Motives questioned

To the Journal editor:

It is amusing to read the sanctimonious letters from outraged bleeding heart liberals protesting the policies of the Catholic Church.

They forget that the freedom of religion includes the right of churches to set their own rules according to their beliefs.

That is why there are so many religious dominations. While the Catholic Church excludes avowed gays from participating in some religious functions, they make it clear that gays are welcome to attend services. In the eyes of the church, they are still God’s children.

The FIrst Amendment protects non-religious groups too. The Boy Scouts rejected gay scoutmasters because their practices go against their strongly held beliefs. The Boy Scout Handbook holds that scouts must be clean and morally straight. The right of the Boy Scouts of America to exclude gays was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In otherwords, it’s not who they are, it’s what they do.

In recent decades, the gay rights movement has become increasingly militant. They are not content with just stopping discrimination against gays, which is a noble cause. They also demand the recognition and approval of society and engage in litigation and political activism to promote their political agenda. Part of this agenda is to force society to subsidize their lifestyles by promoting gay marriage. The gay marriage campaign is all about money.

Many traditionalists resent gay pride parades and their aggressive political activism to promote their so-called “rights.” These protests against the Catholic Church reflect the mindset and intolerance of people who believe that the end justifies the means.

Anybody who dares to criticize or question their motives and tactics will be shouted down and called bigots and homophobes.

Many, if not most Americans, regard the gay lifestyle as an abomination and sinning against God that is anathema to our Judeo-Christian beliefs.

This push for gay rights is seen by many as a threat to traditional marriage by promoting moral equivalency – that a relationship between one man and one woman is no more legitimate than between two men or two women. Hogwash!

With regard to this controversy, seldom have I seen this kind of vitriol and self righteous posturing in letters to the editor. While we are all entitled to our opinions, tolerance and respect for the views of others are hallmarks of a civil society.

Let’s try to keep it that way.

John Hongisto