by Pauly Fongemie

Column #1

The state of Arizona is embroiled in a manufactured controversy in order to embarrass the Governor, Jan Brewer so that she will feel compelled to veto a duly enacted law that protects the right of citizens to not violate their conscience, in this case providing services for so-called "gay weddings." As you may already know, Christians have been penalized with heavy fines for refusing to do so there as well as in other states. She is on the verge of caving in.

This is the latest assault on the rights of Christians who refuse to be subjected to a compulsory rule that they must participate and assist in a sin, a most grievous kind, a violation of the natural law.

Those who want the Arizona law vetoed claim that those who support the right of conscience are violating the just rights of others, homosexuals who have recently received the sham right of marriage - sodomy cannot be a right from the moral perspective, no matter how many people say it is. Period!

These pro-sodomites - there is no other way to put it without fudging the truth here - make the false comparison with former Jim Crow laws of the South and like discriminatory practices. To discriminate against someone based on race is a violation of the natural law. All persons are created in the image and likeness of God and are thereby equal. Race is neither a sin nor an action or conduct. Sodomy is a violation of the natural law and is a sin, an action, not a state of being. Homosexuality is a state of being in that it is a disorder and in of itself is not a sin.

 I cannot speak for Protestants here, but I can for Catholics who follow the Church. Sodomy is a sin, one so serious that it is one of the four sins that "cry out to Heaven for vengeance." There are nine ways - all of them forbidden - that a person sins when he helps another to commit a sin:

By counsel to commit the sin;
By command to sin;
By consent to the sin;
By provocation to sin;
By praise or flattery in discussion of the sin;
By concealment of the sin, when it is a matter of duty to expose it - such as rape of a child;
By partaking in the sin - assisting and or providing means to sin;
By silence - not counseling against the sin;
By defense of the ill done - another form of provocation;

The two forbidden ways of accessory to sin in red text is what the veto of the Arizona law entails - forcing a Catholic, for instance, to aid and abet in one of the four sins that so offend God that they call down vengeance by Him. In order to avoid sinning, which is incumbent on all Catholics who still practice the Faith, those with livelihoods in certain fields would be barred, requiring reordering their lives to accommodate a minority who wish to impose intolerance on those who validly have a conscience right.

In abortion, another of the four sins of vengeance, we do not require those of conscience to assist in this form of killing. Why is sodomy any different?

We don't tell women who have had abortions or abortionists they can't eat, rent a house, drive a car, get married, etc. We merely say, Catholics and others of right conscience may not be forced to participate in an abortion or help someone obtain one. The opposition could argue that no one who is pro-life is forced to work in a facility that does abortions. True enough, and generally pro-lifers do not want to work there. In general hospitals where other than immoral deeds are performed accommodation is made for those who do not want to assist in abortions - they are assigned to other hospital services. This is because of the right of conscience.

In the field of floristry and catering, for example, people have made great investment to have a livelihood to support themselves and their families. They entered these fields of commerce prior to any idea that they might be forced to sin. It is a heavy burden to put them out of business for their religious faith and practice. What the sodomite forces are saying in effect is: people of conscience, you may not work in these and related vocations. This is tantamount to dual citizenship. In the hospital analogy no one is telling anyone he or she cannot be a doctor or a nurse, even if they are the only ones in town - they are not forced to do abortions. Yet, in Arizona where there is an abundance of caterers and florists and the like, compulsion is expected. If a town had only one caterer, for example, the right of sincere conscience must supersede a newly created "right" because no right, moral or otherwise can claim the right to force someone to sin against their conscience and religious belief. This is Fascist-Communistic, tyrannical, hate-filled and vile!

We are not saying that people with the affliction of homosexuality ought to be denied basic goods and services - we are all sinners - but the rest of us are not claiming a right to force others to help us sin, such as theft, arson, vehicular homicide, lying and so forth. We do not want to be fined or put out of business because we refuse to aid another in sin itself, not a person who is a sinner. This is unjust discrimination against Catholics and other people of like faith and is intolerable. No one should be forced to help someone commit a sin, legal or not, a sin is always a sin, no matter who says otherwise!


Abortion is a sin, not a state of being. We do not compel those with conscience to participate in acts of abortion.
Sodomy is a sin, not a state of being.
Therefore we must not compel those with conscience to participate in acts of sodomy or the validation thereof - ceremonies and rites.