Vatican vows to fight gay marriage after gains in U.S., Europe


The Vatican, reacting to strong gains for gay marriage in the United States and Europe, on Saturday pledged never to stop fighting attempts to “erase” the privileged role of heterosexual marriage, which it called it “an achievement of civilization”.

For the second consecutive day, Vatican media weighed in with forceful editorials restating the Roman Catholic Church’s unequivocal opposition.

“It is clear that in Western countries there is a widespread tendency to modify the classic vision of marriage between a man and woman, or rather to try to give it up, erasing its specific and privileged legal recognition compared to other forms of union,” Father Federico Lombardi, said in a tough editorial on Vatican Radio.

Voters in the U.S. states of Maryland, Maine and Washington state approved same-sex marriage on Tuesday, marking the first time marriage rights have been extended to same-sex couples by popular vote.

Same-sex unions have been legalized in six states and the District of Columbia by lawmakers or courts.

Lombardi’s editorial on Vatican Radio, which is broadcast around the world in some 30 languages, called the votes myopic, saying “the logic of it cannot have a far-sighted outlook for the common good”.

Written By: Philip Pullella
continue to source article at


  1. Same old same old Vatican…
    to summarise:
    1. Marriage is like an exclusive country club for straights, if we let the gays in there goes the neighbourhood.
    2. Bad slippery slope argument: If we tolerate this then polygamy will be next (lets conveniently ignore that in almost every culture that polygamy is the norm homosexuality carries legal sanctions or death). Let’s also ignore the glaring double standard that asserts that gay marriage is a slippery slope to polygamy but straight marriage somehow isn’t.

    I’m just surprised they didn’t go for the hattrick and give us the bogus “Biblical marriage is between one man and one woman” trope, which was neatly eviscerated by Betty Bowers:
    Perhaps they’re learning that some Catholic teachings are just too hilarious to take seriously.

  2. “the privileged role of heterosexual marriage”.
    There we go. It’s all about privileges. Where’s the magic of marriage? The promise to stay together in good and in bad times? But it’s not about that. It’s about the right to have sex. It has always been for the simple purpose of tying people to the faith.
    If you wanted to have the privilege to procreate, you had to abide by the religious rules. That’s why religious institutions hate same sex marriages or unmarried people having sex. They have lost their grip on these people and they hate it.
    I don’t need a churches blessing to tell a woman I love her and want to spend the rest of my life with her. I can even celebrate it with my family and friends. I can also make up a will in which I leave all my possessions to her and so forth. So what else is the purpose of marriage?

  3. I simply think that an institution composed exclusively of single men have no legitimacy to legislate about marriage. They just can’t know what they are talking about.

  4. Heterosexual marriage ‘an achievement of civilisation’ ? And what about half of them, in some countries, ending in divorce?  Is that an achievement  to be proud of, enough to pledge attempts never to ‘erase’ its ‘privilaged’ role?  Who wants to erase it anyway?  Homosexual couples simply wish to coexist, ie. exist side by side (for all those religious Vatican inhabitants whose English-along with their humanity-is insufficient); they don’t want to supplement it or erase it!  And your God created us all, in your view, so speak to him, Mr.Lombardi

  5.   “It is clear that in Western countries there is a widespread tendency to modify the classic vision of GEOCENTRICISM between the EARTH and SUN, or rather to try to give it up, erasing its specific and privileged legal
    recognition compared to other forms of ASTRONOMY,” Cardinal Bellarmine, said in a tough  Vatican EDICT .

    Hmmmmm!  Sounds like familiar history after the slightest of changes!

  6. Of course none of us gays would want to undermine the solemnity and gravitas of a historic institution which brought together the likes of Brittany Spears and Jason Alexander at the Little White Wedding Chapel in Vegas (at least until the hangover wore off 55 hours later).

  7. Like I’ve stated elsewhere, an organization that actively harbours child molesters and impedes the resulting police investigations deserves no place in a discussion on the legality of something like marriage.

  8. @OP:disqus  –  Lombardi, who is also the Vatican’s chief spokesman as well as director of Vatican Radio and Vatican Television, said there was
    “public acknowledgement” that “monogamous marriage
    between a man and woman ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
    is an achievement of civilization”. ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

    REALLY!!!  .. and I thought pair-bonding  was an achievement of a large proportion of animal species going back millions of years!

    Monogamous pairing in animals refers to the natural history of mating systems in which species pair bond to raise offspring. This is associated, usually implicitly, with sexual monogamy

    The evolution of mating systems in animals has received an enormous amount of attention from biologists. This section briefly reviews three main findings about the evolution of monogamy in animals.

    The amount of social monogamy in animals varies across taxa, with over 90% of birds engaging in social monogamy while only 3% of mammals are known to do the same.

    This list is not complete. Other factors may also contribute to the evolution of social monogamy. Moreover, different sets of factors may explain the evolution of social monogamy in different species. 

    There is no one-size-fits-all explanation of why different species evolved monogamous mating systems.

    I suppose he’s a Vatican pontificator, while  I’m only a biologist who looks at evidence!

  9. How about an accommodation. We will not moan about the lying ex-nazi paedo-protector telling Catholic followers what and what not to do, as long as Ratzo stops telling those who do not buy into his particular primitive tribal superstition they have to follow his perverted insane rules.

    Until he stops anything (legal) goes.

  10. “privileged legal recognition compared to other forms of union”

    That’s the crux of the problem. Civil unions often don’t confer the same rights as marriage. If they want a special category of partnership that applies only to  a man and a woman perhaps they should campaign for a partnership between gays that is regarded as equal to to that. (Which would just be marriage under a different name). Obviously they are not going to do that because equality is not on their agenda, regardless of whatever lip-service is paid to it. I just wish they wouldn’t hide behind these nebulously defined objections, like “it lessens the importance of marriage”. Just come out say “we want gays to be treated as inferior to other humans” and be done with it.

  11. A cynical view of the catholic church position on homosexual rights  it that  ‘methinks they doth protest too much’    If men want to ‘ live and lie ‘   together,  just join the church!  (also women-nuns of course) 

    The  church  may have been an extremely cleverly and elaborately designed   hiding place for people who, if they ‘came out’  in those times, would have been seriously  persecuted for their homosexual and other paedophiliac behaviours.   The obsession with exclusion of women from  senior posts in the church,  celibacy etc  are extreme positions  to hold  and should be regarded with great suspicion, not with the respect that that church has brainwashed into its  followers.   

    The incredible  stories of  tolerated paedophilia etc  that have been exposed in recent times are the tip of the iceberg and I think  that the church is fighting to prevent large scale exposure of what it really represents  by  apparently resisting strongly the very thing  that it actually hides within its walls.  (Charitable works done by the church are also an obvious way to disguise its real motives of extracting maximum wealth from its followers.)  

    Now that  homosexuality is more accepted  in civilised societies, the catholics have lost yet another reason for their existence and homosexuals no longer need to join them for safety.   Paedophiles on the other hand will probably never be acceptable so the church may continue to exist as a place where they can practice in safety!   Society therefore needs to put extra protection in place to keep children away from the church and not ever trust members of the church to     ‘look after them’.  
    Faith schools are  extremely risky as children can be easily indoctrinated into keeping quiet about abuse with horrendous threats of  eternal damnation, hellfire and brimstone that the catholics  force into them with their videos etc.  (anyone who doubts this should do a search on the brainwashing of  children at convents etc) .   

    One can’t help being cynical about an organisation that claims divine right and that assures people that it knows things that it actually cannot and does not know.  Institutionalised fraud on such a grand scale  requires serious defence by the perpetrators hence one should consider that they might actually do the exact opposite of  what they say.  

  12.  You’re quite right, because when asked they all clam up. The hidden answer which they do not wish to say is sex. They are obsessed with sex, whether hetero or homo, but in this particular case, it all boils down to homosexual sex, not marriage.

  13. If they really want to support a biblical view of marriage they should be at the same time they should be promoting Polygamy, hell why not thrown in slavery as well. 

  14. Sometimes I  wish Lombardi would just saddle his donkey, and then ride quietly out of town.

    But no such luck!  Lombardi is going to take on the  western world! Such heroics of his pissquick faith!

    Now what is the Vatican’s foreign policy? Are they intending to invade the USA, Spain and France all at the same time? There surely wouldn’t be enough Swiss Guards to do that?

    (Eyes roll)

  15. How about this for their new advertising slogan: “This carefully selected element of Late Iron Age morals is brought to you by the Roman Catholic Church (don’t ask us about polygamy or slavery)”

  16. Good for them for speaking out and taking a stand with the morally bankrupt and steadily sinking Republican Party; the more they all speak their minds out loud so we all can hear, the more rapidly they circle the drain. They can all go down together.

    Of course, the growing tide of success of human rights (especially in the question of gay marriage) will severely undercut the power of the HRCC around the world, and that is the real reason they are fighting it. It’s the opposite of a moral stance, IMO.

  17. what could be more myopic than the vision the catholic church has of love and loving? it’s extremely focused view on an institution over which somehow they have claimed  jurisdiction is about as myopic as you can get.  next, same-sex marriage will become mainstream, and the church will demand jurisdiction over that, too!

  18. They have sex with children.

    The stigma of pedophilia and priests  goes back long before the US scandals came to official light. It is an institution of child rape. The Pope himself (a former Nazi, another homophobic institution), is implicated in pedophilia. Why are they condemning anyone’s sexual behavior? Homophobes usually like to argue the slippery slope in terms of normalizing pedophilia, and that argument is noticeably absent from the RCC. The absence of this argument makes their denouncement a reminder of their crimes. They think about themselves as a pedophile organization as they denounce gays, and their heads don’t explode. A sane, healthy person would begin crying and quit their job from the cognitive-dissonance.

    Besides, polygamy is perfectly legal. It’s called a corporation.

  19. I have absolutely no problem with the church fighting gay marriage. In fact I encourage them to do so and will stand by them (out of sight, at least) as they defend their religious rights. Who are we to force them into change?…….

    If gay couples are faced with no alternative to civil partnerships then hopefully we’ll see heterosexual couples choosing the registry office over the church in support of them and in rebellion against outdated Vatican dogmatism.

  20. Oh dear the beleagured old ‘celibates’ of the vatican have been inhaling their own satanic flatus again.  That men who have no experience of marriage should consider it a privileged role is, shall we say more of a stumblebum than a leap of faith?

  21. “the logic of it cannot have a far-sighted outlook for the common good”

    The thing that worries them most is that people are deciding for themselves what ‘the common good’ is without referring to the Catholic Church, and the reason they are doing it is that the RCC has a track record of hypocrisy on subjects like pedophillia and homsexuality, and people are no longer fooled by it.

    Instead of admitting their errors (because another part of their dogma says they are incapable of making them) and trying to fix them however, they keep banging on in the same way in the hope that increased volume will compensate for increased irrelevance.   The ‘logic’ seems to be along the lines of “if I say something three times it must be true” and that the people who are ignoring them in larger and larger numbers will eventually get bored with opposing them and just do as they are told like they did in the fourteenth centuary.

    If we look at all the things that have been done throughout history “for the common good” we find that they are almost exclusively for the good of the people who proposed them in the first place. The idea that the Vatican is an institution worthy of telling others how to run their lives is another such piece of towering dishonesty.

  22. I don’t mind gay marrige , but gay adoption at least amongst males I’m against for now anyway. Not that I think there is anything morally wrong with gay men. I think if a child is denied a mother by choice then thats not right. I think of the children in these instances and I shudder to think of the treatment they will get at school , lumbering them with such a stigma from day one. I see selfishness in bringing children into families with gay parents. The children know no different and are powerless to have any intelligent input into the decision , yet they may have to suffer a life of snide remarks and bullying not to talk of the confusion.

  23. i dont’ understand

    assuming the vote is for legal marriage as opposed to a specifically sanctioned religious ritual, is this another one of those occasions where the catholic church can go fuck itself? i understand that in the catholic church marriage is very important. it means you’re allowed to have sex so long as you do it for babies, don’t enjoy it too much and promise to indoctrinate your offspring with the right mumbo jumbo.

    other sacrements the catholic church holds as, i would assume, even more important, are christening and funerals. there are many people nowadays, naming their babies without treating them like  ventrilaquist’s dummies as sanctioned by the church. this means there are innocent babies, being denied a path to heaven because their parents choose a different type of ceremony. many people now not only choose not to bury their dead in consecrated ground, but actually cremate them and in some cases have funerals that don’t even talk about coming back to life. now if i believed all that sort of stuff, i’d be going after those issues right now. unless of course they’re so common no one bats an eyelid so a fight even i’d know was lost at the start and/or i had some really strange sexual hang-ups

    sorry. i do understand

  24. Not sure I agree with that, the RCC is one of, if not the most progressive religion around even if they are sticking to their guns here.

  25. Strange how much they are against gay marriage but how easy they find it to carry on with child rape.

  26. this argument has also been used against mixed race adoption recently. most children i’ve known who had to put up with bullying had two biological heterosexual parents. suggesting that other children will automatically discriminate is right up there with censoring free speech on account of the fact muslims don’t have the power to stop themselves becoming violent. however you may be right but since same sex adoption has been legal for a long time now there will no doubt be plenty of data to draw conclusions from

  27. I dont know . children and teens are not the best at processing difference. On your point about censorship and free speech I dont see it here , with regard to children, where there is mob mentality and little in the way of enlightened thinking , I do think saddling them with this baggage is unfair. I would draw the distinction though between same sex females and males. I’d imagine it to be much worse for children with males as parents. Who knows in the future , our sensibilities will have evolved but I remember school and it is hard enough without this sh*t being mixed in. 

  28. my point is that firstly, children who are in some way different, are candidates for bullying victims. not all victims are different however. secondly, the problem of bullying is one that should be addressed by teachers, carers and parents. different children have always been bullied. sometimes bacause their parents belong to a religion that causes them to withdraw their children from certain classes, sometimes because their parents are too poor to provide the same quality of trainers as their clasmates.

    the big mistake is to project adult prejudice on what will trigger bullying behaviour on children. it doesn’t always work that way. it’s also worth remembering that circumstances have dictated that some children will be necessity have it harder than others. black children for example, who through no fault of their own were born in a decade that meant they might be the only black child in their school. the “obvious” soultion you might say is to segregate children by colour until society grows up enough to not have a problem with colour. in reality however it is by seperating children from “others” that perpetuates bigoted views, as is still going on in Northern Irish schools through religion.

    it’s very easy to jump to a “think of the children” viewpoint but in reality, many children are far more mature and liberal than their parents. bulying is bullying and needs to be addressed whereever it appears. resorting to trying to prevent bully victims from existing in the first place is the mealy-mouthed response one would expect from the PC types stating there would’t be terror attacks if we respected others “cultures”, that’s why i drew the comparrison.

    we should protect children from bullies, but not by protecting bullies from what we think might be victims. homosexual reltionships are normal. homosexual couples wishing to bring up children are normal. anyone wishing to adopt a child has already shown a level of responsibility that natural parents can’t. there are plenty of very bad parents, who don’t have to prove their worthiness to bring up a child and as far as anyone can tell, can potentiall inflict much worse damage on their children than making them face up to the fact they might be the only kid in class with two mums/dads. within the average classroom there are plenty of potential victims dealing with the fact they have only one parent or one parent and a string of step-parents.

    besides, who better to teach a child how to handle bullies than not one but two gay parents?

  29. They always have position about something that is “easy money”. 

    Did we invent Marriage?..Nope, but everyone is doing it, so let’s be “protector” of that. And only between man and woman. Why? Because they are strong majority and we kinda need polarization. Otherwise, what’s the point.

    Do we raise children?..Nope, but everyone likes/wants children. Doesn’t matter if it’s dangerous pregnancy, “legitimate rape” or parents are too young or too poor. Contraception is bad. We’re “pro-life”. We’re good.

    Do we form political parties to run elections?…Nope, but there is whole lots of corrupted politicians that need us. We give them redneck votes, they give us money from state budget. No responsibility. We can say/believe whatever we want.

    They don’t fight with that flame against famine, diseases (financing), wars, mafia, corruption… I don’t need to mention that gorilla in the room, pedophilia…
    But hey, gay marriages are something that is gonna  “break up … human society.” (Lucetta Scaraffia, L’Osservatore Romano).   ffs!
    And they financing many Christian association only to lobby against gay marriages, contraceptions, for creationism in schools and that kinda stuff.

    Yea, Pope gives speech once a year about how people are suffering all around the world (war,

  30. I hear your point and it has merit , but I ask myself if the parental union do not have the anatomy needed  to have a child , then why bother. Invest in a dog.  I just think that their orientation in reality has made their life more difficult , nothing to be ashamed of , but most people are impeded by something , whether its a personality trait , condition , disease or whatever and I wont say this  ‘somethings are possible and somethings are not’ but I will instead rephrase and say ‘somethings are practical and somethings are not’ and we should just live with it. And before you answer what if we applied that same thinking in the field of scientific enquiry and berate me with the fact that we wouldn’t have got very far,  please dont bother. I say that in a nice way. And I know that social progression wouldn’t have happened if people kept doing what was practical in any given era. But there is no injustice here , none what so ever.

  31. on your first question of why bother, that’s not for you or i to ask, but for those who wish to have the child. millions of couples adopt, often because they lack the correct anatomy. on a superficial level it may seem they don’t but at a medical level, one or the other is infertile, therefore they do not have the correct anatomy.

    as for how difficult someone’s orientation makes their life, again not for you or i to judge. no one can tell if it would be easier to try and adopt a child in difficult circumstances or try to come to tems with never having tried. the answer is entirely subjective.furthermore sexual orientation is not a choice so the difficulty incurrec is of no persons doing

    practicality has no relevence in this case either. most children are impractical. some people have children who simply can’t look after them, some have children for entirely practical reasons such as the chance to get social housing and wellfare. sometimes women allow themselves to get pregnant to ensure a long term relationship. these are the siutuations you have when you bring practicality into the question of having children.

    the most worrying aspect to your response however is that you have changed your position from one of concern for the potential bully victim to one of simple conservation of the status quo which, added to the suggestion that sexual orientation is something one brings on oneself and your final assertion that there is no injustice without qualification suggests to me, i’m sorry to say at this stage and hope i’m wrong, you are simple a reactionary.

    furthermore no one would invest in a dog. they’d get a cat

    [edit] i should judt point out that i haven’t even begun on the question of actually improving the chances of an unwanted child getting a secure homelife which must always trump being institutionalised

  32. Cmon I never suggested sexual orientation was brought on by ‘weakness’ (to say what what you actually suggested.) I’m not stupid. If the parents can not make the child then the decision making on how and if a child ends up in a family should be made by people thinking of the best interest of the child not the parents wishing to adopt. I have already said that I believe that arrangements such as these unfairly burdens a child.

  33. Just like the Republican party, mainstream churches turn-off the younger generation with their antiquated, conservative views.  Gay marriage is inevitable, and the church will (hopefully) die off from its stubbornness.

  34. Good old Vatican. Chocked full of paedophiles who protect each other to the death yet, cannot accept their gay cohorts in marriage. They would be much better off if they buggered their fellow gay cardinals and left the innocent children alone. The Italian government should tax the antichrist out of their sick souls and offer free gay marriages at St. Peter’s.

  35. …and you hop back to the first lilly pad…

    i never accused you of saying that. i pointed out that your argument was based on the assumption that if two people are biologically incapable of having children they shouldn’t adopt. orphans need adoption.

    i accept you have already said that you believe the child is unfairly burdened but i am challenging your belief. if it’s based on fact, provide citations if it’s not, please accept that your belief just like any other is nothing but a position of faith.

    all children are burdened by their situation. I don’t htink alcoholics should have children, but they do, and their children might get bullies dor it, or might not. it depends not on if they are deserving victims but simply on the presence or otherwise of a bully. i don’t htink paedophiles should have children, but they do. i don’t think vicars should, or gangsters, or people without the financial means to support children but they do, because they are biologically capable.

    stick to an opinion and argue it or give it up.

    adoptive parents are vetted thoroughly. it is an inconveniance i grant you, and why they don’t just get a dog as you suggested, i’ll never know you’ll have to ask the childless couples who want to be parents that.

    there is no special case here, one mum-one dad, two dads, single parent, 3 men and a baby, it makes no difference. if it did you’d have posted a link to supporting data by now. children are burdened by their parents situation. why having gay parents would result in bullying i don’t know, other than bullies pick on children who might be different somehow. if you truly have a concern with that then maybe you need to consider arguing for eugenics rather than pick on one single instance, same sex adoption, as being somehow especially unfair to a child.

    i am quite disgusted with your attitude

  36. These are my views according to my sensibilities on the subject. So I am not going to provide citations. I have looked at the internet though and the majority of studies on the subject show gay couples to make good parents. I wouldn’t dispute this , gay people are as moral as straight people so that does not surprise me. My fear is how do the children fair. From what I can gather and this is entirely my own thinking ( there will be no citation) the couples that are currently adopting lie between middle class and upper class and I think that the parents, because of their wealth and ability to selectively educate their children are more likely to do better. Its hard to know and I’d imagine that a study to find out how the children progress into adulthood would be hard to do. These are my opinions and say for example if I got a vote on the subject of ‘Should gay couples adopt’ I would vote No. Now I am not weded to this and should I learn more on the subject and find that children are progressing fine then I would change my mind. I want to take you up on a few of your points and point out what I actually said. You made this point numerous times.

    ‘all children are burdened by their situation. I don’t htink alcoholics should have children, but they do, and their children might get bullies dor it, or might not’

    ‘i don’t htink paedophiles should have children, but they do. i don’t think vicars should, or gangsters, or people without the financial means to support children but they do, because they are biologically capable.’

    I said that if the parents can not make a child then their automatic right to having a child is no longer their. It is the right of a child that takes preference , specifically its right to have a future like any other child. Regardless of the type of parent if they are a drug addict , murderer , thief or whatever, if they have consentual sex : they have the right to have a child. A parent unable to have a child does not have the right to have a child. Thats the difference.

    ‘the most worrying aspect to your response however is that you have changed your position from one of concern for the potential bully victim to one of simple conservation of the status quo which, added to the suggestion that sexual orientation is something one brings on oneself ‘

    I never changed my position , maybe I elaborated but never changed my position. When you  said I suggested ‘ sexual orientation is something one brings on oneself’ , how could I interpret your response any other way.

Leave a Reply