George Weigel had a thought provoking post-election piece where he proposes that the Church "pre-emptively withdraw from the civil marriage business." And what he means specifically is that our clergy should decline "to act as agents of government in witnessing marriages for purposes of state law." In other words, don't sign the civil papers, deny the role of also acting as government witness, etc.
He went on to make the case:
"If the Church were to take this dramatic step now, it would be acting prophetically: it would be challenging the state (and the culture) by underscoring that what the state means by 'marriage' and what Catholics mean by “marriage” are radically different, and that what the state means by 'marriage' is wrong. If, however, the Church is forced to take this step after 'gay marriage' is the law of the land, Catholics will be pilloried as bad losers who’ve picked up their marbles and fled the game—and any witness-value to the Church’s withdrawal from the civil marriage business will be lost."
This proposal has the serious consideration of many weary culture warriors, anxious to mix up the terms of a political battle many perceive as a likely loser in the short-term. After all, the cultural trends seem to indicate a slide away from traditional marriage and the same-sex "marriage" arguments are easily winning water cooler conversations all over the country.
Let's be clear though, this is not a suggestion to throw up our hands and say, "ya know what, State? You can have your civil unions and you can redefine a marriage as whatever you want. We'll define it how we want." Boom. Done.
This would be a problematic stance for a Catholic. The overall state of marriage affects every bit of society (i.e. the common good), so we don't get to just wash our hands of its civil manifestations. Rather, Weigel's is a political tactic that would perhaps help in maximizing our ability to impact civil marriage in a positive way while further distinguishing sacramental Marriage as something different.
Here are the problems I see with all of this, though.
First, Catholic clergy declining the chance to (also) act as the government official for a wedding ceremony seems ultimately counterproductive to me. Ed Peters put it well:
"It is painful, of course, to watch the State’s definition of marriage careen toward something unrecognizable under natural or ecclesiastical law, but eliminating true marriages from the pool of unions treated as marriage by the State is not the solution to the State’s errors. [...] I see no need to surrender societal goods (such as the convenience, and even meetness, of civil recognition of Catholic weddings) that have not yet been demanded of us." - [source]
Second, Marriage is something that brings a lot of Catholics back to the Church who haven't otherwise been in a long time. If their sacramental Marriage ceremony is no longer going to count for (or would be more difficult to get recognized as) their civil marriage also, we could see a significant chunk of them opt out of the sacrament. Perhaps that's a good thing for couples who clearly would not have valued or understood the sacrament in the first place. But I'm more disposed toward using those moments as opportunities to help couples value and understand Marriage, rather than to push them away to make a political point.
Finally, I think it's again important to remember that, in the battle for Marriage in this country, the front line is not the legal one.
Here's the deal: This ship has been wrecked for decades...and it's like we're arguing over whether floating debris should be defined as a lifeboat or not. This confusion on civil definition is not the root problem, it's a product of the wreckage. People aren't really changing how they feel about Marriage based on the civil definition. They are changing the civil definition because their hearts have already long changed about Marriage.
We've already twisted marriage into a contracepted, childless, self-serving, partnership of convenience that lasts until one person gets bored. Now we want to get picky about which genders can participate, but can't really remember why that matters either.
Whatever our political tactics at this point, the ship has long been wrecked. You can redefine a floating casket and call it a lifeboat, or you can redefine a wrecked ship as a civilly wrecked ship, and it's not going to fix the real problems. Fighting for sanity and integrity in our civil definitions is certainly a good and worthwhile battle, but it's only a small part of the war.
If folks put as much energy and fervor into their own Marriages as they did into these political battles, we wouldn't be having this conversation. It doesn't mean we shouldn't stand our ground and fight politically. But we should recognize that such political efforts won't be what primarily moves the needle.
As soon as we start showing by example how different a traditional marriage is from a same-sex relationship, the tides will start to turn. When Americans become once again dedicated to the Truths that surpass our tiny existence and awed at the infinite dignity of every person, things will change. True conversion of hearts is what we need. Until then, the ship is still wrecked.
This is a great opportunity for us to search our souls as to what got us here. To pray. To live out loud the life we vote to protect. To remove the plank in our own eye before we pout and point fingers at the splinters in our brother's.
Weigel acknowledges this great opportunity in the final words of his post:
"As for the opportunity embedded in this crisis, it is nothing less than to be the Church of the New Evangelization, full-throttle. Shallow, tribal, institutional-maintenance Catholicism is utterly incapable of meeting the challenges that will now come at the Catholic Church from the most aggressively secular administration in American history. Only a robustly, unapologetically evangelical Catholicism, winsomely proposing and nobly living the truths about the human condition the Church teaches, will see us through the next four years. Radically converted Christian disciples, not one-hour-a-week Catholics whipsawed by an ever more toxic culture, are what this hour of crisis, in both senses of the term, demands."
Comments
Post a Comment
I don’t know,maybe he’s right.
Where I live, some folks are considering secession from the USA.Truthfully, those thoughts ran thru my mind, too watching the “Red” vs “Blue” states on the election results screen.Lots of post election dissapointment here all around.
Don’t many countries already have a process where couples marry in a religious ceremony & a civil one, too?
“Now we want to get picky about which genders can participate, but can’t really remember why that matters either.”
You’re confusing “gender” with “sexual orientation.” Marriage equality for law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples is fundamentally an acknowledgment that Gay people exist, and that there is no Constitutional justification for denying Gay couples the same legal benefits and protections that Straight couples have always taken for granted.
All this boo-hooing over what some people call “genderless marriage” is just silly.
If you are a Straight person, you marry someone of the opposite sex. If you are a Gay person, you marry someone of the same sex. It ain’t rocket science.
I’m with Kathleen. Here in Pennsylvania, a couple can already legally marry without an officiant, Quaker style. It’s really just a matter of getting the license, the witnesses, and then signing the papers that you did it.
.
I know Grace Kelly got married in both legal and religious ceremonies.
Chuck Anziulewicz ,
And if you’re a Muslim, you marry several of the opposite sex.Not rocket science, just numbers.
And the numbers thing is where the state starts getting into trouble - how will income taxes and Social Security work if a person has 5 spouses? I’m disgusted enough by the election results not to care anymore. I figure our country’s going down one way or the other and I’m just praying my children’s faith can withstand the coming persecution.
Great insights, Matt, and I think they effectively explain why the Church should not separate itself from civil marriage. The main reason is simple: the Church concerns herself with civil marriage because it dramatically affects the common good.
@Eileen—The “numbers thing” is part of the reason why polygamy is not comparable to same-gender marriage under the 14th Amendment, which is concerned with equitable and fair dispensation of benefits and protections. A polygamist is already free to marry any one of his partners and get benefits on a par with anyone else. They are not fundamentally excluded from entering into a successful civil marriage. Under traditional marriage laws, however, homosexuals ARE fundamentally excluded since they can only enter into healthy, successful civil marriages only with people of the same gender.
I am a little on the edge about this one. To “divorce” ourselves from the legal process would certainly carry with it both pros and cons. We could effectively be communicating what proponents of same-sex “marriage” have been saying for years—you can have your marriage in church, we’ll have ours elsewhere. On the other hand, it could do a lot for strengthening Church teaching on this sacrament. We have blurred the line between sacrament and civil union, contract and covenant.
Just an example from my own marriage. Before presiding over my marriage to my wife, our parish priest signed the certificate and handed it to me. He then made a very distinct point that it meant absolutely nothing. He said I could go home and put it in the attic, I could frame it, or I could toss it in the trash. I could, he said, even get another one with another woman’s name on it later and it would have absolutely no effect on the sacrament of marriage. What he drove home that day was that we are married by God and what God joins, man can’t separate. No certificate, no court, no contract can undo that. I really like that approach and when times get tough, I always remember those words. Sadly, too many Catholics think the certificate actually has a purpose.
Dave ,
Your comments don’t show tolerance for alternative marriage traditions.You are asking Muslims & others to pick & choose which spouse has legal standing & continue to keep the rest under the radar.You seem to want to redefine marriage as currently understood, but still discriminate against others.
@Kathleen—choosing one spouse is fair and equitable when it comes to state-granted benefits, and that is all the Equal Protection Clause cares about. Also, wanting to marry multiple partners is a choice, not something that an individual is compelled to do by their inherent nature. If homosexuals want to enter into a healthy, successful marriage, they can do that ONLY with people of the same gender. That innateness is a common consideration in 14th-Amendment cases. Laws are often discriminatory, but they can’t unfairly discriminate against a minority defined by some characteristic over which they have no control, unless there is some overriding non-religious reason based on the public good for doing so. I’ve not heard any such valid arguments for discriminating against same-gender couples and their families.
I think Weigel’s idea is good. I don’t think it is a political ploy at all. This would help clarify the confusion.
People get married in the church and then seek divorce without it; they don’t realize that when they’re divorced, the Church still think’s they’re married.
I think it would force Catholics to think, and recognize that marriage is first and foremost a SACRAMENT. We deny the government involvement in holy orders, reconciliation, etc. Why have we invited them into marriage?
I personally don’t care if people wouldn’t seek out the Church for marriage if it were a two step thing. As a matter of fact, it’s probably the more honest approach. It may restore the status of the Church as sacramental, rather than a beautiful “venue” or nod to Granny’s sentimentality. Allowing CINOs to have sacramental weddings most likely will not be the reason for returning to the Church, because if it were sacramental to them fundamentally, they would be church going to begin with. I could go on forever…
It’s time to set our culture apart, in the world, but not of it.
Dave,
Come on, you know it’s discrimination to redefine marriage for one specific group but not another.I’m amazed at how folks who claim to be openminded exclude others when it involves their own interests or muddies their agendas.
It’s not honest intellectually.And noone wants to admit redefining marriage opens the door for polygamy & incest between consenting adults because it true & casts a dubious light on the whole proposition.
@Kathleen—I’ve already explained why polygamy is different from same-gender marriage, and you’ve not responded directly to anything I said. Instead, you just keep claiming one leads to the other. Cases involving the Equal Protection Clause are based on a number of factors ... the nature of the discrimination, the negative impact upon those being discriminated against, the innateness of the defining characteristics, the presence or lack of justification for discrimination. By your argument, wanting to extend marriage rights to the specific group of people wanting to marry interracially would have opened the door to polygamy and incest. (And, in fact, some argued that.) But that was not the case with interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia ... because of how 14th Amendment cases are evaluated ... and that’s not the case here.
It would be great of the RCC got out of the civil marriage business and bowed out of trying to impose its teachings on the broader secular society as well. Thankfully the USA is not an RC theocracy or even a Christian nation—it is a nation of diverse faith traditions. The example of Grace Kelly was pointed out above—it just makes sense for marriage to be a civil situation and that a religious ceremony be an option for RCs and others who want that.
Dave,
You’re not being inclusive, tolerant,nor intellectually honest.
I disagree with libertarians on many points but at least admire their honesty.
You obviously have a cause but want to exclude others from enjoying it, as the opponents of interracial marriage did back in their day.
When natural law or religious teaching are used to define marriage, opponents say it’s discrimination & a human rights issue.When equal human & civil rights for other marriage options are mentioned, opponents fall back on legal-speak because that’s all that’s left.
In what way would polygamy or incest affect or threaten same sex unions?And why couldn’t a same sex union be between close relatives?None of that works for me because I’m a practising Catholic, but I’m always amazed at how close minded folk are who claim otherwise.
Kathleen—Polygamy and/or incest would not threaten same-sex unions; I never said they would. And what you dismiss as legal-speak reflects pretty basic Constitutional principles designed to ensure that state-granted benefits and protections are administered equitably and fairly. If folks want to promote polygamous and incestuous marriage in court, they are free to give it a shot. And if you think the US Constitution has it wrong, you are free to try and amend it. But as it stands, for the reasons I cited, the arguments for same-gender marriage are much stronger than any I can think of for the other types you bring up. The only individuals who are fundamentally excluded from entering into healthy, successful civil marriages are, at this point, homosexuals; that is what makes it a genuine civil rights issue. In that sense, it’s more of a civil rights issue than interracial marriage ever was.
@Dave: You’re making several unfounded assumptions, one of which is that SSA is an inherent part of a homosexual’s nature. If what you mean is that homosexuals are born that way, you are abusing the science. As you know, the American Psychological Association’s current position reads, “[N]o findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.” Of course, this does not mean SSA is not an inherent part of the homosexual’s genetic nature; it just means that such an assertion is not supported by science. Also, I think most cultural anthropologists would scoff at the notion that only our genes affect our nature. Research has evinced copious evidence to show that culture can exert just as powerful an influence on shaping who we are as individuals as can our genes. Hence, even if we concede for the sake of argument that SSA is a genetic part of one’s inherent nature, there is no reason to believe that such a trait is any more “inherent” than one ingrained through a lifetime of inculturation (as, for example, would be the case with a Muslim man who grows up being taught from his earliest experiences that the Koran is the word of God and that it is a holy and divine thing for a man to have more than one wife). Both men are who they are, and their natures are what they are. It is arbitrary to say that one is entitled to a certain type of marriage while the other is not because the one’s “inherent nature” requires it while the other’s does not. Last, the equal protection clause does NOT say that everyone has an equal right to happiness. It says, rather, “no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The marriage laws apply equally to those who are straight and gay: gays are allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender while straights are not permitted to marry someone of the same gender. Whether such unions would make someone happy and fulfilled is not a concern of the Constitution. Bottom line: existing marriage laws do not violate the equal protection clause.
Dave,
I hear what you’re trying to say but still think it reflects discrimination against others if seen from a purely secular view.
Whether a marriage is “healthy & successful” is pretty subjective, too.
Lord knows, many Christian marriages can fail in both respects.
I don’t know how any particular variety of sexual attraction defines one as group or minority.There are an infinite number of things folks are sexually attracted to.
Outside of traditional marriage, which I think should be left alone, I don’t see why others can’t draw up whatever legal contracts they desire.
Anyway, you have a good weekend & God bless.
@Frank—That very same passage on the APA website says that “most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.” The fact is that the APA and other mental health organizations have said that sexual orientation is determined not only by genetics, but also influenced by intrauterine environment, and is largely set by the end of early childhood. The fact that it is not purely genetic does not mean it is something a person chooses. In fact, I have never known anyone who claimed, or known anybody who said they knew anyone who claimed, their sexual orientation was something they chose ... gay or straight. Even Exodus International has given up on the notion that it is something that can be changed. And I just don’t buy the notion that inculturation effects behavior to the same immutable degree. (And even if one believed that, as I said, there is nothing preventing a polygamist from entering into such a relationship, with the blessing of any religious body, and getting legal recognition with any one of his spouses and the state-granted benefits that go with it.) As for your statement that the the 14th Amendment doesn’t concern itself with whether marriage is important to the happiness of the people in them, the Supreme Court has, on at least two occasions (Loving v. Virginia and Turner v. Safley) made rulings that overturned bans limiting marriage, specifically citing marriage’s role in making people happy. Since the Supreme Court will ultimately be the body that renders final decision on this, their precedent will play more of a role than your opinion.
@Kathleen—“healthy and successful” is probably something best left to the individuals in a marriage to assess. What is clear is that homosexuals generally don’t fall in love with and have any desire to marry people of the opposite gender. It doesn’t really have to do with the variety of things people ARE sexually attracted to. It more the fundamental nature of who they aren’t sexually attracted to ... and even more broadly, the inability to form the kinds of emotional relationships most people associate with marriage. Giving people the right to marry ONLY people they can’t possibly fall in love and build a successful marriage with is giving them no right at all. It’s a very fundamental form of exclusion.
@Kathleen—one other point. You say you don’t know why they can’t just draw up any legal contracts they desire. Again, this has to do with benefits and protections provided to couples BY THE STATE based on marital status. Things like social security survivor benefits. Or beneficial tax options currently enjoyed by straight married couples. Or protections that ensure that, if one’s employer give spousal health benefits to the person in the next cubicle, they won’t be able to deny it to your partner/spouse just because they happen to be the same gender as you. There are many such benefits and protections granted to married couples that can’t be replaced by private legal contracts.
@Dave: I haven’t been able to find anyplace where the APA has officially stated that “sexual orientation is determined not only by genetics, but also influenced by intrauterine environment, and is largely set by the end of early childhood.” Some researchers within the APA have concluded that, but, again, it is not the APA’s official position. The official position is that “[N]o findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors,” which, simply put, means no one knows what causes SSA. And few people, at least on this web site, are saying that SSA is a “choice.” But it is a non sequitur to conclude that our feelings are innate because we never consciously chose them. All of us like or hate things, even though we never made a conscious choice to like or dislike them. Some people like rock music and despise classical, though they never woke up one morning and said, “Hey, I am going to choose to like rock and not like classical.” Their preference in music is a result of many factors converging, some perhaps genetic, some undoubtedly cultural, all occurring below the threshold of consciousness where people make choices. And once a preference like this develops, good luck trying to get anyone to change overnight. Since the sexual impulse is one of the strongest biological drives, it makes sense that sexual preferences are among the most refractory to change. When people do change deep-seated preferences, it usually takes years and a lot of counter-conditioning. But then again, there are more than a few studies showing that given intensive therapy over time, sexual preferences can change in as many as 30% - 40% of highly motivated subjects. I’m not trying to invalidate your feelings at all. I’m just saying that I think it is a stretch to play the “born that way” card and draw a line between gay marriage and polygamist marriage on the basis that gay people don’t choose to be gay but polygamists do choose to be polygamists.
Marriage is only statistically broken among the poor and working class. The college educated have high rates of marriage, and very low (and decreasing) divorce rates. The illegitimacy rate among the well educated is around 3%.
It is working class and poor people who are divorcing, who are becoming less likely to marry at all, and who are becoming single parents. It is a horrible tragedy that will destroy generations and lead
But Churches are NOT addressing this crisis head on. They are screwing around with stupid side shows like “gay marriage”. Places were gay marriage is legal have the lowest divorce rates in America - largely because they also have the highest concentration of well educated people. My husband and I live in state with legal gay marriage, it has ZERO effect on our ability to raise our kid in a good neighborhood full of intact families, to go to mass, to teach our daughter that marriage is MANDATORY before childbearing and is NOT to happen until she finishes college and preferably graduate school. All of our friends - most who are educated and secular, are also happily married, none are divorced. The presence of married gay people is really irrelevant to all of this.
Rather than blanket statements about woe the culture and the general state of marriage, the church needs to zero in on the disaster that is working class and poor family life. It needs to focus evangelization about marriage there. It needs to press for economic justice so these families can make ends meet. It needs to preach the importance of marriage, that it isn’t about saving up for a “Wedding”, that it is the best place for children, etc.
We affluent liberal “Smart People” are fine when it comes to our families, even with those gay married couples down the street tending to their (really, really nice) gardens. Happy moms and dads and kids all around. ANd then there is the whole “Religious Liberty” thing - it is kind of hard to complain about your religious liberty being violated when you will not let others live and form families according to their conscience (whether you believe they are right or wrong isn’t the point - free country). Focus where the real problem is. Because that is a generational tragedy waiting to happen.
@anon - I can’t say I agree with everything you wrote, but you make some excellent points. I would add that age at the time of marriage is a factor for divorce as well. People married after the age of 25 have a 75% chance of remaining together. My own observations reflect these statistics and I would take them a step further. I would say even when the couples who married young (i.e. right after college) remain together, they struggle more than couples who waited. As someone who married at age 30, I often wonder at the articles I read on this website about marriage being a struggle. What?? I’ve been married nearly two decades and I’ve never considered my marriage a struggle. I’ve often felt if those folks writing those articles had waited to find someone with whom they were genuinely compatible, they wouldn’t have quite so many difficult times to write about.
.
That’s why I get nervous when I see Catholics touting that whole Protestant courtship thing: e.g. Don’t kiss until you’re married or at least engaged. I think that kind of thinking pushes people into early, ill advised marriages.
Chuck A, but “gay” doesn’t exist. It’s a “lifestyle construct” that was forged in the subterrainian foundries of anti-establishment america, and launched like a computer virus. So pervasive is this societal misapprehension, that it currently monopolizes the ongoing discussion of sexuality, civil rights and religious freedom, like a conceptual hula hoop. If “gayness” is an inherently human condition, then so is vertigo, or blue/green color blindness.
Gay men and women should be disturbed, not proud, that they’ve been coopted by secular revisionists and anti-religious bigots in the unholy quest to vanquish religious orthodoxy. But I think their exaltation will be short lived. “Science” will soon prove that sexual deviancy is “eugentically incorrect,” and outlaw gays to a chicken farm in Nevada, or launch them to the moon.
Whoa Matt B! Sorry to tell you Catholics are going to be outlawed to the chicken farms of Nevada or launched to the moon way before homosexuals.
Anon got it right. The reality is that SSM marriage already exists in multiple states and has not caused any material harm to others. Nobody cares if the Catholic church refuses to perform SSM ceremonies, that is the church’s business. According to the latest Pew polling the under 30 generation is 62% in favor of marriage equality, and that number goes up each years as a new birth year is added as they cross over 18. The GOP knows that they’ve worn out this hot button GOTV issue and are worried that they will be a demographic stump in ten years as the Baby Boomers lose influence.
The culture in urban America is moving on and SSM is not an issue in cities with diversity. SSM will be the law in the NE, upper Mid West, and Pacific coast very soon. This removes the issue from national politics as the GOP cannot afford to fight losing battles against that electoral mass. Those same under-30 set are about 30% secular in orientation so by extension their offspring are very likely to be even more nonreligious. So I think the RCC should feel free to drop their civil marriage role and remain consistent to the tenets of the faith.
Eileen, your comment on early marriage is an interesting take on a controversial topic. Early marriages fail because, like everything good that can be quantified, marriage is subject to a heavy tax.
College educated, and post-graduate trained individuals can afford the tax, in our inflation-conditioned economy. People without this education often cannot. They struggle with fines and penalties, but in the end they are levied the untimate arbitration: divorce. They violated the Prime Directive of American Society: “Thou shalt not procreate.”
People with more than 1.24 children are the new lepers, and “early procreators” account for the most and most vigorous offspring. They never consider the reasons educated people forego children. The haven’t been sufficiently “educated.”
@Frank—your reference to “highly motivated subjects” sounds like a reference to the 2001 Spitzer paper which was highly criticized and disavowed by the APA; in a 2012 interview, Spitzer himself said he thought the criticisms were valid and expressed interest in retracting the study. As noted by the APA, “all major mental health organizations have officially expressed concerns about therapies promoted to modify sexual orientation. To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective. Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. This appears to be especially likely for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals who grow up in more conservative religious settings. Helpful responses of a therapist treating an individual who is troubled about her or his same sex attractions include helping that person actively cope with social prejudices against homosexuality, successfully resolve issues associated with and resulting from internal conflicts, and actively lead a happy and satisfying life.” As noted, you will find similar statements by all the major mental-health organizations. And, as I noted earlier, even Exodus International, formerly one of the main advocates of conversion therapy and sponsor of another debunked study, has disavowed the practice; its president recently said conversion therapy is potentially harmful to those participating and does not work. I don’t believe anybody who is familiar with the scientific consensus, and/or personally acquainted with a decent cross-section of same-gender couples and their families, will buy your claim that it is no more immutable than a taste in music or polygamy. And regardless, I’ve never heard of anyone being denied social security survivor benefits or spousal health insurance coverage because they don’t like classical music. And as I’ve noted earlier, a polygamist does have the option of getting such benefits for one spouse, just like everyone else.
@Dave: My reference was not to Spitzer or any particular researcher but to a broad body of research going back more than half a century. (Irving Beiber and Albert Ellis, who both found positive results with reparative therapy and published their findings in periodicals like the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry and the Journal of Clinical Psychology, are just two examples.) The effectiveness of reparative therapy, however, is a Pandora’s box, and can’t be addressed satisfactorily in an outlet like this. I can cite such-and-such study, and you can respond by saying that so-and-so criticized the study. I can cite another study, and you can say that one of the organizations funding the study had Christians on its board of directors and that the research results are therefore biased. My basic objective is to argue, reductio ad absurdum, that it is inconsistent to draw the line at gay marriage and not to extend the line to polygamous or even incestuous marriages. If you agree that we should change our laws to include polygamous and incestuous marriages, then I have nothing more to argue since you are being consistent in not drawing an arbitrary line. I would just respond by saying I don’t want our society to go there. But if you say gay marriage should be legalized but not polygamous or incestuous marriages, then you are drawing an arbitrary line, and I would think those who support such things would be right to call you on it with the same arguments you are using. If love is love and if people who love one another should have the right to marry, then we shouldn’t extend that right to some and not to others. My argument is that love by itself is not a sufficient condition for obtaining a civil marriage. As you can see, I don’t support SSM, but I can understand your frustration with gay couples’ not being able to share benefits. I’ve always thought it odd that one can select a spouse or a child as a beneficiary but not a sister or a nephew or even a friend. Whether it’s health insurance or social security benefits, I think it makes sense to let people select whomever they want to share their benefits. I for one would support legislation that would allow gays or anyone else to share benefits. Many people like myself, however, are adamantly opposed to calling this marriage.
@Frank—Love may not be a sufficient condition for entering into civil marriage, but it certainly is a necessary condition, but from the common sense viewpoint and in terms of the very reasons why there are civil marriage benefits/protections in the first place, as described by the Supreme Court in cases I noted earlier. And that is one of, and probably the most obvious, key distinction between same-gender marriage and the other cases you cite. It is not an arbitrary line. Current marriage laws fundamentally exclude homosexuals from entering into a civil marriage with anyone they might actually be able fall in love with. That simply is not true for the other cases you and others like to bring up. And as for your attempt to place the pros and cons of reparative therapy on equal footing, because you can find experts on both sides of the issue, that is ludicrous ... particularly when you have to appeal to research dating back 50 years. The current consensus is so heavily weighed against reparative therapy, and includes former prominent advocates, that it just can’t be taken seriously.
Dave, talk about cultural contextualizing. You might as well say “it is because we (apa) decided it should be.” The pose as “concerned health care professionals” is likewise rich. I love science that depends on self-referential conclusions. It reminds me so much of the behavior that it reinforces.
anon posted on Friday, Nov 16, 2012 10:41 PM (EDT):
“Rather than blanket statements about woe the culture and the general state of marriage, the church needs to zero in on the disaster that is working class and poor family life.”
Sorry anon, there is an insufficient prurience quotient to be gained from obsessing over class issues, economic injustice and education. Traditional Catholics will continue to enjoy the tingly sensations stemming from focusing on the sex lives of gay people rather than looking at the painful statistics chronicling the lives of those who used to be able to find manufacturing jobs with benefits that paid a living wage without requiring a college education.
In addition, don’t discount the pleasure to be found in striking the pose of a martyr, eyes cast upward with lily clasped in hand, while not actually being subjected to anything more painful than the threat of a fine imposed on institutions claiming to be religious while competing with non-religious hospitals, universities and providers of human services for government money.
I think the tingling and the reverberating sound of eyeballs rolling upward keep them from hearing you, anon.
Don’t you mean yuck factor, co?
I think we should focus our attentions on environmental pollution. Chief among environmental pollutants - and most noxious - is “mind pollution.” We meet with it at every turn. It is creeping into our chuches schools and homes like a fog.
“Mind pollution” comes in a smelly green cloud, followed by a crowd of government scientists who try to convince you that everything is OK. This crud has the effect of turning pillars into Flynt, dementing reason, as in: life is death, bad is good, yucky is tasty; turns excrement into entertainment; brings airplanes down from the sky; causes epidemics like “closet hanger disease” among young people; turns street-level pimps into community leaders; diminishes GDP; induces intergenerational canabalism; foments sexual subjection; diminishes logical ability - as in your case. The fearsome thing is that those who are affected most don’t even realize it!
Someone once told me take care of the small things, and the big things will take care of themselves. That’s why we devote so much time to “gay plaguedom.”
I really appreciate Matthew’s article. This is so true! The “gay marriage” push is only succeeding because so many have given up on real Sacramental Marriage. It’s not because “gay” voters are now a majority. Also, the decline of marriage didn’t occur because of homosexuality. 2-5% of the population didn’t Cause the other 95% to abandon their morals.
I lived a gay life for 12 years (starting in high school). I even campaigned against a ban on same-sex marriage in my state and participated in several gay pride parades.
In July of 2009 I surrendered my heart to Jesus and he led me into full communion with the Catholic Church. I have been living a chaste life for over two years now and EVERY aspect of my life is better now.
I have also benefited tremendously from Reparative Therapy (which some states are trying to ban). I don’t know that I’d say I was “cured” but I have experienced major healing of underlying causes and homosexuality is no longer a significant temptation for me.
Dave, in the comments above did you ever distinguish between gay marriage and polygamous and/or incestuous marriage? Because I’m not seeing the difference. As far as multiple spouses, serial adulterers always fail at monogamy and desire multiple partners. They’re just not satisfied with one. So to satisfy their needs shouldn’t we allow them several? Who are you to say they can’t? And incest—if that’s the attraction a brother and sister have for each other, what gives us the right to deny them their love formalized in marriage? “Yuck” factor aside, those marriages may seem “happy and successful” for the participants. It seems to me that all brakes are off in your argument: anything goes for marriage. Any sexual attraction is deemed worthy of marriage. Quite a slippery slope. Where would you stop?
Matt B posted on Sunday, Nov 18, 2012 12:04 AM (EDT):
“Someone once told me take care of the small things, and the big things will take care of themselves. That’s why we devote so much time to ‘gay plaguedom.’”
Traditional Catholics can tell themselves whatever they like about why they focus their attention on ‘gay plaguedom.’ To the rest of the world it appears very similar to the 19th century’s preoccupation with masturbation. Today that obsession just looks crazy.
The Catholic Church perpetuated its obsession with masturbation into the middle of the 20th century, but has had the good sense to back off in public during the last thirty years. Yes, I know the “sin” hasn’t changed, but the public and pastoral approach has changed totally, making the church appear much more sane. But perhaps you consider this an undesirable development.
Apparently going along with the pope’s vision of a smaller but doctrinally purer church, the American bishops have decided to make same sex marriage their equivalent obsession in the 21st century. Given the secularization of Western Europe over the last century, and the way American Catholics voted in the last election, it will be a dramatically smaller church, but presumably well worth it to cleanse the dissidents.
I think it’s pretty crazy myself that so many call themselves Catholics while rejecting most of the teachings—when they even bother to acquaint themselves with the teachings. They appear to value the community in spite of differing opinions, but you will show them there is no room for differing opinions on matters of morals.
I am fascinated by this ongoing drama.
Margie—in my posts above, I have explained the distinctions between same-gender marriage and the other cases you cite over and over and over again. If you didn’t notice, there’s not much more I can say.
Wow, I thought civil and religious ceremonies (for anyone who is even remotely connected to a religion) were the norm. Maybe, instead of trying to expand the definition of civil marriage, it should be scaled back, more narrowly defined; e.g., commitment to bearing and/or raising children.
cowalker, your observations draw their relevance and truth-value from historical trend. On the face of it I see two limitations: you choose a rather narrow historical data-slice from which to draw your conclusions; and who’s to say that current history is not trending towards disaster, fatuous optimism notwithstanding?
Elijah the prophet spoke against King Ahab in the 9th century BC, and the Israel did not fall until 723. Diocletian persecuted Christians through 305 AD, but the sack of Rome was not accomplished until 410. The English Act of Supremacy was imposed in 1534, launching an era of untold persecution that has perdured ever since. Only now is the formerly great britain arriving at its logical and inevitable end: Charles Peter and a host of gay backbenchers.
But you glory in this new dispensation of weirdness, chaos and debauchery. I can only tell you that you get what you pay for. If you labor for justice and truth - is shall be your reward. If you stand for masturbation and sodomy - expect it in full.
@JD—how would that resolve anything?? Many same-gender couples raise children.
@Dave: You say, “It is not an arbitrary line. Current marriage laws fundamentally exclude homosexuals from entering into a civil marriage with anyone they might actually be able fall in love with. That simply is not true for the other cases you and others like to bring up.” But you provide NO support for the statement. It IS an arbitrary line, though you would like to pretend it isn’t. You want marriage rights for gays but not for other socially-marginalized people who are in love. That’s arbitrary. If a man is romantically in love with his sister, then by your logic, equal protection should allow them to marry. Yet, you don’t seem to want to extend your argument to its logical conclusion. Again, that’s arbitrary. Truth is, millions of years of evolution have conditioned us to find incest repulsive. And your reluctance to approve of consensual incestual marriages shows that you are still listening to that deeply-ingrained instinct. Yet you seem to have ceased listening to the equally deeply-ingrained moral instinct about homosexual acts. Again, arbitrary. As to my reference to research on reparative therapy, I did not cite research from 50 years ago; I said there is research GOING BACK half a century. There is a difference. And if you have ever published professional research yourself, you should know very well that current literature in the natural and social sciences is full of references to earlier studies. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.
@Frank - I didn’t provide support because I thought it was obvious. Laws against same-gender marriage eliminate every single person a homosexual might have the capacity to fall in love and enter into a successful marriage with ... eliminating every single one of the millions of people that fit that description ... from the pool of people they are allowed to enter into a civil marriage with. Prohibiting marriage with, for example, a sibling, means eliminating one or two people from a pool of tens of millions. The net result: homosexuals have zero people they can marry; people who may have feelings for a sibling still have tens of millions of alternatives. Pretty basic and obvious and not an arbitrary difference at all. And there are also legitimate societal reasons, based on genetic issues involved with potential offspring, why the state might not want to encourage siblings to marry. You could, of course, come up with exceptional cases ... Matthew and Marilla Cuthbert who raised Anne of Green Gables, for example ... and to be honest, I’d have no objection to somebody in that situation being granted civil marriage rights/benefits. But laws can’t be build around isolated, exceptional cases. As for the two references you cited (Beiber and Ellis), their major contributions actually do go back to the early- to mid-60’s. So yes ... you did cite research from 50 years ago. Regardless, while current science incorporates (and references in papers) research from the past (rarely going back 50 years, though), what matters as far as current consensus goes are the views reflected in publications in recent years, that is based on the progressively increased understanding of a topic taking all data (past and present) into account. And that research is overwhelmingly supportive of the potential healthfulness and value of societal support of same-gender relationships. That’s why SSM opponents tend to either reference a disproportionate number of old papers, or misrepresent current research (e.g, NOM’s characterization of the Regnerus report).
Wow, this post has legs.. It is quite disheartening to see some of the woeful misunderstanding of where the battle lines are drawn. Someone here mentioned that the Church has changed the way it approaches masturbation and therefore should wake up and take a similar approach to SSM. The problem with this is that masturbation is a sexual perversion as is homosexuality. It is correct that the Church has taken more of a pastoral approach to masturbation and I think in some regard the Church has done the same with homosexuality.
But… the battle is not over sexuality, it is over sacrament. In the 1500’s and later in the 1600’s, unity negotiations were held between Protestants and the Greek Orthodox Church. Ultimately, the Greek Orthodox Church declined to talk further because as the then Patriarch of Jerusalem replied to the Protestants “a lesser or greater number of Sacraments we have not in the Church; for any number departing from the number seven of the Sacraments is a monstrosity of heretical mania”. What has Protestantism wrought on the world in its rejection of sacraments? 33,000+ denominations and a complete latitudinarian, watered-down Christianity. We are not defending sexuality, we are defending the Sacrament of Matrimony. Not the same as masturbation. Masturbation and homosexuality do not come from God, but marriage does. “What God has joined, let no man put asunder”.
A little thought experiment. Let’s say tomorrow that the government issues a law saying that it is discriminatory to deny communion to anyone. The reason, they say, is because it is just bread and everyone has a right to eat bread, right? Catholics would not see it this way because we are not defending bread, we are defending the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. To miss this is to miss all of it.
Chuck Anziulewicz,
Why does the state not get out of the marriage business and just get a uniform code that regulates all civil unions. Now this would be REAL equality.
Lisa,
What is Marriage? Why should the State legislate it?
Why does the state not get out of the marriage business and just get a uniform code that regulates all civil unions. Now this would be REAL equality.
Cowalker,
The church is taking a pastoral approach to homosexuality with groups like Courage. You are right about the decline of cultural Catholicism and rise of believers by choice, just like the early church.
It’s not uncommon for every new church or group to claim that the previous on was wrong. This has been the result of endless division and schism.
“In addition, don’t discount the pleasure to be found in striking the pose of a martyr, eyes cast upward with lily clasped in hand, while not actually being subjected to anything more painful than the threat of a fine imposed on institutions claiming to be religious while competing with non-religious hospitals, universities and providers of human services for government money.”
This is where you do not get it. The issue is not government money, or anything else but the mandate’s definition of religion. It says that anything done outside a place of worship is not considered religious. So a Bible publisher is not religious, a Kosher butcher is not religious, a religious order that produces jams and sells them to make a living is not religious.
This line of reasoning would shut everybody down.
@savvy—A religious order that produces jams and sells them to the general public cannot refuse service to customers based on their race, their religion, their gender, and ... in a growing number of states ... because of their sexual orientation. If selling jam to homosexuals is a violation of religious beliefs they feel they must adhere to, then yes ... they have to shut down. But the number of Christian store proprietors that would react to the situation that way is negligible; it would not shut everybody down.
“But the number of Christian store proprietors that would react to the situation that way is negligible; it would not shut everybody down.”
But, what if the Christian store is being told it is not Christian enough or not religious enough?
For example Tyndale Publishing won a lawsuit against the mandate, the argument was that they are not exempt because they are not religious enough.
The issue is the definition of religion and the idea that religious people have no rights outside their place of worship.
That had to do with contraceptives, not same-gender marriage. The topic here is same-gender marriage as a civil rights issue. Contraception is not a civil rights issue; it is more a public health issue, and as far as I can see is on much weaker legal ground when it comes to mandates. In fact, I think at this point Tyndale has made a case that has been successful in federal court. But again, it is off topic and not terribly relevant to same-gender marriage which represents a conflict between religious freedom rights and civil rights, and focuses on how you draw a line between the two that represents a reasonable compromise.
Dave,
I understand that. I was responding to Cowalker’s statements on this issue.
If same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue, then would it not be better for the government to step out of regulating marriage and instead adopt a uniform civil code to regulate all civil unions. This would cover the benefits that come with it.
@savvy—I suspect that would be a bit of a bureaucratic nightmare making all the wording changes needed to state, federal, and local laws (and probably business policies everywhere), but have no philosophical objections to that idea ... as long as the term “civil union” is used by government to refer to both straight and same-gender unions. And there would still be political and religious objections to overcome ... the Catholic Church opposes civil unions just as strongly as same-gender marriage; the Republican Party and Mitt Romney oppose them as well.
“And there would still be political and religious objections to overcome ... the Catholic Church opposes civil unions just as strongly as same-gender marriage; the Republican Party and Mitt Romney oppose them as well.”
It’s opposed to them because they are basically mock marriages. For example in New Zealand, the church supports gay civil unions, without adoptions, and that’s the law in New Zealand and in France.
What I do not get is these groups STILL fighting for marriage, while arguing that marriage has nothing to do with children etc etc.
@savvy—But in the US many, if not most, of the benefits/protections provided to couples in civil marriages are granted whether there are children or not. So it’s true that civil marriage is not fundamentally related to having or raising children. But it’s also true that, in a growing number of states (which will probably extend to all 50 eventually), same-gender couples are allowed to adopt ... either jointly or by having one adopt. And something approaching a quarter of same-gender couples are raising kids. So kids or no, there is no substantive difference between civil marriage and civil unions in the US ... in theory. In reality there are inevitable differences as long as separate terms are used, but religious and political opposition to civil unions seems to exist as a matter of principle.
Matt B posted on Sunday, Nov 18, 2012 12:59 PM (EDT):
” . . . who’s to say that current history is not trending towards disaster, fatuous optimism notwithstanding?
Of course it is. Empires rise and fall. Does anyone believe that the U.S. will continue as the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world FOREVER if we just continue to things the same way we did between 1938 and 1960? (Yikes, tax rates would go up!) Does anyone even believe we COULD do this given technological and demographic changes since then? We can’t control where we are born into this cycle and we certainly can’t control the cycle itself. We don’t even have enough perspective to SEE where we are in the cycle.
“The English Act of Supremacy was imposed in 1534, launching an era of untold persecution that has perdured ever since. Only now is the formerly great britain arriving at its logical and inevitable end: Charles Peter and a host of gay backbenchers.”
So is greatness measured by armies and navies, the number of colonies occupied and being on the profitable end of trade? Or is it the cultural influence and advances in sciences that accompany such power? Should the U.S. reject same sex marriage to preserve its might and wealth? Are we sure that we didn’t doom the U.S. when we allowed non-property owners to vote?
@Dave: “Prohibiting marriage with, for example, a sibling, means eliminating one or two people from a pool of tens of millions. The net result: homosexuals have zero people they can marry; people who may have feelings for a sibling still have tens of millions of alternatives. Pretty basic and obvious and not an arbitrary difference at all.” I don’t find that a compelling argument, and, yes, it is still inconsistent. When people are in love, they are in love. If Harry and Sally, who happen to be siblings, fall in love, there is no rational basis for an advocate of SSM to deny them marriage. It would amount to saying, “Look, we won’t let you marry because each of you has millions of other people out there to marry, so forget about your love for each other and find somebody else who isn’t related to you.” Imagine if that were done to a heterosexual couple who was not related by blood. No one would deny that they had a slam dunk lawsuit. And as to your argument that there are genetic issues involved with offspring, you are forgetting contraception. Modern technology affords people the freedom to have sex all they want w/o bearing offspring. An incestual couple could become sterilized or just habitually use condoms. After all, that is one of the arguments that gay marriage advocates use when confronted with the health risks of unprotected anal intercourse. “Condoms properly used substantially reduce such risks,” they say. So the “Let’s not allow incestual marriages because their children might be mentally disabled” argument won’t work. As to your argument about earlier research, you are just plain wrong. I’m sorry, but I don’t know how else to put it. Do a peer-reviewed search for Lev Vygotsky in the databases Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection or Academic Search Premier and see how many hits you get, despite the fact that he died in 1934. The articles aren’t just citing him as a dead Russian either; His research findings are alive and well. Do a search on John Stewart Bell and see what you find, even though he proposed his theorem in 1964. SSM advocates are fond of this argument that research isn’t valid unless it was done in the past 15 years because they know good and well there have been virtually no well-designed studies on reparative therapy during that time period, the reason being that they have stigmatized the practice so that no one can get funding for such a study. Good luck to any researcher who wants to get funding for a study on reparative therapy nowadays. It won’t happen unless they look to special interest groups, in which case no major journal would publish the findings. Anyway, I have no desire to debate reparative therapy. My main point is that there is no consistent reason to allow gay marriage but not to allow other types of socially-frowned-upon unions. It’s an arbitrary judgment.
Marriage is 1-man, 1 woman as defined by God. The Church must stand against equating sexual perversion with Holy Matrimony. If marriage is not 1 man to 1 woman, we must make legal the following involving consenting adults: 1 man to 6 women, 3 men to 5 women, an 18-year-old adult woman to her father, a 45-year-old father to his 18-year-old daughter and 3 of her 18-year-old classmates. All of these involve consenting adults. If I am a phobe for opposing equating sodomy with Holy Matrimony, you are a phobe for opposing recognition as marriage of any or all of my examples. A final thank you to Catholic democrats foe electing a corrupt and amoral administration which equates sexual perversion (an abomination to God) as the equivalent of Holy Mtrimony.
Dave,
I think that’s a mistake that the US made to begin with. In France and New Zealand and some other places only married couples are allowed to adopt, not those in civil unions.
Yes, the opposition would still be there, but it would be less if the opposition is convinced that you are not out to destroy or re-define marriage.
Civil unions without adoptions would be a reasonable compromise.
To The Catholic Readers,
What do you think of gay civil unions without adoptions.? Marriage will still be between a man and a woman.
This would be equaity under law, and would pull the rug off all those saying that marriage is not about children or sex etc. etc.
Savvy,
There is no rational, logical, scientific reason why gay people should not be able to adopt. Many gay people are already parents—and do a great job of rasing their children. Would you suggest sterlizing gay people so that they can never have childen??? Would you outlaw gay people reproducing??? Would you force gay women to have an abortion in cases where they choose to become pregnant, carry a pregnancy to term, become mothers??? Would you forcibly take children away from their fit, stable, biological parents??? Many gay people are parents because they entered into a heterosexual marriage at some point in their lives, or because they (in the case of gay women) became preganant via using the services of a sperm bank, IVF. In the cae of gay men, some have fathered children via their sperm and the help of female friends. There is no reputable scientific evidence to suggest or that proves gay people are not good parents. Being straight and/or being married is absolutely no guarantee that someone will make a good parent.
We all know that straight people—married or single—can be great parents or awful, abusive parents. Sexual orientation is no indicator of the ability to be a great parent.
The USA is not an RC theocracy. The RCC has no right to try to impose its teachings upon the braoder secular society. We are a notion of diverse faith traidtions and beliefs. Teh RCC is not the sole source of truth on any subject and certainly not on the subject of the rights and responsibilities of US citizens.
Frank,
And what in the event of two siblings of the same gender?
People don’t choose to be neurotic either.What’s considered a disorder or pathology today may get re-labeled in the future.Like “intergenerational intimacy.”
Isn’t it pretty sad that these conversations are even occurring on a Catholic site? I feel sympathy for folk who have these issues & are seeking to normalize their status.Goodness knows they have a heavy cross to bear, but marriage isn’t man made or man defined.Nor ended by man.
@Frank—If two siblings want to get married, and if they somehow ensure that they will not procreate, and if social and mental-health scientists arrive at the same level of consensus regarding the healthfulness and societal benefits of sibling-sibling romantic relationships that they have for same-gender relationships, I would have no objection to legal recognition of sibling civil marriage. As for Lev Vygotsky, I can find no evidence that he did any significant research in the area of sexual orientation, which is a much newer field than many in psychology. As for recent research on the benefits of reparative therapy, rather than it being a matter of a prejudiced conspiracy against the field, it is much more believable that research has shown it is ineffective, and possibly harmful ... especially when a group like Exodus International comes to the same conclusion after years of using/promoting it.
@Savvy—The adoption boat has already sailed. Something like forty-six states and the District of Columbia already allow unmarried homosexuals to adopt; many of them permit joint adoption or have no clear prohibition on joint adoption. And it would not be a reasonable compromise and equality under the law in any case. Your statement that just because raising kids is not a fundamental requirement of marriage does not mean that many same-gender couples don’t want to and do raise children; the logic behind your statement is ludicrous. (The same argument applied to straight couples would preclude any childless straight couples from getting married.) The societal benefits of civil marriage when it comes to the welfare of any children being raised are the same, regardless of whether the couple involved is gay or straight.
Dave - “The adoption boat has already sailed…” Destination Atlantis. There’s a good campy movie about how some fugitive from the greek archipelago ends up in the stormy waters of the north atlantic, and is swallowed up by a nemo-like submarine from the fabled city of Atlantis. A romantic melodrama ensues, but it turns out the atlanteans are indulging in all kind of bizarre chimeras. Finally, they annihilate themselves with a weapon meant for the subjugation of all the slave races of the world. Our greek fugitive barely makes it out alive, and returns to athens to share the scarey story with Plato and friends. You see, the spririt of prophecy was alive even among the virtuous pagans! See you there.
Actually, not a bad idea. I understand that in some countries, people make vows before a civil authority and then make vows before a priest. It removes the hypocritical use of the church just because it is a pretty place.
Lisa,
Stop being hysterical and learn to read.
Savvy,
I am not hysterical. I am merely pointing how silly your idea of permitting civil unions, but denying gay couples to adopt really is. Your idea is not a compromise. Its a silly idea to attemtp to codify illogical, irrational, unscientific, fear-based bigotry, into law.
Dave,
What is marriage? Why should the state regulate it?
Lisa,
If you are so logical, rational, scientific and brave, why can’t you answer a basic questions. What is Marriage? Why should the state regulate it?
@savvy—CIVIL marriage is essentially the state granting of certain benefits and protections to couples for the purpose of promoting healthy, stable families ... be they families composed of just the couples themselves, the couples plus any biological children they have, or the couples plus kids from adoption, prior relationships, or IVF/surrogacy. The state does this because stable, healthy families benefit society as a whole; that is true regardless of whether the couples involved are straight or gay. Regulations are needed to ensure that the state-granted benefits/protections are administered in a fair, equitable way consistent with those goals, as required by the 14th Amendment.
Dave,
Marriage between a man and a woman is important for children.
Children are most likely to thrive physically, emotionally, mentally, and socially when raised by a mother and father who are married to one another.
Many children grow up without their biological parents — because a parent has been taken from them by illness, accident, or adult decisions. These cases are not ideal, but neither are they intentional. A healthy society provides support mechanisms for such children.
Even in cultures with plural marriages, the bread-winning spouse is usually expected to forgo sexual relations outside of the marriage group so that the marriage group is not burdened with the support of extra-marital children, and not deprived of the benefits of such children.
[1] For example, ‘Family Structure and Children’s Health and Well-Being: Data from the 1988 National Health Interview Survey on Child Health’, Deborah A. Dawson, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 53, No. 3 (Aug., 1991), pp. 573-584, Published by: National Council on Family Relations;
‘Family Structure and Child Well-Being: The Significance of Parental Cohabitation’, Susan L. Brown*,Journal of Marriage and Family, Volume 66, Issue 2, pages 351–367, May 2004;
‘Social Policies, Family Types and Child Outcomes in Selected OECD Countries’, Sheila B. Kamerman, Michelle Neuman, Jane Waldfogel, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, 20 May 2003, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers.
Savvy,
I am under no obligation to answer your questions. And decline to do. You just want to another way to try to reinforce your fear-based bigotry.
Dave,
Children are the only reason the state registers and regulates marriage, not adults. If the human young raised themselves and women got pregnant without men, marriage itself would not exist.
@savvy—I can practically guarantee that the studies you cite did not do a direct comparison between children raised in stable households headed up by straight couples with children raised in stable households headed by same-gender couples. Studies like those you cite typically compare children raised by heterosexual parents with those that are not, considered in aggregate. The provide no information about any sub-populations within that latter aggregate group, unless the statistics are compiled and analyzed separately. The majority of studies where that has been done for kids raised by same-gender couples show no particular issues in child outcomes. Even the recent Regnerus study, which has been badly misrepresented by groups like NOM, showed that the key aspect in parenting is stability; the one same-gender couple Regnerus looked at showed a very good child outcome. You are confusing correlation with causation ... something the Focus on the Family folks did in their testimony before Congress, to their regret.
Lisa,
Ad hominem attacks are an indication the opponent has failed the argument.
@savvy—your claim that children are the only reason government regulates marriage is simply not true. Couples who never have children still get the state-granted benefits and protections associated with civil marriage.
@savvy—If the Catholic Church’s primary concern is that children have both a father and a mother, why has it not been fighting against single-parent adoption ... something that has existed far longer, and is allowed in just about every state in the union?
Dave,
It’s in the best interest of children to be raised by their biological parents , who are married to each other.
Even when children are not involved, there is a lot a child can learn from the complementarity of men and women , that they could not from parents of the same gender.
From what I have got so far, is that this is all about receiving state benefits and protections, rather than about doing what is in the best interest of children and society.
I would call this social engineering, and you wonder why there is not going to be an agreement on this issue.
Dave,
The church’s adoption agencies already do not let single parents adopt, only married couples. They have been forced to shut down in several states, because they declined homosexual adoptions.
@savvy—Your claim that children fare best when raised by married, biological children begs the question ... best compared to what? Like I said, what most studies actually show is that those children fare best compared to all other kids considered in aggregate. Again, that says nothing about sub-populations of that latter group. And again, most studies that DO look specifically at apples-to-apples comparisons between straight and gay parenting show no issues with those raised by gay parents. As for this being about benefits and protections, from a legal viewpoint, that is, in fact, why it is a 14th Amendment issue ... but saying that means it’s not about what is in the best interests of children and society is nonsense. The laws surrounding both marriage and adoption are designed to ensure that the interests of children and society are served by those benefits and protections; you just don’t like the fact that state support of same-gender civil marriage is increasingly being recognized ... by the science, by the courts, and by the public ... as being beneficial for both. And as for the Catholic Church’s attitude to single parenting ... again, I note that they are not putting any effort into legislating legal prohibitions of single-parent adoption, which means their vociferous opposition to same-gender adoption really has very little to do with the notion that kids need both a father and a mother.
“you just don’t like the fact that state support of same-gender civil marriage is increasingly being recognized ... by the science, by the courts, and by the public ... as being beneficial for both. “
There is no such thing as same-gender marriage. It’s a legal fiction. It simply cannot take place. Marriage is based on the complimentarity of men and women.
Yes, this is a social engineering experiment that has won support as a result of cultural destruction.
Do you seriously think, we would even be considering this, if marriage was not already in a mess to begin with?
“And as for the Catholic Church’s attitude to single parenting ... again, I note that they are not putting any effort into legislating legal prohibitions of single-parent adoption, which means their vociferous opposition to same-gender adoption really has very little to do with the notion that kids need both a father and a mother.”
They did when this first came out. I agree that they should focus on single-parent adoption too as should other groups that hold the same views.
“And again, most studies that DO look specifically at apples-to-apples comparisons between straight and gay parenting show no issues with those raised by gay parents.”
The University of Texas said sociologist Dr Mark Regnerus had no case of “scientific misconduct” to answer.
Dr Regnerus had been the subject of a vitriolic campaign by activists since his New Family Structures study, published in the peer reviewed journal Social Science Research, found that there were disadvantages to children being raised by same-sex couples on 25 out of 40 measures. The study stated: “children appear most apt to succeed well as adults – on multiple counts and across a variety of domains – when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father”.
Activists disputed the validity of his study and called for an inquiry, after which the review panel said no investigation was warranted.
“The vitriolic attacks by same-sex activists and allegations of misconduct when Regnerus’ study did not agree with them have been proven to be without substance. The dismissal of the case against him is a victory for academic freedom.”
Your statement that marriage (as if it only has one definition) can only take place between a man and a woman is a religious belief. I provided a definition of CIVIL marriage which matches the facts associated with how civil marriage benefits/protections are administered in the US, who gets them and why ... and there is absolutely no reason why that definition of CIVIL marriage doesn’t apply to same-gender couples as well as straight.
I’m fairly old and I don’t remember a whole lot of church-funded opposition and hand-wringing when singles were first given the right to adopt. And pretty much nobody even brings it up in these forums as being an equivalent situation unless I point it out to them. So forgive me if I don’t buy your claim.
As for the Regnerus study, again, he only looked at ONE same-sex couple raising kids evaluated, and they did just fine. His results, as manipulated by NOM, required him to broaden the definition of homosexual parents so much that the sample was far from representative of stable same-gender homes. It was an apples-to-oranges comparison; even Regnerus has disputed your claim that it says anything about how kids raised by same-gender parents.
Dave,
It’s not just a religious belief. It also includes sexual brain chemistry and biology. Please tell me, if two people pledge to play tennis for the rest of their lives, only with each other, until they die, are they married?
What exactly makes a marriage. You have given me a legal definition that states it;s a good way to regulate benefits/protections, but that does not answer the question, since marriage pre-dates any such arrangements.
“even Regnerus has disputed your claim that it says anything about how kids raised by same-gender parents.”
Source?
I am an openly gay Protestant minister, married to my partner in two separate ceremonies (one religious, one civil) earlier this year in NYS. We separated the two because I surprisingly agree with George Weigel, at least in practice. I do not think it right or appropriate that representatives of religious traditions act as agents of the state by administering the marriage license.
I believe this because I never want the state telling any religious tradition what they can and cannot due in terms of sacraments, nor do I want any religious tradition infringing on the civil rights of any taxpaying, law-abiding citizen.
I spent decades fighting for civil marriage equality. I will fight equally hard to prevent the state from requiring any tradition to recognize or perform same sex marriages if their doctrines do not permit it. If constituent members backed by rigorous study and discernment advocate for a change, as has happened among Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Lutherans, all the better. But the state has no right to legislate or dictate the meaning or practice of the sacraments.
Fierce debate - lots of heat, very little light.
The thing that I find remarkable is that conclusions that were erstwhile unquestioned, have been not only called into question, but entirely overturned. This in the span of a decade or so.
How could the common sense of many generations fall victim to a lie so insidious that it threatens the very heart of society: marriage and family. But even more so, how could common knowledge be overturned by so much “data-driven drivel?” Even science itself is suborned.
People like Savvy are struggling in an uphill battle, since the vice in question has become totally ingrained in our scene. Even deeper that cohabiting same-sex couples, homoerotica is part and parcel of our entire popular culture. Sadly.
Moreover, every straight couple who uses contraception or engages in sodomy validates the gay revolution. And that’s just about everybody.
So for the rare and isolated innocent couple, or chaste single, or orthodox priest - welcome to the tribulation.
jm,
I appreciate your statement and sincerity even if I do not agree with your definition of civil equality, where no natural equality exists.
MattB,
As someone pointed out we are not post-Christian, but are once again pre-Christian. We need to learn from the early Christians who faced similar challenges as our new pagan age.
“But even more so, how could common knowledge be overturned by so much “data-driven drivel?”
It’s called scientism. I wonder how many of these people would support racial discrimination, if science proved the cognitive differences between races.
Yet, they insist we have to blindly follow their proof.
@savvy—The difference between your two tennis players and couples who want to marry (gay or straight) is that the ones who want to marry fall in love, have the ability to develop the kinds of close, intimate emotional bonds we all associate with marriage, and experience physical attraction to each other. Not very complicated. And as far as “sexual brain chemistry” goes, in the case of homosexuals, that attributes of a relationship are possible only in the context of a same-gender relationship.
As for the Regnerus study, the paper itself contains a number of statements about the methodology and disclaimers about the applicability of the study. “It does not evaluate the offspring of gay marriages, since the vast majority of its respondents came of age prior to the legalization of gay marriage in several states.” “This study cannot answer political questions about same-sex relationships and their legal legitimacy.” “... the findings reported herein may be explicable in part by a variety of forces uniquely problematic for child development in lesbian and gay families—including a lack of social support for parents, stress exposure resulting from persistent stigma, and modest or absent legal security for their parental and romantic relationship statuses ...” “In this debut article of the NFSS, I compare how the young-adult children of a parent who has had a same-sex romantic relationship fare on 40 different social, emotional, and relational outcome variables when compared with six other family-of-origin types.” Note in the final statement, the study does not look at children raised by same-gender parents. It lumps any children raised by a parent who has ever had a same-sex encounter ... a much broader category in terms of family stability than the group ... kids raised by their biological parents ... the results are being compared with. If you compared that latter group with all the children with a parent who had ever had a heterosexual encounter, you’d probably get the same results.
A lot to read through here. I agree with earlier comments that there are many loving committed relationships that are discriminated against if we redefine marriage by broadening it to only include SSA couples. My two aunts lived their whole lives together, bought a house together, one worked to support the other. Should they be denied the benefits that same sex couples are asking for only because they do not have a sexual relationship? If we redefine marriage to be a loving committed relationship, why does it matter at all if the couple is sexually active? I would be in favor of extending benefits to a much broader group of people, but I don’t think this needs to include redefining marriage.
Dave,
I brought up the tennis player example, because they could just be friends who share an emotional bond. This does not make something a marriage. As Momom brings up the case of aunts.
Dave,
“the Regnerus study,was cautious in his conclusions: he didn’t label poor outcomes as effects of parents’ sexuality, and noted that “a variety of forces uniquely problematic for child development in lesbian and gay families” could account for the phenomena.
But, he concluded, “the empirical claim that no notable differences exist must go.”
The real issues with Sherkat and other critics are joined by Regnerus, who returns to the pages of SSR with a vigorous response and a re-analysis of his data, and by Professor Walter Schumm of Kansas State, who contributes an expert review of what we know from social science today about the interwoven variables of sexuality, family stability, and childrearing outcomes.”
To be Continued…..
@savvy—If your two tennis players want to build a life together based on love, common goals, mutual support, and all that ... I think they should be able to enter into a CIVIL marriage. And, as I said earlier, if the two aunts have a relationship that shares those same characteristics, I have no problem with them entering in to a CIVIL marriage either. I provided a rational definition of CIVIL marriage earlier that meshes with the realities and goals of US law, and both cases fit that definition, and feature no particular downsides from a societal viewpoint. And yes, it is different from your religious definition of marriage, but that is not particularly relevant to civil law.
As for the Regnerus paper, yes, he does say “the empirical claim that no notable differences exist must go.” But, for the third time, notable differences between what?? One group is composed of children raised long-term by their biological parents. The other is composed of children raised by parents, at least one of whom has had a same-sex encounter at least once in their lives. I’m not sure that anybody has ever claimed that such a comparison WOULD show no notable differences. I don’t know as Regnerus even had to perform such a study to show it, as it is rather obvious from all the previous studies that show the importance of stability in parental relationships on child outcomes. As I said earlier, as should be clear to anyone with an elementary knowledge of statistics and the ability to think, the studies that anti-SSM folk like to point to also would show that children raised long-term by biological parents fare better compared to those raised by parents, at least one of whom has had a HETEROSEXUAL encounter at least once in their lives. So what does that really prove??
Studies that have looked specifically at how kids raised long-term by same-gender parents fare compared to those raised by biological parents have not identified any particular issues. Those studies may not be perfect in terms of sampling. But studies comparing one set of apples with a second set with somewhat imperfect sampling are far more valid than studies comparing a set of apples with a set of oranges, no matter how perfectly sampled the set of oranges might be. That is why Regnerus strives to make clear that his report “does not evaluate the offspring of gay marriages” and that “sexual orientation or parental sexual behavior need have nothing to do with the ability to be a good, effective parent.” Contrary to your assertion that “there were disadvantages to children being raised by same-sex couples,” Regnerus didn’t even look at children raised long-term by same-sex couples.
Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 1 Tim 1:10;
All sexual acts outside of marriage (between one man and one woman) are a Mortal Sin.
If you Love your Neighbor as commanded by Jesus, you will want him/her to get to Heaven for eternity - not die in Mortal Sin.
God punished Sodom and Gomorrah because of their sexual actions. Gen 19:5
@ANNE—the sexual actions described in the Sodom story from Genesis is same-sex gang rape. And the Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy passages you cite, according to the commentary in the Church’s very own NAB Bible translation, as it appears on the US Conference of Catholic Bishops website, are about things like pederasty ... basically prostitution and pedophilia. When you cite those passages to illustrate your views of homosexuals, you are equating loving, committed same-gender couples to rapists, prostitutes, and pedophiles. Is that really what you think??
Reading these comments makes me feel more than ever that we should be very grateful for our Catholic teaching on marriage & family.
As much as I lean towards libertarianism in some respects, I can also see where it ultimately might lead.
@Kathleen—it’s fine that you, as a Catholic, are very grateful for Catholic teaching on marriage and family. But that teaching is not particularly relevant to civil law. If you want to have discriminatory laws and have them hold up in court, you need to be able to justify them using non-religious arguments. I don’t quite know where you think this “ultimately might lead” ... but but if you want to keep whatever it is from happening, you need to come up with some coherent, rational, valid arguments that don’t rely on Catholic dogma.
I think my aunts would disagree about calling their relationship a marriage—maybe a domestic partnership or something like that, but since it lacks one of the main purposes of marriage as even a possibility ( the procreation and education of children) we aren’t telling the truth about their relationship. It isn’t the same as marriage. Why would the state have any interest in the sexual relationship or nonsexual relationship of any two people unless it had potential for creating human life? Then, yes, the state has an interest in providing for the well being of the children begotten from that relationship for the sake of its future. My guess is that if we redefine marriage into meaninglessness, that at some point down the road, the state would decide again that there needs to be a way to distinguish between the responsibilities that exist in a heterosexual relationship, where the possibility of bring forth children exists by its very nature, and other loving, committed relationships.i believe that all the focus on “rights” is the wrong emphasis and that “responsibilities” for the building of the next generation is where we need to focus. After all, when 40% of the children today are born out of wedlock, which makes them more vulnerable to living in poverty, doing poorly in school, etc., tit seems obvious that we ignore the responsibilities of marriage at our own peril.
@Momom—again, we are talking about CIVIL marriage, which is not fundamentally tied to procreation or the teaching of children; that fact should be obvious to anyone with the slightest awareness of current marriage laws. Your statement about marriage is Catholic dogma, and that’s fine, but it is not relevant to civil marriage laws. I should also note that your two aunts almost certainly do have the right to adopt, raise, and teach children ... assuming they live in one of the 46 states or the District of Columbia where unmarried individuals can adopt. Regardless, nobody is saying they’d have to marry ... just that if they wanted to, there’s not a strong argument to be made against it in terms of the goals of civil marriage ... the support of families (with or without children). Even in the absence of children, the benefits of such long-term, loving relationships for the physical, emotional, mental, and financial well-being of two individuals involved (and the corresponding benefits to society as a whole) are almost universally well known. That is reason enough for the state to provide the benefits/protections of civil marriage.
Dave,
Our govt is neither libertarian nor a theocracy but is founded upon Judeo-Christian teachings & Natural Law.
This is a Catholic site & I hope you may learn & benefit from our beliefs. I also hope folks speak in charity.That’s something I have to remember myself & I apologize for often failing to.
Have you read the Catechism or “Theology of the Body?”
I heard someone on Ave Maria radio last night comment on “winning an arguement but losing a soul.” A good point to ponder.
The whole Catholic teaching on family & marriage comes down to “Choose life.” When we stray from that, the consequences lead to death.Every one of us has seen that play out in our lives or among family & friends.The loving thing to do is to instruct, but instruct in charity.Living that out is countercultural & not easy.
God bless you & I pray He will lead you closer to Him.
Still seems to me the state has a vested interest in promoting the responsibility of heterosexual couples who by their nature are equipped to produce children for the sake of the continuation of society.
Kathleen—Our government is founded upon the US Constitution, which was written in part by people who followed various Judeo-Christian beliefs, and in part by people who were Deists. They had the good sense to make sure that the Constitution contained safeguards to ensure that the religious beliefs of one particular group were not enshrined in our laws, thereby establishing a preference for the beliefs of that group over those of others. It’s called the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. There are many US Christian denominations—Episcopal, Presbyterian (USA), the largest Lutheran denomination, the United Church of Christ, etc.—that allow consecration of same-gender relationships, and/or the ordination of clergy in such relationships. The two largest Jewish groups in the US, representing over 80% of American Jews, do likewise ... as do other groups (e.g., Unitarian/Universalists, and many with no religious beliefs at all). You may totally disagree with their views, and even deny they qualify as religious groups, but Constitutionally, that is not for you to decide. And you can’t enshrine Catholic beliefs in civil law that establish a preference for Catholic views over those others, unless you can justify them using non-religious arguments.
As for Natural Law, that is too often these days used to describe Catholic dogma stripped of any reference to God. That is, in essence how some here are using the term. But at its core, it basically comes down to “Good is to be sought, evil avoided.” And again, if you want to appeal to Natural Law when it comes to civil law, in this country you need to do so using non-religious arguments about what constitutes good and evil ... appealing, for example, to science and what it has to say about the healthfulness of relationships and their secular value to society.
As for the Catechism, I have read the initial sections dealing with homosexuality. Just like ANNE above, it illustrates why homosexuals in same-gender relationships are gravely depraved by pointing to the gang-rapists of Sodom and the pederasts of Paul’s letters. That being the basis of all that follows, and recognizing that argument as both false and bigoted, I don’t give it much credence. And knowing a number of same-gender couples personally ... some raising kids ... I’ve seen first hand that there is nothing unhealthy, evil, depraved, or death-focused about how they live. And again, the Catholic arguments to the contrary ... be they the core one I just mentioned or the misrepresentation of science I’ve noted earlier ... don’t do anything at all to convince me otherwise.
Kathleen—Our government is founded upon the US Constitution, which was written in part by people who followed various Judeo-Christian beliefs, and in part by people who were Deists. They had the good sense to make sure that the Constitution contained safeguards to ensure that the religious beliefs of one particular group were not enshrined in our laws, thereby establishing a preference for the beliefs of that group over those of others. It’s called the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. There are many US Christian denominations—Episcopal, Presbyterian (USA), the largest Lutheran denomination, the United Church of Christ, etc.—that allow consecration of same-gender relationships, and/or the ordination of clergy in such relationships. The two largest Jewish groups in the US, representing over 80% of American Jews, do likewise ... as do other groups (e.g., Unitarian/Universalists, and many with no religious beliefs at all). You may totally disagree with their views, and even deny they qualify as religious groups, but Constitutionally, that is not for you to decide. And you can’t enshrine Catholic beliefs in civil law that establish a preference for Catholic views over those others, unless you can justify them using non-religious arguments.
Kathleen—continuing: As for Natural Law, that is too often these days used to describe Catholic dogma stripped of any reference to God. That is, in essence how some here are using the term. But at its core, it basically comes down to “Good is to be sought, evil avoided.” And again, if you want to appeal to Natural Law when it comes to civil law, in this country you need to do so using non-religious arguments about what constitutes good and evil ... appealing, for example, to science and what it has to say about the healthfulness of relationships and their secular value to society.
As for the Catechism, I have read the initial sections dealing with homosexuality. Just like ANNE above, it illustrates why homosexuals in same-gender relationships are gravely depraved by pointing to the gang-rapists of Sodom and the pederasts of Paul’s letters. That being the basis of all that follows, and recognizing that argument as both false and bigoted, I don’t give it much credence. And knowing a number of same-gender couples personally ... some raising kids ... I’ve seen first hand that there is nothing unhealthy, evil, depraved, or death-focused about how they live. And again, the Catholic arguments to the contrary ... be they the core one I just mentioned or the misrepresentation of science I’ve noted earlier ... don’t do anything at all to convince me otherwise.
Dave,
If any loving committed couple can enter into a civil marriage, then why can two siblings or someone marry their parent.
Civil marriage in the Anglo-American legal tradition was based on procreation, complimentarity of the sexes and the bringing up of children. I do realize that the cultural degradation, most rapidly since the 60s has eroded this concept. But, that does not make this definition invalid or untrue.
As I said, before if the human young raised themselves and women got pregnant without men, marriage itself would not exist.
It’s called common sense. There can be no legal equality, where natural equality does not exist.
@savvy—Already answered the first question ... more than once. The rest is unsubstantiated assertions.
Exactly. Those who promote legal recognition of homosexual relationships claim that they won’t damage traditional marriage. I point out that it’s much more that traditional marriage has to be damaged in order to find same-sex “marriage” acceptable than the other way around.
Dave,
The Catechism does not make that reference to same-gender relationships, but to sexual behaviour. I am aware of how theological revisionists read these passages, but that is not accurate.
Scripture says “Now the people of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the Lord.” This was before the night that they came for Lot’s guests.
In fact the men of Sodom never even raped anyone that night. The Angels blinded them so they could not even find the door to get in to Lot’s house to do the rape (Gen 19:11).
God told Abraham that a judgment would come upon Sodom. This was even before the night of the “attempted rape” of Lot’s guests. (Gen 18:20)
Some gay theologians have said that the passage from Romans 1 refers only to people for whom gay sex was “unnatural” and that people who are naturally “gay” are OK.
So let’s, for a moment, consider that to be true, that the passage exempts 100% purebred homosexuals (on the Kinsey scale, if there is such a thing). Where would that leave the bisexual? If these theologians were right, then this passage would be very critical against bisexual people.
There is no serious Bible scholar who would try to say that unnatural sex refers to adultery especially when set in context with the other Sodom passages above. The word “unnatural sex” is never used anywhere to describe a state of marriage or the sin of adultery in the Bible. The Greek word they use for “nature” is “Phusikos” which means “physical nature.” This is driven home when it said they “received in their bodies,” they practiced “mutual degradation of their bodies.” (Rom 1:25)
Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.(1 Cor 6:10)
The gay community, as a whole, has abandoned attempts to find a justification for gay “love” in the Bible, and they are settling instead with the theory that the Bible is an outdated historical document coloured by its cultural context.
Meanwhile many Gay and Lesbian biblical scholars are admitting that there is no way to affirm gay sex using the Bible.
“The fact is Paul spoke against Homosexual practice.” (Online Gay, Lesbian, Transgendered Encyclopedia)
“The Bible is negative toward same sex behaviour. There is no getting around it. Paul wouldn’t accept it for a minute.” (Walter Wink, Gay affirming scholar)
“The exegetical of what the Bible says is straightforward. We know what the Bible says. I think it is important that we reject the straightforward command of Scripture and appeal to another authority.” (Luke Timothy Johnson, gay affirming Scholar with lesbian daughter)
” The rest is unsubstantiated assertions.”
Marriage in the Anglo-American legal tradition.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155
Dave,
Thanks for your comments.The Catechism is a wonderful resource but sometimes talking to an actual person who can explain it on a one to one basis is better.Comment boxes are probably not the way to go.
I know there are Catholic resources online that might connect you with a theologian, too.
God bless.
Kathleen,
The revisionist are trying too hard to find pansexuality in the Bible. It can’t be done. Time to be honest and give it up.
Savvy
“There is no such thing as same-gender marriage. It’s a legal fiction. It simply cannot take place.”
SSM is a fact and is, or will so be, available in nine states. The reality is that no one really even notices it as it has no material effect on others. So what is the point of denying it? SSM will be in several more states within 5 years, CO and NJ are likely to be next. The governor in NJ vetoed the law the last time, now he is more likely to see stand aside as the GOP is dropping this as a hot button issue SD outreach to the next generation of voters. The four losses in November were the signal to the next wave of GOP candidates to avoid this issue.
dch, these are not “material effects?”
http://www.wnd.com/2008/06/66247/
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2005/mar/05033001
http://www.charismamag.com/site-archives/570-news/featured-news/12897-uk-court-rules-christianity-harmful-to-children
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp
http://www.soulwinning.info/rights/criminalizing.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/22/texas-school-punishes-boy-for-opposing-homosexuality/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/19/florida-teacher-suspended-for-anti-gay-marriage-post-on-personal-facebook/
@savvy—Last comment from me, as your posts are getting lengthier and saying less, and I don’t feel like spending the time responding point by point. I will say that the Sodom passage in Genesis is quite plainly about same-sex gang rape (intended or realized), and that the additional passages you note don’t provide any additional details regarding their wickedness. Other passages in the Bible do ... pointing to things like pride and failure to care for the poor. None of that changes the fact that pointing to same-sex gang rapists to illustrate why you believe same-gender couples (and yes, including those who have sex) are depraved says more about how you view homosexuals than it does about what the Bible has to say. And again, the passages from Paul you cite are thought, not just by “gay theologians” but by many Protestant and Catholic theologians as well to be talking about things like pederasty. Again, from the Church’s own NAB translation, the terms in 1 Cor. you list as “male prostitutes” and “homosexual offenders” are translated by Catholic scholars as “boy prostitutes” and “sodomites” ... where “The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the “cupbearer of the gods,” whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated sodomites refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys. See similar condemnations of such practices in Rom 1:26–27; 1 Tm 1:10.” Again, this latter quote comes from the Catholic scholars of the NAB Bible as it appears on the USCCB website ... not from revisionist, pansexualist scholars. And your attempt to make it appear as though the gay community as a whole has rejected the scriptural witness is nonsense; many gay leaders are active Christians as are most gay people I know. Maintaining that one has to keep historical context in mind so that one properly understands what is being discussed is not unreasonable or in any way a rejection or dimunition of scripture.
And again, I will note that none of this is particularly relevant to the issue of civil marriage.
@Dave: “If two siblings want to get married, and if they somehow ensure that they will not procreate, and if social and mental-health scientists arrive at the same level of consensus regarding the healthfulness and societal benefits of sibling-sibling romantic relationships that they have for same-gender relationships, I would have no objection to legal recognition of sibling civil marriage.” Well, at least you’re consistent. Whether that kind of thing will actually occur in our society no one knows, but you’ve gone on record saying you’re OK with it.
Dave,
Scripture condemns all sexual immorality regardless of the context. Jesus re-affirmed marriage between one man and one woman.
He restored the “one man, one woman,” marriage Genesis model (Mat 19:5-6), affirmed that adultery is wrong, (Mat 5:27-28), that sexual contact or lust outside of marriage is a sin. (Mat 5)
You do not have to be einstein to figure this out. The revisionist are trying too hard.
Savvy,
the issue is that in the USA, a nation with diverse faith traditions, no US citizen is compelled to beleive in Jesus as God or in anything Jesus said. Just becasue the gospels say that Jesus said or did something, does not mean that Jesus did or said that thing. none of the writers of teh gospels were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life. Each gosple writer wrote at a different time place, to a differnt audience and had a differnt messae to convey to that audience. They wanted to persuade their audiences of their message. Does not make that message true.
The RCC needs to stop trying to impose its Jesus on the rest of the nation.
Dave,
This is a article by the lesbian writing Melinda Selmys on this issue.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/09/the-pastoral-response-to-homosexuality
Lisa,
My response was to the people who use scripture to justify their views, not to those who do not. And your analysis is incorrect Lisa. The Gospels are different eye-witness accounts written from 51-125 A.D.
The writings of the Apostolic fathers also predate the Gospels, but mostly overlap with them.
Lisa,
Furthermore if you find this articulate discussion offensive, you do not have to participate in it,
Lisa,
Civil marriage in the Anglo-American legal tradition is not the invention of the church or of Jesus either. It’s a part of Western civilization, whether you like it or not.
Savvy,
The analysis is correct. And its the analysis of the RC bishops via the New American Bible. None of the writers of the gospels lived during the time of Jesus, none of them knew Jesus or witnessed or heard anything jsus did or said. The earliest gospel—Mark’s—was written around 70AD. From the New American Bible found on the web site of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops) re the Gospel of Mark “Traditionally, the gospel is said to have been written shortly before A.D. 70 in Rome, at a time of impending persecution and when destruction loomed over Jerusalem. Its audience seems to have been Gentile, unfamiliar with Jewish customs (hence Mk 7:3–4, 11).
Savvy, if you want a history lesson re the writing of the gospels go the web site of the RC bishops of the US, look at the link to the New American Bbile. There you will find each of the of gospels with an intoduction. The introduction will tell you when the gospel was written, whonm it was written for, etc. This is form YOUR RC bishops. Are you going to contradict the Bibilical scholarship published by YOUR RC bishops????
Savvy,
The discussion is niether offensive nor articulate. Mainly it seems to be some people who want to impose RC theology on American society, who think that the RCC is alone expresses the truth of God, and who take scripture out context and try to apply it to situations it was never meant to apply to.
Savvy,
I agree that civil marriage is not the invention of the RCC—I never said it was. Legal tradition in western civilization evolves and moves forward. Note that in the US, slavery is illegal, that women gained the right to vote in 1920, that 18 yr olds gained the right to vote via the XXVI Amendment, that separate but equal was declared unconstituional, that schools are integrated, that interracial couples are allowed to marry, etc. There is nothing in US legal tradition or Western tradition that would prevent it from moving forward, evovling to recognize the fundamental right of gay people to marry each other.
It’s disheartening to realize how many Catholics support SSM in spite of the Church’s unequivocal stance on it. Considering the divide between those Catholics who support SSM and those who don’t (which is just one issue that divides us), I wonder if we aren’t going to witness a schism in Catholicism—akin to Judaism, with Reform and Orthodox.
Lisa,
RC Bishops are not historians. I am under no obligation to take history lessons from them. There was already an established church by a 100 A.D. The Apostolic Fathers were direct descendants of the Apostles who lived in the 1st, 2 centuries of Christianity. I think they would be closer, given their proximity to the events, than the Bishops. Their writings form a source of tradition that is overlaps with scripture, but whose mode of transmission is different.
“Mainly it seems to be some people who want to impose RC theology on American society, who think that the RCC is alone expresses the truth of God, and who take scripture out context and try to apply it to situations it was never meant to apply to.”
This is your opinion. And you are not an expert on the New Testament and based on my conversations with you whatever you studied was not RC theology.
I do not think the RCC alone express the truth of God.
I also find it amusing that those who claim a religion is going extinct also claim that it’s trying to impose a theocracy. Hysterical much?
Lisa,
The examples you bring up are different. You might want to read the link to the paper I gave Dave, on Marriage in the Anglo-American legal tradition.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155
Malka,
I do not think civil marriage will cause a schism, but fights to accept it in the church might. But, then again schismatics have always gone their own way. The church is still around.
Lisa,
The issue is that I do not think God is the author of logical fallacies, endless contradictions etc. Any informed person can point out the inconsistency of modern philosophies.
Dave,
In the November 2012 issue of Social Science Research, Regnerus has published a new article: “Parental same-sex relationships, family instability, and subsequent life outcomes for adult children: Answering critics of the new family structures study with additional analyses.”
He accepts “arguably the most reasonable criticism” of his original work, the use of the abbreviations “LM” (for lesbian mother) and “GF” (for gay father) to characterize the family situations experienced by his young adult subjects when they were children.
Since the adjectives “lesbian” and “gay” could lead readers to infer something about these parents’ self-identified “orientation” (though in his original article Regnerus clearly dispelled this misapprehension), he now exchanges “LM” for “MLR” (mother who had a lesbian relationship) and “GF” for “FGR” (father who had a gay relationship), so that the adjectives “lesbian” and “gay” now describe the relationships, not the persons.
Regnerus also pauses to note the extreme unlikelihood that his categories swept in any “one-night stand” relationships, since the NFSS interviews asked young adults about romantic relationships they would have observed as children.
Regnerus addresses at much greater length the more serious charge that he compared apples to oranges by placing a sample of “MLR” and “FGR” families with high incidence of instability next to his “IBF” cases of intact biological families (married heterosexual couples that stay together and raise their own offspring to maturity). His critics insisted that he should compare intact, long-term stable gay and lesbian couples with his “gold standard” IBF households.
On this point, Regnerus yields no ground to his critics whatsoever, but instead only strengthens his case that family instability is not a variable to be controlled for so that it falls out of the comparison; rather it is a “pathway” down which MLR and FGR families typically travel as a social reality.
To begin with, Regnerus notes, “if stability is a key asset for households with children, then it is sensible to use intact biological families in any comparative assessment.” But could Regnerus have produced a data set with a higher number of “stably-coupled” gay or lesbian households? He doubts it.
In his original article, he reported that an initially-screened population of 15,000 young adults aged 18-39 yielded a set of 163 who said their mothers had had a same-sex relationship sometime during their childhood. (There were only 73 who said this of their fathers.)
In his new article, Regnerus has re-sorted a dozen of the FGR cases into the MLR category (since in these cases the subjects reported that both parents had had same-sex relationships). Now focusing on his 175 subjects in the MLR category, he finds that fewer than half of them (85) ever lived with both their mother and her same-sex partner during their childhood.
But that low number tapers off dramatically when subjects report the length of the couple-headed period: “31 reported living with their mother’s partner for up to 1 year only. An additional 20 reported this relationship for up to 2 years, five for 3 years, and eight for 4 years.” He later adds that “only 19 spent at least five consecutive years together, and six cases spent 10 or more consecutive years together.”
How many children were raised by two women staying together from the child’s first birthday to his or her eighteenth? Just two. And how many such cases were there in the FGR category—of children raised by two men together for their whole childhood? Zero. This, out of an initial population of 15,000.
I recite these numbers to make a point of my own that fairly leaps off the pages of Regnerus’s work: that family instability is the characteristic experience of those whose parents have same-sex relationships. This is what Regnerus is getting at when he says that critics who want him to treat stability as a “control variable” are actually “controlling for the pathways.” To go on an endless search for a sizable random sample of long-term, stable same-sex couples raising children is to miss the social reality in front of us, namely that they are conspicuously missing from the lives of children whose parents have same-sex relationships.
Doggedly responding to his critics, however, Regnerus divides his MLR cases into two further categories, those in which children never lived with their mother’s same-sex partner (90 cases), and those in which they did for any length of time at all (85 cases), and takes another look at his outcome variables, while also slicing his other categories thinner, of divorce, remarriage, single parenthood, adoption, etc.
Unfortunately for his critics, it makes very little difference. On multiple outcomes, the children of mothers who had lesbian relationships fared poorly, whether those mothers had a partner in the household with their children or not, and these two groups were more like each other than like the intact biological family (IBF) category. As Regnerus notes, “adult children who report a maternal same-sex relationship—regardless of whether their mother ever resided with her same-sex partner—look far more similar to adult children of other types of household than they do to those from stably-intact biological families.”
But shouldn’t Regnerus have asked the parents of his subjects about their self-identified orientation? Maybe he was actually looking at the fallout of “mixed-orientation” relationships that disintegrated, or at the parenting of people who weren’t “really” gay or lesbian. But again his critics are substituting an imagined social ideal for a messy reality.
Regnerus had good reason to ask adult children about their parents’ behavior, not their orientation: because this is what the children would be able to observe and know about, and because sexual attraction and behavior are highly fluid phenomena, despite the myth of a fixed “orientation.”
As he soberly puts it, “there appear to be plenty of failed heterosexual unions in the data,” in which many of the children of mothers who had same-sex relationships “spend their early years with their biological mother and father” before those relationships occur. Regnerus’s findings do not obscure the realities of family and sexuality in our society; they illuminate them.
And of course he was right to interview the children rather than their parents, because the former could more accurately self-report their current life conditions. Yet the children had to be adults at the time of the study, for ethical reasons that forbid this kind of research being conducted with minors and because he wanted to know the “finished product,” as it were, of their upbringing.
So, could it be that Regnerus captured a snapshot of an outdated social phenomenon, given that his study concerned adults who had been raised when same-sex couples rarely raised children (some more than 20 years ago), and did so under more trying circumstances? Would children being raised by persons in same-sex relationships today show a different pattern? “Perhaps,” he says, “but hardly certain.” Multiple studies show that same-sex couples, particularly lesbians, divorce at higher rates where marriage is available to them, and stay together for shorter periods. If so, then again we could expect to find family instability—and the effects thereof—in the life outcomes of children.
As Regnerus concludes, “Perhaps in social reality there really are two ‘gold standards’ of family stability and context for children’s flourishing—a heterosexual stably-coupled household and the same among gay/lesbian households—but no population-based sample analysis is yet able to consistently confirm wide evidence of the latter.” What we can say at this point is that “the probability-based evidence that exists . . . suggests that the biologically-intact two-parent household remains an optimal setting for the long-term flourishing of children.” There is no other type of household of which that can be confidently said.
Further strengthening the case Regnerus has so ably made is a remarkably comprehensive review of what social science knows about the intersection of sexuality, family structure, and childrearing effects, by Professor Walter Schumm of Kansas State University, in the same issue of Social Science Research.
According to Schumm, we know that it makes more sense to regard “the concept of sexual orientation as ‘fluid’ rather than fixed at birth.” And it appears that sexual orientation is subject in the case of children to profound influence depending on family structure.
As Schumm notes, a number of studies “concur in observing significantly higher rates of same-sex behavior or identity among children of same-sex versus heterosexual parents.” (This finding was also evident in the NFSS results reported by Regnerus.) We know from other studies besides the NFSS that long-term stable lesbian and gay couples raising children are extremely rare, or at least that finding them is so difficult that statistical analyses are problematic.
We know that “many children from eventual gay or lesbian families have been born into heterosexual families.” We have reason to believe that “lesbian parents . . . have substantially higher rates of relationship instability than do heterosexual parents,” and that “given the apparent fluidity of sexual orientation in general, but especially for women, it may even be rare for parents to maintain a same-sex orientation for 18 years, much less remaining with the same partner for that time.” We know that “multiple primary caregiver transitions, presumably regardless of the sexual orientation of parents, are stressful for children and increase the risk of poor child outcomes.” Is it any wonder, then, that the New Family Structures Study yielded the results it did?
Overall, Schumm concludes, Regnerus conducted eminently defensible scientific research, making decisions about research design and analysis “within the ball park of what other credible and distinguished researchers have been doing within the past decade.”
Dave,
Regenerus responds to his critics.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/10/6786/
You are all missing a very simple point. This battle over SSM equality is trending one way, and only one way. SS couples are already getting married in multiple jurisdictions. Eventually the other states will be forced to recognize these LEGAL marriages as SS couples move around as they do all other LEGAL marriages. These cases will decided on intrastate laws and mnay other parties are fully vested in protecting the “sanctity” of a myriad of legal contracts across state lines.
The state by state shift is just a tactical detail in a one way war (wait twenty years. States like MS will be the last to go and it will come by Federal action that over rules state law.
SS couples DO NOT need your approval and a religious objections are not relevant in courts. Why should a SS couple care what a Bishop has to say, the Bishops could care less what an atheist gay person as to say. Get that 30% of adults under 30 and essentially non-religious and immune to theocratic arguments.
In the end equality and freedom always wins out. By 2030 the generations that most firmly oppose SSM will be gone. There will so few opponents that the GOP will long forgotten this issue.
dch,
I personally would not care who married whom, if this did not have broader implications. In countries where SSM has become the law of the land, we have seen legal fights waged against teachers, schools, and others who hold a different view.
Forcing people to act against their conscience etc, simply because they disagree with gay marriage or sex-education.
I think we have to be in search of truth in all of this. The biological truth is that children are born from the union of a man and a woman. We have manipulated and contrived to try to make if different than that, but in the end, it still takes a cell from a woman and a man to make a baby. We don’t make the rules on that. Marriage is society’s way of tying this biological fact to responsibly caring and nurturing the children born from these unions. Another biological and sociological fact is that we call the woman who has a child a mother, and the man who has fathered a child a father. If we use the same logic as SSM advocates use, then we are being discriminatory against men by not allowing them to be mothers, and against women by not allowing them to be fathers. At some point these arguments for equality reach well beyond common sense.
Momon,
No two couples are the same, which means no two marriages are the same. There is no marriage equality anywhere.
On an existential level, acceding to the possibility of one’s gayness is a well of despair. Even from the ancients, the force and direction of life was derived from going beyond a mere singular existence. Often this was achieved from engendering progeny “from one’s loins” who would carry on a name, and hence an identity. No one can escape the prevelance of this idea throughout the ages. But even deeper than the idea of passing on one’s existence to future generations, participation in the overflowing and abounding force of life demanded a “straight” orientation. Being “alive” meant being directed in a heterosexual orientation. “Gay” people were somehow excluded. They could never indulge in the life force except in a misdirected, furtive and shameful way. They were not partakers of the great mystery unfolding all around us. Even more, subjectified in characters like Iago and Ahab, there was a malevolent, dark, brooding, antisocial, indeed “deviant” suggestion. Indeed this perception is confirmed through many historical, literary and artistic sources. My question is: can legislation change all that? Can social engineering “right” what’s wrong about being gay? Can forcing hurling threats like “you’re homophobic” make people stop being homophobic. And more importantly, can imposing gay parents on innocent children, who have presumably already been victimized and impaired, be anything less than a diabolical experiment. I know that “history is moving this way, who can stop it.” But history has been wrong before. History even teaches us that it’s wrong. What’s right?
“In countries where SSM has become the law of the land, we have seen legal fights waged against teachers, schools, and others who hold a different view.”
So what? Those side issues will get worked out over time. The fact that gay people existence is disturbing to religious conservatives is not a problem that gay people can solve, its religious conservatives that have the problem (its all in their heads).
“And more importantly, can imposing gay parents on innocent children, who have presumably already been victimized and impaired, be anything less than a diabolical experiment.”
Simple answer: No. Provide a single concrete example for any of that broad assertion that child abuse is more prevalent is SSM couple vs the straight couple population with children. Gay woman have been producing children all along.
Lisa,
I will also add that I get it that you find my views on religion offensive, because they conflict with yours. Well, guess what I find your arguments for diversity offensive too. I will accept the priestess/pansexualist, if you accept Jews for Jesus. We will all be inclusive, anything less will be a theocracy.
Think about that the next time you want to interfere in sacramental church issues.
I’m amazed how people scream about separation of church and state and then support the government redefining marriage.
Separation of church and state means the state should stay OUT of the marriage business. Why do people in govt always think they know more about everything than the citizens do?
Marriage is a religious construct NOT a govt one. The govt has no interest in whether churches marry people of the same faith, same race or same sex.
It is none of the governments business.
Get govt out of our bedrooms.
Get govt out of our churches.
Get govt out of our kitchens.
Get govt out of our business.
Rob,
You can’t blame the govt, when churches have given to Cesar, what belongs to God.
@savvy
I can and do blame the govt.
The govt is the ethical authority in this country and violates its own constitution, to the detriment of the American people.
.
However I agree that the church, and we the people of the church, needs to stop abandoning our mission to govt. Sadly those people, and bishops, that think that they are doing God’s will by telling the govt to steal from the rich and give to the poor are suffering from a reading comprehension and a moral deficit problem.
.
God did not say make sure the people are fed. He said, FEED my people. Therefore having someone else (in this case the people the govt steals the money from) feed God’s people is not in accordance with His command or His will.
.
However this is no excuse for the govt to violate its constitution or to violate our religious rights.
“Separation of church and state means the state should stay OUT of the marriage business. Why do people in govt always think they know more about everything than the citizens do?
Marriage is a religious construct NOT a govt one.”
1. I was married in Japan in a city office. The marriage was recognized by the US government 15 minutes later at a US Consular office. No church was involved, nor could be as this involved international law and a NON-christian country. We’ve been married for 29 years.
2. So you are also willing to accept ALL OTHER RELIGIONS versions of marriage by definition. Even better, then gay people can simply create a new religion that defines marriage as a same sex union defined by a god. Your Bishops could say nothing or do anything about a new religion.
Still like the idea?
@dch
Sure, what should I care what other people’s practices are? I might try to share the Gospel with them, but only if I think they can be open to it.
.
The point is, I am not forced to act upon other people’s religion. If you are a priest or a rabbi and I am buddhist, you are just a man to me. If you are married or some other name for a bond outside the Catholic church then you are just another person in God’s creation to me.
.
The problem comes in, as with almost everything in society, when the govt tries to force you to treat someone differently, against your will or recognition. If someone is gay or thinks they are gay, that does not require me to treat them differently than another person. If someone thinks they are married, but I do not accept that, I should have no govt enforced obligation to treat them other than another person.
.
The devil’s manipulation of the left’s position on gay marriage has a more sinister purpose. Many good people promote adoption as an alternative to abortion. After all, if adoption is arranged, financial support for the pregnancy and the health of the mother and child is usually provided. It becomes a less than 9 month problem for the mother who generally benefits from the experience, even for a young woman, this period of time is not life ending.
However the church has been forced OUT of adoption by states that insist that the Catholic church recognize gay couples as equal to married couples. For the devil, this represents a victory over life.
.
I’m not saying that most people on the left look at the gay marriage issue this way, most are well meaning and just have a simplistic view of the issue, not realizing that marriage benefits, adoption and many other legal structures come along with “gosh their in love, why can’t they marry”.
.
As I’ve said before, falling in love with someone is not the reason we have marriage. Marriage is a pair-bond for the purpose of conceiving and raising children. The sacrament of marriage affirms what God has revealed to us through nature, scripture, revelation and through the church.
Rob,
Parliament wants to force the Church of England’s hand on the sacraments. People say this will not happen in the U.S. I do not trust the diversity dictators.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2012/11/23/parliament-should-beware-taking-a-peoples-republic-of-china-approach-to-women-bishops/
“The point is, I am not forced to act upon other people’s religion.”
Exactly, which is why marriage is a CIVIL matter from a practical point of view. If you ignore gay people who are married no harm will come to you, just has no harm has come to you since gay people started getting married in 2004. Since that day in 2004 not a SINGLE material harm has occurred to another individual that OUTWEIGHS the individual rights of same-sex couple to be treated equally under the law. Your side was unable to name a SINGLE legally relevant harm in a federal court trial last year when provide the opportunity.
As a said above, the outcome of this war is not in doubt as time and generational demographics have already determined the outcome.
@dch
.
No
1) The govt has no business declaring CIVIL marriage as marriage is a religious concept.
2) If the govt FORCES me to recognize CIVIL marriage.
- I must offer marriage benefits to them.
- I must offer married housing to them.
- I must offer adoption to them.
- I must offer life insurance, health insurance and any other family benefit.
.
So don’t pretend that no harm comes to me. I must pay more for people because they have “declared their love” for each other. There are several lawsuits against employers or landlords who do not recognize the govt redefinition of marriage and this ultimately results in a gun to your head to recognize the “marriage” or a gun to your head to pay the fine, or jail time.
.
Also benefits that were intended to support families who have and raise children are diluted or deleted because people can claim benefits for which they have no right.
.
In separation of church and state the state has no right to redefine a religious term and then force individuals to recognize it - but that is exactly what you are supporting.
.
The outcome will be elimination of marriage benefits, damage to marriage and loss of individual rights.
.
What govt should do is declare that it does not recognize marriage, only individuals, but then you would not be able to bully people into your “religious” views.
@savvy
“Parliament wants to force the Church of England’s hand on the sacraments.”
.
I’m not familiar with the laws in socialist England and since the british church has in the past at least been a state religion, this might not be so surprising.
.
It is part of the reason that people left England to come to the more religiously tolerant/diverse colonies.
.
Unfortunately people like dch want to take that freedom away and enforce a govt secular religion here in the US.
“1) The govt has no business declaring CIVIL marriage as marriage is a religious concept.
2) If the govt FORCES me to recognize CIVIL marriage.
- I must offer marriage benefits to them.
- I must offer married housing to them.
- I must offer adoption to them.
- I must offer life insurance, health insurance and any other family benefit.”
1. Marriage law is already exclusively covered under civil law; and gay people getting married was not the reason for that. The government did not take that away from the church. Plenty of people are married civilly everyday without involving a religious rite - theocracy was left behind in the old world.
2. Yes, people married under civil law must be treated in accordance to laws - ALL of THEM - individual don’t get not recognize other people’s legal marriages.
How do you know how people are married in the first place? Its recorded by the state (religious marriage is a private matter).
We as individuals, or employers, or landlords, do not get to pick and choose who else is legally married - the state does. This is well established case law that pre-dates SSM.
The RCC is perfectly and correctly within it rights to deny a “Catholic marriage” to couple not meeting its standards, and does so all the time.
3. Equal treatment under the law IS the law of the land. Good luck trying to discriminate against a legally married couple - you’d have to first repeal the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution!
“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
And so yes, parties that discriminate can be sued, its how the system works. Its only a burden to you if you choose to violate the constitutional rights of others. I don’t have to like my Hindu neighbor, but I cannot discriminate against them.
Redress is through the courts, which are not going to side with you as the 14th will trump you; or through congress amending the Constitution where your chances are zero.
As I said many times, this war is already over. The good news is no one actually loses anything. (I am not gay, and have been married for 29 years. I had a gay brother and so this is something I will fight for.)
@dch
.
So now you admit:
1) The govt is taking over marriage despite separation of church and state.
2) It does hurt me.
3) It is an attack on religion.
4) You are making up a new definition of marriage so you can give people inappropriate benefits.
.
BTW you do not understand equal protection under the law. It has nothing to do with individuals or businesses activities, it requires the govt to provide equal protection.
.
There is no right to not be discriminated against.
.
People like you that want to shove your religion down peoples throats and threaten them with jail if they do not meet your infantile view of politically correct are the same people that made Nazi Germany.
It will turn on you one day.
Rob,
I will ignore the Nazi reference, its over the top and no worth the time. Neither you nor I are Nazis.
You have completely ignored the fact that he RCC was NEVER in charge of family and marriage law in the USA. Therefore, “he govt is taking over marriage despite separation of church and state.” is incorrect and illogical. The churches are mot presently in control of marriage in the USA. States simply recognize religious wedding ceremonies. No one os obligated to get married by a priest or minister.
Gay citizens getting married is not an “attack on religion” its is a completely a matter of civil law. The RCC has survived for over a thousand years, it will survive NON-Catholics getting married, even if a few are gay.
Thanks for the discussion.
@dch
Please do not ignore the Nazi reference - I meant it as a reference to National Socialist govts that are driven by people who want to impose their “progressive” ideas/religion on others.
.
The RCC has always been in charge of marriage within the church and I have never advocated for them to own or control “law in the USA”. Marriage is a religious sacrament, civil recognition of marriage happened much later.
.
You wish to use force against Catholics and force them to recognize a new definition of marriage, against their religious rights (which are/were guaranteed by the constitution).
.
In my view, you are the bigot here. While I may disagree with you I have no desire to have you jailed or prosecuted for your view, I will advocate the use of force against you or anyone for their beliefs. However you will use the force of the govt to force me to violate my faith, close my business or go to jail.
.
You have already said in your past post, that people will be forced to recognize civil marriage, and that is true. That IS an attack on religion - an attack of civil law against religion.
.
Gay marriage has support because most people do not realize the implications of govt recognition. People think, “why shouldn’t we just let gay people call it marriage if they want, how does that harm anyone?”
.
What they fail to connect is the HHS mandate on sterilization, contraceptives and abortion. How this “let people do what they want” issue has been turned against religious communities - forcing them to close their doors or drop insurance completely.
.
If the govt can force Catholic institution to pay for abortion, sterilization and contraceptives, how can you make a case that they will not force Catholic institutions to perform gay marriages, provide gay marriage benefits and teach children in Catholic schools that gay marriage is acceptable?
.
The RCC is not against gay marriage because they are somehow intolerant. They are in fact not against gays at all - they teach that we should love all people. They are against sex outside of marriage - marriage being the lifetime pair-bond of humans for the purpose of conceiving and raising children. Gay marriage just does not meet this definition, it is not procreative and therefore not marriage.
.
Finally I am glad that you had a gay brother (and I am sorry if he has passed on). I do feel bad that sometime people become the political footballs in discussions like this. I only want to stop the persecution of the church and the false characterization of Catholics as somehow being bigoted because they believe that marriage, sex, procreation and life are sacred and bound in a sacrament.
Thank you as well for the discussion.
I like the idea that, for an incest ban only one or a few prospective marriage partners are precluded, but for a “gay marriage” ban - the world is off limits; all possible partners are out. How wickedly melodramatic. It reminds me of the scene from “Angels in America” where makeup and stagecraft take over.
The fact is, that the success of GMIA has been a triumph of sentimentalism of all reason. There are a myraid of reasons why GMIA is a laughable alternative. In fact, this argument has adduced a veritable compendium of logic to assist the cause of Catholic Marriage. It shows the overwhelming superiority of Catholic theology and teaching. However, none of that matters in the face of libttle cliparts showing two grooms atop a layer cake.
This is not about rights. Our founding fathers, who knew well the language of rights, are clearly behind the Catholic Church on this one - it’s written in black and white in our aboriginal document.
This is about Popeye philosophy and James Dean jurisprudence. This is about two undergrads sitting for a physics test after a night of blowing joints. And unfortunately, this is about political opportunists and “useful idiots.” Neither of whom know at all what they’re about.
But let religionists prove faithful as well, and give the final nod to the object of our adoration. When all else fails, read the instructions. There’s lot’s to be said for heading for the hills.
Yes they do Kathleen. For example in Monaco you need to have both a civil union and, optionally, a religious ceremony. I would tend to agree with the writer that withdrawing from society, unless our existence is physically threatened, is not the way to go.
As Jesus said, What use is a lamp if you put it under your bed? (my translation). Similarly ceding from the Union is also flawed. We’d be liable to become like the Amish, who are no use as a proselytizing force despite their otherwise admirable family and self-supporting virtues.
Furthermore, by ceding from the USA, Christians would become a curiosity seen only occasionally in National Geographic documentaries as quaint but hopelessly out-of-date communities who no longer have any relevance to society.
Dave
I hope it was obvious from context but:
“I will advocate the use of force against…”
should have read:
“I will NEVER advocate the use of force against…”
“We’d be liable to become like the Amish, who are no use as a proselytizing force despite their otherwise admirable family and self-supporting virtues.”
There are other ways to “cede” without resorting to horse and buggy. (However, thank God for the Amish.)
You can basically opt out of the rat-race consumer economy. The “1%” of uber rich live on all that superfluous spending that now has become de riguer. Suffice it to say that 40% of the contemporary economy is based on things that didn’t even exist 25 years ago. The number increases to 60% if you go back 50 years. How did we ever live without Jobs?
Back in the day, large families were not unusual (except for white-bread, country club america). Houses had 5 bedrooms routinely, and not 3 “master suites.” Catholic families could afford to send 8 children to parochial school. Today that is impossible.
The path you beat to the Mall is your road to political subjection. Your “discretionary spending” determines if your life will lead to personal and national transcendance, or end in a latex balloon. How you spend the 2% of your income uncle sam leaves you, will tell how your children will live, and their children after them.
Nancy Reagan had a wonderful idea: just say no. She meant “say no to the drugs of materialism, waste and obscenity.” Mrs. Obama has taken up the drumbeat, but changed the meaning to “just say no to inexpensive and readily available food that forms a major part of the diet of many low-income Americans.”
Let them eat (highly nutritious, and increasingly expensive) cake.
Matt B ,
This thread has been going on for some time…
Just a word on the Amish-they’re increasing in population,spreading to new parts of the USA, & have a high rate of retention from one generation to the next.
I try in my own way to opt out of the rat race.I raise chickens for fresh eggs, grow fruit trees & a few vegetables.I shop at the Goodwill & make homemade Christmas gifts.I visited a shopping mall 3 years ago to redeem a gift certificate & haven’t been back since.
We have conservative Mennonite friends. Their children are either homeschooled or attend a one room schoolhouse.Tuition cost is never an issue, no matter how many children a family has.Their church community helps out if the family has financial needs.
I think we’ve forgotten some important things as Catholics.Years ago we had larger families, owned less materially, but were happier.Now we have fewer children, more income, & work endlessly to consume more & more stuff that can never bring us peace nor joy.
I think it should, my husband and I got married first civilly then we got married in the church. We may be an example of what is to come…
Kathleen, I couldn’t agree with you more.
Here’s the next weird step after SSM, I guess.While reading the news at BBC online I saw this item from Germany.Germany had actually made “interspecies attraction” legal unless the animal(s) was harmed.Now animal rights groups want it banned again, but the animal-attraction folks are protesting:
“But Michael Kiok, the chairman of the pressure group Zoophile Engagement for Tolerance and Information (Zeta), said he was going to take legal action to fight the proposed changes.
“It is unthinkable that any sexual act with an animal is punished without proof that the animal has come to any harm,” he said, adding that animals are capable of showing what they do, or do not, want to do.
“We see animals as partners and not as a means of gratification. We don’t force them to do anything. Animals are much easier to understand than women,” Mr Kiok claimed.”
BBC News-Europe
Legal marriages were started because men would get a woman pregnant, flee and not take care of the child in any way. The law made it so the man can be found and made to support his child -legally. The laws now make it the same,only the state now takes the responsibility of the man in welfare, WIC, food stsmps etc.!
There are some who would like to be married again in the church, after an annulment (and I think there are way too many of those being granted!) but they are “tied” to a pension, SS or other from the first spouse and another legal marriage would end that support. Women deserve that support from the first spouse if they had children, worked or not out of the home, did the laundry, cooking, diaper changing etc.etc.. I don’t think the church would let them have just a spiritual marriage. That could be rectified if the church only gave spiritual marriages.
If people need or want (and they should) a legal tie then let them go to a judge and be married again legally.
@Phyllis Poole said “Legal marriages were started because men would get a woman pregnant, flee and not take…”
.
Rubbish! Phyllis did you make that up yourself or read it somewhere?
We definitely need men to take responsibility for the children that they father. The football player that just killed himself was the father of a child born out of wedlock. I believe that had they been married he would still be alive today (as well as the woman he killed). It appears that the mother felt no sense of loyalty to him in going out late dancing. More people with kids should be married. In this case, it is a real tragedy.
I think the proposal is backwards. The state should get out of the marriage business. As the piece points out, marriage has already become a hollowed out farce. Let the state register beneficiaries, or some other term, to designate two (or more, I gues) people who participate in some sort of pre-planned property and rights distribution contract. Save the concept of marriage for the church and let the various faiths get their spiritual houses in order without pressure from the government.
@Bill S
“We definitely need men to take responsibility for the children that they father.”
.
That is a nice bumper sticker, but the fact is most violence in domestic breakups is because the father is forced out of the family.
.
No man should have to be a slave, paying for a family where the mother and courts have stolen his children and parental rights, but still want him to pay.
.
That is immoral and just doesn’t make sense, yet we see it over and over again - courts forcing men out of families and into financial slavery.
I volunteered for Catholic Charities helping men in those situations. I heard their side of the story and had to sympathize with them. All I can say is there are two sides to every story. This wasn’t so much of a problem when people didn’t typically have children out of wedlock.
We just had a terrible case locally where a preschooler was brutally killed by the mom’s live-in boyfriend.Then a couple days later, a 3 month old baby died in another home under similar circumstances.
I think if you look at the data, statistics suggest that the safest place for children to live is in a home with married parents.It’s a fallen world & bad things can happen then, too, but less frequently.
Kathleen,
How are your 8 children and 8.5 (or is it 9) grandchildren. Do you still follow Jennifer’s Blog?
“The state should get out of the marriage business.”
That’s not realistic. We need the state to keep records, if for nothing else, for tax purposes. It would be a mess if the IRS had to rely on church records, justices of the peace, etc. Some information has to be centralized.
The church should keep doing what it’s doing. I know it would never marry same sex couples, divorcees without annulments, etc., but it should keep marrying couples who want to make their vows in the church.
@Bill S
“That’s not realistic. We need the state to keep records, if for nothing else, for tax purposes.”
.
Why should the state care for tax purposes? Get rid of the marriage penalty and tax people the same. Besides, the churches keep records just fine.
.
If we didn’t rely on the govt for every little thing in our lives, maybe they wouldn’t have the power to tell us what to think, what to say and how to live.
Rob,
The US population is large and consists of many diverse faith traditions and many people who are not affiliated with any faith tradition. Marriage records and all what are called vital statistics (marriages, births, deaths, cause of death, reportable comunicable diseases) etc are best kept by state governments. Such record keeping is curently done by the states, with some stats being reported to various federal agencies (CDC maily in the case of births, causes of death, communicable diseases). And this record keeping by the states really has nothing to do with federal tax regulation/tax code. In addition, these kinds of recoreds, kept by the states and by counties, and regulated by the states as to when and how they can be accessed (by those in need of certified record,s by genologists, etc) is really best done by the states. All 50 states and all counties currently have these systems in place, they are efficient and well-run. No need to get any church involved.
BTW, the RCC is just as guilty, if not more so if trying, to tell people how to thinks , what to say, how to live, than the Feds. Given the choice between the corrupt RC hierarchy and the FEDs, I will take the FEds any day of the week.
“If we didn’t rely on the govt for every little thing in our lives, maybe they wouldn’t have the power to tell us what to think, what to say and how to live.”
Everyone needs some form of government and ours is the least intrusive on personal freedoms. It certainly doesn’t tell us what to think and say or how to live. Are you and I living in the same country or are you from Cuba?
Hi Lisa Kaiser,
I am not unaware of this. However the state does not NEED to bother with marriage. Birth records capture mother and father and for half of all births the parents are not married anyway.
.
My point is that if the state and the church cannot agree on marriage it is the state NOT the church that needs to back down. Marriage is a religious ceremony first and foremost and has only been tracked more recently by govt.
.
If you believe in separation of church and state then the state and not the church needs to get out of the marriage business.
.
Legal arrangements, prenuptial agreements, unions, trusts or special marriage contracts can all be filed separately and legally without the state interfering - unless a legal contract has been broken.
@Bill S
“That’s not realistic. We need the state to keep records, if for nothing else, for tax purposes.”
I didn’t say the state should abandon record keeping. I said the state needs to get out of the marriage business and define a new secular, contract oriented process for the necessary task of record keeping and benefit distribution. This lets marriage stay in the realm of faith, and property rights etc stay in the realm of the state and the legal system.
@Bill S
“Everyone needs some form of government and ours is the least intrusive on personal freedoms. It certainly doesn’t tell us what to think and say or how to live. Are you and I living in the same country or are you from Cuba?”
.
People do NOT need govt. We agree to govt to provide services. Ours is nowhere near the least intrusive. We have a govt that may read your email, record your cell messages, read your text and murder you without a warrant. I guess you have not been paying attention the last 10 years.
.
The state taxes products to modify our behavior, regulates radio and television, makes us go to a doctor to get medicine and wear a seat belt.
You can go back 100 years and the presence of the govt was almost non-existent in day to day life, now you need only pick up a food package to see the govts current best guess on how we should eat (of course obesity has gone up since they started forcing manufacturers to add labels).
.
Govt regulates how large a coke you can buy in NY and will punish you if you put your garbage can out at the curb the night before pickup.
.
Doesn’t it seem odd to you that so many little elements of your life are regulated, taxed or fined? I grew up learning to be free and independent, not wishing for the govt to be my parent.
Rob,
In human history, marriage existed loooong before any organized faith tradition existed. So no, marriage is NOT first and foremost a religious ceremony. Trhoughout human hsitory, in many times , in many places, in many societies, marriage is first and foremost a contract—a binding agreement between families. In our time, marriage remains first and foremost a legally bonding contract—that is why divorce is necessary when spouse separate. Divorce is the termination of that legally binding contract. Yes, you may disagree with that. But that is the reality in our nation and in most civilized nations.
The US is not a Christian nation or a nation founded in or governed by any faith tradition. In many nations today, the legally binding contract of marriage is governed by the state and then couples have the option of a religious cermony (which is not the ceremony that constitutes the legal cotract called marriage). I think somebody above mentioned Princess Grace and the country of Monaco as an example of that model.
If people wnat their faith tradition to bless their marriage—that is good. But marriage is first and foremost a legal contract in our society and civil government has the right to set the legal parameters of that contract.
@Lisa Kaiser
No Lisa you a just wrong.
Marriage is religious and predates organized govt. That is a fact.
Agreements were made between spouses or families.
.
I don’t think it has anything to do with a Christian nation or any other religion. The state has very little interest in marriage other than when courts are requested to settle a legal contract dispute.
.
“marriage is first and foremost a legal contract in our society” - great line, I assume you are not married. BTW if that were the case, why are LGBT groups screaming that a contract or civil union is not sufficient?
Rob,
Nope marriage is first and foremost a legal contract—a situation that loooong pre-dated any faith traidtion.
For gay people, marriage right now is done state by state and those marriages are not recognized by the federal government as they for stright people. Which means that gay people do not have the smae rights re social security benefits, taxes, etc as straight people. Alos right now, because marriage is doen state by state for gay people, other states are currently free not tot recognize those marriages. Which is not the situation for staright marriages due tot he Full Faith and Cridit Clause of the US Constitution. So civil unions are NOT the same as marriage under federal law—and that is the problem with civil uions for gay people.
And since yo want the RCC to and other churches to control marriage, what about divorce. Church divorce courts?????
And again, what people who are not affiliated with any church or faith traidtion. Nope, the legal recognition of marriage needs to remain with government. This is the USA, not Iran or Yemen or Saudia Arabia. We do not need theocarcy. That is for the uncivilized.
Posted by Lisa Kaiser on Thursday, Dec 6, 2012 10:49 AM (EDT):Rob,
Nope marriage is first and foremost a legal contract—a situation that loooong pre-dated any faith traidtion.”
**********************************************
Depends on your definition of marriage perhaps, but in reference to Adam & Eve I don’t think a legal contract might apply.
Just curious, do you post comments on Muslim or Orthodox Jewish sites as well?
Kathleen,
What blogs Iread and where I post comments is none of your concern.
And since Adam and Eve are mythical, I am not certain what your point is
I agree with Lisa. However, Lisa, I think you miss understood Kathleen. I think she meant to feel the same way about Islam and Judaism.
@Lisa Kaiser
.
Thanks for being a great example of why we do not want govt bullying religion at every turn. You are ignorant and yet so sure of yourself that you are happy to force other people to live under your rule.
.
You also seem to be hung up on “control”. I am not suggesting that the RCC control anything. If you want a marriage go to your church (it should have no legal status). If you want to proclaim your love before nature, go do it in a park (it should have no legal status). If you want to sign a contract go to your lawyer.
.
Religion is purely voluntary, you have no obligation to be married in a church, you have no one to answer to but God.
.
I am all for contracts if people wish to voluntarily bind themselves to whatever terms they find agreeable, whether that is “marriage” or a business partnership. Just don’t start forcing people to sign contracts or forcing others to provide benefits to people who are married.
.
It is joke to hear the people who eschew marriage, fight for sex outside of marriage, insist on glorifying having a baby outside of marriage, use contraceptives to prevent the purpose of marriage, demand abortion rights that reject the father’s role in a marriage suddenly sooo interested in securing the “all important” right of a marriage.
.
You said “Alos right now, because marriage is doen state by state for gay people, other states are currently free not tot recognize those marriages. Which is not the situation for staright marriages due tot he Full Faith and Cridit Clause of the US Constitution. So civil unions are NOT the same as marriage under federal law”
.
Not sure where you are going with this, but if the govt stopped providing special benefits to “married” couple, then a legal contract would be binding on the two parties involved and there would be no “other” benefit.
.
The bottom line is that you want to force the church to submit to the power of the state. To change its religion to align to a political movement that has no purpose other than defeating religion. The Democratic party dedicated a good portion of its convention in Charlotte to glorifying their poster child for attacking religion, sandra fluk (a 30 year old lawyer that didn’t want a right to use contraceptives at a Catholic University, she want the right to FORCE that Catholic University to pay for her contraceptives, sterilization or abortion). Now you are using the LGBT community to justify forcing religions to redefine marriage.
Posted by Lisa Kaiser on Thursday, Dec 6, 2012 11:12 AM (EDT):Kathleen,
What blogs Iread and where I post comments is none of your concern.
And since Adam and Eve are mythical, I am not certain what your point is”
**
Lisa,
I’m not trying to pry, but I’m curious because Muslims & Orthodox Jews share many of the same views on marriage as Catholics.So, I’m puzzled why you single out Catholic sites like this one for comments? Or if you do post on sites for Muslims or Orthodox Jews, I’d be sincerely interested in what responses you’ve received.I think other readers might be, too.
Just recently I read that Catholics & Muslim leaders united in France against same sex marriage legislation.
From our point of view, Adam & Eve were united by God, not a legal contract.I understand that as a Reform Jew, you might differ.
Rob,
Marriage but its nature confers legal rights, responibilities, benefits, separate and apart from the US federal government. Ther is a whole body of American law re marriage that is based upon English common and other historical understandings of marriage as a legalyy binding contract. So the Feds really ahve nothing to do with marriage. Marriage is a human insitution that has a long legal history.
The RCC is already subject to all state and federal laws. And in some cases the RCC happily volunteers to be subject to American law. For example, the RCC happily accepts that it is allowed to be a tx-exempt non-profit purusant to US tax law. The RCC is subject to all the laws in each nation in which it has presence. The RCC is NOT above American law. Even re marraige, the RCC must and does abide by the laws of each state in which teh RCC performs legally recognized marriages.
Kathleen,
Adam and eVe are mythical figures. Totally fictionall—so contracts or eve God have nothing to do with adam and Eve. And the viewpoints of my faith tradition have nothing to do with Adam and Eve either.
Rob,
BTW, when the federal government recognizes the right of gay people to marry (with federal recognition of those marriages and with the application of the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the US Constituion), the RCC will remain free NOT to marry anyone it does not wish to marry. Teh RCC ahs that right now re divorced people, etc. The RCC will never be forced to marry same-sex couples, if that is what you are worried about.
But in general, the legal situation re marraige is best left to the states and to the federal government—which is the situation now. The religious aspects, and the religious aspects alone belong to the churches. It would be totaly un-American for churches to have any control over the legal aspects of marriage (as Rob seems to want).
Kathleen,
One reason I post comments on RC sites is that the RCC spends millions upon millions of dollars in the US trying to deny some American citizens their unalienable rights under our US Constitution. Neither Muslim groups nor Orthodox Jews spend the kind of time, money, effort in trying to enshrine bigotry and discrimination, and inequality into American law that the RCC does.
@Lisa Kaiser
.
You are a bigot and your hatred of the church is not wanted here.
You repeat your lies in typical political rhetoric form.
.
You know that just as with abortion and contraception, marriage is being used as an excuse to prosecute the church. Which is obviously your goal.
.
Your sick attempt to define the church defending the faith as bigotry is something we have all seen over and over again. The issue is not concern for peoples rights as you pretend, but your hatred of rights.
.
Your hatred and arrogance are obvious in how you ignore what people say and dismiss their faith as mythical and uncivilized. The constitutional freedom of religion is written to protect our rights from fascists like you.
“You know that just as with abortion and contraception, marriage is being used as an excuse to prosecute the church. Which is obviously your goal.”
Ron please! You’re making a fool of yourself. Lisa is right about just about everything she has said. Especially about how the church spends so much time and money trying to control other people’s lives. People like you defend the church. While your intentions are come fable, you are only helping to perpetuate an abuse of the voting power of America Catholics, which appears to be waning.
Kathleen, I am sorry but I have to go with Lisa on this one. Especially about Adam and Eve.
Lisa,
Thank you for your responses.But you still haven’t clarified whether you only choose Catholic sites to comment on or if you share your opinions on sites hosted by other faiths who also oppose SSM.
Do you have the data supporting your claim regarding how much time & resources the Catholic Church spends to defend marriage? I’ve personally not researched this for our church, nor Jews or Muslims.(Or Baptists for that matter.)
As a Reform Jew, you must be aware that many Jews in other movements are deeply against SSM.You also, just as an informed individual, must know how Muslims feel about the issue & how it’s dealt with in some Muslim countries.Conservative Protestant groups have very strong-and what seem to Catholics-uncharitable things to say about homosexuals.
I’m very glad you feel comfortable to express yourself on a Catholic site & hope that all who respond to you will do so in genuine charity.But I also am guessing that as a former Catholic, now a Reform Jew, you may have a perception of the Church which has beome distorted-maybe out of some hurt, misunderstanding or other reason?
I hate to see religious bigotry & sectarianism.We all have the capacity for these distortions, as history bears out.I would like to suggest, in all charity, that you seek out information about this subject with an open mind.You don’t need to agree, but just try to look at the entire subject without preconceptions & in relation to how other faith traditions are approaching it.
Ron,
I do not hate the RCC, but ai do object to some of things its bishops are doing and promoting. Also, I did not dimiss anyone’s faith as myhtical. Adam and Eve, as described in Genesis were not real people. And the RCC does NOT teach that Genesis should be read as a book of science or should be read literally. And look around the world today. Place where there are theocracies are uncivilized palces—places with dictators, palces where therw is NO freedom of religion, places where torture is routine, ehre people are imprionsed for their political beliefs, where there is no democracy,
Also, I am not a facist. Quite the contrary. I love the US Cnstitution and the freedoms it enshrines and guarantees. And I will stand up against any faith tradition that wants to negate the Constitutional rights of any American citizen.
“I love the US Cnstitution and the freedoms it enshrines and guarantees. And I will stand up against any faith tradition that wants to negate the Constitutional rights of any American citizen.”
Wow! That says it all for me too. Why do people like me monitor these blogs? Because we want to keep people honest. We don’t want people to spout religious beliefs as if they are facts. In many cases, there are religious beliefs, and then there is the truth. On rare occasions, religious beliefs coincide with the truth. But those are few and far between. Most religious beliefs are generated by people like Carol Wotija (sp?) and Joseph Ratzinger. We will be forever indebted to John Paul II for standing up to the Soviet Union. But he was very backwards in many other regards. And Benedict XVI just perpetuates the same kind of anti-modernist thinking.
I welcome people like Lisa Kaiser who set the record straight.
Kathleen,
As to the millions and millions of dollars the RC bishops in the US spend on trying to deny some American citizzens their Constitutional rights, that has been and still is widely reported in reputalbe media sources. A brief Google search will set you in the right direction re that information.My preception fo the RCC is accurate and most certainly not the result of some “hurt or misunderstanding”. If one is crtical of the behavior of the RCC, it has be becasue of a mispercpetion or because of some hurt or misunderstanding??? Not because the RCC is wrong????
And again, no other faith traidtion is spending millions upon millions of dollars to enshrine bigotry into American law. That is just a fact. Your bishops are wasting the money the laity is giving them. Instead of spending millions upon millions helping the poor, helping the hungry, helping children in need fo food, clothing, shelter, medical attention, the bishops are spending your money on losing political battle. They are aare not being good stewards of their resources.
Bill S.,
Hello!
It’s OK that you see things differently regarding Adam & Eve.Here’s something I saw online that might explain Catholic teaching on the subject a little.Thanks for your comments.I learn more about my Faith this way & appreciate you & others setting the process in motion.
God bless!
Pope Pius XII: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).
The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).
Lisa,
When one makes statements like that, there should be data provided that verifies it & shows it in relation to what other groups spend.And in comparison to what the Catholic Church contributes to charities & humanitarian efforts.That said, I’m glad to contribute to any Cathlic lobbying for the protection of marriage or other family/life issues.Many of the organizations doing that are non-Catholic.
I think the Catholic Church is an easy target for sectarianism & religious bigotry. This saddens me as much as anti-Semitism does.
Kathleen,
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has a wonderful web site and it has great resources re the Bbile. The bishops keep an electronic version of the New American Bilbe and other resources for Bilbical study on its web site. On the RC bishops’ webist is this statement re the Bible: “The Bible is the story of God’s relationship with the people he has called to himself. It is not intended to be read as history text, a science book, or a political manifesto. In the Bible, God teaches us the truths that we need for the sake of our salvation.” A much more postive and accurate view than the old tired emphasis on original sin.
Kathleen,
No other groups ahs the large global resources tha that the RCC does. It is reality, it i fact aht the bishops ARE spending much much tmoney , time & effort to enshrine bigotry into American law than any other faith tradition. It is a reality, even if you do not want to accept it as such.
The RCC is not a target of religious bigotry. The RCC and its bishops are deeply flawed, deeply sinful. If you do not bemoan the waste of money in the losing battle to deny Americans their constitutional rights, then do you bemaon the millions upon millions of dollars the bishops aand RC dioceses have had to pay out as settlements to childrem/young people sexually abused by RC priests? And while this problem of sexual abuse is not confined to the RCC, the the sheer numbers of abused young people, the sheer globals aspect of RC’s problem in this regard, the long-standing/ongoing cover up of the problem by the bishops,—all are unique to the RCC. If the bishops had taken action earlier, had not tried to cover up the problem the number of lawsuits the amount of the settlement might have been much much less. Bishop Finn in KC alone spent $1.3 million trying to dodge responsbility for his criminal acts. Again you can find that information in many reputable media sites. Is that good use the hard-earned money the laity give to the RCC?
The RCC has can blame only its bishops for these problesm. They are facts and pointing them out is not bigotry.
Kathleen,
I am sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with both you and Pius XII. The human race is the end project of a long chain of events that followed the rules of natural selection. There never was a time when we were any better than we are right now. There never was a more noble state of man than there is right now. There never was a sin that condemns us in any way whatsoever. We are a miraculous product of evolution. I have to run. But I hope you understand what I am trying to say. When was the story of Genesis written? And by whom? What did they know? Got to go.
Lisa,
If you have these bitter feelings towards Christians or the Catholic Church in particular, it’s very difficult to have a conversation that’s not colored with distrust & preconceptions.
Every faith has individuals who come up short.That’s not the subject of this thread.
“Much,much money…” is a relative matter.I hope the Church is lobbying for traditional family values just as we lobby for migrants rights & other issues we believe in.Some of those you might believe in, too.
God bless.
PS,
Thanks Lisa.The USCCB do have great website & resources.Glad you’ve checked it out.
Bill S ,
Thanks. It’s still OK if we disagree.I don’t take it personally.I’m glad we can have the conversation.
Have a great evening!
Kathleen,
Citing the facts is not “being bitter”. The facts are the facts. It seem that you do want to admit the facts or face the facts. And I have suggested that you do a Google search re the amount of money the RCC is spending ona losing effort. You will find the facutal information you are looking for. Trying to enshrine bigotry into American law is not a “traditional family value”. It is illogical, irrational, not based in science, an immoral waste of the laity’s money. And in pointing out the vast sums of money (so vast that at least 3 dioceses have had to file for bankruptcy as a result) the bishops had to pay out in sexual abuse settlements, I point out that the bishops are horrible stewards of the money the laity provides them Trying to enshrine bigotry into American law is in no way similar to advocating FOR the decent/humane treatment of immigrants under US law. In trying to enshrine bigotry into American law the RC bishops are campaigning AGAINST the US constituion, against the inalienable rights of all Americans, against decency, against human dignity. When we pledge alliegence to the fal, we pledge allienge to a republic “with liberty and justice for all”. The bishops are waging an anit-American campaign. They are waging a campaign AGAINST liberty and justice for all. And that campaign by the bishops is something every decent American should oppose.
Well, Lisa.It’s kind of a revolving door.We just keep ending up in circles.
Every denomination, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc have failed human beings as members.Citing a particular denomination & the failings or perceived failings of its members in exclusion to any other denomination suggests an agenda.
I’m glad you chose this revolving door, though.Maybe it will eventually lead us to a place we can find fellowship & agreement.God bless!
Bill S,
There is nothing modern about what you claim are modernist views. Pansexuality is not a new discovery. Christians were talking about this in the 1st century and Jews before them. It’s a reversion back to ancient Greece and the last days of the Roman empire.
Edward Fesar, the former atheist in his book, “The Last Superstition” points out the fallacies in the argument that we all unthinking, deterministic creatures.
Lisa,
Marriage is a public institution. Changing it has consequences. The Bishops might be sinners, but this is the same church that feeds, clothes, and educates more people than anybody else on the planet. Whether you like this or not the church runs more schools, hospitals, than anybody else on the planet. It’s the worlds largest charitable organization. Even the United Nations does not come close.
There are some who want the church to shut up and go away, so they can attempt a full government takeover of EVERYTHING. All the undesirables could then be taken care off.
I do not fear people who hold to “love the sinner, hate the sin”, but those who claim there is no sin except what’s politically incorrect.
Kathleen,
Yes, every denomination ahs it sinners and bad guys. But ai think you miss the point here. The RCC is unique in its efforts to enshrine bigotry for several reaons: 1) the RCC is a large, centralized, global instituion. It has a lots of resources to bring to bear. Judaism, while global is not a monolithic faith traidtion with a centalized hieriarchy. Every synagogue is an independent congregation/organization. Islam also seems to be more loosely organized. 20 The RCC is spending millions upon millions of dollars in a losing battle to enshrine bigotry into American law. That statement is not my “agenda” its the truth, its fact. Judaism and Islam are NOT spending such sums. Orthodox Judaism, while opposed to same-sex marriage, is staying pretty much out of the political fray re this issue. Islam also seems to be staying out of the polical fray. 3. No rabbi stands up on Friday evening or Saturday morning in syanagogue and trys to tell Jews haow to vote, much less that their vote for “wrong” issue or candidate will “imperil their immortal soul”—but the RCC does that and the RC bishops compel priests to read such things from bishops at Mass. 4. Judaism and Islam are NOT trying force their teachings into American law.
As for evangelical Christians and Mormons—yes, they join the RCC in pouring lots of money into supporting bigotry against gay Americans. So the RCC is is not in great company there.
I haven’t read “The Last Superstition”. Maybe I will in the near future.
Pansexual people are people attracted to people regardless of their gender. I had to look it up just to make sure I knew what you were talking about. I have a gay son who as far as I know is celebrate. As much as I personally would dislike his marrying another man I would prefer it to seeing how lonely he seems to be. The last thing I would expect is for anyone to have a problem with it or worse still for it to be illegal. Of course the Church is against it but I have come to expect such bigotry and hypocracy (ahem celebrate child molesters ahem) from the Church. Nothing it comes up with will ever surprise me. I guess that answers your comments.
Lisa,
We’d have to agree to disagree on your definition of “bigotry”.
The amount of funds used by the Church to protect traditional family values is unknown by me & possibly by you as well.There may be a source online for that data & for what other groups spend.I personally think it’s money used well by our bishops.
Bill S,
We will not be silenced. Just because there are those in the church who have failed to live up to it’s teachings, this does not mean that the teachings will not be proclaimed.
The issue here is re-defining marriage.
Savvy,
Recognizing the constitutional/inalienable right of gay Americans to marry will have ZERO consequences on society. The RCC certainly has NOT put forward any credible, rational, evidence-based narrative that proves that gay marriage will harm marriage, will harm children, will harm society. The RCC is trying to sell a myth, is trying to sell fear and protect ignorance and bigotry. Gay people marrying will not end western civilization a we know it!!!
If the RCC want to “protect Marriage” it needs to concentrate on straight people. Straight people have trashed marriage. Fifty (50%) of all straight marriages end in divorce. Have you picked up a a newspaper or watched the news lately—the people who abuse children are sttraight people. And it seems to happena lot a th hands of stright stepparents and stright boyfriends. Go tot he webiste of your state’s or any state’s Child Protective Services to look at child abuse stats. There you will see that children are physically/sexually abused and/or killed by straight people.
Your RCC has put forward NO evidence that gay marriage will have ANY NEGATIVE consequences, Its a lie the RCC is trying to sell.
The real enemy of marriage is straight people. Walk into any divorce court in the land and you will hear just want a mess stright people have made of marriage. The TRUE danger to society is married straight people—aks any child of divorced parents.
Savvy,
The RCC is free to preach what it wants re marriage. But it is NOT free to force its bigotry into American law. W Americans pledge alliegence to a republic with “liberty and justice for all”. The RCC is AGAINST liberty & justice for all. Those of us who stand up for America, who stand up for the Constituion of the United States of America, will not allow Rome to destory our freedoms.
SaVVY,
In your comments above, you say that, “All the undesirables could then be taken care off.” Who are thse “undesirables” you are talking about? Who, in your mind are the undesirables” that the government will take of?
Lisa,
You might want re-read the exchange between Dave and Me on Dr. Mark Regnerus.
The Orthodox Jewish radio host, Dennis Prager wrote this article on Why Judaism and later Christianity rejected homosexuality.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0003.html
You are ignorant about historical aspects of this issue. It’s is simply a lie and misleading to claim this is some new scientific discovery.
I agree with you on divorce and the breakdown of heterosexual marriage. In fact the only reason why gay marriage is even considered acceptable today, is because of the breakdown of marriage itself.
It’s one broken system leading to another broken system.
Lisa,
I disagree with your definition of bigotry and even freedom. Feel free to jump off a cliff.
Savvy,
Wow, Savvy! I see that you have conceded that I am right! You can marshal no logicla, reasonalbe, credible arguement to refute that I am correct.
“We will not be silenced. Just because there are those in the church who have failed to live up to it’s teachings, this does not mean that the teachings will not be proclaimed.”
You mean people who tolerate others? Yeah, we can’t have that, can we.
Those are words of a religious fanatic zealot. Get a life.
Lisa,
I have conceded that you are repeating the same thing over and over again, that you have picked up from others. Not original enough to comment on.
Bill S,
There is a difference between tolerance and approval.
Savvy,
Dennis Prager is a radio host (entertainer). He has no credibility. Also, he does not speak for Judaism. Judaism is NOT monolithic. Within Judaism there might be one or two things that all Jews can agree on—and gay marriage is NOT one of them!
I am very knowledgeable about the history of gay people, and about the hsitory of Judaism and Christianity and their teachings. And I have claimed no “new scientific discovery”. The RCC teaches things about gay people that are lies, that are grounded in superstition, misperceptions, and misinterpretations of scripture. The RCC teaches things about gay people that have no basis in fact, logic, science or rationality. The RCC wants to promote lies, superstition and bigotry re gay people—those things that are rooted in fear and ignorance.
the botoom line is this: The right of gay Americans will be recognized by the US Supreme Court, it will be reocognized by the federal government and by all 50 states and by all American territories. The RCC can say whatever it wants, it can spend all the money it wants, the RCC will lose its war against gay Americans.
Savvy,
My comments are original to me. If I repeat myslf, its because I want to make certain that you understand that the RCC’s bigotry will not be triumphant.
Savvy,
You have not been clear about what people you consider to be the “undesirables” you mentioned in one of your previous comments above.
Lisa,
“The RCC teaches things about gay people that are lies, that are grounded in superstition, misperceptions, and
misinterpretations of scripture. The RCC teaches things about gay people that have no basis in fact, logic, science or rationality. “
Prove it. There are many RC gays themselves who would disagree with you.
Posted by savvy on Thursday, Dec 6, 2012 6:29 PM (EDT):
“Bill S,
There is a difference between tolerance and approval.”
Who the hell is looking for approval. Just go away. That would be enough.
“If I repeat myslf, its because I want to make certain that you understand that the RCC’s bigotry will not be triumphant.”
In that case, you are wasting your time. Empires rise and fall all the time.
Bill S,
Tolerance would agree to disagree, something Lisa and you refuse to do.
Savvy,
As I may have mentioned, the RCC has put forward no credibile, logial, ration, scientific evidnce that gay people marrying would have nay negative consequences on marriage, stright people, children, society. The RCC just repeats the same old superstitons, lies, etc. The RCC’s failure to put forrward ANY evidence about its claims re gay marriage IS the proof that what it says is grounded in lies, superstition, irrationality, etc.
As for the “many gay Catholics” who would disagree with me—they are a figment of your imagination. You make me laugh. I doubt you even know any gay RCs who are still practicing RCs, much less any who would disagree with me. Again, you are making this stuff up. Its shows, and its not pretty.
SavvyY,
Yes, the “empire” that will fall will be the RCC—because if its own actions. It will collapse/implode because of its own internal corruption and failures.
SaVVY,
What I will not do (what hopefully Bill S will not, if I may take the liberty to say so) is agree to let lies stand as the truth. The RCC puts forward NO credible evidence of its claims about gay people or gay marriage.
If the RCC feels so strongly that gay people marrying is awful for society, ehn gay marriage is recognized on a ferderal level in the US, the RCC will withdraw from the “civil marriage business” as discussed in the article above.
Lisa,
Why don’t you give me references that prove this in fact what the church teaches? You make claims, back them up.
You have very different social circles. There are those in the news and those I know personally, who are solidly Orthodox gay Catholics.
Eve Tushnet is a lesbian convert, Leah Libresco is a bi-sexual convert, David Morrison is a former gay rights activist and convert to the church. Melinda Selmys is another converts. Joshua Gonnerman and John Heard are cradle Catholics, so is Steve Gershom.
I can give you links to their websites and facebook pages if you want to check in with them.
“The RCC puts forward NO credible evidence of its claims about gay people or gay marriage.”
I am waiting for references.
“Yes, the “empire” that will fall will be the RCC—because if its own actions. It will collapse/implode because of its own internal corruption and failures.”
ROFL. The church has lived through much worser times.
Lisa,
I forgot to add Richard Evans is a gay revert who returned to the church. Courage is a support group for gay Catholics who are faithful to the church.
Savvy,
You want ME to tell YOU what YOUR church teaches??? I suggest you go to the Vatican web site or the USCCB web site to see what YOUR church is teaching. And there you will see that YOUR church put forward NO evidence that gay peole marrying is harmful in any way to society. You could talk to your bishop, go to the web site of your diocese. Your bishop will not be able to provide you with any credible evidence to support what the RCC teaches re gay marriage. Because there is NONE.
Are you not paying attention to what your bishops are saying??? Do you not know that the RC bishops spent about $2 million this past yr to fight the legalization of gay marriage in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington? Do you not listen to things Cardinal Dolan says and writes??? Do you not even read the stuff the the National Catholic Register prints about gay marriage????
Do your homework. You will see that your church asserts about gay marriage and you will see that that nowehre does the RCC put forward ANY credible, scientific, logical, rational evidence to back up thier bigotry.
Savvy,
“The church has lived through much worser times.”????? Oy, you slaughter the language!!!
I am waiting for you to talk about the “undesirables” you referneced aboe. Just who are they exactly????
Courage is a tiny tiny tiny group of self-loathing gay people who have swallowed the RCC kool-aid that they are “intrinsically disordred”.
“the RCC put forward ANY credible, scientific, logical, rational evidence to back up thier bigotry.”
This will not do Lisa, give me references and citations for the claims YOU make.
“Courage is a tiny tiny tiny group of self-loathing gay people who have swallowed the RCC kool-aid that they are “intrinsically disordred”.”
Thanks for displaying charity towards those who disagree with you. The Catechism calls all lust disorder, including heterosexual.
This proves that you do not know what you are talking about to begin with.
There has been a lot of theological development in this field since the 60s. I am tired of the 60s crowd repeating the same old garbage over and over again.
Savvy,
I have given you referneces. You just seem to be too lazy or disnternested to follow up. Do your reading and you will see that I am correct. I cannot give you a negative. Read what YOUR church says re same-sex marriage and then note that YOUR church provide no evidence for what it says. You can even Google this in about two seconds, Or just read the National Catholic Register any day of the week to see what silliness YOUR church says without any iota of evidence to back it up.
Oh and who are those “undireables” you mentioned in your comment above??? Why won’t you address that?? Ashamed???
Savvvy,
YOUR church calls people with same-sex attraction “intrinsically disordered”. A different ballgame, a dfferent meaning. Don’t try to whitewash the bigotry of YOUR church. Its tranparent and makes you look silly. Please study up on what YOUR church teaches—you seem to be very ignorant of what the rCC teaches.
“YOUR church calls people with same-sex attraction “intrinsically disordered”. A different ballgame, a dfferent meaning.
I have done a lot of studying. The fact is you are ignorant pretending to be informed. There is a distinction between people and actions. It’s says indulging in same-sex sexual behaviour is disordered.
I have also provided you with references on the reasons for marriage in the Anglo-American legal tradition. You have dismissed it in anger, but not refuted the paper.
Lisa: This is what your church teaches.
Me: Okay, give me a reference.
Lisa: Google it.
Me: Give me a citation so we can discuss it.
Lisa: No, google it, you are too lazy.
Me: I have studied it. I want you to show me what you are saying.
Lisa: I do not care what you have studied. 2+2 is not 4 because I am convinced it is not so and I am always right. Don’t you dare question my wisdom and knowledge.
Savvy,
Again you attemto to whiteash teh irrational bigotry of the RCC. The RCC says that same-sex sexual acitivty is “intrinsically disordered”—again a different meaning, a different ballgame. Again the RCC has no evidnce/puts forward no evidence to back this up.
I understand the legal history of marriage (but do not remember seeing the link you purported to have provided). Is it from some relaible source or froms whacko website? I don’t think you are a very discerning reader or a very critical thinker. so I am apt not to trust any articles you think are sound thinking. But give me the reference. I will take alook.
Who are the “undesirables” you mention above. Please explain who think these “undesirable” are
“Again the RCC has no evidnce/puts forward no evidence to back this up.”
You are putting forth an argument that confuses genetic predisposition with genetic determinism.
For a ‘gay gene’ to wreck Catholic teaching, then, it would need to provide irrefutable evidence that the Catholic account of human nature, that there is no real difference between human beings as to sexuality except that which is related to one’s sex.
It would need to show that same sex attracted men and women are, by virtue of genetics alone, either a new category of human, a third sex perhaps, or otherwise endowed with some normative attribute or mechanism that always leads, in a pre-determined way, to specific, stereotyped behaviour (sodomy, fellatio, etc.).
For it to pose any major threat to Catholic teaching on homosexuality, a ‘gay gene’ would need to produce something like a ‘gay male arm’ that is inextricably patterned so as to grasp only other male genitals, is patterned so even despite the best intentions of the arm’s owner; alongside even more outlandish and indeed fantastical – I’d hazard – appendages and their rigidly predictable associated forms of behaviour.
Why? Because, again, the Church teaches against homogenital acts. She abides by the sage, humane distinction between what a man does and what he experiences, unchosen, as a man-in-the-world.
Catholics are not called, therefore, to some extreme standard, some impossible way of living that wars against our natures and our very biology.
We are, rather, called to govern ourselves, to choose right over wrong, and to know the difference.
The Catholic bioethical association also explains the difference genetic pre-dispostion and genetic determinism.
http://www.ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=1128
“Is it from some relaible source or from whacko website?”
It’s a legal paper from the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155
I agree that most of the writers on the NCR are not experts on Catholic moral theology.
http://catholicmoraltheology.com/
The Catechism classifies lust itself a disorder. 2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure.
What if it is the catechism itself that is the disorder?
Rational, logical, thinking human beings do not put their trust in a ridiculous book issued by the Catholic Church. People that accept the catechism as gospel truth need to have their heads examined. I think that you are one of those people.
“For it to pose any major threat to Catholic teaching on homosexuality, a ‘gay gene’ would need to produce something like a ‘gay male arm’ that is inextricably patterned so as to grasp only other male genitals, is patterned so even despite the best intentions of the arm’s owner; alongside even more outlandish and indeed fantastical – I’d hazard – appendages and their rigidly predictable associated forms of behaviour.”
It’s only you could make this argument to the Supreme Court. If they heard this argument, I’m sure they would rule against same-sex marriage thereby saving the human race from extinction. You people are nothing but a bunch of quacks.
Bill S,
Good Morning!
You certainly are free to your opinions, but do you think it’s respectful to disparage folk on a Catholic site because they accept & cite the teachings of their Faith as contained in the Catechism? That seems to me a reasonable text to consult regarding the Catholic Faith.You can surely disagree with what it contains, but calling the catechism a ridiculous book doesn’t enable the conversation much.
Bill S,
PS-I saw an interesting & very lengthy comment yesterday to a NCR article from someone identifying themself as a psychologist. A lot of what they said has occurred to me, too, regarding how homosexuality is viewed/treated by the medical community,the genetic factor issues, etc. Even if you don’t agree, it’s a very well written response to the article: “Reparative Therapy on Trial” The comments are posted by “a psychologist.”
Thanks!
Kathleen,
I’m sorry. I didn’t mean you when I said “you people”. I guess I can’t really explain that and you are right. This is a Catholic blog. I was raised on the catechism and see it as one of the worst rule books on life ever written. It should never be consulted as a resource for writing government regulations for any country including Ireland whose abortion laws led to serious medical malpractice and violations of human rights.
Sorry. That’s just the way I feel about it.
Savvy,
Your quote from the RC catechism: “The Catechism classifies lust itself a disorder. 2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure.: What in the world is “inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure”???? These kinds of statements just showcase the RCC’s immature and unhealthy attitudes toward sex/sexuality. There is no such thing as “inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Lust is not “disordered”. The RCC should be happy that there is lust—it is one things that keeps the birth rate going! And orinate or “inordinate” enjoynent of sexual pleasure is a great gift from God. No one should be trying to dictate how people enjoy sexual pleasure—that is just weird, unhealth, immature, bizarre. If the priests don’t want RC’s to have “inordinate enjoymnent” of sexual pleasure, then RC should be pitied that they are letting some 3d party try to dictate how they should enjoy sexual pleasure. The RCC is just bizArre when it comes to sex/sexuality.
Bill S,
I understand & didn’t take your comment personally.
Thanks.
Lisa,
Gee Lisa, You are confusing the distinction between lust and legitimate sexual desire.
Enjoying sex with one’s spouse is not disordered. Enjoying sex with pornography is.
Passions are not good or bad in themselves in Catholic moral theology. it’s how they are acted out in accordance with will and reason that determines them. Homogenital acts are judged based on their objective purpose and end.
People are loved, things are used. It’s no wonder that in a culture where people are used and things are loved, we have confused the distinction between love that results from legitimate sexual desire and lust that results from disordered desire.
I am not ashamed of loving people and using things, as opposed to do doing the opposite, and if you find this weird or medieval, or backward that is your problem, not mine. I am not trading my peace for you.
Catholicism is a comprehensive system of thinking things through. Modern philosophy is reductionist and does not think, making people stupid.
Lisa,
Rabbi Shumley Boteach’s book “Kosher Sex” and JP2’s “Theology of the Body” have a lot in common. You might want to read both.
Savvy,
I am neither an Orthodox Jew nor an RC—so neither’s ideas will be an appropriate guide for me in the relam of my personal relationships
Savvy, What guides me is not your RCism—which is merely 2,000 yrs old. The RCC’s ideas of body are stuck in the Middle Ages. The truly comprehensive system is the 4,500 yr old Judaism—which continues to evolve in positive ways
Savvy,
I am not confusing anything. It is your RCC that says RC “inordinate pleasure in sexual enjoyment” is disordered. That seems to be a very open statement that includes the idea that an RC is acting in a disordered way by having"inordinate pleasure in sexual pleasure” with one’s spouse. The RCC is just stuck in the Middle Age and is immature and unhealthy re sex/sexuality.
Lisa,
You might want to read the whole thing. “Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.” It’s called a natural law.
It’s the difference between love and lust.
If you are not interesting in dialogue and just RC bashing, you are wasting my time and yours. We are through.
“It is your RCC that says RC “inordinate pleasure in sexual enjoyment” is disordered. That seems to be a very open statement that includes the idea that an RC is acting in a disordered way by having “inordinate pleasure in sexual pleasure” with one’s spouse. “
It does not say that ordered pleasure is disordered, just inordinate pleasure. Know the difference.
Savvy,
If you want to exit this comment thread, for whatever, reason, there is nothing stopping you. Nothing compels you to comment here.
Please review the quote from the RC catechism that you posted. Apparently, you did not quote the “whole thing”. If you talk about something you quoted, then quote the entire thing and do not fault me.
Savvy,
The statment says that “inordinate pleasure in sexual enjoyment” is disordered. So yes, this statement talks about sexual enjoyment and does NOT limit the type or the context of the sexual pelasure. You are trying to whitewash the immature an dunhealthy attitudes of the RCC toward sex/sexuality. There is no such thing as “inordinate pleasure in sexual enjoyment”. That is some sort of myth the RCC made up—becasue it ahs unhealth and immature attitudes towards sex/sexuality. Only unhealthy/immautre people would think that there is such a thing as “inordinate pleasure ins sexual enjoyment”. You are of course free to allow this sort of unhealth/immature thinking to rule your life. I pity you for that. The RCC tries to distort the great gift of pleasure in sexual enjoyment that God has blessed us with and tries to get the gullible to buy inot this warped thinking. Again, I pity you iof you buy into this warped thinking from the RCC.
Lisa,
This is your opinion your problem. Not mine. I do need your pity since I have a happy and peaceful life.
So you are saying there is not such thing as distorted sexual pleasure such as rape, incest, prostitution, adultery etc? All are gifts of God?
If so, it’s you that are totally wrapped. I am not interested in your swinger God.
Chastity is the proper integration of sexuality in a person. It frees a person to truly love another rather than lust after them. It is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
2339 Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom. The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy.
Lisa,
You are absolutely intolerant of those with different views. I can find common ground with Orthodox Jews, but it’s hard to build bridges with those infected by the dictatorship of relativism.
You have no right to decide what makes others happy and what does not. Practise what you preach.
The dictatorship of relativism, that sounds nasty. How about the tyranny of freedom? Would that make sense to you too?
If Lisa has no right to decide what makes people happy, what makes you think you have the right to tell other people how to live their lives? The whole issue of same-sex marriage will be decided this year by the Supreme Court. Until then the rulings of the lower courts will insure that same-sex couples are not discriminated against. No matter what, those same-sex couples will be doing things that the church will never approve. Their best option is to simply ignore the church.
Bill S,
I respect your honesty. Lisa is the one who gives us big speeches on diversity etc, but will not accept difference.
I am just calling her out on her hypocrisy. The church at least holds that some things are morally consistent for all people. It’s the one’s who claim they are not, should practise what they preach. They are the one’s not making any logical sense. The church is at least being honest, even if you disagree with their views.
Relativism is not consistent, despite it’s claims to treat everybody with equality etc.
When I was at World Youth Day in Spain in 2011. The Catholic pilgrims were happy and peaceful. The anti-Catholic protestors were angry, nasty, and foul-mouthed. Even after the pilgrims went to bed, they would not stop protesting, throwing things at the Cops etc. If the Middle Ages crowd, are happy and at peace. I would rather be them, than be a modernist who is insane.
The term often refers to truth relativism, which is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths, i.e., that truth is always relative to some particular frame of reference, such as a language or a culture.
That seems more like open-mindedness than dictatorship. Absolute truth based on the Bible or Church Teaching is a fallacy.
Bill S,
This is what you have been conditioned to believe. Relativism sounds good in theory, but can be very absolutist in practise, because if there are no fixed categories on moral issues, on right or wrong, then everybody makes up their own ideologies and tries to enforce it to the best of their ability. The strongest one wins.
Consider this quote by Mussolini.
Everything I have said and done is these last years is relativism, by intuition. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology, and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories, and men who claim to be the bearers of an objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than fascism.
—Benito Mussolini, Diuturna (1921)
I am not saying that I have all the answers, but that they can be discovered, as opposed to saying they do not exist to begin with.
If you are interested in philosophy, you might want to try this book.
Refuting Moral Relativism
http://www.amazon.ca/Refutation-Moral-Relativism-Interviews-Absolutist/dp/0898707315
The fall of ancient Greece and the Roman Empire was connected to relativism.
“The fall of ancient Greece and the Roman Empire was connected to relativism.
There really wasn’t a full of Greece per se. Greece was absorbed into the Roman Empire which in the east became the Byzantine Empire. Emperor Justinian closed the Greek schools of philosophy to protect the faith. The Byzantine Empire lasted into the 15th century when it was conquered by the Turks. Relativism played no role in this transition.
Relativism also had very little to do with the fall of the Western Roman Empire. It was overrun by barbarians who ultimately became Christians. Eventually, what is now Europe became the Holy Roman Empire.
You might be confusing relativism with the tolerance of the pagan Romans of all other religions and philosophies. That tolerance was stamped out by the Christians in the fourth century starting with Constantine. There never was a time when open-mindedness and tolerance led to the fall of any empire.
The Roman Catholic Church prides itself in being the sole source of all moral teaching. This condemns other ideologies as moral relativism. It labels any resistance to its dictatorship of moral authority as the dictatorship of relativism. It likes catchy phrases like that and like the culture of death. These are all ways of controlling people’s minds. Having a world youth day would be another way to brainwash people. How old are you anyway?
Bill S,
Feeding Christians to the lions is not exactly tolerance, neither is forcing them to worship other gods, at the price of death. Neither is the trial and death of Socrates. It’s a classic example of those who preach diversity, not accepting difference.
“The Roman Catholic Church prides itself in being the sole source of all moral teaching. This condemns other ideologies as moral relativism. It labels any resistance to its dictatorship of moral authority as the dictatorship of relativism. It likes catchy phrases like that and like the culture of death. These are all ways of controlling people’s minds.”
This is incorrect. I suggest you find out what the church actually teaches before making these accusations. An atheist who seeks truth and goodness will find it, a theist who does not will not. I have met sincere non-Christians and relativist Christians. Pope Benedict co-wrote a book with the atheist Jurgen Habermas who happens to agree with him on many issues.
Justin Martyr
We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, logos} were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason [logos] are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid (First Apology 46 [A.D. 151])
Just as the natural world reacts to the law of gravity, human nature reacts to sin. Choices have consequences.
“Feeding Christians to the lions is not exactly tolerance, neither is forcing them to worship other gods, at the price of death.”
First century. Had nothing to do with relativism or the fall which didn’t happen for another four centuries when the Empire was Christian not pagan. And they had to offer incense and offer prayers for the Emperor.
“Neither is the trial and death of Socrates. It’s a classic example of those who preach diversity, not accepting difference.”
That had nothing to do with relativism. Socrates was teaching atheism and died because of intolerance of new ideas which is the opposite of relativism.
“An atheist who seeks truth and goodness will find it, a theist who does not will not.”
I don’t know what that has to do with anything.
“I have met sincere non-Christians and relativist Christians.”
And…?
“Pope Benedict co-wrote a book with the atheist Jurgen Habermas who happens to agree with him on many issues.”
Does he agree about relativism?
“Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, logos} were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason [logos] are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid (First Apology 46 [A.D. 151])”
That makes no sense whatsoever. There were no Christians before Christ.
“Just as the natural world reacts to the law of gravity, human nature reacts to sin. Choices have consequences.”
That also makes no sense. Where do you come up with these things?
“First century. Had nothing to do with relativism or the fall which didn’t happen for another four centuries when the Empire was Christian not pagan. And they had to offer incense and offer prayers for the Emperor.”
The Empire was not “officially” Christian, the religion was still illegal. Christians did grow rapidly, which is a different issue.
“That had nothing to do with relativism. Socrates was teaching atheism and died because of intolerance of new ideas which is the opposite of relativism.”
Socrates held a view, in what he called the “unknown” God, he was not exactly an atheist, he just did not subscribe to the gods of his people.
There is also nothing new under the sun.
“Does he agree about relativism?”
You would have to read the book, to find out.
“That makes no sense whatsoever. There were no Christians before Christ.”
There were no people called Christians, true, but God has always existed. If someone else discovers something , it does not make it automatically untrue.
“That also makes no sense. Where do you come up with these things?”
So you deny that choices or actions have consequences, good or bad? A person can choose water or fire, life or death, you can’t choose it at the same time.
Savvy: I know that choices have consequences. I was responding to: ““Just as the natural world reacts to the law of gravity, human nature reacts to sin.”
But I guess I understand where you’re coming from there to. I guess the thing that concerns me is that you seem to be brainwashed. Like many others, you really seem to think that the Catholic Church is right about everything. The men who run the Catholic Church are very human indeed. As easily as they can lead you, they can mislead you. What you think is reasoning could very well be just rationalizing that which the church has taught. While you may think you are, you are not fully thinking for yourself. You compare gravity and sin. While gravity is the same everywhere, sin is a matter of opinion in many cases. It seems that every sex act that is not performed with procreation as a possible outcome is sinful. According to the church there should be no birth control and no homosexual acts of any kind. Those who go against this teaching face the possibility of eternal damnation. This is just an idle threat by the church in order to control people’s behavior. But people like you think it’s real. You have to be more open-minded than that.
Bill S,
Thank you for telling you what you “think” I believe without asking me first. I am fully aware that the men who run the church are human, and can mislead others. This is not news to me.
“It seems that every sex act that is not performed with procreation as a possible outcome is sinful. According to the church there should be no birth control and no homosexual acts of any kind. “
This is not even Catholic teaching. You are mixing fact with fiction.
Thanks for also assuming that you understand everything Catholicism teaches, when you do not. This is why I do not waste my time with polemics.
Savvy,
The RCC does teach that every sex act must be open to procreation, that artificial birth control is sinful and that homosexual sexual activity is sinful and intrinsically disordered. So Bill S, was not too far off the mark.
Kevin Rahe,
And from 1999:
January 15, 1999: APA Maintains Reparative Therapy Not Effective
The APA Board of Trustees endorsed a position statement at its December meeting that opposes therapeutic techniques some psychiatrists and mental health professionals claim can shift an individual’s sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual.
The Board acknowledged that there is no evidence that these so-called “reparative therapies” have any efficacy in converting someone from one sexual orientation to another.
Lisa,
Bill S was not specific. He said all birth control. He also called sex an opinion, but this is not the reason used by homosexual activists. People can do what they want, but if they want someone else to change their views, they better come up with something other than opinion. If it’s all opinion, then you should also accept that some people have a different opinion from you.
Lisa,
I never said anything about reparative therapy.
Savvy,
As George Will, conservative pundit/news columnist, admitted in an interview on Sunday: the oppostion to smae-sex marriage in America is literally dying out. It is the gneration of very old people who oppose same-sex marriage and the amhjority of Americans support marriage equality. But for America, the issue will be resolved by the US Supreme Court, as the Court last week agreed to hear two cases realted to the issue of same-sex marriage.
You cam believe aht you want to beleive, you can believe the warped, unhealth, immature things the RCC teaches about sex/sexuality. That’s fine. However, the RCC in the US and American RCs have no right to try to impose RC beliefs on the broader American society. Smae-sex marriage will change nothing about marriage or the United States or Western civilization. If same-sex marraige becomes the law of the land, the RCC will still be free to refuse to marry same-sex couples. There is no rational, scientific, moral or logical reason to oppose same-sex marriage.
Savvy,
My bad. I accidentally posted to the wrong comment thread. That comment belongs on another thread.
Lisa,
“You cam believe aht you want to beleive, you can believe the warped, unhealth, immature things the RCC teaches about sex/sexuality.”
This is your unproven claim. I have already addressed the difference between genetic pre-disposition and genetic determinism. As well, as the reasons for marriage in the Anglo-American legal tradition. A paper you have still not refuted.
Yes, due to the lack of honest debate, this will become legal. But, it is still a fight worth it.
“Secular and religious thinkers agree: the sexual revolution is one of the most important milestones in human history. Perhaps nothing has changed life for so many, so fast, as the severing of sex and procreation. But what has been the result?
This ground-breaking book by noted essayist and author Mary Eberstadt contends that sexual freedom has paradoxically produced widespread discontent. Drawing on sociologists Pitirim Sorokin, Carle Zimmerman, and others; philosopher G.E.M. Anscombe and novelist Tom Wolfe; and a host of feminists, food writers, musicians, and other voices from across today’s popular culture, Eberstadt makes her contrarian case with an impressive array of evidence. Her chapters range across academic disciplines and include supporting evidence from contemporary literature and music, women’s studies, college memoirs, dietary guides, advertisements, television shows, and films.
Adam and Eve after the Pill examines as no book has before the seismic social changes caused by the sexual revolution. In examining human behavior in the post-liberation world, Eberstadt provocatively asks: Is food the new sex? Is pornography the new tobacco?
Adam and Eve after the Pill will change the way readers view the paradoxical impact of the sexual revolution on ideas, morals, and humanity itself.”
http://www.amazon.ca/Adam-Eve-After-Pill-Revolution/dp/1586176277
Savvy,
The US Constituion is a living document. The US Supreme Court will recognize that uner the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, Gay Americans have the right to marry same-sex partners.
If the US Supreme Court decides that same-sex marriage iwll become the law of the land it will NOT becasue there lack of “honest debate”. The issue has been widely and honestly debated by a number of states and by a number of state and federal courts.
When cases are heard by the US Supreme Court, both sides must submit lengthy written legal arguments and during oral arguments before the Jutices, both sides will have the opportunity to present further arguments. And then the 9 Jutices will discuss the issue. So lots and lots of “hoenst debate” ahs ahppened around this issue and will happen around this issue.
Lisa,
Arguments for gay marriage are in fact arguments based on the failure of traditional marriage. It’s winning because of this.
Humane Vitae’s predictions have come true.
1. Infidelity and moral decline
the widespread use of contraception would “lead to conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality.” That there has been a widespread decline in morality, especially sexual morality, in the last 25 years, is very difficult to deny. The increase in the number of divorces, abortion, our-of-wedlock pregnancies, and venereal diseases should convince any skeptic that sexual morality is not the strong suit of our age.
Lost Respect for Women
“the man” will lose respect for “the woman” and “no longer (care) for her physical and psychological equilibrium” and will come to “the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.” This concern reflects what has come to be known as a “personalist” understanding of morality. The personalist understanding of wrongdoing is based upon respect for the dignity of the human person.
Abuse of Power
the widespread acceptance of contraception would place a “dangerous weapon… in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies.” The history of the family-planning programs in the Third World is a sobering testimony to this reality. In Third World countries many people undergo sterilization unaware of what they are doing. The forced abortion program in China shows the stark extreme toward which governments will take population programs. Moreover, few people are willing to recognize the growing evidence that many parts of the world face not overpopulation, but underpopulation. It will take years to reverse the “anti-child” mentality now entrenched in many societies.
Unlimited Dominion
that contraception would lead man to think that he had unlimited dominion over his own body.
The desire for unlimited dominion over one’s own body extends beyond contraception. The production of “test-tube babies” is another indication of the refusal to accept the body’s limitations; so too are euthanasia and the use of organs transplanted from those who are “nearly” dead. We seek to adjust the body to our desires and timetables, rather than adjusting ourselves to its needs.
Savvy,
The idea of marriage equality is about the idea that all people have the right to marry. It has nothing to do with any of the issues you present above. Same-sex marriage is certainly NOT about moral decline. The RCC goes on and on about how wonderful marriage is—-but just for the people the RCC thinks should be able to marry. If marriage is an institution that is good for society, then it does not matter who marries. Marriage is good for scoiety Its not institution that’s good for some and bad for others.
Marriage equality has nothing to do with “loss of respect for women”. You make a bizarre arguemnt there.
Marriage equality has noting to do with “abuse of power”, contraception, abortion, or an “anti-child mentality”. Again a bizarre argument that has noting to do with marriage equality.
Marriage equality has nothing to do “unlimited dominion”.
“Arguments for gay marriage are in fact arguments based on the failure of traditional marriage.”
I don’t see how a statement like this presents any argument against gay marriage. Whether traditional marriage succeeds or fails has nothing to do with whether same sex marriage should be allowed and recognized or prohibited and not recognized.
Bill S,
Yes, you are right. Marriage equality ahs nothing to do the issues of “traditional” marriage. The “failure” of “traditional” marriage may or may not be a reality. All initmate relationships are are hard, require effort to maintain. That is true for married stright people, single straight people in realtionships, for gay people in relationships. We are all human beings and none os is perfect, so all relationships can be and are challenging.
And marriage eqaulity is a totally separate and unrelated issue to whether or not “tradtional” marriage is “failing”. Marriage equality is a civil rights issue.
Lisa,
The Question is how did we get to this stage?
Would we have come here without high divorce rates, single parenthood, rampant promiscuity etc. The answer is No. The arguments for gay marriage highlight the failure of marriage itself. Marrying gays is not going to solve marriage problems for someone else.
It’s like seeking medicine for our wounds, but not addressing the causes of the wounds themselves.
Savvy,
Marriage equality is a good thing. It says that our society is changing for the better, being more inclusive, being more open, seeing gay people as human beings, as fellow citizens.
Marriage equality is NOT about solving the problems of stright people in their marriages. Marriage equality is a civil rights issue and has NOTHING to do with high divorce rates, etc.
Marriage equality is a postive for society. If you do not see it that way, OK. But it isllogical, irrational and innacurate to say that marriage equality is in any way, shape or form related to high divorce rates, etc among straight people. You are missing the point. Marriage equality is NOT about moral decline among straight people.
Lisa,
Why is marriage equality a good thing?
In the discussion about What is marriage? Why should the state regulate it? You have responded that marriage is not about children or sex etc. How on earth did you get this idea, if not from the breakdown and failures of heterosexual marriage itself?
Would you come to this conclusion if there was nothing to compare it too? If so, why?
Savvy,
Why is marriage equality a good thing??? Why is racial equality a good thing??? Why is gender equality a good thing??? Why did God make all people in the image of God??? In the 14th Amendment it says that all americans have equal protection under the law. Why is that a good thing??? Are you advocating for an America where not all Americans are equal under the law??? Are you advocating for an America where the dream of Martin Luther King, Jr has no value, where the struggle of Caesar Chavez has no value??? The US Supreme Court has siad in a number of decisions, that in American society separate is NOT equal. Why should not ALL Americans be able to be married, equally under the law.
Your argument sounds just those who said people of different races should be barred from marriage—becasue that was not “Biblical”, it immoral, it was not what God intended. You want a separate America fro stright people and gay people.
Marriage is about many things—and that does not mean that marriage has broken down or failed. Marriage is about two people agreeing to form a stable relationship. If procreation is part of that—fine. If procreation is not part of that—fine.
Why should the RCC regulate marriage in America that is NOT an RC theocracy, where many people have no religious affiliation, where many people are Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc? Marriage is first and foremost a civil act, legal contract—an agreement between two people. That is why when the marriage contract needs to end, it does through a legal system. Should there be church divorce courts??? And no, no church should deny people divorce, force people to remain together. If you want that model, it is not America where you should be living.
The RCC is waging an anti-American campaign. The RCC seeks to deny gay Americans their rights under the US Constitution, the RCC seeks to codify inequality in American law. The RCC seeks to reinstate an America where not all Americans are equal.
Lisa,
Marriage is not the same as race. Unless there is proof that pre-determined inclinations always lead to pre-determined actions, marriage cannot be compared to race.
I am aware that the Bible, was used to support a lot of things, but since I do not subscribe to Sola Scriptura it’s not my problem. And I agree that Christians have been stupid to use this as an argument.
Even the God argument fails, because of the difference between genetic pre-disposition and genetic determinism.
“Marriage is about many things—and that does not mean that marriage has broken down or failed. Marriage is about two people agreeing to form a stable relationship. If procreation is part of that—fine. If procreation is not part of that—fine. “
Any two people can agree to form a stable relationship. They do not have to be married. Marriage in the Anglo-American legal tradition was based on certain things. How did we come to a different conclusion. It’s because of the failure of marriage itself.
There is no such thing as an RC theocracy. Do not throw random terms around.
“If procreation is part of that—fine. If procreation is not part of that—fine. “
It’s because marriage has already been severed from pro-creating and the upbringing of children, this argument can be made. Scientists studying African cultures where homosexuality is not found, have surprisingly found that their views on sex do not severe procreation either. They have noticed that religion is not the factor here either.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/12/where-masturbation-and-homosexuality-do-not-exist/265849/
Savvy,
Of course there is such as thingas an RC theocracy—its called the Holy See, Vatican City, the Vatican. The Vatican is a nation ruled by the laws of RCism—its an RC theocracy.
In American, we live in nation where equality is a core value. It is enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution—where all Americans are guaranteed equal protection under the law. The idea that gay Americans have equal rights under thelaw of our nation—including the right to marry—has nothing to do the"failure of marriage”. It has to do with a postive change in our society—that we are becoming more inclusive, less insular, understanding that equality under the law extends in many areas.
And nobody is “severing” procreation from marriage. Gay people procreate biologically. All I am saying is that a true marriage can exist even when procreation does not occur. Procreation is not a necessary part of marriage. They often go together, but not always Even the RCC teaches that.
Lisa,
You are not addressing issues. The only reasons why these arguments are valid, is because marriage has done away with these things to begin with. They would not be otherwise. Stop denying this.
Dan Savage blogs about the virtues of infidelity in the gay community.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/magazine/infidelity-will-keep-us-together.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=general&src=me&
It’s called social engineering.
As Catholics, we stand for the Sanctity of Life and the Institution of Marriage. Society can fault us all they want for our leadership, our church teachings, even our beliefs; but we will never stop defending the church. Right now we have added the Sacrament of Marriage to our long war against abortion. Some things are never right no matter what. Marriage as catholics understand it isn’t just a means to get benefits from the State but rather Matrimony in the Love of Christ. In this context we believe the family needs to be a pilllar of society and a foundation from which children are raised. This is what it means.
I was fully aboard cicil unions for lgbt people but have now been turned off as marriage itself is now being underscored for the benefit of a few while risking shattering the very pillar of family life that has for so long defined christian people long before the usa was around
“Procreation is not a necessary part of marriage. They often go together, but not always Even the RCC teaches that.”
Yes, it’s not, but take away this and the complimentarity of men and women, and the rearing of children by their biological parents, it makes arguments for gay marriage plausible.
The same people that are for destroying the meaning of marriage are the same ones that are for the abortion of the unborn. Has legalising abortion made us a better society? Do we value family more? Do we reach out to the vulnerable young and teach them about the meaning of life long commitment to a person of the opposite sex? Or do we just throw condoms and the morning after pill at youths? Is legalising lgbt marriage going to help our children and our families or or is it just going to confuse our youths even more? To pretend that lgbt people and their union is the same as two people of the opposite sex is misleading as there is the gift of new life that happens within the confines of married life through procreation. Every lgbt person throughout history was born of male/female union. As such, we don’t hate or despise lgbt people. They are our family and friends. But when it comes to marriage, this is a pillar of society that should be strenghtened not diminished.
Timothy Canezaro,
You are wasting you time with an audience that celebrates immorality as progress.
Procreation is a charism of Christian Marriage. Not an obligation or requirement.may
“Of course there is such as thingas an RC theocracy—its called the Holy See, Vatican City, the Vatican. The Vatican is a nation ruled by the laws of RCism—its an RC theocracy.”
It’s NOT a defining feature of the religion. Anymore than the established church in England, is a defining feature of global Anglicanism. The defining feature is union with the see of Peter, not some place.
Hey saavy. No worries. I am used to it. Most “catholic” websites are filled with people that use each and every opportuinity to attack the Church and people that belong to it. Seems most would rather engage in tearing down any semblance or faith religion or respect for the sacred in our lives. Doesn’t really bother me because the goverment, corporations, and special interests groups can do nothing to take away my faith and belief in Jesus Christ and his Church here on earth.I invite you to build up the church and not participate with those that put out their energy into the world seeking to destroy the Bride of Jesus.
timothy canezaro,
I agree.
Blessed John Paul II: “Love then is not a utopia: it is given to mankind as a task to be carried out with the help of divine grace. It is entrusted to man and woman, in the sacrament of matrimony, as the basic principle of their ‘duty,’ and it becomes the foundation of their mutual responsibility: first as spouses, then as father and mother. In the celebration of the sacrament, the spouses give and receive each other, declaring their willingness to welcome children and to educate them. On this hinges human civilization, which cannot be defined as anything other than a ‘civilization of love’.”
. . . “Human parenthood is something shared by both the man and the woman. Even if the woman, out of love for her husband, says: ‘I have given you a child’, her words also mean: ‘This is our child’. Although both of them together are parents of their child, the woman’s motherhood constitutes a special ‘part’ in this shared parenthood, and the most demanding part. Parenthood –even though it belongs to both –is realised much more fully in the woman, especially in the prenatal period. It is the woman who ‘pays’ directly for this shared generation, which literally absorbs the energies of her body and soul. It is therefore necessary that the man be fully aware that in their shared programme of parenthood he owes a special debt to the woman.” -Bl. John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem (1988), no. 1
Real communion of persons
6. It seems that the second narrative of creation has assigned to man “from the beginning” the function of the one who, above all, receives the gift (cf. especially Gn 2:23). “From the beginning” the woman is entrusted to his eyes, to his consciousness, to his sensitivity, to his heart. On the other hand, he must, in a way, ensure the same process of the exchange of the gift, the mutual interpenetration of giving and receiving as a gift. Precisely through its reciprocity, it creates a real communion of persons.
In the mystery of creation, the woman was “given” to the man. On his part, in receiving her as a gift in the full truth of her person and femininity, man thereby enriches her. At the same time, he too is enriched in this mutual relationship. The man is enriched not only through her, who gives him her own person and femininity, but also through the gift of himself. The man’s giving of himself, in response to that of the woman, enriches himself. It manifests the specific essence of his masculinity which, through the reality of the body and of sex, reaches the deep recesses of the “possession of self.” Thanks to this he is capable both of giving himself and of receiving the other’s gift.
Therefore, the man not only accepts the gift. At the same time he is received as a gift by the woman, in the revelation of the interior spiritual essence of his masculinity, together with the whole truth of his body and sex. Accepted in this way, he is enriched through this acceptance and welcoming of the gift of his own masculinity. Subsequently, this acceptance, in which the man finds himself again through the sincere gift of himself, becomes in him the source of a new and deeper enrichment of the woman. The exchange is mutual. In it the reciprocal effects of the sincere gift and of the finding oneself again are revealed and grow.”
Man and Woman: A Mutual Gift for Each Other
Pope John Paul II
Why do popes even write these long encyclicals that hardly anybody reads? You can’t seriously read this and get anything out of that pertains to same-sex marriage.
Sacredness of Human Body and Marriage
Pope John Paul II
“This is a moral unity, conditioned and constituted by love. Love not only unites the two subjects, but allows them to be mutually interpenetrated, spiritually belonging to one another to such a degree that the author of the letter can affirm: “He who loves his wife loves himself” (Eph 5:28). The “I” becomes in a certain sense the “you” and the “you” the “I” (in a moral sense, that is). Therefore the continuation of the text analyzed by us reads as follows: “For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the Church, because we are members of his body” (Eph 5:29-30). The phrase, which initially still referred to the relationships of the married couple, returns successively in an explicit manner to the relationship Christ-Church. So, in the light of that relationship, it leads us to define the sense of the entire phrase. After explaining the character of the relationship of the husband to his own wife by forming “one flesh,” the author wishes to reinforce still more his previous statement (“He who loves his wife loves himself”). In a certain sense, he wishes to maintain it by the negation and exclusion of the opposite possibility (“No man ever hates his own flesh”—Eph 5:29). In the union through love the body of the other becomes one’s own in the sense that one cares for the welfare of the other’s body as he does for his own. It may be said that the above-mentioned words, characterizing the “carnal” love which should unite the spouses, express the most general and at the same time, the most essential content. They seem to speak of this love above all in the language of agape.”
Not if you don’t seriously consider it and pray about it. Then again that’s something for people to do that choose to be a part of the Catholic Faith. Or another faith tradition And we didn’t site Popes, we sited 1 Pope. Blessed John Paul II. The very same person that left such a positive legacy and touched so many people’s lives. But hey wouldn’t expect everyone to agree with Catholic teaching or even respect catholics or our beloved leaders. That would make our struggle to live holy lives in Christ too easy
Lust limits the Nuptial Meaning of the Body
Pope John Paul II
“The heart has become a battlefield between love and lust. The more lust dominates the heart, the less the heart experiences the nuptial meaning of the body. It becomes less sensitive to the gift of the person, which expresses that meaning in the mutual relations of man and woman. Certainly, that lust which Christ speaks of in Matthew 5:27-28 appears in many forms in the human heart. It is not always plain and obvious. Sometimes it is concealed, so that it passes itself off as love, although it changes its true profile and dims the limpidity of the gift in the mutual relationship of persons.
6. Concupiscence entails the loss of the interior freedom of the gift. The nuptial meaning of the human body is connected precisely with this freedom. Man can become a gift—that is, the man and the woman can exist in the relationship of mutual self-giving—if each of them controls himself. Manifested as a “coercion sui generis of the body,” concupiscence limits interiorly and reduces self-control. For that reason, in a certain sense it makes impossible the interior freedom of giving. Together with that, the beauty that the human body possesses in its male and female aspect, as an expression of the spirit, is obscured. The body remains as an object of lust and, therefore, as a “field of appropriation” of the other human being. In itself, concupiscence is not capable of promoting union as the communion of persons. By itself, it does not unite, but appropriates. The relationship of the gift is changed into the relationship of appropriation.”
“Then again that’s something for people to do that choose to be a part of the Catholic Faith.”
That says it all right there. None of this applies applies to non-Catholics or non-practicing Catholics. Those who put the Pope on a pedestal should not have influence over the governing of the United States.
Timothy,
Procreation or the potential to procreate is part of being human, it is part of being any lioving organism. It is not an exclusive charism of “christian marriage”.
SAVVY,
Dan Savage is a columnist who expresses his opinion, and only his opinion. He is cenrtainly not a spokesperson for all gay Americans. Infidelity is certainly a hallmark of many “traditional” marriages. Just becasue a person may be straight or may be married, does not exclude him/her from infidelity. If the potential for infidelity is a criteria for not recognizing the legal right of gay people to marry, then straight people certainly do not have legal right to marry!
Savvy,
Re the portion of “Real Communuin of Persons” above: the diea that woman was “given” to man, etc, is a true expression of the distorted, immature/unhealthy attitudes of the RCC toward women, sex, sexuality.
And quoting these long passages from JPII, reinforces the idea that the RCC in the US should have NO role in how marriage is handled in the USA. And these ideas from JPII would seem to suggest that the RCC in the USA would be much more comfortable in withdrawing from the “civil marriage business” as the article above discusses.
Islisa kaiser, sorry I should have prefaced that. In the catholic church which is 2000 years strong, marriage is something holy as it is a sacrament on par with communion or confession. As such, yes christain marriage has as a premise a willingness to bring new life into the world through the union of marriage of a man and woman. I do understand that secular governments answer is abortion and morning after pill and condoms. Throw that at kids in school and everything will be hunky doory. In catholic schools, we try to educate our children on the virtues of christian married life and family life.
Without a healthy reverence for the gift of new Life that comes from the creator, you end up with abortion laws which here in the united states has led to 50 million aborted lives in 30 years. The government of the phillipines is currently trying to force sterilization laws on the phillipino mostly catholic people. In Peru, hundreds of thousands of native women gave birth in state run hospitals only to relise when they got out they were sterilized without consent. So yea, as catholics, being married and being parents and having children is so much more than just having sex and putting babies into the world.
Timothy,
Your outlook seems to be a insular. Most people, Christian or non-Christian, are open to the possibility of having children. And many people who are not married, in a variety of circumstances, have children. The US government does NOT promote abortion, the morning after pill or condoms. Sex education in public schools may cover these subjects (but I am not certain as I do not/did not have children in public schools). The “virtues” of married life are not eclusive to RCs, to Christians ( Judaism is 4,500 yrs old and has comprehensive ideas, writings, theology of marriage that continues to evolve, for example), or even to stright people.
The insular ideas you express again are strongly indicative of why the RCC should NOT be involved in marriage in America’s braoder civil society.
Timothy,
Again with the insular ideas and inaccurate statements. “Reverence for life” is NOT exclusive to RCs, to Christians, to straight people.
But hey…we are talking about the Catholic Church or the Universal Church which claims believers from every corner of the earth. I wasn’t talking so much from my own ego like you are…I was merely espousing the ideas and values of. The Church. As far as Marriage, obviuosly we have chosen to defend it just like we did Life as abortions have come into law we still and always will defend Life. Always.
Lisa,
It also says men and women are made for each other, talking about the communion of persons. You can cherry-pick all you want. I find nothing distorted, immature, or unhealthy about this. The fact is you cannot accept difference, even though you claim to espouse it. You are truly intolerant.
I did not say Dan savage was the only spokesperson, but that arguments for gay marriage tend to highlight the failure of marriage itself.
And any church has the right to express it’s opinion, in the public square. These views are not shared by RC’s alone, but also by Evangelicals, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, Eastern Orthodoxy, traditional Protestants etc.
Thanks for demonstrating how progress quickly turns into persecution of dissenting groups.
I respect people of all faiths and religious orientations. What I am leery of is people that attack any faith or religious belief. And catholics aren’t exempt from this. We have a long history of mistreatement in this country. But we don’t go away and we will always satnd for what we believe. Living in chicago, I feel blessed to have such an abundance of beautiful churches many built by immigrant hands in our neighborhoods throughout the years. But in the catholic faith which is the subject of this piece, Marriage is a Sacrament just like the others. Ccatholics didn’t invent marriage it was something ordained by the creator because that’s how we transmit that precious cargo of Life. Here in Chicago, muslims and jewsish leaders have joined the catholic call to defend marriage. As far as saying anything personal about me, don’t do it because you know nothing about me just like I don’t you. Keep it on topic please.
Timothy,
The RCC is not the faith tradition to have beleivers from every corner of the earth. And I am not “talking from ego”. Don’t know where you come up with the bizarrre idea. “Espousing the values and ideas” of the RCC is not the same as “defending” marriage or life. It is merely expressing the ideas of one faith tradition, one viewpoint. And that one viewpoint should NOT be imposed upon every American citizen.
Savvy,
“Persecution”???? Expressing an opinion is “persecution??? So, disgreeing with the opinions of the RCC is persecution???? Wow! If you want to know about perscution, please read the Sword of Constantine—about the centuries upon cneturies of vile mistreatment of Jews by the RCC. That is persecution. Expressing an opinion is NOT persecution! Yes, every faith tradition has the right in the USA to express its beliefs, but not to impose them upon every American citizen. The determination of the RCC to impose bigotry and discrimination upon some American cistizens is shown in its desparate partnerships with evagelicals and the Mormons (the Church of LDS is a cult). If the RCC does not wnat to mayy same- sex couple—that is fine, and its right). But to spend millions of dolloars to attempt to enshrine bigotry and discrimination in American law is very very wrong. Hate is not a family value.
And if you you don’ think Dan Savage is a spokesperson for the gay community, why even include a link to his article in your comment above??? Talk about “cherry-picking”!!!
Again, same-sex marriage is about equality for all Americans. It has nothing to do with your preceived “failure” of marriage.
Lisa,
This is the world’s most multi-cultural, multi-ethnic church, therefore Timothy’s statements are correct. I object to the term RC, because it only represents the Western rite of the church, not the entire church. The proper term is Catholic.
We are not saying that common sense is the exclusive domain of any one faith tradition, you are. Timothy also switched the topic, because he and I are both tired of this discussion.
Savvy,
The RCC is NOT the “world’s most multi-cultural, multi-ethnic church”. That is a statement by soemonw with a very insular and limited world view. Sorry if you object tot he term RC, but you are an RC and the view you express are those of the RCC, and the bishop of Rome. The patriarchs of the estarn rites do not answer to Rome, some of them are in communion with Rome, but are separate from the RCC, some of the eastern rite churches are not in communion with Rome. So its not one Catholic church. It is a number of Catholic churches. And the pope is the bishop of Rome, and does not have any authority in the eastern rite churches.
If you are tired of this dicussion, you are always free not to participate.
Lisa,
You are not civil. I do appreciate other posters who have disagreed with civility, such as Dave. The Sword of Constantine has a lot of false information that has been discredited by scholars and historians. The failed Jesuit James Carroll is not both.
You still have not given us evidence of how much money the church is spending on this issue.
You brought up the fact that the church has presented no valid arguments against gay marriage. I gave you the arguments, you simply changed the subject, not me.
We will just have to agree to disagree on this issue.
“The patriarchs of the estarn rites do not answer to Rome, some of them are in communion with Rome, but are separate from the RCC, some of the eastern rite churches are not in communion with Rome. So its not one Catholic church. It is a number of Catholic churches. And the pope is the bishop of Rome, and does not have any authority in the eastern rite churches.”
I am talking about the East-rite in communion with Rome, not the Orthodox churches. They are part of the same church, as are the Anglican Ordiniariates. These churches might be self-governing, but still consider the Bishop of Rome to be their head. They are also not RC’s. i.e. they do not follow the Latin rite.
I personally do not care who marries whom. In countries where gay marriage has become the law of the land, the attacks on both religious freedom and parental rights are on the rise. Making this more severe than any other legal changes to marriage made in the past.
Savvy,
No easter rite church, in communion with Rome or not considers the bishop of Rome to be its head.
If you want evidence as to how much money the RCC is spending to spread hate and bigotry, you can Google that. There is lots of information on that topic from nay relaible/reputable sources—including frm RC dioceses.
You presented some opinions by the RCC marriage. But you know as well as I do that the RCC has presented NO rational, logical, scientific, moral evidence that same- sex marriage would be a problem for society. And that is becasue such evidence does not exist. Same-sex amrraige will Not have any negative impact on society, on marriage, on children, on straight people. The RCC just keeps saying that same-sex marriage will have “consequences” but never spells out those consequences, much less back up that assertion with any evidence. And you have not either.
Nor have you ever definded the term"undesirables” that you used in a comment above.
Yes, I am civil, you ar just unable to present any evidence to abck you your opposition to marriage equality. You seem to think that equality in America is a bad thing adn that there are wome pople are, in your word, “undesirables”.
Savvy,
You state, “I personally do not care who marries whom. In countries where gay marriage has become the law of the land, the attacks on both religious freedom and parental rights are on the rise. Making this more severe than any other legal changes to marriage made in the past.”
That is a patently false and absurd charge. I think what you mean is that the in the countries with marriage equality, the RCC lost out in spreading hate and bigotry and so condisers that an “attack on religious freedom”. That in those countries, the RCC has to abide by the laws of those nations. That is not an “attack on religion”. That is how scivil government works. The RCC is just unhappy that its views on marriage equality are irrelevant. And I have no clue what you mean by “attack on parental rights”. Marriage equality has no impact on the rights of parents. You make an illogical connection. I think you must be parroting something you read in the RCC press and you have no idea what it means and cannot see that the RCC is being illogical.
“No easter rite church, in communion with Rome or not considers the bishop of Rome to be its head.”
You are confusing governance with authority. The Eastern-rite in communion with Rome, accepts the authority of the Bishop of Rome, over matters concerning faith and morals.
“But you know as well as I do that the RCC has presented NO rational, logical, scientific, moral evidence that same- sex marriage would be a problem for society. And that is becasue such evidence does not exist. Same-sex amrraige will Not have any negative impact on society, on marriage, on children, on straight people. The RCC just keeps saying that same-sex marriage will have “consequences” but never spells out those consequences, much less back up that assertion with any evidence. And you have not either.”
Check out the Regenerus website and findings on same-sex parenting.
http://www.markregnerus.com/
It has changed how marriage is perceived itself, leading to increasing attacks on religious freedom and parental rights as we are seeing in both Canada and Europe.
If gays can get married, then why can’t bi-sexuals or polyamorous couples? If everything is marriage, nothing will be marriage.
Lisa,
So forcing Evangelicals, Catholics, and other religious schools in Canada, and other places, to teach gay sex-education whether they like it or not, and not profess their own positions on this issue, is not an attack on religious freedom?
To tell parents that the state owns your kids, so parents have no say in how to educate their kids, on ethical issues, is not an attack on parental rights?
According to you something is right, just because it’s legal. So everybody should be forced to agree or else?
Lisa,
You still have not refuted the paper I gave you either. The new undesirables are those people who are not in agreement with the political establishment.
The Catholic Church spreads hate and bigotry? Wow. Such disrespect to all good catholics out there trying to make a positive difference in the world. Here in chicago catholic leaders led an anti violence stop the killing march trhough our most dangerous streets in englewood. There is a group of native american catholics that meet at the saint kateri center often to pray. The mexican catholics are a strong presence here. Could go on and on but there will always be people tghat attack people of any faith. For any one person to put down a ny church religion or spirituality for there self serving secular needs is like throwing water on a fire that keeps burning. Believers will never go away.
SAVVY,
James Carroll is a well-respected scholar and the Sword of Constantine is an excellent work of scholarship. Again, you are just parroting something you read in an RCC publication. The RCC is just uncomfortable witht he truth. In regards to same- sex marriage, in regards to gay people and in regards to women, yes the RCC does spread hate and bigotry and seeks to impose its views on broader secular societies.
As for Ntive American RC and Latino RCs, they voted against the RCC in this past electiona nd overwhelmingly voted for President Obama—they did not buy into the anti-gay, anti-woman stuff the bishops were preaching re the election.
In Canda and throughout Europe, RC parents are free to send their children to RC schools. Ther is NO attack on relgious freedom in Canda or Europe. That is just hyperbole that the RCC is spreading arounds—again part of its hate and bigotry toward gay people and the fact that gay people in Canada and soem European antions have marriage equality and equal rights as citizens. Whenver the RCC does not get to impose its views on braoder society it cries wolf, it whines that relgious freedom is under “attack”.
Their vote was based on the issue of Immigration. And that’s understandable. Doesn’t mean they aren’t catholic still. That’s just a political vote. As for native americans catholics, the church just celebrated in Rome with many native americans the sainthood of Kateri Tekakwitha. And the native americans here in chicago that are catholic and pray at the kateri center, well I have prayed with them and they are no different than when I prayed at Father Phleger’s black catholic church on the south side. We are all catholic and recieve the same Sacraments as every other Catholic in every other catholic church throughout the world. Oh and hey Native americans have been right hyere on this land for thousands of years and have suffered every bit as much asw the jewish people.
Savvy,
I lookat the Regnerus research. The issues is that children can problems when parents are inunstable relationships. So this is NOT a gay or stright things. Its a realtionship things, its a human thing. Gays and strights are capable of long-term stable relationships and gays and strights are capable of making amess of their relationships.
And you seeem to be backing away from your shameful idea about “undesirables”. In a comment you made wevral days ago you complained that the governemnt wanted to take over everything and then the “undesirables” would be taken of. So, own up to it and don’t try now me beleive that you meant something else.
And let’s be clear you said above, “I personally do not care who marries whom.” So you disgree with the RCC in its hatred and igotry toward gay people and marriage equality? You are now saying thatyou support marriage equality. Bravo! Good for you! Se this conversation ahs not been in vain, when someon rejects hatred and bigotry and comes around to supporting marriage equality!
Timothy,
Native Americans supported Obama overwhelmingly and that had nothing to do with immigration! And it does not matter why Latinos supported Obama—they did so in defiance of the RC bishops who said that RRCs who voted bfor Obama would put thier “immoratal sousl in peril”. They put a pro-choice president back in office, in defiance of the RC bishops! There is no way around that conclusions.
And yes, the RCC, for centuries persecuted Jews and Native Americans, murdered, tortured, forced conversion upon, Jews and Native Americans. Yes, the RCC has a long dark hsitory of hate and biogtry toward Jews and the native peoples of the New World.
Lisa,
James Carroll has been refuted extensively for mixing facts with fiction. I do not trust anybody with a personal bias, much less a disgruntled ex-priest.
“In regards to same- sex marriage, in regards to gay people and in regards to women, yes the RCC does spread hate and bigotry and seeks to impose its views on broader secular societies.”
Lies and more lies.
“As for Ntive American RC and Latino RCs, they voted against the RCC in this past electiona nd overwhelmingly voted for President Obama—they did not buy into the anti-gay, anti-woman stuff the bishops were preaching re the election.”
Lisa, a lot of these groups are not single issue voters. The Latinos’ voted mostly on immigration. Just because someone votes for Obama that does not mean they agree with him on everything.
The contraceptive mandates is losing in the courts, by pointing out the flaws in it’s reasoning. This is much more reasonable than the hysterical war on women propaganda.
“In Canda and throughout Europe, RC parents are free to send their children to RC schools. Ther is NO attack on relgious freedom in Canda or Europe.”
I live in Canada, I know better. There are legal battles on these issues. Schools are being forced to accept things they do not want to.
Look Lisa, do not speak for all women or all gays. I will not be used as your poster child for Catholic hate.
“The issues is that children can problems when parents are inunstable relationships. So this is NOT a gay or stright things. Its a realtionship things, its a human thing. Gays and strights are capable of long-term stable relationships and gays and strights are capable of making amess of their relationships.”
Mark Regnerus’s response to his critics shows more clearly that instability is characteristic of same-sex relationships and that stable same-sex parented households are virtually non-existent.
Please see this.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/10/6786/
Lisa,
Only the courts have the authority to act on pro-life issues, hence I agree that both Bishops and the opposition are wrong on this one. Politicians just talk on both sides, but do nothing.
“Yes, the RCC has a long dark hsitory of hate and biogtry toward Jews and the native peoples of the New World.”
Yes, I know the Catholics largely ignored Pope Paul III’s directives in the new world, against ill-treating these people. I also know that it’s politically incorrect to talk about the Catholics who were made martyrs by the natives sometimes brutally.
But, a person filled with hate, like you is not capable of a balanced perspective.
Savvy,
What the RCC would like to ignore is why native peoples killed RC missioaries. The so-called martyrs were trying to force RCism upon native peoples, the missioaries were not nice people. They were brutal toward native peoples. So bravo for the native peoples who stood up against Jesuits and others who were trying to force them, via brutality, to become RCs. The fact that many did become RCs speaks to the unfortunate effectveness of brutality, destruction of culture and language, forced education in boarding schools. The Franciscans who came with Cortez and their successors burned much written material of the native peoples.
Please read some history. The fact that the RCCs says that priests killed by natives peoplew are martyrs is just spin to hide the brutality the RCC foreced on people of the New World.
Savvy,
“Balanced perspective”???? For 600 yrs, via the Inquisition, the RCC murdered and tortured Jews, foreced Jews to convert upon pain of death, forced Jews to live in segregated areas awy from Christians, forced Jews out of many profession, closed universities to Jews. So again, please red some hsitory, starting with the Sword of Constantine.
Yes, in 1850, the rCC accepted that it no longer ruled Europe. And yes, Vatican II was a fresh starting poin fro the RCC in its realtionships with Jews and other faith traditions, and yes, JPII apaologized for the Inquisition and other RC atrocities agqainst Jews and other peoples. But let’s be clear, all of that is very recent in the hsitory of the RCC.
Lisa,
It was not an either/or. Yes I am aware of Catholics who did brutal things, and those who did not. This was a two-way street. There were also those who were persecuted by their own people for embracing Christianity, similar to what the Muslims do today, to those who leave Islam.
And do not claim to speak for all hispanics either. Who the heck do you think you are claiming to speak for everybody else?
As for persecution, Christians are the single most persecuted people today globally.
Savvy,
Yes, we agree that only the courts have power re Roe v. Wade issues! Even when presidents appoint justices to the Supreme Court or judges to the federal bench, presidents cannot and do not control judicial decisions. George Bush senior learned that the hard way with his appointment of David Souter to the Supreme Court.
Lisa,
Yes, I agree about the inquisition and about the wrong committed towards the Jewish people. However, Constantine’s sword has a lot of disinformation.
V2 did not teach new doctrine, it was a pastoral, not a dogmatic council. The CDF has called out both traditionalists and liberals on their misinterpretations of church documents.
“Outside this sole orthodox interpretation unfortunately exists a heretical interpretation, that is, a hermeneutic of rupture, [found] both on the progressive front and on the traditionalist” side, the archbishop said.
What the two camps have in common, he said, is their rejection of the council: “The progressives in their wanting to leave it behind, as if it were a season to abandon in order to get to another Church, and the traditionalists in their not wanting to get there”, seeing the council as a Catholic “winter”.
ttp://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/11/30/prefect-of-the-cdf-says-seeing-vatican-ii-as-a-rupture-is-heresy/
Savvy,
I am NOT speaking for anyone else. It is clear from the Nov elction numbers that Latinos voted overwhelmingly for Obama. I am not speaking for anyone else, I am stating the facts. Did you not read or listen to any post-election analysis??? The GOP has clearly stated numerous time and numerous palce after Nov 6th that they clearly and obvioulsy lost the Latino vote. So it is clear that RC Latinos voted for Obama in defiance of the RC bishops.
Yes, Chrsitains ARE persecuted in Egypt, Syria and other nations where Islam is the dominant faith traidtion. Christians are NOT presecuted in the US, in Canda, or in Europe, no matter how much the bishops whine about “persecution” of RCs in the WEst. It just ain’t so.
Lisa,
The Latinos voted on immigration. Most of them are pro-life, pro-family. They are socially conservative, but politically liberal.
“Christians are NOT presecuted in the US, in Canda, or in Europe, no matter how much the bishops whine about “persecution” of RCs in the WEst. It just ain’t so.”
NOT YET. The Economist has an interesting article on the future of Christianity in the West, and even they agree that persecution is not far behind.
“By the end of 2013 the churches will have lost the battle over gay marriage, with their reputation for tolerance a casualty. Secularists will press their advantage, challenging what they regard as the privileges of a declining minority religion. Cries of religious persecution will mount as Christians struggle to defend what outsiders see as a baffling sub-culture.”
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=16925#.UMaIM5j7D-s
Savvy,
In re stable realtionships: you are just wrong and so Regnerus about the stability of gay realtionships. Gay people have long-term stable relationships, its jsut a fact. I know quite number of long-term gay couples who have or are raising children. To say that gay realtionships are inherently more unstable than stright relationships or are ihererently unstable is just wrong and biased. Its not fact. And how can anyone say that, when at least 50% of stright marriages end in divorce?? Yeah, that’s real stability in “traditional” marriage.
In Canda, the RCC’s religious freedom is NOT threatend, the RCC isnot being persecuted. The RC bishops are just whining about gay people having equality. If RC parents do not like what the public schools are doing, they can send their kids to RC schools, make sure their kids go to RC religious education offered by parishes, reinforce their values at home and/or home wschool their kids. True education ahppens at home, by parents.
Savvy,
The article in the Economist is someone’s opinion, NOT fact. And “cries of persecution” is NOT necessarily persecution—its just whing by the bishops that they are no longer relevant and that they can no longer impose their will upon broader society.
In the West, in Europe and the Americas, Chrsitians will alwasy remain free to worship sa they please, their faith traidtions will not be outlawed, Christians will not be killed for being Christians, they will be free to maintain their schools and churches. So no, Christains are NOT now perwcuted nor will they be persecuted in the future in the West.
This idea of Chrisatin persecution in the Est is just whining and fear-mongering by the RCC. It has no basis in fact.
Lisa,
Regenerus has undertaken an academic study on this issue. You can disagree, but do not deny the findings.
“And how can anyone say that, when at least 50% of stright marriages end in divorce?? Yeah, that’s real stability in “traditional” marriage.”
Thanks for proving my point, that the arguments for gay marriage are arguments that highlight the failure of traditional marriage.
“If RC parents do not like what the public schools are doing, they can send their kids to RC schools, make sure their kids go to RC religious education offered by parishes, reinforce their values at home and/or home wschool their kids. True education ahppens at home, by parents.”
I am not talking about public schools, but the mandatory Bill C-13 that targets Catholic schools. You are not up to the mark as well as the recent ruling by Quebec courts forcing Catholic schools to teach a course in relativistic ethics.
This is not whining, it’s fact.
“In the West, in Europe and the Americas, Chrsitians will alwasy remain free to worship sa they please, their faith traidtions will not be outlawed, Christians will not be killed for being Christians, they will be free to maintain their schools and churches. So no, Christains are NOT now perwcuted nor will they be persecuted in the future in the West.”
I disagree.
Savvy,
Sorry you have such a bleak outlook re the future of the RCC. Is that because it is cold and ark in Candna now?
I live in the Southwest—sunny and still fairly warm here in the Sonoran desert.
Lisa, I find it sorrowful nthat yhour heart is so filled with anger and hatred for the Universal catholic church and all the people in the world that are catholics including native americans, blacks, phillipinos, latino, just about everybody. Life is short. I’d try to get over that and maybe go see how we pray sometime. Get to know some catholics.
Lisa,
I know the church can face whatever comes it’s way. I am not concerned about it. I am just stating current facts, to wake up a lot of sleeping people.
timothy canezaro,
It’s a usual case of liberal snobbery, where they preach diversity, but God forbid anybody disagree with them. Philip Jenkins, talks about his in his book, “The New Anti-Catholicism, the Last acceptable prejudice”
Timothy,
My heart is NOT filled with anger and hatred for the Universal catholic church and all the people in the world that are catholics including native americans, blacks, phillipinos, latino, just about everybody.
That is just not accurate, a total misreading of my comments and is a bizzarre comment on your part. I am not a fan of the bishops and their bigotry.
I spent close to five decades as an RC, I have 16 yrs of RC education, including a BA in RC theology, I know many RCs and I know how RCs pray.
So I have long and extensive knowledge of and experience in the RCC.
Lisa,
Upbringing does not excuse you, given that the most rabid anti-Rc’s are always apostates, rather than outsiders.
Savvy,
I am not making excuses, I am NOT anti-RC and am NOT an “apostate”.
Lisa,
I will call a spade a spade. You are anti-RC and an apostate.
2089 apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith.
Tomothy,
I am not a “liberal snob” Disgreement is fine. Bigotry is not. And bigotry is what the bishops are preaching and trying to impose upon all Americans.
The last “accpetable” prejudice is not anti-Catholicism. The last “accpetable” prejudice is the prejudice the bishops preacha nd wnat all RCs to practice—being anti-gay, being against equality for all American citizens. When we as American pledge our allegiance to our falg—we pledge our allegiance “to the republic for which it sands, one nation under God, with liberty and justice for ALL” (not just for RCs, not just for Chrsitians, not just for stright people).
A new study from Simon Fraser University.
The study, spearheaded by Dr. Douglas Allen of Simon Fraser University, took a fresh look at data that had previously been analyzed by a Stanford sociologist, Dr. Michael Rosenfeld.
“children of married parents are 35% more likely to make normal progress through school when compared to children who grow up in same-sex households. Children with cohabiting heterosexual parents were 15% more likely to make normal progress and 23% more likely with single moms.”
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13524-012-0169-x
Savvy,
I am NOT Rc and am NOT an “apostate”. Sorry you feel it necessary to make unwarranted judgments. I guess all that hate and bigotry the RC bishops are preaching is rubbing off on RCs.
Lisa,
I just defined apostate, and am fed up of your attacks. Are you saying that all Christians who oppose gay sex, pre-martial sex, abortion, euthanasia, etc are bigots? Why can’t you accept difference? Practise what you preach.
Savvy,
The person who is attacking and calling name is you. What I am saying is tha anyone who opposes marriages equality (and that is the only subject I am addressing and have addressed in these comments) for ALL Americans is a bigot and is anti-American. Anyone who opposes marriage equality for ALL Americans stands opposed to the US Constitution. I love the US Constitution. I love the freedoms the US Constitution enshrines and guarantees and I will stand up for the Constitution and against any faith tradition that opposes the ideals of the US Constitution.
And I am not certain why you care, Savvy. You said you are Candadian. US laws and the US Constitution do not even apply to Canadian citizens. Your opinion re what is happening in the US is irrelevant.
Lisa,
I know first hand what has happened when gay marriage becomes the law of the land. It’s a complete re-writing of civilization with respect to marriage and sexual morality.
Canada is a classic example, with respect to what has happened in Catholic schools.
The school board even agreed to accept the govt’s directives by starting certain clubs, but said that they would still hold to church teaching on chastity. The govt. refused.
I suspect it is only a matter of time before we see the outlawing of teaching Christian doctrine on sexual morality on the grounds of discrimination.
Savvy,
First, the US is not Canada. Our cultures are very different, certainly after the US became a nation separate from Britain, the histories of the US and Canada became vastly different. What happens in Canada will stay in Canada, it has no application in the US.
When marriage equality becomes law in the US, it will have no impact on faith-based schools in the US. In the US, all faith traditions will remain free to teach their doctrines and dogma (as I am certain they will in Canada).
Lisa,
In order to safe-guard this, there needs to be a conscience clause, not just for churches, but for faith based schools and other places. None exist so far.
I stand by my claim that there is no such thing as gay marriage, it’s a legal fiction. A person can have a piece of paper, but they will never have a real marriage. To deny this, I would be lying to myself. I still have the right to see marriage as between a man and a woman. The sexes are not interchangeable.
On the other hand, I agree that if this legal fiction is going to be foisted up the nation, there should be a conscience clause, for those organizations that object.
The Catholic Church is inclusive of people from all backgrounds and numerous cultures. Catholics didn’t invent marriage, that was around long before us. A union between Man and Woman is as fundamental to humanity as is Love. For within marriage, we learn and grow and traverse life together. More importantly, being married in the catholic church is a sacrament in which the union is blessed by a priest and the couple is open to the possibility of new life. New life only happens from the union of a man and woman. Every glbt person ever born was the product of this union and we love them as they are our family and friends. The issue here is special interest groups namely lgbt groups are lobbying to change what marriage means. Now, as catholics that is an issuebecause Christian marriage and family life is the cornerstone of the christian experience. Now other faith traditions have traditions too relating to marriage to and from what I’ve seen they have our backs on this one. Black Baptists and Catholic, Jewish leaders, protestants…well we all have much to say about this issue. We’ll see how the supreme courts weighs in very soon too
timothy ,
You are right, it’s more like for some people secular politics has become their religion to the extent they politicize everything under the sun.
. “Human parenthood is something shared by both the man and the woman. Even if the woman, out of love for her husband, says: ‘I have given you a child’, her words also mean: ‘This is our child’. Although both of them together are parents of their child, the woman’s motherhood constitutes a special ‘part’ in this shared parenthood, and the most demanding part. Parenthood –even though it belongs to both –is realised much more fully in the woman, especially in the prenatal period. It is the woman who ‘pays’ directly for this shared generation, which literally absorbs the energies of her body and soul. It is therefore necessary that the man be fully aware that in their shared programme of parenthood he owes a special debt to the woman.” -Bl. John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem (1988), no.
Exactly. Sometimes I just want to ask people, what do you believe in. Some people are more interested in tearing down and putting negative energy into the world. Its crazy. I have spend a good portion of my life learning and making friends with people of other faiths and backgrounds including native americans from the very poorest county in the united states. Gets frustrating because so many people want to speak for us as catholics and tell us about what and how we believe. I’m willing to go pray with anyone anytime. Seems like people on “catholic sites. Or issues want to do all the talking never once trying to respect and understand.
Marriage in itself is not purely secular. In several respects, marriage was sacred from the beginning, as the Old Testament makes clear; its religious significance does not begin when Jesus makes it a sacrament of the new covenant. Thus, following previous popes, Pius XI teaches “that there is a certain sacredness and religious character attaching even to the purely natural union of man and woman,” which arises from its divine origin, its ministry of begetting and raising children for God, and its effect of joining the couple in communion with God.
arried life is cooperation with God in creating persons. Marriage is sacred because of its divinely assigned mission: to hand on God’s gift of life and raise children for him. 92 Among the works of God’s creation, human persons are special, since they are made in God’s image and likeness (see Gn 1.26–27). Creating man and woman to complement each other by becoming one flesh (see Gn 2.18–23), God blesses them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it” (Gn 1.28). Parenthood is the handing on of God’s image: When God created humankind, he made them in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them “Humankind” when they were created. When Adam had lived one hundred thirty years, he became the father of a son in his likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth. (Gn 5.1–3). With fertility, God empowers men and women to cooperate in his creative work. When Eve bears Cain she says: “I have produced a man with the help of the Lord” (Gn 4.1), and the heroic mother of seven sons recalls their origin from God: “It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you” (2 Mc 7.22; cf. Jb 31.15, Jer 1.5)
December 12th Feast of the Virgin de Guadalupe. For anyone that’s wondering how Mexicans feel about our Catholic Universal Faith, I encourage them to go check out any number of processions, Masses, and celebrations. I will be joining my Mexican brothers and sisters first thing tomorrow.
Reminnds me, not too long ago Pope Benedict visited Mexico Christ the King specifically. 1 million Mexican pilgrims flocked to celebrate that great day. This wasthe place where many Cristeros died defending the Faith against the new socialist government led by president calles. That govt even crucified many as a warning to others of faith. Only fairly recently in mexico were full privelages of the Church restored. Viva El Virgo de Guadalupe!
Many people do not view marriage as essential or even important; it is viewed as a means to avoid sexual sin and provide for the procreation of the species, but is not actually thought to be a means by which a person can be made holy. Of course, this is not the case –the sacrament of matrimony is a source of grace and is the natural state for mankind. In the early chapters of Genesis (before the Fall) marriage is present as the right and correct state for men and women. Finally, the closing passages of the Bible in the book of Revelation speak of the marriage of Christ and the Church. Marriage is not only a source of emotional strength, but a conduit for grace and a mirror of Christ’s relationship with His Church (Ephesians 5:22-32)
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=292
Savvy,
In the US, no matter our Supreme Court decides re same-sex marriage, no faith tradition will be forced to marry same-sex couples. The RCC will be free to refuse to marry couple it does not want to marry—just as it does now. The RCC in the uS is not forced to marry divorced people, it is not forced to marry interfaith couples, it is not forced to amrry anyone who does not conform to the teachinsgs of the RCC. That will NOT change when same-sex becomes law in the US. That is becasue of our Constitution’s First Amednment fr freedom or religion.
Savvy,
That should say the First Amendment’s freedom of religion cluase
Lisa,
I said, this should also cover faith-based schools and other organizations, not just churches.
The 14th Amendment made the Federal Government sovereign, but only within the scope of it’s explicitly defined powers. Nowhere does the Constitution give the Feds the authority to define marriage.
But it is strange that a State which is so influenced by multiculturalism treats the views on this issue of every other human culture with contempt. (There was plenty of homosexuality in ancient Greece but it was never confused with marriage.) And strange that a State which has treated marriage with such contempt that its tax policies financially favour unmarried cohabitation should suddenly press vehemently for an extension of the right to marry.
Savvy,
The First Amendment of the US Constitution provides for religious freedom. In the US, no faith-based school o organization will be forced to teach anyhting about sexual morality that it does not wnat to teach.
Also, in a series of decisions in the 1960s and 1970s, the US Supreme Court has held that marriage is a fundamental right of all US citizens and that t\ states cannot interfere with that fundamental without shoing a compelling reason to do. The US Supreme Court ahs agreed to hear the two cases re same-sex marriage because the Court understands that marriage present issues under the US constitituion (and of course one of the cases deals with benefits from a federal program—Social Security). So yes, in the United states, marriage is a Constittuional issue. One of the first marriage that Court took on as a Constitutional issue was acase called Loving v. Virginia. Previous to that case, interracila marriage was banned in some states. The US Supreme Court struck down those statutes becasue uner the American Constitution, marriage is a fundamental right. And of course the 14th Amendment is not the inly Constitutional issue. Same-sex marriage also involves issues related to what is called the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution—Article IV, Sections 1 and 2, specificially. But back to the 1th Amendment—which does say, that “no state shall make or enforce thany law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citiens of the United States…nor dney to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. So you see, the US Constituion, the federal Constitution does govern how states treat their citizens. I am an old lawyer who knows a fair amount about the US Constitution.
Lisa,
What about Catholic charities being forced to shut down because they will not place children with homosexual couples? What about other charitable organizations? It says anything you do outside a church is not religious, so even Jesus would not qualify for doing things outside the synagogue.
It re-defines freedom of religion as freedom of worship, behind closed doors as in communist or some Muslim nations.
Timothy,
How Mexicans feel about the Virgin of Guadalupe is NOT the same thing as how they may feel about the RCC. Secondly, in the US, Latino RC may also feel as a strong bond with Mary and/or the Virgin of Guadalupe, that did not stop Latino voters from rejecting the polemics of the American RC bishops against Obama. Latinos in the US voted overwhelmingly for Obama—their RCism clearly ws not a priority in influencing their vote on Nov 6th.
Savvy,
Two cases from the US Supreme Court interpreting marriage as a fundamental right for American citizens pursuant tot he Equal Protection Clause of the XIV Amendment (these cases are still the law in the United States): From 1967, Loving v. Virginia as I mentioned above. The Court held that the states’ right to regulate marriage is NOT unlimited and must conform tot he equal protection clause of the 1thth Amendment. From 1978, Zablocki v. Redhail. The Court held that marriage is a fundamental rigth “triggering rigorous scrutiny” under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. As I said, these cases are the law in the US, these case highlight that in the US, marriage is seen a s fundamental right, and that it any regulation of it must conform tot he US Constitution’s 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause
Lisa,
Politics is not black or white. A lot of Latinos, I know do not support Obama’s views on social issues. They realize it’s hard to find any politician on any side that is consistent. 3 million Americans simply did not vote either.
Disagreeing with certain Bishops on politics does not say anything about how one feels about the church.
I know what that you want to use anything you can find that will affirm your hate, but we are not going to let you get away with it.
Savvy,
Re the Catholic Charities situation—you do not have the full story. Here it is: in the state of Illinois, Catholic Charities had a contract witht he state of Illinois to be a state-funded adoption agendy. In other word, Catholic Charities was receiving taxpayer dollars to be an adoption agency. The state of Illinois had certain rules for those agencies accepting the state’s moeny, one of those rules was that adoption agencies could not discriminate against gay couples in the adoption process. When Catholic Charities refused to abide by this rules, but still wanted to take taxpayer dollars, the state of Illinoids did not renew its adoption contract with Catholic Charities. Catholic Charities sued. Teh state court in Illinoid held that no agency ahs a right to recieve state meoney, that the state has the right to make rules about how taxpayer dolllars are used and to to contract or give taxpayer money to agencies ,RC or otherwise, that do not abide by the state’s rules. The issue was not about religion, but about the state’s right to formualte rules regarding its own contracts and taxpayer dollars. Its more than reasonalbe to expect any agency that want to take taxpayer dollars to abide by the rules of the state of federal government that is reponsbile for making contracts re the expenditures of those taxpayer dollars. So, no this is NOT a case of religious discrimination. It IS a case of the RCC wanting to take taxpayer money and NOT abide by the rules that goes with that money. Catholic Cahrities is free to discriminate gaisnt gay couples re adoption as long as it is NOT taking taxpayer dollars, as long as it is using private donor money.
Savvy,
Sorry about my spelling in the above. Ig et in a hurry. So here it is, with spelling corrections:
Re the Catholic Charities situation—you do not have the full story. Here it is: in the state of Illinois, Catholic Charities had a contract with the state of Illinois to be a state-funded adoption agency. In other word, Catholic Charities was receiving taxpayer dollars to be an adoption agency for the state of Illinois. The state of Illinois had certain rules for those agencies accepting the state’s money, one of those rules was that adoption agencies could not discriminate against gay couples in the adoption process. When Catholic Charities refused to abide by this rule, but still wanted to take taxpayer dollars, the state of Illinois did not renew its adoption contract with Catholic Charities. Catholic Charities sued. The state court in Illinois held that no agency has a right to receive state meoney, that the state has the right to make rules about how taxpayer dolllars are used and to NOT contract or give taxpayer money to agencies ,RC or otherwise, that do not abide by the state’s rules. The issue was not about religion, but about the state’s right to formulate rules regarding its own contracts and taxpayer dollars. Its more than reasonable to expect any organization that wants to take taxpayer dollars to abide by the rules of the state or federal government agency that is reponsible for making contracts re the expenditures of those taxpayer dollars. So, no this is NOT a case of religious discrimination. It IS a case of the RCC wanting to take taxpayer money and NOT abide by the rules that go with that money. Catholic Charities IS free to discriminate against gay couples re adoption as long as it is NOT taking taxpayer dollars, as long as it is using private donor money or other private money.
Timothy,
First of all, I do NOT hate the RCC. Secondly, you want to overlook the obvious. The RC bishops thundered on and on throughout the elections season about how RCs should vote, how voting for certain candidates would imperil one’s immortal soul, etc, etc. The reality is clear, RC Latinos were not influenced by what the RCC had to say about the election. RC Latinos clearly voted for Obama in overwheleming numbers. Their RCism was NOT a factor in how they voted. That is the reality. You may not like it, you may deny it, but the facts are the facts. Clerly the RC bishops thaink that all “good” Catholic will abide by what they say on any topic. The bishops saw the election as a moral issue. RC Latinos obviously did not and did not listen to the bishop. If they had lsitned to the bishops, they would not have overwhelmingly voted for Obama. That is just the reality. Sorry you do like reality.
Lisa,
It was the state that got involved and chose to fund these charities, because they saw it as working towards the common good. I agree their definition of the common good has changed, hence the church needs to make other arrangements.
Savvy,
No it was NOT the state that involved. Here in the US when states need to make contract for services—adotion agency services, whate4ver, the state publishes a document called a REquest for Proposals (RFP). Organizations that want to provide the needed service and accept taxpayer funding for providing the service, submit a proposal. In the proposal, the organization agrees to abide by the rules that come with th taxpayer funding. So in the Illinois case, it was Catholic Charities that actively pursued state funding, had state funding for a number of yrs, and then when the state put new rules in place (not at all unusual—state and federal agencies change rules re their programs all the time), Catholic Charities did not want to abide by the rules but still wanted the money.
So Catholic Charities is free to have whatever rules it wants re adoptions, if it wants to be involved ina doptions, but it has to use private moey—as you say, other arrangements have to be made.
Savvy, I agree that politics are not black and white, but the bishops would say that the their teachings are, that the teachings of the RCC are black and white. So clearly RC Latinos in the US chose to ignore the RC bishops. That is just the fact. And that does reflect how RC Latinos in the US see the RCC—that what the bishops say, may not be relevant, even if the bishops indicate that a vote for a certain candidate may imperil one’s immortal soul. Again I do NOT hate the RCC. I am not a fan of the corrupt hierarchy.
Lisa,
Nothing in RC teaching says that you have to vote for a particular candidate, not even the US Bishops own directives. It simply outlines what responsible/moral voting and is and it’s up to people to decide.
For example, both torture and abortion are intrinsic evils. But what does one do when they cannot find a candidate that is consistent.
It’s more like the media needs to stop playing experts, when they do not know what they are talking about.
And if you still insist please prove this from the US Bishops own guidelines on responsible voting.
Lisa,
You are not equally opposed to corruption everywhere else, or in other churches and organizations, but single out one church, making you a hater, no matter how much you deny it.
Savvy,
What makes you think that I do not object to corruption in other churches and organizations??? That is a weird, bizarre and inaccurate assumption that you are making. And it an assumption, becasue there has been no discussion on this comment thread of corruption in other organizations or churches. And objecting to corruption within the RCC makes me a “hater”?? No one should object to corruption within the RCC?? Its OK that the RC hierarchy has corruption problems?? And that it should not be discussed???
Lisa,
Your own statements have proved that your issues are varied, and are not limited to corruption. So stop pretending.
Savvy,
Of course the RC bishops cannot in the US come right out and name the candidates that RCS must or must not vote for. In the US, under US tax law, the RCC could lose its tax-exempt status if it did that. ALL tax-exempt organizations in the US are forbidden by our tax code to engage in campaigning/endorsing/opposing candidates.
What I am saying is this: the RC bishops in the US were very vocal about the election and some ordered all the priests in ther dioces to read the bishop’s letters about the election at Mass. Letters that did not name candidates but made it clear that voting for pro-choice candidate was a sin and would imperil one’s immortal soul. In the recent US presidential election, Romney said he was not pro-choice. Obama was clear that he was/is pro-choice. Bishops expect “good Catholics to pray,pay and obey. The RCC beleives that the aurthority of bishops comes form God via apostolic succession. So that the teachingos of the bishops and the RCC ARE black and white.
All I am saying is that RC Latinos chose to vote for Obama in overwhelming numbers—a clear indication that they chose to ignore what the RC bishops were saying about the election. And let me just say that the RC bishops in the US are very very disappointed that American RCs overall, voted for a pro-choice, pro-same-sex marriage candidate. It means to the bishops that American RCs, inlcuding Latino RCs in the US, do not accept the authority of bishops, that RCism is not the primary influnece on how Americans RCs engage in civil society, that American RCs feel free to reject the “authoritative” teachings of the RCC re supporting “instinsic evils” Here in the US, the bishops have 2 and only 2 issues—oppoisng same-sex marriage and opposing abortion. So when they see that American RCs overall ignore what the bishops say and vote in ways that the bishops clearly opposed, in ways that the bishops see as supporting “intrinisc evils”, then they, like the GOP, had a big wake-up call on Nov 6th.
Here in the US, the fac that there is any growth in the RCC is becasue of Latino immigration and now the bishops see that even these supposed loyal RCs do not listen to them. That is the reality, that is what the numbers hso here in the US re the US presidential election. So, my saying this is NOT about hate, its just talking about the realities of US voters.
Savvy,
I am NOT pretending about anything. I am jsut syaing that you have NO basis in fact to say that I do not object to corruption in other churches or organizations. That is just a bizarre assumption you are making. It seems you are out of touch with reality and feel free to make stuff up about what I do not object to.
“What I am saying is this: the RC bishops in the US were very vocal about the
election and some ordered all the priests in ther dioces to read the bishop’s letters about the election at Mass.”
These letters were about religious freedom and the mandate’s definition of religion.
The Bishops can talk all day all night about any other issue and the media simply will not care.
That being said, I agree that the American church suffers from poor catechesis, thanks to years of bad teaching or neglect on part of both Bishops and priests. It’s going to take time to undo what the Marxist theologians have fed people about social justice.
Savvy,
No, the letters bishps had priest read at Mass during the US election cyslce were about the electiona nd about RCs voting against candidates who were pro-choice and pro-same-sex marriage. You can google that, you read those letters onthe websites of various US RC dioceses, you can read about those letters in diocesaean newspapers and other newspapers.
Here in the US, the RC bishops have tw o and only two issues that they promote and spend millions of dollars to promote: fighting same-sex marriage and fighting abortion. Savvy, I live here in the US and I know what is happening in the RCC in the US.
You mena that “marxist theologians” have taught that all people are made in the iamge of God? That they have taught we must be concerned about and take care of the poor, the wido, the opahn, the disable, the vulnerable in our society? You mena that they have taught that people must speak out against injustice? That the Bible is not a manifesto for unchecked and rampant captialism?? You mean that they taught that people have freedom to follw their conscience, that they are not juse uneducated peasants in the pews hwo have to pay, pray and obey???? You mean that they have taught that people do not need to accept oppression—no matter its source??? You mean that those dastardly “Marxist” theologians have advocated for the message of that radical, pinko, commie Jesus of Nazareth who stood up against the corrupt/complacent religious authorities of his day??? And that RCs may get the idea that they too can stand up against the corrupt and complacent RC bishops of today??? GASP! Oh, the horror, the horror!!!
If Latinos have been fed something else for years by their churches, and are now being fed something else, I think people might be confused about what the church teaches.
“You mena that “marxist theologians” have taught that all people are made in the iamge of God? That they have taught we must be concerned about and take care of the poor, the wido, the opahn, the disable, the vulnerable in our society? You mena that they have taught that people must speak out against injustice? That the Bible is not a manifesto for unchecked and rampant captialism?? You mean that they taught that people have freedom to follw their conscience, that they are not juse uneducated peasants in the pews hwo have to pay, pray and obey???? You mean that they have taught that people do not need to accept oppression—no matter its source??? You mean that those dastardly “Marxist” theologians have advocated for the message of that radical, pinko, commie Jesus of Nazareth who stood up against the corrupt/complacent religious authorities of his day??? And that RCs may get the idea that they too can stand up against the corrupt and complacent RC bishops of today??? GASP! Oh, the horror, the horror!!!”
I never in any way said, people should promote capitalism or any of the things you bring up. I meant they are taking things too far, by politicizing everything under the sun. Christianity is about changing people, not institutions. They need to start with themselves. They need to become the saints God created them to be, not politicize everything. If they want change, start by changing themselves.
Savvy,
If you lived here in the Sttes, you would know that there is no room for confusion about where the US RC bishops stand on the issues. No, its not a matter of confusion. American RC Latinos clearly rejected whatt the US bishops were saying leading up to our Nov 6th election. They rejected what the bishops had to say. The US bishops said fighting abortiona and sex marriages were the primary issues in voting on Nov 6th. American RC Latinos and American Catholics in general rejected that and saw other issues as primary to their election decisions. The postions of the RC bishops were irrelevant to American RCs. in the election. A big, big wake-up call for the bishops.
Lisa,
I said, the Bishops are waking up too late. Bad teaching is bearing its’ fruits on the family and life issues.
Lisa,
The social justice issues, you bring up are part of the church’s teachings, but so are other teachings on the family and life social justice, since they deal with the dignity of the human person.
Savvy,
If you lived in the US you would know that the RCs who are front and center in “politicizing everything” are the RC bishops. You would know that RCs who are most resistant to “becoming saints” are the RC bishops who have fought tooth and nail to enable and cover up for pedophile priests, who are still seeking to deny justice to the victims of pedophile priests, who who wrongly use the money lay pepople provide to dodge responsibility for their (the bishops’criminal acts.
In spending millions upon millions of dolars to enshrine hate, dicrimination and bigotry into American law, it is the RC bishops who are “politicizing everything”, by trying to deny sacraments to pro-choice RC politicians who represent large populations of Americans, the bishops are “politicizing everything”, by using the RC sacraments as weapons to influence how RC office holders represent US citizens, the bishops are “policitizing everything” by telling people that they may imperil their immortal souls by voting a certain way, the RC bishops are “politicizing everything”.
The people who are going too far are the American RC bishops. Perhaps they are confused.
“it is the RC bishops who are “politicizing everything”, by trying to deny sacraments to pro-choice RC politicians who represent large populations of Americans, the bishops are “politicizing everything”, by using the RC sacraments as weapons to influence how RC office holders represent US citizens, the bishops are “policitizing everything” by telling people that they may imperil their immortal souls by voting a certain way, the RC bishops are “politicizing everything”.”
It’s these politicians that claim to be good Catholics. If they did not, they would be left alone. The church is simply doing it’s job. If you claim to be a good practising Catholic, then you are subject to church teachings on certain issues. If not do not make such claims publicly. Do not wear your religion on your sleve.
Receiving communion in a state of mortal sin are calling God’s condemnation on themselves. It hardens one’s heart and you slowly start to lose the sense of sin. Like with Judas. This applies to others who do so. Politicians just do this more visibly than others.
This is just simply pointing out the obvious. If Catholic politicians do not want to be called out then do not make statements like your faith influences your social justice choices. It’s like saying I want to impose my faith’s social justice on you. And then complain why the church clarifies what they mean by social justice.
Lisa,
So Lisa you want Catholic politicians to support Catholic social justice, when you agree with it, but not when you don’t ? Please be consistent. This demonstrates a bias on your part.
Savvy,
What I want is for ALL elected American officer holder,s RC or not, to represent the people who voted them into office. All American elected office holderes represent diverse constitutencies—therefore it is improper for RC bishops to use the sacraments as weapons,a s away to attempt influence how RC office holders represent American voters and how they do their jobs.
And NO, I never said that I want Catholic politicians to support Catholic social justice, when I agree with it, but not when I don’t. You are making stuff up again.
“What I want is for ALL elected American officer holder,s RC or not, to
represent the people who voted them into office. All American elected office
holderes represent diverse constitutencies—therefore it is improper for RC
bishops to use the sacraments as weapons,”
The Bishops do not use the sacraments as a weapon. It’s just that Catholic politicians who openly make statements about their devoutness like Peloisi, Biden should not complain when called out on it. They had it coming. Just shut up.
“The RCC will be free to refuse to marry couple it does not want to marry—just as it does now. The RCC in the uS is not forced to marry divorced people, it is not forced to marry interfaith couples, it is not forced to amrry anyone who does not conform to the teachinsgs of the RCC.”
The church does not marry anybody. The couple confers the sacrament to each other. The church simply acts as the witness. This is why marriage is a natural institution. Christians had marriages, even before they had public weddings. This is why the church recognizes the marriages of non-Catholics and even non-Christians heterosexuals as valid. It won’t be the same with gay marriage.
You know. I don’t think anyone is expecting the Catholic Church to accept married same-sex partners. Oh we need the Catholic Church to do is to stop teaching bigotry to its members. Most people recognize that the Catholic Church is just being the Catholic Church. It’s been that way and it’s going to stay that way. As the human race continues to evolve, it will rely on the Catholic Church less and less for moral conscience. People will just have to decide whether or not they want to be a part of it. Eventually only the ones that are brainwashed will remain.
Savvy,
The RCC does marry people—see the article above. In the US, clergy are licensed by the state to perform marriages that are considered legal by state governemnts. That is why the article above askes the question re the RCC “getting out of the civil marriage business”.
Savvy,
Your response to me is “just shut up”? Wow! What a super great “Christian” response. I guess this means you concede that I am correct and you cannot refute my statement with any logical response.
It is clear in the US that the RC bishops are trying to influnece RC elected officer holders. They are indeed “politicitizing” everything”.
Lisa,
I meant that Politicians like Biden and Pelosi should shut up. They cannot publicly brag about how devout they are and then complain about the attention. They simply have it coming.
A lot of my pro-life friends voted for Obama. The reason being there is a growing awareness that politicians on both sides are not going to do anything, esp. since both parties have the same investors. It’s more like there’s been a change in strategy. In fact the former abortionist Abby Johnson outlines the change in strategy.
Bill S,
You cannot be bigoted towards unicorns because they do not exist. You have not come up with a single non-relativistic reason for your position. If everything is relative then so is bigotry and brainwashing.
But you can be bigoted towards homosexuals. And the Catholic Church is exactly that.
I brainwashed I just mean believing everything that the Catholic Church tells you. Never questioning anything said by the popes, bishops and parish priests. And I agree with Lisa. Many Catholics were convinced that it was a mortal sin to vote for Obama. I put the blame for that squarely on the bishops.
Bill S,
This is your uniformed opinion. I have clearly articulated my views, you have not come up with a SINGLE non-relatvistic reason for yours.
Savvy,
Thanks for clearing up my confusion. Much appreciated.
Here in the US, the federal law re abortion will not change until or unless the US Supreme Court reverses its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision or unless the Congress and 2/3 of the states vote to amend the US Constitution to outlaw abortion. So in the short-term anyway, not much is likely to change in this area in the US
Lisa,
Yes, you are right, I have heard this from a priest very involved in the pro-life movement. The republicans have simply not done anything. Everything election year, they talk to win votes. It’s a grassroots movement that has changed minds and hearts, rather than a single politician.
This blog is all about stating opinions. You can call my opinions relativistic. I don’t think they are. I have two basic opinions. 1. The Catholic Church is bigoted against gays. 2. Some Catholics are just brainwashed into believing everything the Church says. Those are just opinions.
Bill S,
Opinions are not facts. Orientation and behaviour are not the same thing.
Bill S,
You might want to read this.
http://lifeteen.com/gay-catholic-and-doing-fine/
I understand how the Catholic faith might give someone like the author of that article feelings of peace and security. But he is someone who has been indoctrinated (that’s a kinder word than brainwashed). Non-Catholics and non-practicing or liberal Catholics see it differently. Their rights to marry a same sex partner should be respected. You don’t agree because you listen to the Pope and bishops. If they were OK with it, you would be OK with it too. That shows that you can’t think for yourself. You can rationalize Church teachings but you can’t reason for yourself that gay marriage poses zero risk to the future of the human race.
Bill S,
You do not know a single thing about me. I can equally argue that you have been brainwashed by popular culture and are are a conformist to popular trends. You are afraid of looking bad, in the eyes of your peers. It’s all about the image. These generalizations on both sides are too simplistic.
I know you went to World Youth Day last year so you are probably a lot younger than me. Even if you went as a parent, you are still younger than me. You are very well read but kind of one-dimensional. Too dedicated to Catholicism. There’s a whole non-Catholic world out there. You need to try to be a part of it.
Bill S,
I am fully aware of the fact that there is a whole non-Catholic world out there. My closest friends are not Catholic, as is family. You are not aware of the fact that church cannot change something’s, even if the Pope wants too, just as it cannot manufacture a new sun. As, C.S, Lewis says, that we can refuse the whole moral order, but cannot create a new one.
But, then it takes a lot of study to figure things out.
The Church cannot change some things even if the Pope wants to? So if there are archaic rules that have no relevance to the modern world, there is no way of changing them? Is that the case with gay marriage? Are Catholics required to oppose it? Can’t they just tolerate it like most progressive people? Can’t the Pope be more tolerant especially since the Church protects its own homosexual pedophiles? Why be so hypocritical?
Bill S,
Hypocrites we all are, self-diagnoses is the key. Poor priestly formation and screening, let to the acceptance of men who should not have been priests to begin with. Nobody here is defending their actions.
Your argument is simply that Friday is better than Thursday, because it’s Friday. It’s an appeal to popularity, that’s all it is. I have also repeatedly said, that there is nothing new about what you claim are modern ideas.
There is also a difference between tolerance and approval.
I understand what you are saying about hypocrisy. I also understand the difference between tolerance and approval.
There are many matters, too many to count, where no one would expect approval from the Catholic Church. But on the other hand, one would expect tolerance. I would have no issue with the Catholic Church if it were just to show tolerance of things like same-sex marriage and birth control. Instead, it tries to get actively involved in the political process by telling its members how to vote.
I have two sons. Both of them were planned. My wife was on the pill, mostly to regulate her periods, for the remaining time. To be twice as safe, I also used condoms. There is no way that anything we did was “intrinsically evil”.
My oldest son is gay. If he wants to get married someday, I would give him both my tolerance and my approval. All I would ask from the Catholic Church is tolerance. He wanted to be a priest when he was young, but life had other plans for him.
So my attitude to the Church is about the same as it’s attitude to the things that affect my life. I enjoy discussing these issues with you. I admire your dedication but I think it is misplaced.
Savvy,
There are things the RCC can cahnge and has changed over the course of its history. For the first approx 1,200 yrs of the RCC, there was a married priesthood. The RCC changed that. And could change it again. The rite of the Mass haas changed over the centuries and at some point in the future, will probably cahnge again. The RCC from about 1200 to 1850 had an active Inquisition—that stopped. The RCC has changed it views on nature, accepting finally the discoveries of Galileo and accepting evolution. For centuries the RCC opposed the translation of the Bible into vernacular languages, now it has embraced that. Papal infallibility did not beocme a dogma until 1869. The RCC has embraced critical Biblical scholarship and actively supports ongoing investigation re the history of the Bible, better more accurate translation of the Bible (see the New American Bible Revised Edition). Nostra Aetate was a big cahnge for the RCC. As science discovers more about sexual orientation, perhaps some pope in the future will talk about that in the same way the RCC tlaks about evolution. So the RCC has changed and will continue to change. The RCC is not unchanging
Bill S,
Your statements are a classic example of why those who preach difference do not practise it. I am not offended if someone else disagrees with me. It seems like there is an attempt to write new values, not based on law or even ethic, but on some emotional concept of hurt.
You can disagree with the church on artificial contraception, but nobody even my atheist friends deny that Humane Vitate’s predications have come true. There is no movement to legislate anything on this front. If are talking about the mandate the issue is how it defines religion.
Lisa,
None of the examples, you bring up have anything to do with doctrine. Celibacy is a discipline, heliocentrism was not an article of faith, and neither is evolution. The rites of the Mass or language, do not change the Mass itself. The ones that do, are still considered invalid.
Newman’s outlines the development of doctrine, and what can develop and what cannot. There are seven principles.
Newman’s seven notes of a valid doctrinal development are (1) preservation of type, (2) continuity of principles, (3) assimilative power, (4) logical sequence, (5) anticipation of its future, (6) conservative action on its past, and (7) its chronic vigor. All seven of these characteristics need to be present for a doctrinal development to be valid.
Lisa,
I have also explained what it would take for the church to change it’s views on homosexual acts. Homosexuality might be genetically pre-disposed, just like adultery or any other sexual inclinations are, but there is no evidence to prove that it always leads to pre-determined actions. Behaviour is still a choice.
Now, if you argue that if it makes people happy etc, that is fine. The issue is forced approval enshrined in law.
Savvy,
You state, “The issue is forced approval enshrined in law.” This is the exact argument that people who opposed integration used.
What the RCC is spending millions upon million s of dollars doing is trying to enshrine hate, bigotry, discrimination into American law, trying to negate the Constitutional rights of some American citizens. What the RCC is doing is truly anti-American and a denigration of our Constitution. what we Americans enshrine into law is inclusiveness not exclusion.
No one iwll be “forced” to approve of same-sex marriage. When same-sex marriage becomes the law of the US, no church will be forced to marry same-sex couple, approve of same-sex marriages, etc. It will mean that Americans with same0sex partners will be able to marry and have the same rights as other married people. That does NOT mean that nayone ahs to approve of that and smae-sex marriage will have NO imapct on marriage, society, children or Western Civilization. It will just mean that the rights of gay Americans (the rights they now have) will be legally reognized.
Lisa,
A Catholic hospital being forced to provide same-sex spousal benefits, will be compelled to accept a marriage they do not consider to be marriage.
“That does NOT mean that nayone ahs to approve of that and smae-sex marriage will have NO imapct on marriage, society, children or Western Civilization. It will just mean that the rights
of gay Americans (the rights they now have) will be legally reognized.”
Lisa, check out the UN’s sexual rights movement and Yogakarta principles. They explicitly state that sexual rights trump free speech, religious rights and parental objections. People say, this is leftist lunacy that will not be applied, are we really too far behind?
Savvy,
As for Catholic hospitals—when I worked for one it voluntarily offered domestic partner benefits to straight and same-sex couples becasue that was a way to attract and retain nurses (my state ahs an ongoing nurse shortage). Also, while the bishops in the dioces may foam at the mouth about smae-sex marriage, the nuns and administrators of the hosptials tend to be more open and accepting.
As for sexual rights—we are talking about the recognition of the Constitutional rights of gay Americans to marry.
In the US, no law should be based on the RCC’s objections or approval. US law is based on our Constitution, on our body of case law,and to some extent upon Enlish commoan law. No faith tradition has the right to enshrine its particular teachings into American law. That is why what the RCC bishops are tryiing to do is anti-American.
In nations such as Poland, Ireland, the Phillippines, the RCC vigoroulsy inserts itself into the governments of those nations and impose its teachings in the laws of those nations—very bad. That’s just as bad as Islamic theocracies. Religion and government need to be separate for democracy to thrive. The RCC, in its false triumphalism (the idea that it is the sole source of God’s truth one earth, that is better than any other faith tradition) is anti-democratic and anti-American.
In the US, it is our constituion that has primacy, not the pope.
Lisa,
You simply dismissed the question on same-sex spousal benefits. How does this not force someone to accept same-sex marriage?
Yes, you are right about separation of religion and state, but it cuts both ways. There is something very wrong with forcing millions of people to accept things they do not want to accept, in a lot of countries , just to appease the UN or other global forces, who in fact pretend they know what is good for everybody else.
How is this different? How is lobby for what you think is right is different, from what someone else does?
I applaud the RCC for standing up to global dictators who would do away with the religious rights of Christians, free speech and parental rights, for their twisted views on what they consider to be right.
“he RCC, in its false triumphalism (the idea that it is the sole source of God’s truth one earth, that is better than any other faith tradition) is anti-democratic and anti-American.”
This is not even an RC teaching.
Savvy,
As citizens of our nations, all os us accept things we do not like. Whether it be tax rates, or government polices on a whole host of issues. As for same-sex amrriage in the US, this about the rights of American citizens pursuant to the US Constituion. It has nothing to do with the UN or “other global forces”. Adn as George Will, a long-time conservastive commentator/co,umnist, admitted alst week,, tin the United States, opposition to same-sex marriage is literally dying. The older genration that opposes it is daying. The younder generation actively supports the recognition of same-sex marriage and doe not support discrimination against gay Americans.
As for the reigilus rights of Christians—Christians seem tot hink they are the only people who should have rights. Their lots of people who profess other fiaths, who profess no faith. Their rights are not subordinate tot he rights of Christians.
Again, in the US, this about marriage and has nothing to do with parental rights, free pseech (everyone is free to express disagreement about same-sex marriage, to write about it, tweet about it, etc).
The President of the United States is not a dictator and has nothing to do with the US Suprme Court deciding to hear two cases related to same-sex marriage. These cases have been percolating through the US federal courts for sevral yrs and the US Supreme Court is right to say that their should be some resolution to the issue. Again, this is about the constituional rights of American in relation to American law and tot he US Constitution. It is wrong, it IS twisted to deny some Americans their rights under the US Constitution.
The US bishops are spending millions of dollars in an attempt thwart democracy and in an anit-merican attempt to enshrine hate, bigotry and discrimination inot American law. The US is a nation of laws, it does not answer to Rome on any issue. The US is not a Christian nation or a RC nation. Which is good—because what Christains are talking about in relation to same-sex marriage is hate. And Americas is not a nation of hate. We do not endorse second-calss citizenship for anyone just becasue they ar not RC or Christian or because they ahppen to be gay.
The RCC is on the wrong side of this. Hate and bigotry are not Christain values. Equality is an American value that the RCC does not endorse/
Savvy,
You stated, ““he RCC, in its false triumphalism (the idea that it is the sole source of God’s truth one earth, that is better than any other faith tradition) is anti-democratic and anti-American.”
This is not even an RC teaching.
You have not been reading what your RCC teaches. Please read JPII’s Dominus Iesus (2000). And even Nostra Aetate does not give up the idea that the RCC is the one true faith, the sole source of God’s truth on earth.
Lisa,
You are right that hate and bigotry are not Christian values, but you cannot hate or be bigoted towards something that does not exist. There is no natural equality for there to be legal equality. That being said, I accept that the courts have the right to rule on this issue.
I just brought up the same-sex spousal benefit as an example of how we would see years of litigation on this issue and you have not denied that this in fact forcing people to accept gay marriage as marriage, something you said, would not be done.
“You have not been reading what your RCC teaches. Please read JPII’s Dominus Iesus (2000). And even Nostra Aetate does not give up the idea that the RCC is the one true faith, the sole source of God’s truth on earth.”
Key word is fullness. It says it accepts whatever is good and true in every other religion or non-religion. You are right that it’s not big on moral relativism.
Lisa,
As for the younger generation being more accepting, this was discussed on CNN. It was said, that they would change their minds once they got a bit older. You are forgetting that millions of people worldview still view marriage as between an man and a woman. Calling them bigots and hateful, based on a minority view of marriage is simply insane.
Just reread the article…good read. Kind of sorrowful tonight on the heels of another senseless tragedy. This one has really hit me in the gut. Seems like each one gets worse. I was glad to read about yesterday hear in chicago, catholics joined a jewish group to light Haunakkah candle sorry if I am misspelling that very special jewish word, but they lite candle number 2 I believe and this is the kind of thing we need much more of. When people of different faiths and backgrounds can come together in a good spirit for good reasons…that’s what its all about. Many christmas and Haunakkah blessings to you all…again I apologize if I am misspelling that word. Was just reading an article about how some of the victims and community were vigiling in church but the victims were having a real hard time. I imagine that has to be insanely difficult for a Priest to manage everything correctly towards everyone in that kind of situation. Ahhh. Outta words. Night
timothy,
Thanks for restoring some sanity to this post.
Lisa,
You are also confusing worship with conscience. A writer who specializes in fiction cannot be forced to take on something else just because it’s legal. Your own reasoning would make Judaism itself anti-American and anti-democratic, because it has only one God, as opposed to paganism that has many.
Savvy,
You are missing the point. Judaism is not spending millions of dollars trying to enshrine hate, discrimination and bigotry into American law. Judaism is not trying to impose its teachings upon all Americans. That is is what the RCC is trying to do & that is anti-American and anti-democracy
Savvy,
In the United States of America, the idea of marriage equality is NOT a minority opinion. The majority of Americans see no reason to deny marriage equality
Lisa,
You cannot hate or be bigoted towards something that does not exist. I have stated the lack of deterministic evidence on this issue, simply because the body is a fixed entity. If observation, data, and conclusion cannot predict future outcomes, it is meta-physical.
I do not mind if someone claims that their arguments are such, but in this debate it’s not being done.
The U.S. is not a liberal democracy, it’s a Constitutional Republic. From a global perspective, even where the majority opposes gay marriage, it’s being imposed.
This is from Spiked Online, the atheist magazine.
“As one gay writer has observed, gay-marriage advocates are obsessed with protecting homosexuals and their allegedly fragile rights from ‘the tyranny of the majority’, and have thus come to believe that ‘the courts are the place to go for the redress of grievances’ (1). A Tory-supporting columnist for the Telegraph counselled PM David Cameron to ignore ‘majoritarian opinion’ – which apparently doesn’t appreciate how important gay marriage is – and press ahead with his equal-marriage plans on the basis that ‘a government enacts civilising measures because they are the right thing to do, not because they are mentioned frequently in focus groups’. Here, as across the pro-gay marriage spectrum, a distinction is made between the ‘civilised’ elites who know the historic import of gay marriage and the public, with its tyrannical passions, who do not.”
http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13164/
Savvy,
First, the majority of American in the UZS favor the the recognition of the rights of gay people to marry. So, same0sex marriage, when it becomes, legal, will not be “imposed” on the majority Secondly, yes, the US is a republic, whose governing principles are set out ina written Constitution. For that reason, the US has a branch of government, the courts, that interpret our laws. In the case of the US Constitution, the US Supreme Court, is charged withthe taks of interpreting it. The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear two (2) cases on the isse of same- sex marriage and will deliver decision re those caes by June 2013, at the latest.
Thirdly, the RC bishops are spending milions and millions of dollars to enshrine hate, bigotry and discrimination against gay people (not same-sex marriage) into US law. This kind of bigotry, hatred and discrimination against a segment of US citizens IS anti-American, anti-democracy. You abeing disingenousif you think the bishops are just against same-sex marriage. They are against gay people, the equal rights of gay people, the existence of gay people. Yes, the RCC teaches respect for gay people. But the actions of the bishops against gay people sepaks much much louder than any of the RCC’s words. The actions of the bishops give lie to the words of the RCC.
Lisa,
This is simply going round in circles. We will just have to agree to disagree.
The idea in the article suggesting a total disengaging of the Church from the civil part of “marriage,” however that is defined by the state, is one that I have advocated for years.
Those who have suggested that this is about state money are at least partially correct, with reference to hospitals and other Catholic charitable institutions. I think it is time as Catholics to wean ourselves away from all government money, difficult as that may be. After all, most of those charitable institutions were begun before there was any government funding. In fact, the Church has had hospitals since the time of St. Basil, the government notwithstanding.
But Lisa Kaiser and others who see benevolence in the move toward legal gay marriage are fantasizing. There will be a lawsuit at some point against the Catholic Church, or possibly against another Christian communion that refuses to marry two people of the same gender. This is called incrementalism and it is inherently intolerant, refusing to accept that someone or some organization could be allowed to do their own thing or believe something they don’t like. It must impose itself. It cannot help it.
Catholics (and I am one) cannot have it both ways. We cannot expect a pagan society to help us raise your children or promote our faith. The only state that can do that is a Catholic state. The best we can hope for is a pagan libertarian state that will leave us alone.
The trend right now, despite the Constitution, is toward an authoritarian pagan state. Eventually, on the same trajectory, it will likely become a pagan totalitarian state, for economic reasons.
For those who hint that we Catholics may have a martyr complex, have a look at our history. We have seen it before in the last 2000 years and may by now be smart enough to see it coming. It usually makes us stronger, by the way, painful as it is.
LJ,
When same-sex marriage becomes legal in the US, no one i going to sue the RCC when it refuse to marry same-sex couples. Why? Because the US Constitution enshrins freedom of religion. And yes, no freedom set out in the Bill of Rights is absolute. No faith tradition is free to do just anything in the name of religion (i.e. child abuse, child sexual abuse, theft, fraud, etc). But over the course of over 2 centuries, the US Suprme Court has set out how fundamental rights, such as religion, can be regulated. And in the case of religion, marriage, free speech, and other fundamental rights, there must be a compelling reason to restrict the fundamental right. Ther is no compelling reason to force the RCC in the US to marry same-sex couples. Just as there is no compelling reason to force the RCC to marry divorced couple or other couples who do not conform to RC teaching.
LJ, if you think there could ever be a successful lawsuit to compel the RCC in the US to marry same-sex couple, theen you do not know a lot about the US Constitution and/or have too bleak and paranoid view of it.
There is no such thing as a “trend toward an authoritarian pagan state”. Please remeber that the US is NOT a Christian nation and that people of other faith traidtions are NOT pagans. They are Jews, Mulsism (part of the Abrahamic tradition that Christianity is part of), Hindu, Sikhs, Buddhists, B’hai, etc. NOT pagans. The USA is NOT going to make “martyrs” out of American Catholics. That has never happened and will not happen. What will happen is that the RC bishops will NOT get thier way in trying to wnshrine hate, bigotry and discrimiation toward gay Americans in US law. That is NOT making anyone a “martyr”. The USA and every nation in the West is a secular stte, NOT a pagan state—big difference.
The USA was not founded to to promote RCism or to educate children in the tenets of RCism. People of all faith traiditions, or no faith traidtion are equally free to worhsip or not as they see fit. If RCs want to educate their children in the tenets of RCism, send your children to RC schols and to RC churches, and to RC religious education (is it still called CCD?), to CYO, promote your ideas of RC teaching at home with your children.
Lisa,
Why don’t you get that not everybody finds your arguments convincing, based on what is taking place in the Western world?
And in Canada, Hindus, Sikhs, and other non-Christians are also opposed to certain things and to the forced indoctrination of their kids.
1. In the UK several Christians have been arrested for criticizing homosexual behaviour
2. French Socialists want a crackdown on pro-marriage groups such as Evangelicals, Catholics and Orthodox Jews.
3. In Canada, Evangelical and Catholic schools are being forced by the state to violate their own teachings on sexual ethics, because it’s offends gays.
4. In Sweden a pastor was arrested in his own church.
There’s a lot more just google.
The U.S. Constitution is open to interpretation, hence the U.S. is not immune from these things.
Remember Elane Photography vs. Venessa Wilcock? This was a clear violation of conscience rights.
And please do not respond with emotional backlash or arguments from suspicion about the motives of those who disagree with you. It’s an indication that you are not doing well with facts.
@Lisa
Call it secularism if you wish, but it is in every sense of the word a new form of paganism. Statistics on religion are very deceiving. There are large numbers of Catholics in America if you just look at the baptismal records. Yet about 1/4 of them ever darken the doors of the Church. In their lifestyle, their self-professed beliefs, in their voting patterns and political opinions many are as far from being Catholic as could be. Essentially they are pagan.
(By the way, I don’t use that word in a derogatory manner. Pagan simply, to my mind, best describes the dominant moral and spiritual perspective of mainstream American culture.)
The same minority within a minority scenario applies to a variety of Protestant denominations as well, as their own surveys have shown. I have also read articles with respect to Jews bemoaning the same situation among the wider Jewish population. I have no idea how faithful Sikhs, Muslims are to their own professed religions numerically speaking, but it is hardly the point.
No, America never was a Catholic state, yet for a long time it was dominated, morally and socially by Protestant ethical standards which paralleled the Catholic moral standards (not popular standards but actual Church moral teaching) so that it was possible even for faithful Catholics to get lulled into the comfort zone that the society would back up their own moral teaching. That makes it a lot easier to raise children but it didn’t last, as we see all around us. And the charitable institutions took government money because in the beginning the goals were closely parallel. Now not so.
The culture of death is a pagan materialistic culture and runs directly contrary to the Catholic faith at every turn. Hence my point that we can no longer expect the culture to back us up. We are quite literally on our own. But you have to admit from the historical perspective beyond our own life-times that this was not always the case.
As to the Constitution, it has been twisted and violated to suit the dominant political and social trends of the time since the very beginning. Don’t put your faith in it Lisa.
How do you think it was possible for slavery to exist as long as it did when the declaration says that all men are created equal? How was it possible for FDR to put Japanese Americans in prison camps in WWII?
In times of fear or greed or widespread mania of any kind the country will do what is politically popular, the constitution notwithstanding. Without 911 George W. could never have come close to getting the Patriot Act into law. Human rights are quite often most viciously violated in the name of human rights, and pious people, whether Christian or pagan will often endorse it.
Martyrdom encompasses more than death by lions in a sports arena. Prison time is also martyrdom. What does the government do when people don’t pay their fines? And what can a private, self-insuring Catholic organization do when it’s only source of income is donations and that is insufficient to pay the fines for non-compliance? Go to jail.
There is a close parallel here to ancient Rome. All Caesar required was that the Christians pay homage to the Roman Gods, something simple like burning incense. After that, have whatever religion you like. Same thing here. Worship how you choose, freedom of religion, rah, rah! Just as long as you pay your tithe to the HHS. What’s the problem, right?
Lisa, you keep saying that the U.S. Bishops are spending millions to try and enshrine hate and bigotry into the constitution, as if saying it often enough will make it so.
Yet you also say that nobody is going to force anyone to accept gay marriage or to perform such marriages.
If enough people believe your mantra about hate, or at least the ones with the money to pay the lawyers, don’t you think that the next step will be lawsuits under the “hate” laws?
That is precisely the avenue taken by gay organizations and their well paid lawyers in Canada in an attempt to silence anyone who disagrees with their position on gay marriage or any moral issue regarding homosexual practice. Bishops have been brought before so-called human rights tribunals (kangaroo courts) for simply articulating Church teaching on human sexuality.
The land of the free and the home of the brave is going down the same path, and whatever happens, the political forces with the ability to stack the courts will have it all declared constitutional.
Lisa, if America was following the constitution, the vast majority of Americans would not even know who the President was, except perhaps in war-time, let alone their Congressional delegate. State and local elections would be getting the kind of coverage that Presidential elections now get, and people wouldn’t much care what the U.S. government was doing. They likely wouldn’t even self identify as American unless out of the country.
The constitution has been left far far behind and central government has long since taken over.
By the way, the U.S. Constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written. It established a balance between federal and local power very akin to the way that Catholic social doctrine establishes solidarity and subsidiarity.
It is very sad that America has not been able to follow its own constitution for a very long time. It was written to avoid the central authority that so many hated when exercised by King George of England, yet that has been long forgotten, just as the balance in Catholic social doctrine has been long forgotten by many Catholics.
LJ,
Do not waste your time arguing with someone who simply responds with polemics. Her petty tirade has morphed into the intellectual equivalent of a street corner hustler who has either been caught red handed or is losing an argument, who starts yelling at the top of his or her lungs not even stopping for breath raving about the accuser and their motives and their ancestry and never letting ANYONE get a word in edgewise and they never stop until everyone goes away and leaves them feeling vindicated because nobody else is left to press the point…
Well, savvy, what is really funny about this is that I am in agreement with a disengaging of the Church from the government, including acting as agents of the government in signing off on the civil contract of marriage. Most Catholics don’t think that it is time yet to do so. I think they are carrying on a fiction in their own minds about where the country is and where it is headed.
Lisa actually agrees with them in a sense, believing that the U.S. is all just hunky-dory and constitutional, etc. It is funny how back in George W.‘s time the neo-cons were of the same mindset about the Patriot Act. When the tide and the rulings are going your way, the country is just fine, thank you very much. The very reason the Bishops are pressing the issue in the courts is because they still think the country is just fine and that besides being Catholic Bishops they are also Americans and have the right to advance their views in the courts just like any other Americans.
The real facade is the idea of neutrality of the government and/or the courts. There is no such thing as neutral. Right now and for the foreseeable future the trend is toward the pagan ideology, morality and culture. Calling it secular gives it the cache of neutrality but it is far from neutral.
Savvy: That’s not the way I see it. I think Lisa’s comments are quite accurate. The Catholic Church has no concern for the rights of others. Instead it sees its own inability to violate the rights of others as some sort of denial of its own rights. It uses freedom of religion to impose its own beliefs on others. The Supreme Court will settle this once and for all. Catholics can complain all they want about their rights being infringed upon. Less and less people are listening to them. And no one is going to force the Catholic Church to marry same sex couples. That’s just another scare tactic to rouse people to oppose same-sex marriage. There really is no explanation for how same-sex marriage constitutes any violation of freedom of religion. It’s just a ploy that the Catholic Church is using to try to get its way.
LJ,
If you want to see how much the bishops have spent on trying to enshrine hate, bitory and discrimation into American law, you can Google that or look at the various dioces e websites in Minnesota, Maryland, Washington, Maine, Phoenix, etc. This pate elction cycle the dioces of Minneapolis and St. Paul spent $650,000.00 to try to pass an anti-same-sex marriage amnedment in Minnesota.
Your comments re the US Constitution indicate that you are not very knowledgable about the US Constitution. People know who the president has more to do with our rapid information age than anything else. And I think even a century ago, most people knew who the POTUS was.
SaVVY,
I am not here to convince anybody of anything. But I do think it is important to be a voice of reason, a voice of knoledge about the US Constitution, a voice that just does not parrot the scare-mongering and bigotry of the US bishops.
Your “citations” of things in France, Candaa, etc are incomplete and I am not sure I belive they are accurate, and you certainly give no context. And of course, none of thse things are about the USA. Again, you apparntly have no knowledge of the USA or our Constitutiion.
I think its you who is truggling with the facts and lack of knolwedge. Sorry if you see the fact as “emotional backlash”. i cite sections of the US Constituion and cases decided by the US Suprem Court—those are fact, not “emotional backlash”. That is just your way of trying to avoid reality.
Bill S,
This is your unproven opinion.
Lisa,
But Nobody has a constitutional right to change the legal definition of anything. Nobody can make out a prima facie case of denial of equal protection of the laws without setting forth, or acknowledging, a precise definition of what it is they have allegedly been denied access to.
True, if Virginia law had provided that only certifiably “white” people may marry, then there would be a constitutional issue, because racial distinctions are subject to strict scrutiny. But it did not. The constitutional issue was a different distinction based on race. If in fact non-white people were not men or women, there might be a basis for saying that they cannot marry. But people of whatever complexion are men, or women.
Legislation is indeed the constitutionally proper way to change the definition of marriage. No existing law bars homosexuals from marrying, nor does any law bar homosexuals from marrying heterosexuals. Marriage laws do not even mention homosexuality, nor heterosexuality.
Savvy,
In the US, the issue that will be decided by the US Supreme Court is this: do gay Americans have a constitutional right, via the 14th Amendment, to marry? If think the Justice of the US Supreme Court do not have the power to decide this question iht uSA, you should let them know. They will be suprised.
And you are incorrect about legislation in the US. Most states do NOT permit same-sex marriage, that is why it is being legalized state by state. Most states and teh US federal government permit only men to marry owmen and women to marry men. The laws do not need to mention “homosexuality”, becasue in most states in the US and per federal law, marriage is expressly restricted to men marrying women and women marrying men. Again, you lack any substantive knowledge of US law and so I am uncertain why you are commenting on it.
Lisa,
You have constantly made comments about issues you know nothing about. When asked for citations, you told me to google things.
If this issue will be decided by the courts and the constitution, then why are you so worried about what RC Bishops think?
You are right that the current legal definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman. What NOBODY seems willing to cop to is that the whole “gay marriage” campaign is an attempt to CHANGE AN EXISTING DEFINITION. Only by reifying marriage into a totally undefined term can anyone claim that any PERSON has been denied equal access to marriage. The new definition de facto is that marriage is a desirable honor, and an attractive bundle of benefits.
There is no reason to have any marriage laws — having them is a discretionary legislative act. Every human relationship under the sun doesn’t have to be the subject of legislative recognition.
“Well, savvy, what is really funny about this is that I am in agreement with a disengaging of the Church from the government, including acting as agents of the government in signing off on the civil contract of marriage. Most Catholics don’t think that it is time yet to do so. I think they are carrying on a fiction in their own minds about where the country is and where it is headed.”
I am in agreement too. The thing is this proposal was not first made by the Americans. This would make marriage a private affair, no public weddings, and cultural Catholicism, will be dead in two generations, since people will not be able to just go to church to fulfill some ritual. IMO, this is a good thing.
Savvy,
I am not worried about what the RC bishops think. My concern is tha tht RC bishops are spending millions of dollars, lots of time and effort in interfering with the Americna democratic process and trying to impose RC teaching upon all of American society. I couldnd not care less what the RC bishops think. Actions speak louder than words. Its their actions that concern me.
It IS important to have laws re marriage. Such laws set out the rights and resposniblities that spouses have toward one another re property. And such law protect the children of a marriage and such laws set out reights and reponsbilities of spoused toward each other and toward their children in the event of divorce. Marriage, in the ,aw, is a civil contract—that is why laws are necessary.
And Savvy, I have NOT “constantly made comments about issues you know nothing about.” Everything I have commented about: The US Constitution, US laws, the actions of the RC bishops, etc are things I know much about. I am an American lawyer, with much education and experience in US Constitutional law. I have 16 yrs of RC education, spent approx 5 decades as an RC (but am no longer), annd extensivley read reputable/reliable sources re a wide range of topics.
I am NOT a Candaian citizen pretending to know anything about US law or the US Constituion or the US Supreme Court or US culture.
My concern is tha tht RC bishops are spending millions of dollars, lots of time and effort in
“interfering with the Americna democratic process and trying to impose RC teaching upon all of American society. I couldnd not care less what the RC bishops think. Actions speak louder than words. Its their actions that
concern me.”
You simply have not told me how they are going to do this, when the courts and the constitution alone have that authority. It sounds like you are trying to enshrine your opinion as fact or rather hysteria as fact.
I do not care how many years you spent studying a religion, the point is that your are a product of your instructors. It does not give you a monopoly on understanding everything, since different instructors do not even share the same views. This is obvious, by how much both our understanding of Catholic teaching differs.
Savvy,
Do you not follw what the RC bishops are doing in the US. For example, this past election cycle (which ended Nov 6), the dioces of Minneapolis/St. Paul spent $650,000 to support an amendment to the sMinnesota state constitution that would ban same-sex marriage. They spent this money on TV advertising, mailings, etc to Mineesota voter (not just RC voters). That is an interference in the US democratic process.
The bishops alos spend money lobbying member of the US Congress and member os state legislatures—trying to get US lawmakers to enshrine hatred,bigotry and discrimination into US law. Do you not understand this???
I know what the RCC teaches about gay people. I have not said anything that contradicts what the RCC is teaching. I do not like what it teaches and I do NOT like the RC bishops ar trying to impose RC teaching in the law of USA. I know the RCC will not cahnge its teachings—that’s fine. That will lead even more people feeling its pews and to its extinction. The RCC needs to stop trying to impose that irrational, bigoted, teaching upon all of American society. That is my point. So I AM talking fact. You ARE deliberately mischaraterizing that as “hysteria”. You cannot deal with the facts and you cannot deal with the fact that you know nothing about US laws, the Constitution, the US Supreme Court
Lisa,
Nobody is imposing anything, it’s called expressing a different view. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Just as the other side, has a right to express views I disagree with. I am not losing sleep because someone disagrees with me.
What is the point of democracy , if only those who you agree with are allowed to express their views?
From my perspective, it’s your views that make no sense, they are not based on fact or ethic, but some emotional definition.
Posted by savvy on Tuesday, Dec 18, 2012 12:50 PM (EDT):
Bill S,
This is your unproven opinion.
**********
As I said before, this blog is largely about unproven opinions. The most unproven opinion of all is the idea that same-sex marriage somehow affects or makes a statement about heterosexual marriage. They are independent issues. There is actually no sense to discussing this since it’s not a voter issue anymore. The Supreme Court will rule on this issue and we will have to accept their opinion. If the Catholic Church were to decide not to do weddings anymore, it would be like a little kid taking his ball and going home. The Catholic Church would suffer in the long run if it took such a stand. It doesn’t even make sense to suggest that it would.
And we saw the same hysteria when Bush was president. Every time liberals feel that they are not progressing on any issue or have competition, they start whining about the impending theocracy.
Bill S,
This is not a new concept. There used to be distinction between marriage and wedding. The sacrament of marriage does not require a priest. The priest was introduced by the council of Trent, to serve as a witness, because people making claims that they were not actually married etc.
Marriage is conferred by the couple on each other. There is nothing to say that this can’t be done privately again, without the wedding show.
The wedding show as you call it is a part of our culture. Along with baptisms and funerals, it is one of the things that the Catholic Church does relatively well. Why would it stop? Just because it can’t get its way on same-sex marriage which it has no involvement with anyway? I guess I just don’t get the question posed by this article. Why would the Church preemptively stop doing weddings?
Bill S, the article is not talking about the RCC not doing weddings. Its talking about the RCC withdrawing from the civil aspects of marriage. In the US, clergy, including RC priests are licensed by the state to perform civile wedding ceremonies. For Catholics this means that the priest, licensed by the state, performs a simultaneous civil ceremony and religious ceremoney. In other nations, RC priests do not permitted, licensed or whatever to perform the civil/legal marriage. In those countries, couples marry first in a civil ceremony and then have a second religious ceremony.
This article is talking about the RCC adopting that model here in the US.
Savvy,
Nobody is “whining about impending theocracy”. What I am TALKING about is the RCC bishops seeking to enshrine hate, bigotry, discrimination against gay Americans into American law and trying to impose RC teachings upon the broader American society.
The US Constitution in fact and in spirit stands FOR freedom, it does NOT stand for bigotry and discrimination. So what I am saying is that one of the governing/overarching principles of the USA is inclusion, freedom, inalienable rights of American citizens. The RC bishops want to alter that spirit of freedom and inclusion in the US. That is anti-American. It goes against everything the USA stands for. The RCC bishops want to deny some American citizens their Constitutional rights. I will oppose that by any legal means possible.
Savvy,
Yes the RCC is free to express its views here in the USA. And I am equally free to oppose those views, to expose the RC bishops for the bigots they are re gay Americans.Gay Americans, like all American citizens have inalienable rights. And the RC bishops are trying to deny that and are actively trying to negate those inalienable rights. And that is anti-American.
” In other nations, RC priests do not permitted, licensed or whatever to perform the civil/legal marriage. In those countries, couples marry first in a civil ceremony and then have a second religious ceremony.”
So why would the church revert to separating civil marriages from sacramental marriages for heterosexual Catholics unless it is just to spite everybody for allowing same-sex marriage. That seems a bit childish don’t you think? What is the rationale?
Bill S,
I don’t know why the RCC would withdraw from performing civil marriage. But that is the question posed in the above article.
Lisa,
I totally disagree with you and your definitions. There is simply no such thing as gay marriage. It’s a joke.
Also freedom and inclusion according to my liberterian friends is less government which includes the govt, not deciding on personal issues and not expanding it’s might over them, punishing others with thought crimes for disagreeing.
Bill S,
You are partly correct, that the church wants to send a message that it take marriage seriously, much more seriously than those fighting for it. Without the legal benefits nobody would bother really. Those Catholics who want public weddings could still have them, they just will not get it 2 in 1. This means only the serious would apply.
Savvy,
If same-sex marriage is a joke then I guess gay people will be laughing when it beomes law by June 2103.
The rights of citizens are NOT “personal issues” and not an expansion of “might”. The recognition of the Cosntitutional rights of gay Americans is just that—a recognition of the inalienable rights gay Americans have always possessed purusant to the US Constitution. In the USA, there is certainly NO idea that anyone is going to be punished for “thought crimes”.
You are just fear-mongering or parroting the groundless fear-mongering of the RC bishops.
Lisa,
The Constitution is open to interpretation, and you are right the courts will decide this. The only person fear-mongering and threatened by differing views is YOU.
Savvy,
RCs can be serious about marriage withoutgoing to the RCC to perform the ceremony. People need no religious intermediary to be married in the eyes of God. a weeding Mass is a nice tradition, and the RCC RCs tot hink that they have to be married by the RCC. But that is just a fiction that is convenient for the RCC.
Lisa,
IMO, your views are also fiction. Marriage as always been a covenant for the church and in scripture. The Mass is not just some tradition. it might be for you, not for me.
Savvy,
The only person fear-mongering is you with your comment re “thought crimes” and all the “awful” things that have happened in Canada and elsewhere because a few gay people have gotten married.
I am merely talking about facts.
I am NOT threatened by differing views. Ioppose the efforts of the RC bishops to enshrine hatred, bigotry and discrimination into US law.
Yes, the Constitution is open to interpretation and since the 1960s to the present, the US Supreme Court has interpreted the US Constitution as governing document that recognizes the rights of cistizens, and recognizes that they have a fundamental right to marry.
Lisa,
I am stating facts about what has taken place already and will continue to do so. The Constitution does not give the federal government to power to regulate marriage, so SCOTUS should do one of two things:
1. Leave marriage the way it is.
OR
2. Get the federal government out of the marriage business completely.
Savvy,
Yes, marriage is a covenant between God and the two people marrying each other. No need for an RC priest.
Lisa,
The priest serves as a witness for purposes of record keeping, annulment issues etc. If you do not want a priest, do not get one. Others can do what they want.
Savvy,
You missed my comments above re the US Supreme Court and marriage. Since the 1960s the US Suprme Court has held that the marriage is a fundamental constituional right and that any restriction of that right by the states must be done for a “compelling reason” and that resaon will be “rigorously scrutinized” by the federal courts. The US federal government is not in the “marriage busniess”, but it does have the power to interpret the US Constitution and to compel the states to abide by the US Constitution, including the recognition of the rights of ALL American citizens to marry.
Again, you are a Canadian and not a lawyer. I am a US citizen and a lawyer steeped in expereince with the practical workings of the US Constittuion. So please do not try to pretend you know anything about the US Constitution, US law, or the US Supreme Cour
Lisa,
Are you saying that states have no right to decide this for themselves, that voters do not. The thing is the more liberal states might vote in favour of it, but the conservative ones will not. I think this is what you are scared of.
It shows that you will not accept a different view on this issue, and do not want voters deciding on it. Democracy?
The role of the laity (post concilliar)led a lot of confusion of gender roles in the church. The Pre-Vatican II liturgy leads to a clarity the we Catholics are sorely lacking. The Novus Ordo lacks reverence and a sense the priest was offering sacrifce.
Addititionally, the creation of permanent diaconid has lead ot a watering of down of the priesthood. Certain duties reserved to priests were take takenover.
Furthermore, acolytes/ alterter servers was the path to priesthood. If the church wasnts to get more vibrant church with vibrant priesthood, it would be wise to go back to the Pre-Vatican II Trinidine Mass.
But, it turns out you cannot bully everybody.
Roger Scruton wrote in the London Times about the singular success that gay activists have achieved in demonizing their opponents:
“If we ask ourselves how it is that the advocacy of gay marriage has become an orthodoxy to which all our political leaders subscribe, we must surely acknowledge that intimidation has some part to play in the matter. Express the slightest hesitation on this score and someone will accuse you of “homophobia”, while others will organise to ensure that, even if nothing else is known about your views, this at least will be notorious.”
A few months ago Ross Douthat commented on the same phenomenon in the New York Times. The gay-rights movement has advanced because of changes in public opinion, he conceded.
“But it has also advanced, and will probably continue to advance, through social pressure, ideological enforcement, and legal restriction. Indeed, the very language of the movement is explicitly designed to exert this kind of pressure: By redefining yesterday’s consensus view of marriage as “bigotry,” and expanding the term “homophobia” to cover support for that older consensus as well as personal discomfort with/animus toward gays.”
Douthat linked to stories about the gay-activist web site that advertised the names and addresses of California residents who signed a petition to stop same-sex marriage, thus making them candidates for reprisals; the attempt to ruin the academic career of Mark Regnerus, a sociologist who dared to question the studies that have been used to claim that children flourish in homosexual households.
And now the campaign of intimidation has reached the Pope. The next time the Holy Father prepares a statement, and uses the argument on same-sex marriage to illustrate a point, Vatican officials will read the draft and ask him: “Your Holiness, do you really need to include this sentence? Do you want to run the risk that no one will ever notice the rest of the statement?” Even if that argument for caution is ultimately rejected, the fact that it will be raised—as surely it will—illustrates how successful gay activists have been in restricting public discussion.”
madtrad,
This is a different discussion. I do agree about the loss of sense of the sacramental, but the answer lies somewhere in the middle. The Mass is still the same regardless of rite. Liberals and trads have both been called out for thinking only their views are the right one.
Savvy,
People’s inalienable rights are not subject to vote. They are inalienable rights (and the idea of inalienable rights in America is set out in our Declaration of Independence) So we should on reinstating slavery, we should vote on racial equality and racial integration of society? Rights are rights—not subject to the whims of a majority. We do not vote on whether straight people have the right to marry. So we should not vote on the right of gay people to marry.
And again, in the USA, when the US Supreme Court says something is a fundamental right pursuant tot he Constitution—it IS a fundamental right. Not subject to be granted or denied by a vote. It is fundamental right people have by virtue of being human beings.
Freedom of worship is a fundamental right or would you prefer that people vote state by state on whether RCs have the right to worship in that state? If allowed to vote on that issue, there would probably be some states that would vote the Catholics out and only allow evangelicals. In Utah, if the freedom of RCs to worship in that state were to put to a vote, there would no longer be RC churches in Utah.
Savvy,
Your Roger Scruton is incorrect. What he is calling “bullying” is actually very effective advocacy. So bravo tot he gay community for its very effective advocacy. People who actively try to deny other people’s fundamental rights are bigots. Let’s call it what is. If you do not approve of same-sex marriage—fine. Don’t marry a person of the same sex. That does not make you a bigot. Actively trying to deny another person his or her Constitutional/fundamental rights makes someone a bigot. I am all for demonizing bigots. They have no pace in our diverse society
madtrad,
Given the long-term, ongoing global shortage of priest, if there was no permanent diaconate, there would be nobody to perform certain rites.
Lisa,
Slavery and religion are a false comparison. I just do not buy the arguments.
In every culture, across the planet in every age: marriage reflects a dynamic that is unique to male and female pair bonding.
This does not make those who engage in this homosexual behavior of choice unfit to be citizens — but they are not and cannot be married, because their bond does not reflect that biological union. Had it not been for our biology, your contention and those who support this choice of lifestyle would have some grounds — but as it is you do not. Marriage is not a mental state alone.
Lisa,
Roger Scruton is pointing out that non-facutal emotional arguments are being used to silence people with name-calling. It won’t work with everybody. Diversity the last I checked does not stamp out different views.
The Catholic Church is hopelessly locked into an irreversible position on gay rights and same-sex marriage. It couldn’t change it’s position even if it wanted to. Unlike this dinosaur of an institution, people can look at the situation objectively and change their minds should it become obvious that the Church’s position is wrong. But some people, not many, just can’t get themselves to go against the Church no matter how wrong it is. These people are to be pitied but they must also be ignored. This is what the voters have done and what the Supreme Court will do. Right is right and fair is fair. A child has a greater sense of right and wrong and fair and unfair. It will continue to go this way until the Catholic Church loses all support. Someday we will look back at discrimination against gays the way we look back at discrimination against African-Americans and other minorities. It’s just a matter of time.
Dear Bill S,
The arguments being made for gay marriage are subjective, not objective. and millions of people worldwide still hold that marriage is between a man and a woman. As for African Americans, most black churches oppose gay marriage as does Africa. They find it offensive that behaviour is being compared to race which is not chosen.
Savvy,
Nope, Roger Scruton wants to give bigots a free pass. He objects that gay people will no longer accept being closeted and being made into second-class citizens. He objects when gay people accurately call out bigotry for what it is.
Lisa,
That’s hyperbole. Thanks for proving my point.
Bill S,
I am a woman of colour who does not find these arguments convincing. The idea that nobody is equal unless we get rid of all class distinctions, gender distinctions etc, is a Marxist argument. It takes the infinite diversity in creation and reduces it to bland sameness. It reduces human worth to what a person does or what roles they hold.
@Lisa, you said; “Freedom of worship is a fundamental right…”
That is not what the Constitution says, as you a practicing constitutionally aware lawyer are no doubt aware;
-1st Amendment; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.-
This amendment speaks of “the free exercise” of religion. That is far beyond simply freedom of worship. The free exercise can be public or private, there is no constitutional boundary there.
In that same amendment we see where the American Bishops, who are Americans as well as you are and/or any gay Americans; where they get the right to spend all the money they have on any issue, whether or not Lisa calls it bigotry.
You see how that works? Simple constitutional principles. Or would you just rather intimidate the Bishops into forfeiting their rights?
@Bill S, you said “The Catholic Church is hopelessly locked into an irreversible position on gay rights and same-sex marriage. It couldn’t change it’s position even if it wanted to. Unlike this dinosaur of an institution…” You are right that it will not change its position because it has not the authority to change its position. And, in the past 2000 years the Church has been referred to as many things, (I am not sure about dinosaur) by those who determine the truth by the calendar.
However, for those who predict the demise of the Church, I will guarantee you this. You and I will be long dead before she is. Bank on it.
Lisa, as someone familiar with contract law, you are side-stepping a critical issue that others have pointed out here.
If I have no money, yet I wish to enter into a contract to loan someone a million dollars, I am not free do that contract. Not because my constitutional rights have been violated, but because the contract itself sets the terms of who can or cannot sign it. I must have the ability to loan a million dollars in order to fulfill that contract.
That is what we are talking about re: same-sex marriage. The contract as it has always been defined, has set the terms of the contract, ie. one man, one woman. What the debate is about is the re-definition of the contract. That is all that is meant by the re-definition of “marriage.” It just so happens that a large number of people, with or without religious convictions, object to that re-definition. The bishops object on natural law grounds as well as specific Catholic doctrinal grounds. As such, they have the right, without the name-calling, to pursue that case as far as they wish to go, at whatever cost they deem appropriate.
Now, is that now how the American legal system is supposed to work? Or am I right that the system, which you think I am ignorant of, is based more on political intimidation and political rigging of the courts to put the “constitutional” stamp of approval on the latest demand by some or other group of lobbyists?
“However, for those who predict the demise of the Church, I will guarantee
you this. You and I will be long dead before she is. Bank on it.”
Haha. Reminds me of an incident with Napoleon. He told a group of Cardinals he wanted to destroy the church, to which they replied, “Good luck, not even we have succeeded in doing that.”
“You are right that it will not change its position because it has not the authority to change its position.”
No one should listen to an institution that can’t change its position on something as simple as providing equal rights to all people. I really trust that this country will get this one right. This really diminishes people’s dependence on the Catholic Church as a moral authority.
“No one should listen to an institution that can’t change its position on something as simple as providing equal rights to all people.
Have you noticed that we have a case of projection here?
The church does not see any human being as unequal. It’s a Marxist theory that human worth is based on what titles people carry or what roles they have, or what they do.
WRT to the repeated mantra here, “no one will be forced to perform same-sex marriages if they do not choose to do so.”
In the run up to the passing of Obama-care everyone was told that they would be able to keep the coverage that they currently had. Over and over, that was the mantra. Relax, nobody will be forced to give up the current coverage that they have.
The HHS mandate to cover contraception swiftly put the lie to that. For Catholics everywhere, in business and in private Catholic institutions, the coverage was mandated to change. You have until the summer of 2013 to figure out how to live with violating your principles.
So who is naive enough to believe the current assurances?
It will be the same answer, “tough, get used to it.”
That is why I still agree with disengaging from the state altogether, if nothing else but to buy us some time, and as others have pointed out, perhaps do a little sheep and goat separating along the way, as a side benefit.
“No one should listen to an institution that can’t change its position on something as simple as providing equal rights to all people. I really trust that this country will get this one right. This really diminishes people’s dependence on the Catholic Church as a moral authority.” -Bill S
The authority to change the Church’s position comes from God and God hasn’t changed his position. A lot of Americans have changed their position. That is irrelevant to what the truth is. Societies come and go. America will be the same, most likely for economic reasons as the efficient cause. It will be somewhat ironic that at the very moment when certain special interest groups will finally see themselves getting their own way, and their long standing opponents reduced to a faithful remnant, a great economic emergency will remove them as the cause celeb, and the resulting fear will bring on another suspension of the constitution, and the people will demand a firm and steady hand to solve their problems electing the kind of government that will ignore the very freedom that gave those special interests their ability to rise in influence in the first place.
Back to the present, to tell you the truth Bill, those who depend on the Church as a moral authority still will do so, and the rest have given up on that already. Perhaps they may now admit to it.
Savvy: Why do you keep calling gay marriage a lie? Who is the liar and who is the one being lied to? It is a legal commitment between two people. And neither of those people is you. In fact it has nothing to do with you. You shouldn’t and you don’t have any say in the matter. That’s why I agree with Lisa Kaiser that it is not an issue that should be put before the voters, as it was this last election, but before the Supreme Court, as it will be this coming year. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage, will you still consider it a lie? Will you always believe that the Catholic Church is incapable of being wrong about an issue such as this?
“You have until the summer of 2013 to figure out how to live with violating your principles.”
That’s an easy one. You just tell yourself that you are not the one violating your principles. It is the government and, if they take advantage of the free contraception, the employees. The employers can have a clear conscience knowing that they were forced to provide their employees with their own choice. That big bad government, making them let people make their own choices.
“It will be the same answer, “tough, get used to it.’”
In this case, I like that answer.
“That is why I still agree with disengaging from the state altogether, if nothing else but to buy us some time, and as others have pointed out, perhaps do a little sheep and goat separating along the way, as a side benefit.”
How very judgmental! In the parable you are referring to, it is God who separates the goats from the sheep in the last judgment. This is the big problem with Catholics in general. They are too judgmental.
“The authority to change the Church’s position comes from God and God hasn’t changed his position. A lot of Americans have changed their position. That is irrelevant to what the truth is.”
What a presumptuous statement! First of all, there is no God telling people what they can and can’t do. And secondly, if the Church can’t change its stand without God’s consent, then how does it get that consent?
Who really even knows if there is a God and if there is that he has anything to say about same-sex marriage?
“Savvy: Why do you keep calling gay marriage a lie? Who is the liar and who is the one being lied to? It is a legal commitment between two people. And neither of those people is you. In fact it has nothing to do with you. You shouldn’t and you don’t have any say in the matter.” -Bill S
Conversely, why should you care what the Catholic Church and the Catholic Bishops think, Bill, and what they are doing? It doesn’t concern you either. You don’t have any say in the matter regarding what Church teaching is or should be.
You see how that works? You are here in these com-boxes on a crusade for what you believe in, just as they are. Ain’t that America? to quote John Cougar Mellencamp. Or are some not allowed to advance their firmly held beliefs?
“That’s an easy one. You just tell yourself that you are not the one violating your principles” - Bill S
Thanks for the psychological advice Bill. Repeat over and over, “I’m not the one violating my principles, I’m not the one…just close your eyes and burn some incense to the Roman Gods, it’s easy, then you can go off and follow the Nazarene to your hearts content, why can’t you just do that? Nothing to it, and then Nero will be happy, you’ll be happy, I’ll be happy and I can go home without arresting you. Just close your eyes and violate your faith…why should you care?”
“It will be somewhat ironic that at the very moment when certain special interest groups will finally see themselves getting their own way, and their long standing opponents reduced to a faithful remnant, a great economic emergency will remove them as the cause celeb, and the resulting fear will bring on another suspension of the constitution, and the people will demand a firm and steady hand to solve their problems electing the kind of government that will ignore the very freedom that gave those special interests their ability to rise in influence in the first place.”
You’d like that, wouldn’t you? You would probably like a government that gets its direction from the Pope.
We are not talking about special interests here. We’re talking about human rights.
“why should you care what the Catholic Church and the Catholic
Bishops think,”
As long as they have no effect on the outcome, I don’t care. I enjoy discussing it and I respect your views.
I see that you are well versed in church history. I have to admit that I would just burn the stupid incense and get on with my life. Some people have nothing better to do than insist that other people worship their gods.
LJ,
You are incorrec about the freedom of worship Not beinga fundamental right. Freedome of worships IS a fundamental constitutional right in the USA. It cannot be negated or interfered with unless ta state or the federal government can assert and prove a “compelling reason” to do and the US Supreme Court will look at such an assertion with “rigorous scrutiny”. Over th course of Americ’s history thate have been cases before US Suprem Court on the issue of freedom of worship and the Court has consistently held that freedom of worhsip IS a fundamnetal consittutional right.
The Constitution sets out the relationship between government and citizens. The Consitituion is NOT about the relationships between private citizens. That is a basic concept of the US Constitutional law. Sorry you are ignorant of the facts about our nation.
Of the course the bishops are free to waste the laity’s money on a bigoted, immoral, irrational and losing fight. And I am free to be critical of that.
Bill S,
“Why do you keep calling gay marriage a lie? “
Because it is. You can’t marry two people of the same gender. What is marriage? Why should the state regulate it?
” It is a legal commitment between two people. And neither of those people is you. In fact it has nothing to do with you. You shouldn’t and you don’t have any say in the matter. That’s why I agree with Lisa Kaiser that it is not an issue that should be put before the voters, as it was this last election, but before the Supreme Court, as it will be this coming year. “
If the majority are for gay marriage as Lisa claims, then why are you opposed to them voting?
“If the Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage, will you still consider it a lie? “
Yes, you can have as many legal fictions as possible, it will not be a marriage. And what if it does not rule in favour of it?
“Will you always believe that the Catholic Church is incapable of being wrong about an issue such as this?”
Yes, because it’s not that it’s gay marriage is wrong, more like it’s impossible.
Savvy,
As I pointed out above, in the USA marriage is a fundamental constitutional right. Such rights are not subject to vote. You may recall above that I commented on the fact that in the USA, we do not vote on fundamnetal rights such as marriage, freedom of speech, freedom of worhsip—they are inalienable rights, the rights we have by virtues of being human. But currently, the right of gay Americans has not yet been recognized, so various atates have voted on this issue.
And Savvy, if you are so opposed to same-sex marriage and so convinced that it is a negative for Canada, why do you stay? Why not go to Iran, Saudia Arabia, Egypt (where you can theocracy and no “threat” of same-sex marriage)? Or why not go to Vatican City—theocracy, no same-sex marriage. Given your views, the pope is sure to give you asylum for the evil people of Canada who have legalized same-sex marriage!
Savvy: There is nothing impossible about gay marriage. It’s hard to get your head around. I find it impossible for me to marry a man. That doesn’t mean that I would oppose two men so inclined from doing so. I don’t think it should be decided by popular vote because people’s Constitutional rights are not a popularity contest but a matter of interpretation by the Supreme Court. If the ruling goes against gay marriage I will accept it. I am committed to obeying the law whether I agree with it or not. I don’t recognize a higher power.
Lisa,
Marriage is simply not an equal opportunity employer, no two marriages are the same, because no two people are the same. And we still have restrictions placed on marriage. We do not marry our siblings, or parents or ourselves.
Where I live is none of your business. I never called Canada evil, even if I disagree with some things.
You seem to agree that gay marriage like belief is subjective. Therefore your calling someone else irrational or bigoted, makes no sense.
Your contention is based on an experiential view. it’s called phenomonology, truth as derived by my own experience. It’s useful in helping to shape idenity acceptance, but it is not useful in extrapolating general facts, but unless it is supported by independent data, it’s a truth that exists to particular loci.
In otherwords, it doesn’t matter whether zero people or all 6.7 billion on the planet believ the moon is made of green cgeese. Until the data supports it – it remains just a belief and nothing more.
And this is why insults just don’t work with me. Every person on the planet could tell me X, but until such time as there is evidence to prove it — remains a belief. But in this case, those in the feild of research studying this behavior completely refute your conclusion. They think it exists, but they haven’t found any evidence.
So your argument isn’t with me. On any biologic trait, it is with them. It doesn’t matter if I feel, I have a cold — what matters is finding the actual bug which causes said cold. I am going to attempt to divorce myself from any further discussion — what I thought would come to pass has. Reliance on something no one has found.
Bill,
Your contention is based on an experiential view. it’s called phenomonology, truth as derived by my own experience. It’s useful in helping to shape idenity acceptance, but it is not useful in extrapolating general facts, but unless it is supported by independent data, it’s a truth that exists to particular loci.
In otherwords, it doesn’t matter whether zero people or all 6.7 billion on the planet believ the moon is made of green cgeese. Until the data supports it – it remains just a belief and nothing more.
So your argument isn’t with me. On any biologic trait, it is with them. It doesn’t matter if I feel, I have a cold — what matters is finding the actual bug which causes said cold. I am going to attempt to divorce myself from any further discussion — what I thought would come to pass has. Reliance on something no one has found.
Ok Savvy. It was a pleasure discussing this issue with you. You definitely have made your case and have a defensible position on the matter. I happen to disagree with you but I don’t find you to be unreasonable. The Church needs more followers like you.
“You’d like that, wouldn’t you? You would probably like a government that gets its direction from the Pope.
We are not talking about special interests here. We’re talking about human rights.” -Bill S
Actually Bill, the kind of government that I was thinking of would be just as hard on us Catholics as it would on anybody else. Sexual orientation and religious conviction would be equally irrelevant, and when it was perceived that either one was a hindrance or nuisance or in any way counterproductive or non-productive, as in not producing children to do the work to sustain the system, or as in the case of Catholics insisting that their own children not be raised by the state, then the heavy hand comes down.
But it would be simple economics, based on a scientific calculation, nothing more. Noble ideas like human rights or the intrinsic value of human beings would be long consigned to the history books. (Actually that last one is all but gone now in the dominant culture. Utilitarianism is moving in rapidly and will become more and more prevalent in the health care system as the money gets tighter.)
As to a government getting its direction from the Pope, after much consideration and study of history and experience of our own time and our much vaunted freedom, that would be a huge step ahead of where we are going. I presume you mean direction wrt to the laws that touch on moral issues, of which there are many. As to roads and bridges I think the Pope would defer to the engineers, knowing his own competence and authority to be in the area of faith and morals.
Savvy,
I am glad your idea of “government” will forever remain an unrealized nightmare. I ask God to keep the pope….far away from us!
Bravo to the USA, its Constitution, its laws, its courts and embrace of diversity, of separation of church and state and of fundamental rights for all its citizens,
And Bill, we are talking about special interests here, in every sense of the word. I know the current construct is to try to browbeat people like myself into thinking that we are just bigots trying to deny someone their human rights. The so-called human right you are talking about is created out of thin air, and doesn’t exist because it is based on a non-reality.
However, if instead of making our case straight up the honest way, we were to play the game the way that it has been played by the same-sex marriage advocates, we would just invent a new word to indicate what we used to mean by marriage, concede the word “marriage”, which would simply mean what most folks today understand as “civil-union”.
In that scenario, regardless of the rights, privileges and financial protections gained based on “human rights”, eventually there would be a new crusade to co-opt the new word. Why? Because this is not ultimately about you and I accepting homosexual unions or the money or the rights. This is ultimately about impelling God to approve the practice of homosexual sex. Why do you suppose the Catholic Church is in the cross-hairs here? It is no accident. In fact, it is to be expected.
Here’s why. If you examine the claims of any religion, not just superficially, and even the claims of the vast majority of Protestants and their denominations, they all stop just short of claiming to speak for God on earth. All but one. The Catholic Church. This is not complicated, it is almost instinctive. If you can compel the Catholic Church to change its view of homosexual sex, effectively you have compelled God to change his view. That is at the heart of this.
The Church is in this for the long-haul. Truly, the American experiment will eventually wane and pass away. That is just the cycle of history and human nature. It is not apocalyptic. With it will go any so-called gains in rights for gays, because what is most likely to follow this era is tyranny, historically speaking, and gays have notoriously little sympathy from tyrannies. Being allowed to live has been the most they could hope for in past experience.
Does that kind of barbarity coincide with Catholic teaching and doctrine? Absolutely not. But our influence with such governments will be as weak as that of the gays themselves, and as before, we will find ourselves up against the forces of government, but in this case defending the intrinsic human value of those gays, having never once changed our position.
“You are incorrec about the freedom of worship Not beinga fundamental right. Freedome of worships IS a fundamental constitutional right in the USA. It cannot be negated or interfered with unless ta state or the federal government can assert and prove a “compelling reason” to do and the US Supreme Court will look at such an assertion with “rigorous scrutiny”. Over th course of Americ’s history thate have been cases before US Suprem Court on the issue of freedom of worship and the Court has consistently held that freedom of worhsip IS a fundamnetal consittutional right.” -Lisa Kaiser
Have you read the first amendment? I just gave it to you. “Freedom of worship” is a recent concept. It is designed to keep Christians inside the walls of their churches and out of the public square, but it is not what the constitution says. Read it again.
By the way, that wasn’t Savvy’s idea. I presume you are talking about a Catholic nation. Have no fear. It will not happen in your lifetime or mine.
But here is my honest wish for you, Lisa. That you will always believe that America is what you say it is, as long as you live, and that you won’t have to see what comes next, when the moral foundation is completely gone that sustains those ideals.
“Some people have nothing better to do than insist that other people worship their gods.” -Bill S
Like the secular god of contraception and abortion.
Lisa,
What on earth are you ranting on about know. I said, nothing about the Pope or my kind of government. Do not be cross simply because I find your arguments on gay marriage not convincing.
LJ,
There is no such thing as fixed Catholic views on government. The church’s teachings are limited to faith and morals. The rest can be beneficial opinions, but not etched in stone. When the church rules against something, like gay marriage or women priests, it leaves the door open for the 5w’s. Heresy simply rejects the ruling itself, and hence is not open to other answers.
““The authority to change the Church’s position comes from God and God hasn’t changed his position. A lot of Americans have changed their position. That is irrelevant to what the truth is.”
What a presumptuous statement! First of all, there is no God telling people what they can and can’t do. And secondly, if the Church can’t change its stand without God’s consent, then how does it get that consent?
Who really even knows if there is a God and if there is that he has anything to say about same-sex marriage?” - Bill S
It is indeed a presumptuous statement! Absolutely. And, of course, so is yours “there is no God.” You do realize that, don’t you?
History is a fascinating study Bill, particularly in the light of human nature. What you will find is that anything and everything on the moral plane that we see and discuss today, that being the behavior of human beings to and with each other, has been seen and or tried many times over in human history. There is nothing new in human behavior.
Circumstances have changed, technology has changed, knowledge has gone up and down over thousands of years.
As far as morality is concerned, God’s demands on us have not changed either. They were revealed long ago. There have been periods when they were strongly adhered to by the majorities of populations, and there have been periods when they have been ignored, and God has been declared dead or not to exist.
But as far as the Church is concerned, Revelation is complete with respect to faith and morals. There is nothing new to report, only variations of the same thing. Why would she petition God to change his view of homosexual acts or his definition of marriage? For the sake of a 200+ year old nation of America who thinks like every other great nation or empire that she will last forever?
Come now, that would be presumption of another kind altogether.
As to what God has to say about marriage, just ask the Church. She was created and commissioned by Jesus Christ to speak for him until he returns.
Bill S,
Thanks for your kind words. God Bless.
Savvy,
You are right in the main, although the Church does speak plainly in condemnation with respect to totalitarian governments, whatever form that may take.
You realize of course, that if we were all in a state of perfect charity there would be no government.
My thought that I would prefer a Catholic nation is only half in jest. There are some definite upsides for Catholics. The sad reality as well is that the idea of a totally neutral state is simply a fantasy. There may be short periods when the power of moral forces are in equilibrium in a given society, but that always transitions in one direction or the other, usually into moral opposition to the Church. Later it becomes social opposition, then legal opposition, and oft times authoritarian opposition.
However, I will say this. The American experiment is the closest that the world has seen to accomplishing the impossible. It has had a good run with very noble ideals as tracks on which to run.
Back to the topic of this article, I think in disagreement with a lot of Catholics on the prudential move of disengagement with the state on civil marriage contracts. Most think it is not yet time.
LJ: I assume you were being facetious about the government that you would have. I give up arguing with you about an issue that will be settled by the Supreme Court. It is my hope that the Catholic Church continues to become less and less influential in American politics. I used to think I was doubly blessed by being Catholic and American. Now I see the need to choose between the two. I choose to be a good American.
In recent same-sex marriage cases, those who seek to overturn traditional marriage laws have tried to persuade courts to treat homosexuals as a suspect or quasi-suspect class, thus leveraging the legal analysis into one of the harder levels of scrutiny, or at least an “intensified” rational basis review, and improving their chances of victory.
Two recent decisions by federal district court judges in the Ninth Circuit—one in Hawaii by Judge Alan Kay on August 8, the other in Nevada by Judge Robert Jones on November 26—have rejected this gambit, rightly holding that laws restricting marriage to one man and one woman need only be shown to have an ordinary rational basis, that this is easily shown, and that they involve no invidious discrimination.
These decisions have blocked three roads to the enjoyment of a heightened judicial solicitude. (Both cases are being appealed, and neither is ripe for Supreme Court review in the present term. But the judges’ opinions are worthy of examination by the justices in the cases they are now pondering.)
The first approach claimed that a law telling people they cannot marry another of the same sex is a form of “gender discrimination” meriting intermediate scrutiny. No, said the judges in these cases: Men and women are treated equally by such laws, and the discrimination turns not on gender but (at most) on sexual orientation.
The second approach was to claim that homosexuality is an immutable and defining characteristic, such that gays and lesbians have a history of being discriminated against, sufficient to raise their stature as a suspect class in the eyes of judges. Again, not so, said the judges in Hawaii and Nevada. Under governing Ninth Circuit precedent, never yet contradicted by the Supreme Court, homosexuality has been regarded as a behavioral characteristic, not an immutable one like race. And whatever discrimination gays and lesbians have suffered diminishes day by day, obviating the need for special judicial attention to their claims.
And this overlaps with the third and final approach, in which same-sex marriage advocates claim that gays and lesbians are politically powerless, unable to make headway in the normal channels of democratic decision-making at the polls and in legislatures, thus needing the aid of the judiciary. As Judge Jones noted in the Nevada case, this claim is refuted by recent history. The president of the United States opposes the Defense of Marriage Act and favors same-sex marriage. Legislatures in some states have established same-sex marriage, and in other states, civil unions. Moreover, Jones noted, the people of four states went to the polls in November to decide this question—and we know what the result was.
Perhaps it is something of a paradox that as their political clout grows stronger, the constitutional claims of same-sex marriage advocates become weaker. But if powerlessness is a legitimate variable in judicial decision-making, it is hard to gainsay the view of Judge Jones:
The question of “powerlessness” under an equal protection analysis requires that the group’s chances of democratic success be virtually hopeless, not simply that its path to success is difficult or challenging because of democratic forces. . . . The relevant consideration is the group’s “ability to attract the attention of the lawmakers,” an ability homosexuals cannot seriously be said not to possess.
Of course the advocates of same-sex marriage will continue to press their case in courts of law. They would rather convince five justices of the Supreme Court to impose their agenda on the country than try convincing the country itself. And notwithstanding their November victories, they are still leery of democracy in much of the country, even in blue New Jersey, where they have rejected a referendum idea floated by Governor Chris Christie.
But Judge Kay and Judge Jones are quite right. It is ludicrous to call gays and lesbians an oppressed and powerless minority in the United States at the end of 2012. This fact should weigh heavily in the Supreme Court’s deliberations.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/12/power-gained-argument-weakened-for-same-sex-marriage
“I assume you were being facetious about the government that you would have. I give up arguing with you about an issue that will be settled by the Supreme Court. It is my hope that the Catholic Church continues to become less and less influential in American politics. I used to think I was doubly blessed by being Catholic and American. Now I see the need to choose between the two. I choose to be a good American.” -Bill S
Bill, I can’t respect your choice, but I do appreciate your honesty. I think there are many more like you who have not yet brought themselves to say it. Hopefully, many are still undecided, but I don’t think I could have articulated the choice any better than you just have.
There is still another post of mine in moderation (probably the length of it) but I don’t think there is anything more needs to be said. Have a blessed Christmas.
“Two recent decisions by federal district court judges in the Ninth Circuit—one in Hawaii by Judge Alan Kay on August 8, the other in Nevada by Judge Robert Jones on November 26—have rejected this gambit, <b>rightly holding that laws restricting marriage to one man and one woman need only be shown to have an ordinary rational basis, that this is easily shown, and that they involve no invidious discrimination.
The first approach claimed that a law telling people they cannot marry another of the same sex is a form of “gender discrimination” meriting intermediate scrutiny. No, said the judges in these cases: Men and women are treated equally by such laws, and the discrimination turns not on gender but (at most) on sexual orientation.
The second approach was to claim that homosexuality is an immutable and defining characteristic, such that gays and lesbians have a history of being discriminated against, sufficient to raise their stature as a suspect class in the eyes of judges. Again, not so, said the judges in Hawaii and Nevada. Under governing Ninth Circuit precedent, never yet contradicted by the Supreme Court, homosexuality has been regarded as a behavioral characteristic, not an immutable one like race. And whatever discrimination gays and lesbians have suffered diminishes day by day, obviating the need for special judicial attention to their claims.
And this overlaps with the third and final approach, in which same-sex marriage advocates claim that gays and lesbians are politically powerless, unable to make headway in the normal channels of democratic decision-making at the polls and in legislatures, thus needing the aid of the judiciary. As Judge Jones noted in the Nevada case, this claim is refuted by recent history.
The president of the United States opposes the Defense of Marriage Act and favors same-sex marriage. Legislatures in some states have established same-sex marriage, and in other states, civil unions. Moreover, Jones noted, the people of four states went to the polls in November to decide this question—and we know what the result was.
Perhaps it is something of a paradox that as their political clout grows stronger, the constitutional claims of same-sex marriage advocates become weaker.”
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/12/power-gained-argument-weakened-for-same-sex-marriage
LJ,
You are correct, but the good news is that the average age of these hippies is 75. They do not have a following among younger practising Catholics, like me who have tired the world, but found it wanting. Jesus, said, God could raise up prophets from among the stones, thankfully human beings are a lot more “savvy” than stones.
Well I have lived with my gay partner monotonously for over 30 years. Could never have imagined the opportunity to be married to each other until we were in 2005. I like the idea of the Church getting out of civil marriage, and the government getting out of religion. No church weddings recognized by the state, and no civil weddings recognized by the church. Have one, or both, depending on what your church allows. No government subsidy of religion either. Let’s make it happen!
Well I have lived with my gay partner monogamously for over 30 years. Could never have imagined the opportunity to be married to each other until we were in 2005. I like the idea of the Church getting out of civil marriage, and the government getting out of religion. No church weddings recognized by the state, and no civil weddings recognized by the church. Have one, or both, depending on what your church allows. No government subsidy of religion either. Let’s make it happen!
What you really want to say is that gay marriage has no effect on straight marriage. Therefore, you don’t want the church to stop doing what has been doing all along. You’d only be giving straights something else to complain about if you took away the civil applicability of their marriage in the church.
Yes, the Church should get out of the civil “marriage” business and the state should get out of the sacramental marriage business.
I was married in a church and I am glad that it counted as a civil marriage. The state is not in the sacramental marriage business. The state has no right to force churches to accept gay marriage and the churches have no right to expect that the state would ban gay marriages. I know that some gays might want to get married in the church but that’s never going to happen in the Catholic Church. No pope will ever be able to overrule previous popes and therefore gay marriage will never be accepted in the Catholic Church.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.