If you really want to blame someone for gay marriage you can really count on your own bishops and pundits.

Nobody wants to hear anymore that their gay friends or family are vilified as has been presented by your church. They see us raising children and functionally contributing to society while having stable relationships.
But then they hear many things completely contrary to reality.

They then say that nobody deserves the catholic outlook on this matter.

Pretty simple.

Jayne B: Please stick to one handle in this combox. Thanks.

Question begging. “a man and a woman are socially recognized to have formed an enduring union, a union that is the socially sanctioned context for sexual relations between a man and a woman, from which it is generally expected that children may arise.” All that gay marriage add to this is: “a man and a woman, or two men, or two women, are socially recognized to have formed an enduring union, a union that is the socially sanctioned context for sexual relations between them, from which it often happens that children arise.” No one is destroying the standard model of matrimony, merely asking that its blessings be more widely shared.

“A marriage between a man and a woman who are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or atheist is not a sacrament, but it is still a true marriage before God. It can be dissolved by divorce; a finding of nullity would not be needed to contract a new marriage in the Church, but the union itself is real and lawful as long as it exists.”

My understanding is the Church recognizes any marriage as valid if performed between non-Catholics outside of the Church.  Therefore a decree of nullity would definitely be needed.  Here’s some references for that:
http://www.canonlawprofessionals.com/annulmentquestions.html#Q3
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/05/annulment_for_n.html
http://catholicexchange.com/2007/05/26/83720/

Other than that, I’m enjoying the articles, thanks!

Marie: We need to distinguish between non-Catholic Christians (e.g. Protestants) and non-Christians (i.e. the unbaptized).

A marriage between unbaptized persons is valid but nonsacramental and therefore dissoluble. Divorce and remarriage is possible where an indissoluble union does not exist. A finding of nullity is not necessary to permit remarriage under these circumstances.

If you read your first two links carefully you’ll see that they assume at least one baptized partner. The third link seems ambiguous to me, but I’m on the road and not reading carefully.

All that gay marriage add to this is: “a man and a woman, or two men, or two women, are socially recognized to have formed an enduring union, a union that is the socially sanctioned context for sexual relations between them, from which it often happens that children arise.”

 
Doesn’t it make a difference, given that the benefit of children is one of the most important reasons the institution of marriage exists, that we know in advance children will arise from some kinds of unions and not others?

Joe: The excerpt you erroneously call question begging is a characterization of marriage as it has historically existed, as a socio-anthropological constant. How marriage is currently being redefined is irrelevant to the question of why marriage has historically been what it is.

No one is redefining marriage, merely extending its blessings, as has often happened in the past in different ways.

The Pauline and Petrine privileges allow divorce (not annulment) of marriages; in the latter case of marriages between two baptized persons; or so I understand.

The argument that marriage cannot be extended to samesex couples because they cannot procreate with each other is feeble, since marriage is already granted to sterile couples or couples where the woman is past childbearing age.

Correction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrine_Privilege

I’ll double check with my priest, Steven, but I still disagree.  Here’s another for you, this time from the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City.  They specifically address the marriages of the non-baptized.  http://www.catharchdioceseokc.org/tribunal/q&a.htm

“Are Catholic marriages the only ones which need to be examined before a new union can take place in the Catholic Church?

An erroneous impression, very common among Catholics, is that the Church recognizes as valid only the marriages of Catholics. The reality is that the Catholic Church recognizes as valid not only the marriages celebrated in the Catholic Church between Catholics, but also those of baptized non-Catholics, as well as those of the non-baptized. Valid marriages between baptized people (Catholics or non-Catholics) are Sacraments; those between non-baptized are not Sacraments, but are “natural bonds” because they are contracted according to the natural law, rather than by the sacramental bond that comes through Baptism. Therefore, if a Catholic wishes to marry a divorced, baptized non-Catholic, or a divorced, non-baptized person, a decree of invalidity would have to be issued by a Catholic Tribunal before any new union can take place in the Church.

Joe: Please read the earlier parts. Some of the points you make have already been answered. For example, saying that same-sex couples cannot procreate doesn’t fully address the real problem. Every true marital act, every act of unencumbered coitus, has a procreative meaning or teleology. Same-sex couples cannot be united in this way.

Marie: Actually, Steve is correct. While marriages between non-baptized persons are considered valid, and while an annulment is sometimes employed prior to allowing a divorcee from such a marriage to remarry, strictly speaking annulments are not necessary in these cases when what is known as the “Pauline privilege” or “privilege of faith” applies. Though most people aren’t aware of it, similar possibilities exist in the case of a baptized person marrying a non-baptized person (the “Petrine privilege,” because it involves an appeal to Rome), and even in the case of a *non-consummated* marriage between two baptize persons. In each of these cases dissolution of the bond and remarriage is *possible* without an annulment (only *consummated* marriages between baptized persons are indissoluble), though in a great many such cases the annulment process is the best one to use for one reason or another.

Jimmy Akin
Author, “Annulments: What You Need to Know”

I see that the argument against samesex marriage is dependent on the validity of Humanae Vitae. But not even Catholics accepts HV, not to mention non-catholics, so this is a very weak argument indeed.

Can anyone give me a good argument what sacramental marriage cannot be extended to samesex couples?

The Pauline and Petrine privileges show clearly that the Church is quite liberal in allowing divorce (dissolution of valid marriages); does this undermine the definition of marriage? No.

Likewise, blessing gay unions does not undermine the definition of marriage, and in fact strengthens marriage in various ways, such as in ending the farce of forcing gays to marry heterosexuals, which leads to a lot of mystification and heartbreak. Among the most ardent supporters of gay marriage are the wives of gay men.

Joe: Are you the Joe I recently encountered on this subject on Facebook?

“In each of these cases dissolution of the bond and remarriage is *possible* without an annulment…”

Ok, I stand corrected, thank you.  So, Jimmy, when you say dissolution of the bond is possible, that means the Tribunal still has to “dissolve” the bond, but they don’t call it an annulment?

SDG: Yes, fathers are important in a child’s life.  I find it interesting that the antagonists in 1968 were children of “the Greatest Generation.”  Perhaps the men (and women) of WWII suffered what is now classified as PTSD and were distant fathers (and mothers).  Perhaps 1968 was just the Year of the Juvenile and that year has extended until now.  However that is a random pondering on my part which bears little on your thesis: marriage is a union of a man and a woman for the best of each and, with Grace, for the best of a child.  I look forward to the next installment.

Marie: It depends on the situation. In the case of two non-baptized persons the former marriage is dissolved automatically by the remarriage of the one who has afterward been baptized (the necessary conditions being met). In other cases the Roman pontiff dissolves the union.

I see that the argument against samesex marriage is dependent on the validity of Humanae Vitae.

 
Huh? SDG hasn’t cited Humanae Vitae yet, except in a combox aside to another commenter two posts ago. His comment about the “procreative meaning or teleology,” if I understand him rightly, refers to the natural and biological, not the religious, meaning and purpose of sex. A particular woman or man may be infertile, but still the act is what it is with a certain natural purpose. Homosexual activity is something else. It’s the difference between accidents and substance.

Speaking of the effects of distant parents on children: “The Divorce Generation” (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303544604576430341393583056.html)

HV is not about the religious meaning of sex.

Joe: The religious meaning of sex is its sacramental and theological meaning. What I’m discussing here is its natural law meaning, its teleology, as well as the natural law meaning or teleology of marriage itself.

By reading all these comments, I now know why we are even dealing with the ridiculous concept of two men or two women marrying.  Indifference!!!  Most of society just does not care and therefore those that have a vested interest (the people who need society to validate their unnatural behavior) are the only voices heard.  What’s next?  Parades for heroin addicts.  We are all sinners, that is why the Psalmist can state “not one does what is right, not one”  Pss 14 and 53.  I have my cross to bear (my selfish inclination to do what God does not desire)and homosexuals have theirs.  They should not be descriminated against or bullied, and they certainly should not be physically harmed because of their sexual orientation, but that does not mean society should condone sinful behavior.  Now some will say; how dare he impose his religious convictions on us, and to that I respond even bank robbers and murderers can falsely justify their actions.  The fact is that God created the natural law and just like we are made in His image so does it reflect His glory.  God is unchageable and so is His law.  Humans developed the institution of marriage to protect children, because it could readily see that a permanent relationship between a mother and father benefited the offspring of that relationship.  Since same sex relationships can not bear any children there is no reason to codify that relationship except to make the two partners feel better about themselves, which of course won’t work because God has infused His law into our hearts and anyone honest with themselves has to admit when they have gone against the intent of God.  May God bless us all.

Taken from A MARRIAGE IS FOR KEEPS - Kippley

...in 1930 Pope Pius XI responded to such attacks on marriage with an encyclical in which he pointed out five great benefits of marriage.
1. “Both husband and wife possess a positive guarantee of the endurance of this stability.”  God is the enduring stability
2. “A strong bulwark is set up in defense of a loyal chastity against incitements to infidelity… there’s a new dimension today: an unfaithful spouse, could very well contract an STD, even AIDS, from a single act of infidelity, and then put his or her faithful spouse at risk.
3. “Any anxious fear lest in adversity or old age the other spouse would prove unfaithful is precluded, and in it;s place reigns a calm sense of security.
4. “Indissolubilty is a great blessing, in the training and education of children, which must extend over a period of many years….since the grave and log enduring burdens of this office are best borne by united efforts of theparents.”
5 “Lastly are real benefits to society. Experience has taught that unassailable stability in matrimony is a fruitful source of virtuous life and habits of integrity.”

I am not an intellectual, but I think deeply about these things.  First of all being against same sex marriage is a Catholic belief [and some other religion’s] Society’s belief in marriage, in the past, was a civil matter, as it is today. It was the civil authorities who finally accepted marriages performed within a church as being legal. [Remember Grace Kelly was married in a civil ceremony first, then a Church ceremony—Monaco’s law} That is the way it was many yrs. ago. [civil, then Church-even in the U.S.] I know gay people who are so good and caring and do wonderful things for society. They dearly love and are kind to their nieces and nephews and would make good fathers.  They have that instinct in them.  Knowing/believing in the role of Father(male)and Mother(female) in a marriage; I wonder, is a child better off in an orphanage or better off with two same-sex parents.  I personally would think that they would receive much more love and affection from two gay parents than in an institution.  Yes, that is against the belief of the Catholic Church, and this does not have to be accepted by the Catholic Church, but civilly it is possible to be accepted and therefore they have all the benefits given to married couples for themselves and their children. Not only the material things like insurance, etc., but acceptance.  I remember this young, intelligent, well education gay man saying in a letter to his mother, “why would I embrace the gay life, when I know it is not acceptable by society.  I am what I am.” 

So as far as I am concerned, the Catholic Church does not have to accept gay marriage or their life-style but that does not mean that civilly they can’t.  They are also human beings, created by God. The parable of Adam and Eve tells us that none of us are born perfectly.

I DO NOT KNOW——I CANNOT SPEAK FOR GOD.

Well, these are just my thoughts. The world today is so complex.

I think that extending the blessings of marriage to samesex couples is perfectly in accord with Natural Law. There is a natural right to marriage that can be interpreted more widely than those who say marriage is only for procreation (or in the terms of HV, which only Catholics—some of them—believe in: every sexual act must be open to the transmission of life). The concrete result of banning gay love is the unnatural proliferation of unhappy marriages between gay and non-gay spouses, as well as the promotion of loneliness, promiscuity etc.

Joe: You are straw-manning and ignoring the actual arguments in front of you. No one here is saying that marriage is only for procreation. If you want to ignore the argument being made here you’re free to do so, but please make whatever points you want to make succinctly and move on. This combox is not the forum for hobbyhorsing on your own pet themes.

“Indifference!!!  Most of society just does not care and therefore those that have a vested interest (the people who need society to validate their unnatural behavior) are the only voices heard.”

People are indifferent because it does not affect their lives.  But hearing that their family and friends are evil if they love someone does affect their lives in a much more negative way. And they know that those friends and family also need love too, that forbidding love is just cruel. So they now have a vested interest in all their loved ones having the same opportunities they have.

“Humans developed the institution of marriage to protect children”

And that’s one reason why gays want adoption just like sterile heterosexual couples can.
So if,  as SDG gays “No one here is saying that marriage is only for procreation.” then the population at large would rather let someone marry and let their religion present all these contradictions rationalize such oppression.

And as Joe says “The concrete result of banning gay love is the unnatural proliferation of unhappy marriages between gay and non-gay spouses, as well as the promotion of loneliness, promiscuity etc.”

I grew up in a marriage like that. It’s far worse than two gay guys formatting their lifestyle like yours. Then there are those who have to live apart from their birth families because they’ll be shunned anyway if they want to have their own family. And they’ve seen others live in abject loneliness who never will have that void filled. People who are comfortable with gay marriage have seen all these things and just don’t trust dogma any more. They don’t see any reason why they should when tradition leaves to many out in the cold. They don’t see it working for the modern world. They see that maybe thousands of years ago they needed these rules but not now.
This is why we are seeing gay marriage win. The truth of reality is winning over the truth of tradition. If there is any blame it’s being put on themselves for having followed doctrine for so long in the face of sacrificing the well being of those they love.

I guess when a church is indifferent or hostile toward the emotional needs of an entire group of people, their friends don’t really want them to give up so much for a third party. Particularly not for a church to which they don’t belong in a country with our first amendment.

Gays have been asked to give up far to much for the simple comfort of others. That’s seen very clearly by just a little more than half the population. When you get bishops to confabulate about the evils of two people loving each other you’re going to turn off those who see that nature comes from within as much as “tradition” might suggest otherwise.

Perhaps the “blame” should be put on the expectation that this could or should ever be contained in the first place.

Many people assume that marriage is a right that the state can simply create.  That is a dangerous direction in which to go.  The majority of voters cannot create whatever rights they want.  Marriage is a gift given to us by God and defined by Him.  We, as Catholics, must not be afraid to say so publicly(CCC 2087-2089)  We need to be forthright in speaking about the importance of defending and protecting the gift of marriage within our Church and society.  We need to be able to speak forthrightly to our people on the importance of marriage, and make it clear that our respect for the individual should not be at the expense of marriage itself.

Almost every time the issue is put to a vote, the majority of voters support the idea that marriage is between one man and one woman.  Church teaching is not developed by referendum.  But what it does say is that when people are asked, especially when it is explained to them how important the traditional definition of marriage is, most people support it.  But the very fact that traditional marriage is being put to a vote is troubling, because it shows that the public nature of traditional marriage is not firmly in place in our society.

What I have experienced as a husband, parent, and friend is the need for renewal of sacrificial love in our culture, especially within family life.  In general, that’s the greatest need.  What I’ve experienced is many people place their emphasis on individual satisfaction, a turning in on oneself and one’s perceived needs.  Sacrificial love, in contrast, tends to lead people to happy lives.  We need more examples of marriages based on scrificial love.  I remember a song years ago; “I want know what love is, I want you to show me.” I would add; “If you want to know what love is, just look at a Crucifix.”  I would hear, “My husband doesn’t love me the way I need to be loved.”  And the same from husbands about their wives.  So they go looking for someone that will love them the way they need to be loved.  I tell them that no one in the world is capable of loving you the way you need to be loved except Our Lord.  What ever love that is lacking in their marriage can only be found in Jesus.  Turn to Him for that love.  And then another song by Alabama comes to me; “She’s close enough to perfect for me.”

This faithful sacrifice is carried on when dealing with our children.  By our faithful witness and work, we can help shape positive things in our lives and within the lives of others.  All this comes from co-operating with the grace that we receive in the Sacrament of Matrimony.

If we don’t co-operate with that Sacramental grace, then we become victims of self-fulfilling prophecies of doom.  There are some who throw up their hands and say that a deterioration of laws that protect marriage is inevitable.  They will be inevitable if we ourselves do not have faithful witness.  And that faithful witness needs to reach out in love to every human person. God has a plan for everyone. And ultimately we need to be helping everyone recognize that plan.  In the case of a married couple, that plan is intimately linked with their sacrificial and generous love for each other and overflowing to their children.  I saw this in my parents and my siblings.  We often talk about how blessed we were to have the parents that Our Lord gave us.  I have tried to live that same sacrificial love in my marriage of thirty-eight years, and pass it on to our children.  I hope this is relevant to your article.

I want to b a third voice similar to Sue’s and Jayne B’s.  I have long tried to reconcile my own experiences with homosexuals with Church teaching.  As I have said elsewhere, I can think of almost as many positive homosexual models of long-term, committed relationships (including the self-sacrifice necessary for a successful long-term relationship) as heterosexual ones.  It is difficult to listen to people describe the nature of homosexuality when those descriptions simply do not mesh with one’s own personal experience.  It’s a very difficult problem to rectify (at least for me, as I do try to live in accord with Church teaching as much as possible), and I come to the same conclusion Sue does: the Catholic Church certainly never has to approve of condone same-sex marriage, but civilly I see very little reason why some basic things (healthcare and insurance issues, for example) cannot be extended to homosexuals, whatever form that takes.
Very nice comments, Sue and Jayne B.  Thanks for capturing sentiments I struggle to capture.

Richard, before you ask why we cannot extend benefits granted to spouses (e.g. insurance, tax structures, property rights) to same-sex partners, you first have to ask why those benefits and rights were granted to spouses in the first place, and not to others who may cohabitate (e.g. live-in parents or siblings, unrelated roommates, unmarried conjugal couples, etc.)  Only once you answer those questions and determine the purpose of granting spousal benefits in the first place can you begin to answer the question of whether they should be extended to same-sex couples.  Part of the problem here is that these benefits have been in place so long that we take them for granted and have forgotten their original purpose.  Once that happens, it becomes all too easy to apply them to situations that never would have warranted them in the first place.

@ Kevin Rahe:
 

“Richard, before you ask why we cannot extend benefits granted to spouses (e.g. insurance, tax structures, property rights) to same-sex partners, you first have to ask why those benefits and rights were granted to spouses in the first place, and not to others who may cohabitate (e.g. live-in parents or siblings, unrelated roommates, unmarried conjugal couples, etc.)”

 
Just one terminological note on an excellent point: “Conjugal” means “relating to marriage,” not “relating to sex.” I’m guessing by “unmarried conjugal couples” you mean “unmarried couples living in sin,” or more neutrally “cohabitating couples” (although neither word alone is unambiguous, the conjunction of the two pretty clearly picks out the relevant state of, um, affairs).

Steven, thank you.  You are correct.  I was trying to distinguish a couple intimately involved with each other from one not, and it seemed easier to use a single word than a phrase.  My laziness crept in and I didn’t make sure of the meaning first…

Kevin, that is a reasonable question that has me thinking about how to answer it.  While I’m pondering, how would you define their original purpose?  (This is not a bait question so I can proceed to jump all over your response, I’m really thinking about it and curious of your point of view since you brought it up).

The first thing to realize about spousal privileges and rights that come from the government is that the latter’s involvement in marriage in this country is relatively recent.  While some states had laws recognizing marriage in the late 19th century, it wasn’t until 1923 that the federal government passed the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act, and it wasn’t until 1929 that all states had their own marriage laws.

The second thing to realize is that all those privileges and rights exact a cost from society - they aren’t free.  In effect, everyone else subsidizes the preferential treatment of married couples in the categories of taxation, employment, entitlement programs and several others - i.e. the infamous 1,138 federal provisions in which marital status is a determining factor (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf), plus many more in individual states.

Those are the facts as I know them, though there may be others that I’m not aware of.  While many states’ laws have stipulated people who could not get married (e.g. close relatives, minors, mixed-race couples, etc.), it appears that they largely left the guardianship of the philosophy of marriage to the institutions that have been involved in it far longer than they have.  And other than Loving v. Virginia (which the Catholic Church supported, by the way), the federal government in particular has respected the judgment of the states and those same institutions regarding who could or could not get married.  In other words, the government has never tried to claim any kind of authority regarding the philosophy of marriage.

Regarding the purpose of laws that grant married couples certain privileges and rights, I have no specific information as to what those who passed them were thinking.  However, it’s logical, to me at least, that rather than being merely symbolic, the legislators, governors and presidents who passed such laws expected that society would reap some sort of benefits from them.  Otherwise, how could they justify the cost?  What benefits?  The first would be increased financial viability for families raising children, especially where one parent worked while the other stayed home to care for and educate the children, which was a common arrangement at the time (and which is coming back in many circles after falling out of favor for some time).  Another is more financial stability and a simplification of affairs for families that have experienced some kind of upheaval, such as the death of a parent.  These benefits, however, are rather intangible for those who contribute to the cost of married couples’ privileges and rights but don’t directly benefit from them (e.g. because they’re single).  So what’s in it for them?  The answer is the expected “product” of marriage - other people.  In other words, society itself.  People to perform services for them, entertain them, take care of their health and provide for their needs in their old age.

I’m certainly happy to entertain other ideas about why the privileges and rights granted to married couples were instituted.  Perhaps it can be suggested that they were intended to be more sentimental than practical, or that their original purpose is no longer relevant, or that new purposes for their existence have evolved since they were originally enacted.

Kevin, thanks for your comments.  Just to add a little, I also understand that the notion of marriage “for love” (as the saying goes) is a relatively new phenomonen, and that in general the role of marriage historically speaking has largely been to propogate and educate the species, which is a benefit to all.  So I see your point in that respect.
On the other hand, if it wasn’t until the early 20th century that the civil aspect of marriage was codified, I find myself back at my original question: what prevents the state from changing the marriage code as its elected representatives see fit?  Especially if it doesn’t encroach on the religious aspect of marriage (some say the NY law does; I haven’t read that it does)?
To answer your original question (why did the govt grant various rights to spouses?), my first intuition is that 1) it has a vested interest in maintaining population stability/growth; 2) as divorce became more common it became necessary to clarify who was entitled to what in those situations; 3) it is logical that a person in a long-term, committed, intimate relationship have certain rights relative to their spouse that others would not enjoy (e.g., other family members, friends, etc.).  1) certainly would not be true in homosexual marriages (though I would note that they may do the state a favor by adopting otherwise unadopted children - I’m sure I’ll get screamed at for that one).  But since the homosexual population appears to remain fixed at somewhere between 3-5%, I still fail to see how not granting that 3-5% minority the rights and priveleges the rest of the population has is going to somehow enhance our collective ability to propogate the species (I can already hear people accusing me of reframing the conversation about “rights and priveleges” - sorry, but that seems to be exactly what we’re talking about).
I am also aware that my position is liable to be framed as relativism at its finest.  However, I’ve written enough tonight so I’ll have to address that some other time.
I’m not afraid to say that my understanding is still developing about this issue.  And I appreciate your reasoned and thoughtful remarks.  This is one of the better interactions I’ve been a part of in these comments - feel free to comment further if the Spirit moves you.

Marriage for love is a new phenomenon socially, according to Denis de Rougemont. It is on the platform of that new phenomenon that the push for gay marriage is being made, and it is the idea of marriage for love that gives this push its persuasive force.

Perhaps, Joe, but there are some persuasive arguments that “marriage for love” is not all it’s cracked up to be.  I’m not suggesting we return to arranged marriages (though there are still families in India that practice it), but it is interesting that the divorce rate increased significantly as the “marriage for love” idea took hold.

“Marriage for love” can be read in the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch – recent with regard to the beginning of the world but hardly a modern insight.

Part 5 is up.

Richard, thank you for having a reasonable discussion about this matter from the other side.  Usually by this point I’ve been called a “homophobe,” hater and/or bigot and subsequently ignored.

While a bit off the topic of government recognition and privileges regarding marriage, whether “love” was/is the primary impetus for marriage, the need for the ideal of marriage as an institution for procreation and education has not gone away, even though it seems to have been forgotten by many in this day and age.  Those functions also point to the primary source of demand for marriage, which has always been society, rather than the married couples themselves.  In other words, it is more that society demands a public commitment from a couple before they begin an intimate relationship with each other than that the couple makes this demand of themselves.

Regarding the purposes of marriage laws and licensing, while they may have set the stage for civil divorce, curiously it wasn’t until 1970 that the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act came into being.

The effects of government recognition of same-sex “marriage” on religious institutions and personal religious freedom are hotly debated, but in some cases at least they are quite clear.  In Massachusetts, for instance, Catholic Charities has ceased providing adoption services since being required to place children with same-sex couples in order to maintain its state license to operate as a public adoption agency.  Contrary to the arguments of some (and perhaps actual policy in other states where Catholic agencies have ceased facilitating adoptions due to same-sex “marriage” or civil union laws), this had nothing to do with the acceptance of taxpayer funds to supplement the cost of providing adoption services.  There is nothing in New York’s new law that would prevent the same thing from happening there.  What I find most concerning about this, however, is the precedent it sets for what is essentially government discrimination against certain religions.  For example, in both adoption and marriage a church performs a service that involves creating family relationships that are recognized by the government, and it grants the church permission to perform the requisite legal certifications on its behalf.  If it can revoke that permission in one case, as it has done, there is nothing in principle that would prevent it from revoking it in the other.  While New York’s new law prohibits the government from forcing churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples, it doesn’t prevent the sort of coercion that has been employed against Massachusetts adoption agencies, nor does it prevent the use of such coercion against churches regarding marriage.

Regarding adoption by same-sex couples, while many of those who support same-sex “marriage” assume that everyone who supports it also thinks that adoption by same-sex couples is a good thing, statistics show that the public is actually significantly less supportive of such adoptions than of same-sex “marriage” itself.  In fact, most European countries that recognize same-sex “marriage” or civil unions did not initially allow adoption by same-sex couples, and even most of those that now do only started permitting it in the last couple years.  And some still do not permit it.  I suspect that the reason people are more apprehensive about same-sex couple adoption is that unlike adoption by an opposite-sex couple or even a single person (whether or not they experience same-sex attractions), is that allowing two people of the same sex to be designated as the “parents” of a child introduces a paradox into the family relationship - a conflict between the child’s biological and legal/functional parents - that doesn’t exist in the other situations.

Even ignoring the troubling aspects of same-sex couple adoption and the fact that in an ideal world there would be no children in need of adoption, extending the privileges and rights of marriage to same-sex couples would unavoidably dilute them, even if by the small percentages you identify.  This is at the least wrong-headed when the real problems to be addressed in our society much more involve people not committing to marriage who should be rather than people who want to be “married” whom we would have no reason to expect to be.  For example, it just came out that 4 out of 10 babies in Michigan are born out of wedlock, which is at least as much of a symptom of the breakdown of marriage as the serious suggestion of same-sex “marriage.”

How does extending the blessings of marriage dilute them? I find the samesex couples in the congregation at weddings to enhance the occasion, as the couple being married well understand. Love has many faces.

Yes, marriage for love is in Genesis, as quoted also by Jesus—in neither text is procreation referred to at all!

Note that gays have been married to heterosexuals throughout history—neither gays nor their heterosexual partners are putting up with that system any more.

Joe, it is not the “blessings” of marriage that get diluted by extending them to same-sex couples, but the privileges and rights conferred on married couples by the government - the topic of discussion between Richard and myself.

As for Biblical references regarding marriage, there are several passages in both Testaments that affirm marriage, and none of them allow for it to exist between two people of the same sex.  It is also not true that none of them refer to procreation.  For example, from the book of Wisdom:  “I too am a mortal man, the same as all the rest, and a descendant of the first man formed on earth. And in my mother’s womb I was molded into flesh in a ten-months’ period-body and blood, from the seed of man, and the pleasure that accompanies marriage.”  Wisdom 7:1-2

<a >Part 6</a> is now up.

Part 7 is now up.

Part 10 is now up.