CommunityPam's House Blend

Father Jon speaks…again

Father Jonathan Morris, the blogger/commentator for, posted a diatribe on same-sex marriage the other day, Marriage Act Debate: It’s Not About Homosexuality, to alert The Base about the new tactic to promote the Marriage Protection Amendment, which the Senate will vote on in June. (My post on it is here.)

Remind your senators, kindly and insistently, the Federal Marriage Act is about the family, not sex. It is not homophobic. It doesn’t bash gays.

So now Father Jonathan has part two of his blog up on the matter, and it looks like he received quite a bit of mail about column #1 that challenged his assertions. You should read the whole thing; his responses are pulled from the “stock winger response file” with great confidence — here’s a snippet:

As long as gays aren’t legally allowed to marry, the conferring of criminality and prejudice continues: ie, “they make bad parents,” “they degrade the morale of the army,” “they are more likely to be paedophiles,” or “they aren’t decent people.” I respect that it is not your intention to engage in discrimination or bias, but I ask that you recognize that when the law is used as you propose (Federal Marriage Amendment), that is the exact outcome that occurs. — Tim

…All laws are discriminatory. They discriminate between what is good and bad for society in relation to the question at hand. Laws that define marriage as only between one man and one woman do not discriminate against homosexuals as people, but as their ability to comply with the inherent nature and objectives of the institution being regulated. To compare the acceptance of two men marrying each other with the acceptance of interracial marriage, as some have done, is disingenuous and offensive.

But then he gets tripped up by this letter.

I enjoy reading your column. I am an atheist. I do not use the Bible to establish or enforce my morality, my ethical behaviour, or to derive my virtues. Opponents of defining marriage as only between a man and a woman often argue that ours is a religious stance. I would like to make it very clear that there is nothing religious at all about it. In case it has slipped some people’s minds, there are TWO genders: male and female. When they copulate, they can produce offspring, which perpetuates the human race. Marriage is our society’s legal representation of this…and it represents a legal and financial reward for people who wish to reproduce. Men and women who are married and do not intend to reproduce are simply using marriage to reap the benefits of the law. — Dave, Arizona

He doesn’t have a response, so he sticks his fingers in his ears and starts the “la la la la la” and begs off of answering.

If there is one thing I would like to make clear it is this; the issue is complicated. I don’t have all the answers, but it is worth a reflective and sincere search for what is best for our country and the world.

Thanks to Tedi for the pointer.

Previous post

The crazies

Next post

Profiles in Courage

Pam Spaulding

Pam Spaulding