Recently a former nun, Monica Hingston, and her female partner (also a former nun) wrote a letter to the Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, asking him to respond to her personally on the remarks the Pope recently made concerning gays and lesbian being "seriously depraved" and lacking "basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity". I applaud her courage at taking this issue to the public, but I question the expected outcome. Especially as the Vatican is closing ranks to specifically target the issue of gay marriage. These statements were intended by the Pope to gird the faithful and roust them to moral outrage so that they might confront the issue head on. It has nothing to do with The Church's willingness to care for its gay members. Indeed, it is quite firm in stating it has no use for them (WWJD, indeed...).

Cardinal Pell responded as expected. He apparently heeded her request not to 'insult my intelligence by prefacing it with "it's the sin, not the sinner" stuff'. He asserted that the Church was clear about its stand and would not bend and then said, "I wish Monica well and acknowledge the contribution she has made. I continue to regret the path she has chosen."

If being gay is a choice, then this we blame 'the sin not the sinner' nonsense is necessarily hypocritical, as she intimated. But if it's a choice, then it's the sinner choosing the sin. If it is not, then... well, then it can't be a 'choice' can it? Why is it important to understand all this? It's not really important, actually, but it clearly illustrates where the church (Christian, in particular Catholic) stands on the issue; wherever is best for continuing the status quo. They are not going to change. And they don't have to. They make their own laws and, ahhhh the crux of it, they are not bound by challenges of law.

And, quite frankly, I say let them have their status quo. But, I'm not a Catholic, much less a Christian, so I say this with little personal involvement. But I can tell you my personal desire. I would like the Church taken out of this equation altogether.

CHOICE AND PERCEPTION
The act of coming out is a gay person doing one thing that the Catholic church cannot; recognising that it's not a choice and that it's who you are. As a SMH reader recently said, 'How do you embrace something that doesn't embrace you?' Quite. And why would you want to? But The Church has been given unnecessary prominence in the argument about our place in society and that's not helping. And, sad but true, we gave them some, maybe most, of that power. By begging and pleading that they recognise gay relationships we've made them one of the rein holders on this runaway buggy for change. As I said, I'm not a Catholic, so it's hard for me to truly understand the emotional content that drives one to do this. But it happens just the same.

MARRIAGE AND ACCEPTANCE
I don't care about the church recognising same-sex marriages. I really don't. But I know some do. What I do care about is us getting religion to butt the hell out until we're done. Church-goers have a right to speak up like anyone, but the churches of America need to stay out of our governmental processes. And, make no mistake, marriage is a governmental entity. It was back way back when the Christian church renounced it (look it up), and it is now in times when they embrace it to the point of claiming providence over it. But I know the US Constitution and the reasons it says some of the things it does and religion has no business meddling in our government. (Look, if you wanna say our forefathers were all a bunch of Christ-loving Christians, go right ahead. I'll disagree with you for the most part, but it's your right to say what you want. However it's patently clear why they put that bit in there about keeping the church _out_ of government, they'd seen the harm such an involvement could cause. If they were such Christian do-wells, they wouldn't have made such a proviso any more than today's believers would if writing it anew.)

So... they want the church to control marriage? Perhaps they'd like to get back to their roots on the issue then. After all, the Bible says nothing about women being free. But of course not, that's ridiculous right? Well, it isn't if you follow the Bible literally. But who's going to do that? Not many, actually. But they're very firmly set that it says homosexuality cannot be recognised, even if it's not writ as clearly as the bit about selling your daughters into slavery.

GOVERNMENT AND DUTY
In the end there is this: The US government has a duty to hear argument and act upon it in the interest of its people. It cannot, however, according to the Constitution, allow religious entities to have any sway over its decisions. It can certainly hear the voice of its many peoples who are religious by nature, but it cannot accept undue influence by their churches. Sadly, the current US President doesn't see it that way. He counts himself a religious and moral man and believes that Christianity should be given special dispensation in the halls of power. This makes our fight for rights of marriage quite the uphill battle.

So, let's stop giving Bush and The Church the extra perceived power they are trying to hold over gay marriage. If we continue to plead with The Church it creates the perception that they have a right to comment and influence. They do not. Plead with your government to hear your voice and respect its charter. Then, when our rights are established, go to your church by all means and speak up for whatever you want from them. To effectively stand together and fight against second-class citizenship, in all things governmental religion must come second.

Note: I speak as a US citizen, I am merely a resident of Australia.