Archbishop of San Francisco warns of coming war on marriage

[LisaA]

A woman wanted to transfer her estate tax free to an unrelated woman. Of course I support eliminating death taxes, as the govt has no business taxing estates.

But why she should get preferential treatment I don’t understand.

Also this could have been done prior to her death. Estate planning is designed to avoid or minimize taxes. The parties were free to dispose of their property as they saw fit during their lifetime. Saying “oops!” after one party dies doesn’t work.

 

[CanadianNewbie]

As a person who believes in gay marriage, I assure you, I am still Catholic.

Hear hear! I was worried about this going into RCIA, since Canada already has marriage equality, the sky has not fallen, and I support the right of two people to enter into civil marriage just as much as I respect the Church’s right to deny sacramental marriage to anyone not meeting their criteria.

I don’t understand how this is such a big issue in the US. Marriage (civil, in the eyes of the state/law) and marriage (religious thing) seem completely separate, and it just seems like oppression to try and deny any two people the right to the former.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Hear hear! I was worried about this going into RCIA, since Canada already has marriage equality, the sky has not fallen, and I support the right of two people to enter into civil marriage just as much as I respect the Church’s right to deny sacramental marriage to anyone not meeting their criteria.

I don’t understand how this is such a big issue in the US. Marriage (civil, in the eyes of the state/law) and marriage (religious thing) seem completely separate, and it just seems like oppression to try and deny any two people the right to the former.

I would hope that your RCIA class would have included information of the Church’s opposition to same sex civil marriage.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
by then Joseph Card. Ratzinger:

Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons:

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

The document then proceeds to give reasons supporting the Catholic position.

 

[estesbob]

Hear hear! I was worried about this going into RCIA, since Canada already has marriage equality, the sky has not fallen, and I support the right of two people to enter into civil marriage just as much as I respect the Church’s right to deny sacramental marriage to anyone not meeting their criteria.

I don’t understand how this is such a big issue in the US. Marriage (civil, in the eyes of the state/law) and marriage (religious thing) seem completely separate, and it just seems like oppression to try and deny any two people the right to the former.

Nobody is denied the right to marriage. The issue is the attempt to change the definition of marriage to encompass homosexual behavior. As Catholics we are called upon to oppose this.

 

[Lion_IRC]

JimG;12692409:

A male and a female have the potential and ability to have marital sex. Only a man and a woman.

Exactly the “not all married couples have children” meme is absurd when the difference is in the completely different nature of same sex couples who have zero procreative potential.

But remember facts only matter when they push a narrative. When they get in the way of an agenda or ideology, they can be dispensed with

Spot on LisaA and JimG


That is typical strawman argument from LGBTQ activists. We DONT claim marriage is solely about making babies (sex). It is the gay lobby which equates sex with ‘love’ and therefore ‘marriage’ should be universally equal for anyone irrespective of biological norms.

They say they want recognition. But the opponents of SSM already DO recognize what SSM for what it is - and for what it is NOT!

It is NOT about sperm/egg procreation.
It is NOT about the gender-balanced, biblical, 10 Commandments definition of mother and father.
It is NOT about the nuclear family.

 

[edwest2]

Nobody is denied the right to marriage. The issue is the attempt to change the definition of marriage to encompass homosexual behavior. As Catholics we are called upon to oppose this.

That’s right.

Ed

 

[Thorolfr]

So what do all of you think is going to happen now? With same-sex marriage on the way to becoming legal across the US and most of Western Europe and even in parts of Latin America, I doubt that this can be undone. I think that the Catholic Church and others opposed to same-sex civil marriage have lost this battle.

 

[edwest2]

So what do all of you think is going to happen now? With same-sex marriage on the way to becoming legal across the US and most of Western Europe and even in parts of Latin America, I doubt that this can be undone. I think that the Catholic Church and others opposed to same-sex civil marriage have lost this battle.

No loss has occurred. The Church will constantly repeat the truth. God will give the increase. The media has done much to corrupt proper thinking about sexual conduct. Legal does not always equal right or true.

Peace,
Ed

 

[religioussoup]

Do you think that SS marriage should be a Sacrament?

I think it should be accepted as the sacrament of matrimony. Realistically, I believe the church will not allow this for a long time, but I think it’s about time that at least the states recognize it.

Who would I be to judge people who are in love?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

So what do all of you think is going to happen now? With same-sex marriage on the way to becoming legal across the US and most of Western Europe and even in parts of Latin America, I doubt that this can be undone. I think that the Catholic Church and others opposed to same-sex civil marriage have lost this battle.

The Supreme Court will visit same sex marriage again this year. Depending on the court’s decision the whole matter could go back to square one. Since six of the nine Justices are devout, practicing Roman Catholics and the other three are Jewish I think the gay community has good reason to worry.

 

[Havard]

I think it should be accepted as the sacrament of matrimony. Realistically, I believe the church will not allow this for a long time, but I think it’s about time that at least the states recognize it.

Who would I be to judge people who are in love?

I think you’re confusing loving thy neighbor with judging one’s soul. We are called to admonish each other when it is clearly appropriate, and help each other towards a holy life.

 

[religioussoup]

Hear hear! I was worried about this going into RCIA, since Canada already has marriage equality, the sky has not fallen, and I support the right of two people to enter into civil marriage just as much as I respect the Church’s right to deny sacramental marriage to anyone not meeting their criteria.

I don’t understand how this is such a big issue in the US. Marriage (civil, in the eyes of the state/law) and marriage (religious thing) seem completely separate, and it just seems like oppression to try and deny any two people the right to the former.

Amen! There are people (on this site) who imply that if you believe in homosexual marriage, then you are a poor Catholic. As someone who goes to mass every Sunday and believes in god, I have never understood how wanting two people in love to be happy makes me a worse Catholic in their eyes.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Exactly the “not all married couples have children” meme is absurd when the difference is in the completely different nature of same sex couples who have zero procreative potential.

But remember facts only matter when they push a narrative. When they get in the way of an agenda or ideology, they can be dispensed with

Just to point out it was Lisa herself who said, “it requires a male and a female and has procreative potential”. Then after I pointed out that many couples marry who have no procreation potential, someone else changed it to heterosexual intercourse. To me I would think the marriage love and bond between 2 monogamous people would extend to far more than the ability to have heterosexual sex to make it a marriage.

 

[Thorolfr]

The Supreme Court will visit same sex marriage again this year. Depending on the court’s decision the whole matter could go back to square one. Since six of the nine Justices are devout, practicing Roman Catholics and the other three are Jewish I think the gay community has good reason to worry.

If Anthony Kennedy is a devout, practicing Roman Catholic, this has not prevented him from helping to advance gay rights more than any other Supreme Court justice by authoring the majority opinions in three landmark cases:

1. Romer vs. Evans: struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment preventing protected status based upon homosexuality or bisexuality because it did not satisfy the Equal Protection Clause.
2. Lawrence vs. Texas: struck down the sodomy law in Texas and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in 13 other states, making same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state and territory.
3. United States vs. Windsor: held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of “marriage” and “spouse” to apply only to heterosexual unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause.

I also seriously doubt that Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, is going to vote against same-sex marriage.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Hear hear! I was worried about this going into RCIA, since Canada already has marriage equality, the sky has not fallen, and I support the right of two people to enter into civil marriage just as much as I respect the Church’s right to deny sacramental marriage to anyone not meeting their criteria.

I don’t understand how this is such a big issue in the US. Marriage (civil, in the eyes of the state/law) and marriage (religious thing) seem completely separate, and it just seems like oppression to try and deny any two people the right to the former.

While I agree (though I’m in the US), the Church doesn’t separate the 2. Or at least it sure actively opposes SS civil marriage. If I remember correctly, the Church wasn’t big on civil unions either even without the term marriage. It was said right here on this thread Catholics are called to oppose such laws. Admittedly it’s just 1 thing I struggle with in regards to the Catholic faith. I know you can’t speak for religioussoup, but I’m wondering how a Catholic/prospective Catholic gets around this? God bless and all the best as you journey in faith thru RCIA. Peace be with you. And to you Religioussoup.

 

[Thorolfr]

The Supreme Court will visit same sex marriage again this year. Depending on the court’s decision the whole matter could go back to square one. Since six of the nine Justices are devout, practicing Roman Catholics and the other three are Jewish I think the gay community has good reason to worry.

There’s also an interesting article in *Slate *which shows why the Supreme Court is likely to find in favor of same-sex marriage::

For years people have been trying to predict what the Supreme Court will do about same-sex marriage. That speculation has intensified now that the Supreme Court has decided to hear marriage cases originating in the 6th Circuit that upheld the state-level bans against same-sex marriage and recognition. How will the Supreme Court decide this crucial issue? In fact, it has already tipped its hand on the outcome. To understand why, you have to understand tax law.

Back in June of 2013, the Supreme Court held that for federal purposes it was impermissible to limit the term marriage to a man and a woman. In response, several circuit courts issued decisions recognizing same-sex marriage in the states under their jurisdictions. (The 6th Circuit was the only exception.) Some states sought review of these decisions, but the Supreme Court denied stays, which would have allowed the states to refuse to recognize the marriages until the Supreme Court made a final decision. Because the Supreme Court failed to issue stays, the states must perform and recognize same-sex marriages. In turn, this means the federal government will recognize couples living in those states as married for federal tax purposes. Being married also means that employers can provide certain benefits governed under tax laws to the employees who are now considered married. If the Supreme Court holds that the 6th Circuit is correct and states can both ban same-sex marriage and refuse to recognize out-of-state marriages, there will be large-scale tax problems for tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of taxpayers.

slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/01/supreme_court_gay_marriage_decision_tax_law_requires_marriage_equality.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_bot

 

[religioussoup]

While I agree (though I’m in the US), the Church doesn’t separate the 2. Or at least it sure actively opposes SS civil marriage. It was said right here on this thread Catholics are called to oppose such laws. Admittedly it’s just 1 thing I struggle with in regards to the Catholic faith. I know you can’t speak for religioussoup, but I’m wondering how Catholics you get around this? God bless and all the best as you journey in faith thru RCIA. Peace be with you.

I know that I am probably going to get bashed by some people on this site, but I am a cafeteria Catholic to an extent and I’m not afraid to admit it. I am at a time in my life that I am doubting my faith a bit, but I think doubt in religion is healthy, instead of blindly accepting whatever’s written just because it’s the “Catholic law”.

Yes, I pick and choose some of the things I believe in my faith. But I do know this: I believe in God and God loves everyone. The bible was written (not by Jesus) during a time of persecution towards homosexuality. If the writers of the bible were to come out and say that it was totally okay to be gay because God wants everyone to be happy, they themselves would probably be persecuted.

If you would like to know how I “get around this”, I simply don’t. I refuse to admit that I think homosexuality is wrong, since that’s not what I believe. I don’t accept all of the Catholic teachings. Just because it’s written in the bible doesn’t mean I believe it. I know that probably doesn’t make me a good Catholic, but I don’t think it makes me a bad person.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I know that I am probably going to get bashed by some people on this site, but I am a cafeteria Catholic to an extent and I’m not afraid to admit it. I am at a time in my life that I am doubting my faith a bit, but I think doubt in religion is healthy, instead of blindly accepting whatever’s written just because it’s the “Catholic law”.

Yes, I pick and choose some of the things I believe in my faith. But I do know this: I believe in God and God loves everyone. The bible was written (not by Jesus) during a time of persecution towards homosexuality. If the writers of the bible were to come out and say that it was totally okay to be gay because God wants everyone to be happy, they themselves would probably be persecuted.

If you would like to know how I “get around this”, I simply don’t. I refuse to admit that I think homosexuality is wrong, since that’s not what I believe. I don’t accept all of the Catholic teachings. Just because it’s written in the bible doesn’t mean I believe it. I know that probably doesn’t make me a good Catholic, but I don’t think it makes me a bad person.

Stand by for a bashing.

The Church’s teaching on homosexuality and marriage is Catholic because it is true, not true because it is Catholic.

This is expressed in the words of the bishop, St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “The Church is called Catholic or universal because . . . it teaches fully and unfailingly all the doctrines which ought to be brought to men’s knowledge, whether concerned with visible or invisible things, with the realities of heaven or the things of earth.”

In other words, the conclusion that same-sex relationships should not be afforded legal status is because it is based on the truth, not just on Catholic teaching.

Yet, saying that makes this conclusion all the more controversial. If it were based simply on Catholic teaching, opponents could say: “You Catholics are entitled to your opinion, but that is not binding on others.”

Actually the truth is the reason that same-sex relationships should not be afforded legal status. Now this is offensive to those who deny the existence of truth, who prefer to live in a world dominated by what Pope Benedict XVI termed a “dictatorship of relativism.”

If you acknowledge that** truth **exists, then we can discuss and even argue about whether or not I or the Catholic Church correctly understands the truth of this matter. But if you deny that there is such a thing as truth, that is, the truth, not just my truth and your truth, then the matter becomes merely an exercise of raw political power in terms of who has more votes to impose an agenda, and that is what makes it ultimately tyrannical.

 

[JimG]

I think it should be accepted as the sacrament of matrimony. Realistically, I believe the church will not allow this for a long time, but I think it’s about time that at least the states recognize it.

Who would I be to judge people who are in love?

Would you be able to judge whether or not two individuals are able to have marital sex? It takes a man and a woman for marital sex to happen. That’s why they are capable of marriage. Would you agree that men and women have complementary reproductive systems? There is a reason for that.

 

[Thorolfr]

In other words, the conclusion that same-sex relationships should not be afforded legal status is because it is based on the truth, not just on Catholic teaching.

It’s kind of hard to tell who really has the “truth” since lots of folks claim that they have it.