Should Catholics defend DOMA?

The White House last year threw its backing behind a bill that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, a … Continued

The White House last year threw its backing behind a bill that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, a 15-year-old law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Catholics should pay attention to the recent Federal Court’s unanimous decision that declared the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).is unconstitutional. Although the U.S. bishops had listed legalized same-sex marriage as a form of religious persecution this year, this legal decision rebuts the bishops’ thinking as counter to the Constitution of the United States of America. There is no reason, argues the court, to deny the legal benefits of marriage to persons of the same sex. So what is the greater pull to Catholic America: Being “Catholic” as the USCCB Ad Hoc Committee demands, or being “American” as required by the Constitution?

I have met many Catholics in the pews who are willing to concede every legal right to persons of the same sex “living together”: equal rights in housing codes, hospital visitation rights, inheritance matters, protection from bullying and health insurance coverage. They object, however, to the change of an abstract definition of marriage. In other words, “they” can do what they want “behind closed doors,” but shouldn’t ask for the same status as traditional marriage between one man and one woman. Even if same-sex marriage does not interfere with the pastoral practices of Catholicism, they fear a “slippery slope” that eventually leads to perversions like those denounced by former Senator Rick Santorum. As passionate as believers in this posture may be, their logic is flawed. Here’s why.

The abstract principle behind marriage is a life-long commitment to share oneself with a loved one. But abstract principles are just that — “abstract” — while people are real. How can you say you favor justice for gays and lesbians while advocating discrimination against them in law? It’s a contradiction to favor the practice but oppose the principle. “Anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen” (I Jn. 4:20).

Moreover, the principle that marriage is a highly serious commitment is one of the reasons couples increasingly co-habit rather than marry. As suggested here previously, many parish priests find pre-set marriage preparations courses harder to teach because of the social aversion to commitment. Ironically, when some gays and lesbians make such a commitment they strengthen the abstract principle behind marriage. Denying same-sex persons access to a permanent state for two people sharing life together, not only violates their equal rights, but lessens the number of married couples. Ironically, DOMA encourages indifference to marriage because it attacks the abstract principle of loving union for a couple by denying its universal application.

One of the most common objection to same-sex marriage is based on the notion that the purpose of marriage is about propagation of the human race through reproduction. However, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC #1641-1648) elevates the higher spiritual value of love over that earthly purpose. In fact, a marriage is sacramentally valid (CCC #1654) even when the couple — e.g. two people in a nursing home – are not going to have children. Sociological evidence shows that two persons of the same-sex can successfully adopt and raise children, while parents of different sexes offer no guarantee of a solid family.

Finally, Catholic America needs to recognize that government has a responsibility of providing for the common good, which is not the same as legislating morality. The secular question for the state is how to best provide for law and order, not what the Catechism says. The American Catholic Church has long ago learned to live with legalized divorce (CCC #1650), although the lesson came later in mostly Catholic countries like Spain (1981) and Ireland (1997). Same-sex marriage, I think, is no more an attack on Catholic religious freedom than is legalized divorce. Moreover, society as a whole benefits when couples are committed to monogamous relations, which is why property and other legal rights are bestowed on those choosing to marry.

To answer the question, “Where do we go from here?” I think the bishops ought to stop using church funds and pulpits to impose DOMA-style laws. Otherwise, we might wind up on the wrong side of American exceptionalism.

  • FreetoThink

    Same sex marriage harms no one. I have yet to hear a cogent argument against it. The objections fall into three categories.

    1. It’s not natural – as though humans do nothing unnatural. In fact, most of human activity is unnatural. Without unnatural activity, there would be no medicine, cooking, clothing, reading, driving, and so many more cultural activities.
    2. I don’t like it. Well, no one asked you to. Just mind your own business. Same sex marriage isn’t about you.
    3. God doesn’t like it. Which god, and what is his authentic communication – the old Jewish book, the new Christian book, the newer Muslim book, the brand new Mormon book, the Theravada, the Mahayana, the Vedas, etc.?

  • IntellectOne

    Same sex marriage is a Big Lie, just as, the Abortion Big Lie. The Government has not Right to redefine marriage. It is as simple as that ! The Supreme Court never had the Right to give women the Right to kill their baby in the womb. It was Bad Law then and is Bad Law today. Talk about for the “Common Good” get a reality check. What does 4,800 abortions a day in the United State tell us. America has no decency left because of Bad Law and now wants to add another Bad Law that is a Lie to its citizens and especially an egregious misrepresentation of marriage to the children..

  • jay2drummer

    Actually, those abortions go a long way towards lowering the crime rates. They also decrease the number of unwanted/neglected children. As for defining marriage, you may not believe the courts have the right to “redefine” marriage, but the Constitution says you cannot legally define marriage based on your religious beliefs, not can the government deny rights to one group when it provides them to another.

  • Catken1

    Yeah, how DARE the government declare pregnant women to be equal citizens who own their own bodies, and allow people to choose their own consenting adult marriage partner even if they don’t follow YOUR rules about what genitals that partner may have!

    How dare this country lose its decency by treating its citizens as free adults, rather than as children to be ordered about by the only righteous individual of us all, our Fearless Leader, IntellectOne, who Knows What Is Best for Everyone!

  • tony55398

    It’s not the governments purpose to promote Catholic moral teaching, nor should the government be an enforcer of Catholic law, nor any other religions. Catholics are free to follow their conscience and the laws that their religion so advocates, but no one should be forced to do so. We don’t need religious authorities as in so many Muslim countries to enforce religious law.

  • TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ

    IN REPLY TO (IRT)
    ANTHONY ARRORO

    IRT: “A federal appeals court ruled the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional because it denies equal rights for legally married same-sex couples.”

    ANS: Foremost, all rights are those that are in accord with Human Nature and therefore demand recognition because they are endowed not by man but by God, and so “recognized” by the Founding Fathers.

    Natural Rights are rights that are endowed by God and are therefore an object of Justice, viz. that which is given as man’s due by God. Human Rights may be defined as a moral or legal authority from God to act in accord with human nature to achieve man’s final end.

    There is no violation of equal rights by denying gays the nonexistent right to marry since there is no right. Nor has such a right ever existed because it is contradictory to nature from which all rights originate. Since Gay Marriage is a contradiction of human nature. And since natural rights can only be accorded by human nature, nature would be obliged to contradict itself and its author, who is God. However, the author of the Natural Law cannot contradict Himself. to do so would be an absurdity. Nor is there an inviolable right to obstruct human nature, unless these rights are abused by the individual. Notwithstanding, both Heterosexuals and Gays have the same equal rights; neither have a nonexistent right to Gay Marriage. Therefore there can be no discrimination in Marriage, which is ordained by Natural Law.

    “The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of concept

  • DigitalQuaker

    Your argument is rife with assumptions that have no substantiation. It is a house of cards my friend.

  • DigitalQuaker

    IntellectOne, that is a stunningly ignorant statement. The government has every right, and indeed, responsibility, to define what “marriage” is, in the context of the legal rights that relationship creates. Religion, individually or collectively, has NO authority in this area. It’s called seperation of church and state. Religions are free to define the institution of marriage within the context of their faith and practice, and here the State has no say in how that definition is made.

  • TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ

    IN REPLY TO
    DIGITAL QUAKER
    THE HOUSE OF CARDS?
    ANS: Has history no meaning? Why has the basic traditions of Marriage survived in contrast to the unnatural means that have been tried and failed, even in agnostic and atheists ruled nations.

    The word marriage may be taken to denote the action, contract, formality, or ceremony by which the conjugal union is formed or the union itself as an enduring condition. In this article we deal for the most part with marriage as a condition, and with its moral and social aspects. It is usually defined as the legitimate union between husband and wife. “Legitimate” indicates the sanction of some kind of law, natural, evangelical, or civil, while the phrase, “husband and wife”, implies mutual rights of sexual intercourse, life in common, and an enduring union. The last two characters distinguish marriage, respectively, from concubinage and fornication.

    The definition, however, is broad enough to comprehend polygamous and polyandrous unions when they are permitted by the civil law; for in such relationships there are as many marriages as there are individuals of the numerically larger sex.

    Whether promiscuity, the condition in which all the men of a group maintain relations and live indiscriminately with all the women, can be properly called marriage, may well be doubted. In such a relation cohabitation and domestic life are devoid of that exclusiveness which is commonly associated with the idea of conjugal union.

    The theory of primitive promiscuity
    “All authorities agree that during historical times promiscuity has been either non-existent or confined to a few small groups. Did it prevail to any extent during the prehistoric period of the race? Writing between 1860 and 1890, a considerable number of anthropologists, such as Bachofen, Morgan, McLennan, Lubbock, and Giraud-Teulon, maintained that this was the original relationship between the sexes among practically all peoples. So rapidly did the theory win favor that in 1891 it was, accor

  • Catken1

    Actually, that’s not in fact true. Most gatherer-hunter cultures are relatively sexually fluid, and treat marriage as an easily formable and dissolvable bond, by either sex. Most matrilineal cultures have a much higher tolerance for sexual promiscuity than patrilineal ones, because there isn’t so much interest in ensuring that everyone knows who fathered which child (who mothered each child is a self-evident and obvious fact, regardless of how promiscuous the parents).

    Anyway, we’re not talking promiscuity here, we’re talking formation of a stable monogamous bond. And despite your repeated assertions, you cannot make your god or your religion relevant to civil law in America without contradicting America’s key founding principle of religious freedom.

  • Elohist

    If the principal purpose of marriage is children, then why does the catholic church recognize marriage between people who cannot have children?

    Until you answer this in accord with the teaching of Holy Mother the Church, you are puffing yourself up with meaningless rhetoric.

    The Natural Law does not favor monogamy. The Natural Law favors marriage with many men and women in order to have as many children as possible. Celibacy, for instance, is AGAINST the Natural Law. The meaning of religion is to choose other than the purely human and material goals of marriage — e.g. LOVE.

  • TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ

    IN REPLY TO (IRT)
    CATKEN1
    11:32 AM EDT
    PROMISCUITY

    IRT: “Actually, that’s not in fact true. Most gatherer-hunter cultures are relatively sexually fluid, and treat marriage as an easily formable and dissolvable bond, by either sex.

    ANS: In other words, Marriage didn’t matter, the studies by anthropologists, such as Bachofen, Morgan, McLennan, Lubbock, Giraud and -Teulon, who studied the history of marriage and the cultures are all wrong. Consequently, a man and woman marriage was no more different than animal sex and same sex relationships. Thus, in your view, concubines, prostitutes, adulterers, Gay Sex and Promiscuity (sex not governed by the laws of Traditional Marriage) had no social stigmatic affect on society.

    Under your contrivance, promiscuous women could not show who the father of their illegitimate children was and that, in your view, presented no problem as to who was responsible for the child’s welfare. Hence, you would have a society that was irresponsible for its children’s welfare and ultimately its social order, posterity and self-preservation.

    The only direct testimony for your view is found in the fragmentary statements of some ancient writers, such as Herodotus and Strabo, concerning a few unimportant peoples, and in the accounts of some modern travelers regarding some remote uncivilized tribes of the present day.

    Your absurd view cannot explaining why same sex unions are controversial, even a rarity and why traditional marriage of male and female is overwhelminglyy the law of civilized nations even in atheist Marxists nations. Namely, violations of the Natural Moral Laws irrespective of race, culture, religion, or environment causes the disruption of the Social order because it emasculates the family bond that by necessity coalescences all societies society

    The reason is that Gay Marriage, Promiscuity, Adultery, and all other sexual aberrations are socially repulsive is because they violate the Natural Moral Law that governs human nature and they dis

  • TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ

    JAY2DRUMMER
    6/14/2012 11:30 PM EDT
    “ABSURDITY BEGETS ABSURDITY:
    IRT: “Actually, those abortions go a long way towards lowering the crime rates.”

    ANS: Beheading is also a remedy for headaches but murdering innocent people is a crime in itself. Are we not presumed innocent until proven guilty? How can you predicate someone is guilty of a crime when they aren’t even born?

    IRT: “They also decrease the number of unwanted/neglected children.”

    ANS: Who determines a child is unwanted or neglected and why is the remedy the death penalty? Were you ever unwanted and should that be grounds for your murder?

    IRT: “As for defining marriage, you may not believe the courts have the right to “redefine” marriage, but the Constitution says you cannot legally define marriage based on your religious beliefs,

    ANS: However, they are wrong. Marriage is defined and defended by God; it is defined by God’s Natural & Moral Law, not by man… The Church believes 2+2=4; does the Constitution therefore proscribe 2+2=4 because it’s a religious belief? The Founding Fathers have a different view of the law than yours.

    “Founding Father Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Joseph Story wrote “Christianity becomes not merely an auxiliary, but a guide, to the law of nature, establishes its conclusions, removing its doubts, and evaluating its precepts. The real object of the First) Amendment was not to countenance, much less advance, Islamic, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects & denominations.—Joseph Story, Chief Justice and founder of the Harvard Law School.”

    IRT: “nor can the government deny rights to one group when it provides them to another.”

    ANS: Why is this so? Because, God’s Natural Law makes all men spiritually equal. However; neither Gay nor Heterosexual; can marry the same sex, therefore, both have the same equal rights. Moreover, marriage is a covenant between a man and woman, not the same sex, but a covenant by which man and woman

  • TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ

    IN REPLY TO (IRT)
    ELOHIST
    2:56 PM EDT
    CHILDREN & MARRIAGE:

    IRT; If the principal purpose of marriage is children, then why does the Catholic Church recognize marriage between people who cannot have children? Until you answer this in accord with the teaching of Holy Mother the Church, you are puffing yourself up with meaningless rhetoric.

    ANS: The spouses’ union achieves the TWOFOLD END OF MARRIAGE: THE GOOD OF THE SPOUSES THEMSELVES and THE TRANSMISSION OF LIFE. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

    Children are the principle purpose of Marriage, not the ONLY purpose. Marriage is a contract and is by its very nature above human law. It was instituted by God, is subject to the Divine law, and cannot for that reason be rescinded by human law. Those who contract marriage do so indeed by their own free wills, but they must assume the contract and its obligations unconditionally.

    Marriage is natural in purpose, but Divine in origin. It is sacred, being INTENDED PRIMARILY BY THE AUTHOR OF LIFE TO PERPETUATE HIS CREATIVE ACT AND TO BEGET CHILDREN OF GOD; ITS SECONDARY ENDS ARE MUTUAL SOCIETY AND HELP, AND A LAWFUL REMEDY FOR CONCUPISCENCE. Human law certainly takes cognizance of marriage, but marriage not having been established by man, its essential properties cannot be annulled by such law. Marriage is monogamic and indissoluble; death alone dissolves the union when consummated.

    St. Paul is even more explicit when he shows that if unmarried people or widows cannot live chastely they have no other alternative than the stable union of marriage: “. . . it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.” Through marriage, in fact, the love of married people is taken up into that love which Christ irrevocably has for the Church while dissolute sexual union defiles the temple of the Holy Spirit which the Christian has become.

    Sexual union theref

  • TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ

    IN REPLY TO (IRT)

    IN REPLY TO (IRT)
    ELOHIST
    2:56 PM EDT
    CHILDREN & MARRIAGE:

    IRT:”If the principal purpose of marriage is children, then why does the catholic church recognize marriage between people who cannot have children? ”

    ANS: “Infertility (the inability to procreate children) is not an impediment to marriage; permanent and irreversible impotence (the inability to consummate a marriage through marital relations) is an impediment. Impotence that is known at the time of the marriage to be permanent and irreversiblei IS A BARRIER to marriage, because the couple must be capable of consummating their marriage. If the couple has reason to assume that the impotence can be treated or reversed, they may get married.

  • TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ

    IN REPLY TO (IRT)
    ELOHIST
    2:56 PM EDT
    MONOGAMY

    IRT: “The Natural Law does not favor monogamy. The Natural Law favors marriage with many men and women in order to have as many children as possible. Celibacy, for instance, is AGAINST the Natural Law. The meaning of religion is to choose other than the purely human and material goals of marriage — e.g. LOVE.

    ANS: The strict law of marriage was made known to our first parents in Paradise: “They shall be two in one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). When the sacred text says two it excludes polygamy, when it says one flesh it excludes divorce. Amid the general laxity with regard to marriage which existed among the Semitic tribes.

    Consequently, Jesus, who is God, who is the author of the Natural Law cannot contradict Himself, but Jesus proscribed polygamy. Therefore, polygamy is against the Natural Law.

    The statement against monogamy, on its face is a contradiction of the purpose of Marriage and consequently the Natural Law, The care of the fruits of the conjugal love between the spouses would be obscured, and the social order of the society of which man is a natural creature of would be blunted. Namely, man is a social being by nature.

    Moreover, promiscuity and adultery would be meaningless if a woman was naturally permitted to have multiple sexual unions with many men according to God’s laws, notwithstanding, she would be unable to know who if she became pregnant was her children’s father and who was responsible for the welfare of her children, who are the primary purpose of Marriage” Further, the father would be in a derisive state of his paternalism.

  • TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ

    IN REPLY TO (IRT)
    ANTHONY M. STEVENS-ARROYO
    OBJECTIONS and ABSURDITY

    IRT: “One of the most common objections to same-sex marriage is based on the notion that the purpose of marriage is about propagation of the human race through reproduction.”

    ANS: To the contrary, “propagation” is the objection to the use of sex act outside the context of Marriage. The sex act is the sole property of Marriage, not Marriage itself. Gay Marriage an oxymoron, is objected to because it is against the Natural & Moral Law, a violation of God’s Eternal and Divine laws and is therefore an obstacle, as is all immorality, to the that which is necessary in the eternal plan of God for man’s eternal salvation. Gay Marriage impedes the purpose for which all men have been created, namely man’s share in the eternal happiness of Paradise.

    IRT: “Finally, Catholic America needs to recognize that government has a responsibility of providing for the common good, which is not the same as legislating morality.”

    ANS: What an absurdity, the State can only provide for the common good by preserving the Laws of Morality through its legislation. Hence, the State has not only a duty to ensure the NML but to defend it and enforce it. The State can only do that by legislation, and the Founding Fathers make not of that in the Declaration. Thus, the Declaration

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

    That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, w

  • TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ

    IN REPLY TO (IRT)
    TONY55398
    6/18/2012 6:50 PM EDT
    IRT: “It’s not the governments purpose to promote Catholic moral teaching.

    ANS: On the contrary, it’s not the purpose of the State to promote the Catholic Religion but it is, according to the Declaration of Independence, the State’s duty to recognize and promote the Natural & Moral Law (NML) of which the Supreme Court incredulously found served no legitimate purpose to the State and was unacceptable as a basis for all Civil Law. Incredibly, the Court claimed the NML was subjective when in fact it is objective and universal and more so is the basis for all Civil Law.

    Consequently, the Founding Fathers relied on our Judeo-Christian heritage to declare the recognition of our rights inscribed in the Bill of Rights. They include our inalienable rights and the Ten Commandments laws that proscribe Murder, Theft, and Lying. They are based on our recognition of God who is the basis for their existence.

    In addition, it is the Catholic Church (CC) that has been given the authority as guardian of the NML (Matt: 16: 18) that are implicit written in the Ten Commandments. However, the inane Court banned from the Public Square in “Stone v. Graham” and claimed these Commandments might corrupt little children’s minds.

    IRT: “Nor should the government be an enforcer of Catholic law, nor any other religions.”

    ANS: How ridiculous is that? The CC is neither the sole possessor of the NML or its author. The CC is the appointed by God to be the voice of God (Matthew 16:17cf) that reiterates God’s universal teachings given to the CC through Revelation and the Scriptures and their infallibility are preserved from error by the Spirit (Acts 15:28 sq; Matthew 16:18 John 14, 15, and 16; I Timothy 3:14-15). The NML is no more changeable than the Law of Gravity because it is part of the Natural Law.

    IRT: Catholics are free to follow their conscience and the laws that their religion so advocates, but no one should be forced to do so. We don’t need religious a

  • TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ

    IN REPLY TO (IRT)
    ANTHONY M. STEVENS-ARROYO
    “LOVE & PARENTS”

    IRT: “The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1641-1648) elevates the higher spiritual value of love over that earthly purpose.
    ANS: Sex is not Love. Sex can happen without Love. Scripture reads, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

    The apostle St. Paul reminds us of this: “He who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,’ and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.”

    The great Greek philosopher, Aristotle said that to love is to will good to another for the other’s sake. Scripture implies the same. In John 3:16: “God so loved the world that He sent His only Son, so people might not perish, but might have eternal life.” We see: God’s love was so great it led Him to go so far as the terrible death of His Son to make that eternal life possible for us.

    God, does want us to be happy in this life, but most of all He wants us to have a happiness that never ends, a happiness beyond our wildest dreams, a share in Divinity itself. Those who obstruct the attainment of eternal happiness do not love the other..

    The purpose of Marriage is to propagate the human race in conjugal love and to protect the fruits of conjugal love by returning what God has given as a gift to the spouses in Marriage back to God, namely raising a child to honor and love God with all their soul, strength and mind.

    IRT: “Sociological evidence shows that two persons of the same-sex can successfully adopt and raise children, while parents of different sexes offer no guarantee of a solid family.

    ANS:

  • TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ

    IN REPLY TO (IRT)
    ANTHONY M. STEVENS-ARROYO
    TWO PARENT FAMILIES

    IRT: “Sociological evidence shows that two persons of the same-sex can successfully adopt and raise children, while parents of different sexes offer no guarantee of a solid family. ”

    ANS: There is no guarantee for a solid family because individuals have free wills, but the odds for a family’s success are highly in favor of a two parent (father mother) devout Catholic Families. Unfortunately, 15 million American children go to sleep every night in a home without a father. And contrary to the feminist propaganda, mothers cannot fill a father’s role. What men bring to their children is vital to their emotional, intellectual, sexual, moral, and spiritual development.

    STATISTICS FROM THE FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL:

    “At least one out of every three children experiencing a parental separation “demonstrated a significant decline in academic performance persisting at least three years. Even after taking into account the lower income in single-parent families, the absence of a father has a significant negative effect on the educational attainment of boys.

    COMPARED WITH GIRLS WITH INTACT NUCLEAR FAMILIES,

    “Girls who lose their fathers by divorce are overly responsive to males, are more likely to be sexually involved with males in adolescence, marry younger, are more often pregnant before marriage and become divorced or separated from their eventual husband more frequently.

    “Teens from disrupted families have more general health problems, are more likely to have consulted a health professional regarding emotional problems and are more likely to be sexually active than children from intact families.

    “The best predictor of violent crime and burglary in a community is not race or income, but the proportion of households without fathers. Seventy percent of all juveniles in long-term correctional facilities did not live with their fathers growing up.

    “Children in fatherless families are two to three times more likely than chil

  • persiflage

    Move over Tony, TTWSTY has taken over as Vatican proxy.

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous