Recognizing the right of gay people to marry does not have any negative effect on “preserving institutions that bring structure to our society”.  There is just no rational reason to not recognize the right of gay people to marry.  There is nothing that gay people can do marriage that stright people have not already done in vast numbers (divorce for example).  If the RCC is concerned about the state of marriage, it needs to leave gay alone and focus on helping all married couples strengthen their marriages.  Reducing divorce, not gay people marrying, should be the focus of preserving marriage.

Lisa,
This article’s about France, not about the Catholic Church.But you’re free to express your opinion.God bless!

Lisa, gay people cannot make babies.  That’s kind of huge.

There is a rational reason—Catholics understand it as “a sacrament,” not merely a union of two people who love each other.  I think there are other good reasons, too, but this is really the crux of the matter and possibly the only indisputable one for a Catholic.  It appears you don’t know the rich and very deep and complex theology behind the Catholic concept of marriage and sexuality—which is fine, since most people don’t. It is worth digging into, though, in order to really understand the Catholic point of view. And why the Church will never bless or participate in same-sex marriages, no matter what society and the rest of the Christian Church does about it.

Lisa, I would not agree that “there is just no rational reason to not recognize the right of gay people to marry,” but I do agree that same-sex “marriage” itself does not stand to damage traditional marriage much more than other forces have.  It is much more that marriage has to be damaged in order to find same-sex “marriage” acceptable than that same-sex “marriage” damages marriage.  The problem with legal recognition of same-sex “marriage,” however, is that it effectively locks in the damage that has been done, and makes it that much harder to undo.

Inventing an imaginary “right” for homosexuals to pretend marriage and then using the power of the state to coerce everybody to accept such a lie will have a negative effect on society.

Lisa,

What is marriage?

I don’t understand why people should NOT have the right to express their love and commitment for/to one another by marrying.
The ‘nature didn’t want this because a gay couple is per definition infertile’-argument I often hear is quite irrelevant, since no couple has tot take a fertilitytest before marriage. The adjustment in administration (parent 1, 2 etc.) is only logical, since it is painful for gay people to have only (and not enough) genderspecific titles on forms.

Grace T,

Your arguements are the same arguements used by people who opposed racial integration.  And what negaitve effects on s coiety will result when the reight of gay people to marry is recognized?  There will be none and neither you nor the RCC can articulate any such effects.  Becasue there is no rational, logical, scientific evidence for any such negative ffects.  Oppostion to gay people marrying is all about irrationality, fear, ignorance, bias, bigotry—not facts.

Katheryn,

Why should procreation be a deciding factor in permitting people to marry?  You would deny marriage to people in their 60s bcasue babies will not be a part of that marriage?  You would dney marriage to people whose physcial disabilites preclude procreation?  You would deny marriage to people who are infertile, for whatever reason (cancer, physical damage/ malformations, low sperm count)?  Ad not every married couple wnats to have children—you would deny their right to marry?

And you are incorrect about gay people not being able to make babies.  I know lots of gay people (men and women) who have biological children.  Procreation is not now a criterion for marriage and nor should it ever be.  People are more than just baby making machines.  And marriage is about more than children.

Marriage is not an unlimited right, nor is it only about “love and commitment” - my counter to your argument that marriage is about more than children.  Well, yes, but that doesn’t mean it has nothing to do with or that it isn’t that important.  Of course there is a rational reason to oppose SSM.  It’s quite simple: it is not marriage at all.  Marriage has its basis in physiology, that is, the complementarity of man and woman.
-
As far as racial integration goes, in all honesty I have to look into it more but I seriously doubt the arguments are precisely the same, and if by coincidence they were, it would not necessarily make them wrong.  The fact is that race and sexual behavior are two different things.
-
Infertility at least has a chance of being corrected through therapeutic treatment.  And as we know, Elizabeth (Mary’s cousin) was granted a baby in her old age.  But you are right about one thing, incurable impotence is considered an impediment to marriage in the church.
-
You say you know “lots of gay people…who have biological children.”  You probably can guess what technological procedures they had to go through to produce them, and then at this time only one of them will actually still be related.  This brings up another problem, which is the commodification of children that goes along with IVF and such technologies, and their treatment as a kind of entitlement, which is contrary to the dignity of a child.

I feel like to put it again so that those who want to know shall read it again. I wouldn’t say it much better. Thank you Cheri!

Posted by Cheri Blomquist on Wednesday, Jan 9, 2013 10:25 PM (EDT):

“There is a rational reason—Catholics understand it as “a sacrament,” not merely a union of two people who love each other.  I think there are other good reasons, too, but this is really the crux of the matter and possibly the only indisputable one for a Catholic.  It appears you don’t know the rich and very deep and complex theology behind the Catholic concept of marriage and sexuality—which is fine, since most people don’t. It is worth digging into, though, in order to really understand the Catholic point of view. And why the Church will never bless or participate in same-sex marriages, no matter what society and the rest of the Christian Church does about it.”

Christal59,

When same-sex marriage becomes the law later this yr (and I am confident that the US Supreme Court will find that it s fundamntal right that cannot be denied to gay Americans), the RCC will of course remain free to NOT marry gay couples.  No one is saying that the RCC should marry gay couple, or has to marry gay couples or anything like that.  The RCC is now free to turn away any couple it does not want to marry.  That will not change.

The issue is that the right of Amercan citizens to marry is about American law, about the US Constitution, and NOT about RC theology, RC views of gay people, etc.  The US is a diverse nation—not everyone is RC, not everyone is Christian, and the RC view on this issue should control broader American society.

Lisa,

Under French law, civil marriage is about children, not about the rights of two people in love.  Laws are different in different countries, but children are still born from a mother and a father. If gay marriage is a human right, so is the right of a child to a mother and a father. Why should one right trump the other?

I am also happy that this marches are being supported by the gay mayor of France, and other gay groups, for whom the push for marriage is not primary. They are not as uptight as American gays, who think they are above criticism.

You might want to read this.  I like how one gay commentator said, “This would be unthinkable in the United States. If you were gay and said such things in America, you would be flayed alive. You’d never get published. You’d never work again.”

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/01/7601/

Viva La France, Viva La Difference!

Hi Lisa and other people here.
If you want to think a bit longer than an usual comment, you can read my contribution

I’m a young French man, 29 y.o.
I will marry (in France) a German woman in February 2013, so i have a bit of though about the topic “marriage”, and now thanks to my government, i must think deeper in the topic, to understand the deep reasons, history and logics between the French civil marriage
I hope my English will be correct enough, so that it doesn’t lead to misunderstandings.
Thanks all for being interested in our small european country.
I would like to give a few precisions, so that we can distinguish within this article and within your commentaries, what belongs to the topic and what doesn’t.

1 - It’s about CIVIL marriage, and not religious. So no argument based on any faith (christian, jewish, muslim) can be raised.
FYI, the most detailed and honest document on this topic has been written by the French jewish big boss Gilles Bernheim Grand rabbin de France (i haven’t found any English translation unfortunately, only hebrew : grandrabbindefrance.com/hebrew-translation-essay-gay-marriage-gay-parenting-and-adoption)
In his essay, the Rabbin distinguishes clearly the religious and non-religious aspects of the topic. The non-religious are more than enough to constest the law draf proposed by our President François Hollande and the socialists.

You may say : “if it’s all about civil marriage, what do religions have to open their mouth here ?”
i would answer : “Religions are not lobbies, or they shouldn’t act as lobbies. In this topic, they are acting as they are made for : to bring a light on a specific question. For sure, this light is inspired by religious beliefs.
but, honestly, if you don’t care about religion, just ignore it. If other people do care about God, religion, Church and so on, why not ? If the religion (in France, only Jews and catholics institutions bring a deep and consistent message on this topic according to me) is able to put together arguments that consistently and without mentioning any beliefs refute all arguments brought by the governements and the gay and lesbian lobbies, which issue do you see ?”

2 - Peter M, you asked Lisa “What is marriage”
i guess the definition is not strictly the same across countries. In France, this is an institution, provided by the State, to give a stable frame to the society.
The words are very important here :
- it is NOT the legal recognition of the love between a man and a woman.
- it is NOT a contract. The ONLY official person you “runs” the marriage is the mayor of the city or one of his assistants (so, democratically elected people, with republican authority)
- you don’t need any laywer/solicitor to marry someone. The rule applied to the goods of each person before and after the marriage is the default one (i.e. the matrimonial agreement), except if you explicitly want it. In this last case you will go to a lawyer and write down a contract. This contract is only about goods, not about person nor feelings.

Which institution is it then ? it just comes from our history, and this institution says :
“if you want to marry in the face of the French republic and his official representative (the mayor), then you’ll “suscribe” to a range of rights and duties.
These rights and duties DO concern : the man and the woman who marry, their respective parents in certain circumstances, their children if they get a few.
The words “love” or anything related to a feeling do NOT appear anywhere in the texts.
Here the text that is read by the mayor or his assistant (at the end, the man and the woman are married. The only change for them is either the death or divorce)
http://www.mariage-civil.org/deroulement-du-mariage-civil.htm

i will translate the parts relevant to our topic here :

Art 212
Les époux se doivent mutuellement respect, fidélité, secours et assistance.
The spouses, each in turn, must assure respect, fidelity, help and assistance to each other
have declared their wish to take each other as husband/wife, and we have pronounced them joined in matrimony in the name of the law

  Art 213
Les époux assurent ensemble la direction morale et matérielle de la famille, ils pourvoient à l’éducation des enfants et préparent leur avenir.
The spouses ensure together the moral and material direction of the family, they educate the children and prepare their future

  Art 214
Si les conventions matrimoniales ne règlent pas la contribution des époux aux charges du mariage, ils y contribuent à proportion de leurs facultés respectives.
If the matrimonial agreement does not settle the contribution of the spouses to the family budget, each one will contribute proportionnaly to their revenues.

  Art 215
Les époux s’obligent mutuellement à une communauté de vie.
Spouses mutually oblige themselves to a community of living

  Art 371-1
L’autorité parentale est un ensemble de droits et de devoirs ayant pour finalité l’intérêt de l’enfant. Elle appartient au père et à la mère jusqu’à la majorité ou l’émancipation de l’enfant pour le protéger dans sa sécurité, sa santé et sa moralité, pour assurer son éducation et permettre son développement, dans le respect dû à sa personne. Les parents associent l’enfant aux décisions qui le concernent, selon son âge et son degré de maturité.
Parental authority is a a combination of rights and duties, which goal is the interest of the child. This authority belongs to the father and to the mother until voting age or emancipation of the child to protect him in his security, health and morality, to ensure he receives an education and to allow his development, while respecting his person. The parents bring in the child on decisions about him, according to his age and his level of maturity.

So these arguments come again the argument raised by my Governement “Equality is the highest value, everyone has to be equal ... blablabla, so how could you prevent the love between two people to be officialy acknowledged within a civil marriage ?”
i know it sounds strange that the French government doesn’t know what the French definition of civil marriage is. But that how it is now.
So please, don’t be as ignorant as the French governement.

Now, you see that the French civil marriage is made of 5 articles (plus the question “do you want to marry X…?” and the answers “Yes”). Not less, not more.
How are these articles split ?
The couple (Art 212 and 215)
The goods of the couple (Art 214)
The children (Art 213 and 371-1)

So please now, where do you see anything like “public recognition/acknowledgment of a love between two people” ?

3 - Going to the “right” to marry
it’ another perverse argument always raised. In the name of Equality, all couples should be allowed to marry.
I say perverse, because this argument rests on a “cheap” usage of words.
Yes, equality is nice, yes, it’s written on the facade of each single French public building, even schools when they were build a long time ago.
However, I’m really sorry, but equality is not the topic here, since no-one is discriminated.
Once again, it’s all about using worse without respecting their meaning. Classical and very effective.
The rights do concern individuals, they do not concern combinations of individuals, like a couple of two people.
Any person, in France, regardless of what he does in his bed or what he thinks, has the right to marry an other person of the opposite sex, under certains conditions (to be over 18 y.o., not to belong to close family etc…)
So on an individual perspective, the civil marriage itself doesn’t discriminate anyone. No-one can say “i was not allowed to marry someone (within the rules of the law), because of my skin color, or my education, or my origin country…”

That’s all for now folks, i’m a bit tired.

I hope we can keep talking and arguing together.
See you.

Arnaud