Cardinal Wuerl emphasizes: defenders of marriage are not bigots

[Cardinal Wuerl:] “In the debate over the nature of marriage, even the White House chose to use words like ‘discrimination’ to describe the position of people in good faith who simply disagree with the President’s stance,” he added. “In states where traditional marriage has been challenged in the legislative process and/or the courts, words like ‘bigotry,’ ‘discrimination’ and ‘hatred’ have been bandied about with nothing more to support them than the actual fact that some people think that the definition of marriage really and truly is between a man and a woman.”And he goes on…

Coverage at Catholic Culture

Wow, I’m very glad he said this :slight_smile:

Wow, I’m very glad he said this

Me too, but I hate the greasy-acrid feel of struggling very hard on issues such as this just to beat our way back to zero.

Strong enough words are not used to barb the argument to the ground and let it dry in the sun.

“Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.” - Matthew 5:11

We wouldn’t be on the defense right now if Obama had never been elected. And he would not have been elected if it were not for the majority of Catholics voting for him…twice. I wasn’t one of them.

I’m kind of getting tired of hearing about Latinos and single women voting for him.

Look at the electorate:

Iowa, New Hampshire, Minnesota (may not be as liberal as some think) Wisconsin, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, even Michigan, where Synder won in 2010 in a landslide----all of these states went to Obama not once but twice.

How about all those Muslims, Orthodox Jews and socially conservative minorities?

Here’s what it comes down to:

Farm subsidies, welfare, and race.

As one African-American commentator on Sean Hannity (TV) said: “this type of voting is idolatry”,

The voters of this country can call their politicians stupid all they want, but people like Karl Rove and David Axelrod know exactly what they are doing and that is why they win.

In other words, they know you’ll still vote for their guy despite them doing things you don’t like.

This is why so-called “gay marriage” is popping up all over the place.

Look at it like this:

Obama just barely cleared 51% of the vote with 70%+ of Asians and Latinos and 93% of African-Americans and women single women by 33 points over Romney

It’s actually pretty tough to hold all three of those at once and 51% isn’t that much.

Just think if half of those folks voted their values.

Also, some questions that I’d like answers for from the 2012 elections are:

How does one explain how Obama lost in all the states that have Voter ID?

What could explain the fact that in many counties there were more voters than those eligible to vote?

In what election did anyone ever get 100 or 99 percent of the vote as happened in 9 precincts of Ohio?

How did it happen that in 59 voting divisions in Philadelphia, Mitt Romney received not one vote?

How can we explain the voting machines flipping a Romney vote to Obama?

Why did a military aircraft full of overseas military absentee ballots (military votes mostly Republican) crash only a few days before election day?

Why was Candy Crawley allowed to break from being a moderator to team up with Obama against Romney during the debates?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit