Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons: "10. If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral."

Let me preface this by saying that (a) I am a Catholic, and (b) I find no plausible reason for denying homosexuals the civil rights and privileges extended to heterosexuals through the arrangement we call "marriage". Whether the legal terminology used to grant those rights is "gay marriage", "civil unions", or "purple kumquats" matters not at all to me.

This is beyond wrong. It is stupid. It is "reasoning" based on the notions that the Catholic Church's idea of "marriage" is the only interpretation, and that the state should be subservient to the church. It completely ignores the nature of a pluralistic society, particularly one in which Catholics may be a minority.

(On update, thanks to Atrios for jogging my memory on this.) Isn't it remarkable that the Church has never issued a similar document concerning the requirements on Catholics to oppose the death penalty?