Archbishop of San Francisco warns of coming war on marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter estesbob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

estesbob

Guest
On January 16, the Archbishop of San Francisco, Salvatore Cordileone, warned of a growing war on the “essential meaning of marriage,” as defining “a bond which unites a man and a woman to each other and to any children who come from their union.”

catholic.org/news/hf/family/story.php?id=58477
 
It’s already happening and has been going on for about a decade. Too bad the Secular Progressives have the bully pulpit in the form of the media, Hollywood and social media. Most people have no understanding why the words gay “marriage” are like pregnant man. Either marriage has a unique meaning or it becomes certifying “Friends with Benefits” on a national basis.
 
It’s already happening and has been going on for about a decade. Too bad the Secular Progressives have the bully pulpit in the form of the media, Hollywood and social media. Most people have no understanding why the words gay “marriage” are like pregnant man. Either marriage has a unique meaning or it becomes certifying “Friends with Benefits” on a national basis.
👍👍👍

Sad how many Catholics reject Church teaching and oppose the Christian faith on this issue.
 
I could never figure out how any “Catholic” may be for gay “marriage” and remain as a “Catholic”.
 
On Friday, the Supreme Court announced it had agreed to hear cases regarding same-sex marriage.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court tossed Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, ruling that the federal government is bound to recognize same-sex marriages from states in which they are legal. The justices did not, however, go so far as to declare same-sex marriage a right…yet.

If the Supreme Court can redefine marriage, then is that same Supreme Court not powerful enough to impose its will on those who preach, teach and believe that the only true marriage is that between one man and one woman?

Where does it end? Bakers, florists and photographers are already under assault – just wait until same-sex marriage is a “constitutional right.”
 
Here is possible legal argument in favor of traditional marriage:

Traditional marriage already has a legitimate and exclusive foundation in the U.S. Constitution, because the Constitution’s Preamble explicitly states that among its enumerated purposes is to “…secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

According to Burton’s Legal Thesaurus, Fourth Edition (2007), “posterity” means, exclusively, entities, such as “later generations,” “children,” “progeny,” and other terms unequivocally identified with biological descendants.

Since the Preamble establishes the “legislative intent” that judges look to in determining the meaning of a law or constitution, it is clear that the U.S. Constitution is designed to secure the blessings of liberty to the biological descendants of the citizenry that constituted the United States at the time that the Constitution was enacted. This makes those biological descendants and whatever essentially pertains to them, including, presumably, the process by which they come into being as citizens of the nation, a central part of purpose of the Constitution itself.

“Equal protection” clauses are cited in both state and federal claims alleging that homosexuals have the same right to marry as heterosexuals. But equality claims are illicit unless litigants are similarly situated before the law. Since heterosexual marriage as a general institution can, at least potentially, further the purposes of the Constitution by securing the “blessings of liberty…to…our posterity” (biological descendants) insofar as traditional marriage is the only institution that is naturally able to produce society’s posterity (biological descendants) – and since homosexual unions cannot produce any “posterity” (biological descendants) by themselves, the potential litigants are not similarly situated.

That is to say, while anyone can contribute to the blessings of liberty which may be bestowed upon posterity, traditional marriage between a man and a woman is the only civil institution naturally able to create the very object which is to receive those blessings, namely, posterity itself – the biological descendants of the present citizenry.

Thus, the Preamble’s wording establishes a distinct and special basis for traditional marriage, which does not obtain in homosexual unions.

This role of traditional marriage in producing society’s posterity is consistent with the classical meaning of marriage, even as understood by the pagan Romans.

Matrimony is taken from the Latin, “mater,” meaning “mother,” and “monium,” meaning “a state or condition,” thus defining the purpose of marriage as a man taking a wife in order to have children. In ancient Rome, this was understood as the purpose of marriage, the production of new citizens for the pagan Roman Empire.

While not every traditional marriage may actually beget new citizens for America, and while anyone may be able to adopt children, nonetheless traditional marriage between a man and a woman is the sole natural institution by which our “posterity” is begotten in order to replenish and perpetuate the citizenry of our nation. No merely arbitrarily-formed contract – including so-called “same sex marriage” – can fulfill that role as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, when they created a Constitution that secured the blessings of liberty, not only for ourselves, but also for our posterity.

Therefore, there is no legitimate basis for demanding “marriage equality” for homosexual unions – given the wording that expresses the legislative intent of the Founding Fathers as stated in the Preamble to the Constitution.
 
Here is possible legal argument in favor of traditional marriage:

Traditional marriage already has a legitimate and exclusive foundation in the U.S. Constitution, because the Constitution’s Preamble explicitly states that among its enumerated purposes is to “…secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

According to Burton’s Legal Thesaurus, Fourth Edition (2007), “posterity” means, exclusively, entities, such as “later generations,” “children,” “progeny,” and other terms unequivocally identified with biological descendants.

Since the Preamble establishes the “legislative intent” that judges look to in determining the meaning of a law or constitution, it is clear that the U.S. Constitution is designed to secure the blessings of liberty to the biological descendants of the citizenry that constituted the United States at the time that the Constitution was enacted. This makes those biological descendants and whatever essentially pertains to them, including, presumably, the process by which they come into being as citizens of the nation, a central part of purpose of the Constitution itself.

“Equal protection” clauses are cited in both state and federal claims alleging that homosexuals have the same right to marry as heterosexuals. But equality claims are illicit unless litigants are similarly situated before the law. Since heterosexual marriage as a general institution can, at least potentially, further the purposes of the Constitution by securing the “blessings of liberty…to…our posterity” (biological descendants) insofar as traditional marriage is the only institution that is naturally able to produce society’s posterity (biological descendants) – and since homosexual unions cannot produce any “posterity” (biological descendants) by themselves, the potential litigants are not similarly situated.

That is to say, while anyone can contribute to the blessings of liberty which may be bestowed upon posterity, traditional marriage between a man and a woman is the only civil institution naturally able to create the very object which is to receive those blessings, namely, posterity itself – the biological descendants of the present citizenry.

Thus, the Preamble’s wording establishes a distinct and special basis for traditional marriage, which does not obtain in homosexual unions.

This role of traditional marriage in producing society’s posterity is consistent with the classical meaning of marriage, even as understood by the pagan Romans.

Matrimony is taken from the Latin, “mater,” meaning “mother,” and “monium,” meaning “a state or condition,” thus defining the purpose of marriage as a man taking a wife in order to have children. In ancient Rome, this was understood as the purpose of marriage, the production of new citizens for the pagan Roman Empire.

While not every traditional marriage may actually beget new citizens for America, and while anyone may be able to adopt children, nonetheless traditional marriage between a man and a woman is the sole natural institution by which our “posterity” is begotten in order to replenish and perpetuate the citizenry of our nation. No merely arbitrarily-formed contract – including so-called “same sex marriage” – can fulfill that role as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, when they created a Constitution that secured the blessings of liberty, not only for ourselves, but also for our posterity.

Therefore, there is no legitimate basis for demanding “marriage equality” for homosexual unions – given the wording that expresses the legislative intent of the Founding Fathers as stated in the Preamble to the Constitution.
Bravo Dr. Excellent points. 👍👍👍

But what concerns me is that the Preamble serves solely as an introduction, and does not assign powers to the federal government, nor does it provide specific limitations on government action. Due to the Preamble’s limited nature, no court has ever used it as a decisive factor in case adjudication.
 
I think the war has already started. I worry about the Supreme Court and what they will decide.
 
It’s already happening and has been going on for about a decade. Too bad the Secular Progressives have the bully pulpit in the form of the media, Hollywood and social media. Most people have no understanding why the words gay “marriage” are like pregnant man. Either marriage has a unique meaning or it becomes certifying “Friends with Benefits” on a national basis.
Every time people put the word “gay” with the word “marriage” and talk about “gay marriage,” they have lost the battle even if they don’t support such a notion. By constant repetition, it makes it sound as if those two words can go together.
 
👍👍👍

Sad how many Catholics reject Church teaching and oppose the Christian faith on this issue.
Of the Catholics I know, they have taken what the media tells them to heart. Some think that it will have no impact on their lives, that it won’t really matter one way or the other. That others are being sued for not providing certain services will not affect the vast majority of them. They have not thought this through. And just like the four years leading up to a ruling on abortion, the Catholic Church was painted as this backwards group that did not want “progress” on that issue. The media became accomplices just prior to the Supreme Court ruling in 1973. Again, ignoring the will of the people and the facts, which were distorted at the time.

Ed
 
Sorry if I am sounding pessimistic today, but I think that the outcome on this one is clear. “Gay marriage” is on the same social fast track that contraception and abortion were in the past (and for the exact same reason). I simply cannot see any other way out of this. Those who oppose gay marriage are about as “out of it” as the Amish. I actually always kind of liked those white outfits; maybe I’ll order one and have it ready for the day the 5-4 (6-3?) landmark decision is announced in the media…
 
On January 16, the Archbishop of San Francisco, Salvatore Cordileone, warned of a growing war on the “essential meaning of marriage,” as defining “a bond which unites a man and a woman to each other and to any children who come from their union.”

catholic.org/news/hf/family/story.php?id=58477
The war has been here for a while now. One suggestion has been for two steps to Matrimony.
Step 1. A civil contract between two people which involves the state.
Step 2. A sacramental union between two people which involves the Church.
 
It’s already happening and has been going on for about a decade. Too bad the Secular Progressives have the bully pulpit in the form of the media, Hollywood and social media. Most people have no understanding why the words gay “marriage” are like pregnant man. Either marriage has a unique meaning or it becomes certifying “Friends with Benefits” on a national basis.
Folks have already used the “pregnant man” lie, though it was just a woman pretending she was a man. Saying, “the coming war on marriage” is like saying, “the coming second world war.” It already happened…and we lost the marriage war, unfortunately. Well, against what secularism decided marriage was, not real marriage.
 
👍👍👍

Sad how many Catholics reject Church teaching and oppose the Christian faith on this issue.
Very sad. What confuses me is if you disagree with the Church, why try to change it? Just go where you find agreement, a place which embraces falsehood.
 
👍👍👍

Sad how many Catholics reject Church teaching and oppose the Christian faith on this issue.
Polls show a majority of Catholics favor SS marriage. I got a college magazine from my Roman Catholic alma mater and there is a section where they congratulate people who have been recently “married”. There are photos of the newly “married” couple together with their families and friends. I was somewhat surprised to see a photo of a SS “marriage” in this Catholic publication.
 
From the Vatican document:

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.

I would hope that Catholics would engage in massive resistance in every way possible to the recognition of same sex marriage.
 
Polls show a majority of Catholics favor SS marriage. I got a college magazine from my Roman Catholic alma mater and there is a section where they congratulate people who have been recently “married”. There are photos of the newly “married” couple together with their families and friends. I was somewhat surprised to see a photo of a SS “marriage” in this Catholic publication.
Thankfully, reality and truth isn’t determined by poll opinions and popularity. Not to mention, the poll is wrong. Did they only call advocates in San Francisco?
 
On January 16, the Archbishop of San Francisco, Salvatore Cordileone, warned of a growing war on the “essential meaning of marriage,” as defining “a bond which unites a man and a woman to each other and to any children who come from their union.”

catholic.org/news/hf/family/story.php?id=58477
I think that ship has already sailed and the archbishop is part of it. Doesn’t the “essential meaning of marriage” also include permanence and fidelity? Hasn’t the ready acceptance of divorce led to a war on marriage long before gay marriage ever became an issue? Why don’t the bishops include this when they speak about the future of marriage and the family? Perhaps it’s because so very many Catholics are divorced themselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top