Marriage & Family: February 2004 Archives

Probably the main topic of conversation at last weekend's meeting of the Alhambra's international board of directors was How do we sign up younger members and keep them active?

Of course, being by far the youngest member of our board, many of the other gold tassles turned to me for some possible answers. One of the things I proposed is that the Alhambra shift from a Catholic fraternal organization to a Catholic family organization. De facto, this is how many of our younger caravans (local branches) in terms of membership already operate, and this is how I intend to operate in Ottawa. Basically, these younger caravans keep the monthly meetings short, and invite wives and children to attend as well. All their activities involve the entire family, rather than just the boys. I myself keep pointing to Pope John Paul II's Familiaris Consortio and all that the Holy Father has done to promote the family apostolate. In fact, long before he ascended to the Throne of St. Peter, Fr. Wojtyla was leading a family kayak trip when he first received news that he was to be consecrated a bishop.

Anyway, there seems to be some interest in exploring this idea a little more, especially since our younger caravans in terms of leadership are already operating as de facto family organizations. Nevertheless, there continues to be much divergence of opinion among 1) our WWII era membership who want to keep this exclusively an old boyz club, 2) our boomer membership who see this primarily as an equality issue and want to see women become full members, but are wishy-washy when it comes to families, and 3) our gen-x membership who are basically pushing for full family membership. In case there is any doubt, I fall into the third category.

What I am interested in finding out, therefore, is whether you would be more likely to join and become active in a Catholic fraternal organization that operates as an all boys club, or whether you find a Catholic family organization that gets the entire family active within our Catholic apostolate more appealing? Please use either the comments box or private email to share your answer, and it would also be helpful if you shared your age and marital status. Thanks...

Says the Globe poll: opposition to "gay marriage" has risen from 43% to 53% since November; from 47% to 66% among Catholics.

Once again the news confirms that nobody's wrong all the time, or in the words of the aphorism, "even a stopped clock is right twice a day."

Thanks to Rep. Barney Frank who has come out ... in opposition to San Francisco's illegal same-sex marriages, because, well, they're illegal. And dittos to gay-paper editor Fred Kuhr, who argued the same point on O'Reilly's show Friday evening.

Marc Zappala's weblog Transcendence is hardly out of the box, and already he's laid into the following subjects with acute attention and a few acerbic poems:

• pro-aborts who are at some level anti-choice
• people who still regard Bill Clinton as an innocent scapegoat
• why Margaret Cho is so bitter
• the gay lobby's reflexive support for abortion
• W.'s failure to understand and pursue American interests
• his own temptations.

Welcome to the parish, Marc.

A December article from New Scientist claims that cohabitation before marriage is good for men's health. I didn't read all of the argument because of the logical flaw in the first paragraph:

Cohabiting is better for men's mental health, but marriage is better for women's happiness, suggests a new study.

Don't these weirdos know that whatever isn't good for a woman's happiness will ultimately manifest itself in her man's mental health???

So far on day one of the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention (a joint session of the legislature), the ConCon has rejected two proposed amendments.

By 94-104, they rejected a text from the Senate Dem and Rep (!) leaders that would ban same-sex "marriage" but require the establishment of "civil unions"; and by 98-100, they rejected a compromise by the House Speaker that would ban same-sex marriage and allow the option of civil unions if the legislature so chose. The original text, which would ban both gay marriage and civil unions, will be on the agenda Thursday afternoon.

My guess is that the anti-family forces have done their part to stack the deck by bringing the Speaker's compromise proposal up for a vote first: if the strongest version had been debated first or second and failed, the compromise text -- restoring the legal status quo before Goodridge -- would have remained an option acceptable to pro-family folks. Now Thursday's vote will be for all or nothing, and if it's defeated, the anti-family forces will have what they want -- excepting a possible legislative end-run -- and the nationwide legal battles will be on.

Correction: I previously stated here that the Senate text had been proposed by my State Senator. That was incorrect; however, he did vote for it, sad to say.

This may have been Your Catholic Voice's first public event, but it'll have to be just the beginning: about 2000 supporters of marriage rallied in the cold Sunday afternoon in front of the Massachusetts State House. Coverage from AP and Reuters.

In separate statements, black ministers and a multi-faith coalition speak in support of the proposed constitutional amendment.

Our Black-Robed Masters (thank you, Mark) at the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court have taken away the remaining wiggle room from politicians wanting to avoid the gay-marriage question. Civil unions, say the Justices, do not meet Our requirements: you, the legislature, must pass laws letting homosexual couples marry as We command.

The weaselly state Senate president, Robert Travaglini, wanted to obstruct a vote February 11 on a proposed state constitutional amendment to protect marriage from the Goodridge decision, but his excuse -- the lack of clarity on whether civil unions would satisfy the judges -- has just evaporated.

AP writes:

Tacking Jr. or II onto a boy's name is too common, a new father decided, so the self-described engineering geek took a software approach to naming his newborn son.

Jon Blake Cusack talked his wife, Jamie, into naming their son
Jon Blake Cusack 2.0.

Most bad baby names are just embarrassing, but this one's philosophically bad. Let's get this one straight, parents: babies are not products; people are not things. OK?