It’s beyond me why anyone gives a rat’s ass what men, who supposedly practise ABSTINENCE, the only TRUE perversion, say about how others should arrange their intimate relationships.

Just as it’s none of the government’s business, it’s none of ANYONE’S business but the two people involved.

Does this mean that the gay men in the church will be able to form civil unions?

We already know that the chastity part of the “poverty, chastity, obedience” vows has been completely ignored.

Come to think of it, “poverty” isn’t being paid much attention to either.

Let’s go for broke and throw out the “obedience” thing too.

The Catholic church hierarchy is making like it hasn’t been disgraced by the pedophilia that’s epidemic in its ranks.  The incidence of this disease is 1-5 percent among priests, based upon what’s been published in the press.  Meanwhile Cardinal Mahoney in Los Angeles keeps refusing to provide the District Attorney with the files of the pedophile priests who he keeps shuffling from parish to parish, whenever there’s a complaint that an alter boy has been sexually abused by one of his men of the cloth.  And Congress plays along with this game of let’s pretend that the church potentates are moral authorities.  On the other hand, that’s the same game that Congress plays,  as it allows our president to shred the constitution and take away our freedom.  So maybe Congress and the church hierarchy deserve each other after all, the better to fool the public..  Will they get away with it?  . 
.

This position will get him into a great deal of trouble, but it is great good sense.  “Marriage” is a church word, and should be kept in that context.  “Civil union” is a term of general public policy and should be evaluated as any such policy, e.g. the right to vote.