Ambivalence towards civil gay marriage

[The_Bucket]

First off, I want to make it clear that I understand Church teachings on homosexual acts and fully endorse and support those teachings. I’d also like to make it perfectly clear that I do not endorse or support gay marriage, civil unions, etc.

That being said, I have to inquire as to what the CAF community thinks about a personal ambivalence towards gay marriage and civil unions. I’ll concede that’s where I sit on the subject and here’s why.

Civil marriage is a contract which one agrees to by obtaining a license. It is little more than a public acknowledgment of a personal relationship, an agreement to share property and a life and a way to legitimize children brought forth into society through that relationship. Sacramental marriage, on the other hand, is very, very different as we all well know.

Given that no-fault divorce is legal in 49 of 50 states (New York is the lone exception), wouldn’t it stand that civil marriage is, well, fully divorced from sacramental marriage? How does it matter, morally, what citizens of each state decide who can obtain what license or sign what contract? People who get divorced and re-marry without a declaration of nullity are living in sin and not truly married, but the state recognizes them just as properly married as those who are sacramentally blessed in their marriage.

To cut through my confusing thought process: Basically, I don’t care what people in other states or other countries say about civil marriage. Civil marriage has nothing to do with sacramental marriage, especially given rampant divorce across the country and all of the world. God doesn’t acknowledge the union of folks who are divorced and re-marry just as much as he doesn’t acknowledge the union of homosexuals; civil marriage laws don’t change absolute truths and while I don’t care for gay marriage, campaigning against it seems as insane as campaigning to outlaw civil divorce.

Personally I have voted against gay marriage here in Florida and helped pass a constitutional amendment banning it because I don’t care to have it here. But why should I be in “emphatic opposition” about what other states say? That would be like having an emphatic position on drivers licenses or property taxes in another state. I know many people who think gay marriage is just as serious as abortion and to them I say that’s total nonsense. Homosexual acts are gravely wrong, but they aren’t murdering another human being.

I’ll fight as hard as I can to have abortion outlawed because it’s straight up murder. Gay marriage? I’ll vote against it in whatever state I live in because I find it to be immoral, but I’m not going to tell citizens of other states to whom they should bestow civil privileges because it’s not my business.

 

[JimG]

To the extent that the institution of marriage had gone down the drain, gay marriage won’t do much more than speed up the process. But it’s still wrong for society to pretend that homosexual couplings are equivalent to marriage.

For that matter, as you advert to, no fault divorce has pretty much already ruined marriage, as has the acceptance of contraception. I would begin by rolling back no-fault divorce laws.

You might want to read this article.

 

[scipio337]

A bit of a moot point, in my mind. Most in the gay community won’t stop with “civil unions”. California has had domestic partnership with

“the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.”

leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5

for over 10 years. How did that work out??

It’s not about equal protection under the law, its about creating a moral equivalence.

 

[BobObob]

IMHO, the government shouldn’t initiate any sort of marriage whatsoever. Marriages should be between individuals and the institutions (such as the Catholic Church) that provide services, while the government should be informed of the union. Unfortunately, in the US, one first gets permission from the government to marry, than the Catholic Church (for Catholics) marries them.

Making marriage a private matter (secular contract or a sacrament in the CC) that the government is merely informed about would solve a lot of political issues in the long run.

 

[vera_dicere]

A few years back they legalised “civil unions” in NZL. Where marriage has basically been beaten down by the then left wing govt. into nothing more than a business partnership. De facto and “living together” relationships can now be classed as “legal”. In fact, if you live with a flat mate of the opposite gender (and now the same gender becasue of civil union), and only them, so no others, if you’ve been living as flatties for so many years, one of you can actually go before a judge and demand half your stuff and good luck proving that two people living together weren’t having sex!

I dont’ think its happened yet, but when these laws were going through the process of becoming law, legal experts were pointing out the flaws in them. And I think this one still stands in the statute.

Now, the problem with CU down here, is say you’re married, and you decide you don’t think “marriage” is the right term, you can legally change the status of yoru relationship to “civil union” or “defacto”. But it works the other way, after I think it is 7 years, you can change a “civil union” to a legal “marriage”.

So when the legal experts pointed this out, it got people thinking that CU was a way for people to get gay marriage.

As it stands, not a lot of people got CUs, in fact, more hetrosexual couples were getting them CU. Mind you, NZL is very secular, and a lot of gay people down here view “marriage” as a religious thing and they dont’ want to have anything to do with something they view as hating them.

Anyway, I’ll tolerate things like shared property rights and wills and next of kin, power of attonry for gay couples, as family members and friends of an individual can have the same power. I don’t like CU because its just normalising it, and really, its just paving the way for full on gay marriage and that’s just another step towadrs the complete distruction of the instititution of marriage and society.

I’m a glass is half full kinda gal, I have hope that we can turn things around, and starting with making relationships more moral and strenghtening marriage is the way to go. Gay unions of a civil or married nature will only serve to push us further from the goal of a truly moral and strong society.

 

[JimG]

I’m a glass is half full kinda gal, I have hope that we can turn things around, and starting with making relationships more moral and strenghtening marriage is the way to go. Gay unions of a civil or married nature will only serve to push us further from the goal of a truly moral and strong society.

Yes, I’m thinking that marriage needs to be strengthened, not watered down. I’ve said it before, but no fault divorce, contraception, and now, civil unions and gay marriage, just water it down.

The government has traditionally given special benefits to marriage, precisely because marriage was a benefit to the society: married couples raised the next generation of citizens! Divorced couples, cohabitors, and civil union mergers do not do nearly as good a job at that, which means government has to take up the slack as father, mother, and extended family. That’s not good for families or individuals or the social structure. In the U.S., there is now a 40% out of wedlock birthrate. That’s indicative of a society bent on self destruction.

 

[The_Bucket]

Yes, I’m thinking that marriage needs to be strengthened, not watered down. I’ve said it before, but no fault divorce, contraception, and now, civil unions and gay marriage, just water it down.

The government has traditionally given special benefits to marriage, precisely because marriage was a benefit to the society: married couples raised the next generation of citizens! Divorced couples, cohabitors, and civil union mergers do not do nearly as good a job at that, which means government has to take up the slack as father, mother, and extended family. That’s not good for families or individuals or the social structure. In the U.S., there is now a 40% out of wedlock birthrate. That’s indicative of a society bent on self destruction.

I understand your point and agree with just about everything. But what is a borderline libertarian like me supposed to do? Advocate for banning birth control? I can’t in good conscience do that. I’d like to have abortifacient forms of birth control like IUDs and combined oral contraceptive banned simply because they’re murder and we’re all entitled to equal protection according to the 14th Amendment, but the “minipill” and condoms would have to stay. And should I champion banning civil divorce except for extreme cause? That’s getting into the idea that I have the right to basically dictate who should get married and to whom. The Church has the right and power to say who should get married sacramentally; in fact I wish some pastors would exercise that power more often and tell some people they really should pray more or do more discernment before taking their vows. But civil marriage? I can’t abide by government being that intrusive. The rights of the individual DO outweigh the sensibilities of the majority; that’s one of the most basic tenets of the Constitution.

So yes, I’ll continue voting against gay marriage in whatever state I live because that’s a local society deciding what it thinks about a certain type of contract/license. But I simply cannot abide supporting a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage/civil unions or even advocating for other states. To me, going down that path breaks down federalism and leads to more tyrannic government and given our secular culture, I’d rather the government not have more power even if it is to enforce a moral belief I hold. I’m hoping that rationale is in line with the Church.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Bucket
I think there is more here

1. Marriage - controlled by no one, installed by god and written in Natural law
2. Sacramental Marriage (sacraments are from the Church only)
3. Civil Marriage - a legal state which requires neither 1 or 2

So gay marriage does not exist.

When the state attempts to extend various benefits to “partners” whether called spouse or married is disordered thought and not without problems. Who loses ? Real mothers who sacrafice much of their life to children and will live in increased poverty as “civil marriage” gears away from the rearing of children and those affects on mothers/fathers to tax shelters for individuals who become legally married. SSA do not have the responiblities, nor make the sacrafices of male/female naturally married couples.

hope that helps explain the issue

 

[JimG]

I understand your point and agree with just about everything. But what is a borderline libertarian like me supposed to do? Advocate for banning birth control? I can’t in good conscience do that. I’d like to have abortifacient forms of birth control like IUDs and combined oral contraceptive banned simply because they’re murder and we’re all entitled to equal protection according to the 14th Amendment, but the “minipill” and condoms would have to stay. And should I champion banning civil divorce except for extreme cause? That’s getting into the idea that I have the right to basically dictate who should get married and to whom. The Church has the right and power to say who should get married sacramentally; in fact I wish some pastors would exercise that power more often and tell some people they really should pray more or do more discernment before taking their vows. But civil marriage? I can’t abide by government being that intrusive. The rights of the individual DO outweigh the sensibilities of the majority; that’s one of the most basic tenets of the Constitution.

So yes, I’ll continue voting against gay marriage in whatever state I live because that’s a local society deciding what it thinks about a certain type of contract/license. But I simply cannot abide supporting a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage/civil unions or even advocating for other states. To me, going down that path breaks down federalism and leads to more tyrannic government and given our secular culture, I’d rather the government not have more power even if it is to enforce a moral belief I hold. I’m hoping that rationale is in line with the Church.

Well, a good start would be reinstating divorce laws which require a demonstration of grounds for divorce. The current status is that couples enter into a marriage contract ostensibly for life, but that contract is less enforceable than their home mortgage, and can be broken with impunity by either party at a whim.

Contraceptives used to be limited for sale to married persons only, and were kept behind the pharmacy counter, not in the main aisle. Admittedly, there was no way to enforce that, but kids were reluctant to approach the scary lady behind the pharmacy counter to ask for condoms–and indeed she might refuse them. Now, they need only to drop by the school health office to get condoms–or an abortion–with no parental consent. Adultery used to be illegal. That was always enforced either, but a wronged spouse could pursue criminal as well as civil sanctions, and of course had grounds for divorce. She might even file an “alienation of affection” lawsuit against the ‘other woman.’

 

[Booklover]

IMHO, the government shouldn’t initiate any sort of marriage whatsoever. Marriages should be between individuals and the institutions (such as the Catholic Church) that provide services, while the government should be informed of the union. Unfortunately, in the US, one first gets permission from the government to marry, than the Catholic Church (for Catholics) marries them.

Making marriage a private matter (secular contract or a sacrament in the CC) that the government is merely informed about would solve a lot of political issues in the long run.

Marriage “between individuals” can mean anything, even incest or polygamy and is a phrase used by the advocates of same-sex" marriage. You seem to be in favor of this and apparently want to "keep these “marriages” quiet hoping no one will notice. Here’s the answer given by Fr. Vincent Serpa, the priest apologist on this site regarding a question about same-sex marriage:

"Your take on gay marriage needs more thought. By discrimination, I assume that you mean racial discrimination. Certainly, there are situations when we are required to discriminate, e.g., between what is good and what is bad.
Simply being discriminating is a good thing. However, discriminating against someone’s basic rights is very much a bad thing. Do you think that people have a RIGHT to marry within their own sex? Do you also think that brothers and sisters have a right to be able to get married—or uncles and nieces, or mothers and sons? These are all instances of people who could say that they loved each other. Is saying that they love each other enough?

The situation of discriminating against persons because of their race is quite different from not recognizing marriages between people of the same sex. Natural law reveals the difference to us. Natural law is a sense of good and evil that is written on the heart of every person. It tells us which acts are good and rational and which are evil and irrational. Natural law tells us that not every kind of behavior is a right. The act of murder is not a right; nor is incest. These go against human nature. We inherently know that these are wrong.

If, for example, many people began telling us that incest is a right and that to deny such a right is similar to discrimination because of race or sex, our first reaction would be moral outrage. For a parent and child to have sexual relations with one another violates the very nature of who they are in relation to one another. Something is out of sync.

Eventually we might be swayed by such argumentation because of the sheer volume and intensity of the propaganda—but not because of the rationality of the argument. This is what has happened with the so-called right to homosexual “marriage.” For two members of the same sex to have genital relations violates the nature of who they are in relation to one another. Their bodies are simply not designed for it. Something is out of sync.

The problem is that in our culture we tend to put feelings before right reason. Reason would tell us that in such a situation, one ought to put feelings second. For rational creatures to make reason subject to feelings is to court disaster." Fr. Vincent Serpa

Vickie

 

[The_Bucket]

Well, a good start would be reinstating divorce laws which require a demonstration of grounds for divorce. The current status is that couples enter into a marriage contract ostensibly for life, but that contract is less enforceable than their home mortgage, and can be broken with impunity by either party at a whim.

I’m with you, but would add that the caveat I think would make more sense is to simply change the civil marriage contract or wording. You can’t have “until death do you part” in that contract and then have it be broken three months later due to “irreconcilable differences.” I don’t think you’ll find any groundswell for divorce with cause only, but I think you would at least find some support for ending the hypocrisy that’s built into civil marital contracts.

Contraceptives used to be limited for sale to married persons only, and were kept behind the pharmacy counter, not in the main aisle. Admittedly, there was no way to enforce that, but kids were reluctant to approach the scary lady behind the pharmacy counter to ask for condoms–and indeed she might refuse them. Now, they need only to drop by the school health office to get condoms–or an abortion–with no parental consent.

Again, why is civil law the morality police? If localities want to ban contraceptives, like Ave Maria for instance, then fine. I personally would find that refreshing… for my town. Other places don’t share those beliefs and I think we need to tolerate that based on the Constitution. To be frank, I think the Constitution reflects a lot of what’s in the relationship between God and Man. That’s not to say it’s divinely inspired, which it’s not, but the Founders did truly believe that we have the rights or even the responsibility to live freely and succeed or fail on our own. That means sinning or not sinning on our own as well. Reinstating draconian laws banning birth control or reserving them for married couples won’t do anything. As for abortion, well, that’s totally different. That’s not the morality police, that’s preserving the life of a human being.

Adultery used to be illegal. That was always enforced either, but a wronged spouse could pursue criminal as well as civil sanctions, and of course had grounds for divorce. She might even file an “alienation of affection” lawsuit against the ‘other woman.’

I know you meant to type “wasn’t enforced” and I would say it was rarely enforced at all. And should we really make adultery criminal again? Why? I agree on civil sanctions since it’s breaking a civil contract, but I’d imagine guys like Tiger Woods shelling out $750 million for their philandering know that there ARE indeed civil repercussions to adultery.

And as for Texas Roofer, sorry I don’t buy the idea that marriage is ingrained in “Natural Law” and frankly I don’t really know what natural law means. Yes, male and female pairing up in humanity is far different than it is in many other species, but it’s not like we’ve been monogamous for eternity! Heck, even the Bible has many instances of polygamous marriages which I assume were not sinful. Obviously the nature of marriage has evolved over time and is now in its perfected state of one man and one woman.

That said, why should civil law have to recognize this nature? Why must it reflect this nature? And I’m dead serious about that. Our laws don’t reflect the reality that contraception is immoral and frankly I don’t think they should because again, civil law shouldn’t be the morality police and one group shouldn’t be allowed to define moral truths for another under the penalty of the state. We should all be allowed to screw up our own lives if we choose or do good if we choose. On the morality front, civil law should give us the freedom to either embrace true freedom that is the walk with Christ in His Church or totally reject it so long as our actions don’t impinge on the freedom of others to make the same choices. Decisions from the bench, IMPOSING its definition of marriage on the citizens of a state are most certainly an abrogation of freedom. But legislatures or popular votes of state choosing its own definition of civil marriage over another does not restrict that freedom to choose our paths in life.

 

[BobObob]

BobObob;6798344:

IMHO, the government shouldn’t initiate any sort of marriage whatsoever. Marriages should be between individuals and the institutions (such as the Catholic Church) that provide services, while the government should be informed of the union. Unfortunately, in the US, one first gets permission from the government to marry, than the Catholic Church (for Catholics) marries them.

Making marriage a private matter (secular contract or a sacrament in the CC) that the government is merely informed about would solve a lot of political issues in the long run.

Marriage “between individuals” can mean anything, even incest or polygamy and is a phrase used by the advocates of same-sex" marriage. You seem to be in favor of this and apparently want to "keep these “marriages” quiet hoping no one will notice. Here’s the answer given by Fr. Vincent Serpa, the priest apologist on this site regarding a question about same-sex marriage:
…

You couldn’t have misinterpreted me worse.

I wasn’t giving a definition for what marriage, as an institution by God, was.

I’m morally opposed to same-sex unions that many call “marriages” contrary to your interpretation of what I wrote.

I’m saying that marriage, whether a real marriage or a secular pseudo-marriage, shouldn’t be an institution by government. The government should neither be defining marriage nor carrying it out. Catholics who marry should be married by the Church without having to be first given permission by the government, unlike how things are currently done in the US. However, if individuals are going to enter into some sinful sexual union they call marriage, it should be a matter primarily between them (and God), not government.

If people stop looking to government to define marriage, carry it out, and give benefits for it, than people who are in sinful sexual unions with other persons won’t push as much to be recognized as “married”.

The Fr. Serpa answer you posted doesn’t have much to do what I actually hold.

 

[Booklover]

You couldn’t have misinterpreted me worse.

I wasn’t giving a definition for what marriage, as an institution by God, was.

I’m morally opposed to same-sex unions that many call “marriages” contrary to your interpretation of what I wrote.

I’m saying that marriage, whether a real marriage or a secular pseudo-marriage, shouldn’t be an institution by government. The government should neither be defining marriage nor carrying it out. Catholics who marry should be married by the Church without having to be first given permission by the government, unlike how things are currently done in the US. However, if individuals are going to enter into some sinful sexual union they call marriage, it should be a matter primarily between them (and God), not government.

If people stop looking to government to define marriage, carry it out, and give benefits for it, than people who are in sinful sexual unions with other persons won’t push as much to be recognized as “married”.

The Fr. Serpa answer you posted doesn’t have much to do what I actually hold.

I’m sorry if I misunderstood you, but that is the impression I got from what you stated.

Vickie