You Must Legally Say "I Do" in California Before Sex

A new law is being discussed in California requiring both partners to announce an “affirmative consent” before engaging in sexual activity. So technically, California wants people to say "I do" before having sex. Wow, things have come full circle, huh?

But snark aside, there's something about this proposed law that I think speaks to a sense that there's something very wrong. So many of us think of our time as one of raised consciousness, one in which tolerance has gained the upper hand. But ours is a time of nominal macro-tolerance and micro-Machiavellianism.

We've told people it's perfectly fine to use others as a means for our own pleasure as long as there's consent. But Christ didn't tell us to love others as we love ourselves unless we get their consent to use them as an inanimate object for our own pleasure.

Our culture's permissiveness is permissive of everything but abstinence. And we're thrilled about it. We saturate every corner of our lives with images of sex. But there are consequences. We have broken hearts as collateral damage. The horror of millions of unintended human beings discarded as bio hazardous waste. Skyrocketing STD's. The cultural fallout and emotional damage is so vast as to be incalculable.

And we know it. So we thrash about in search of that tweak of the rules that will make it better, make it all right because laws must eventually fill the space left by morality. Precisely because we shun the teachings of the Catholic Church more laws will come from on high. In fact, we've done more than shun the Church's teaching, the government now demands that Catholic institutions take foot the bill for the sexual revolution.

I understand why legislators might get behind this bill. They see the damage and hope to do something, anything to fix it. But until we are convinced that love, real love, doesn't involve using others for our own ends we will only see more heartache, more damage, and more laws. A lot more laws.

*subhead*Something's wrong.*subhead*


  1. Yes, Pat, and DS didn't know it was Pope Benedict. Hmmm.

    While DS put his stuff out there, let's be real. Putting something on the internet puts it in the public domain, but if a video is never watched, is it really all that "public?"

    I think there is more to what you are doing than simply correcting the misguided deacon. My point isn't that DS is right, btw, he isn't. My point is that it is insufficient to do what is not particularly Christian. This morning's gospel ends with the Golden rule. Is how you treat DS, is that how you would like to be treated if you sin?

  2. Rob,
    Respectfully, I disagree. I am not denigrating him in any way. I am pointing out what he did publicly (both at mass and on the internet)

  3. Phil, it is always wonderful to meet someone who presumes to know what a saint would do, and to know what "corner" I belong in. You obviously must be channeling the Holy Spirit.

    Let me remind you Phil, you are no Bishop Sheen, so perhaps you should reconsider the inherent certitude of your own judgement.

  4. And of course, they have a "gay" ministry. Naturally. We have a long way to go before a restoration roots this out.

    The interesting thing is - yet again - when you call out the liars (and any reaonable person can see through the lie about the red shoes), the immediate defense is that we should "be charitable". Then the discussion moves to our reaction to these types, not the behavior itself of these types. It's the easiest way to deflect attention away from the destroyers of the Church. Deacon Sandy complains about the "divisive and judgemental tone" - that didn't stop him from making a judgement about the Pope's shoes, did it? Please.

  5. Do you laugh at Pope Francis? We should criticize what is wrong, but we should also give some time for repentance.

    "Who am I to judge?" I think that the comments go way overboard.

  6. You can admonish without name calling. Well, maybe you can't, Phil, and maybe Paul can't either. But I can. I don't think we do ourselves credit as a people of God by acting like preschoolers in discussions. That's just my opinion.

    I can be persuaded on whether or not he deserves to be admonished publicly and repeatedly by the same blog, but I cannot be persuaded that he deserves the nastiness that I've read here and I don't believe I have done anything to deserve it either. You don't know me and I would like to think I at least deserve the presumption of being a decent person instead of being called: naive, not strongly grounded in the church, not grounded in reality, a closeted liberal, and don't forget I am also nasty, accusatory, self-righteous, and a Pharisee. All because I felt like giving Deacon Sandy the benefit of the doubt and publicly admonished some responders of being hateful with their words.

  7. His homily is slightly judgmental. But I also noted his parish is pretty empty. Either way, he is either doing a backtrack or he is amazingly unaware for a Catholic priest. Either one could be the case.

  8. I think if you wallow with pigs, you're gonna get dirty. Leave the mud fight--there's no chance of winning.

  9. Deacon Sandy isn't the victim here. He owes an apology.

  10. I don't think Pat's posts on this subject constitute either wallowing or fighting. Rather, it's posting the truth, giving his reasons, countering objections, and letting readers decide.


Post a Comment