Catholic Church | Gay Marriage | News | Pennsylvania | Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh Bishop Adds Anti-Gay Voice to PA Marriage Hearing

Supporters and opponents of a proposed amendment banning same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania turned out for a hearing on Thursday.

Bishop David Zubik, head of Pittsbugh's Roman Catholic Diocese showed up to spit some bigotry:

Zubik"I come to you today as a pastor, a pastor with a desire to testify on behalf of one of the oldest institutions of humanity -- marriage itself. At a time when we should be engaged in doing all we can to strengthen the family, we are facing cultural forces that want to so water down the definition of marriage that it could apply to any human relationship, or to no relationship at all."

He tempered his remarks with a call for tolerance: "Church teaching regarding the dignity of homosexual persons is clear. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity."

Added Zubik to local media later: "I felt it was very important for me to come here today. God really has defined marriage as it is. It's part of natural law. It's the fabric of society. And I think what's so important about it is that - we talk about marriage we also have to connect that very intimately into what the family is about."

Plenty of opponents were on hand to counter the Bishop, however: "Standing in front of the Pittsburgh City Council chamber with a number of vocal opponents of the amendment, state Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Squirrel Hill, yesterday vowed to fight the bill every step of the way. 'Assuming it even makes it out of the Senate, I will fight to make sure it doesn't see the light of day,' he said."

Marriage law draws crowd [post-gazette]
Bishop Zubik Supports Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage [wpxi]

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Dear Bishop Zubick:

    Go fuck yourself!


    Posted by: Sean | Apr 11, 2008 12:34:38 PM

  2. Church marriage and state marriage should be TOTALLY and government seperate!
    I think "the church" has every right to pick and choose their rules..they do that regardless.
    But our government has no right to disallow the legal marriage of two consenting adults.

    Posted by: todd | Apr 11, 2008 1:02:03 PM

  3. What the bishop said isn't bigotry. He's got every right to state what Catholic theology teaches. However, since nobody's proposing a law to require the Catholic church to marry two men or two women, he's got no dog in this fight, except a desire by the Church to regulate life for even non-Catholics. That, I find annoying and rude.

    Posted by: Andrew K | Apr 11, 2008 1:02:16 PM

  4. If marriage is so "sacred" why not propose and pass a law outlawing divorce?

    Posted by: Greg2 | Apr 11, 2008 1:07:49 PM

  5. I live in Pittsburgh, and the amount of press time they give this guy is really disconcerting. I agree all the way with Andrew, no dog. But he is going to make some loud seemingly moral crusade so that when/if this comes to public ballot, he will be sure everyone in PA has heard his official word.
    It's all very disgusting.

    Posted by: Lil John | Apr 11, 2008 1:15:46 PM

  6. Nice hair-don't Zubik.

    Posted by: homer | Apr 11, 2008 1:21:33 PM

  7. How many little boys has he fucked?

    If the gay press cared about anything other than its hair it would be on that story and find out.

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Apr 11, 2008 1:34:37 PM

  8. DAVID EHRENSTEIN beat me to it with the question about how many little boys Zubik has molested.

    Posted by: peterparker | Apr 11, 2008 1:40:47 PM

  9. Andrew K, I disagree. Just because the Catholic church teaches something doesn't mean it isn't bigotry. It is not illegal to be a bigot however.

    Posted by: RJ | Apr 11, 2008 1:46:22 PM

  10. I also live in Pittsburgh, where we have to not only deal with Bishop Zubick but the rabidly homophobic Bishop Duncan, of the Pittsburgh Episcopal Diocese; two of the most hypocritical and bigoted men Satan ever sent to earth.

    I just got off the phone with the Bishop's office, which I called at the suggestion of their website to register comments regarding his testimony. I was treated to a rationale of how families are now more than ever under assault, violence is everywhere and the undermining of marriage and family are to blame (sure, poverty and addiction have absolutely NOTHING to do with it, right?), and more subtly how homosexuals are to blame for this predicament. It was pretty much lock-step with the Pope's Christmas Day encyclical on peace, which in the most unbelievable display of circular logic basically said that (1) peace begins at home, with the family; (2) to promote peace, we need to strengthen families, (3) anything that threatens the family threatens peace and, therefore (4) homosexuals are to blame for terrorism.

    I politely yet firmly reminded His Eminent Unholiness' representative that: (1) LGBT people come from families, too - we don't grow on trees or fall from the sky; (2) LGBT people have families of their own, so unless the Catholic Church's next move is to try to strongarm the reproductive rights of homosexuals as well as their marriage rights, there is nothing that can be done to stop it; and (3) children are blameless insofar as who brings them into the world and, therefore, as long as LGBT people have children, our duty is clearly to support ALL families.

    By that point I was becoming a little hot under the collar and didn't want to risk conflagrating my position with emotive rhetoric, but I did manage to point out to the Bishop's mouthpiece that this amendment has nothing to do with "protecting marriage," its about hate and discrimination. This is evidenced by the fact that the amendment proposes to not only ban gay marriage but "any functional equivalent thereof." So, in essence, what they're saying is not that their desire is to protect marriage, it is to codify and declare that not only are LGBT relationship not equal to het ones, not only are they not as valuable, but they aren't even legitimate human relationship and are therefore no worthy of the protection and support of society.

    It almost makes me wish that sodomy laws hadn't been struck down in 1996...imagine how many Catholic priests we could send to prison for buggering little boys.

    Posted by: abracadaver | Apr 11, 2008 2:00:39 PM

  11. Our VT Bishop Kenneth Angell did the same thing in 2000. He even had some kind of missive read in church against civil unions, which caused gay-friendly parishioners to walk out in anger.

    And I agree with RJ: just because it's a church teaching, doesn't mean it's not bigotry.

    Posted by: kevinvt | Apr 11, 2008 2:03:35 PM

  12. Why do they even have a say....if they want to talk about it in thier churches ,fine...but, to have a say in PUBLIC policy - TAKE AWAY thier Tax exempt status!

    Posted by: Disgusted American | Apr 11, 2008 3:04:10 PM

  13. NB to ABRACADER: It's still illegal to bugger little boys, unless you are one yourself.

    Posted by: David R. | Apr 11, 2008 6:27:31 PM

  14. That's the solution to more probelms than I can name:

    TAX THE CHURCH!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Apr 11, 2008 8:06:32 PM

  15. All good counterpoints have been written already. Yet this catholic buffoon thinks he's the moral guide for everyone...and he's the lifelong celibate...stupid freaktard.

    Posted by: nikko | Apr 11, 2008 8:35:24 PM

  16. Part of natural law? Guess he never read "Biological Exuberance," by Bruce Bagemihl.

    Posted by: JOE 2 | Apr 11, 2008 11:13:13 PM

  17. Andy,

    If you want to see some real bigotry just go to Oscar's comment on the Hanes ads post (which you allow to remain on your site):

    "India is the filthiest country in the world.To bathe and drink in a river were corpses are burned and dunk is about as disgusting as one can be.Imagine swimming and a rotten arm hits you in the face,uhg.Besides that indian skin color is king of yukky.It is not black,brown or white is so sickly purple."

    Posted by: DC | Apr 11, 2008 11:32:48 PM

  18. i'm from pittsburgh, and these catholic bishops are ALWAYS interfering with the democratic process, pushing legislation, preventing legislation from being considered, etc. it's a disgrace. unfortunately, the fact is that about 50% of the pittsburgh population is a member of the catholic church, and the church has tremendous political influence here.

    Posted by: jason | Apr 12, 2008 1:59:32 AM

  19. I live in Pgh and thought 50% seemed high for Catholics in the city, but that's actually correct. I guess it surprises me that this city can be so simultaneously conservative and pro-Democrat. It is typical, in Pittsburgh, that the voice against gays is delivered with deceptively gentle and "compassionate" language.

    Posted by: ben | Apr 13, 2008 5:54:01 PM

Post a comment


« «Lance Bass Takes New Man Out for a Test Drive« «