OPINION & EDITORIAL
Voters’ empathy vital for ban
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Jack Garigliano:
- Tuition raise continues daunting trend (October 25, 2007)
- Republicans overreact to UW e-mail (October 11, 2007)
- Music downloads still safe (September 28, 2007)
- College Dems do it dirty, focus on 'ass'inine issues (September 13, 2007)
- Tibetan flag flap should blow over (May 2, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Letter to the editor 4-22-02 (April 22, 2002)
- Bishop errs in advice (October 11, 2006)
- Catholic Church in dire straits (April 25, 2002)
- Build church, not conflict (March 16, 2007)
- Abortion, bishops and Catholicism (the ABCs) (January 29, 2004)
by Jack Garigliano
Thursday, November 2, 2006
Last week, Catholic priests of the 11-county Madison diocese received an extra-special package in the mail from their very own Bishop Morlino. The priests found enclosed a letter and two copies of the same audio recording, one on cassette tape and the other on compact disc. The recording, according to the letter, was a homily given by Bishop Morlino, 14 minutes in length, concerning the upcoming elections. The letter further explained that the recorded homily must be played at the priests' respective services this coming weekend, Nov. 4-5. The recording's presentation to the congregation, according to the bishop's letter, was mandatory. In this taped homily, Bishop Morlino supported the rigid man-with-woman definition of marriage, denounced the death penalty and attacked stem-cell usage. In other words, he upheld the official teaching of the Catholic Church.
The bishop's letter went on to chide certain priests of his diocese who have "refused to cooperate" with Morlino's request to preach in favor of the marriage ban and "have even expressed disagreement." Bishop Morlino warned that any further disagreement with his teaching, verbal or non-verbal, would be considered "an act of disobedience," which "could have serious consequences." The bishop concluded by encouraging discussion by providing his phone number.
Bishop Morlino, regardless of his views on gay partnership in general, is sadly delusional on several counts. One count occurs during the course of Morlino's oration when he quips "people have a right to marry, but no one has a right to redefine marriage" and continues by stressing that marriage is between a man and a woman and should not be redefined lest the very fabric of society be torn asunder. I would love to argue these statements at some future date, but Morlino completely misses some important points that are much more relevant to the upcoming election.
The first part of the upcoming marriage amendment proposes — much to Morlino's liking — that only marriages between a man and a woman shall be recognized by the state of Wisconsin. Morlino, as a bishop, can justifiably support or condemn this part of the amendment in his sermons to his congregation, as marriage is typically a religious institution. Morlino errs by assuming that the failure of this ballot would lead to a redefinition of marriage, and that the primary concern of those vicious, vicious liberals is a redefinition of marriage.
The most alarming part of the amendment for many people occurs in the second half of the proposal, where it outlaws any legal status "substantially similar" to marriage for unmarried persons. The appropriateness of preaching political opinions begins to fade when the issues pertain more to legal questions than religious ones. This is especially the case of the current situation, where gay civil unions generally receive more support than gay marriage, and the emphasis of the amendment's opposition has been placed on the prohibition of civil unions. Nevertheless, Morlino is forcing the same misguided homily, not just upon his congregation, but on parishioners in 11 counties.
At this point, I feel obliged to draw a parallel to LaVonne Derksen's irrational column on this page yesterday. While I have neither time nor space to refute every fallacy in the article, Derksen seems to possess an acute paranoia toward "homosexual activists" who strive to "drive radical secularism throughout America," apparently because a gay-interest magazine published an article 22 years ago stating that science and public opinion can help counteract the effect of institutionalized religion. Shocking! There must be some kind of underground conspiracy! Derksen concludes that the secret shadowy "secular lefts'" agenda will, if executed fully, "leave little room for free exercise of faith or speech." Derksen's reactionary accusations are too tempting to answer with reactionary responses, due to the number of hysterically wild claims. Suffice it to say, these statements never give satisfactory proof that the left is trying to specifically attack religion, and never elaborate on what their specific agenda actually is.
Derksen displays the same conviction held by Bishop Morlino — that opponents of the amendment are trying to launch a direct attack upon the church and religion. Apart from the vagueness, groundlessness and sheer paranoia frothing in this belief, the accusers — Derksen, Morlino and, God forbid, any others who choose to think like them — are still lacking a firm mental grasp on the issue at hand. The upcoming amendment concerns a range of issues that go further than matrimonial definitions: namely, any and all legal states similar to marriage. Voters must look beyond their feelings for religious institutions and focus instead on the universal tolerance and compassion their religion supposedly gives them.
Jack Garigliano (garigliano@wisc.edu) is a freshman majoring in English.
Anonymous (November 2, 2006 @ 7:27am):
To all the people who site the Bible as the reason for voting "yes" for one man, one woman marriages: tell me again how many wives King Solomon had?
Is it fair to pick and choose the portions of the Bible you agree with?
Anonymous (November 2, 2006 @ 7:48am):
Jack- I think you're the one who is irrational. You and others go absolutely nuts when Bishop Morlino and others do their jobs and speak out for what is right. You have some irrational fear of people with devotion to their faith.
One important point that you left out is that Bishop Morlino noted that his words were rooted in natural law. This isn't some discipline of the faith like abstaining from meat on Fridays in Lent. Same-sex "marriage" and embryonic stem cell research are always wrong. The Church is not creating a teaching. It does not have the authority to. It is merely communicating right and wrong.
I happen to know LaVonne well, and I know that she is not Catholic. The fact that she came to the exact same conclusion as Bishop Morlino proves that this is not just an issue of one particular religious tradition being forced on others.
The only reason religion comes into play here is that Jack and others want to use this issue as a tool to discredit religion.
Finally, I do wish that Bishop Morlino did not have do what he did. If every priest in every parish would uphold natural law and Catholic teaching, he would not have to.
Anonymous (November 2, 2006 @ 9:37am):
Is remaining celibate part of natural law?
Anonymous (November 2, 2006 @ 11:03am):
Dead on! Nice work Jack!
Anonymous (November 2, 2006 @ 11:30am):
Jack, excellent, well reasoned column! Thank you!
I will be attending mass this weekend and will be walking out when that tape is played. I hear of a number of others who are planning the same thing.
To LaVonne and the second poster, if you don't want gay marriage at your church then don't have it. Beyond that what right do you have to tell the rest of the population what is "right" and supposedly "natural law"? Several decades ago your churches told us that "natural law" dictated that people of different races couldn't marry. Before that your churches looked the other way when it came to slavery. Before that they killed people who they thought were witches. Shall we go on? Hypocrites don't typically make strong arguments.
Anonymous (November 2, 2006 @ 12:50pm):
"Beyond that what right do you have to tell the rest of the population what is 'right' and supposedly 'natural law'?"...
This question ought to be answered by those who seek to turn the institution of marriage upside down. For a few thousand years of human history, marriage has been between one man and one woman in a lifelong union, and it has always been that way in the State of Wisconsin. What right do you (or your favorite judge) have to falsely define marriage?
Those of you that want to re-define marriage need to start coming up with reasons as to why we've had it wrong for all these years instead of raising side issues that have nothing to do with the defining marriage. This amendment has nothing to do with determining who or what race can marry- it only determines what marriage means. Anyone can marry as long as it is to someone of the opposite sex.
Also, it's ridiculous for amendment opponents to claim that voting "no" will change nothing. Massachusetts had virtually the same laws on the book, and same-sex "marriage" is now the law there thanks to activist judges. We don't need tea leaves or a crystal ball to know what can happen here. Wisconsin law does not recognize same-sex "marriage" or civil unions, and therefore only voting "yes" maintains status quo.
Anonymous (November 2, 2006 @ 1:12pm):
"There appeared to be many marriages taking place without witness or ceremony in the 1500's. The Council of Trent was so disturbed by this, that they decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses. Marriage took on a new role of saving men and women from being sinful, and of procreation. Love wasn't a necessary ingredient for marriage during this era."
Anonymous (November 2, 2006 @ 1:33pm):
Organized religions stink.
Anonymous (November 2, 2006 @ 1:51pm):
"For a few thousand years of human history, marriage has been between one man and one woman in a lifelong union, and it has always been that way in the State of Wisconsin."
Change the parts about Marriage to parts about slavery, and substitute any southern state for Wisconsin, and you have basically America, 1860.
Just because something has been the same way for a long time does not make it right.
And you want an answer to: "Those of you that want to re-define marriage need to start coming up with reasons as to why we've had it wrong for all these years instead of raising side issues that have nothing to do with the defining marriage."? Ok, how about: it's discriminatory. It's unjust. It does not uphold the rights of all to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. Constitutions are meant to protect the rights of minority against the majority, not the other way around.
Also this statement: "For a few thousand years of human history, marriage has been between one man and one woman in a lifelong union" is blatantly untrue. You really need to read up on other parts of world history.
Anonymous (November 2, 2006 @ 2:25pm):
When God created Adam and Eve, was there a wedding ceremony? No? Then, by that Biblical example, no one should get married; they didn't think it was of any use.
I think the "traditional marriage" or "natural law" everyone is talking about is actually the life of Leave it to Beaver. We should be quoting Eddie Haskel and June Cleaver instead of Deuteronomy and Romans.
Anonymous (November 2, 2006 @ 2:38pm):
Again, if you don't want same sex marriages in your church then don't have them. The key word being church. Church does not equal state. Your church is not supposed to dictate its policy onto the state. Sorry!
And just because there have been thousands of years of intolerance and prejudice doesn't make it right. We looked at women as second class for that long too. We sanctioned slavery for that long too. By your reasoning then we should still have slaves and women should be men's property. Sorry but your argument doesn't hold up.
Why are you so afraid to explain gay people to your kids anyway? And please tell us all about any marriages that you know of that have ended (been threatened) because of the Massachussetts ruling. We're waiting.
Anonymous (November 2, 2006 @ 3:35pm):
Down with organized religion...Up with athiest sea otters!
Anonymous (November 2, 2006 @ 5:38pm):
I'm just glad women aren't allowed to vote. That would ruin the fabric of our nation.
Anonymous (November 2, 2006 @ 6:33pm):
"Why are you so afraid to explain gay people to your kids anyway?"
I'm afraid of what straight people do. How am I going to explain an Icy Mike or a Dirty Sanchez to my children. Mommy, what is that trapeze for?
Anonymous (November 2, 2006 @ 11:01pm):
"I'm just glad women aren't allowed to vote. That would ruin the fabric of our nation."
and blacks. let's bring back poll taxes! or even better, count them as 3/5.
Anonymous (November 10, 2006 @ 5:55pm):
Jack Garigliano is clearly your most insightful and talented columnist. He speaks with the wisdom of a senior and yet is a mere freshman. I trust you have signed him to a long-term contract.
Father Tom Lindner
Stevens Point, Wis.
