‘If We Don’t Care, Gay Marriage Will Pass’

[_Abyssinia]

The Rhode Island House of Representatives passed a bill to recognize civil unions for same-sex couples by a vote of 62-11 on May 26. The measure is viewed by many as a compromise by legislators unable to secure the votes needed to legalize same-sex “marriage.” The bill moves on to the Rhode Island Senate for consideration.

The state’s governor, Lincoln Chafee, supports same-sex “marriage” and is likely to sign the bill if passed by the Senate.

Four of six New England states allow same-sex “marriage,” with the exception of Rhode Island and Maine. (Maine briefly legalized same-sex “marriage” in 2009, but it was overturned by voter referendum.) Same-sex “marriage” bills have been introduced in the Rhode Island Legislature every year since 1997. Passage looked likely earlier this year after Chafee assumed office, but opponents have stalled the effort, hence the substitution of the civil-unions bill.

Over half of the residents of Rhode Island are Catholic, and many have chosen to listen to the voice of their bishop, Thomas Tobin, 63, an outspoken opponent of same-sex “marriage.”

Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/if-we-dont-care-gay-marriage-will-pass/#ixzz1OEOajVOK

 

[Robert_Sock]

I think it’s just a matter of time. There seems to be a great momentum behind it.

 

[CathModerate]

Drop the word Marriage from ALL Civil unions INCLUDING hetero. Save the term for a Church recognized union, let Gays and straights be civilly joined as “Legal Civil Domestic Partners”…seriously, Catholics dont use th eterm divorce but cinrcumvent it by calling it an annullment…as if they never stood before a priest…yeah, right…its divorce.

Besides, Catholics dont recognize non church unions anyway so who cares. If this is what will legally allow gays to pass on the wills, pension, SS, end of life decisions then I am for it.

 

[irishpatrick]

Catholic, and Christian, faith in general is quite lukewarm today…people cannot see how gay marriage hurts the culture, so they do not care. It will pass because people are generally quite apathetic. Plus, look at the millions upon millions who are smack in the middle of equally wrong relationships: living together, fornicating regularly, one nighters, etc…

 

[FromTheAshes777]

also a “non-church” wedding between two baptized non-Catholic people IS a Sacrament too

 

[irishpatrick]

also a “non-church” wedding between two baptized non-Catholic people IS a Sacrament too

Yet, a Catholic cannot licitly marry outside the Church without permission.

 

[CathModerate]

My info on annulments is really good. Its simply spun to pretend to be something other than a divorce. No way in the world do I believe there are clergy on the other end of an Annulment process actually investigating a marriage and doing footwork, interviews etc…they are merely reading the statements and letters sent to them as requested and making a best guess decision. Its elongated to make it feel like something other than a 15 to 30 day process going before a judge to get it decreed.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

No need to be nasty just because you disagree.Snotty comment like."Thank you for proving that you are ill-informed…"really are uncalled for on a Catholic forum.

 

[Nec5]

No need to be nasty just because you disagree.Snotty comment like."Thank you for proving that you are ill-informed…"really are uncalled for on a Catholic forum.

Then I suppose Christ was wrong to call people to their faces “sons of the devil” and “liars” and “deceivers”. That goes for Paul too. Stop all the Pollyanna posturing and call a spade a spade.

 

[Holly3278]

It is true that if we don’t care, gay marriage will pass into law. We must care. Unfortunately, gay “marriage” is already the law in some states. I hate that. This world is being taken over by immorality. I honestly don’t see how God puts up with us without punishing us in a terrible manner. I wouldn’t blame Him at all if He did do so.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

It is true that if we don’t care, gay marriage will pass into law. We must care. Unfortunately, gay “marriage” is already the law in some states. I hate that. This world is being taken over by immorality. I honestly don’t see how God puts up with us without punishing us in a terrible manner. I wouldn’t blame Him at all if He did do so.

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Drop the word Marriage from ALL Civil unions INCLUDING hetero. Save the term for a Church recognized union, let Gays and straights be civilly joined as “Legal Civil Domestic Partners”…seriously, Catholics dont use th eterm divorce but cinrcumvent it by calling it an annullment…as if they never stood before a priest…yeah, right…its divorce.

Besides, Catholics dont recognize non church unions anyway so who cares. If this is what will legally allow gays to pass on the wills, pension, SS, end of life decisions then I am for it.

I agree with you, in a way. I think the contention is between the sacrament in Catholic and non-Catholic religions we all call “marriage” and the governmental benefits and recognition given out that they call “marriage”. I think it is high time we defined “marriage” not as a union between a man and a woman, but as a union between a man, a woman, and God. In other words, “marriage” should stop being a secular term IMHO. It was not one to being with.

Now as for the benefit of seeing your loved one in the hospital or to enact his/her final will and testament or any of that jazz, no Scripture verse or section of the Catechism says marriage entails all of those benefits the State grants us. Marriage, among the religious, is for the sake of bonding forever in love, and procreation, and raising of one’s posterity to know God and do all things good for Him.

I think “civil union” is an appropriate term for all legal unions that have the benefits all couples want, gay or straight. I don’t support homosexual adoption, and I wonder if perhaps the State should keep its grubby hands out of that affair as much as it should sacramental marriage.

But other benefits that the State currently grants to heterosexual couples - mainly the ones dealing with health, death, and insurance. These I think can be granted by the state - to married couples, to gay couples, to friends, to siblings…

But marriage? The state, as a secular body, has no sacred ability to bond man and woman together. State marriage licenses should be abolished, or renamed and possibly amended to remove some “benefits”. The state should keep its greasy fingers out of the issue of adoption. (And health insurance and other things, as well - not that that has anything to do with the topic at hand.)

Let adoption be a private matter. Let marriage be a sacred matter. Let the state grant some legal benefits that do not entail procreation, nor possibly subsidy (as current marriage does). And let them call it ANYTHING but marriage.

 

[irishpatrick]

I agree with you, in a way. I think the contention is between the sacrament in Catholic and non-Catholic religions we all call “marriage” and the governmental benefits and recognition given out that they call “marriage”. I think it is high time we defined “marriage” not as a union between a man and a woman, but as a union between a man, a woman, and God. In other words, “marriage” should stop being a secular term IMHO. It was not one to being with.

Now as for the benefit of seeing your loved one in the hospital or to enact his/her final will and testament or any of that jazz, no Scripture verse or section of the Catechism says marriage entails all of those benefits the State grants us. Marriage, among the religious, is for the sake of bonding forever in love, and procreation, and raising of one’s posterity to know God and do all things good for Him.

I think “civil union” is an appropriate term for all legal unions that have the benefits all couples want, gay or straight. I don’t support homosexual adoption, and I wonder if perhaps the State should keep its grubby hands out of that affair as much as it should sacramental marriage.

But other benefits that the State currently grants to heterosexual couples - mainly the ones dealing with health, death, and insurance. These I think can be granted by the state - to married couples, to gay couples, to friends, to siblings…

But marriage? The state, as a secular body, has no sacred ability to bond man and woman together. State marriage licenses should be abolished, or renamed and possibly amended to remove some “benefits”. The state should keep its greasy fingers out of the issue of adoption. (And health insurance and other things, as well - not that that has anything to do with the topic at hand.)

Let adoption be a private matter. Let marriage be a sacred matter. Let the state grant some legal benefits that do not entail procreation, nor possibly subsidy (as current marriage does). And let them call it ANYTHING but marriage.

The problome is: the word marriage is wanted, not just the legal rights.

 

[nguirado]

I propose we keep it between one man and one woman.

 

[YankeeRC]

Even if the Church does all it can to speak out against SSM maybe it will pass and perhaps this is exactly where God wants the Church to be right now. Not in favor of it, just there to minister.

One thing is a sure bet in the US at least, if same sex marriage it does become the law of the land, same sex divorce is sure to follow.

 

[TarkanAttila]

The problome is: the word marriage is wanted, not just the legal rights.

I wonder if state marriage licenses and legal marriages might not be overstepping the government’s religious bounds. What gives the gov’t the right to marry people as if they had the power of priests? I dare wonder if secular marriage is unconstitutional. I believe in the Bill of Rights it says the government cannot have a state religion or starts its own. If marriage is a religious, spiritual ceremony and status, isn’t the government declaring, by saying it can grant marriages, that it has religious authority in an issue (whether or not two people are married)? The US government may do well to rename “marriage” as per their terms - or possibly abandon the whole secular concept.

Even if homosexual life partners do obtain the same rights as heterosexual married couples, that’s biased against the single. After all, where’s our subsidy (I’m single)? We can raise children, too - single parents abound in this country and can testify to that! Give us marriage licenses and all the benefits that come with being married to ourselves!

And then what about polygamous marriages? Surely if one woman and one man can raise a child well, and two women or two men can raise them to be “normal”, then two women and one man or two men and one woman can do just as well if not better! And what about siblings? They know each other better than a husband and wife ever could (mentally, spiritually, emotionally, though not physically). Even though their sex might produce genetic defects, they could still adopt and raise a family, right? Right?

RIGHT? Why should only homosexual and heterosexual couples get economic benefits and rights of last will and testament and power of attorney etc etc etc? That unfair to the rest of us!

Thus why I say the Church alone should define marriage. Because marriage is not a fair and equal institution. If it were to become one, the word would descend into meaninglessness, like the word “gentleman”. A “gentleman” used to describe a particular kind of man, who held a certain social status. Thanks to the changing of the meaning of the word, it can now meaning anything from “a polite, kind man” to simply “any human of the male sex”.

Sentimentalism has a bad habit of changing specific, meaningful (if biased) words (like “virtue” or “joy”) into vague, meaningless synonyms for vague, general ideas (like “good” or “happiness”).

 

[GraceSofia]

The problem is: the word marriage is wanted, not just the legal rights.

Yes, you got it. It is not really about hospital visits and all that.
It’s about forcing an acceptance of their morality and their ideology onto everybody.

 

[estesbob]

The problome is: the word marriage is wanted, not just the legal rights.

Correct They want the right to marry, because they believe it legitimizes their deviant behavior. The truth is that in states that have homosexual marriage very, very few homosexuals have availed themselves of it. And the sad part is, even with the right to marry, they will still know in their heart of hearts that are involved in a behavior that is spiritually and physically devastating.

 

[irishpatrick]

Correct They want the right to marry, because they believe it legitimizes their deviant behavior. The truth is that in states that have homosexual marriage very, very few homosexuals have availed themselves of it. And the sad part is, even with the right to marry, they will still know in their heart of hearts that are involved in a behavior that is spiritually and physically devastating.

The best compromise has always been civil unions with the same legal rights as marriage.

 

[irishpatrick]

I wonder if state marriage licenses and legal marriages might not be overstepping the government’s religious bounds. What gives the gov’t the right to marry people as if they had the power of priests? I dare wonder if secular marriage is unconstitutional. I believe in the Bill of Rights it says the government cannot have a state religion or starts its own. If marriage is a religious, spiritual ceremony and status, isn’t the government declaring, by saying it can grant marriages, that it has religious authority in an issue (whether or not two people are married)? The US government may do well to rename “marriage” as per their terms - or possibly abandon the whole secular concept.

Even if homosexual life partners do obtain the same rights as heterosexual married couples, that’s biased against the single. After all, where’s our subsidy (I’m single)? We can raise children, too - single parents abound in this country and can testify to that! Give us marriage licenses and all the benefits that come with being married to ourselves!

And then what about polygamous marriages? Surely if one woman and one man can raise a child well, and two women or two men can raise them to be “normal”, then two women and one man or two men and one woman can do just as well if not better! And what about siblings? They know each other better than a husband and wife ever could (mentally, spiritually, emotionally, though not physically). Even though their sex might produce genetic defects, they could still adopt and raise a family, right? Right?

RIGHT? Why should only homosexual and heterosexual couples get economic benefits and rights of last will and testament and power of attorney etc etc etc? That unfair to the rest of us!

Thus why I say the Church alone should define marriage. Because marriage is not a fair and equal institution. If it were to become one, the word would descend into meaninglessness, like the word “gentleman”. A “gentleman” used to describe a particular kind of man, who held a certain social status. Thanks to the changing of the meaning of the word, it can now meaning anything from “a polite, kind man” to simply “any human of the male sex”.

Sentimentalism has a bad habit of changing specific, meaningful (if biased) words (like “virtue” or “joy”) into vague, meaningless synonyms for vague, general ideas (like “good” or “happiness”).

The state had to create something for non-religious people, so it used “marriage.”