Cardinal, I know of no one in this country who has proposed denying your church - or any other - the right to be as exclusive in its offering of rites as it chooses to be.
Give the government -- or, more likely, the courts -- time. No one is proposing it -- yet.
Is the Church being unduly paranoid? So far, its schools have been told that they cannot prevent a gay student from attending a school-sponsored prom with his boyfriend, although his "lifestyle" is clearly contrary to Church teaching (despite the nonsense on that point in the relevant court decision).
Let's look at the matter this way. The advocates of the change to the definition of marriage have said again and again that this is a civil rights question, no different from the questions asked and answered by the civil rights movement in the United States in the 50s and 60s. Accepting that the analogy is apposite, ask yourself how long would we tolerate a church that refused to baptize black babies? How long would we permit it to continue to enjoy tax-exempt status?
Geoff strikes again!
Give the government -- or, more likely, the courts -- time. No one is proposing it -- yet.
Is the Church being unduly paranoid? So far, its schools have been told that they cannot prevent a gay student from attending a school-sponsored prom with his boyfriend, although his "lifestyle" is clearly contrary to Church teaching (despite the nonsense on that point in the relevant court decision).
Let's look at the matter this way. The advocates of the change to the definition of marriage have said again and again that this is a civil rights question, no different from the questions asked and answered by the civil rights movement in the United States in the 50s and 60s. Accepting that the analogy is apposite, ask yourself how long would we tolerate a church that refused to baptize black babies? How long would we permit it to continue to enjoy tax-exempt status?