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.
mjs2001 said:
I’m having difficulty understanding the Bishops’ stance on marriage. The Archbishop, in his definition of marriage, omitted the fact that the bond is also exclusive and lifelong. He must know that marriage includes those characteristics. I wonder if he omitted the “exclusive” and “indissoluble” by design because the American Church (1) issues tens of thousands of annulments every year and (2) simply does not appear to care about the dissolution of real marriages, but instead pours its energies into preventing the civil union of same sex couples.
Click to expand...
The Church does not dissolve real marriages.
 
JimG said:
Good idea. Better than institutionalized poverty, and Uncle Sam as the default daddy.

But in truth, I think that we underestimate the degree to which even shotgun weddings produced happy intact families. There were a lot of intact families with moms and dads. Now, marriage is becoming the privilege of the well to do, while the poor are relegated to broken families as a matter of policy.
Click to expand...
I was dead serious.
LisaA said:
Precisely. This is already happening in Europe as the CofE allows gay pastors but as I understand will not perform a gay ‘wedding.’ Two wealthy gay men are suing to be wed in the church. Of course this IS Europe but given the way administrative laws, regulations and the Obama administration is attacking religious freedom, it would not suprise me if such cases are not already being contemplated. If they insist nuns furnish birth control and abortifacient drugs, there is little doubt of their intention.
Click to expand...
There is a major difference between the CoE and the Catholic Church, namely that the CoE has been subject to the government since the beginning whereas the Catholic Church is not.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
I don’t consider it “scare tactics”. I just don’t like the idea of my state government promoting homosexual behavior by legitimizing same sex relationships as a marriage.

We as Catholics are called to oppose such laws…
Click to expand...
Which precisely is one reason I don’t practice the faith.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
I’ll never understand why people blame the 60s and 70s for that sort of thing. The only thing that really changed was that people rejected the hypocrisy of prior generations on those matters and publicly acknowledged what had been happening behind closed doors for centuries.
Click to expand...
Since I was there, I can say that as I grew older, I heard what was going on behind closed doors and that’s where everything should have stayed. No, I’m not talking about abuse situations but sexual deviancy. Today, you don’t walk up to somebody you just met and say, “Hi. I’m a chronic masturbator.” Obviously, in the past, people who wanted to live a certain way found others to do what they wanted. But it was right and proper to say nothing about private sexual deviancy or sex in general unless you heard it from your parents. I’m sure my parents had sex but it was not part of our dinner table conversation. Publicly acknowledging sexually deviant behavior is not a virtue. Self-restraint was promoted and deviancy was called bad.

The 5 year plan - 1968 to 1973 - saw untold millions of dollars spent to bring graphic sexual deviancy, contraception, cohabitation and abortion to the masses under a bunch of evil laws and judicial fiat. Like today. That’s when the groundwork was laid. That’s when the “preachers” of sexual deviancy arrived in our neighborhoods and when underground comix and vile underground newspapers appeared. And Head (short for Dope Head) Shops began to spring up. Yes, I bought some of them. They are now in a landfill.

I rejected the counter-culture.

Ed
 
Thorolfr said:
So I take it that you would have no objections if, for example, a Muslim group bought up your local community hospital and directed that all staff and patients must be gender segregated with women’s and men’s only parts of the hospital. If a woman wanted to see a specialist but they didn’t have a woman doctor who did that, they would just be out of luck. Any woman staff member who had to enter the men’s section would have to cover her hair.

And you wouldn’t object if they passed a rule that no pork products (bacon, etc) could be used at the hospital. It couldn’t be given to patients in their meals or sold in the hospital cafeteria.

Or if the Jehovah’s Witnesses bought up your local hospital and prohibited all blood transfusions, you wouldn’t object, I take it.
Click to expand...
Oh puh-lease, let’s make up a completely specious situation and try to make a point. Why would I care if a Muslim group bought a hospital and had specific rules for their patients being segregated or which doctors could see them? They wouldn’t get enough patients to stay in business but never mind since this is completely ridiculous. Ditto with Jehovah’s Witnesses. No such thing as a JW hospital. BTW our clinic does bloodless surgery and many others do as well. JW’s have a list of approved providers who have agreed not to use blood products.

No pork products? Oh my that would be something. I am sure people would choose their hospital based on the food (not too many would do well).

Why don’t you formulate an argument as to why you think Catholic hospitals should be forced to perform abortions since you seem to think the state has that right.
 
Joie_de_Vivre said:
I was dead serious.

There is a major difference between the CoE and the Catholic Church, namely that the CoE has been subject to the government since the beginning whereas the Catholic Church is not.
Click to expand...
Of course there are differences but we already have MANY MANY lawsuits against Catholic organizations that require their employees to avoid openly living in a sinful state or otherwise engaging in practices against the Church’s teaching. We have gays and Lesbians demanding that they receive Communion although openly in a homosexual relationship (they TELL the priest and basically say dare ya?) Please do not act like they aren’t trying to dismantle our religious freedom brick by brick. They are. Today a gay teacher who “marries” a man is terminated and sues, a Lesbian demands Communion after telling the priest she is in a Lesbian relationship and causes all kinds of uproar in the diocese and we have an EM who was dismissed after “marrying” his partner agitating, sending petitions and causing trouble. If they could prove damages they would be in court. I see this happening eventually followed by the demand that the Church “marry” them.
 
LisaA said:
Of course there are differences but we already have MANY MANY lawsuits against Catholic organizations that require their employees to avoid openly living in a sinful state or otherwise engaging in practices against the Church’s teaching. We have gays and Lesbians demanding that they receive Communion although openly in a homosexual relationship (they TELL the priest and basically say dare ya?) Please do not act like they aren’t trying to dismantle our religious freedom brick by brick. They are. Today a gay teacher who “marries” a man is terminated and sues, a Lesbian demands Communion after telling the priest she is in a Lesbian relationship and causes all kinds of uproar in the diocese and we have an EM who was dismissed after “marrying” his partner agitating, sending petitions and causing trouble. If they could prove damages they would be in court. I see this happening eventually followed by the demand that the Church “marry” them.
Click to expand...
You are generalizing the actions of a few to the many and it is incorrect just as generalizing the action of the WBC to all Christians is incorrect.
 
Joie_de_Vivre said:
I was dead serious.
Click to expand...
So was I. I grew up in a time when, if a guy impregnated a girl, he was expected to marry her because it was the right thing to do. No shotgun was needed. He was expected to love her till death do they part. For that reason, we took sex somewhat more seriously. One was expected to honor with the will the promises already made by the body.
 
FollowChrist34 said:
It’s a Catholic owned institution. This is where you cross the line. This is an infringement on religious liberty. IMHO.
Click to expand...
Personally, I think that religiously owned hospitals are a bad idea. Medical decisions should be between the patient and their doctor, not between the patient, their doctor and the Catholic Church or any other religious organization. Some patients, of course, can go to another hospital, but this is not so easily done by poor patients when there are no other hospitals for miles around.
 
JimG said:
So was I. I grew up in a time when, if a guy impregnated a girl, he was expected to marry her because it was the right thing to do. No shotgun was needed. He was expected to love her till death do they part. For that reason, we took sex somewhat more seriously. One was expected to honor with the will the promises already made by the body.
Click to expand...
Whereas now babies are seen as “mistakes”.
 
Joie_de_Vivre said:
You are generalizing the actions of a few to the many and it is incorrect just as generalizing the action of the WBC to all Christians is incorrect.
Click to expand...
Uh no I have said repeatedly that the majority of gays and Lesbians not only care little about “marriage” but want to simply live their lives in peace. But this small but vocal and very active group of agitators have created a narrative that if you simply say “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman” there is an uproar as if you were part of the KKK. The lawsuits the media blitzes, the pandering of politicians who a couple years ago said the exact same thing about marriage is an attack on our religious freedom. It doesn’t take a huge number or even the majority to create havoc. Nineteen terrorists brought down the World Trade Center. That there were only a few of them and that the majority of Muslims want to live in peace is small comfort.

I’ve SEEN this happen right in our town where (at least) two businesses were hounded out of existence for failure to bake cakes or otherwise bow to the little tin god of gayness. There are numerous cases similar to this around the country and as each little brick gets placed in the wall we have less and less control over our lives. It only takes a few agitators to destroy lives and businesses and the viciousness these activists display is shocking. Even more shocking is that law enforcement and local politicians look the other way.
 
Why is marriage a constitutional issue…don’t we have a Federal Marriage Act here in the US that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman…I’m just asking as I saw where Australia has a Federal Marriage Act that was amended in 2004 by the Federal Parliament to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman…nothing to do with the Australian constitution…so why do we need the Supreme Court to decide rather than an act of Congress
 
Peebo said:
Why is marriage a constitutional issue…don’t we have a Federal Marriage Act here in the US that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman…I’m just asking as I saw where Australia has a Federal Marriage Act that was amended in 2004 by the Federal Parliament to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman…nothing to do with the Australian constitution…so why do we need the Supreme Court to decide rather than an act of Congress
Click to expand...
Because the Congress and President have traditionally (and usually) deferred to the Supreme Court in determining constitutional issues. If the Supreme Court declares a law as violative of the Constitution (e.g., obscenity laws, abortion laws, etc.), then the rest of government generally abides by the decision. But, to your point, I don’t think that we need the Supreme Court to decide it–leave it to the elected representatives of the people.
 
Peebo said:
Why is marriage a constitutional issue…don’t we have a Federal Marriage Act here in the US that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman…I’m just asking as I saw where Australia has a Federal Marriage Act that was amended in 2004 by the Federal Parliament to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman…nothing to do with the Australian constitution…so why do we need the Supreme Court to decide rather than an act of Congress
Click to expand...
The Defense of Marriage Act in the US was judged to be problematic in a few respects.

“Much of the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed DOMA,” Holder concluded in his statement. “The Supreme Court has ruled that laws criminalizing homosexual conduct are unconstitutional. Congress has repealed the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Several lower courts have ruled DOMA itself to be unconstitutional. Section 3 of DOMA will continue to remain in effect unless Congress repeals it or there is a final judicial finding that strikes it down, and the President has informed me that the Executive Branch will continue to enforce the law. But while both the wisdom and the legality of Section 3 of DOMA will continue to be the subject of both extensive litigation and public debate, this Administration will no longer assert its constitutionality in court.”

So, legally, its constitutionality has not been actively asserted by the Administration in lower courts.

Ed
 
mjs2001 said:
Because the Congress and President have traditionally (and usually) deferred to the Supreme Court in determining constitutional issues. If the Supreme Court declares a law as violative of the Constitution (e.g., obscenity laws, abortion laws, etc.), then the rest of government generally abides by the decision. But, to your point, I don’t think that we need the Supreme Court to decide it–leave it to the elected representatives of the people.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. This should be determined by the states. It is amazing the way judicial activism is undercutting democracy in this country. The “right to gay marriage” is not a civil rights issue; it is much more complicated and nuanced than that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top