The Church should respond in exactly the same manner as it has on the legalization of divorce.

Wow. Read Judge Walker’s “findings.” Talk about irrational! 
Example: “Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions.”
Unbelieveable stuff.  There is NO law that can be written to bridge the very REAL difference between REAL marriage and same-sex unions. 
This can be nothing but ‘arbitrary’ law.  And, as such, is tyrannical.
May God help us.

You’re right. My friends Charles and Richard were together for 43 years. That is definitely VERY different from all the REAL male-female marriages that end in divorce.

*note the sarcasm*

No, I’d have to say they definitely “had characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions.” They might not have bore children, but then again not all male-female couples do either.

Sad that these people have nothing better to do with their so-called ‘christianity’. Even Jesus healed the lover of a gay man, in the bible. Matthew 8: 5-13

What would be so much more Christian would be take all this energy and put it towards something which Christ truly would bless, such as helping the homeless.

I guarantee you tho ... that will never happen.

@Mike Kays

Why do you have to ridicule someone who doesn’t agree with you?

@Geek

I was using sarcasm to make a point.

Read my words again.

@Mike Kays

Sarcasm to make a point, ridicules the listener. That, I have to say with charity, is not something “Christ truly would bless”. On another note, I’m just curious where the lover of the gay man is in Matthew 8:5-13. My New American Bible (St. Joseph Edition) shows me that it was the Centurion’s servant. I’m just curious how you came about your interpretation. What version are you reading, by the way? (Please note the sincerity, *not sarcasm*)

The church doesn’t try to impose its rules on divorce upon the rest of society; why impose its marriage rules? (Note that I totally support the right of the church to have its own definitions of both marriage and divorce, even though I don’t agree with them.)

Given that the judge violated the will of the people.. violated democracy. Can we sue! The people of california vs. judge vaughn walker.

“Marriage is a reality that predates religion. When the state, or religion recognizes that reality, it creates an institution. The state cannot change a reality. As Catholics, we understand marriage to be a sacrament and understand that with regard to Christ’s relationship to the Church.”

Very well put.  Interestingly there was a recent article on the gene involved in spermatogenesis.  Apparently it has been around for a bit.  While there has been no discovery of a so called gay gene, it does seem that sexual reproduction via complimentary morphology is heavily encoded in human biology.

I’d say William May’s statement is well grounded.

@Mike Kays: “They might not have bore children, but then again not all male-female couples do either.”
(Sarcasm is always useful when you can’t make an argument.  Name-calling gets overused, too.)
Same sex unions can NEVER be marriage.  There is no set of ‘man-made’ rules or law that will be able to bridge the very REAL differences between same sex unions and what we now need to refer to as “traditional” marriage. (See - I AM personally affected, I have to type “traditional” marriage everytime I want to talk about REAL, good-ol’ fashioned MARRIAGE!)
By the way, marriage has EVERYTHING to do with the INCOMPLETENESS of humanity to PROCREATE as an INDIVIDUAL.  A male needs a female.  A female needs a male.  Children need the union of a male and a female…both for conception AND for rearing.  That is the basis of MARRIAGE.  Calling a same sex union IDENTICAL to what traditional, REAL marriage is is completely irrational.  The union of Charles and Richard is nothing akin to marriage.  It is a close friendship at best.

“Even Jesus healed the lover of a gay man, in the bible. Matthew 8: 5-13”

What?! You’re kidding, right? A Roman centurian has a sick servant and something in there tells you he’s gay? Go look up the meaning of the word “eisegesis.”

“Marriage is a reality that predates religion. When the state, or religion recognizes that reality, it creates an institution. The state cannot change a reality. As Catholics, we understand marriage to be a sacrament and understand that with regard to Christ’s relationship to the Church.”
+
This is not suprisingly the most Catholic part of Professor May’s comments. However, embedded in these sentences are a melding of law and religion that would never withstand basic public sentiment. In other words, while one may defend marriage as between one man and one woman and want that clearly defined and protected by law, it would be an entirely other thing to argue for marriage to be a constitutional sacrament. But the idea of Marriage as a “social reality” predating religion and law is more tricky. As a social institution it has many forms. One man, one woman, for purposes of creating a family (and thus continuing the life of the human family) is a quite rarified form. Polygymamy would seem to be a more robust form of this value. While I believe in the linkage, I also see it possible to be honest that there are other forms of devoted, committed life between individuals that are not sacraments, and are done for other reasons that may or may not include raising children as part of what it means to live in a committed relationship as adults.

Unfortunately, I think people of religious conviction and conscience make a fundamental mistake when we try to make the moral argument for an issue. Very few moral arguments can be made and won in our culture anymore. JP II called it “moral relativism”, which is now the new absolute in our society. When the only absolute is that there are no absolutes, when objective truth is reduced to subjective opinion, and there is no moral good apart from what we determine it to be, how do we expect to win this argument?
I think we should see the the signs of the times and know that same-sex marriage is coming. We simply cannot convince society otherwise based on the moral argument alone. What the churches who cannot sanction such unions need to be doing is fighting to ensure that their religious liberties are protected under the Constitution. Perhaps its even time for the clergy to consider renouncing their dual agency of both church and state when it comes to marriage. Let the state validate the legal contract of marriage and let the clergy bless and sanctify it when, and if, they can.

If I understand the judge’s decision, he is guilty of judicial activism.  Since when is a redefinition of marriage by judicial fiat supported by the equal protection clause?  It is time for the people to demand of their legislators to remove judges guilty of activism.  Those who think this is about equality or human rights, it is not.  It is about the destruction of the basic foundation of our culture and nation.  These same miscreants are also the same idiots that are spending us into oblivion.  People should start voting out the incumbent routinely and demanding that the legislature in congress remove judges like Judge Walker.

@WUNSCH

“Those who think this is about equality or human rights, it is not.  It is about the destruction of the basic foundation of our culture and nation.”

Really? What about divorce then? Nothing to protest about that? Seems you’ve been living under a rock for too long, and I suggest you get out there and start fighting the real fight! End divorce NOW! Prevent the dissolution of marriage, save the basic foundation of our culture and nation!

Mike, we do oppose divorce, but trying to change the laws at this time would be a waste of energy, since we would be vastly outnumbered. We go a different route, for the time being, to turn the tide against divorce, but I agree there needs to be more public outcry. On homosexual “marriage” we are more vocal; as a simple vote count would confirm, the general populace is still strongly opposed to it. It is therefore more effective at this time to oppose gay “marriage” in the courts and through evangelization.

We belief the truth simply as doves, we delivere it cunningly as serpents (cf. Matthew 10:16).

Someone once said if you don’t believe in God, it is not that you believe in nothing; its you’ll believe in anything.  Anyone who doesn’t know that there is a difference between a man and a woman, not only physically, but hormonally and psychologically, will believe in anything, even that everyone in every nation in world has been wrong since the beginning of time concerning the marriage union.  It is amazing that this homosexual federal judge was able to discover this historical error and was in a position to put us on the right path regardless of how people voted in CA.

Can someone please help me..? I want to get married, but can’t decide between my truck and my horse. Do you think I can marry BOTH if I petition a judge..? There is also a two year old boy next door..and a 4 year old girl, but I think the girl is too old for me..What do you think..? Please don’t complain..We ALL have OUR rights, and its my religion, too..The constitution allows for this…the founding fathers, you know…ta..!

@Micah:

Actually, 52% in California was not an overwhelmingly large majority.

The judgement shows lack of knowledge about civilization,culture,human values,religion,history and faith in human progress.  It is a diseace now prevailing mostly in Europe and America. Their evangelicals are spreading the thoughts in other countries too. It will end in burning the builtup civilization of human values and culture.  What I wonder is the silence of those who are not with these ideologies.It is time to wakeupand act.

No wonder Christ was so clear in His condemnation of unjust Judges. (Luke 18:1-14 -“There was a judge in a certain city, who feared not God, nor regarded man”). Like all of us he will at the end of his life have to answer for his judgment and life choices to the Eternal Judge who created man and woman and gave them their sexuality and placed its purpose in their physical and emotional makeup.

I agree that this can be the Roe v. Wade of marriage.  I’m sure the appeal will be repealed with the 2010 elections (especially if Republicans win back the house and senate).  This can also be Obamacare of marriage (and you know how well THAT’S going over).

The ruling can force every state to recognize same-sex “marriage”, but it cannot force private individuals to recognize same-sex “marriage”. 

Those in public service (especially town clerks) can REFUSE to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples just like doctors can REFUSE to perform abortions based on their moral conscience.

We must fight this on a very local level, within our own family and community.  Fight back with every person you know in your own private lives that is in a same-sex relationship.

Why argue with the sterile of soul?  What fruit will it bear?

For those who support the federal judges’ ruling on Prop 8, calling the State Constitutional Amendment that the voters passed, unconstitutional under the US Constitution, I have a question.  If marriage is not a valid legal contract between only one man and one woman, then what is it?

“Those in public service (especially town clerks) can REFUSE to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples just like doctors can REFUSE to perform abortions based on their moral conscience.” LRoy

I’m not sure that “town clerks” will be able to do that now that the “conscience clause” was excluded in Obamacare.  See the following: “Additionally, Rep. Chris Smith (R.-N.J.) has just introduced a bill, similar to the Protect Life Act, that would go one step further and offer protections to healthcare providers.  The conscience clause would ensure that local, state, and federal agencies that receive federal healthcare dollars do not discriminate against healthcare providers, including doctors, nurses and hospitals, because these providers do not provide abortions.”  Congressman Lamborn ®, District 5, Colorado, Human Events 7/29/10.

Clearification on my queston about marriage.  I am asking those who agree with the federal judges’ ruling on Califorina’s Propostion 8 to please define what marriage should be if it is not a legal union between one man and one woman.

I remember going to church when I was a kid with my family and I never heard anyone in my churck talk with such anger and fear of another loving human being.  All these years later it’s nice to know there are some people who still have an open heart and respect the right for all of us to be treated equally.  There is a God and his love is shining over California today!

A note on history about the Centurion’s male servant (“eisegesis.”) they were not only a servant, they also “preformed sexual favors”.

There is much homophobia and mysogeny in the church.

Thank God my partner of 27 years and I are in a welcoming CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Our community looks at sexuality “as a gift from God”, just like hair color, eye color, etc.

We need to look at the bible through the eyes of the Gospel and not pick out certain Levitical laws and throw away the others. This is nothing but cafetiria christianity.

Love is not possessive. Only in a complementary relationship can two become one body, one spirit in Love, which is the essence of Marriage.

A Simple Parish Priest says - “I think we should see the signs of the times and know that same-sex marriage is coming. We simply cannot convince society otherwise based on the moral argument alone.”

Society does not agree with you based on all the times the question was put up for a vote.  As the ending of the right to life came about, not by a vote of the people, but by a flawed decision of 7 out of 9 men; the definition of marriage was found unconstitutional by one federal judge.  It will go to the US Supreme Court where there will be four opposing views on each side of the issue.  There will be one view, which will be the deciding view, that we don’t, yet.  That view will be that of Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Catholic.  If that court agrees that marriage between one man and one woman is unconstitutional, then all hell will break lose in this country and you will see people voting more than ever before, electing members of Congress who pledge to pass a Constitutional Amendment declaring marriage to be only between one man and one woman.  And every state in the country will adopt that Amendment.

@My Esteemed Gary’s of two posts previous. 

Assuming Our Lord healed a very gay man’s servant. He certainly didn’t evoke the kind of outrage which He incurred as a result of dining with others on the fringes of society.

That might be for one of the following reasons:

A.) The Jews overlooked the sins of a centurion because he was a centurion.
or
B.) Because homosexuality is not viewed as sin by Jews of Jesus’ day.

If the Jews overlook a sinful act of a man of power, what benefit does that bring him?  Only Jesus really cares for the man enough to heal one dear to him. But if acting on homosexual impulses is not inherently sinful, what purpose could the healing bring.  Is it easier for Jesus to say, “your sins don’t exist” or for Him to say, “Pick up your mat and walk, your faith has healed you”. 

It’s easier for God to perform miracles than it is for Him to lie :-)

Zabik & Stamm: Regarding Mt. 8:5-13, why was the boy paralyzed and suffering?  Perhaps a love too arduous?  Perhaps the Centurion’s faith is praised as the Centurion knew that the damage he’d wrought on the boy could only be healed by the Son.

Perhaps you should revise your estimate of the story to: Christ heals those who have been damaged by pederasts.  Pederasts can approach Christ to intercede for someone but usually only do so when they are conscious of their own destructiveness and their own impotence.

I am not a theologin, so I don’t know the answer to this simple question.  That’s why I’m asking it here.

Do catholics consider ALL marriages a sacrament, including marriages between men and women that are not witnessed by a Catholic priest, or any cleric from any faith? Are such marriages considered sacramental?

@Leslie, I’m not a guy whose trained to answer a question like that. But I teach Catechism to teenagers and listen to Catholic radio so questions like that come up and the answer is in the Catechism http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt3art7.shtml and (also worth reading is the section on ‘thou shalt not commit adultery’ but this answers your question I think. 

Article 1638 talks about the difference between a sacramental marriage (special to believers) and a plain old valid marriage (which any man and woman since the dawn of man and woman could achieve).

From what I’ve heard in Q and A’s on Relevant Radio, marriages are valid if they’re not forced (i.e. shotgun weddings) and both parties are capable of consent (i.e. past the age of consent and minimally know what they’re getting in to [no one knows what they’re getting in to] and not already married (or divorced)) and another thing, but that escapes me… probably openness to children (i.e. not sterilized and unwilling to change or bent on zero population growth I suppose). 

So if you’ve got that, then you’ve got a valid marriage, if you don’t have a valid marriage, then you just don’t have a marriage.  If you do have a valid marriage and you don’t have a sacramental marriage then you probably can get one.  Just be Catholic (not so hard ;-)), be in a state of Grace (go to confession) when you and your spouse with the aid of a priest sacramentalize your marriage (because marriage is a sacrament conferred by the man and woman)

Sorry for long windedness and lots of parentheses.  I just thought I could answer your ‘easy’ question and I’m really shocked than no one else has tried to do so yet.

I guess the point I would like to make is that the Church should only be concerned about efforts to enforced changes to sacramental marriages. No one is asking that same-sex marriages be sacramental. The Church does not have to acknowledge the sacramental nature - which indeed it does not - of a same-sex marriage. And the Church is not being asked to perform such rites.

Same-sex marriage is a social institution. It is not religiously based. It does not affect the Catholic view of marriage. It does not threaten the sanctity of sacramental marriage because no one is asking that same-sex marriage be considered sacramental.  That question, if and when it arises, is a different question entirely. No one has offered up any compelling reasons why same-sex marriages should not be allowed. There is a large body of evidence that homosexuality is not a “lifestyle choice” and that it is instead ordained by the very genetic makeup of those individuals.

What, exactly, is the Church’s problem?  Same-sex marriage isn’t an effort to change Church law, Church beliefs, or Church practices. It doesn’t even concern the church. Same-sex marriage - like the Muslim Ramadan or civil marriage between a man and a women - doesn’t concern the Catholic Church at all. In our American society, it’s none of your business.

Amen to Leslie Hittner

Leslie Hittner: see http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100715172000.htm for example; it seems that a human is genetically oriented to reproduce sexually and that orientation is quite ancient.  Where are the studies which show SSA to be genetic?  Also, where is the study which shows California’s Domestic Partnership statutes to be unequal to California’s Marriage statutes?

Leslie Hittner said, “No one has offered up any compelling reasons why same-sex marriages should not be allowed. There is a large body of evidence that homosexuality is not a ‘lifestyle choice’ and that it is instead ordained by the very genetic makeup of those individuals.”

Neither of your statements are true.  If homosexuality is due to genetics, expecting parents would test for that abnormality and abort the baby if found.  No parent wants to raise a homosexual child.  There is no “large body of evidence” to support your claim it’s “genetic makeup.”

Marriage institutionalized mankind’s way of affirming nature’s way for best propagating the species.  It is nature’s way of raising the children of species up such that mankind can continue on as created in a healthy and secure fashion as it evolves.

stilbelieve said “No parent wants to raise a homosexual child.” I would also assert that no child wants to grow up homosexual.

As to the “research” here is an article that is informative and contains numerous references to actual research on the topic: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1925
An open minded individual is likely to conclude - by studying these references and others - that “There is a large body of evidence that homosexuality is not a ‘lifestyle choice’ and that it is instead ordained by the very genetic makeup of those individuals.”
Whether or not homosexuality is hereditary, the rest of the argument I made above must still be addressed. Same-sex marriage laws do not impact sacramental marriage and as such are not the “business” of the Church.

@Leslie thought you were really interested in the meaning of sacramental marriage.  But it seems you just wanted to draw out fodder for an argument you prepared. Anyway, Catholics also believe that everyone is catholic and therefore the sacrament of matrimony (the way of making a mother) shouldn’t be denied to anyone!

NO HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGES IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.PERIOD..NONE by any name..or priest..None for ANY reason. I am not here to argue…

Most lay peopled do not read or understand Canon Law, or any other official documents of the Church. If you did, you would know that the magisterium makes the law. It is not a matter of “opinion” or “vote”...You don’t like what The Holy Father says..? Then YOU are not Catholic. PERIOD. If you take communion under those circumstances, you are in mortal sin…Take care of your soul…

Peter Turner..You are wrong..!

stilbelieve said “No parent wants to raise a homosexual child.” I would also assert that no child wants to grow up homosexual.
As to the “research” just google “homosexual genetic” and you will find much (This site won’t allow me to include the links.) An open minded individual is likely to conclude - by studying these references and others - that “There is a large body of evidence that homosexuality is not a ‘lifestyle choice’ and that it is instead ordained by the very genetic makeup of those individuals.”
Whether or not homosexuality is hereditary, the rest of the argument I made above must still be addressed. Same-sex marriage laws do not impact sacramental marriage as understood and ordained by the Church, so what’s the problem?

Peter Turner,

I really am interested in how Catholicism looks at sacramental marriage. My reason for wondering so do not invalidate my curiosity. If the Catholic Church recognizes all marriages between a man and a woman as potentially sacramental then the instution (sacramental marriage) cannot possibly be harmed by non-sacramental marriages, including those with same-sex partners. And Mia Archer - don’t worry. I don’t think we will be seeing homosexual marriages in the Catholic Church any time soon. But then, that is not the question.

Priests cannot perform marriages outside the canon law. Therefore there can be NO LEGITIMATE SACRAMENTAL MARRIAGE OF HOMOSEXUALS. Kapish..? Homosexuals canno write canon law, any more than you and I can. Neither can our government. NOR any other government…Whether YOU or anyone else “likes” it..or thinks it’s wrong for you to be disallowed control of the church or not..and so..there is more smoke for your pipe.

@Leslie Hittner: “Whether or not homosexuality is hereditary, the rest of the argument I made above must still be addressed. Same-sex marriage laws do not impact sacramental marriage as understood and ordained by the Church, so what’s the problem?”

Who ever decided that THAT particular principle (whether heterosexual unions are HURT by gay ‘marriage’) is what this case rests on?!?!?!

The ENTIRE argument as I see it is that same sex unions are NOT MARRIAGES.  They can not DO what marriages can.  No type of legislation is going to be able to bridge the gap between these 2 types of relationships.  Plain and simple.

@Leslie Hittner: “I guess the point I would like to make is that the Church should only be concerned about efforts to enforced changes to sacramental marriages. No one is asking that same-sex marriages be sacramental. The Church does not have to acknowledge the sacramental nature - which indeed it does not - of a same-sex marriage. And the Church is not being asked to perform such rites.”
What a stinky, smelly red-herring!
Why are you worried about what a “sacramental” marriage is?!?!?!
The ENTIRE issue is whether same sex unions SHOULD EVEN be called MARRIAGES.
So, Leslie, tell me what a marriage is.  Tell me how 2 individuals of the same sex can have a MARRIAGE.

Leslie Hittner said, “I would also assert that no child wants to grow up homosexual.” 

“Assert” all you want; that is not to the point I made.  If what you claimed was true, that homosexuality was genetic in nature, parents would abort their babies on that “evidence” alone.  Since there is no such evidence, your comment to the contrary is mere opinion, not scientific proof.  A university close to me has conducted a lot of research into trying to prove what you claimed.  The early reporting on that research tried to imply it was genetic, but such reports have been found to be just conjecture, not factual, scientific evidence.  If anything, it “proved” just the opposite - homosexuality was not genetic. 

What I find most interesting in that claim however, is if it were proven true, that it would be the Roman Catholic Church that would be coming to the defense and protection of the life of that unborn, future homosexual child. 

As for the argument you originally made which was, “No one has offered up any compelling reasons why same-sex marriages should not be allowed.” 

Do you mean you are totally willing to ignore the historical facts that the procreation of the human species was designed and implemented by nature, as it was for all mammals, and throughout prehistoric times the socialization of the human species continued to develop such that all human colonies created some form of formality concerning procreation, which eventually was established as marriage to one degree or another.  No other mammal has changed their nature of procreation or offspring raising, or for that matter, has any species.  But only the human species formalized this natural behavior into what is called “marriage” in the civilized societies.  To assign that name to anything other than what it has always been would be unnatural.  And to what purpose would it be done other than to provide some emotional acceptance of themselves to cover up some probable unending “guilty conscience” of an unnatural behavior?

stilbelieve et al,
I remarried as an older adult. We are not able to procreate. Yet we were allowed to marry (and in the Catholic Church, too). Yes, there are other reasons for being married. So it’s all about where you and I want to draw the lines and it has nothing to do with formalizing a natural behavior. Even today, after thousands of years of marriage, procreation works just fine outside of marriage as within it (Take a look at recent teen pregnancy statistics.) Marriage is about much more than procreation. It is about formalizing a close relationship with another human being. I would assert that such formalized relationships were likely driven by the need to provide for committed long term safe environments for raising (not procreating) children. Moreover, such close relationships have become a key to much of our social development as a species.

The body of research is out there. And it is growing.  Ignoring recent research into the causes of homosexuality in humans (and other animals, I might add) does not make your case about homosexuality being a life style “choice.” Furthermore, it has very little to do about marriage, since there are many instances of marriage - considered legitimate by the Church - where procreation cannot take place. In all instances, however, a committed long-term relationship can be a safe environment for raising the young.

I am not “worried” about what sacramental marriage is, but I do believe that should be the Church’s ONLY concern. These changes in civil law have NOTHING to do with religious beliefs. These changes in civil law are not directed at religious beliefs. Religious belief are not threatened by these changes in civil law.

What these changes do is level the “benefits” playing field (both in state and in federal legal code)in a way that current committed relationship laws do not. The alternative is to examine every bit of legal code where the word “marriage” is used in order to change the wording to include other forms of “committed” relationships. That’s a lot of work. One same-sex marriage law does it all! Moreover, it recognizes the possibility of a type of relationship between same-sex couples that society only reserved for a “man and a woman” in the past. Keep in mind, I’m talking about RELATIONSHIPS, not SEX, and it is the relationships that are important to society. Sex, like the poor, we will always have with us, so procreation has nothing to do with it (Thank heavens for me and my wife).

The reason the Catholic Church is and should be involved in the battle against same sex marriage is clear. It is against the natural law, like abortion. It is so huge, not a small thing at all. It speaks about the very foundation of human existence and what it means. “Male and female he created them”. Homosexuality is disordered, same as alcoholism. Acting on the disordered behaviors is sin. As a Catholic I cannot, according to my faith, accept sin as normal behavior. It is and will always be sin.

For what it is worth the centurion in the Gospel was not a homosexual. The Roman military law at the time penalized sodomy with death. It took a few more years before Rome became corrupted with wealth and ease…like us. Of course if a person actually believes that utilizing another man’s digestive tract for erotic gratification is an act of love then I suppose that person can believe anything.

@Leslie Hittner:“The body of research is out there. And it is growing.  Ignoring recent research into the causes of homosexuality in humans (and other animals, I might add) does not make your case about homosexuality being a life style “choice.”

Again, the research you claim simply does not exist.  But, at best a genetic basis would ‘predispose’ one to such a lifestyle, as environment cannot be separated from the equation.  Cases in point: having an ‘alcoholism’ gene does not mean you have to be an alcoholic; having a breast cancer gene does not mean you will definitely develop cancer; having a gene causing obesity does not mean you have to be obese; etc.  The risks associated with living a homosexual lifestyle are very real, and those who feel such attractions most definitely are able to seek help to develop ‘self-control’ over their condition – not unlike what can be done in the situations mentioned.

@Leslie Hittner: “Moreover, it recognizes the possibility of a type of relationship between same-sex couples that society only reserved for a “man and a woman” in the past.”

The ‘type’ of relationship between same-sex couples and one man and one woman couples is different by NATURE.  A rational society merely recognizes, not makes the difference!  And, as I said before, no man-made legislation will be able to bridge that very real difference.

@“I’m talking about RELATIONSHIPS, not SEX, and it is the relationships that are important to society.”

Gee.  Even the Supreme Court recognizes MARRIAGE as being ’ fundamental to our very existence and survival….”  Why?  Because of PROCREATION!  If a society doesn’t replace its members, it will cease to exist.

@“Even today, after thousands of years of marriage, procreation works just fine outside of marriage as within it (Take a look at recent teen pregnancy statistics.)”

Does it really?  The statistics and experiences are too numerous to list, but here are a few to show that “…procreation works just fine outside of marriage…”:

85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home.
[Fulton County Georgia Jail Populations and Texas Dept. of Corrections, 1992]

46.2% of single custodial mothers receive public assistance.[Technical Analysis Paper No. 42 - U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services - Office of Income Security Policy]

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes. [U. S. D.H.H.S. Bureau of the Census]

80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes.
[Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14 p. 403-26]

And, from the National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools: 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. [From a CBS news article: “Dropouts cost taxpayers more than $8 billion annually in public assistance programs like food stamps. High school dropouts earn about $10 thousand less a year than workers with diplomas. That’s $300 billion in lost earnings every year. They’re more likely to be unemployed: 15 percent are out of work versus a national average of 9.4 percent. They also are more likely to be incarcerated. Almost 60 percent of federal inmates are high school drop outs.”]
 
@“I remarried as an older adult. We are not able to procreate. Yet we were allowed to marry…”

Well, you are still representative of the NORM of marriage.  A man and a woman STILL complement each other as nature designed EVEN IF the fruits of their union fail to form. (The complementation built into nature is not merely physical; it includes emotional and neurochemical differences.)  All of society is supported and enhanced by the example of such a union.

Lislie H. You said, “I would assert that such formalized relationships were likely driven by the need to provide for committed long term safe environments for raising (not procreating) children.” 

We are in agreement there.  You must have missed my saying that in both my answers to your question, before.

You also said, “The alternative is to examine every bit of legal code where the word ‘marriage’ is used in order to change the wording to include other forms of ‘committed’ relationships. That’s a lot of work.”

“That’s a lot of work?” LOL. You are willing to change the meaning of a word that represents the one institution that has civilized human life throughout the world since before recorded history?!  Why not just write another subsection in the code books to accommodate the benefits and protections you think such “couples” don’t have unless the word “marriage” is used?  Why change the meaning of the word “marriage” to represent something it has never represented in the history of the world regardless of the culture?

History of Marriage Laws (Encyclopedia Americana)
“Because marriage is considered so important an institution, from the beginnings of Western civilization the law of every society, simple or complex, has determined the conditions of the marital status.  The advantages and obligations of marriage can be explained by a society’s commitment to marriage as the best method of channeling the sexual and emotional energies of individuals in a socially useful way.  Preservation of the family unit and the safeguarding of traditional cultural values coincide in marriage laws.  An understanding of the history of marriage laws, therefore, is necessary to a full evaluation of current judicial practices.”

There have been many variations of “marriage law” throughout history, LH, but non of them have ever accommodated homosexual relationships.  Never.  And you are willing to change all of that for the sake of saving a little editing work…and in the age of computers, at that?!  Common, you’re pulling our legs.

Leslie Hittner: “Contract Law” describes the relationship between persons.  That means “Marriage Law” describes something else . . .

@mia, I’ve been meaning to clear my name all day!  I don’t believe there is such a thing as gay marriage so I don’t think it’s possible for the Church to deny anyone it!  Sorry for the paradoxical language, I’ve got a long commute and recently discovered that 90% of Chesterton is available for download in audio book form at Librivox.org so that’s my excuse for being unclear.

And @Leslie, my grandpa told me not to pick idly bark off of trees because I would eventually kill the tree.  I wouldn’t kill the tree in his lifetime, but me or my kids would eventually kill the tree.  So the best thing to do is just not pick bark off trees.

Re: the Genesis creation stories: Our parish’s discussions with rabbis and members of the local Jewish Reformed temple congregation revealed that, in Hebrew, “Adam” means ‘a human being, or people, of unspecified gender.’ This, according to the discussion that developed, implies that essential femininity and masculinity both occur in a blended way in all persons. Human psychology and observation will bear this out. Are we willing to consider this—is there also a form of complementarity that takes us out of the realm of genitals, and into the arena of the uniqueness of each human being.
Beholding seven million California voters, who apparently hadn’t weighed the evidence of the emotional harm done to gay & lesbians when these voters passed Prop 8, is hardly anything to be proud of as a Christian. When we consider Jesus, however, how he stepped outside of the boundaries of his society, how he spoke to women, and other rejected ones, and how he called the ones whom he could teach to listen, and how ultimately alone he was in the rightness of his mission—I am encouraged. With whom would Jesus walk today?

According to your logic, this would mean that we are all Adams and there are no Eves. I suppose God could have created us unisex, only we all know, He didn’t. God created Adam and Eve. Denying God created both Adam and Eve, would be a lie from the start.

The judge in the S.F. court is a homosexual.  No surprise there as to his biased verdict.

Nancy D.‘s ho-hum, uncomprehending response to my two-fold post sounds like fundamentalism and is very disappointing to read. Rico’s estimation of the learned Federal judge in the overturn of Prop 8 case shows routine contempt of the judge’s training and gifts.  At the same time, he no doubt hopes that Catholic members of the US Supreme Court will use their biases as Rico wishes if the case goes to that court.  It is contradictory to favor bias in one courtroom but not in another.

  Thank you to our “simple parish priest” for his thoughtful comments. I appreciate this one in particular: “What the churches who cannot sanction such unions need to be doing is fighting to ensure that their religious liberties are protected under the Constitution. Perhaps its even time for the clergy to consider renouncing their dual agency of both church and state when it comes to marriage. Let the state validate the legal contract of marriage and let the clergy bless and sanctify it when, and if, they can.”
  Well pu, pastor—let the Church ‘move on,’ and get back to making the seamless cloth arguments for life. And, I might add, for consistent and kind-in-spirit social justice for all.

“Beholding seven million California voters, who apparently hadn’t weighed the evidence of the emotional harm done to gay & lesbians when these voters passed Prop 8, is hardly anything to be proud of as a Christian.”

kathy - What “harm” was done to “gay & lesbians” with the passage of Proposition 8?  What makes you think that “emotional harm” is governed by either the State Constitution or the US Constitution.

Amends the California
Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in
California.

stillbelieve..Yeppers..Amen..!

From your posts, Mia and stilbelieve, I can tell that neither one of you has taken the time to read the text of the legal decision overturning Proposition 8.  The various harms are presented by experts for the plaintiffs as evidence in the case. There are too many aspects to list in the space provided here. I am surprised that you aren’t familiar with any of the psychological stressors induced by minority discrimination and disadvantage in American society. Would you have the courage it takes to walk in the shoes that minorities walk in every day?  The secular Federal government is obligated to provide equal protection for all under the law, especially when the states fail to do so without due process. If this issue is important to you, why not take the time to do the homework before you come to class.

Why talk about homosexuals as a minority? 

If you want to see a discriminated, disadvantaged minority pushed to the fringes of American society try Catholics who have the audacity to believe all that the Jesus and the Church teaches!

I won’t dispute that there is a difference in the nature of the two minorities.  But I do offer up that difference as a difference between racial minorities and sexual minorities. 

There is one and a half ways to be black, two or three ways to be Catholic and a zillion ways to be gay.  Because of this, isn’t it more than a little difficult to determine the emotional harm the ‘the gays’ endure.

Like women’s suffrage, gay ‘marriage’ is not something I’d imagine most people adhering to the the majority gay lifestyle want even though it may be something people adhering to the majority gay ideology are clamoring for. http://books.google.com/books?id=MfRBAAAAYAAJ&ots=tD7-X6EvyS&dq=what’s wrong with the world&pg=PA145#v=onepage&q&f;=false

That’s kinda funny.

Marriage equality already exists.
Every person, including those who insist on defining themselves according to their sexual preferences, which is demeaning, is either a man or a woman. All men and women must meet the same requirements to be Married. Our Constitution does not provide for establishing a separate personhood based upon sexual preferences.

“The various harms are presented by experts.” 

kathy, assuming you are lesbian, what harm have you experienced as a result of your not being able to marry and have it recognized by the state? And please don’t redirect me to read Walker’s 128+ page decision on a proposition that was only 16 words long

Emotional hurts are not governed by the Constitution.  I get hurt by the media ignoring my view-point in almost every political issue they report.  I know liberal women who wouldn’t talk to me after they found out I was a conservative, and a prolife conservative at that when I was dating and on Internet match sites.  And besides you are not prohibited from marrying - as long as you marry a male. So, what harm is fallen on you by not being able to “marry” a member of your own gender?

As far as “due process,” tell that to the babies, which God’s first commandment in the Torah was to the man and woman He created and instructed to “be fertile and multiply.”  My wife reads Hebrew and she says her Torah says the same as our Catholic Old Testament Genesis 1: 27,28.

@kathy: “I am surprised that you aren’t familiar with any of the psychological stressors induced by minority discrimination and disadvantage in American society.”

Gee, kathy. Living a life contrary to one’s design most certainly plays a part in that stress.  Research from some of the most homosexual-friendly European nations shows that homosexuals CONTINUE to suffer stress.  It is unfortunate that a likely source of that stress (living contrary to one’s very purposeful design) is totally overlooked.

@kathy: “...I can tell that neither one of you has taken the time to read the text of the legal decision overturning Proposition 8.”
Huh? Reading it several times does not make it any more reasoned.  Actually, the more I read it, the more I notice a lack of rationality in the arguments.

@kathy: “This, according to the discussion that developed, implies that essential femininity and masculinity both occur in a blended way in all persons.”

First, how nice that some “rabbis and members of the local Jewish Reformed temple congregation” have a new revelation.  However, we as Catholics reserve the task of interpreting the Word of God solely for the Magisterium of the Church (the Pope and bishops in communion with him) precisely as Jesus, Himself,  instructed.

Second, so we call some traits ‘feminine’ and some ‘masculine.’  So what if a boy exhibits more feminine traits than another boy?  BOTH are MALE.  It IS all in the genitals!  You are born either MALE or FEMALE.  There is no blending, no middle ground, no subjective figuring…there is simply and objectively MALE or FEMALE. You are one or the other.

My mistake was to look on this website for a thoughtful exchange of ideas taken from various sources of scholarship, for testing and open consideration. Our Bishop, my priest and not a few Cardinals of the Church have had the courage to empathize with a diversity of human beings. Noting that like-minded Roman Catholics have mostly dropped out of the discussion here, I too find nothing to sustain my interest. Peace be with you.

@kathy: “My mistake was to look on this website for a thoughtful exchange of ideas taken from various sources of scholarship, for testing and open consideration.”
Some things, like there being EITHER male or female, and nothing inbetween is a fact.  As such, we can talk all we want, but the fact will never change.
And, I can understand why you have nothing more to say….the facts speak for themselves.

Hi, all.

I’m gay and was raised Catholic. I wanted to offer a few thoughts. First, I can tell you that I never “chose” to be gay. It’s as natural as breathing for me.

Second, many people oppose Prop 8 because they feel that a child should be raised by their natural mother and father. I generally agree with that! (Unless the parents are abusive, etc.) However, Prop 8 doesn’t actually address this issue. Prop 8 did not prevent gay couples from adopting, or from conceiving a child artificially. If you really want to enforce child rearing only by natural parents, then you would need dramatically different legislation. That’s a discussion of gay *parenting* not gay *marriage*.

If we aren’t going to prevent gay couples from raising children, wouldn’t those children be best served if their parents were “married” rather than legal strangers? For example, I’ve heard of cases where Man A is the legal father of a child but is unemployed, and his partner has insurance, but the child is uninsured because there is no legal relationship to ManB. Or the partner is not allowed to make medical choices for the child if the legal parent is unavailable. I’ve also read some observations that preventing the child’s parents from marrying keeps the child from “having” two parents. In other words, if a gay couple has a civil union, then Man A “has” a partner in Man B, and Man B “has” a partner. The child “has” a father (Man A). But the child doesn’t “have” a defined and understandable relationship to Man B. Man B is just his father’s partner, but the child does not *have* Man B as his father. (Man B is the child’s father’s partner, but is nothing to the child.)

Third, it’s not obvious at first glance, but it seems to me that any *specific* child being raised by gay parents is always better off than any realistic alternative they might have had. Sure, you can say that any *given* child would be better off with their natural parents than with a gay couple. But if that were the case, then that *particular* child already *would* be with their natural parents, and no one wants to change that. However, any child adopted by gay parents would be better off than the alternative (foster care)—otherwise the adoption wouldn’t be granted for that specific child. Likewise, any child newly conceived by the parents (via surrogacy, etc) is obviously better off than their alternative reality (ie, not even being born!). So, I have no problem with believing that children are *best* off with their natural-born mother and father, but I also think there are a vast number of other arrangements (being raised by one parent, or by grandparents, or by a single straight person, etc), and one of these arrangements is being raised by loving gay parents, and they can do a fine job, too. Make a hierarchy of all possible arrangements, and “being raised by gay parents” is *not* at the bottom. Any given child should be raised by the best arrangement possible for their situation. (Sadly, of course, the optimal arrangement is not always *possible*.) Let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good; as a practical matter, gay parenting is relatively good (ie, better than the alternative).

Fourth, I understand if you feel like the word “marriage” by definition means “one man and one woman.” I was certainly raised that way, and it took me quite a while to begin to think that two men could be “married.” But once I made that mental shift, I realized that it actually was a relatively small change to make. The similarities between a married gay couple and a married straight couple are *vast* (desire for companionship, financial considerations, wanting to raise a family, etc). Certainly there’s a huge range of straight marriages (how are responsibilities divided, etc). In any case, if you think that “marriage” can *only* be one man and one woman, then please consider expanding your definition to include same-sex couples. It’s really not *that big* of a change. And it has such huge implications for us. And if I may be judgemental for a moment: I think it’s the decent thing to do. The fact is there are a small percentage of people born this way, and we try our best to be good people and have happy lives without hurting anyone, just like straight people. Why deny us an institution so important? Why not *encourage* committment in society? (Besides, you’ve already made as much of a mental shift as is required. There are *already* same-sex couples married in California, and you can talk about them using the word “marriage” and no one gets confused, even if you disagree that such people are actually “married” in your eyes.)

Fifth, I understand that the position of the Catholic church is that God defined marriage, and what I’m asking for goes against that. I agree, with the clarification that I’m really talking about *civil* marriage. I have no desire to force the Church to accept same-sex marriages. That would be completely unacceptable, and fortunately we in the US have the 1st Amendment to protect our churches from that kind of state mandate. However, *civil* marriage is a different thing. (There are hundreds of state-level benefits reserved for married couples, and over a thousand federal-level benefits for married couples. Not all of these can be granted by civil unions or private contracts. For example, a same-sex couple already married in California can’t decide file with the IRS as a married couple, nor can they draw up a contract to direct that Social Security benefits from one partner shall not be taxed.) The Catholic church already has a different standard for marriage and divorce than does civil law. The Church doesn’t try to force the rest of society to live by its definition of divorce; why try to force society to live by its definition of marriage?

Whew, that’s enough for now. I hope my comments came out reasonable (as intended!). Thanks for listening.

Ken..The Church isn’t forcing anyone to see things their way. It is people outside the influence of the Church who want to run the Church. I will agree that gay couples should have access to goverment programs, just the same as married heterosexual couples, if that help is what they need..but you know, gays can marry in the Unitarian Church..no problem. And Unitarians are great people..but you see few gays in attendance there..or if they are, they maintain a low profile. So what attracts gays to the Catholic Church..? Why do they make the Catholic Church a focus..? My gay friends attend the Unitarian Church. They could care less about what the Catholic Church has to say. Many of my gay friends don’t attend church..and they also could care less what the Catholic Church says. So?

Hi @Mia. I don’t think we’re disagreeing on much here. It sounds like we both agree that gay couples should get equal benefits from the government.  (Right?) And no one should be trying to tell the Catholic church that it must marry gay couples. There are many denominations that marry gay couples, including Unitarians, UCC, and even Jewish (both reform and conservative, but not orthodox). It’s great that they’re allowed to marry gay couples if it fits their theology. But such a marriage ceremony confers no civil rights, of course.

Other than that, I’m not sure what point you’re making. Yes, different people attend different churches, and some don’t attend any church. But I think I’m missing your point. (It sounds like you didn’t get my point either, so maybe we’re talking in circles!) Sorry if I’m being dense…

Yep, Ken, We are on the same page.
How do you feel about polygamists and Islamics and their marriages to children and multiple wives..? How about multiple husbands..?

Ken. thanks you for sharing your story.  I hear you, and hope for a time when more gay or lesbian persons in the Church felt welcome to share their stories, and will be truly welcome as they truly are. Take heart in the historical fact that no civil rights cause has yet to fail in this country. It takes time—so hang in there. My story—It was my childhood dream, arising during the papacy of John XXIII, to join the Catholic Church when the right time came…and I went through RCIA eventually. As attractive as the traditions, mystery, and intellectual, artistic diversity were, it was the kindness, faith, and love of Pope John XXIII that inspired me then, and which I aspire to emulate now.
choirloft: Reading some of the brickbat comments here, however, have shocked me. How could I recommend this website or topic to prospective Catholics? Is this how to evangelize and “protect” the faith? As much as we enjoy a good “Punch & Judy” puppet show now and then,  who is going to be persuaded by that approach except another puppet? We have been given minds so we can come up with ways to build bridges over separation, to appreciate what each person brings to a discussion. Can we get along?

Hi @Mia. Glad to hear we’re on the same page. As for polygamy, I’m generally opposed. I could *maybe* be convinced if all parties were adults and un-coerced, and it was proven there were no problems caused by it. (That’s a big if!) But my impression is that is usually some creepy old guy marrying a lot of underage girls. I’m definitely opposed to that. Those young girls are brainwashed and pressured into those marriages, I assume. But even in a best-case scenario (all adults, no pressure, etc), the state still may have reasons to prevent it. I’ll also note that if the state prevents polygamy, a man can still marry a (one) woman. But when the state prevents same-sex marriage, I (as a gay man) have no viable option. Certainly we shouldn’t encourage me to marry a woman. How deceptive and cruel to her that would be! (Multiple husbands? Only if multiple wives are also allowed, which I don’t expect to happen.)

@Kathy: thanks for your kind and supportive words! Are you a practicing Catholic now? I hope so, as there is much to recommend it, and it sounds like it really speaks to you and fills a need for you. The Church needs a wide membership… heck, the Church *is* the people! :)

Ken.  So glad to have your response which came through my e-mail just as I was going to unsubscribe to comments on this question. Thank you for your candle of human hope, here in an ocean of discouragement. Yes, I am active in parish, diocese and archdiocese, and as a convert, am quite interested in the history of religious ideas. Over the past several years, I have been working my way through the parish library, attending retreats and conferences as often as I can. As a volunteer, I work with poor, homeless, elderly, and rainbow persons. Becoming a Catholic has changed how I spend my time on earth. Throughout RCIA, we were taught both the primacy of conscience over other levels of truth, and to practice prayerful discernment of challenging questions.  With all due respect to Catholic hierarchy, I disagree with Church teaching on homosexuality. Based on my reading of modern ideas, prayer, and on experience with many kinds of people, the conclusion is that all persons are beloved by God.  Being lesbian, gay or transgender is just another way to be. We are the Body, Christ is the Head. Whom would Jesus walk with today?

@kathy: “Throughout RCIA, we were taught both the primacy of conscience…”

Primacy of conscience, yes…but continued work to make the conscience well-formed!
A conscience opposed to Church teaching is not a ‘well-formed’ conscience.  One’s conscience needs humility and obedience in deference to Church teaching – you may not understand the teaching now, but through humility and prayer you may come to understand the Truth of the teaching.  Before then, obedience to the teaching.

@kathy: “...the conclusion is that all persons are beloved by God.  Being lesbian, gay or transgender is just another way to be.”

This is all in line with church teaching. 
The Church, however, notes that the attraction is what is disordered – not of the regular order – and that homosexual ACTS are wrong.  It’s not the person, it’s the sin.

@kathy: “choirloft: ... Can we get along?”

Huh?  There’s not much room for me to work with -

Male or Female.  There is no other.

Magisterium.  The teaching body of the Church.

These are not mere OPINION, and as such, there’s not much to debate :-)

stilbelieve—Your prejudicial slip is showing, when you label without any personal information being shared about sexual orientation. If you want to hear about harm, direct your question to gays and lesbians who are asking for the right to marry.
choirlost—re: your comment—“Male or Female. There is no other.” What does the church say about intersex persons? Do you know any who are intersex?
choir loft—The complete quote from my prior post is this: “Throughout RCIA, we were taught both the primacy of conscience over other levels of truth, and to practice prayerful discernment of challenging questions.” Take the Declaration on Religious Conscience. This document affirms the primacy of conscience, which means just that—each person is responsible to God alone. With regard to non-infallible teachings, yes, strong consideration should be given to magisterial teaching on a moral issue, though while important, it is not the exclusive factor in formation of conscience. Jesus himself said nothing of record about this area of moral teaching. The Holy Spirit uses what is available to move the Church along—scripture, science, theologians, laity, advice and experience of people who measure the criteria by which they live—in order to discover what is right.  Baptized gays and lesbians, their parents, therapists, & pastors have been insufficiently heard in the formation of the teaching on homosexuality. Per DRC, I do respectfully acknowledge the teachings and the teaching authority of the Church. Others have walked away. Here’s the point: after absorbing a teaching, we may remain strongly disappointed in it, to the point that we can’t obey it for reasons of conscience. Per DRC, no one can be coerced into ignoring the dictates of religious conscience. Thus, the primacy of conscience allows me to say that I will not hurt others in following a pattern of institutional rejection and prejudice.

“stilbelieve—Your prejudicial slip is showing, when you label without any personal information being shared about sexual orientation.”

kathy, you apparently want to see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. 

This is what I said to you to preface the question which was about to follow: “kathy, assuming you are lesbian, what harm have you experienced as a result of your not being able to marry and have it recognized by the state?”

The word “assuming” was based on what sounded like your first hand experiences.  Calling someone a lesbian is not “labeling” but a description of a female’s sexual inclinations, again based on what and how you were defending Walker’s decision.  Since you now imply you are not a person “of standing” in this case, and can not provide first hand information of the “hurt” you argue is felt by people of the same sex because they are not permitted to “marry” one another, may I suggest you read 2 Timothy 3 and look up the definition of the word “licentious?”

stilbelieve—These comments say more about you than about me.  Who I am would surprise you. How wrong you are in your assumptions. Christian empathy for the poor, the homeless, the elderly doesn’t demand that you are one of these. The topic is that of the church’s response to the overturn of Prop.8 Here’s a parable for you. Jesus will forgive my paraphrase in the service of a good cause:  “A man fell victim to robbers as he went down from Jerusalem to Jericho. They stripped and beat him and went off leaving him half-dead. A priest happened to be going down that road, but when he saw him, he passed by on he opposite side. Likewise, a Levite came to the place, and when he saw him, he passed by on the opposite side. But a certain Catholic traveler who came upon him was moved with compassion at the sight. The victim was asked “First, tell me, are you gay, by any chance?” The victim croaked a small ‘yes.’ The traveler hesitated then kicked the victim in the head and kept on going. Which of these three, in your opinion, was a neighbor to the robber’s victim?” Where’s the mercy?

kathy - lol, you’re right, I WAS wrong.  You’re a clown.

kathy, now I have a question for you.  Have you read the chapter I recommended you read (2 Timothy 3); and look up the definition of “licentious?”  If you read it, you’ll find the answer to your horribly “paraphrased parable.”

You know nothing about me except what I have shared with you about my Catholic faith and practices. We share the same cup and bread every day. We are loved by the same God. Are you doing the Catholic faith any service when you resort to name-calling? There is a lot on the discussion table that you haven’t addressed. Do you have any further ideas to contribute on the church’s response to the overturn of Prop.8? Yes or no?

It would be nice to have a discussion with you if you would respond to a direct question with a direct answer.  But you deflect questions or ignore them. That does not lead to clarity.  Nor does it lead to learning.  And that is the one thing that is most insightful about your comments.

Homosexual sexual acts do not respect the dignity of the Human Person. Love is not possessive, nor does it serve to manipulate.

The Catholic Church teaches that our complementary nature as male and female is endowed to us from God from The Beginning.(see Genesis)

yawn…let me clarify. I put forth direct questions with direct answers in my own words to show how I understand the issues as a Catholic: How should the Church as respond to the overturn of Prop 8, The trend is away from the Church’s teaching, with two civil courts (First CA, then Federal) plus several states, opening the way for same-sex-marriage as a civil matter. The explanation of the ruling is given in civil, secular terms.(I have read the Catechism and the entire Holy Bible. You need not repeat.) Once again, Do you have any discussion on how the hierarchy (the church) should respond to this secular situation? Remember that same-sex marriage is a non-infallible teaching and that Canonical law is concerned with keeping order, not about social justice. What should the Catholic Christian response be, is a related question, since we are rank-and-file, not in the hierarchy. We know that we are also the Church. Not all Catholics voted the same on Prop 8, so we know there is division. Another question, do we have an interest in whether other churches in the USA should be allowed to perform these marriages, if that is their belief. Some same-sex couples are asking for the right to a civil marriage. Some churches may want to perform these marriages, according to their belief. As you recall, marriage is not sacramental in the Protestant churches.
Meanwhile, if you want to experience rejection and harm to the human person, take a look at some similar topics on this website and put yourself in the place of a gay man or lesbian woman. Would you agree that here is some pretty ugly stuff being said by Catholic Christians? Why would anyone of goodwill want to join the faith in the future?

“The trend is away from the Church’s teaching, with two civil courts (First CA, then Federal.” 

One CA, retiring Supreme Court judge, and one homosexual male federal judge are not a “trend.”  They are anomalies.  When put to a direct vote of the people, marriage between one man and one woman has always won, and support for homosexual marriages to be recognized by states has always lost.

Marriage between men and women has been recognized as normal and respected by every nation since the beginning of time.  Marriage is the best institution for the perpetuation of future generations and stable societies.  God established it in the earliest history of His communication with human life; but, of course, you know that because, as you just told us, you read the entire bible.  Funny, don’t you think, if homosexual marriage was normal, you would think it would show up in some society, somewhere, at some time since recorded time?

Why would any homosexual want to call attention to themselves if they are treated so poorly in society?  Their demanding to be recognized as normal by way of the institution of marriage is as insensitive to decency as Muslims demanding to build a mosque at ground zero.

some interesting reading for anyone left in this discussion from a public interest study group:
In addition to analysis of numerous examples of tyranny throughout history, controlled experiments on the causes and mechanisms of tyranny have been conducted—e.g., at Stanford and Exeter Universities. In plain words and simplifying the issues, the conclusions of various studies by Haslam and Reicher, Roland, Fox and Kloppenberg, Zimbardo, Connor et al. show that tyranny generally has the following characteristics:
1.Tyranny can be implemented and exercised by normal people.
2.Tyranny is more likely when people are competing for insufficient
3.Tyranny is more likely when the tyrants have little empathy for the tyrannized.
4.Tyranny is more likely by stealth by those in power than by coup.
5.Tyrants usually need an early stoke of good luck to establish great public credibility.
6.Tyrants tend to overestimate their power to control events and the public tends to overestimate the tyrants abilities.
7.Tyrants often fear those they oppress.
8.Tyrants are afterwards often found to be rather ordinary people.
9.A group is more likely to tyrannize when it is vigorously led.
10.Early success of a tyranny causes average people to join and to justify their subsequent actions as a norm of the membership.
11.The existence of a powerful majority does not necessarily lead to tyranny.
12.Weak leadership of democracy can lead to chaos and subsequent tyranny.
13.The key to avoiding tyranny is to detect it early and defeat it before it can enforce permanence.

kathy - this article is not about “tyranny,” it’s about the institution of marriage…an institution established before recorded history, involving various arrangements between the two opposite genders.  It has never involved people in only one gender. 

It seems to me, if any “tyranny” is occurring in this subject, it is coming from those demanding to change the historical, spiritual and normalcy of this institution.

Civil rights causes are fought by unpopular minorities, facing the tyranny of the majority. We have courts to defend those rights. Prop 8 was an example of using of the amendment initiative process to tyrannize by plebiscite.

kathy, do you hear how radical you sound?  You are calling the will of the people exercising their State Constitutional right to pass propositions enacting laws and modifying their State Constitution - “tyranny.” 

The people’s will, expressed before in a ballet proposition enacting a law affirming marriage to only be between one man and one woman, was found unconstitutional by a one vote majority of a State Supreme, and that vote from a judge who announced his retirement shortly there after. 

The people gathered signatures for a another ballot measure, this one a Constitutional Amendment, to overturn that one judge’s decision, and that measure was called Prop 8 and it won.  It affirmed in California’s Constitution that “marriage is only between one man and one woman.”  That Constitutional Amendment was upheld in all state challenges to it.

But that didn’t satisfy the tyrannical opponents to Prop 8, they challenged it in federal court on the grounds that it was unconstitutional according to the U.S. Constitution.  A single, federal judge gave a biased decision overturning Prop 8 on federal constitutional grounds without quoting a single federal case ruling to justify his decision.  The fact that the decision was over 130 pages long to overturn a 16 word amendment, a decision that did not site a single federal court case to back up his decision, only calls attention to the fact that the judges homosexuality is the bases of his decision, not the laws of the land. 

Now, that is tyranny of the majority, by a minority of one.

kathy - something else to ponder…do you realize that throughout history, no matter how moral or immoral the civilization was, or how backward or advanced, at no time has a tribe or society of any recorded standing or geological exploration adopted the concept of a “marriage-type” arrangement between two members of the same gender?  Think of that –  never! 

No matter how evil or angelic the group or civilization within that society, they never contemplated doing what you are arguing for.  No matter how many wives or husbands the other spouse had in all societies, they never sanctioned such a relationship between members of the same gender.  Has all of history and all the religions around the world been wrong until you came along?

“Never’ is really not a good choice in dialogue. There are always exceptions. A review of ancient history and other civilizations same-sex marriage practices shows exceptions, so your claim is false. Make a search of the internet on a wide range of web-sites. Speaking of tribes, here’s an interesting fact—one of Chief Crazy Horse’s several wives was a man who lived as a woman. Today, both so-called backward and about ten first world countries have proceeded with legislation to recognize, in various equitable ways, the fact that alternative couples and non-traditional families actually exist.

kathy - you are not looking for the truth.  I am clear on where you are coming from.  We just disagree on this subject.  I think the legitimate historical evidence is on my side.  You can believe whatever website you want.  I have a saying - “If it doesn’t make sense, there is something wrong with it.  Things have to make sense.”  Same sex “marriage” doesn’t make sense.

Marriage, by its very nature is restrictive. Once you claim that you can change the essence of Marriage, then any relationship can be said to be a marriage.

The Sacrament of Marriage in Roman Catholicism is restrictive, based on the interpretation of various levels of truth, under the teaching authority of the church. No one disputes that. I don’t dispute that, although it seems to a growing number of Catholics that the teaching could use updating. The church will still be able to decide who will marry in the church, and this will not change in the foreseeable future. We also ave a constitutional guarantee in the US on the freedom of religion. No single faith group’s ways can be preferred, under Federal law. No one disputes that, either, although we certainly use elements of our faith in deciding how to vote. For civil marriage, too, there are restrictions. To review, the persons in the relationship must be able to give consent. As long as two (not three or more) consenting adults (having the freedom & intellectual ability to consent)meet the requirements of civil marriage of ANY state, they should be eligible. And, civil marriage by same-sex couples would follow the same regulations for any other civil marriage in the US. Regulations at this time exclude minors, animals, inanimate objects, since none of these can legally consent. Some states, but not all,will allow 1st cousins, & the couple will be able to abide by the rules of marriage set forth by their state. That’s a brief summary. So the issue is more likely that some of us are uncomfortable with the idea of same-sex couples. I understand that feeling. Making room for people not like ourselves is not easy. How do we prepare ourselves for a new situation? After moving to the coast, I met a lot of people different from myself, heard their stories, met their families, and got more comfortable being around different kinds of people.  It was a growth experience.

So many today are so very nice…do you know that the root word of “nice”? is latin..and it means “stupid”...so..thetr you go…Gays will NEVER be married in the Roman Catholic Church. I guarantee it. They may be married in the American Catholic Church..or something like that..BUT never in the Roman Catholic Church. PERIOD !

I’m not sure that I understand the comment about ‘nice.’ Just want to share this. Yesterday, I spent time in community work holding a sobbing 15-year-old youth whose Catholic parents had just locked him out of the house. He had disclosed that he is gay. This was not the first time that I had been present to this kind of family crisis. I have also heard that the local United Church of Christ is been taking in about 1alientated Catholics per month. They are fed up with anti-gay sentiments in the church.

I have a gay son, age 44. We have never made any statements to hurt or anger him. We love both he and his lover. Last month, out of the blue, They called and told us off..because we are Catholic….and ended thedirrelationship with us..because we are Catholic, they said. As for the United Church of Christ…thdey have the wrong idea…Unitarians are better at having a clear understanding of the issues. Unitarians welcome gays and do gay marriages. Few gays attend the Unitarian Church.
The parents should NOT have locked the boy out. THAT is NOT Catholic teaching on tghe subject. Maybe he was a problem in some other serious ways. I would never lock my gay child out..! And..That is NOT Catholic Canon Law..!

I mean it is not Canon Law to lock a gay child out..quite the contrary..!
The church cannot be blamed for the behavior of those parents.

Thanks for sharing your story. Your pain comes through most clearly. As parents, you have looked into your own hearts, I can see, as well as into the teachings of the church. Bless you for accepting your child. I am truly sorry that you are being blamed by him and his lover for a situation you didn’t make. To my knowledge, I have not yet raised a gay child, although some of my relatives have. We’ve all experienced people who’ve turned and walked away from us once they learn that we are Catholic, or if not for that reason, for some thing they find fault with. It isn’t fair, since they don’t really know anything about us, that the church is trying, however slowly, to understand what God wants here. As for your son and his lover, they could be influenced some folks in the gay community, now giving free rein to venting their rage, calling for gays and lesbians to cut ties and support to churches that don’t support the same-sex cause. I don’t know any of you well enough to say that they will get over their blaming you, along with the church. But I hope so. As loving parents, you deserve better.

No further comment, except a correction of a previous typo: “I have also heard that the local United Church of Christ is been taking in about 15 alienated Catholics per month.” This, from the pastor of that church.

I have no doubt that unknowledgeable Catholics are looking for az place where they can exercise their views..but they cannot be allowed to do it in the RC Church. We already have an established magisterium. Good Luck, Local UCC…I am sure there are more where those came from that will be gvlad to help you out.

In 2003 California adopted a comprehensive Domestic Partner Act which limits partnerships to age 18 or older. However, marriage is a different story.  California has no minimum age for marriage, with parent and court approval.  The age to marry in States that have approved same gender marriage is:  Massachusetts has no minimum age, if under 18, a court order is needed.  Connecticut, 16-17 with parental consent under 16 written consent of a judge is needed. Iowa and Washington D.C., 16-17 with parental consent.  New Hampshire, female 13-17 and male 14-17, with parental consent and a waiver.  Vermont, female 13-17 and male 14-17, with parental consent.  I have not seen any discussion of age to marry in this debate. Does it matter to you?