Gay marriage fight divides Minnesota’s Catholic community

Published 11:02am Monday, August 20, 2012

By Rose French

Minneapolis Star Tribune

ST. PAUL — About 20 Catholics sat on folding chairs and old sofas in Ed Burg’s basement, snacking on cookies and candy and talking about why they don’t like the proposed marriage amendment.

“It’s a matter of further restriction on gay or GLBT people of whom there are number in my family, particularly my son,” said Burg, 88, who attends St. Edward’s Catholic Church in Bloomington.

Last week’s meeting was one of several recently organized by Catholics who oppose the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, putting them at odds with Catholic bishops and underscoring the deep divide and tension among Catholics over the issue of gay marriage. On Wednesday, several hundred Catholics met in Minneapolis’ Loring Park to sing, dance, pray and show support for same-sex marriage.

So far this year, Catholic leadership has been one of the biggest financial backers of pro-amendment forces, directing close to $500,000 in support of it. Minnesota voters will decide Nov. 6 whether the state’s Constitution will define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

While conservative Catholics have thrown their support behind the amendment, the more liberal-minded like Burg have rallied against the measure and believe bishops should instead be more focused on fighting issues like poverty and homelessness.

“I certainly see [it] as damaging … in the impression that we give of ourselves as a state, if we pass this,” Burg said just prior to the meeting at his house, where a representative with an anti-amendment group urged them to encourage others to vote against the measure.

Uncommon voting bloc

Catholic voters have played pivotal roles in the outcome of gay marriage measures in other states and are expected to do the same in Minnesota, where they rank as the state’s largest religious denomination with nearly 1.1 million followers.

But unlike evangelicals and other conservative religious groups who have played key roles in supporting anti-gay marriage measures in other states, Catholics appear less likely to vote as a bloc on issues like gay marriage.

Recent national polls report increased support for gay marriage in the United States. According to a survey released by Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life in July, 58 percent of Catholics are in favor of allowing gays and lesbians to marry.

“Catholics are actually more likely than most other religious groups to be in favor of allowing gays and lesbians to marry,” said Besheer Mohamed, a Pew research associate. “White evangelical Protestants … three-quarters of them oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry.”

A deep divide

The Minnesota chapter of Catholics for Marriage Equality, which organized Wednesday’s Loring Park event, formed after bishops mailed copies of an anti-gay marriage DVD to nearly 400,000 Minnesota Catholics in 2010. The Minnesota Catholic Conference — the public policy voice of the Catholic Church in the state — previously has said the group “does not speak for the Catholic Church.”

Jim Smith, a board member with Catholics for Marriage Equality, said a number of Catholics in Minnesota don’t approve of the bishops’ campaign.

“There are faithful Catholics who may not be currently on board with gay marriage or marriage equality but are deeply uncomfortable with the church spending so much money and time to enshrine this amendment into our constitution,” he said. “There are many faithful Catholics who deeply believe gay couples and gay parents pose absolutely no threats to heterosexual families.”

While evangelicals and other conservative religious groups also have come out in support of the amendment, Catholic bishops have been among the most vocal supporters, chief among them Twin Cities Archbishop John Nienstedt, who directed to clergy there should be no “open dissension” of the church’s support of the amendment.

Statewide outreach

Church parishes were directed to form committees to work for passage of the amendment. The archdiocese also appointed priests and married couples to visit archdiocesan high schools this spring to talk about marriage.

Catholic Conference leadership has been going to churches across the state — giving talks supporting the idea that marriage should only be between a man and woman — and will continue to do so through the fall.

The conference has about 450 church captains statewide “coordinating educational, prayer, and outreach efforts with thousands of active volunteers,” said Jason Adkins, executive director of the conference.

“We’ve found that majority of Catholics who attend church and practice their faith strongly support the marriage amendment,” he said in a statement. “We recognize that some Catholics are against the amendment for, sometimes, very personal reasons. But we are concerned about efforts to mislead them concerning what the church teaches, and the effect of the amendment.”

Covert meetings

Groups of lay Catholics and former priests have spoken out against the bishops’ campaign. Some parents and students also have criticized the church’s move to talk about marriage in high schools. Active Catholics have met in Protestant churches to talk about how to defeat the amendment.

Catholics and other faith groups have held meetings in their homes, like the one at Burg’s house, where representatives for the anti-amendment Minnesotans United for All Families encourage them to hold conversations with friends and family.

Kate Brickman, a spokeswoman for the group, said anti-amendment Catholics feel like they have to meet in their homes and other non-Catholic spaces because bishops aren’t tolerant of their views.

While Catholic leadership has supported similar marriage amendments in other states, it’s been particularly “ardent” in Minnesota, according to Laura Olson, a political science professor at Clemson University, who’s written about marriage amendments.

Olson said bishops may believe the amendment has a good chance of failing and are putting a lot of energy into trying to get it passed, although such actions could have the opposite effect with some, who’d rather see church money used for “social justice issues.”

“Among Catholics, and this would be true in Minnesota and nationwide, you’ve got about a third who are pretty … traditional in their interpretation and adhere to what the bishops say. What the remaining two-thirds do is really the issue.”

—Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune news services.


Sign in to Comment | Need help commenting? Click here

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1557036777 Dale Richner

    This is fairly simple. Today’s marriage equality discussion relates to LEGAL marriage only, the kind that involves a $45 certificate from the courthouse and is available to any atheist couple. Legal marriage has no religious significance, and no religious requirement. With all due respect to Catholics or any other faith, religious views pertaining to marriage in their church simply do not apply. No religion has any business dictating civil laws.

    We hold that to be true against Muslims so why are we not holding it to be true against Catholics?

    If Catholics expect to get their way on this, then they have no business complaining when the legal precedent they set is later used against them by another religion.

    This is wrong. Churches remain free to do as they wish with marriage in their church doctrine, but the law must apply to all equally and there is no legal basis on which to deny otherwise-qualified same-sex couples from purchasing a marriage license.

    “There are numerous theories about the origins of a person’s sexual orientation. Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality. It’s important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person’s sexual orientation, and the reasons may be different for different people.” –American Psychological Association
    http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx#

    Report comment

    • Streiter

      Hey Dale whats next? Can a man then legally marry his dog if they are truly in love? Since morals are not allowed any longer can I marry you underage daughter also?
      Also most scientists agree that if you wait a few years what they agree on will always change. It called facts and history Dale.

      Report comment

  • http://www.facebook.com/dave.gershner Dave Gershner

    The subject is integrity, and pubs don’t have any, as akin proved again this weekend, as ryan proved when catholic priests took him to task over cutting benefits for poor, as mittens proves by hiding something in his tax returns, nothing to hide, he’d have them out there like his daddy, j. mccain knows, that’s why palin got the nod, ————but the worst?

    the adulterers, whoremongers among sitting/former pub senators, and GOP CAUCUS IN HOUSE AND SENATE SAY NOTHING??? is adultery that ordinary amongst the pubs:

    FOX’S GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: GOP NEEDS TO EXPLAIN

    ‘WHY THEY GIVE VITTER A PASS’ | ?????????

    Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren criticizes the GOP’s

    embrace of Sen. David Vitter after he admitted to frequenting prostitutes.

    Yesterday, Bill O’Reilly stated flatly that Vitter should not be in the Senate.

    Ask your pastor/priest, either you’re condemning adultery and breaking commandments

    OR YOU’RE CONDONING!

    A GOP siiting senator, known adulterer and mitch says nothing.
    pub caucus in senate says

    NOTHING

    Instead of measuring for drapes, how about character, truth, is mitch a good christian or not?

    Supporting commandments or not? A SITTING SENATOR!!!

    Pious, hypocritical pubs: SAY NOTHING

    —————–MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE, THIS CLEARLY ILLUSTRATES

    THE CHARACTER OF MC CONNELL, MINORITY LEADER AND THE ENTIRE PUB CAUCUS

    AND ITS SUPPORTERS IN THE COUNTRY.

    DO YOU SUPPORT THE COMMANDMENTS OR NOT? THIS IS YOUR CHANCE

    TEST YOUR CHARACTER.

    w w j d?

    he told you

    <>

    New International Version (©1984)
    You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

    New Living Translation (©2007)
    Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye.

    King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
    Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

    *Now if President Obama had, say a cabinet secretary who consorted with
    hookers, pubs would be on it nonstop.*

    *Proof of the low character and values of pubs is Here:*

    *In 2007, Sen. David Vitter (R) of Louisiana was ensnared in the “D.C.
    Madam” scandal when he was identified as a client of Deborah Palfrey, who
    ran a Washington prostitution ring.

    He remains in office today.*

    *How did he get past his troubles? A few days later he appeared before microphones with his wife
    by his side, and both made public pleas for forgiveness, without taking
    questions.

    Thus the state GOP did not abandon him. He did face voters again
    until 2010, when he easily won reelection.*

    *pubs have no values, go to church, then to the whores, do not practice
    what they preach, dishonest===and not just vitter*—at least that’s is my suspicion
    about many politicians of the pub stripe———–they preach so much, you know they
    don’t practice

    Ephesians 5 >>
    King James Version
    — 5—For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God

    Report comment

  • Mary Waterton

    The legalization of “homosexual marriage” is about forcing acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle on every man, woman, child, business and organization (including churches) throughout the land. There will be “discrimination” lawsuits filed against churches when they refuse to allow “homosexual marriage” ceremonies in their sanctuaries. For example:

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/judge-rules-christian-facility-cannot-ban-same-sex-civil-union-ceremony-on/

    Churches believing that “separation of church and state” (a phrase nowhere found in the Constitution) will protect them are in for a rude awakening.

    Report comment

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1557036777 Dale Richner

      That is simply not true. Every church in America is free, and will continue to be free, to define marriage in its doctrine as it sees fit. Every church is free to recognize or perform only those marriages it chooses to. That will not change.

      The link you posted has nothing to do with church doctrine. They chose to offer a piece of their real estate for public use. In doing so, they agree to abide by applicable local laws regarding public accommodation. That in no way affects their church doctrine, and if they don’t wish to abide by those laws they are free to cease making their land available for public use (which is often done for tax advantages). When you falsely claim they are being forced to recognize same sex weddings, that is purposely deceptive and bearing false witness in order to malign gay people, which violates the 9th commandment.

      Report comment

      • Streiter

        It will be just like the seat belt law brought by liberals. They lie to get it through by saying you only get a ticket if you pulled over for some other reason. Then once the law is passed they change it to their TRUE agenda which is to force us to their way of thinking or ELSE!

        Report comment

      • Streiter

        Whats a person from San Fransisco doing on this local site anyways?

        Report comment

    • Seiri

      “…is about forcing acceptance…”

      …Have you even read what you wrote? That you’re afraid of being “forced” to “accept” others? Because oh no, you won’t be able to discriminate against those born differently anymore!

      Also, it’s not really “legalizing homosexual marriage” because homosexual marriage was never made illegal.

      As for churches not accepting them, well, there are still churches who refuse to marry interracial couples. What is your opinion on that; that it’s fine because it’s their system of belief? Of course there’s going to be discrimination outcries. Civil rights and equality are slowly gaining momentum and moving forward.

      Report comment

Editor's Picks