Which one will you vote for: Roe v. Wade or Homosexual Marriage

June 4, 2006
by Paul Dion, STL

I came across this news item and couldn't resist posing you the challenge that it presents to the religious people who inhabit this country. This is as much a religious question as it is a political one. Of course I know that we will sooner or later have both situations in our country.

But for now, let's pretend that we have a choice of one or the other. It has profound religious ramifications.

I have therefore decided to throw out the following challenge to you. Give this some thought, send me your answer with religious reasoning to support it, and I think that we will learn a lot from the sum of your excogitations (dynamic thoughts).

THE CHALLENGE: Let's ptetend this came to a vote on November 7, 2006, and we have to choose between continuing Roe vs. Wade (abortion) or allowing homosexual marriage. We can’t keep both. We have to decide which one we want. How do you vote and why?

(Click here to view the rest of the many wonderful articles that await you in, America's Catholic Lifestyle Magazine)


  1. Anonymous7:25 PM

    "The answer is obvious. We will tolerate homosexual marriage if we can do away with Roe vs Wade. The logic is that we MUST always choose life. Life is what God gave us. We then choose to do his will or follow the path to damnation. In Roe, the innocent child is not given that chance to live. We are told by God to go multiply and be fruitful. Whatever God gave, let no men take away. Life is sacred."

  2. Anonymous7:25 PM

    "I would vote to keep(?) or allow Same-sex marriage. This involves no loss of life. It did occur to me just yesterday that perhaps the French have the right idea. They require a civil marriage even when there is a religious rite. One might argue that a religious marriage confers certain sacramental, spiritual benefits but that a civil contract is in order to confer civic privileges and benefits."

  3. Anonymous7:25 PM

    "You didn't pick too controversial topics here, did you? You know as
    well as I that neither will the Supreme Court reverse its decision on Roe
    v Wade, it would cause the biggest revolution since the Civil War; NOR will the Senate vote for a Constitutional Amendment banning Gay Marriages. Even if they would, by majority, vote for an amendment to the Constitution, the States each have to ratify it as well, and that would only happen when pigs fly. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with Gay Marriages, but, like Roe v Wade, unfortunately, it's not going to go away just because the President doesn't agree with it, I think that would be a little presumptuous, don't you think? Since you are forcing the choice issue here, I'll go with Gay Marriages. REASON? There is less "damage" to the concept of "family" than the abuse that Roe v Wade has undergone."

  4. Anonymous7:26 PM

    "I vote for allowing gay marriages, not because I support it, but because it is the lesser of two evils. Abortion is the most senseless crime against humanity. There are so many options to an unexpected pregnancy other than abortion. Unfortunately most unwanted pregnancies involve teenagers who are themselves children and are able to make a decision that in the future they may live to regret!"

  5. Anonymous7:26 PM

    "Thank you for our latest chance to express our thoughts and learn. For myself I would have to agree with Our Lady of the Roses, On august 4,1979 the late seer Veronica Lueken reportedly received the following from the Virgin Mary: "Homosexuality is a sin that condemns to hell! Lesbianism means eternal damnation and banishment! Bestiality is the most foul and heinous of crimes in the eyes of the Eternal Father. There shall be no
    scientific excuse given! For each and every one of you in mankind's reign shall stand before the Eternal Father to be judged when you die upon earth, when you leave your body, and what excuse will you give to Him if you do not repent now of your sin? Do Penance! His heart is all forgiving if you do penance!" Homosexuality Directive #24 given to Veronica
    Lueken, Bayside, New York. Of course, not everyone, including some within the Church considered Veronica Lueken's messages to be valid, as with St. Bernadette. I would, again say, I agree with Our Lady's feelings, but as we have been directed, it is not up to us to pass judgement on other Souls. I feel the best we can do is pray for those who feel drawn to
    their same sex and try to send our love to them, as is possible for us. If for whatever reason, these people are not able to change their ways, it will then be, between them and Our Father when their time comes, that's all I feel about it."

  6. Anonymous7:30 PM


    Who said Catholics don’t have insights about moral theology? Who says that we always wait for the Pope to tell us what to do? These answers are straight from the heart and have described the problem quite well.

    Marriage is 1) a civil contract between two people who promise to help one another become better human beings as life goes on. They promise to be supporters of society and to accept the offspring that their love union produces. They promise to nurture the intellectual, emotional and spiritual lives of the children for the good of the community.

    Marriage is 2) a religious contract between two people who promise to help one another stay within the presence of God for their entire lives. They promise to found a “domestic” church in their home to nurture the intellectual, emotional and spiritual lives of their offspring.

    The Sacrament of Marriage in the Catholic Church is an exchange of vows that promises a mutual support system to make the grace of Baptism blossom more richly every day while the spouses help one another and their children in the pursuit of perfection.

    Love in all of its facets is the cornerstone of Marriage. Romantic love, conjugal love, fraternal love, paternal and maternal love, religious and spiritual love, neighborly love, etc. All of these facets and manifestations of love can only survive in a home that is a church as well.

    It is not just the church that is the house of God. Our houses are the houses of God.

    When all is said and done, the state has the right to determine and legislate the definition of the marriage contract and who the eligible contractors will be.

    The Church doesn’t have to agree with the state and may exclude itself from ratifying same sex marriage contracts. Through it all, the Church will retain its obligation to maintain the firm position that it holds concerning the immorality of homosexual activity.

  7. Although the Catholic Church will not sanction homosexual marriage, it is very possible that this type of union would be positive for society. The civil marriage contract would tend to stabilize the life style of those who vowed their lives to one another. It is also possible that the number of abortions would decrease because there would be an outlet for unwanted children. Catholic homosexual couples would suffer greatly because such a union would place them in a sinful situation that would prevent them from participating in the sacramental life of the Church.

  8. Anonymous11:30 AM

    I had to think about it before I answered. Bottom line, we have to choose the lesser evil of allowing homosexual marriages, (civilly only), while I know that the Catholic Church will never knuckle under for this to be recognized as moral. If no one stands up for life, we are guilty of murder by association, meaning that the homosexual marriage is entered into freely with the two people exercising their God given free will, while the abortion issue will always be a death choice for the innocent. Protecting the innocent should always be our first choice. I would have to agree to the homosexual marriages if given the choice, but as the lesser of two evils only, to protect the most vulnerable of our society, the unborn, made in the image and likeness of God the Father of all. As usual, I probably didn't articulate it very well, but I know you know what I mean to say.

  9. I am apalled by the reasoning of the first few entries. I stopped reading after a few of them. There is NO justification for either, hence there is no decision to be made. There is no such thing as a "lesser of two evils", that is, between two mortal sins (venial sin is by nature "lesser" than mortal sin). The NT teaches to break one commandment is a violation of the ENTIRE law. Hence, I refuse to answer this question, since, in my opinion, both sins are anti-life.

  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

  12. "I am apalled by the reasoning of the first few entries. I stopped reading after a few of them. There is NO justification for either, hence there is no decision to be made. There is no such thing as a "lesser of two evils", that is, between two mortal sins (venial sin is by nature "lesser" than mortal sin). The NT teaches to break one commandment is a violation of the ENTIRE law. Hence, I refuse to answer this question, since, in my opinion, both sins are anti-life."

    The first element of our reponse is personal, so please forgive us if it offends you. We think that to be intellectually honest, it would have been better for you to read all the comments before making the above statement. Among those comments you will find the clarification of the situation by

    The second element of our response is this: There is such a thing as a "lesser of two evils". Here is how the Catholic Church understands this. Sometimes, in real life, the "lesser of two evils" is the only guide that our conscience has. The arm of the Catholic Church that operates under the title of Catholic Relief Services freely distributes condoms in the AIDS afflicted areas of Africa. The Catholic Church also understands the concept of "just war". The Catholic church also recognizes the concept of "pulling the plug" from a person who is being kept "alive" through methods available to modern technology. The Catholic Church is not absolutely and indiscrimately "pro-temporal life", not even by being
    absolutely and indiscrimately opposed to the death penalty. The traditional example being that of a sinking ship in which the captain has to make the decision between the young mother with a babe in arms and the older gentleman. No one on board has more than a 50/50 chance of survival anyway. Your opinion of both sins being anti-life is noted, but...

    The two homosexuals who get married within the bounds of civil law are not militating against life such as the married
    heterosexuals who use the various methods of contraception and the ultimate attack on life, abortion. Since they are
    homosexuals, married or not, they will presumably never have to deal with the question of terminating a life, except in the case of "pulling the plug" on their dying parents. If they are cautious homosexuals they will perhaps use external
    protection to prevent themseves from contracting terminal diseases thereby taking care to prolong life, rather than end it. We also feel constrained to mention that the homosexuals will more than likely never have to exercise recourse to abortion before marriage.
    Let's get to the point of the lesser of two evils. There is no doubt that homosexual marriage is immoral since, at a minimum, it places two people of the same sex in a planned imminent proximate danger of mortal sin on a daily basis.

    However, given that if it were to become a legally recognized status of two people, it would then become a stabilizing agent in the broader environment of our civilization. It would have a certain level of effect of putting a damper on the "cruising and stalking" activity that homosexuals are habitually accused of. May we be so bold as to point out that a married couple who decide to be abstemious rather than to use contraceptive means are choosing "the lesser of two
    evils"? We dare say this because according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church one of the essential elements of marriage is the enhancement and maintenance of community life. Not too many of us get married with the intention of eliminating matrimonial intercourse from our community life. But if we decide not to generate children, absent
    contrceptive methods, all we have to do is to abstain at certain times of the month. So, even within the sacrament of matrimony there exists an "anti-life" (your words) component.

    I encourage you to go back and read the entire presentation from head to toe. I also can't help but to make the remark that this is a topic that we argued about loud, long and vociferous 45 years ago in moral theology class. The more things change, the more they stay the same!

    It is not our intention to intimate that we condone either abortion or marriage between two homosexual persons. The lesson here is simply to put forward an example of the tough choices that Catholic voters sometimes face. Moral dilemma questions such as these always cause discomfort because they sometimes put religious people in the position of moral gridlock. It is our desire that through this discussion we have helped to prevent some consciences from suffering disquieting anxiety about what seems to be a lose-lose proposition.