He and I have had several go around on email. I will retract something I said about him in a prior post a couple years back. He’s not a horses ass, but he does love his straw-man arguments. Check out where he says he wouldn’t be offended by gay marriage.
That’s another thing I noted at the forum and in the hearings I’ve attended. Someone always brings up one of these two canards:
1) Won’t someone think of the children. The most recent episode on this one is Robb and Robin Wirthlin of Lexington, MA. Apparently their little snowflake had the book “King and King” read to him. The horror!
2) The parts don’t fit. John Corvino has pretty much debunked this one. Check it out:
And this one on why study philosophy is quite good.
Here’s the latest go around with the Rev. Codega:
I’m not advocating changing the definition. In fact the definition of marriage doesn’t change. Instead the bills (S0136 and H5744) change the prerequisites for marriage.
My liberties, how about the liberty to be there for my sick partner? How about not having to wait for public notice to seek disposition of the body? How about having automatic power of attorney instead of having to be constantly in possession of a document.
I’m very curious about which of your liberties are at stake were I to be able to marry my partner of 16 years? You make vague arguments about that but never really enumerate the destructive aspects. Instead you craft a straw-man argument, even bring up that NJ church property.
And yes you do surprise me. The more I converse with you the more I come to respect you. Certainly my first time out your arguments did strike me as coming from the posterior end of a horse. As to taking credit, the tide seems to be turning in our favor. I note the ProJo poll hit nearly 57% in favor of marriage equality.
Rev. John Codega wrote:
> Once again your inconsistent arguments confuse me. In one thought you
> object to the emotive defense of traditional marriage, like the woman who spoke
> concerned about here child’s school curriculum, while in the next breath
> applaud Dr. Crew and those who promoted changing the definition supported only
> through their emotion rich anecdotes.
> I respect your experience but haven’t been convinced that your liberties are
> being threatened by anyone’s religious views. We are both free to do
> whatever we wish until it impedes the other’s liberties. I don’t see the
> “right” to marry a liberty, rather I see it as an honor or a reward to
> society with direct benefits thereto. You are the ones who are trying to
> change the definition of marriage, which I, my government, and, yes, my
> religion, has held for thousands of years. We are merely seeking to resist
> your relatively new objections to our well established liberties.
> On Friday, I was invited to share the teachings of my religious tradition.
> This is different than testifying before a legislative body. I would agree,
> perhaps with you, that public testimony in regards to legislation must be
> based more than on simple arguments from religion. You may be surprised to
> hear me speak of my own objections to the strictly moral arguments at the
> state house hearings. I think they are ineffective and unproductive.
> However, I do think that elected officials should know from where their
> constituents are coming.
> Perhaps something I should have stated earlier is my own objection to the
> true religious fanatics who wave bibles at people and tell them they’re
> destined to hell. That hardly images the Love of a Christ in whom we
> profess to believe. We are all sinners, even in the most liberal definition
> of Christianity. I have no right, nor does my Church declare the
> condemnation of any soul. That is truly reserved to God alone. I think
> Rich from MERI was actually surprised when I said, sincerely, that I am not
> and would not be offended by gay marriage should become reality in RI. I
> may disagree and object but no one in that room knows me well enough for me
> to be offended on a personal level.
> What I thought was most productive about Friday night was that after the
> discussion all the panelists were able to shake hands, look each other in
> the eye, and certainly form my stand point, offer a sincere thanks for the
> sharing of ideas. After the panel, I enjoyed chatting with many of the pro
> gay marriage guests as well. Perhaps this will make the next time we meet
> at the State House a little more cordial, a little more respectful.
> Tony, I recall our first time together at my first attempt at testifying
> before the House of Representatives a couple of years ago, You were there.
> You were part of an antagonistic crowd heckling me and others as we were
> attacked by the left members of the house. I believe you even likened me to
> a part of a horse’s anatomy in one of your blog sites. Yet, here I am
> engaging you on the issues, not on personal attacks that get us no-where.
> In fact you should take some credit for the turn of events in the last
> couple of years here in RI. No doubt you have noticed the sudden growth of
> public support for traditional marriage and a renewed presence at the
> hearings. For me it was in large part because of that day that a decision
> was made to help wake up the silent majority and organize our own
> infrastructure to address this issue publicly. I did not come to the table
> on my own. It was an issue that was important to me but not one about which
> I had been publicly vocal. I was asked to speak on behalf on the many
> groups I represented. My eyes were certainly opened to the outcry from such
> a display including from many bloggers like you. So, on behalf of
> pro-traditional marriage advocates, I thank you.
> Peace to you
> Rev. John Codega
And how appropriate that Erasure’s “A Little Respect” is playing right now.