I agree that marriage is a religious commitment, but this story denies that civil commitment can also create a whole family, despite gender and sex. Research indicates that at least two loving carers make for better outcomes in raising a family than a single "parent." Beyond the obvious prejudices this article indicates, two carers could be mother or father and a grandparent or other close relative. Reality is that the statistics do not substantiate the pundit's viewpoint. Rarely do two parents conceive and remain fully committed until death to attend the well-being of offspring. Platitudes and judgments aside, these comments are biased and not based in real world applications.

So the Archbishop also opposes civil unions, but is fine with giving same sex couples some, but not all, of the rights of heterosexual couples. Exactly which rights is he not okay with? He has stated which ones he's fine with, but not the ones he's not okay with. Or is it he'd consider a same sex couple on 3/5ths of the rights of heterosexual couples, just so they're not considered equal?

Thank you Archbishop Nienstedt!

I thought the answers provided much needed clarity, were well scripted, and reflect the teachings of the church. These are the same answers I would have seen 40 years ago. There is nothing flaky going on, no conspiracy theory. The wisdom of the church is everlasting. No one needs to rewrite the church's doctrine or the Bible. If you don't like it, create your own church. It is what it is. God Bless America.

"Marriage defined as a union between one man and one woman is a reality that predates any government or religious denomination." I have discovered from reading history and anthropology that this is the fact of the matter. I find it odd that a relatively tiny percentage of people, those living today, seem to think they are wiser than generations of our ancestors.

danmail: "I agree that marriage is a religious commitment..." Then it shouldn't be in our government, and a constitutional takeover of marriage will only entrench the government's role in marriage. Stop government from directly regulating personal relationships. VOTE NO!

There are plenty of Christian and non-christian churches who have had marriage equality for over 40 years. Also, it is legal in 7 states. Marriage equality is not a redefinition of marriage, it is bring in line the civic law of the state and should not affect a church and its decision about sacraments.

I am glad the Catholic Church is now setting a precedence saying that we should legislate what churches do and break the wall of separation. This will be most enjoyable to watch gay marriages in those churches once the Supreme Court makes it legal.

What Catholic leaders are failing to say in all this is that homosexualism is mortal sin, and it is a dogma of the Catholic Church that anyone who dies unrepentant in mortal sin goes to hell. People must avoid mortal sin in their personal lives, and governments must avoid enshrining mortal sin in their societies. Knowing this, why are Catholic leaders not emphasizing it? Life is short, eternity is long. Do it right.

Strib, if he doesn't have the guts to sit down face to face for an interview, you should have told him you were going to press without his comments. He won't be in Rome forever.

@masonjones -- let me clarify. You believe it's mortal sin. I might not. It's legal for us both to disagree on this point, but you're trying to use your belief to make something forever illegal. Once your religious beliefs step on my legal rights, we have a problem.