I know there is all kinds of wailing and gnashing of teeth among the usual social conservatives over this … but let me reassure you: The advent of marriage equality for Gay couples will have absolutely ZERO effect on “traditional marriage.” The first state to allow Gay couples to marry, Massachusetts, still has the lowest divorce rate in the country. In all the states where Gay couples are allowed to legally marry or enter into civil unions, Straight couples continue to date, get engaged, marry, and build lives and families together as they always have. To be honest, if you think that YOUR marriage is going to suffer because the Gay couple down the street is allowed to get married also, I think YOU’RE the person who needs counseling.

From a purely Constitutional standpoint, marriage equality for Gay couples has been a long time coming. The only difference between Gay and Straight couples is the sexual orientation of the two people in the relationship. It has nothing to do with religion, since the only thing a church can offer any couple is a ceremony; it is the federal government that bestows the 1,138 legal benefits, according the Government Accounting Office.

It also has nothing to do with raising children, since a couple does not need to be married to have children, nor is the ability or even desire to have children a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.

This is about equal treatment as stipulated by the 14th Amendment. You can quote Scripture until the cows come home, but the fact remains that there is simply no Constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the exact same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted.

I think Chuck is right, gay marriage will have zero effect, simply because marriage is already dead in this country.

As he points out, marriage is no longer about children, contracepting straight couples killed that.

It’s no longer about permanence, no-fault divorce among straight couples killed that.

It’s no longer a life-long covenant bond, but a temporary contract for physical pleasure and financial benefit. Outside a framework of what sex is, this whole argument is useless. Our society has thrown out that framework. No one wants to hear what sex is actually about, why marriage is important for children and society, because they’re participating in the crud that broke it down in the first place. Contracepting couples don’t want to hear it, fornicators don’t, divorcees don’t, and the population interested in non-natural eroticism don’t.

Perhaps the way to turn this around would be to target the ones who aren’t completely caught in sin, starting with married contracepting couples? Going in the same order that the crud happened in the first place.

Marriage is a lifelong union between one man and one woman entered into for the benefit of the spouses and the procreation of and rearing of children.  Anything else is not marriage.  Calling two co-habiting homosexuals “married” does not make them so.  But it does lower the esteem that society gives to a real marriage.  Imagine that a court decided that a dog had the same rights as a man.  It doesn’t elevate the dog, but it does lower the man.  If you take random social arrangements and tag them with the word “marriage”, soon marriage doesn’t mean anything.
  Ultimately homosexuals are seeking recognition and acceptance that their lifestyle is legitimate.  Trying to get same-sex unions recognized legally is just the vehicle for that end.  If they ever get completely legally recognized, they will use that fact to have the power of the government to silence their opponents.  It is not far-fetched to say they would require the equivalent of a “loyalty oath” to the homosexual lifestyle.  That is what mostly private companies’ equal opportunity statements are now.  Sign it or get fired.

Christina, will you marry me?!  :)

But seriously, Chuck, from a Catholic perspective, marriage isn’t about any kind of legal right or government input on social behaviors.  It’s a vocation received from God, and it is simply the way Man and Woman are designed to fulfill God’s wishes here on earth.  It’s a joining of two souls - one male, one female, not enjoining some kind of perceived social benefits from a gay couple just because we don’t care for their sexual orientation.

But when the understanding of marriage is so lost (marriage is more of a legal thing than a heavenly Sacrament) that we feel compelled to act like we have the authority to redefine it and open it to homosexual couples, then as Christina said, it was already hopeless. 

Are we as Catholics able to support solutions for gay couples such as life and health insurance benefits for their partners while at the same time staunchly refusing to support legalization of gay marriage?

A “marriage” between two people of the same gender will never be
blessed by God, who is Lord above all the earth and of all of heaven.
For “broad-minded” people, this makes no sense. Maybe being “broad-minded” isn’t God’s way?

DEAR CHRIS:

You ask, “Are we as Catholics able to support solutions for gay couples such as life and health insurance benefits for their partners while at the same time staunchly refusing to support legalization of gay marriage?”

To be honest, there is admittedly some disagreement within the Gay community over what’s more important, the word “marriage” or the benefits and responsibilities that are connected with it. As someone who prides himself as being nothing if not diplomatic, I would take simple legal equality under the law, even if the operative term is “civil unions.” If social conservatives simply wish to reserve the term “marriage” for heterosexual couples, they can have it, as long as Gay couples are treated fairly.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the Supreme Court ruled that there was no Constitutional justification for denying Gay couples the same legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted, but that those benefits and responsibilities could be granted to Gay couples under a different term ... such as “civil unions.” The rights under tax law, Social Security, etc. would be EXACTLY the same for Gay and Straight couples; only the terminology would be different. Opposite-sex couples would be allowed the option to “marry,” and same-sex couples would be allowed the option to enter into “civil unions.” Social conservatives could keep the term “marriage” for themselves, and Gay couples would be granted equal protection as specified by the 14th Amendment.

Frankly, I could live with that. How about YOU?

“Gay” marriage (a notable oxymoron) brings to mind Samuel Johnson’s comment on the dancing dog act. “Do you think that little dog danced well ?” Johnson replied “it did not, but remarkable it could dance at all.”

I would like to know more about Chuck’s sources.

Firstly, when he mentions the divorce rate in Massachusetts, this data is the ratio of divorces to the population of the state. What is the marriage rate in Massachusetts? It was notoriously low in the 19th century (see JSTOR). Do we have reason to believe that it might have improved?

Secondly, I am glad to see that many of us are approaching this issue philosophically, because I believe that this issue can be resolved on philosophical grounds. From an evolutionary standpoint, what happens to a marriage system that does not promote the raising of children?

Finally, regarding the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, section 1 makes the most relevant statement in this matter: “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 [..] equal protection of the laws.” Gay couples are not denied life, privileges, immunities, or legal protection when they are denied homosexual marriage. Are they denied liberty or property?

The Supreme Court with it’s “conservative” justices did nothing too.

DEAR MIKE:

The Constitution of the United States makes no mention of marriage. Technically, from the federal government’s standpoint, there is no legal right for ANY couple, whether Gay or Straight, to marry. So it’s tempting to suggest, as you do, that this is simply a “States Rights” issue.

But the fact remains that MOST of the legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that are automatically bestowed on Gay couples come from the federal government ... 1,138 of them in total, as I mentioned in my first post. So the federal government does have a vested interest in marriage, especially for the purposes of tax law and Social Security benefits. This is why it wouldn’t do for a couple that is married in Iowa, for example, to automatically become UN-married once they move someplace else.

The way things stand now, any Straight couple can fly off to Las Vegas for a drunken weekend, and get married by an Elvis impersonator, and their marriage will be automatically honored in all 50 states. However, a different standard exists for Gay couples. Until the federal government decides to get out of the marriage business, there will be no constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the exact same benefits that Straight couples have always taken for granted.

DEAR MIKE:

You wanted to know my source for divorce rates:
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/lif_div_rat-lifestyle-divorce-rate
As you can see, Massachusetts and Georgia are actually tied for lowest divorce rate in all 50 states. Only DC (Surprise!) is lower.

You ask, “From an evolutionary standpoint, what happens to a marriage system that does not promote the raising of children?”

Nothing is happening to parenting or “traditional marriage.” The point of the marriage equality movement is NOT to somehow make homosexuality compulsory for Straight people. Everyone who is Gay knows that sexual orientation just doesn’t work like that. And anyway, as I mentioned in my first post, the raising of children is irrelevant to the issue of marriage equality, since a couple does not need to be married to have children, nor is the ability or even desire to have children a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license. And don’t forget: There are multitudes of Gay couples who ARE raising children. Would you not argue marriage equality for THEM?

It is important to distinguish between marriage as a sacrament and marriage as a civil-legal institution. No one is suggesting that the state force the church to open the sacramental celebration of marriage to anyone.  Why aren’t we Catholics fighting to make divorce and remarriage illegal?  These two activities are clearly against Catholic teaching as well.  We accommodate the secular state by acquiescing in these two areas, which are clearly harmful to society and to children.  Why are we so vociferous and mean-spirited about not letting gay people legalize their relationships?  A culture of life and love will never be created by bludgeoning minorities with unfair laws and postures of self-righteousness.

What do you want? They will get married in Washington DC and then they will come to Texas to divorce.

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/gay-divorce-case-draws-attorney-generals-attention-243038.html

Chris, lol but I’m afraid I’d have to refuse. I go by Chris often myself and that would be confusing ;)

There is that saying about closing the barn doors after the horses have fled. Opposing gay marriage while supporting other destroyers of marriage is basically like trying to keep the cows in after having blown the doors off to let the horses out.

Marriage is an institution for providing a stable mini-society for the procreation and raising of children. Societies that devalued marriage quickly died off as a result of the social disorder.

This doesn’t discriminate against homosexuals anymore than it discriminates against fornicators and adulterers. Get rid of no-fault divorce and serial-polygamy is no longer supported by the state. If a couple intends to never attempt to have children, they should not be supported. There should be benefits to couples who have vowed a lifelong bond to encourage them to maintain that bond for the stability of the relationship and the well-being of their children. The more stable the bond between these couples the more stable society as a whole will be.

If someone wants to participate in a relationship that is not of this fashion, they are free to do so, but they should not be supported by the state. This means cohabiting couples, polygamous couples, divorced & remarried couples, contracepting couples and yes, same-sex couples should not be supported by a state interested in it’s stability as a whole unit.

I suppose I discriminate against everyone equally.

“Nothing is happening to parenting or “traditional marriage.” “
Yes it is.  When a dog has the same rights as a man, a man has the same rights as a dog.  Diluting the common meaning of the word “marriage” until it is pointless degrades the dignity of a man and woman who are married.
“The point of the marriage equality movement is NOT to somehow make homosexuality compulsory for Straight people.”
  No, not homosexuality itself, just the acceptance of it.  Any city clerk who refuses to hand out a marriage license to homosexuals will get fired, any employee of any private company who refuses to sign an equal opportunity statement will get fired, any member of the police or military who openly opposes calling same-sex couples ‘married’ will be forced out.  Schoolteachers are already in this situation in California if they refuse the “Heather has two mommies” curriculum.
“There are multitudes of Gay couples who ARE raising children.”
  They shouldn’t be.  As the pope said, “Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development.  This is gravely immoral…” http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
“the raising of children is irrelevant to the issue of marriage equality,”
The raising of children is extremely relevant.  The state has an interest in promoting and protecting marriage, not only because it a moral good, but because children raised without a mother and father in a stable relationship in the home are more likely to commit crime.  Therefore anything which dilutes the dignity of marriage, or lessens the stigma of non-marriage sexual relationships should be opposed.

Chuck says:It has nothing to do with religion, since the only thing a church can offer any couple is a ceremony; Chuck does not know what sacrament is. If brother and sister decided to get married, would Chuck also support
their right? When and where do you draw the line?How about legalizing ethical musings of Dr.Peter Singer?

Chuck,

I’m not sure how I’d feel about that.  On a superficial level, it’s good to extend all of the ‘perks’ of marriage to gay couples that choose to live as a gay couple.  From an philosophic/religiously agnostic and objective point of view, sure.

However, more important is the spiritual state of the person’s soul.  The Catholic Church considers a homosexual’s soul no less worthy of attempting to save.  Since Catholics believe that acting on homosexual desires is a grave sin, the Church can’t teach that it is okay to support such legal arrangements (in fact or in name) because it would only serve to facilitate and increase the convenience and prevalence of gay arrangements, leading to more sin.

However, this is all a moot point, because as Jimmy Akin points out, we are moving inexorably towards free and wild redefinitions of marriage to include same-sex unions; our nation’s capital has succumbed to this modernist view, and most of the nation will now quickly follow.

This is the most intelligent article I’ve ever read on the subject.  It should surprise no one that it was written by Mr. Akin who is a most intelligent man…

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0411bt.asp

Chris, there is actually no evidence that “same sex marriage” will “facilitate and increase the convenience and prevalence of gay arrangements”. Legally, sexual acts do not require marriage and a marriage does not require a sexual act.  Legally, neither requires the other and there is no evidence that one facilitates or increases the other, particularly when it comes to same sex marriages.  But every couple is different. I suspect many couples have found that marriage decreases sexual acts or has no particular effect on them. Or some may have found that marriage makes them more monogamous and others have not. I know married couples who are like Mary and Joseph, and others who are not. Now in DC, there can be Joseph and Joseph, and Mary and Mary marriages.  The eight letters “marriage” have always meant different things to different people.  It is an English word.  It is not a sacrament.

To my good friend Chuck:
    You have not answered my questions. Let me restate them.
  1. What is the marriage rate in Massachusetts? Do we have reason to believe that it might have improved over the last century? If the marriage rate is shockingly low, the divorce rate cannot compete with other states: there would not be enough people to divorce.
  2. From an evolutionary standpoint, what happens to a marriage system that does not promote the raising of children? That is, if married couples are not encouraged to raise children, what can we expect to happen to marriage over a long period of time?
  3. You invoked the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, which would apply only if gay couples were denied liberty or property when they are denied homosexual marriage. Are they denied either? If the amendment is irrelevant, please retract your invocation of it.
    After you answer these questions, we can address other concerns.
Yours truly,
Mike

>>>if you think that YOUR marriage is going to
>>>suffer because the Gay couple down the street
>>>is allowed to get married also, I think YOU’RE
>>>the person who needs counseling.

My marriage is not the issue. The issue is salvation, specifically that of the homosexual couple and in general, that of anyone who comes in contact with them and thinks that such behavior is OK.

Sin is what is not discussed. We all have free will and homosexuals, like everyone else, are free to reject God’s commandments. I will however, vigourously defend my daughters against anything which tells them that homosexuality, or any other sin for that matter, is acceptable in their lives. Why is that wrong?

Furthermore, as Christians, we have a moral obligation to help our family, friends and neighbors avoid the proximate danger of sin and to avoid temptation. Teaching that homosexuality is OK is teaching tht sin is OK… and it is not.

As a divorced Catholic, I have remained chaste… celibate… in control. We are all called to continence and homosexuals are no different.

It’s difficult to argue against homosexual marriage outside of religion or traditional morality. Using the Constitution to defend it, however, would be shocking to the framers. John Adams wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Exactly.

I agree that it’s pointless to argue for traditional marriage with persons who do not recognize the Church’s view of marriage and sexuality.

However I would still make the completely secular argument that the State has no interest in issuing “Love Licenses.”

If marriage is nothing but a sort of government-issued diploma saying “Look, everybody- these two people love each other!” do we really need it? What’s the point?  If that’s what it’s really about then the people who say (whether gay or straight) “I don’t need a piece of paper to give me permission to love somebody.”

The whole point of the State’s involvement in recording and recognizing marriage throughout history, it seems to me, was because heterosexual unions had a predictable correlation with the appearance of new citizens. To ensure that these new citizens and the women raising them had protection from abandonment, the State ensured that the father’s commitment was a matter of public record.

For gay unions and heterosexual unions that intend to remain childless, why should the state care if the union is a matter of public record? Inheritance of property can be assured through private contracts, can it not?

All of those marvelous tax benefits people want are fitting only on the assumption that it’s likely a couple is raising new little citizens, and could use some community support.  Otherwise, tax breaks are unjust to those of us who are single.  Why should two random people who choose to live under the same roof get any tax breaks I do not, just because they have a piece of paper from the State that says they have special we-love-each-other status?

Resistance is futile.  The sextremists will shove SSM down the throats of Americans. 

Thank you contracepting couples.  The sextremists could never have done it without you.

Mark K, it’s not “two random people who choose to live under the same roof”.  It’s (1) precisely you and your non-random, personally chosen spouse, who (2) in fact, by law, does not have to live under the same roof if that’s your thing, but (3) you and your spouse do have to help support each other (and your minor children) so that the rest of society hopefully doesn’t have to. And that’s why society provides the benefits, to help people in society take care of one another, and we all have that need, not just little children. As God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone.”

Mani,

My post specifically says that the State provides tax benefits for the sake of supporting children. 

Why should the State help couples with a “love license” support “each other”? I insist that where there are no children, that is a gross injustice against those of us who do not have a partner.  What is so special about a having a “non-random, personally chosen spouse” that entitles couples to get a tax kick-back? 

If you are in a childless relationship, support yourselves, for pete’s sake. The fact that two people love each other and want a license that says so has no bearing on whether I, as a fellow citizen, have any obligation to help take care of them. 

If we “all have that need, not just little children” then give the tax benefits to ALL of us.  You are arguing that we do NOT ALL have that need, only people who have a State-recognized as a “couple” have that need. You present no valid reason why this should be so.

DEAR MARY K:

You ask, “For gay unions and heterosexual unions that intend to remain childless, why should the state care if the union is a matter of public record?”

You imply that Gay individuals and couples do not have children; on the contrary, many Gay individuals and couples (not unlike their Straight counterparts) DO indeed have children, either through adoption, artificial insemination, surrogacy, etc. One Lesbian couple who are dear friends of mine had a son through artificial insemination, and they have raised him to be a healthy, happy, well-adjusted young man.

As for “heterosexual unions that intend to remain childless,” as I have mentioned repeatedly, such couples have never been denied a marriage license, nor will there ever be an effort to restrict marriages to couples who desire or have the ability to produce children, regardless of what the Catholic Church thinks. In fact, for you to even suggest that a couple that is beyond thier childbearing years should be denied the right to marry is ... well, absurd.

I have to confess a large amount of ambivalence on this issue. As many have noted, no-fault divorce has had a devastating impact on traditional marriage by essentially allowing people to enter into this supposed permanent bond on a trial basis. “Yeah, we’re going to get married and see how it works out.” Also, as noted elsewhere in these comments, you don’t see any large Catholic call to repeal divorce laws - so one has to wonder at the attention to gay marriage.

I think the attention is simply this - before Christ was born there was divorce allowed in Jewish law. The concept of a failed heterosexual marriage is not new.

Unless I am mistaken, the first gay marriage was in the 1980s in Denmark. The idea of gay marriage was completely foreign, even in Greece during a time when homosexuality was practically celebrated. The primary reason for that is because, until very recently, getting married simply meant children were on the way. Gay people don’t procreate with each other, there was no legacy, there were no inheritance issues, etc. The concept of gay marriage is new.

But, when the face of marriage changed to the point that it hardly mattered if you had kids or not, that effectively meant it hardly mattered if the couple were same sex or not.

I also find it interesting that people who have been married two or three times, or engaged in numerous extra-marital affairs, act so offended at the concept of gay marriage. “It’s just wrong!” “So is adultery!” “Hey keep your religious repression to yourself.”

There are two things at work here. 1) Gay marriage is, historically, brand new and without real precedent. Even 20 years ago the typical response to “Should gay people be allowed to get married?” would have been “What? Gay people? Why?” The question was confusing - the answer of “No” seemed self-evident. Today people sense something changing, and they are not sure what it means, but, for reasons they are hard pressed to elaborate, they are pretty sure it doesn’t mean anything good. So they respond negatively. 2) Historically, one group of people has always had someone that they could point at and feel better than. Be it Jews, or Blacks, or Muslims or Gays. So, a serial adulterer can point and say “At least I’m not Gay!”

Thing is, gay marriage is just a symptom. Picture a bathtub with a slow drain and a leaky faucet. For days it has been filling up with water faster than it has been draining. Now the water is dribbling over the sides of the tub, and you are sitting downstairs in your recliner watching TV. You vaguely know your tub has a problem, but it’s not enough of one that you’ve given it much consideration. Heck, its been dripping and draining slow for years, and you use the bathroom downstairs most of the time anyway. You’ll deal with it later. Out of sight, out of mind. And suddenly the ceiling collapses on you.

The push for gay marriage is simply the result of our actual attitudes in this country toward marriage, sex, and most importantly, chastity. Now we have a ceiling in our living room to repair. But, we should have paid attention to the drain and the faucet on the bath tub a long time ago.

Children have a natural right to be raised by a mother and a father, not two mothers or two fathers. To deny them this right from the very beginning deprives them of a close male or female role model on which to form a healthy self-identity. 

Putting a teenage boy with TWO moms is doing the young man a huge disservice AND is a failure of society and individuals to recognize the MALENESS/FEMALENESS that needs to be nurtured in a particular way that only a FATHER/MOTHER can.

Two daddies don’t replace a mom, and two mommies don’t replace a father. Having a “friend” who replaces the male/female figure is a poor substitute for the real thing.

To my good friend Chuck:
  I know you read my previous post. Please answer my questions.
  1. What is the marriage rate in Massachusetts? Do we have reason to believe that it might have improved over the last century?
  2. If married couples are not encouraged to raise children, what can we expect to happen to marriage over a long period of time?
  3. Are gay couples denied either liberty or property when they are denied homosexual marriage, or should you retract your invocation of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution?
  Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions.
Yours truly,
Mike

>>”…Gay couples would be granted equal protection as specified by the 14th Amendment.”<< 

From where does this equal protection come?  Does it not progress from all humans having the same nature and same origin?  We are all “created equal” by Nature and Nature’s God.  So, how does this EQUALITY have any grounding when some humans choose to DENY their very nature.  When being a MALE, as created by Nature and Nature’s God, is something arbitrary and meaningless, wouldn’t the rights that spring from the same place ALSO become arbitrary and meaningless?  How does one thump for those “rights to equality” when one refuses to admit they come by virtue of BEING CREATED EQUAL, with the SAME NATURE and same origin?  Actually – I don’t have a link to this (I heard it from Fr. Corapi in his Catechism talks) – one of the Founding Fathers stated something akin to, “Authentic democracy exists only when law is in accord with Divine Law (=authentic law).”

More comments:

>>”...any Straight couple can fly off to Las Vegas for a drunken weekend, and get married by an Elvis impersonator, and their marriage will be automatically honored in all 50 states. However, a different standard exists for Gay couples.”<<

What do you mean by STANDARD?  You surely must mean that the gay couple cannot, by virtue of their created nature, have sex and have children.  It is a simple fact that there is an inherent difference between these 2 types of couples.  No laws can change that.  Read this article about how ‘contrived’ an unnatural relationship appears in law:  http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/15099 [some from that article: “Because marriage is an organic part of civil society, it is robust enough to sustain itself, with minimal assistance from the state.  By contrast, same-sex “marriage” is completely a creation of the state. Same-sex couples cannot have children. Someone must give them a child or at least half the genetic material to create a child. The state must detach the parental rights of the opposite-sex parent and then attach those rights to the second parent of the same-sex couple.The state must create parentage for the same-sex couple. For the opposite-sex couple, the state merely recognizes parentage. In her essay in The Meaning of Marriage, Seana Sugrue argues that the state must coddle and protect same-sex “marriage” in ways that opposite-sex marriage does not require.”]

>>”Marriage is an institution for providing a stable mini-society for the procreation and raising of children.”<<

The family is the original SOCIETY.  Our society exists BECAUSE of families.  Natural families are the basis for society. 

>>”As for “heterosexual unions that intend to remain childless,” as I have mentioned repeatedly, such couples have never been denied a marriage license, nor will there ever be an effort to restrict marriages to couples who desire or have the ability to produce children, regardless of what the Catholic Church thinks. In fact, for you to even suggest that a couple that is beyond thier childbearing years should be denied the right to marry is ... well, absurd. “<<

The thing is that the couples that intend to remain childless are having to work AGAINST a God-given nature, against their God-given fertility.  Those that have fertility problems and are childless – are simply those whose very nature is STILL trying to be fertile – but have a broken link somewhere.  Sometimes the broken link ends up working, and, sometimes those that fight their fertility end up ‘childed’.

“Authentic democracy is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person. It requires that the necessary conditions be present for the advancement both of the individual through education and formation in true ideals, and of the “subjectivity” of society through the creation of structures of participation and shared responsibility. Nowadays there is a tendency to claim that agnosticism and sceptical relativism are the philosophy and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism.”
from: Ioannes Paulus PP. II Centesimus annus (on the hundredth anniversary of Rerum Novarum) #46

You need to talk to adults that were raised in a same sex home. Many are scarred adults as a result.

I fear the day when the government tries to force the Church to “marry” 2 men.

It will probably be less than a generation away.

DEAR BRAD:

It’s a red herring. Churches, mosques, and synagoges have never been “forced” to marry anyone. Catholic churches have never been forced to marry Muslim couples, any more than mosques have been forced to marry Jewish couples. Marriage equality for Gay couples isn’t going to change anything.

Why? Three reasons:

1: Government is constitutionally prohibited from interfering with the free expression of religion. As long as a religious institution is not accepting public funding, it is free to conduct it’s own affairs as it sees fit.

2: While many couples like to have wedding ceremonies in a house of worship, it’s not necessary for the government to consider a couple to be married. The most important document is the marriage license, and that if provided by government, not the church.

3: There are 1,138 legal benefits that are automatically bestowed on married couples in the United States. Those benefits come from the federal government, not the church.

To my good friend Chuck:
  I know you read my previous posts. The answers to my questions are important to us.
  1. What is the marriage rate in Massachusetts? Do we have reason to believe that it might have improved over the last century?
  2. If married couples are not encouraged to raise children, what can we expect to happen to marriage over a long period of time?
  3. Are gay couples denied either liberty or property when they are denied homosexual marriage, or should you retract your invocation of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution?
  Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions.
Yours truly,
Mike

Why not group marriage, polygamy, inter species, or inter familiar. It’s not about the marriage of the same gender, its about validation. Its about special interests. Its about the end of society as we know it. Its about the elimination of a life giving relationship between a man a women and God.

Mary K, you “insist that where there are no children, that is a gross injustice against those of us who do not have a partner”. Your insistence is in error. The state activates and promotes that ALL be paired up, not just parents with children be paired up—because it is in fact GOOD for society that ALL be taken care of. Pairing people up is one of the ways society has historically done that.

Chuck

Your response to Brad seems to indicate that we need not be concerned about the State forcing our parishes to perform weddings, because the constitution forbids it.  Not being an expert, I’ll concede that for now.  But does that mean we need not be concerned about being forced to do other things like:

1.  Forced to provide our property for the use of these marriages? and
2.  Forced to photograph their marriage?
3.  Forced to artificially inseminate one of them? or
4.  Forced to allow them to adopt children in our care?
5.  Forced to teach homosexuality as an appropriate alternative life style?

There are examples of all these in the article cited by Cheryl above.  For your convenience here it is again.  http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/15099

Will the constitution protect us?  Do you know?  Is our freedom to religion only valid as long as we don’t request tax exempt status?

Also, I am sincerely interested in hearing your answers to Mike’s questions.

Why be “forced”?  If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well. Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles. Give to the one who asks of you. Offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.

Gerald,

That scripture is about charity and forgiving others, not about condoning/facilitating sin. Jesus wants us to bear wrongs, not join in committing them.

J123…Along those lines…heard something like that before (and on these very blog responses…to the Tebow ad hoopla)...something to the tune of “since abortion IS allowed by law, it is WRONG to have an ad dealing with “anti-abortion.”  So, let’s extrapolate from that…since gay-marriage would be allowed by law, it would be WRONG to have an ad supporting ‘traditional’ marriage.  How can people think such things won’t be the case?
Again – gay ‘marriage’ collides with religious freedom BECAUSE gay ‘marriage’ ‘rights’ DO NOT have any basis in Natural Law.  Gay ‘marriage’ is CONTRARY to Natural Law.  Thus, it is absolutely no surprise that the contrived gay ‘marriage’ collides with the REAL freedoms that DO actually derive from Natural Law.

Gerald,

You cite Matthew 5:39-41 or at least approximate it.  I agree with David that your context does not capture it’s spirit.  But if you like chapter five of Matthew’s Gospel we can also go to verses 29-30:

If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.  And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell. RSVCE

I guess I’m happy I have the Tradition of the Church, the Magesterium, and my Catechism to go along with Sacred Scripture so I’m better equipped to interpret it and not take things too far.  Otherwise I’d be blind, mute, and crippled.

David B, charity does not equate a civil license or what’s called a wedding with an illicit sex act.  The state imposes no requirement or obligation that anyone engage in a homosexual act or even that the couple be sexually interested in one another.  Though some, perhaps most, will engage in homosexual acts, so too some, perhaps most opposite sex married couples will engage in adultery, spousal abuse, child abuse, etc. during their marriage.  Perhaps even on their wedding day.  But it’s not because of the license.  No one needs a license to sin.  Sin is a possibility of human freedom and rooted in the heart of man, in his free will, not in a civil license. A civil license is not intrinsically evil. It can be used for good or for evil, whether the couple is same sex or opposite sex.

J123, do you pray to God, “God, I thank thee that I’m better equipped to interpret Scripture than other Catholics, otherwise I’d be blind, mute and crippled like other Catholics”?  Or would such a prayer “take things too far”.  Because I recall Church teaching: “To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way. Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it.”

Interestingly, after the legalization of gay marriage in Canada, and all the concerns that arose from it, very few Canadians opted for gay marriage. The majority of gay marriage licenses issued in Canada are to tourists. The number of gay marriages were so low that Canadian “faith & family” groups dropped the issue from their list of concerns, since it seems to have very little uptake in the country. Interestingly, some Canadian bishops during the “same-sex” marriage debate also made similar points to those raised in these comments in that marriage had already become so debased in society that the battle for marriage was lost decades ago with no-fault divorce and the wide spread acceptance of getting married but deciding to have no children.

>>”Interestingly, some Canadian bishops…”<<

I would say some Canadian bishops are QUITE interesting indeed.

>>“....marriage had already become so debased in society that the battle for marriage was lost decades ago…”<<

Hmmm, worthy of a battle.  I’d say.  I side with G.K. Chesterton, “If something is worth doing, it is worth doing badly.”

If the sacrament of marriage is debased so in Canada, hopefully the bishops will take to the task of rebuilding and bringing it out of the mire.

What about Cardinal Oullette?  I thought he was a fighter for the faith.

It’s the lay people’s job too, to reinforce the faithful bishops and to carry on the faith.

Gerald,

“The state imposes no requirement or obligation that anyone engage in a homosexual act or even that the couple be sexually interested in one another.”

Giving marriage licenses to homosexual couples legitimizes their lifestyle. The Church cannot agree to condone behavior that is harmful to the participants by performing a mock marriage. 

“...perhaps most opposite sex married couples will engage in adultery, spousal abuse, child abuse, etc. during their marriage.”

I’m sorry, but the reality of sin does not excuse further sin.

One more comment on the argued acceptability of two homosexuals living together: Jesus taught us to pray that we may not be led into temptation. Just as it is wrong for a single man to be living with his girlfriend, it is also wrong to expose oneself to such temptations.

Nice, clear thinking, David B.

David B, as I’ve already said, there is no requirement in the law that the couple be sexually attracted to one another. There is no requirement that they be “tempted” or homosexual or heterosexual. To the contrary, the requirement in the law is that they be two people committed to caring for one another. They can be same sex, opposite sex, heterosexual, homosexual, rubberduckysexual, devoutly celibate or whatever. No sexual activity or sexual attraction is required whatsoever. It’s also not a license to live together for indeed they do not need a marriage license to live together. In most cases, the couple will have already been living together for years. Furthermore, neither a civil marriage license nor living together requires sexual attraction or mean that the persons are “exposing themselves to temptation”. Homosexual persons of the same sex and heterosexual persons of the opposite sex can and do live together without temptation just as a person and his family, or an exchange student and her exchange family, or friends live together or sit in the church pew without temptation.  On “two homosexuals living together”, there is no Commandment against it. It is not intrinsically evil. To the contrary, it can be beneficial, even God’s will.

Gerald, I’m sure you’re familiar with the Our Father.

The part about “lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil” does deal with “two homosexuals living together,” and for that matter, two attracted heterosexuals of the opposite sex.

Homosexual acts are intrinsically evil, and to put oneself knowingly into a situation where one is tempted to commit them is sinful.

Liseux, “two homosexuals living together” is not equivalent to “put oneself knowingly [or even unknowingly] into a situation where one is tempted”. There are many, many homosexual persons who live together who are not in a situation of temptation.  Likewise, there are many, many heterosexual persons who live together who are not in a situation of temptation.  Again, there is no Commandment against “two homosexuals living together”. It is not intrinsically evil. To the contrary, depending on the particular people and circumstances, it can be beneficial, even God’s will. Meanwhile, for some people, having dinner with their grandchildren can be “a situation where one is tempted.” Everyone is different.  Charity respects that, and as such, I am commanded to as well. If you choose to be uncharitable, that’s your choice.

Gerald, please explain in detail how homosexuals live together and it is not a situation of temptation. Does this living together involve separate sleeping arrangements?  I hate to ask, but you’re forcing my typing hand.

Perhaps I am missing part of the picture.

Do you think that a woman and a man (not brother and sister) should live together without benefit of marriage? True, not all men and women are sexually attracted to each other.

What about giving scandal and leading others into sin?

Gerald, I’ve been thinking about your point, that homosexuals (and unmarried unrelated heterosexuals, presumably) can live together and it not be a situation of temptation. 

I do believe that an emotional attachment can occur, and even without a previous sexual attraction, a sexual temptation can develop.

Without some type of formal vows to celibacy, I think that one is setting oneself up for problems.

To say that this is to God’s will is contradictory to Jesus’ words in the Our Father. We should not be led into temptation nor put ourselves in the near occasion of sin.

Liseux, you asked, “please explain in detail how homosexuals live together and it is not a situation of temptation.” Take a step back and remember that the law does not require that the two persons be homosexual or that either of them be homosexual.  So, if you and I were unmarried, we could get a civil marriage license. You asked, “Does this living together involve separate sleeping arrangements?” Sleeping is not a sex act.  Why are you concerned about sleeping?  Even if you or I were homosexual, that does not mean we’d be sexually attracted to one another or “tempted”.  You’re not sexually attracted to everyone, are you?  You said, “I do believe that an emotional attachment can occur, and even without a previous sexual attraction, a sexual temptation can develop.” Do you have a sexual temptation toward your parents, siblings, children and Jesus?  Or are you coldhearted, with emotional attachment toward them. People can have emotional attachments to many people and things in their lives, even with their school yearbooks, but it doesn’t mean they’re going to be having sex with them. I know many emotionally attached homosexual persons who live with other homosexual persons and they do so without temptation and without “formal vows of celibacy”.  And it’s not at all difficuly for them to do so, and it’s not contradictory to God’s will.  Rather, it’s in keeping with God’s will, for God’s will is that we live together.

>Gerald: “David B, as I’ve already said, there is no requirement in the law that the couple be sexually attracted to one another. There is no requirement that they be “tempted” or homosexual or heterosexual. To the contrary, the requirement in the law is that they be two people committed to caring for one another. They can be same sex, opposite sex, heterosexual, homosexual, rubberduckysexual, devoutly celibate or whatever.”<<
Give me a break.  Then the young lady living with her grandmother and providing end-of-life care could get in line for those “marriage benefits.”
Or, how about the past-retirement-age bachelor living in his childhood home yet with his aged mother?
Or, why not the guy at the end of my block – he has multiple personalities.  He would like to marry one of them and reap some of those highly-esteemed benefits. [Let’s not pass judgment and think he and his ‘partner’ are not worthy of 14th Amendment protection.]

Cheryl, no, “the young lady living with her grandmother” and the “bachelor living… with his aged mother” would be precluded from marrying because civil law does not permit marrying one’s parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings, children, etc. And “multiple personalities” do not constitute multiple persons under the law, and so that also would not be permitted. Likewise, if you want to marry your dog, that too would not be permitted, but I will be happy to send you a doggy bisbuit as a consolation.

I got a kick out of these last ideas because of the kind of logic, thought, philosohpy which are presumably there.
However, Gerald, if the law did allow inter-family relationships mentioned above to be considered marriage - after some-decades of hard and sincere work of lobby groups, and of course disinterested people(who do not happen to be ‘social conservatives’) and an incresingly un-discriminating society, well, then there is your legality. And that is all-important, isn’t it, Gerald?
Actually, a law giving benefits to a certain party should do so because there is a reciprocity innate to the positive nature of the party and the common good. Maybe in present times that part of it isn’t there. I think that in this sense, you can equate un-discrimating, un-perceptive and un-witting.
I’m implying something here about the whole argument in question. I won’t say it. It should be clear.
Gerald, I can’t answer you about the situations because you are so highly optimistic- I’ve just never been able to emerge from realism and see temptation for what it must be: an imagination. How unfortunate.
On the other hand I am happy to be able to give you this, not a consolation dog biscuit, but as perhaps - why don’t I go ahead and say it - food for thought.
P.S. Hey Chuck, did you see Mike’s questions?

In reading some of the comments regarding homosexual marriage, it seems this debate will never be done. I happen to live with two homosexual men and I do believe their union with each other is an act against God’s Will. I also know they are human beings with feelings of love for each other. I would vote no for same sex marriage, but I also believe that the men I live with deserve respect just like anyone else. Jesus came down to help the sinner, which includes many of us. So I believe we should pray and always remember that if we are not able to cast that first stone, then we should help each other to keep our eyes on God.

Hello Gerald,

You’re talking about two things at once, and confusing them.

I thought we were discussing temptation and near occasion of sin. Please hold off discussing legal aspects until later.

If you comment that sleeping together is not a sex act, it sheds more light on your position….pun not intended.

Over a period of time temptation can develop between homosexuals or heterosexuals of the opposite sex when they sleep together. Even if the temptation is just one sided and the other has no interest.

If you wish to play games with the situation and remain in denial, fine.

I prefer to discuss issues with people who can accept reality.

A.J, you say you’ve “never been able to emerge from realism and see temptation for what it must be: an imagination”.  Then how about just emerging from cynicism so as to charitably give the benefit of the doubt.

Gerald, do you believe there is such a thing as the near occasion of sin?

Carol, you say, “I happen to live with two homosexual men and I do believe their union with each other is an act against God’s Will.” There are also many people who live with heterosexual couples who will say those particular unions are acts against God’s Will. The Church herself speaks against many unions in general, whether they’re heterosexual or homosexual. Meanwhile, you (if “Carol” is a woman’s name) admit to be living with the opposite sex, and so there are also many people who will say you’re engaging in wrong doing.  But to others, “union” and “living together”, even “homosexual” and “heterosexual”, are not sufficiently specific terms by which to judge, and there is no Commandment against “two homosexuals living together” or “two heterosexuals living together,” or in your case, “Carol and two homosexual men living together”.  To the contrary, the Church teaches that it’s God’s Will that we all live together.

It’s God’s will that we all live together peaceabley, sure, Gerald. Not necessarily in the same house though.

But not sleep together in the same bed, inviting temptation.

You get the two mixed up.

Liseux, I see you’re still sleeping.  There is no requirement in civil marriage law for the couple to sleep together or that either party be homosexual or heterosexual. As far as “temptation can develop when they sleep together”, it can also not develop and even go away. Abraham Lincoln and Joshua Speed “slept together” for four years, not only in the same room but in the same bed.  What of it?  Did the apostles and Jesus never sleep together?  You say you “prefer to discuss issues with people who can accept reality”, but you haven’t demonstrated that you accept reality or even know what it is. What may be a “near occasion of sin” for you doesn’t mean it’s so for everyone else. It varies by person and circumstances.

Thanks for admiting that the temptation can develop. 

Please know, Gerald, that many people realize a moral duty to not put themselves into a near occasion of sin.

Sleep with whomever you want.

Just don’t expect practicing Catholics to condone your sin and label respectable.

That should be “label it respectable.”

Hey, Michael Jackson used to sleep with little boys…. will you defend him too?

Liseux, it is Jesus Christ who was and is the “defender”. John says so his First Letter: “If anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 Jn 2:1). And to quote Michael Jackson, in his own defense, “When you say bed, you’re thinking sexual, they make that sexual, it’s not sexual. We’re going to sleep, I tuck them in and I put a little like, er, music on and when it’s story time I read a book. We go to sleep with the fireplace on. I give them hot milk, you know, we have cookies, it’s very charming, it’s very sweet, it’s what the whole world should do.”

You forgot the child’s account of the milk and cookies episode, which included sexual battery.

The December 1993 declaration was sworn by a 13-year-old California boy who sued Jackson for, among other things, sexual battery, willful misconduct, and emotional distress. The child’s declaration includes a graphic account of alleged sexual encounters with Jackson at Neverland and various hotels.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/mjdec1.html

Gerald, you’re defending perversity and and odd relativism.

Pardon me if I exit left.

Liseux, I don’t forget the child’s account.  The child’s account you cite was never proven to be true. No criminal charges were filed in the case and the accuser later refused to affirm his account in court.  And in the 2005 criminal trial involving another child, after hearing all the testimony, the jury unanimously found Michael Jackson not guilty. The burden of proof is on the accuser.  That burden was not met then, and you haven’t met it now.  And as the saying goes, he’s innocent unless proven guilty.

Really, Chuck, that’s silly.  No constitutional justification?  “Simply” no constitutional justification?

It’s nothing to do with “equal rights”.  “Gay” people have every right to get married.  To people of the opposite sex.

Because marriage is a formalized relationship between members of the opposite sex.  That’s what it IS.

You can’t “marry” a member of the same sex any more than you can impregnate a member of the same sex.  The concept is a nonsense.

Yes, and 15 million dollars poorer, too, to pay off the kid.

Gerald, this is a prime example of your perverse notion.

It’s indefensible.

Liseux, it’s fact and not “perverse notion” that the child’s account was never proven to be true, that it differed materially from established facts, that no criminal charges were filed in the case, that the accuser later refused to affirm his account in court, and that the 2005 jury unanimously found Michael Jackson not guilty. And it’s also not a perverse notion that the burden of proof is on the accuser.  Rather, it’s the teaching of the Church. But perhaps you value money more than truth.

Well, Gerald, what DO you mean.  Here is how YOU see MARRIAGE:  >Gerald: “...as I’ve already said, there is no requirement in the law that the couple be sexually attracted to one another. There is no requirement that they be “tempted” or homosexual or heterosexual. To the contrary, the requirement in the law is that they be two people committed to caring for one another. They can be same sex, opposite sex, heterosexual, homosexual, rubberduckysexual, devoutly celibate or whatever.”<<
Then, you answer me: “Cheryl, no, “the young lady living with her grandmother” and the “bachelor living… with his aged mother” would be precluded from marrying because civil law does not permit marrying one’s parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings, children, etc…”
I ask you, why SHOULD civil law preclude anyone from getting married for ANY off the current reasons you list – as these situations most certainly meet your argument of, “the requirement in the law is that they be two people committed to caring for one another.”  You see, if that’s what you (and people like you) boil marriage down to, there is absolutely NO reason to keep those preclusions in the law.  Since procreation – according to you, that is - is not an integral part of marriage, then civil law has absolutely no justification for precluding ANY of those situations.
And, there may be some who take you up on the doggy biscuit – there ARE those among us who battle inter-species attractions.  Hey, if they “were born that way” we certainly have no right to keep them from exercising the 14th Amendment, do we?

Cheryl, you wrote, “Since procreation – according to you, that is - is not an integral part of marriage””, but it’s not according to me that procreation is not integral to civil marriage, as I didn’t write the civil marriage laws.  Rather, it’s the law of all 50 states and DC that procreation is not required of civil marriages. In all 50 states and DC, procreation is legal inside or outside of civil marriage, and not required of civil marriage. Couples who marry but don’t procreate (because they can’t or don’t want to) may use civil marriage benefits for thousands of purposes other than procreation as they choose.  In DC and elsewhere, there’s no civil marriage requirement that the couple procreate or want to procreate or that the couple is even able to procreate.  In all 50 states and DC, baby haters and card-carrying abortionists can get a civil marriage.  Procreation is not integral to their marriages.

You asked, “why SHOULD civil law preclude anyone from getting married for ANY off the current reasons you list”.  As a contract, civil marriage requires consent of the parties, and so the state claims a legitimate interest in denying marriage to persons unable by reason of mental incapacity to give consent, or where family ties (also known as parent-child coercion, abuse, indoctrination) preclude free consent. As a minimum, that would likely cover your multiple personality and Norman Bates scenarios.

You’re in amazing and utter denial of reality, Gerald. I would say not unlike Michael Jackson was.

He put himself in the near occasion of sin and it cost him and the CHILDREN dearly.

Save the gobbledygoop about not being a near occasion of sin and doing no harm for your court dates.

Thank you God, for your objective truth. Please lead all who do not know you as the Truth to recgonize you.

Gerrald: “Cheryl, you wrote, ‘Since procreation – according to you, that is - is not an integral part of marriage’”, but it’s not according to me that procreation is not integral to civil marriage, as I didn’t write the civil marriage laws.  Rather, it’s the law of all 50 states and DC that procreation is not required of civil marriages. In all 50 states and DC, procreation is legal inside or outside of civil marriage, and not required of civil marriage…Procreation is not integral to their marriages…”
Gerald, you are confusing the chicken and the egg.  Marriage predates the civil law of this country.  Our civil law DID NOT create this most basic human and social institution.  Our civil law MERELY regulates it; it does NOT create it.  The law has a need to recognize this union, marriage, simply because marriages have public consequences.  And, one of the BIG reasons marriages have public consequences is that procreation is an integral part of what marriage is!  Also, the fact that some marry and don’t carry out this distinct role of marriage is called freedom – the state cannot MAKE them do this.  And, the fact that some cannot (by age or natural obstruction) carry out this role provides NO proof that this role is not integral to marriage. [Example – the fact that a woman may have had breast surgery that compromised her milk ducts making it impossible for her to nurse her baby in absolutely no way provides any evidence to prove breasts are not for feeding babies.]
Procreation can hardly be considered ‘legal’ outside of marriage – given the multitude of laws that regulate its occurrence. [Heck, in most states, if the mother is unmarried AND under 18, it is quite ‘illegal’ to procreate.] And, nature itself hardly considers it ‘legal,’ as children from intact, two-parent (the natural parents) families have better outcomes both in short-term well-being and long-term success than those children from without.
The last three presidents have spoken about the importance of marriage [granted, Obama’s tack is a bit loose – he encourages fathers to stay with their children.]  These leaders recognize that contemporary American families are very fragile.  They recognize the important role in our public community, our society, that strong marriages provide.

Cheryl, you wrote, “Gerald, you are confusing the chicken and the egg.  Marriage predates the civil law of this country.”  No, there are many kinds of eggs, but everything called an “egg” is not a chicken egg.  Likewise, there are many things called “marriage”, but they don’t all predate U.S. civil law.  You go on to say, “Our civil law MERELY regulates it.”  No, civil law does not regulate all forms of marriage.  Civil law regulates civil marriage as defined in civil law. For example, if I were to practice the religion of Badabupa and Badabupa marriage is between a man and six women and a horse, civil marriage law does not regulate it.  By that I mean, though it’s not legal under civil law to marry six women or a horse, I can nevertheless do so under the religion of Badabupa without conflict to civil law as long as civil law does not recognize my Badabupa marriages. Likewise, whether or not Catholicism believes that procreation is integral to marriage, civil law does not regulate, enforce or recognize that belief, as procreation is not integral to civil marriage.  You go on to claim, “Procreation can hardly be considered ‘legal’ outside of marriage”, but procreation is not only “considered” legal outside of marriage, it in fact IS legal (under civil law) outside of civil marriage.  That states have age of consent laws does not mean that procreation is not legal outside of marriage.  Rather, it means the state requires the persons be of a certain age before they can consent to sex OR marriage. You go on to over generalize, saying, “children from intact, two-parent (the natural parents) families have better outcomes both in short-term well-being and long-term success than those children from without.”  But that’s not true, in that some such children may do better, and some may do worse, and what is considered “better outcomes” is a matter of opinion. If you want to talk in absolute terms, I don’t think you have any statistics handy on the number that go to heaven vs hell.

I think Gerald believes that, because the state does not spell out all of the rights married couples, marriage is, civilly speaking, hardly different from a company partnership.

However, this obscures the fact that marriage is recognized by society as the proper place for the expression of the sexual love of husband and wife and the passing on to the children of the union the foundational aspects of society, love, and family.

Thus, the Church and the state have an obligation to preserve this sacred institution from attempts to redefine it in either purely legalistic terms as an expedient partnership defined by the utilitarian needs of the partners, or the likewise false idea that sexual desire between virtually any and all persons should be condoned and declared as an acceptable union.

I think Gerald believes that, because the state does not spell out all of the rights married couples, marriage is, civilly speaking, hardly different from a company partnership.

However, this obscures the fact that marriage is recognized by society as the proper place for the expression of the sexual love of husband and wife and the passing on to the children of the union the foundational aspects of society, love, and family.

Thus, the Church and the state have an obligation to preserve this sacred institution from attempts to redefine it in either as an expedient partnership defined by the utilitarian needs of the partners, or the likewise false notion that sexual desire between virtually any and all persons should be condoned and declared as acceptable.

Oops, double-posted. slow computer day.

BTW, Gerald, I didn’t have time to go through all of you comments (just yours to me and several more), so if you think I have misstated your understanding of civil marriage licenses and their purpose, go ahead and let me know.

David B, you write, “I think Gerald believes that… marriage is, civilly speaking, hardly different from a company partnership.” No, I make no such claim. But I will say that the civil marriage law does not require married couples to “express sexual love” or procreate or “pass on to children” your particular view of “foundational aspects of society, love, and family”, even if it can provide a convenient and expedient vehicle for some who choose to do so.  And as to civil marriage being a “sacred institution”, just because it has the word “marriage” in the name doesn’t make it any more sacred than same-sex marriage or remarriage.

Gerald: “You go on to over generalize, saying, “children from intact, two-parent (the natural parents) families have better outcomes both in short-term well-being and long-term success than those children from without.”  But that’s not true, in that some such children may do better, and some may do worse, and what is considered “better outcomes” is a matter of opinion. If you want to talk in absolute terms, I don’t think you have any statistics handy on the number that go to heaven vs hell.”
I’ll deal with the rest of your comment later, but there exists an overwhelming amount of scientific research confirming this.  It is NOT merely OPINION.

Cheryl, as I said, “what is considered ‘better outcomes’ is a matter of opinion.”  That means, even if “there exists an overwhelming amount of scientific research confirming” so-called “better outcomes”, I will ask you, does your scientific research confirm that “it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell”?  Has your scientific research confirmed a better heaven vs hell outcome? Your researchers do not measure such things and they make no statement as to such outcomes. What value then does it have? They point to some correlations but do not prove any cause and effect. And if “children from intact, two-parent (the natural parents) families” have better outcomes, who was Jesus’ natural father and how well did Jesus do?  And notably, to have an “intact, two-parent (the natural parents) family” does not require a piece of paper from a courthouse.

“Homosexual” is not a gender - it is a lifestyle. A “marriage” between homosexuals is not marriage at all (please do not change the definition of marriage) it is just a partnership of practitioners of that lifestyle, much like polyamory or polygamy or polyandry. So why should they have better rights than polygamists? They are even edging out religious freedoms! Why not put “homosexual marriage” to a vote in every state - I’m sure there will be a resounding NO everywhere.

>>”That states have age of consent laws does not mean that procreation is not legal outside of marriage.  Rather, it means the state requires the persons be of a certain age before they can consent to sex OR marriage.”<<
Well, if it is against the law for a person of a certain age to engage in sex, I can deduce that it would also be ‘illegal’ for them to procreate, as sex is essential to procreation.

>>”Rather, it’s the law of all 50 states and DC that procreation is not required of civil marriages.”<<
Just because marriage law does not require procreation, in no way indicates that procreation is not integral to marriage.  It simply indicates that the state has no requirement for procreation (likely because it would be extremely intrusive for the state to enforce such a law.)

>>”And notably, to have an “intact, two-parent (the natural parents) family” does not require a piece of paper from a courthouse.”<<
Well, Gerald, the family-law courts DO need written law.  They do need to justify their actions.  They do need to know what the best-interest of the child (and family) is.  Thankfully they first look to the reasonable and rational.  That is why they do not look to you.

>>”and so the state claims a legitimate interest in denying marriage to persons unable by reason of mental incapacity to give consent, or where family ties (also known as parent-child coercion, abuse, indoctrination) preclude free consent.”<<
[Marriage law in many states follow: First cousins once removed, yes, only if they are over a certain age or cannot bear children.]
I wonder how being past child-bearing age or unable to bear children removes any chance of coercion. 

  Gerald- you rationalize that marriage is nothing greater than “two people committed to caring for one another.”  I ask, why does the state even NEED to be involved with keeping track of who has warm, fuzzy feelings for whom?

Cheryl, you wrote, “Well, if it is against the law for a person of a certain age to engage in sex, I can deduce that it would also be ‘illegal’ for them to procreate.”  No, there is no crime called procreation, at any age.  Your previous claim was that marriage is required for procreation, but the age of consent law does not mean that it’s illegal to procreate outside of (civil) marriage.  The law permits that one can consent to civil marriage without consenting to sex or procreation, and that one consent to sex or procreation without consenting to civil marriage. They are separate. It can be a crime for me to have sex with my wife if she does not consent to sex but not a crime if I have consensual sex with my neighbor outside of marriage.  And if my daughter is under 16 years of age, it can be illegal in DC for someone who is at least 4 years older than her to impregnate her, but it’s not illegal for her to procreate (as in she’s not guilty of a crime) and the law doesn’t require her to get an abortion and she may legally continue the procreative process. And if her sex partner is less than 4 years older than she is, it can be legal for both of them to engage in sexual acts. If I don’t like it, I don’t like, but that doesn’t make it illegal.

You wrote, “Just because marriage law does not require procreation, in no way indicates that procreation is not integral to marriage.” No, as it depends on which meaning of the word “marriage” one is using. As with many words, the word “marriage” can and does have multiple meanings. Do you run around saying, “Just because the butcher sells lamb for $6.99/lb in no way indicates that the crucifixion of Jesus is not a rack of lamb”?  Or “Just because the law does not require anchovies on pizza in no way indicates that anchovies are not integral to pizza”? In your house, in your opinion, in your own definition of what makes a “pizza”, anchovies may be integral to it, but the law does not mandate your opinion and therefore people can legally enjoy pizzas without anchovies and civil marriages without procreation.

You wrote, “Well, Gerald, the family-law courts DO need written law.” A need for written law and a need for a civil marriage license are not the same thing.  Thus, courts can follow written law without requiring that persons have a civil marriage or obtain a civil marriage license.

You wrote, “Marriage law in many states follow… I wonder how being past child-bearing age or unable to bear children removes any chance of coercion.”  No one said marriage law removes all chance, and in fact, it does not, and many people say it should not.  Marriage laws are political decisions, compromises, attempts to resolve a multitude of competing and noncompeting needs and concerns in their time and place. They differ from state to state just as opinion and history vary from state to state.

You wrote, “Gerald- you rationalize that marriage is nothing greater than ‘two people committed to caring for one another.’” No, have you not been listening? There are many kinds of “marriage”. For example, there is a marriage of a wine to a steak, and of a king and queen in a game of pinochle, and of two persons in civil law, and of a “lasting exclusive union of a man and a woman who agree to give and receive rights over each other for the performance of the act of generation and for the fostering of their mutual love,” and many, many more.  They’re all called “marriage” and they all are marriages, and yet they are different.  Neither civil law nor the rules of pinochle require that marriage be lasting, exclusive, sexual, non-contraceptive, etc. (or that you put anchovies on pizza). And civil marriage law does not per se promote such a thing, any more than a hammer per se promotes construction of churches, although some people may use it for that purpose.

You asked, “why does the state even NEED to be involved with keeping track of who has warm, fuzzy feelings for whom?”  The state neither keeps track nor knows who all has “feelings”. Rather, it registers and in effect makes a rights/benefits deal with couples who publicly promise to provide under the name of “(civil) marriage”, and it reportedly started doing so in 1754 when the English state began issuing licenses. But even after that, “self-marriage” and “self-divorce” continued, especially in the early decades of the United States, and “common law” marriage exists today in a number of states.

Also, as to your “it would be extremely intrusive for the state to enforce” couples to procreate, yes that would be extremely intrusive, but it would be relatively non-intrusive if the law provided marriage benefits only to couples who produce children.  Yet no state has such a law (and that fact goes to the body of evidence that procreation is not integral to civil marriage), and many would argue that such a plan would not benefit the common good as much as the current design. After all, contribution to the common good is not measured simply by counting children.

It’s easy: If a dog makes a turd on a candy wrapper, that doesnt make it a tootsie roll. Gay marriage is wrong every which way and everyone knows it.

Gerald tells me: “Your previous claim was that marriage is required for procreation,...”

I’m sorry, you will need to cut and paste – as I don’t remember making that claim.

Gerald, by your, “In your house, in your opinion, in your own definition of what makes a “pizza”, anchovies may be integral to it, but the law does not mandate your opinion and therefore people can legally enjoy pizzas without anchovies and civil marriages without procreation,” I can tell that you believe we all create our own truth.  Unless we have shared ‘truths’ we cannot even discuss ‘pizza’ or ‘anchovies’ or even ‘marriage.’  Therein lays the crux of the matter.

Gerald,

In talking about the good of marriage and the responsibility of society to protect it, I am not referring to a state’s legal paper recognizing a couple’s union, but rather to what that paper is concerned with: Holy Matrimony, the sacrament in which man and woman are joined together in the sight of God, with certain rights and responsibilities. 

I believe your original contention was that the Church should willingly “turn the other cheek” and acknowledge unions brought about by legal definitions that the state may concoct. My point is that the Church cannot do so, (for that would make it opposed to Truth) and that society should preserve marriage from becoming an intangible, merely personal idea ordered toward each man’s wishes. A steadfast definition of marriage, enlightened by the truth, is necessary for a civilized society to thrive.

>>”Gerald: You asked, “why does the state even NEED to be involved with keeping track of who has warm, fuzzy feelings for whom?”  The state neither keeps track nor knows who all has “feelings”. Rather, it registers and in effect makes a rights/benefits deal with couples who publicly promise to provide under the name of “(civil) marriage”, ...<<

OK, so, now your March 6th statement that “the requirement [for marriage] in the law is that they be two people committed to caring for one another” (which to me implies they have feelings for each other) is reduced to simply ‘providing’  for each other.
 
So, again, I ask why the state needs to know that these 2 people will be ‘providing’ for each other.  It would seem that the state would be better off providing for (i.e. giving benefits to) those people who have no one to provide for them.

Also, according to your reduced definition, there is absolutely no reason to withhold ‘marriage’ from the situations I mentioned, repeated here lest you forget exactly what I said: “Then the young lady living with her grandmother and providing end-of-life care could get in line for those ‘marriage benefits.’ Or, how about the past-retirement-age bachelor living in his childhood home yet with his aged mother?”  To that I have to ask, why does it even matter in that case whether it is 2 people or 3 or more, as long as they are ‘providing’ for each other?

The rest of your reply meanderings are simply not worthy of my time.

You are a fine example of what G. K. Chesterton speaks about when he says that you should not destroy what you do not understand ...

“People do not know what they are doing; because they do not know what they are undoing.” – GKC

“The religion that holds it [marriage] most strongly will hold it when nobody else holds it.” - GKC

Cheryl, you wrote, “you will need to cut and paste – as I don’t remember making that claim.” No problem. To recap, I said your previous claim was that marriage is (legally) required for procreation, because you wrote, “Procreation can hardly be considered ‘legal’ outside of marriage” and you cited an act of child rape as your alleged proof. But it’s also illegal to drive 200 mph, so do you tell people that driving “can hardly be considered legal”, or because voter fraud is illegal, do you tell people that voting “can hardly be considered legal”?

You wrote, “I can tell that you believe we all create our own truth. Unless we have shared ‘truths’ we cannot even discuss ‘pizza’ or ‘anchovies’ or even ‘marriage.’”  Really?  Do you believe words like “pizza”, “anchovies” and “marriage” and our posts mean the same thing to you as to me?  If so, I not only don’t believe we’re communicating but also don’t believe there’s any disagreement between us to resolve and therefore anything more to discuss.

You wrote, “OK, so, now your March 6th statement that ‘the requirement [for marriage] in the law is that they be two people committed to caring for one another’ (which to me implies they have feelings for each other) is reduced to simply ‘providing’ for each other.”  No, there’s been no reduction (outside of your mind).  I said “provide” but did not say what, and so did not exclude “care” or say the providing is “SIMPLY for each other”. Likewise, I did not say the law mandates that one could not have “feelings”, but, for example, when a law requires a doctor to provide “care”, it’s not requiring that he have “feelings” for you.

You asked, “I ask why the state needs to know that these 2 people will be ‘providing’ for each other.” No, the state never knows who “will” be providing for whom, but the license/registration puts the state on notice as to who is obligated and authorized to call upon the marriage benefits and puts the couple and others on notice that it’s “official” and will be enforced as needed.

You wrote, “It would seem that the state would be better off providing for (i.e. giving benefits to) those people who have no one to provide for them.”  There’s a wide range of opinion on what’s best. You apparently have yours. But I think it might be a very long list of people “who have no one to provide for them”, or an empty list, depending on what exactly that means.

You wrote, “according to your reduced definition, there is absolutely no reason to withhold ‘marriage’ from the situations I mentioned.”  Again, there’s no “reduced” and I’ve made no assessment of the freedom of consent (or whether anyone is already married) in the vague situations you presented, and it’s not my definition of marriage that it’s any two unmarried persons committed to caring for one another as long as they can freely consent. Rather, it’s the law in DC and it excludes persons closer than first cousins. Similarly, you ask, “why does it even matter in that case whether it is 2 people or 3 or more, as long as they are ‘providing’ for each other?”  Again, whether it’s first cousins, parent-child, 2 vs 3 or miscegenation, etc, civil marriage laws are ever changing political decisions, compromises, attempts to resolve a multitude of competing and noncompeting needs and concerns in their time and place.

And finally, if “people do not know what they are doing,” then that includes you and Chesterton. Indeed, you and Chesterton “are a fine example of what G. K. Chesterton speaks about.”

David B, you wrote, “I am not referring to a state’s legal paper recognizing a couple’s union, but rather to what that paper is concerned with: Holy Matrimony, the sacrament”. No, the state is not referring to or concerned with “Holy Matrimony, the sacrament”, and so you and the state are talking about different things.

You wrote, “My point is that the Church cannot [acknowledge unions brought about by legal definitions that the state may concoct], (for that would make it opposed to Truth).” If you mean the Church cannot acknowledge sinful unions, that’s one thing, but not all unions “brought about by legal definitions that the state may concoct” are sinful or “opposed to Truth”, not even legal arrangements involving persons of the same sex.  It is not intrinsically evil for two people of the same sex to take care of one another or for the state to recognize that commitment or use the English word “marriage” in reference to them.  The English word “marriage” is not a sacrament. Written, it is a series of lines and curves, like the word “David”, that has multiple meanings.  Not every use of the word “marriage” means Holy Matrimony, the sacrament, just as not every use of the word “David” means King David.

You wrote, “society should preserve marriage from becoming an intangible, merely personal idea ordered toward each man’s wishes”. The marriage you seek to preserve, “Holy Matrimony, the sacrament”, has not changed, has not become anything that it wasn’t. Your “steadfast definition of marriage, enlightened by the truth” is as steadfast as ever.  DC law did not change it.  Instead, DC law changed a different institution that has a similar name, as it has many times before.

Gerald, you have missed my point.  My claim was that there is quite a difference in ‘legalness’ of procreation done WITHIN marriage versus WITHOUT, “given the multitude of laws that regulate its occurrence [outside of marriage.]”  To which I added: “[N]ature itself hardly considers it ‘legal,’ as children from intact, two-parent (the natural parents) families have better outcomes both in short-term well-being and long-term success than those children from without.“

>>>”It is not intrinsically evil for two people of the same sex to take care of one another or for the state to recognize that commitment or use the English word “marriage” in reference to them.”<<
To use the word ‘marriage’ in that situation, in a way incompatible with the UNDERSTOOD meaning, is not supportable.  Using the word in such a way renders it meaningless.

>>“and puts the couple and others on notice that it’s “official” and will be enforced as needed.”<<

“Officially” WHAT?  “Officially” official?

Enforced as NEEDED.  Need determined according to what?

If the state is not recognizing a NATURAL union, a union prescribed and designed by nature and not by man, it CAN “make” the “marriage” anything it wants to.  It can add and delete any requirements at will.  In essence, what the state calls “marriage” becomes something of its [the state’s] own making, and as such “marriage” becomes susceptible to tyranny, irrationality and oppressiveness.  THAT is what the Catholic Church understands.  THAT is what Chesterton understood.  THAT is what most of the repliers here understand.  THAT is what you, Gerald, are NOT understanding – you are contorting and contriving reality and Truth for your OWN gain and BENEFIT.

Cheryl, you wrote, “My claim was that there is quite a difference in ‘legalness’ of procreation done WITHIN marriage versus WITHOUT”. And your claim was wrong. The law that forbids a 30-year old man from engaging in sexual acts with a 12-year old child is not a law prohibiting procreation outside of marriage.  It is a law prohibiting non-consensual sex.  Non-consensual sex is neither legal within marriage nor outside of marriage.  A 30-year old man is not permitted to have sex with a 12-year old inside or outside of marriage. Meanwhile, consensual sex that is legal inside of marriage is also legal outside of marriage, and that includes procreation. No license is needed for procreation.

Likewise, your opinion that “[N]ature itself hardly considers it “legal’” has also been soundly discredited, as I began to describe in my earlier post. “Nature” doesn’t “consider”, whether by “itself” or with help from some researchers, and whatever some people may consider to be “better outcomes” is their subjective opinion. The research does not prove any cause and effect or account for countless variables. It reminds of research that says white children have better outcomes than black children.

You wrote, “To use the word ‘marriage’ in that situation, in a way incompatible with the UNDERSTOOD meaning, is not supportable.”  Today, using the word “marriage” to refer to same-sex couples is a commonly understood meaning of the word, found in major dictionaries. It’s even codified into law. Has been for years.

You asked, “Officially WHAT?  Officially official?  Enforced as NEEDED.  Need determined according to what?” The answer is that the marriage is officially recognized by the state, and will be enforced as needed should an entitled party call upon the state to make good upon it. For example, for alimony, child support, inheritance, etc.

You wrote, “‘marriage’ becomes something of its [the state’s] own making, and as such ‘marriage’ becomes susceptible to tyranny, irrationality and oppressiveness”.  What’s new?  All the laws of the state have always been susceptible to tyranny, irrationality and oppressiveness. Meanwhile, there’s no shortage of people who say the history of the Catholic Church and religion in general are parties in that as well.

You wrote, “you are contorting and contriving reality and Truth for your OWN gain and BENEFIT.” Goodness gracious, you couldn’t be wrong about such a thing, could you?

>>”...will be enforced as needed should an entitled party call upon the state to make good upon it. For example, for alimony, child support, inheritance, etc.”<<

Funny, those situations you mention ALL involve children…

Gerald - you continue to dismiss the second part of my statement.  If procreation WITHIN marriage was similar to procreation WITHOUT marriage, there would be no need for the multitude of laws that deal with the ins and outs AND legalities of the relationships and responsibilities that procreation WITHOUT marriage entails.

And, likewise, you are being irrational about the research.  It stands up in courts of law; it is rational and reasonable.  It is NOT so easily discredited.  Why do you want to fight the fact that children do best when raised by their married, biological mother and father?

As far as word usage…I’m sorry, but most STILL need to add the word GAY before marriage to explain that which is NOT marriage in the way most people understand it.
 
And, to your, “What’s new?  All the laws of the state have always been susceptible to tyranny, irrationality and oppressiveness,” I just have to add precisely.  Our FREEDOMS are based in Natural Law NOT state law. There is no need to submit our Natural Right to marriage and family (as Nature and God intended) to the state.
>>”You wrote, “you are contorting and contriving reality and Truth for your OWN gain and BENEFIT.” Goodness gracious, you couldn’t be wrong about such a thing, could you?”<<

God=Truth, therefore I cannot change it for my gain or benefit.  I do not find my truth in Webster’s of a certain copyright year, nor from the Council of the District of Columbia.

Cheryl, you wrote, “Funny, those situations you mention ALL involve children.” What’s funny is that while child support obviously relates to children (who might be biological or not), alimony and inheritance do not necessitate any children. Likewise, the law does not require that a married couple have any children.

You wrote, “If procreation WITHIN marriage was similar to procreation WITHOUT marriage, there would be no need for the multitude of laws that deal with the ins and outs AND legalities of the relationships and responsibilities that procreation WITHOUT marriage entails.” No, for example, the law against non-consensual sex is neither a “within marriage” nor a “without marriage” law.  Rather, it applies regardless of whether anyone is married.  And for whatever “multitude of laws” there maight be that pertain in some way to procreation/sex outside of marriage, there is also a “multitude of laws” that pertain to procreation/sex inside of marriage. And so if “procreation can hardly be considered ‘legal’ outside of marriage”, as you claimed, you may also claim that “procreation can hardly be considered ‘legal’ inside of marriage.”

You wrote, “you are being irrational about the research. It stands up in courts of law; it is rational and reasonable. It is NOT so easily discredited.” No, to begin with, you apparently have difficulty with reading comprehension.  What was said to be discredited is your opinion that “[N]ature itself hardly considers it ‘legal’”. Again, Nature doesn’t “consider” anything, whether by “itself” or with anyone’s help, and has no legal opinion. Second, the research is as I said, that what some people may consider to be “better outcomes” is their subjective opinion (and does not reflect salvation outcomes), that the research does not prove any cause and effect or account for countless variables, and that it reminds of research that says white children have better outcomes than black children. Third, no court of law has ever ruled on the validity of the research itself or its researcher’s conclusions, i.e. that “it stands up”.  Rather, time and time again, the body of research on the subject has been presented in court, and the result is that the courts have supported same-sex parents raising children.

You asked, “Why do you want to fight the fact that children do best when raised by their married, biological mother and father?” I don’t fight the opinion that generally children do better by some criteria when they have parents who care rather than absent or harmful. But the conclusion is far from reached that by all criteria all children are best raised by their biological parents. In fact, such a conclusion is patently untrue, and there is no research to support such a claim. After all, biological parents include child molesters, murderers, drug addicts, lunatics and more. In addition, the biological parent or parents may themselves be dead or abandon the child to others. What’s more, it’s a fact that many same-sex couples already have children (either biologically or otherwise), and there is no scientific research to show that all those children would be better off ripped away from their same-sex parents and handed to someone else.

You wrote, “I’m sorry, but most STILL need to add the word GAY before marriage to explain that which is NOT marriage in the way most people understand it.” No, your claim was specific to “that situation”, and when the context is known, there is no need to add another word. But if you enjoy such things, you might use phrases like “unfaithful opposite-sex marriage” or “childless opposite-sex marriage” or “spouse-abusing opposite-sex marriage” or “child-molesting opposite-sex marriage” or “gay opposite-sex marriage” or “straight same-sex marriage” or “stay-at-home-mom same-sex marriage”, etc.

You wrote, “There is no need to submit our Natural Right to marriage and family (as Nature and God intended) to the state.” The state does not require anyone to submit to obtaining a marriage license in order to marry or have a family.  But in states that do not recognize common law marriages, you would need a marriage license if you want the married person tax deduction or many other such marital benefits.

You wrote, “God=Truth, therefore I cannot change [Truth] for my gain or benefit”.  Then neither can I, and so your previous claim that “you are contorting and contriving reality and Truth for your OWN gain and BENEFIT” must have been false, right?

Finally, you wrote, “I do not find my truth in Webster’s of a certain copyright year, nor from the Council of the District of Columbia.”  If you don’t, just remember that looking in a Bible or Church documents isn’t going to tell you what the DC Council and everyone else means by the word “marriage”.

>> “People do not know what they are doing; because they do not know what they are undoing.” – GKC<<

Gerald, I find your comment regarding the GKC quote I posted lacking something.  You reply,  “And finally, if ‘people do not know what they are doing,’ then that includes you [Cheryl] and Chesterton. Indeed, you and Chesterton ‘are a fine example of what G. K. Chesterton speaks about.’  I wonder, WHAT IS IT that we are trying to undo? 

No, Gerald, you persist in showing that YOU do not have “…an understanding of what marriage law is and why we have laws only about this one kind of personal relationship as opposed to all other intimate relationships worthy of respect.”  [Taken from: http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/ND2004.pdf] “The proposition on the table is this: marriage exists in every known society, including ours, as a public act and not just a private vow, because sex between men and women produces babies on a regular basis. From a public, legal standpoint, marriage is the attempt to regulate, by a variety of means not limited to punishment or incentives, the relationships between men and women in order to maximize the likelihood that (a) children will have mothers and fathers and (b) society will get the well-nurtured next generation we all need.”[p.241]

>>”...just remember that looking in a Bible or Church documents isn’t going to tell you what the DC Council and everyone else means by the word “marriage”. <<<

No.  But, I have a better chance of finding the TRUTH.  The truth isn’t decided by law OR popular opinion.

Best wishes to you.

Cheryl, if you want to insist that I’m “being irrational about the research. It stands up in courts of law; it is rational and reasonable. It is NOT so easily discredited” as you’ve claimed, then ok, fine. Perhaps you’ll find it as compelling as the courts have.  Here are a few of the summaries…

The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and National Association of Social Workers wrote in their Amicus curiae brief presented to the Supreme Court of the State of California: “Indeed, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been remarkably consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are every bit as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents. Amici emphasize that the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents and the positive outcomes for their children are not areas where credible scientific researchers disagree. Statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests otherwise. Allowing same-sex couples to legally marry will not have any detrimental effect on children raised in heterosexual households, but it will benefit children being raised by same-sex couples.”

The Canadian Psychological Association stated: “Beliefs that gay and lesbian adults are not fit parents, or that the psychosocial development of the children of gay and lesbian parents is compromised, have no basis in science. Our position is based on a review representing approximately 50 empirical studies and at least another 50 articles and book chapters and does not rest on the results of any one study. A review of the psychological research into the well-being of children raised by same-sex and opposite-sex parents continues to indicate that there are no reliable differences in their mental health or social adjustment and that lesbian mothers and gay fathers are not less fit as parents than are their heterosexual counterparts. The CPA recognizes and appreciates that persons and institutions are entitled to their opinions and positions on this issue. However, CPA is concerned that some are mis-interpreting the findings of psychological research to support their positions, when their positions are more accurately based on other systems of belief or values.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics stated: “More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents’ sexual orientation and any measure of a child’s emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.”

Etc. Etc.

Best wishes to you and to all the children.

Of course, if you don’t like those organizations, I can also quote from the same website you quoted from, run by the non-scientific Institute for Marriage and Public Policy (aka Maggie Gallagher).  Their summary of the research is actually very similar:

“The research shows that what places children at risk is not fatherlessness, but the absence of economic and social resources that a qualified second parent can provide, whether male or female.”

And, “Moreover, the research on children raised by lesbian and gay parents demonstrates that these children do as well if not better than children raised by heterosexual parents. Specifically, the research demonstrates that children of same-sex couples are as emotionally healthy and socially adjusted and at least as educationally and socially successful as children raised by heterosexual parents.”

And, “Most studies—including the ones that [Maggie] Gallagher relies on—reflect the common sense that what counts is not the family structure, but the quality of dedication, commitment, self-sacrifice, and love in the household.”

But then they engage in deliberate efforts to, get this, discredit the research in order to promote their “intact, biological, married family” agenda.  Imagine that.

I’m all for the truth.  That’s why I’ve also pointed to deficiencies in the research.

Taken from http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/15089:
“Cretella said that when the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsed same-sex parenting in 2002, it acted on the recommendation of a small committee that she says had an agenda.
The academy endorsed homosexual parents over the specific objections of some committee members who noted the flaws in the research studies that found same-sex parenting to be as healthy as heterosexual parenting, she said.
A key methodological flaw in those studies is that they compared the wellbeing of children in homosexual households to those raised in difficult circumstances such as single-parent households that resulted from divorce, Cretella said.
None of the studies compared children raised by homosexual parents to children with two heterosexual parents in a stable, loving marriage. “

And, from http://www.ruthblog.org/2009/10/15/same-sex-marriage-not-in-the-best-interest-of-children/
“The California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT) published a special issue of their bi-monthly journal “The Therapist” dedicated to the subject of same-sex marriage. Guest authors were asked to contribute articles, half of the writers in support and half opposed to same-sex marriage. A stated goal of the issue was to determine whether the organization should adopt a formal position on the matter.
Subsequent to publication of the May/June 2009 special issue (Volume 21, Issue 3), homosexual activists within and without the organization pressured CAMFT to not only apologize, but also expunge from their organizational archives those articles that voiced opposition to same-sex marriage. CAMFT capitulated to those demands. The Director of CAMFT apologized for publishing articles critical of same-sex marriage and all the “offending” articles were censored from the CAMFT website archives. So much for intellectual debate and freedom of opinion.”

Homosexual sex is just masturbation using another’s body…the epitome of self-indulgence. We no longer seek truth, but self-indulgence

Cheryl, you wrote, “Cretella said that when the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsed same-sex parenting in 2002, it acted on the recommendation of a small committee that she says had an agenda.”

If it’s wrong to act on the recommendation of a small committee with an agenda, then it would be wrong to act on the recommendation of Cretella and her ACP, because that label fits them well if not better.  So perhaps an appropriate response to Cretella would be, “You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.”  Her own fringe group, known as the American College of Pediatricians (not to be confused with the American Academy of Pediatricians or the American Academy of Pediatrics), is an agenda-based, pseudo-religious, non-scientific organization that masquerades in the name of science.  Her ACP fringe group can itself be described as a small committee with an agenda.

The article you quoted goes on to say, “The academy endorsed homosexual parents over the specific objections of some committee members who noted the flaws in the research studies that found same-sex parenting to be as healthy as heterosexual parenting, she said.”  What that says is that the American Academy of Pediatrics did not cave in to the fringe views of people like Cretella just because the research is not perfect.

You wrote/copied/pasted, “None of the studies compared children raised by homosexual parents to children with two heterosexual parents in a stable, loving marriage.”

If that’s true, then you, Cretella, the ACP and others have no studies comparing children raised by homosexual parents to children with two heterosexual parents in a stable, loving marriage by which to claim that children raised by two heterosexual parents in a stable, loving marriage are any better than children raised by homosexual parents.  It works both ways.  If the American Academy of Pediatrics needs those studies for its conclusions to be reasonable, then the ACP needs those studies for its own conclusions to be reasonable.  There ARE other apples and oranges studies available, but the ACP rejects those studies which don’t support its agenda and wanted the American Academy of Pediatrics to do likewise.  The American Academy of Pediatrics would not cave in to the ACP’s agenda.

You quoted from another agenda-driven blog site about how the “the Director of CAMFT apologized” for having published and then removing some articles.  If he did, then in connection with this, the blogger admits, “CAMFT, like all mental health organizations, must base policy decisions on scientific evidence and research findings, not personal belief and political opinion.”  For all anyone knows, the articles which were allegedly published and subsequently removed did not meet this standard and/or were removed so as to promote this standard.

As I have pointed out, the research is not perfect.  No research s perfect.  But you’ve claimed “It stands up in courts of law; it is rational and reasonable. It is NOT so easily discredited.”  Indeed, the courts have accepted it into evidence, reviewed it and then consistently ruled in favor of same-sex parenting.

In regard to the CAMFT issue, let me add that the apology that I read said that there was a paucity of credible articles against same-sex marriage and so, for a single issue of their non-scholarly magazine, they accepted and published submissions which were not believed to be credible, and they later regretted that decision because of the harm it may cause.  And the fuller story is that in subsequently removing the articles, they did not just remove “those articles that voiced opposition to same-sex marriage” because they also removed those in favor of it as well, and indeed the entire magazine issue from their website.  As such, they were not “expunged from their organizational archives” but removed from the website. And the director did not “apologize for publishing articles critical of same-sex marriage”, but rather, the director apologized for publishing the “objectionable” articles which many found “offensive”, whichever articles those may be.

I ask,
for our society, for our economy, for our happiness,
WHERE is the place WHEREIN new Americans should be born?

In Your hand

I place my heart,

Body, life and soul

Yours I am, for You I was born

I am Yours and born of You.

I ask, again,
for our society, for our economy, for our happiness,
WHERE is the place WHEREIN new Americans should be born?

Well, South-Central Texas has some pockets of fine areas fit to raise your children in. We got the New Evangelization going on….!

liseux-should we all come to South-Central TX, WHO among us should be the ones having the new babies?

Cheryl, I’m reading your question on the literal level. As a Catholic, I think that married couples should listen to God’s directive to go forth, be fruitful, and multiply.  That’s what I did.

We live in a primarily German-Czech area that is secularizing in some areas. We do have faithful parish priests and faithful families that give me hope however.

Seems like nowadays, it’s the faithful Catholics, Muslims, and some Evangelicals who aren’t afraid to have children. Others caught up in the culture tend to buy into the contracept, sterilize, and abort ones culture to death.

I’m 47 and praying for more children. So…. I’m not sure if I answered your question or if I understand it.

liseux-
We think alot alike, based on your comments on this and other blogs here. And, it sounds as if we are blessed to be living in similar settings.
I was wondering, given all the commenting about same-sex parents being ‘adequate’ for children….but knowing that they can’t really procreate without lots of medical help and/or money…I was wondering into what kinds of homes we should hope new Americans are being born.  As best I can figure, our government really should be PROMOTING child-bearing WITHIN families, families with married parents.  And, in order to promote this, our government would probably want to provide some kind of benefits to encourage this kind of lifestyle.  Granted, once married, the government couldn’t really FORCE them to have kids….  Well,  voila, you have a system where the government provides benefits and incentives for getting new citizens being born into the best setting they could be born into…...

I get it.  Sorry, Cheryl, I am a bit thick and literal minded at times.

The way I see it, if we Catholics keep evangelizing, as we should, and the others keep up the contraception, sterilizing, and abortion, by sheer numbers, it’ll be us and the Muslims in the future.  Then it’ll get interesting.

We have to keep fighting the good fight. God be with you.

P.S. did you read in the Register the latest from the Cardinal from Bologna who said that people who support homosexual unions should not call themselves Catholic?

I thought it was very interesting.

Also, I have a problem with “adequate” parenting. I don’t want adequate for my kids, I want the best. Society shouldn’t settle for adequate when superior is attainable.

>>liseux-“I get it.  Sorry, Cheryl, I am a bit thick and literal minded at times.”<<
The apologies are mine. I am not an eloquent writer.  And, regretfully, I rarely give my e-mails the kind of thoughtful criticism and editing that I give my hard-copy, printed work.  I take to heart GKC’s “If something is worth doing, it is worth doing badly.”
I will have to track down that article by the Cardinal.
And, I agree on the being merely ‘adequate.’  If all we strive for is to be adequate, that is all we will achieve.  However, if we shoot for perfection, there is that chance that we will achieve it!!