Democrat Catholic Governor of Washington State now supports contrary to nature “marriage”

Over at CatholicVote I saw that yet another Catholic Democrat has abandoned her Catholic identity on what will be the bitterest, and eventually violent, issue of the war on morals and religion in the public square and attacks on the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Democrat Governor of the State of Washington has caved on “same-sex marriage”.

Washington state’s Governor Christine Gregoire, a Catholic and a Democrat, has been talking about her decision to support same-sex marriage marriage as a journey. “I’ve been on my own personal journey with this issue and I think the state has been as well,” she said in a recent interview with Seattle’s PBS station. You can watch the interview here: [A good example of what I call Sin by Struggle.  If you "Struggle" with something, you are exonerated when you go ahead and do what you know is wrong.]

A notable comment from Gregoire:

I’ve sorted out, for me, what was a religious barrier, [The operative word is probably "out"...] to come to understand [What wisdom will she reveal?] as a former attorney general now governor, and a religious person, that I can respect and honor the religious freedom of all the faiths in Washington state to decide whether they want to marry someone or not, but what I cannot accept and promote or tolerate is the state of Washington refusing to issue a license to a couple simply because of their sexual orientation … the journey is over for me, I feel better than I’ve felt in seven years, to be honest with you.  [Well... it's all about how good you feel about yourself, Governor Gregoire.]

[...]

Gregoire’s journey included a conversation with Seattle Archbishop Peter Sartain, a conversation she called “very good, very respectful, and very appropriate.” Very interesting timing, too. That the chat took place the day before Gregoire’s announcement speaks volumes about its purpose. She wasn’t looking for input or help with discernment; it was an “FYI” call, and nothing more.

[She continues...] I have talked to the Archbishop, I called him the day before I made the announcement, and I’ve talked to my own priest. I have sorted my way through this. I can honor the religious beliefs of my faith [Note that she says "honor", not "believe".] and all faiths in Washington state, but as government, as the state, we cannot be in the business of discrimination. [She abandons natural law and her Faith and morphs this into a civil rights issue.]

Gregoire is either oblivious to her obligation as a Catholic holding public office, or she has performed some incredible feats of mental gymnastics to conclude that supporting same-sex marriage doesn’t defy her religious beliefs.

[...]

Read the rest of the vile business over there.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Dogs and Fleas, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, The future and our choices and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Democrat Catholic Governor of Washington State now supports contrary to nature “marriage”

  1. Legisperitus says:

    It’s not “because of their sexual orientation.” It’s because of their sex.

  2. Peggy R says:

    Relatedly, IL’s “Catholic” Dem governor is pro-gay “marriage” and has defied the bishops on that and other matters of Catholic morals. The gay movement in IL is ramping up a same-sex “marriage” bill next year. The Establishment thinks we social conservatives will barely be a road bump. I pray Card. George et al are ready for the fight. I hope and pray we faithful are prepared to join them as well.

  3. “a religious person”
    Religious? One can be religious about eating pizza too. Sheesh!

  4. mrose says:

    Hmmm…obviously this is one side of the story, but it does not sound as if the Bishop and priest in question instructed her to repent and to refrain from presenting herself to receive Communion in the meantime. This continuing garbage about pro-murder, pro-homosexual “marriage” politicians continuing on as “Catholics” is a growing embarrassment to the Bride of Christ and, I must believe, to the Catholic politicians who have a clue, at least about these issues.

  5. Legisperitus says:

    We must remember that this is an attack on a Sacrament. People in all walks of life are effectively being forced to recognize the supposed validity of this sacrilegious simulation of the Sacrament of Matrimony, which in many cases (registry clerks, insurance policy issuers, domestic relations judges, etc.) can amount to cooperating in the sin.

    Isn’t this true? Or am I missing some important distinction?

  6. irishgirl says:

    Oh, good grief….I say, ‘EXCOMMUNICATE the whole lot of them!’
    Why are these so-called ‘catholic politicians’ so insufferably arrogant? They need a swat alongside the head!
    (Sorry, Father Z-I’m just a little ‘wound-up’ today after imbibing chocolate….Hershey’s Milk Chocolate Drops….I’m rather ‘addicted’ to them)

  7. Stephen D says:

    How very convenient that her new position removes a possible barrier to re-election by the wordly majority. So many politicians find it politic to contradict, discard, ignore or dilute the teachings of the Church. Where are the good and faithful Catholics in government anywhere?

  8. “what will be the bitterest, and eventually violent, issue of the war on morals and religion in the public square and attacks on the Catholic Church.”

    I think you’re spot on here, Father.

  9. jcronheim says:

    Wouldn’t it perhaps be more accurate to say that Gregoire, Pelosi, et al. actually strive to maintain (and advertise) their Catholic identity in situations in which it is electorally advantageous, whereas what they have truly abandoned is their Catholic faith?

  10. ScholaLady says:

    I suspect that her “journey” was mostly about deciding what will get her re-elected.

  11. Fr. Thomas Kocik says:

    So, that’s what it boils down to: respecting religious freedom and plurality — the old “Can’t impose my religion” escape hatch. As if defending traditional/natural marriage were akin to trying to force all citizens to abstain from meat on Fridays or attend Mass on Sundays. The bishops have repeatedly tried to point out the fallacy to these Catholic politicians, with meager results. Time to crack heads.

  12. Gregg the Obscure says:

    I suspect there will be no end to these troubles until the grievously mistaken decriminalization of homosexual acts is reversed. Sadly that probably won’t occur until the Moslems destroy most of the remnants of civilization.

  13. irishgirl says:

    ‘Time to crack heads’-Fr. Thomas Kocik.
    I say, Amen, Padre! Amen! What you said!
    When will our Bishops ‘be like Becket and be like Fisher’?

  14. Supertradmum says:

    Is there going to be a public statement from the Archbishop on her excommunication?

  15. mrose says:

    Gregg the Obscure,

    I fear you might be correct. I remember reading a few days ago at the self-righteous surprise expressed by “human-rights groups” etc. at the conclusion of the trial in Mongolia where a government official was exonerated of sodomy. Now, don’t get me wrong, if he was innocent then I am glad the court ruled as such, but the articles covering the trial seemed to clearly insinuate that the “human-rights” issue at stake is the fact that in Mongolia sodomy is a crime, and that violates the core tenets of these liberal-U.N.-one-world-order freedom=license groups.

  16. NoTambourines says:

    “Sin by Struggle”: It’s like how in movies and on TV, “With all due respect” generally means “I’m about to insult you.” “I’ve struggled with this” generally seems to mean “aaaaannd, I’m folding!”

    I’m tempted to bake some brownies or something this weekend. I promise to struggle with the decision first.

  17. Dr. K says:

    “Is there going to be a public statement from the Archbishop on her excommunication?”

    The only bishop in the U.S. I could see taking such a stand would be Bp. Morlino. Everyone else is too afraid to rock the boat. Meanwhile, we’re getting steamrolled in this society by “Democrat Catholics”, as if the two words can coexist.

  18. wanda says:

    No Tamborines, ‘I’ve stuggled with this’-'aaaaand I’m folding’. Exactly!

    Had I the ability to award gold stars, you’d have one!

  19. ContraMundum says:

    No one talks about “struggling with a decision” or “making a hard decision” if they really believe they are doing the right thing. No one, not even when real struggle was involved. It’s only used when someone means, “Yes, deep down I know this was the wrong thing to do, but cut me some slack anyway.”

    So you never hear anyone say, “I struggled with the decision about whether to save my mom’s life by giving her one of my kidneys, but in the end, I made the hard decision and decided it had to be done.” You won’t hear George W. Bush talk about “struggling with” the decision to go to war with the Taliban, or Barack Obama talk about “the hard decision” to overhaul the health care system; that’s because, rightly or wrongly, each man believes he was really doing the right thing.

  20. teomatteo says:

    “But Govenor… Govenor, I want to marry a spotted owl!”. “Hmm…. I am on a journey… i’ll get back with you on that.”

  21. ContraMundum says:

    Actually, I want the state to recognize that, having taken the oath of office and having a long-term commitment to the people of the State of Washington, I am now the governor. I know this will shock many who are stuck in the traditions of the past, but it is irrational discrimination to refuse to recognize my governorship. Claims that being governor has something to do with executing the laws of the state in the interest of its people come from old-fashioned, hidebound thinking; it’s really about how I feel, and I feel like the governor of Washington.

  22. Cathy says:

    Let me see, Christine Gregoire is pro-choice, increased funding for embryonic stem cell research, endorsed Barack Obama for POTUS, and now has journeyed into support for “gay marriage”. In regards to excommunication, my question is, how bad must the tree or the fruit be in order to incur this penalty? I remember my mom and I pruning a wild climbing rose bush every year. The plant never bloomed and I wanted her to just dig it up. To simply ignore pruning it was not an answer, and believe me when I tell you pruning it was painful. Two years before we moved, that once despised climber began opening with the most beautiful clusters of tiny pink roses.

  23. AvantiBev says:

    Why is the nonsensical, unnatural idea of same-sex “MARRIAGE” a “Catholic” thing? Natural law is natural law. I think of lawgivers Before Christ such as Hammurabi, Moses, Cyrus of Persia to Pharaoh Ramses I ; none would have had the “struggle” that poor Christine Gregoire seems to have had.

  24. Johnno says:

    When will our leaders in the Church wake up to the fact that so long as they refuse to openly excommunicate all these apostate Catholics they are imperiling the souls of millions of others????

    It’s like a parent refusing to discipline their child who is acting out saying,”Oh… they’ll come around on their own eventually…” and then repeating it EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. until it is too late.

    Like the monkey and the peas. Better to let one drop than lose the rest. In trying to minimize the ‘damage’ of supposedly losing one soul, they are risking millions of others. I know about the parable of the lost sheep and all… But the sheep ain’t coming back unless you drag it back against its will, or realizing its lost , it comes home with you. That’s what excommunications do! They inform you and others that you are lost! It is an act of charity to inform those who are in error least they persist in it and become responsible for spreading that error to others and fostering it upon children. So if the bishops and Church hierarchy are not going to bother to do the right thing and formally excommunicate them, then they can save God the time and effort and begin attaching millstones around the necks of these politicians and throwing them in a lake instead, and preparing the same for others who’ll follow their example. Because that’s the ONLY OTHER OPTION they are allowing them to have! How uncharitable!

  25. Pingback: FRIDAY POLITICS & RELIGIOUS LIBERTY EXTRA | ThePulp.it

  26. Clinton R. says:

    When those who claim to be Catholic express views that are contrary to the teachings of the Holy Church founded by Our Lord Jesus, it brings scandal and leads people into the false belief that the teachings of the Church are changeable. Does the governor care that we are not to live by the standards of the world, but to be faithful and obedient to God? When I hear such things as this, I can understand why the Church will be reduced to a remnant when Our Lord comes again.

    “I say to you, that he will quickly revenge them. But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?” Luke 18:8

  27. “I’ve struggled with this, and now my journey has made me decide to bow to the will of the people and become a Nazi. Sure, basic morals disagree with Naziism and the Pope has denounced it, but Progress demands that we kill lots of innocent people, especially Jews. Personally, I’m against it, but in my place as an elected official, I sieg heil and kill Jews as much as anyone.”

  28. rodin says:

    What an opportunity for Bishop Sartain to make an FYI call to the governor notifying her to refrain from taking communion thus placing himself on the list of courageous shepherds along with Bishop Bambera.

  29. vmanning says:

    And when her Bishop says and does nothing, as so many others have said and done NOTHING, but continue to accept grants and aid and other government goodies in the name of “social justice”,then this gay marriage thing can’t really be that important ,can it?

  30. I can respect and honor the religious freedom of all the faiths…

    Well said on the Governor’s part. Her flimsily applied “faith” is precisely the sort of thing we’ve invited via the new and improved version of religious liberty so often invoked in the Church over the last 40+ years wherein our bishops never point to the Catholic faith as the one true religion (much less the others as objectively “false”), nor dare to invoke the unique privileges of the Church and Her doctrines, and by all means never calling attention to the Kingship of Christ.

    Bishop Lori, Chairman of the newly established U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty, put the problem in perspective very clearly when he recently said:

    “When we speak about religious freedom as the first of the freedoms, it’s not to aggrandize the Church, but to uphold the first line of defense for the dignity of the human person.”

    Yes, God forbid we should aggrandize the Church and call attention to the fact that She alone is the universal sacrament of salvation established by God and the unique custodian of religious and moral truth. And we wonder why “Catholic” politicians like Gov. Gregoire are lacking in these matters?

  31. haribo says:

    “…the journey is over for me, I feel better than I’ve felt in seven years, to be honest with you.”

    This must be why a lot of people simply decide to switch sides at some point. They get tired of resisting powerful social trends, of being in the minority and alone in their ideas. They cave in to the very human desire to be a part of the prevailing culture instead of being at odds with it. And as wrong as that is, it probably does make them feel good to just surrender and then suddenly belong. The rest of us Christians will continue to fight and receive our hundredfold in heaven.

    It reminds me of the Venezualan film, Jerico, about a Spanish Dominican missionary who ends up being captured by an isolated indigenous tribe. He initially tries to convert them, but when his labors aren’t bearing any fruit, he gives in to the pressure and converts himself. When he’s recovered by the Spanish, he goes insane.

  32. Kerry says:

    “I can honor the religious beliefs of my faith” not by observance but in the breach. “See, see, see?See me honor. Honor, honor, honor. Me, me, me, I, honor.”

  33. Joe in Canada says:

    She has either abandoned the notion of common good, which her Catholic faith supports, or abandoned her Catholic faith.

  34. Huckle Cat says:

    This “coming out” in favor of redefining marriage to drop the husband or the wife and have same-sex pairs “marry” is of no surprise to any of us in WA who’ve watched this pseudoCatholic governor sign sweeping “domestic partnership” legislation dubbed “everything-but-marriage” (by the top gay legislator of the 8 or so here (of 147 seats)). WA Gov Gregoire, as Attorney General (prior to her 2004 extraordinarily narrow election win — which involved many dead voters courtesy of ACORN –against a bona fide Catholic, Dino Rossi), issued an opinion that WA’s explicit language in state law that said only physicians can do abortions reeeeaally meant than non-physician nurse-practioners can do RU486 chemical abortions “because chemical abortions didn’t exist when the voters approved this law” (but of course the voters would’ve wanted non-physicians to do these types of abortions she “reasoned” despite facts not in evidence.)…. Continues in next post…

  35. Huckle Cat says:

    AND more of her anti-Catholic, anti-morality, MEAN record: She infamously — and to the shock of even some honest liberals including a few media types — threatened to fire the entire Board of Pharmacy if they didn’t go back and rewrite just-passed regulations that respected religious conscience rights of pharmacists and pharmacy owners to make sure that Christian pharmacists would have to choose between their livelihood and their conscience (because a woman’s “right to choose” had now, in the Governor’s telling of it, morphed into the woman’s “right to choose WHICH pharmacist and which pharmacy” would fill her (potentially abortifacient) Plan B morning-after pill.

    Readers may be interested to know that the federal lawsuit against the thuggish state is due to be decided on next week (Stormans vs Selecky, January 19, 2012). Please pray for a favorable decision, and one that will stand upon presumed appeal to the 9th Circuit. Because this is in the federal system (not the state system), this case has the potential to have impact well beyond WA. When you hear the ruling, remember that it was “Hi, I’m a Catholic” Gov Christine Gregoire who, through her unseemly abuse of power, necessitated this very expensive lawsuit and much grief, bullying, public picketing outside a 4th-generation pharmacy. She didn’t “honor [her] faith” one bit in that instance, did she?

  36. Huckle Cat says:

    Speaking of honoring, did I mention that, for all of the above dirty work done by Ms. Gregoire for her pals in the “abortion-it’s-the-only-choice!” industry, she was the Keynote Speaker at the NARAL -ProChoice Washington “Power of Choice Breakfast” in 2007. (Her attack on religious conscience rights of fellow Catholics began in 2006 and the offending regulations were passed a couple months before her speech at this fund-raising luncheon. You’ll be happy to know scores of pro-lifers turned out with signs and rosary beads and Protestant prayerbooks to register our contempt for her inhumane and contra-Catholic collaboration with the monstrous abortion industry. Silent No More women were there as were folks with signs showing the remains of several aborted children; there were, “Pregnant- Need Help?” signs and in utero development signs. Hopefully these opened the eyes of some of the would-be donors filing in for the event. Obviously it didn’t move the Governor — nor has anything else.

    At least readers elsewhere know now that this wasn’t a new apostasy, a newly fallen governor. Sad to say, not hardly. In the context of her known public history, the claims of her struggle with her religion are almost surely a sham. Or perhaps she’s manifesting a prime example of the old saw,
    ” sin makes you stupid”. Please pray for an inspired response by the clergy and people of Washington state to this ominous spectre of state recognition of staggeringly disordered same-sex relationships.

  37. Imrahil says:

    Nothing to surprise (sadly), but it’s still an outrage how dissatisfying logical conclusions can come to be.

    So, it is in theory first-hand-defensible to say that women should go unpunished for abortions if there should be a way to prevent more abortions that requires this. [Which is the official position of the German law.] Of course, the answer would be: 1., nobody ever thought of that save as an excuse for the real issue which is abortion plain and simple, 2. empiric fact and (when that didn’t as yet exist) common-sense psychology says that no such way is possible, 3. dozen other arguments. But we do not even need to give this answer. They terminate the discussion once we said “abortion is murder”, which (in the sense intended) is the obvious principle all this theorizing comes from! And then they go on and say that they are for choice as if that choice were something good and the thing to be possibly chosen were no crime.

    Similarly here. We do not need a Church father to rebuke them when they speak of tolerating faiths and respection orientations and the kind. Let’s just appeal to Billy Wilder (Some like it hot) who still knew that being a man is somewhat a problem if you intend to marry a man, and considered the latter’s reply “Nobody is perfect” a perfect joke and nothing else. Come on. A poet once said that a rose is a rose is a rose. True here too: A marriage is a marriage is a marriage. Homosexual registered partnerships simply are not marriage. Even the theory of parliamentary absolutism (which a Catholic cannot share) said that the British Parliament in all its glory cannot make a man a woman.

    Besides, the Governor could possibly take into account that when speaking of different faiths, that a faith which would demand to neglect these obvious truisms does not exist. Any person, of course, may put her own priorities in whichever sanctimonious words possible. But 1. this would not be a Faith, but a parody, 2. not even such a parody is reported to exist. People do not say: “God has told us that all differentiation between man and women are wrong and to be shunned”, or “Something, at least, told us that, and I’m quite ready to die for this truth”. Hence, we are not in the position to talk of different faiths, even erroneous ones.

  38. jm says:

    I don’t think she is selling out for re-election purposes. I think she is a typical Catholic who is also a Modernist, and as such can;t wrap her mind around how we can tell gays their orientation, something they are born with, is wrong or offensive to God. It simply does not make sense to them, and flies in the face of experienced reality. They think like the world, and the church at the local level has done a poor job of teaching. Really, when is the last time you have heard anyone stop the conversation on gay marriage and explain, “Look, it isn’t about marriage at base level, but about natural law and morality. Gay sex is wrong. We can in no way endorse or encourage it, most especially not in faux ‘marriages’! You don’t have a right to demand state endorsement of behavior like gay sex or multiple partners unless you want to trash the natural law basis of the entire code!” Insread we have endless arguments about whether kids are hurt by gay parents, or if gays would be less promiscuous if married, etc. Those are all secondary.

    Laurie Higgins, a cultural analyst for the Illinois Family Institute, wrote that “We should not use the terms ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian.’ Those terms do not merely denote same-sex attraction and volitional acts. They connote biological determinism, immutability, and an inherent morality. What other groups would [we] choose to identify by their disordered inclinations and freely chosen sinful acts? Rhetoric matters.) ” Related to the mess about thew KKK with poor Card. George, she helpfully observed,
    ‘His primary justification or at least his public justification was that his analogy was hurtful. I wonder if he would publicly state that homosexual acts are ‘abominable.’ Surely, that would be ‘hurtful’ to those who identify as homosexual, and yet that’s how Scripture characterizes them.
    The notion that the presence of hurt feelings means that Cardinal George has done something wrong suggests that the ethical legitimacy of public speech is determined by the subjective response of hearers. But consistently applied, that principle would prohibit all expressions of moral propositions.
    Although it’s unpleasant to say something that results in hurt feelings and at times hurt feelings result from our sinful words, sometimes “hurt” or bad feelings result from an encounter with truth.
    Anyone who bothered to read George’s original comments knows that he did not suggest that all homosexuals are ‘like members of the Klan.’ His comments were about ‘some’ homosexual activists. …
    ‘I understand why non-Christians have lost sight of how profoundly wrong homosexual acts are, but when followers of Christ have so little spiritual discernment and so much theological ignorance, society is in deep trouble.
    …’In addition, the effort to teach little children in our government schools, subsidized with public dollars, that this sin is good is an unconscionably evil act. Homosexuality is so serious a sin that it puts people at risk of eternal separation from a Holy God, and we’re teaching children in school that it’s morally equivalent to heterosexuality. Most of us are so desensitized or inured to the wickedness (if I may use this somewhat archaic term) of homosexual acts and so spiritually obtuse that the evil of teaching children that wrong is right doesn’t even register on our moral barometer.

    ‘What I wish Cardinal George had said was that homosexual acts are soul-destroying acts that are ‘detestable’ in God’s eyes and that the parade is a tragic, offensive event that shouldn’t take place on any day in any neighborhood. It is not an act of love to affirm or appear to affirm that which God condemns.

  39. Imrahil says:

    What I wish besides is still something else.

    It is the teaching of the Church (a contrary position was condemned in the 17th century by a Pope) that the ban on self-violation is of natural law, not “only” a positive order given by God. It should be clear that this is a fortiori true for homosexuality.

    But then this must be expounded upon! What really does matter is, of course, abstract theory. Hence, the abstract scholastic theory that homosexual acts are wrong must be expounded and explained.

    Why do I think so? It is well to say, as any Christian must: “I will do (God help me) what God commands”. But whenever God’s command seems to destroy our fun by forbidding what we wish to do, it is quite helpful for keeping this faith if we can contemplate the fact that this does not happen to be what we really wish to do. (Because – and I just hint at the theory myself without giving it – all the fun is the act of expression something that is not intended to express, etc.)
    We have to give them the logic that turns the sentence, or thought, or background feeling: “If this is abominable to God, then, as I’m a homosexual, God does not love me” into a fallacy. Even if they don’t listen to logic: They ought to know that they are beaten on this battlefield.

  40. New Sister says:

    Since this Ab hasn’t stopped Seattle U from calling itself “Catholic,” I don’t expect he will take action againt a dissenting politician.