Wednesday, August 01, 2012

"Chicago's Values": A Reflection Of How The Secular Left Really Feel

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Most freedom loving Americans were stunned when the mayors of Chicago, Philadelphia and other cities proclaimed they would not allow Chick-fil-A to do business in their cities because of the personal religious belief of the company's CEO.

No one but family is likely closer to President Obama than Rham Emanuel, mayor of Chicago. As you know, he is an inner circle guy with the President. Perhaps that is why his comments were particularly alarming.

Francis Cardinal George, OMI, the Archbishop of Chicago and a life long Chicagoan has been thinking about the event and has published his thoughts on the matter.

Dan Kennedy at Human Life Washington forwarded the following article to me. Please, whether you are Protestant or Catholic, take a moment and read it. The Archbishop is getting at the essence of the marriage issue.

Recent comments by those who administer our city seem to assume that the city government can decide for everyone what are the “values” that must be held by citizens of Chicago. I was born and raised here, and my understanding of being a Chicagoan never included submitting my value system to the government for approval. Must those whose personal values do not conform to those of the government of the day move from the city? Is the City Council going to set up a “Council Committee on Un-Chicagoan Activities” and call those of us who are suspect to appear before it? I would have argued a few days ago that I believe such a move is, if I can borrow a phrase, “un-Chicagoan.”

The value in question is espousal of “gender-free marriage.” Approval of state-sponsored homosexual unions has very quickly become a litmus test for bigotry; and espousing the understanding of marriage that has prevailed among all peoples throughout human history is now, supposedly, outside the American consensus. Are Americans so exceptional that we are free to define “marriage” (or other institutions we did not invent) at will? What are we re-defining?

It might be good to put aside any religious teaching and any state laws and start from scratch, from nature itself, when talking about marriage. Marriage existed before Christ called together his first disciples two thousand years ago and well before the United States of America was formed two hundred and thirty six years ago. Neither Church nor state invented marriage, and neither can change its nature.

Marriage exists because human nature comes in two complementary sexes: male and female. The sexual union of a man and woman is called the marital act because the two become physically one in a way that is impossible between two men or two women. Whatever a homosexual union might be or represent, it is not physically marital. Gender is inextricably bound up with physical sexual identity; and “gender-free marriage” is a contradiction in terms, like a square circle.

Both Church and state do, however, have an interest in regulating marriage. It is not that religious marriage is private and civil marriage public; rather, marriage is a public institution in both Church and state. The state regulates marriage to assure stability in society and for the proper protection and raising of the next generation of citizens. The state has a vested interest in knowing who is married and who is not and in fostering good marriages and strong families for the sake of society.

The Church, because Jesus raised the marital union to the level of symbolizing his own union with his Body the Church, has an interest in determining which marital unions are sacramental and which are not. The Church sees married life as a path to sanctity and as the means for raising children in the faith, as citizens of the universal kingdom of God. These are all legitimate interests of both Church and state, but they assume and do not create the nature of marriage.

People who are not Christian or religious at all take for granted that marriage is the union of a man and a woman for the sake of family and, of its nature, for life. The laws of civilizations much older than ours assume this understanding of marriage. This is also what religious leaders of almost all faiths have taught throughout the ages. Jesus affirmed this understanding of marriage when he spoke of “two becoming one flesh” (Mt. 19: 4-6). Was Jesus a bigot? Could Jesus be accepted as a Chicagoan? Would Jesus be more “enlightened” if he had the privilege of living in our society? One is welcome to believe that, of course; but it should not become the official state religion, at least not in a land that still fancies itself free. Surely there must be a way to properly respect people who are gay or lesbian without using civil law to undermine the nature of marriage.

Surely we can find a way not to play off newly invented individual rights to “marriage” against constitutionally protected freedom of religious belief and religious practice. The State’s attempting to redefine marriage has become a defining moment not for marriage, which is what it is, but for our increasingly fragile “civil union” as citizens.

Francis Cardinal George, OMI
Archbishop of Chicago

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Blessed.


  1. Thank you for sharing this. As a Catholic, I find his words gave me pause. He has articulated so very well what I, and hopefully others, also understand to be the truth of the current situation. I hope others will circulate his letter among those with influence. Perhaps it will give them pause, also, and lead to a reconsideration of their stance. Our Catholic Governor, Gregoire, certainly needs to pause.

  2. Gary, when did Rham Emanuel say "hey would not allow Chick-fil-A to do business in their cities because of the personal religious belief of the company's CEO"

    All he said was that Chick-Fil-A's values were not Chicago's values, same as they would say if the KKK said they were opening a civil hall there. In neither situation would that disallow the organizations from coming to Chicago anyway, right?

    As to the Archbishop he doesn't realize that the civil marriage contract is just away to establish a legal familial spousal relationship with the state between two citizens so the state knows to treat them as spousally related. Just like adoption is for legally establishing a parental familial relationship between unrelated citizens. Just a way so they are identified as family and will treated accordingly

    You don't think they are 'really married' then you don't have to, just treat them as you would similarly related people and things are fine. Catholics don't have to respect civilly divorced re-marriages, you don't either. Just in all secular manners treat them as legal spouses in the areas you must and all can believe what they want.

    Again, this isn't a case of two equal and opposite sides to an argument - I 100% support traditional marriage, I don't know of anyone who says that men and women shouldn't be able to license a spousal relationship with the state. Its your side that wants to get what you want and deny others the same.

    We live in a secular society, people of the same sex form spousal relationships - they have a right to equal treatment under the law and license them with the state and be treated equally as other spousal citizens. American 101. the one set of beliefs we all can be assumed to share.

  3. Oster, your arguments seem to be getting weaker and weaker as the truth comes out. You attack Gary, the Catholic church or who ever disagrees with your agenda. The bishop is right and most people know he is right, that is why every state so fasr has voted down gay marriage. I think Washington will to.

  4. Robert-California11:02 AM, August 01, 2012

    Jesus confirmed marriage as between a man and a woman. The Archbishop has righty ask, is Jesus a bigot? Is He?

  5. Hollow agrgument oshtur. It won't work. Our heads and our hearts and history and biology tell us differently.

  6. The left is passionate in their beliefs . They believe equality trumps liberty . If you don't go along with their beliefs in their minds you obviously are bigoted or less inferior, deserving to be humilated and publicaly scolded . Liberals tend to not be high in the humility department . The hypocracy of the left , folks like Rham Emanuel is abundant here . He had no problems working in DC with The President when he was supporting TRADITIONAL marriage . In fact this recent conversion in homosexual marriage support came all about the same time. Chicago values is right .


  7. When Oshtur says,

    "...when did Rham Emanuel say they would not allow Chick-fil-A to do business in their cities because of the personal religious belief of the company's CEO" All he said was that Chick-Fil-A's values were not Chicago's values."

    He is duplicitous by leaving out the rest of the story.

    The Los Angeles Times reports...

    "Strike another city from Chick-fil-A’s fan club as a Chicago official has pledged to block the fast-food chain from opening in his district amid a heated national debate over the place of the gay marriage debate in corporate America.
    Proco “Joe” Moreno, one of 50 Windy City aldermen who make up the City Council, told the Chicago Tribune that he plans to prevent Chick-fil-A from building its second Chicago restaurant in his trendy, hipster-filled ward...If you are discriminating against a segment of the community, I don't want you in the 1st Ward," Moreno told the Tribune this week. “Because of this man’s ignorance, I will now be denying Chick-fil-A’s permit to open a restaurant in the 1stWard.”
    He also added that Cathy’s comments were “bigoted, homophobic.”

    Moreno is obviously ignorant of the fact that his statement is bigoted and freedom-phobic.

    So, since Oshtur's opening is so deceitful as to ignore this simple fact, I cannot take the rest of comments seriously.

    1. Since Gary complained about mayors and not alderman I figure you are the one being deceitful.

      As to the rest of the contentless replies, it's clear you don't have an American reason to justify this wasteful expense of a campaign to fight the will of the people.

      This year, next year, marriage equality will happen. Deal.

    2. Oshtur hates God is my take.

    3. The will of the people has consistently been upheld in every state where its come to a vote of the people. The same will happen here. No deal.

      Craig in Lacey

    4. So humorous. John 3:16 says that 'who soever' accepts Jesus as their Lord will be saved and you think you can second guess God and decide who 'hates' Him.

      How many places in the Gospels and New Testament does it take to say 'Judging is NOT YOUR JOB!!!!!'' does it take to convince you of what your ISN"T your Provence in God's realm.

      How can anyone say that gay people are not forming spousal relationships?! Maybe not your 'perfect' relationship, maybe not your 'holy' relationship but you'd have to be a moron to not realize that people who stay together for 20+ years aren't in a special relationship.

      Why in the world WOULDN;T a responsive moral government acknowledge this? How in the world would any government worth support not say these people are spouses?

      You want to reserve the word 'Marriage' for yourself, then get it out of the government's hands - do what the rest of the word does and have civil unions for, well, civil unions, and save the word 'marriage' for religious purposes.

      Of course that would mean some churches would perform marriages on same sexu couples but still you would only be 'Giving unto Caesars that which is Caesars' in treating civil unions as Caesars requires civil unions to be treated.

      First Corinthians 5 makes it clear that Christians have no obligation to force all people to be like they are or have any proscription from dealing with people not of their sect.

      You don't think people should marry the same sex then don't marry one. But that others disagree is NONE of your business as per a prophet of God. Disagree at your own peril.

    5. You better check Scripture more closely, we are not to condemn, but judge with righteous judgement. Did not Paul judge Peter for withdrawing from the Gentiles when the Jews came from Jerusalem? Did not Jesus judge the Pharisees for there hypocrisy? There are numerous other examples of this.

      We are not to point out the speck if we have the SAME LOG IN OUR OWN EYE!

      Don't think belief only will get you there. Read Acts 2 and repent, even the demons believe and tremble. Don't be a hearer of the Word only, do what it says. Disagree at your own peril.

      I love it when atheists try to use Scripture to defend their position, when they clearly lack discernment and the Holy Spirit. It gives us an opportunity to let light shine into darkness.

      1 Cor 5 says expel the sexually immoral brother from among you, anyone come to mind? Your boyfriend maybe? Is that not a judgement call?

      Jesus said "suffer the little children to come to me and do not prevent them". Teaching them sin is acceptable as a "lifestyle choice" is precisely that. Jesus also said "it would be better to have a millstone wrapped around your neck and be thrown into the sea, than to cause 1 of these little ones to sin". Do you think He was joking?

      Don't get me wrong, you're not the only part of our culture leading the young astray, but your agenda is far from the solution.

      Rendering unto Caesar? Really! Millions died rather than throw a pinch of incense on the fire to acknowledge Caesar as God and deny our Lord and Savior or bow to the power of the Pope(Caesar's replacement) and suffered the flames.

      You really do lack discernment my friend, I will continue to pray for you.

    6. of course I think it is you who is lacking discernment. As First Corinthians 5 clearly states those who are not of your sect are not yours to judge, they are God's. And as to preventing people from coming to him through the sin of capricious judgement, that is the risk you and yours take.

      No where in the bible does it say that being gay is a sin, - gay rape is, engaging in same sex temple prostitution is, wanton sexual behavior in relation to idolatry was, same sex activity as an 'loophole' against marriage fidelity is. Those children can be gay and still come to Jesus.

      Your knowledge of Roman history and the persecution of Christians is pretty 'hollywood', the romans were very tolerant of other religions and only persecuted those that involved treason or by request of others. Most Christians were persecuted because the Jews called them heretics and demanded they be punished, and after Christianity became the state religion it was other sects of Christianity that persecuted the Christians. There are many instances of roman officials telling subordinates to NOT persecute Christians. And trying to roll the atrocities of the Roman Catholic Church in as being 'Caesars' is tortuous at best.

      As to these arguments they are the ones of true Christians, its is those who are acting as 'sin counters' and modern day Pharisees that lack the Grace to discern God's will.

      Love God, Love your neighbor as God loves you, from this all Christ's Law flows.
      People can be gay an be Christian just fine. If they can't in your sect than 'righteously judge' and harm your own, but leave all the others to God as Paul instructed.

    7. News flash! The body of Christ is not a sect, it is a whole. Paul wrote about this in 1 Cor 1 and 3. Is Christ divided? No. Men in their arrogance have drawn away people after themselves. That's why we have denominations.

      Regardless of that, Christ is the head, He calls the shots. 1 Cor 5 applies to all who claim Christ. There is nothing capricious about it. God meant what he said about marriage and sexual relations. He said so from the beginning, you know, before Jew and Gentile? Jesus reiterated it in the gospels.

      The New Testament condemns homosexuality, no matter the reason. It condemns all sexual relations outside the purpose for which God created it. Procreation and intimacy between a man and woman within the confines of marriage.

      So sorry if that chaps your hide, but that's what it says.

      As to the Romans, the documentation of the persecution of Christians predates "hollywood" by about 1900 years. Failure to acknowledge Caesar as a god was considered treason, which you meantioned. Most other religions within the empire had no problem with that, hence no persecution. Christians were different, they would not deny Christ, hence crosses and lions.

      You must really think I didn't know that, huh? Yes, the Jews stirred up a lot of trouble, but their influence was nowhere near Caesars'. Nero lined the roads with Christians on crosses after Rome burned. Domitian was even worse. The Roman officials? Christians, who risked their own lives.
      The collective popes who took over the empire by force of arms are well documented. They were Caesars in their own right and not Christians at all, but pagans.

      If your going to try polemics, be prepared to be called on your lack of research.

      How can I 'count' your sins, since I don't know them? I prefer apologetics, the defense of the Gospel, there is no 'gay' there, no 'gay marriage' either.

      "For this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh".

      This is marriage, the only kind God affirms, Jew or Gentile, Christian or pagan. Yes, we come to Christ as we are, on His terms. We're not supposed to stay what we were, that's the point.

      Craig in Lacey

  8. The very fact that so-called 'marriage equality' has risen to the current fever-pitch levels of debate in our country is testimony to the power of the liberal-controlled entertainment industry to continue spitting out propaganda normalizing homosexuality, and the depths of gullibility of the masses of American citizens who consume this drivel daily. The true "gay agenda" is certainly not equal rights for all, but marginalizing and demonization of all that is Christian. This kind of creeping, insidious erosion of society's mores has not been seen since Hitler's Third Reich, and is sneaking up on American society to install to power those who would label Christians and others who consider homosexuality a deviant wrong (a.k.a. 'sin') to be bigots and outsiders, if not eventually criminals even in their own homes or churches. Many would say I am an alarmist, or fabricating a doomsday scenario, but I saw the beginnings of the gay movement in L.A. and have watched it spread like a cancer over the past thirty years, first into our educational institutions, then the entertainment industry, and now permeated up into the highest levels of government. I ask my Christian brothers and sisters, and others who also believe the corruption of the definition of marriage is an abomination, to stand up for what is right no matter the inconvenience or cost to reputation. Otherwise, what hope is there? May God forgive our wicked ways and heal our land!


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.