Majestic Southern Utah

October has been a hectic month in my household.  You see, my beloved wife broke her ankle quite severely a few years back.  She has had multiple surgeries on it during the ensuing years, but nothing really helped with the pain and the arthritic joint that developed because of it.  The only real way to give her any lasting relief was to fuse her ankle joint together.  As this is a painful surgery and the recovery time before she can even put any weight on the ankle is on the order of months, we decided to take a trip to the southern part of our state to get away on vacation before she was cooped up and unable to go anywhere for basically the remainder of the year. 

My wonderful in-laws went with us and we spent several days meandering through some of our National Parks in southern Utah in what has to be some of the most magnificent and majestic scenery that God has ever created.  With that said, I thought I would veer away from politics briefly and share some of the pictures we took on our trip.

We started our trip by staying near Moab, UT at a beautiful resort on the Colorado River called the Red Cliffs Lodge. This is a picture looking at the cliffs at sunrise from just outside the front door of our room.

Using Red Cliffs Lodge as our home base for the first couple of days, we explored the surrounding areas starting with the beautiful Fischer Towers.

The next day we all ventured into Arches National Park to see some of the beautiful red rock formations and natural arches created by untold millenia of weather and erosion.

The above picture is of balanced rock.  If you look real closely you can see people at the base of the rock between it and the monolith to the right.  That gives you an idea of the size of this monster.  For some strange reason I am reminded of the roadrunner cartoons by these peculiar formations.

Below is a picture of just a few of the thousands of rock arches that give this beautiful park its name.

Below is a picture of Wall Street.  This one is far prettier than the one in New York City.

The following day we ventured towards Canyonlands National Park and stopped at a Utah State Park called Dead Horse Point along the way.  Dead Horse Point is a beautiful overlook that towers 2000 feet above the Colorado River below.  The point of the mesa from which we took this picture is accessed by a very narrow span that is no wider than the width of the road.  Legend has it that cowboys used to herd wild horses across this choke point onto the mesa and then built a fence at the narrow point to corral them in there.  At one point, the cowboys didn't get back to the horses in time and they died there due to thirst on this arid mesa overlooking the Colorado River below, hence the name of the park... so legend goes.

From there we took our leave and wandered to Capitol Reef National Park.  At one point within the park, etched into the side of the canyon walls are ancient Anasazi Indian petroglyphs which are still visible today.  Unfortunately there are signs of idiots that have carved their initials into the wall by these petroglyphs.  The foolishness and short-sightedness of some people never ceases to amaze me, especially in such beautiful places.

These days of Indian summer were warm and pleasant on our trip and all of nature seemed to be enjoying the sunshine before the first snows come to Utah.  My wife captured this picture of a Monarch butterfly that was flitting about the wild flowers near the petroglyphs.

From there we headed to one of my most favorite places on earth: Bryce Canyon National Park.  Nowhere else in all of my travels have I found scenery as unique and as mysteriously awesome in the truest definition of the word than at this park. 

In previous years on our journey to Bryce, my wife, youngest daughter, and I would hike down into the canyon amongst these sand stone "hoo doo" spires and be lost in wonder at the beauty of this canyon.  Unfortunately on this trip there would be no such hikes for us this time.

 On the way home, the clouds started to come in and my wife captured these cotton-ball clouds in the late afternoon as we ventured north towards home again.

 The trip was wonderful, all the more so because I spent it with people I loved.  And by the way, my wife's surgery was successful.  As she continues to heal, hopefully the beauty we all experienced will tide her over until she is up and walking on her own two feet once again. 

Selecting Romney's Cabinet

While nothing is certain in this life except death and taxes, particularly under the governance of the Obama administration, I am feeling rather optimistic that Governor Romney will indeed be our next president.  With that in mind, the governor’s organization has reached out to me to help vet the very best candidates to fill his cabinet.  Okay -- not really -- but if Governor Romney were to ask me, the following would be my recommendations for good people to help restore Americans’ faith in our government so that it might be administered constitutionally for a pleasant change.  That said, here are your future cabinet secretaries under President Romney:

Department of State:  John Bolton

Bolton is an exceptionally smart man with clear insight into the workings of world affairs.  His stint as President Bush’s ambassador to the U.N. showed that he knows the impotence of this corrupt organization and what truly must be done to further America’s interests and keep the world safe for freedom’s sake.  Bolton would set a tough pro-America tone and reinvigorate what is a feckless and wimpy group at Foggy Bottom.

Department of the Treasury:  Ron Paul

While Paul is a nut job and sounds like Dennis Kucinich on foreign policy, he is dead on accurate with his assessment of domestic policy, especially when it comes to the Federal Reserve.  Romney should appoint Dr. Paul and then give him carte blanche to clean house, starting with an exhaustive audit of the Federal Reserve.

Department of Defense:  David Petraeus

Move General Petraeus from his current position handling intelligence and instead have him mold and form the Defense Department for the future generation of wars that might be thrust upon America.  Petraeus is smart and knows how to win wars and what that entails strategically, tactically, and logistically.  Working with a new Joint Chiefs Staff, he could set policy that would help to secure America’s safety in the world.

Department of Justice:  Chris Christie

Christie’s tough no-nonsense approach to… well… everything, would restore integrity with him as our new Attorney General.  This is direly needed in light of the corrupt and incompetent job done by Eric Holder.  Christie would not play political favorites and thus turn what has become a politically motivated cabinet back into the top law enforcement agency in the country of which Americans can once again be proud. 

Department of the Interior:  James Inhofe

Inhofe would manage our natural resources responsibly without caving to the enviro-whackos on policy, particularly when it comes to the specious anthropogenic “global warming” nonsense.

Department of Agriculture:  Rick Perry

Perry has a long history involved with agriculture and would do a fine job overseeing this department.

Department of Commerce:  Steve Forbes

After the devastation wrought on our economy by Obama, Bush, Pelosi, Reid, the Democrats and Rino’s, we will need a brilliant businessman along with President Romney to help steer government away from hurting commerce and towards getting out of the way of our small businesses in order to get the economy moving again.  Forbes would do splendidly as commerce secretary accordingly.

Department of Labor:  Scott Walker

After Obama’s allowing of unions to set U.S. labor policy, Governor Walker would be a great pick in providing the appropriate balance between unions and businesses.  The fact that he has taken on public tax-payer unions and saved millions of dollars in Wisconsin accordingly would be a warning shot across the bow to other public unions that the tax payers will not be fleeced by them anymore.

Department of Health and Human Services:  Rand Paul

The younger Dr. Paul would be very good at trimming the fat in this department while ensuring that only vital functions were retained and funded, all without infringing on Americans’ liberties and Constitutional rights like the Obama administration has done.

Department of Housing and Urban Development:  None

This is a department whose tasks are better and more efficiently handled at the state level, if even necessary then for some smaller states.  Cutting this department is the first step to trimming federal government largess and returning to a constitutional governance accordingly.

Department of Transportation:  Marion Blakey

Ms. Blakey as the CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association would be a dynamic and innovative leader for this department.  She would bring true usefulness to it and ensure tax payer dollars for transportation were used wisely accordingly.

Department of Energy:  None

Disband this department which was created during the Carter Administration to supposedly wean us off of foreign sources of oil and energy.  Obviously this is a goal at which it has failed horribly.  Return the nuclear regulatory functions to where they once were administered with the Navy, and return all other required functions to the states where necessary.

Department of Education:  None

Again, eliminate this department and return funding to the individual states where they can better and more efficiently administer to the educational needs of their students.

Department of Veterans Affairs:  Allen West

Colonel Allen West would do an exemplary job looking out for the needs of our veterans, just as he did when he was in the Army.  His integrity and devotion to his troops would be well utilized here in serving those that have sacrificed so much to protect America.

Department of Homeland Security:  Rudy Giuliani

Unlike the lip-service paid to security by Janet Napolitano, Mr. Giuliani understands the ramifications of it better than nearly anybody else in the country.  His management skills and no-nonsense demeanor would actually improve our national security without infringing on more of our constitutional rights.

 

Now I am sure that my recommendation of many of the good folks on this list will cause many of our liberal friends to blow an aneurysm.  That said, it is my opinion that these folks I have chosen are serious people whom are well qualified and would do admirable jobs in each of their positions instead of merely being assigned for political patronage or to make the cabinet appear to meet some politically correct standard.  I have no illusions that some of these people will ever be asked, or that they will necessarily accept the appointment if asked.  I certainly don’t expect  that some departments will be eliminated, although if Romney wins by as large of a margin as I suspect he might, there will be no better time to get rid of these unnecessary and extra-constitutional departments.  We shall see very soon what the future will hold.  In the meantime, I think I will forward my list to Governor Romney just in case he needs some better suggestions. 

The Impending Defeat of a Progressive President

The common wisdom among our partisan leftist friends, including the mainstream liberal media, is that the upcoming presidential election will be a close one.  But in the end, their champion Barrack Obama will indeed emerge triumphant and send that “selfish 1%’er” Mitt Romney running back to obscurity to lick his wounds.  I strongly suspect that this is more a matter of misplaced faith on their behalf than on common sense.  Ronald Reagan was 9 points behind Jimmy Carter in the month prior to that election, and as we all know, the Gipper won in a landslide.  I would submit to my leftist friends that they are about to experience a similar shellacking in 18 days. 

When it comes down to it, common sense dictates that America will not re-elect Obama to the presidency.  In 2008, Barrack Obama was a fairly unknown candidate who spoke eloquently about grandiose ideals such as generic hope and change.  In 2012, President Obama now is a known candidate with a dismal record on which he has to run.  The result of his record pretty much suggests that his re-election is indeed doomed.  President Obama has angered or disappointed far too many people and specific demographics thereof to get the kind of support or even voter turn-out for him that he received in his first election.  Let’s look at a few specifics as to why I think this portends the end of his administration accordingly.

First off, it is with a high degree of certainty that I think that those conservative folks who voted for John McCain in 2008 will not be voting for Barrack Obama in 2012.  Obama thus will pick up none of those votes accordingly.  That said, there are millions of independent people that did vote for Obama in 2008 when he was a well-spoken but virtually unknown quantity that are sorely disappointed in his performance who will not vote for him again in 2012.  The net result will be a loss for Obama.

President Obama carried a staggering percentage of the black vote in 2012, however, he has angered many church-going black people including prominent pastors due to his recent stance in support of gay marriage.  While Obama will still easily get a majority of the black vote again, he will not have anywhere near the percentage that he did in the first election.  Again, this is a net loss for Obama.

The Jewish vote in America has also historically been a strong support group for the Democratic candidate, and indeed Obama captured a majority of their votes in 2008.  That said, Obama’s policy of “placing daylight between America and Israel” has made Israel feel more vulnerable to ever rising anti-Jewish terrorist groups and states in the Middle East.  Obama’s suggestion that a return to the indefensible 1967 borders for Israel as a starting point for negotiations with the Palestinians drew the ire of Prime Minister Netanyahu and alienated many of the Jewish people.  Obama’s seeming indifference in actions, if not always in his rhetoric, towards preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is a huge existential threat to Israel’s survival.  These factors have ensured that Obama will lose a significant percentage of the Jewish vote in America for this election.

The youth vote was wildly enthusiastic and turn out for Obama was huge from this constituency in 2008.  Now, four years later, 50% of college graduates are unable to find employment and enthusiasm for Obama based on his poor stewardship of the economy and job market for these young people will ensure that far fewer of them will turn out to vote, and of those that do vote, many of them will not pull the lever for Obama this time.

The Catholic vote was slightly in favor of Obama in 2008.  Now with Obama’s assault on Catholicism and Americans’ first amendment right to practice their religion via his Obamacare HHS mandate, there are millions of Catholics that will not vote for Obama this time around.   Another net loss for Obama.

Next, small business owners have seen a dramatic increase in their costs of doing business and are fearful of the impact that Obamacare will have on their bottom lines.  These and other negative factors that Obama has created in the economy through his policies have made it so that small businesses are unable to grow and hire more people, hence the horrible unemployment numbers still.  For that reason, most small business owners will not be voting for Obama on November 6^th either.

Then there is the veteran vote to consider.  While this group has historically been more reliably Republican in their voting tendencies, Obama has done nothing to endear those folks in the armed forces to himself.  Indeed, Obama has made it even more difficult for military members to vote absentee out of fear of this, accordingly.  You will see Romney get an even greater percentage of this group than McCain did in 2008.  Net gain goes to Romney.

Even among the bed-wetting on-fire progressives that voted for Obama in 2008 there is much anger and resentment towards him for not going even further in his attempts to usher in a worker’s paradise.  The enthusiasm gap and waning support from the most ideological of his base will suffer accordingly and result in less voter turn-out from this group too.  Another net loss for Obama.

Lastly, there is the blue collar working class folks who have seen true unemployment remain above 8% for nearly all of Obama’s tenure.  Gas prices, food prices, and even health care costs have dramatically skyrocketed directly due to Obama’s policies over the last four years.  People ultimately will always vote with their pocket books, and Obama has not done anything to alleviate the burden for America, and particularly for this constituency group.  This is a huge net loss for Obama.

The bottom line is that President Obama will lose, in some cases by huge margins, many votes from the preceding groups of American voters.  There is no single group where Obama stands to gain in voter support over the 2008 election.  With that said, common sense and simple arithmetic tells me that on Wednesday November 7^th, President-elect Romney will be celebrating, as will a strong majority of Americans.  May God bless America again accordingly!

My Open Letter to Obama on the Current State of Affairs

Mr. Obama,

I have noticed a very disturbing trend over the last decade or so, and in particular during your tenure in the White House.  The world seems to be in complete disarray.  Freedom and decency are waning while Islamofascism and other evils continue their ascendancy.  And all the while, most Americans seem to be oblivious to the ever-growing peril in our country and world.  I suspect this is simply because most Americans are too busy working and just trying to survive our day to day lives in this horrible economy of which you inherited and then exacerbated.  Of course it is not like you, our campaigner in chief, is helping to point out, let alone address any of these critical issues.  Indeed, it has now reached the point where you have fully disgraced the office of the presidency and are unworthy to sit in the oval office any longer.  Despite this, if the polls put forth by your allies in the sycophantic progressive mainstream media are to be believed, you are well positioned currently to be re-elected.  Again, the world is in disarray and logic no longer prevails.  Let me give you some specifics as to why I think this.

Mr. Obama, you have the gall to refer to the killing of our Ambassador and three other staffers in our Libyan embassy as a “bump in the road”.  No, Mr. President, it was an ACT OF WAR!  It was something that deserves addressing in a serious manner, even if it is hard to fit this into your schedule amongst your interviews with Pimp with a Limp, David Letterman, and your friends on The View.  Our country, our citizens, and our constitution are your ultimate responsibility to defend.  I distinctly recall you taking an oath in that regard, sir.  You have completely abrogated that responsibility, Mr. Obama, and in contrast to your wife’s sentiments, I am truly ashamed of my country for the first time in my life under your “leadership” accordingly.

You disingenuously told your fellow Americans that the riots and killings in Egypt and Libya were fomented by some ridiculous video that nobody has ever seen.  You then, on the day before yesterday at the U.N. General Assembly, admitted that it wasn’t the video that was the catalyst for this pre-planned attack of our sovereign soil on the anniversary of 9/11.  (Something which I am sure you already knew despite the fact that you have routinely missed nearly 40 percent of your daily intelligence briefings.)  Anyway, despite that, did you stand up for our constitutional right to free speech?  Nope.  Once again, you apologized to the world for the “a crude and disgusting video [that] sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.”  These terrorist scum attacked our embassies and killed our people, and YOU apologized.  I initially declined to make any comment on the issue until the facts were in and you were given a chance to react accordingly.  Since you seem to be content with the current status, I am now commenting accordingly.

As a supposed Constitutional Law expert, you should know that it is precisely such political and religious speech that our founders meant to protect when drafting the very first amendment in our Bill of Rights.  While the video was perhaps puerile and definitely offensive, it is NOT yours or anybody else’s right to curtail such speech.  Our freedom of speech is not meant to protect only the speech that is inoffensive to others.  Again, this is something you should know, sir. 

You had a chance to wax on the importance of our American exceptionalism as defined by our right of free speech at the U.N. the other day. You missed that opportunity for a teachable moment to the world and instead apologized.  As Newt Gingrich commented after your pusillanimous speech, your comments, “sent exactly the wrong signal. We’re not going to censor Americans on behalf of radical Islam and we need to say, calmly and comfortably, ‘If you’re going to be part of the modern world, that involves dissent.’ “

While we are on the subject, why do you find the need to defend Islam against anything that is deemed offensive by its practitioners?  I noticed that the vile and offensive Andres Serrano’s “Piss Christ” art work is going to be on exhibit again in New York this week.  Unlike your statement to the world that the offensive video was not created by the United States government, Serrano’s “art” of a crucifix in a jar of his urine WAS supported by tax payer dollars through the National Endowment for the Arts.  In other words, you DID build that, Mr. Obama! 

Why aren’t you apologizing to offended Christians for such a grave offense to our faith?  Is it because, while disgusted by it, we Christians understand that this asinine “artist” has a right to be offensive?  Is it because we aren’t rising up in the streets and storming the government offices for the National Endowment for the Arts and killing its director?  Once again, your inconsistency is showing.  Either defend our freedom of speech to the world, or apologize to us Christians too, Mr. Obama.

Your stewardship of the economy has been exceptionally poor.  Your infringement upon my freedom to exercise my religion via your still unconstitutional health care law is execrable.  Your weakening of our national security, disregarding our allies, and placating our enemies is dangerous and unforgiveable.  Your belief in the exceptionalism of every nation except the one which you were blessed to be elected president thereof is un-American.  The fact that you do not understand the wonderful differences and freedoms enshrined in our constitution for all Americans and instead see it as a list of “negative liberties” because it restricts government’s powers proves that you do not truly understand America. 

Consequently, you are not fit to be our president, no matter the results of the coming November election.  I am sorely disappointed in you, Mr. Obama, and will work tirelessly to explain to all within my very minimal sphere of influence why you should not be re-elected as our president.  You recently said that government cannot be changed from the inside, and perhaps that is true.  Regardless, we the people need to put you back outside of government where your dangerous ideologies can no longer harm this greatest of all nations that many Americans still love so dearly, myself absolutely included.

With great sadness, regret, and trepidation,

T. Paine.

A Joke and the Mainstream Media

A decidedly left-of-center political bias by the mainstream media is a well-known fact by nearly all Americans with the exception of those hyper-left partisans, and of course by the media itself who still cynically claim to be objective.   With that said, and in light of the disgustingly sycophantic coverage of Obama in this election cycle while portraying Romney as Beelzebub himself, I thought the following story was appropriate.  While the story is fictional, of course, and meant as a cynical joke, one almost wonders if it is not entirely beyond the realm of possibility that this is something that could theoretically be broadcasted on MS-NBC or printed in the New York Times to further denigrate those of us that refuse to kowtow to the progressive ideology.  

 A Harley Biker is riding by the zoo in Washington, DC when he sees a little girl leaning into the lion's cage. Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the collar of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to slaughter her under the eyes of her screaming parents.

The biker jumps off his Harley, runs to the cage, and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch.

Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back thus letting go of the girl.  The biker brings her to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly.

A reporter has watched the whole event.

The reporter addressing the Harley rider says, "Sir, this was the most gallant and brave thing I've seen a man do in my whole life."

The Harley rider replies, "Why, it was nothing really; the lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger and acted as I felt right."

The reporter says, "Well, I'll make sure this won't go unnoticed. I'm a journalist, you know, and tomorrow's paper will have this story on the front page... So, what do you do for a living and what political affiliation do you have?”

The biker replies, “I'm a U.S. Marine and a Republican.”

The journalist leaves.

The following morning the biker buys the paper to see if it indeed brings news of his actions and consequently reads on the front page:

"U.S. MARINE ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH"

...  and THAT pretty much sums up the media's approach to the news these days.

The 9/11 Healing Field

The 9/11 Healing Field

This article was originally posted for September 11th 2011 - last year.  I wanted to re-post it this year in commemoration of the lives lost due to those horrible events that occurred on that day eleven years ago.  And yes, The 9/11 Healing Field is up again this year in the lush grassy expanse in front of the Sandy, Utah city hall.

 

As we commemorate the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on America that occurred on September 11, 2001, it is interesting to note how various places across our greatest of nations choose to mark the occasion.  Some places are holding solemn prayer vigils.  Others, as per President Obama’s urging, are volunteering in any number of ways to help their communities.  In New York City, Mayor Bloomberg is hosting a ceremony to commemorate the event where clergy and prayer are sadly not welcome.

I, however, am lucky to live in a rather refreshingly peculiar state.  It is quite different from anywhere else I have ever lived.  The people here are generally rather conservative and tend to be quite patriotic, which suits my temperament quite well.  They typically honor that patriotism with respect and service towards others and our nation.  I live in the suburbs of Salt Lake City, Utah.

In the next town over, Sandy, Utah, they have commemorated the attacks of 9/11 in a rather unique fashion.  The city has  erected what they call a Healing Field each year since 2003.  The beautiful verdant grassy field outside of the Sandy City Hall is lined with nearly 3000 American flags to commemorate the deaths of the 2,977 innocent victims that perished that horrible day, with the majestic Wasatch Mountain Range framing the background.  Each flag has a tag attached to it with a name and some biographical information for one of the victims lost that day.  See here for more information on this incredible Healing Field.

The field is nearly overwhelming when first seen.  This is even more so when you realize that the seemingly endless field of flags represents a fallen American for each single flag.

This year they will further be unveiling a new statue of the firemen that raised Old Glory in the midst of the rubble of the World Trade Center as a permanent memorial.  The statue will be entitled Hope Rising.

I happened by the place as I drove home from work today and spent a moment walking through the field while taking a few pictures.  It is amazing how an ordinary field can be transformed into such a solemn place.  I said a prayer to God that He will continue to show His love and mercy towards the loved ones that lost someone on that horrible day and further pray that we Americans will not forget that day and hopefully never have to suffer such an evil attack on our citizens ever again

A Christian Argument Against "Gay Marriage"

It would seem that the very important subject of gay marriage is a topic that has not even yet begun to wane in its ascendancy.  Indeed, there are many well-meaning folks that are trying mightily to make this into the new civil rights issue for our times.  While I think that such comparisons are strongly misplaced, and frankly do an injustice to those good people of color that had to struggle and suffer to finally reach equality in their rights under the law, I can see cleverness in couching the debate in such terms.  It is a debate that has even caused President Obama to reconsider his position on gay marriage and for him to state, unconstitutionally, that he will not have his administration enforce the Defense of Marriage Act that was passed in congress and signed into law back in 1996 under President Clinton.

The rhetoric from the pro-gay marriage side of the debate has become quite heated.  Often times, an immediate and vociferous proclamation regarding one’s bigotry and hatefulness is issued if one does not agree and support the concept of gay marriage.  Evidently it doesn’t occur to these folks or it is rather ignored that those of us that support and defend traditional marriage do so out of strong sociological reasons that support the concept that a family composed of a mother and a father is typically the very best environment in which to raise and support children.  The fact that many people who think this way also do so because of a strong religious Christian faith only seems to exacerbate the matter.  Indeed, many pro-gay marriage advocates and even many “enlightened” Christians think that God’s word is not necessarily eternal and on this issue it is antiquated.  It is an anachronism to them accordingly.

I have been confronted by pro-gay marriage proponents that have used the fallacious logic that “Christ never said anything about same-sex marriage”.  This argument is used as justification for some Christians to assume that Christ would not condemn such marriages, since they are still constituted in love.  The notion is silly frankly.  Christ also never explicitly said anything about rape, suicide, or pedophilia either.  Surely, following such flawed logic, they are not implying that our Lord is just fine with those things too.

While I absolutely do not support gay marriage or condone homosexual acts, I certainly do not have any hatred or loathing for gay people.  My thoughts on the issue, while having matured over time, have always been rooted in the same basic tenet that such actions were intrinsically wrong.  People with same-sex attraction though are God’s children, just as we all are, and should thus be treated with respect and dignity.

I was very pleased to read what the Catechism of the Catholic Church had to say on the subject, as I found myself in complete agreement with the teaching of the Church’s Magisterium and thus Christ’s own teachings accordingly.

CCC 2357 states: “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, *141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." *142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

CCC 2358: The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

So what specifically did Christ have to say about marriage?  In the gospel of Matthew 19:3-12, Christ gives us His word on what marriage is supposed to be.

Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?”  He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?  So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate."   They said to him, "Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?"   He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.   I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."   [His] disciples said to him, "If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry."   He answered, "Not all can accept [this] word,  but only those to whom that is granted.   Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."

The people seemed to be amazed at what Christ told them regarding a valid marriage and how anyone who divorced and remarried was living in adultery.  “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry!” (Mt.19:10 )  The fact that Jesus didn’t clarify or back-pedal means that they had obviously understood his meaning.  Jesus knew that it would be difficult for fallen men to live by that definition of marriage, and yet he held firm.  “Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom that is granted” (Mt. 19:11).

Let’s look closely at what Jesus said next: “Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 19:12). The implications of Christ’s words are absolute then.  A man’s ability to be united to his wife sexually is was what made him a candidate for marriage. If he was unable to achieve sexual union because of a birth defect, castration, or a vow of celibacy, than marriage was not his vocation. 

Consequently it would seem that the foundation of Jesus’ whole argument is indeed biological. Unless “a man” and “his wife … become one flesh,” there is no valid marriage.  For Jesus, and for anyone committed to His teachings, it is impossible to speak of a “Christian same-sex marriage.” Jesus’ words rule it out absolutely. The parameters for marriage between Christians, the parameters for a sacramental marriage, have been set by Jesus and cannot be changed.  Indeed, as Christ said, “Heaven and earth will pass away but my words will never pass away” (Lk.23:33).

*141 Cf. Gen 191-29; Rom 124-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10.

*142 CDF, Persona humana 8. [Rom.1:21-32, 1 Cor.6:9-11]