. Unlike the Supreme Court, words do matter. A woman cannot be a man and a man cannot be a woman. Priests are not performing a legal ceremony, but a religious rite. They are under no obligation to report the union to the civil authorities. They do it as a matter of courtesy. Perhaps they should consider stopping that practice. I don’t know what other religious teach, but Catholics are taught:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm

I’m fully aware that my comment will probably receive much criticism on this forum and I’m sincerely open to any disagreement. However, I beg you to consider my comment for just a second, as I truly do not mean to attack anyone. I hope you can think about my words with kindness, instead of hate towards my thinking.

As a first generation American young adult, not of Christian faith, it’s very sobering to see viewpoints like these, grounded in sincere beliefs about long-established norms and traditions. However, I beg you to see this issue of gay marriage and the movement towards larger societal equality through the lens of an American who has grown up in a different type of America than you. I beg you to look at this landmark Supreme Court case as something bigger than yourselves, your beliefs, or your way of life. I completely understand what it feels like to have such strong beliefs on an issue, especially if they are so deeply tied to your religious beliefs. I am not a religious person, but I certainly respect people who use faith to guide them in life to understand the world differently. However, when you use your faith as a reason to hinder another group’s ability to enjoy the same rights you do in your marriages or other aspects of society, that is when I believe you become the oppressor in the situation. I hate to use the word oppressor because it paints a multidimensional situation black and white. This situation has become so complicated because no side is evil and I believe most people do not hold ill will and hate towards the other. I think it is completely fine if homosexuality does not align with your own sexuality or way of life. It is wrong for you, however, to use your opinions on a lifestyle that is not yours to stop people from living that lifestyle with a person they love in marriage.

What makes America so special to me is its pluralism and the ability for first generation Americans like me to thrive in a country, where unlike in strict conservative nations like Saudi Arabia, someone else’s religious beliefs will not dictate the way I have to live my own life. I value the rich Christian heritage of this nation, but recognize that America is not a Christian nation. And that is a good thing, because it allows me to celebrate the diverse faiths and beliefs of the people in this country without having to follow by things that do not abide with my own belief system.

    gasper in reply to dl805. | July 1, 2015 at 7:23 am

    You want to believe in something? How about believing in our form of government, which this court just threw out the window? The problem is that people like you accept this decision, yet want to call yourselves “American”. What the courts just did is not the way our country was designed to function. That is the problem, not gay marriage. Those five justices just told us they can do anything they want to do. If you agree with the decision this court just made then you do not believe in our system of government. What makes the country special to you scares the hell out of me.

    Vancomycin in reply to dl805. | July 1, 2015 at 8:02 am

    “” I beg you to look at this landmark Supreme Court case as something bigger than yourselves, your beliefs, or your way of life. “”

    GFY

    ” but I certainly respect people who use faith to guide them in life to understand the world differently.”

    Bullshit.

    Vancomycin in reply to dl805. | July 1, 2015 at 8:07 am

    The word “marriage” means something, you useless twit. It doesn’t mean sodomy.

    anoNY in reply to dl805. | July 1, 2015 at 8:31 am

    Don’t worry too much about the negative responses you are getting, commenting on this website is sometimes like playing dodgeball against a team who coats their balls in horse manure…

    As for you other folks, yes the ambiguity of this comment was purposeful…

    ss396 in reply to dl805. | July 1, 2015 at 12:12 pm

    What you miss, and what so many other public commentators miss, is what a religious basis really means. The religious basis is belief in the Triune God, the Creator of life and the universe, and the Law that He has established for His creation. His Law is not subject to change, to evolving, to polls, to societal accommodations. We may make a royal hash of it as we try to apply it to our days and circumstances, but the Law itself was given to us and it remains unchanged. When we have Scripture that says that homosexual activity is sinful, then homosexual activity is sinful, no matter what the polls say. This does not denigrate or specifically victimize homosexuals, because the Law also says that a lot of what all of us do every day is sinful: procrastinating, speeding, lying, gossiping, DWI, unkind thoughts – all of these are equally as sinful as is homosexual activity. The only acceptable behavior to God is perfection according to God’s Law, and none of us – not one! – can achieve that. We are all sinners before God, and are all equally condemned for it. Note that there is no hierarchy of sin; every sin is as repugnant to God as is every other sin. Homosexual activity is not specially called out or specially condemned – it’s right there along with every other violation of God’s Law; no greater, no lesser.

    As Christians, we are supposed to be repentant and remorseful of our sinfulness, and we are charged with trying to resist the temptations to sin. This is where homosexual “marriage” attracts such indignation: rather than being repentant of the sin, it is being celebrated – widely, publicly, joyfully. As a society, do we widely and publically and joyfully celebrate thieves? Liars? Bullies? Speeders? DWI offenders? Drug abusers? We do not. Indeed, we condemn those activities and as a society we seek to shame, to punish, even to physically restrain individuals who perpetrate them. Yet the sinful homosexual behavior is not only lauded, but I am expected – nay, I am demanded – to participate in that celebration. You might as well ask, expect, demand that I praise a Bullies’ parade; and join them, and march under their banner…Hooray for Bullies! Stop oppressing Bullies; they’re people, too! they should be allowed their indulgences without anyone getting in their way! Hurrah for Bullies! – and those of you who refuse to march with us shall be vilified, ostracized, fined, oppressed and physically threatened.

    That’s what LGBT is demanding me to be a party to. Whereas under my faith, celebrating the sin of homosexual union is no different than celebrating, say, the sin of bullying.

    I know of many people among my family, my associates, my friends, my neighbors, and especially myself who participate in all manner of sinful behaviors. This does not make me love them any less; this does not make them any less welcome in my home; this does not make me shun or avoid them; this does not stop me from celebrating their joys and commiserating in their sorrows. I am not able, on my own, to resist all temptations and avoid all sins, and am therefore in no position to condemn them for their sin. But I am ashamed of my sins and I will not joyfully and publicly celebrate my sin; nor I will not celebrate my neighbors’ sins. There is love and joy and aid and comfort and community between Christians and homosexuals, but there can be no acceptance – much less praise – of homosexual activity; there can be no celebration of it. For this, the LBGT gang terms me a hater.

    civil truth in reply to dl805. | July 1, 2015 at 4:51 pm

    The past few decades have seen the goal posts moving from initially an appeal to not interfere in private sexual activity between consenting adults, and then a request for certain legal rights (e.g. inheritance, medical treatment and visitation rights, child custody) for same-sex couples – which was being met with civil partnerships – and then to redefining marriage to include same sex couples.

    And if the people of the various states, through its elected representatives, have acceded to these changes, that’s the democratic process at work. The problem is when the courts impose a definition of marriage upon the citizens, and to base that imposition on an appeal to a new fundamental right that has no foundation nor limitation in its application. Which raises the concern that dissenters will not be able to abstain but will be coerced into participating – and perhaps even celebrating – in marriages under this new definition.

    Exiliado in reply to dl805. | July 1, 2015 at 8:13 pm

    We are not denying gay couples anything.
    You can legally recognize a civil union between two people of the same gender, and then extend all legal protections that hetero couples enjoy to them.
    Simple.
    No need to call things what they’re not.
    No need to attack other people’s beliefs.
    No need to call others “oppressors” or bigots.

    katiejane in reply to dl805. | July 5, 2015 at 12:51 pm

    Actually ” As a first generation American young adult, not of Christian faith” you are ill-equipped or qualified to pass judgment on what the rest of us should do or how we should feel regarding a court decision which is offensive to our religious beliefs and is based on PC pandering.

Glad you found this fantastic blog. Read it all the way back to the beginning.

“The best part? Without realizing it Ad Week proved Catholic Vote’s point. Well done, Ad Week. Well done.”

And the video itself showed that at least some Catholics can empathize with what many gay folks have gone through.

Too bad many of those gay folks have gone through such troubles partly due to Catholicism.

    Ragspierre in reply to anoNY. | July 1, 2015 at 8:18 am

    Yes. Because, like Hindus, Jews, Muslims, and all of culture for all of time (with the notable exception of ancient Greeks), Catholics (how come you left out black Baptists?) won’t tell queers it’s alright to practice what their doctrine teaches is immoral.

    So mean…

      anoNY in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2015 at 8:32 am

      Way to ignore my use of the word “partly”.

      I left out other religions because the blog post is about a specific religion. Or, did you just not notice?

        Ragspierre in reply to anoNY. | July 1, 2015 at 8:43 am

        You are a liar, as we all know.

        Your anti-Christian bigotry…along with your other bigotries…has been well documented.

        Ragspierre in reply to anoNY. | July 1, 2015 at 8:49 am

        But I have no anti-gay bigotry. I love people generally, and hold them to the same standards.

        And I work very hard at never lying. As you well know, but prefer to lie about.

“Professing love for gays but still believing in traditional marriage is spreading a, ‘message of intolerance'”

That’s the very definition of “tolerance.” But liberals engage in word games and language manipulation like no other.

No, I won’t proffer an opinion in the workplace, or I’ll be on the street. Fascism, pure and simple. But …

We Catholics have put Catholics in the closet! After Roe v Wade, did you see all the bishops leading thousands of faithful to surround the killing mills? Of course not. Epic fail. How many “Catholic” proabort politicians are there now? How many “Catholic” justices keep up the charade? How many Catholics vote for leftists? Who pushed for ObamaCare?

Sorry, but no boohoo here.

    anoNY in reply to JerryB. | July 1, 2015 at 8:48 am

    “No, I won’t proffer an opinion in the workplace, or I’ll be on the street. Fascism, pure and simple. But …”

    This is stupid. If I were to say something offensive to Catholics in my workplace, I could be fired just as you could if you said something offensive about gays. The workplace is just not a good place to be expressing opinions on controversies (Obama’s exhortation to discuss race at the water cooler included).

      Ragspierre in reply to anoNY. | July 1, 2015 at 9:04 am

      Here, it’s hard to know if you are lying or simply delusional. Either way, what you said is untrue. Again.

      Any objective observer knows that Collectivists have a license to attack those who disagree with them, as you do here with your trolling.

      Conversely, the rest of America knows that it can mean bitter persecution if you say things that happen to be patently true about a favored group, or contribute to a political cause considered the enemy of the Collective.

      JerryB in reply to anoNY. | July 1, 2015 at 10:02 am

      Nothing like confirming the headline. Anti-homo = hate.

      Rags, you’d better watch the anti-troll hate speech!

      gasper in reply to anoNY. | July 1, 2015 at 10:55 am

      You are aware that virtually all your posts start with a quote that you then proceed to attack? That shows the shallowness of your thinking. You can’t possibly entertain an original thought so the only thing left is to attack what others have written. It’s the liberal way – it’s what you do because you are intellectually lazy. You will not get another comment from me – ever. You are a bore, and an arrogant and ignorant fool who questions everything and knows very little. What a small, disgusting creature you are. Do you have parents or did you just slither out of the primeval slime?

    FrankNatoli in reply to JerryB. | July 1, 2015 at 11:23 am

    Brother, did you get that right. Baptized Catholics who do not attend weekly Mass are no different in secular culture terms than the rest of the population, i.e., their Catholicism has zero influence on their attitudes and behavior. Those who do attend weekly Mass, predominantly, are interested in turning the Roman Catholic Church into something indistinguishable from the main-line Protestant sects, and it would seem that this Pope is on the same page, just give him enough time.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend