Bishop Tobin exercised his civic duty by entering debate about gay marriage



I want to thank Bishop Thomas J. Tobin for writing such an important article "Why You Should Worry About 'Gay Marriage'," and for taking on Charles Bakst and Bob Kerr of the Providence Journal.

I seem to have a love/hate relationship with Bakst; I love to read his articles because I know I will probably disagree strongly with what he has written. Bakst writes tirelessly about his support of homosexual marriage and he uses his platform at the Providence Journal as his soapbox. On November 6, Bakst responded to Bishop Tobin's article in his editorial column, “Bishop Tobin, gay marriage and dialogue".

In speaking about the Bishop's remark that “gay marriage implies public support of ‘immoral sexual activity’,” Bakst states in his piece that “I don’t consider this activity immoral.” And there lies the crux of this whole debate.

Make no mistake! We are living in a time when morality is completely subjective. It is truly an Age of Relativism. Bakst has rejected the moral laws which are engraved into the heart of every human being created by God, and he wants others to do the same.

And don't we do this all the time. It seems as though we have very nearly given ourselves over to the sins of cohabitation, birth control, pornography, abortion and homosexuality. How else can one explain how a great nation such as ours, does not protect the most innocent and vulnerable, the unborn.

We all know that to kill another innocent human being is wrong in the eyes of God. And we know this because of God's moral laws which were etched upon our hearts. But we want to overlook God. We don't want to know whether God is offended. We don’t want to consider that we have separated ourselves from God.

Proponents of “gay marriage” want society to overlook the sin of homosexuality. A small minority of people do not think that a sexual relationship between two people of like gender is a serious offense against God. “I don’t consider this activity immoral” is the rallying cry. But let's carry the rationale of Bakst a step further. A very small, but vocal minority of people have organized to insist that the government must no longer infringe upon their personal happiness and their fight for equality.

They are in love with their family member and wish to marry as brother and sister,(or father and daughter). By this time, television has already softened our view about incest so that we laugh along with the canned laugh track of the latest sitcom. Hollywood has completely embraced this new form of personal freedom and are quick to jump into incestuous relationships. The college campuses are sure to have their “intellectuals” who promote incest liberally within their classrooms. Heck, even more that a few Presidential candidates will tout the benefits of a pluralistic society that must recognize incest as another form of diversity

It just takes a few to say, as Bakst says, "I don't consider this activity immoral."

Bishop Tobin has the right and the responsibility to teach us about sin, about what is right and what is wrong, just as I have the right and the responsibility as a parent to instruct my children about what is right and what is wrong.

I can still do that, right?

Maureen R. Rego

Little Compton, RI.