Banning Civil Marriage in California

[c659smith]

The other half of the saying is “Give to God what is God’s.”

Right now the state is seeking to take from the Church.

the Church does not discriminate however. Any person who believes what we hold and seeks to enter the Church will not be denied. Nor is any person forced to remain in the Church who refuses to stay.

On the other hand, what this proposition does is reduces the sanctity of marriage to a “ghetto.”

before saying this is harmless, one should remember what St.Thomas Aquinas has said:

Now in every genus, that which belongs to it chiefly is the principle of the others, and the others belong to that genus in subordination to that thing: thus fire, which is chief among hot things, is the cause of heat in mixed bodies, and these are said to be hot in so far as they have a share of fire. Consequently, since the law is chiefly ordained to the common good, any other precept in regard to some individual work, must needs be devoid of the nature of a law, save in so far as it regards the common good. Therefore every law is ordained to the common good. (ST: I-II, Q90, A2)

As Augustine says (De Libero Arbitrio i,5) that which is not just seems to be no law at all": wherefore the force of a law depends on the extent of its justice. Now in human affairs a thing is said to be just, from being right, according to the rule of reason. But the first rule of reason is the law of nature, as is clear from what has been stated above (Q91,A2,r 2). Consequently every human law has just so much of the nature of law, as it is derived from the law of nature. But if in any point it deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a perversion of law. (ST: I-II, Q95, A2)

I answer that, Laws framed by man are either just or unjust. If they be just, they have the power of binding in conscience, from the eternal law whence they are derived, according to Proverbs 8:15: “By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things.” Now laws are said to be just, both from the end, when, to wit, they are ordained to the common good - and from their author, that is to say, when the law that is made does not exceed the power of the lawgiver - and from their form, when, to wit, burdens are laid on the subjects, according to an equality of proportion and with a view to the common good. For, since one man is a part of the community, each man in all that he is and has, belongs to the community; just as a part, in all that it is, belongs to the whole; wherefore nature inflicts a loss on the part, in order to save the whole: so that on this account, such laws as these, which impose proportionate burdens, are just and binding in conscience, and are legal laws.

On the other hand laws may be unjust in two ways: first, by being contrary to human good, through being opposed to the things mentioned above - either in respect of the end, as when an authority imposes on his subjects burdensome laws, conducive, not to the common good, but rather to his own cupidity or vainglory - or in respect of the author, as when a man makes a law that goes beyond the power committed to him - or in respect of the form, as when burdens are imposed unequally on the community, although with a view to the common good. The like are acts of violence rather than laws; because, as Augustine says (De Libero Arbitrio i,5), “a law that is not just, seems to be no law at all.” Wherefore such laws do not bind in conscience, except perhaps in order to avoid scandal or disturbance, for which cause a man should even yield his right, according to Matthew 5:40,41: “If a man. . . take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him; and whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two.”

Secondly, laws may be unjust through being opposed to the Divine good: such are the laws of tyrants inducing to idolatry, or to anything else contrary to the Divine law: and laws of this kind must nowise be observed, because, as stated in Acts 5:29, “we ought to obey God rather than man.” (ST: I-II, Q96, A4)
We need to remember that as Catholics we need to oppose injustice and not to stand by and let evil prosper.

America may slide to Hell, but we are not permitted to smile and wave when it goes by. We are obligated to speak the truth and seek to change hearts.

When the state attempts to deny rights under the Church the State looses. The State is more afraid of the Church then the Church from the State.

The worst thing the state could do is take away 501 tax status. The state wants power and by doing that it would shift power by allowing the Church (all) to preach from the pulpit and the state esspecially the secularists will loose control and they will not do that.

Another item esspecially with the Catholic Church is that it is run from a foreign goverment recognized by the United Nations and the United States. Just for giggles what if the Catholic Church if 501 status was removed decided to press the Foreign Embassy issue on all it’s properties and the laws that go with Embassy status.

 

[DavWan]

I agree with you but what is the injustice here?

Marriage is union between a man and woman that God joins together.

You are opposing what is not God’s (civil unions)

Believe me when I tell you that the Gay community is not fighting the right to civil unions they already have that.

They are not fighting Equal Rights they already have that.

They are fighting for Marriage-Union accepted by God and they cannot get that. Not by God anyway or Christ’s Church.

Do deny a marriage with a civil Union is to deny themselves with a civil union under the law and they will not do that.

The injustice here is that the recognized rights of marriage are removed, and given to another institution. This proposition is not the seeking to elevate homosexual unions, but rather to reduce marriage to the same level.

Also, I think you are wrong in saying "They are fighting for Marriage-Union accepted by God and they cannot get that. " I doubt they care about this at all. They are looking for their relationships to be viewed as the moral equal of a heterosexual marriage. Therefore, if Proposition 8 prevents them from elevating “civil unions” to marriage, the next thing is to reduce marriage to a “domestic partnership.”

 

[c659smith]

The injustice here is that the recognized rights of marriage are removed, and given to another institution. This proposition is not the seeking to elevate homosexual unions, but rather to reduce marriage to the same level.

Also, I think you are wrong in saying "They are fighting for Marriage-Union accepted by God and they cannot get that. " I doubt they care about this at all. They are looking for their relationships to be viewed as the moral equal of a heterosexual marriage. Therefore, if Proposition 8 prevents them from elevating “civil unions” to marriage, the next thing is to reduce marriage to a “domestic partnership.”

Again civil unions were done in socities well before Christ. One creates a civil union with a business contract.

The state has no right doing marriages than the Catholic Church has the right to perform civil unions.

Believe me when I tell you the gay community already have the right for civil unions in the State of California but proposition 8 rightfully removes the word Marriage from such unions it is this they are fighting and objecting to. Religious institutions will still require marriage for adoption services and Catholic Hospitals will still not perform elective abortions.

Marriage is already reduced when civil unions are already the law.

 

[Mike_Dye]

When the state attempts to deny rights under the Church the State looses. The State is more afraid of the Church then the Church from the State.

The worst thing the state could do is take away 501 tax status. The state wants power and by doing that it would shift power by allowing the Church (all) to preach from the pulpit and the state esspecially the secularists will loose control and they will not do that.

Another item esspecially with the Catholic Church is that it is run from a foreign goverment recognized by the United Nations and the United States. Just for giggles what if the Catholic Church if 501 status was removed decided to press the Foreign Embassy issue on all it’s properties and the laws that go with Embassy status.

I truly believe that if the Pastor in cases like this can inform his flock of what is going on. donations will increase at a rate that will more than make up for the assumed loss in revenue.

 

[c659smith]

I truly believe that if the Pastor in cases like this can inform his flock of what is going on. donations will increase at a rate that will more than make up for the assumed loss in revenue.

The Catholic Church has never been left short of cash. If they need they are not shy of asking us and they get whatever they need. It’s more than 501 status. It is political.

 

[chasgoose]

Okay, I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again.

We should be promoting anything that brings marriage closer to the Catholic ideal.

Banning marriage (even if only in the civil sense) drives marriage further away from that. I’m shocked that anyone who calls himself or herself Catholic would be in favor of that.

If gays want to enter into some sort of contract with each other, I can’t stop that. But the promotors of this bill are saying that if homosexuals can’t get married to each other, then no one should be allowed to get married. (And I will also add something else I’ve said before: This fits the classic definition of envy, one of the seven deadly sins. “I can’t have the good thing you have; therefore I will destroy that good thing.”)

Of course the Church would still recognize my marriage, and I do realize that’s what counts the most. But I would no longer be legally married. My children would not be allowed to apply for a marriage license. Those of you who are married: put yourself in my shoes. Do you want the government to tell you you’re not married?

I can’t believe any Catholic would be in favor of something that destroys marriage, whether in a religious or legal sense!

I’m sorry, but I have to disagree. In my mind what destroys marriage are things like when a man and a woman get drunk one night in Vegas and wake up the next morning with a marriage license that tells them they are married, not the government only offering a domestic partnership license/putting spouse A and spouse B instead of husband and wife on a form. There is absolutely no comparison between that (or any civil marriage) and the sacrament of marriage offered by the Catholic Church. It makes me more angry that people also get to call themselves married (for the few hours until they sober up and get a quickie divorce…) than it would for the government to tell me (if I were married) that in their eyes I wasn’t married, and that my children will never be married in their eyes either. What the state says or doesn’t say shouldn’t matter since it’s only how God sees your relationship with your husband that matters.

Personally, I don’t want the government to be able to tell ANYONE that they are married, because that is not for them to decide. All a marriage license is good for are the legal rights a privileges that are bestowed upon married couples. It might say you are married, but that is only a matter of semantics. If you aren’t married in God’s eyes, then you aren’t married. I have always believed that the government should never have had the right to give marriage licenses in the first place. In a backwards way, the Prop 8 controversy might finally force the country to take this idea more seriously.

 

[Kay_Cee]

I’m sorry, but I have to disagree. In my mind what destroys marriage are things like when a man and a woman get drunk one night in Vegas and wake up the next morning with a marriage license that tells them they are married, not the government only offering a domestic partnership license/putting spouse A and spouse B instead of husband and wife on a form. There is absolutely no comparison between that (or any civil marriage) and the sacrament of marriage offered by the Catholic Church. It makes me more angry that people also get to call themselves married (for the few hours until they sober up and get a quickie divorce…) than it would for the government to tell me (if I were married) that in their eyes I wasn’t married, and that my children will never be married in their eyes either. What the state says or doesn’t say shouldn’t matter since it’s only how God sees your relationship with your husband that matters.

1. Two people getting drunk and waking up married is by far–by a staggering amount of light years–the *exception, *not the norm.
2. Such a “marriage” is eligible for a civil annulment, which means a marriage never took place–which also means your example of a civil marriage is not an example of a civil marriage.

Personally, I don’t want the government to be able to tell ANYONE that they are married, because that is not for them to decide. All a marriage license is good for are the legal rights a privileges that are bestowed upon married couples. It might say you are married, but that is only a matter of semantics. If you aren’t married in God’s eyes, then you aren’t married. I have always believed that the government should never have had the right to give marriage licenses in the first place. In a backwards way, the Prop 8 controversy might finally force the country to take this idea more seriously.

Personally, I don’t want the government to be able to tell ANYONE who has been married that they are NOT married, because that is not for them to decide.

A state declaring none of its citizens are married will not force the country to take the idea of marriage more seriously. It will not take the idea of marriage at all, for how can one take the idea of something which no longer exists?

We should be promoting civil marriage getting closer to the Catholic ideal, not applauding it moving farther away, especially moving so far away it ceases to be marriage at all.

 

[DavWan]

Again civil unions were done in socities well before Christ. One creates a civil union with a business contract.

The state has no right doing marriages than the Catholic Church has the right to perform civil unions.

This is your misunderstanding. Catholic marriages have in themselves certain rights outside of the state’s authority. However, the state in this case is declaring that marriage does not have these rights. Therefore this is an usurpation of the rights of the family.

Believe me when I tell you the gay community already have the right for civil unions in the State of California but proposition 8 rightfully removes the word Marriage from such unions it is this they are fighting and objecting to. Religious institutions will still require marriage for adoption services and Catholic Hospitals will still not perform elective abortions.

Marriage is already reduced when civil unions are already the law.

Ah, but under the wording of the proposition, marriage will be nothing but a social ceremony. Therefore, under the state, people who are married, but do not also have a Domestic Partnership will not have the legal protections they have now. Therefore, if one is married but does not have a domestic partnership, they will not have any legal protections as a married couple.

Anywhere the law requires something for married couples, it no longer well require. Instead the Domestic Partnership will replace it.

Catholic hospitals and adoption services will of course have to choose between complying with the new law (which means all Domestic Partnerships are the same) or shutting down. You seem to think this is acceptable. However, neither is acceptable compared to the option of being allowed to continue as they are.

 

[DavWan]

I’m sorry, but I have to disagree. In my mind what destroys marriage are things like when a man and a woman get drunk one night in Vegas and wake up the next morning with a marriage license that tells them they are married, not the government only offering a domestic partnership license/putting spouse A and spouse B instead of husband and wife on a form. There is absolutely no comparison between that (or any civil marriage) and the sacrament of marriage offered by the Catholic Church. It makes me more angry that people also get to call themselves married (for the few hours until they sober up and get a quickie divorce…) than it would for the government to tell me (if I were married) that in their eyes I wasn’t married, and that my children will never be married in their eyes either. What the state says or doesn’t say shouldn’t matter since it’s only how God sees your relationship with your husband that matters.

While what you describe is something that destroys respect for the institution of marriage, and thus leads to the false argument that “if we permit this, we should permit gay marriage,” you would be incorrect in claiming that the proposed change to the law would not be harmful.

While you are correct in saying the government has no right to do this and you are correct in saying that marriage will continue to be unchanged in the eyes of the Church and before God, this change will affect Catholics in daily life. The Catholic husband will have no more legal rights over his children than the biological father does in a “shacking up” relationship without a Domestic Partnership.

If a couple has a Catholic marriage but not a Domestic Partnership, then if the marriage tragically falls apart, there is no protection for one spouse against being abandoned by another.

I think you fail to realize how many rights you have now which can either be removed by the state (if the law is applied ex post facto, which while unconstitutional would not surprise me in modern days) or would affect Catholic couples married after such a law comes into effect.

Personally, I don’t want the government to be able to tell ANYONE that they are married, because that is not for them to decide. All a marriage license is good for are the legal rights a privileges that are bestowed upon married couples. It might say you are married, but that is only a matter of semantics. If you aren’t married in God’s eyes, then you aren’t married. I have always believed that the government should never have had the right to give marriage licenses in the first place. In a backwards way, the Prop 8 controversy might finally force the country to take this idea more seriously.

I agree. The State *should *not have such a right. However the State does claim the right, and is supported by the US Government. Because of this, we need to oppose any changes which remove our civil rights as Catholics. Now the state is seeking to remove the basic assumptions of what a religious marriage is in terms of what rights a Sacramental Marriage has under the law.

People need to understand that this is not the elevating of Domestic partnership. It is the denigration of your rights as husband and wife married in the Church.

 

[chasgoose]

1. Two people getting drunk and waking up married is by far–by a staggering amount of light years–the *exception, *not the norm.
2. Such a “marriage” is eligible for a civil annulment, which means a marriage never took place–which also means your example of a civil marriage is not an example of a civil marriage.

Personally, I don’t want the government to be able to tell ANYONE who has been married that they are NOT married, because that is not for them to decide.

A state declaring none of its citizens are married will not force the country to take the idea of marriage more seriously. It will not take the idea of marriage at all, for how can one take the idea of something which no longer exists?

We should be promoting civil marriage getting closer to the Catholic ideal, not applauding it moving farther away, especially moving so far away it ceases to be marriage at all.

I will admit my example was extreme, but to be honest I don’t really think the government SHOULD be allowed to tell anyone they are married. It’s not their place. A civil marriage is just as far removed from a sacramental marriage as a domestic partnership is so there is no reason not to call them what they really are. You would still be married in the eyes of God, which is all that really matters and your children would still be able to get married in a Catholic church. This is truly the best solution. The institution of marriage is preserved and placed solely in the hands of God where it belongs, while also allowing for people to have equal rights.

 

[Kay_Cee]

I will admit my example was extreme, but to be honest I don’t really think the government SHOULD be allowed to tell anyone they are married. It’s not their place.

And again I will state that they should not be allowed to tell me I’m not married. It’s not their place. Yet, that is exactly what this law would do.

A civil marriage is just as far removed from a sacramental marriage as a domestic partnership is so there is no reason not to call them what they really are.

That is flat out incorrect. Currently, one must marry a person of the opposite sex. In a so-called domestic partnership, that does not apply.

You would still be married in the eyes of God, which is all that really matters and your children would still be able to get married in a Catholic church.

While it is true that I would still be married in the eyes of God, that is absolutely not all that really matters. I have to live on this earth too. I would be told my husband is not my husband. I would be told I am not his wife. My children would be told their parents aren’t married. They would be told they could never marry. The way relationships are viewed does make a difference. If you don’t think this will adversely affect the family, you are living in a dream world.

This is truly the best solution.

It is not a solution at all. It is a destruction.

The institution of marriage is preserved and placed solely in the hands of God where it belongs, while also allowing for people to have equal rights.

Placed by whom, exactly? (And please do answer that question!)

As for equal rights, homosexuals already have that. They have the exact same equal right to marry in the state of California that heterosexuals do–which is that if they marry, they must marry a person of the opposite sex.

 

[fix]

I’m sorry, but I have to disagree. In my mind what destroys marriage are things like when a man and a woman get drunk one night in Vegas and wake up the next morning with a marriage license that tells them they are married, not the government only offering a domestic partnership license/putting spouse A and spouse B instead of husband and wife on a form. There is absolutely no comparison between that (or any civil marriage) and the sacrament of marriage offered by the Catholic Church. It makes me more angry that people also get to call themselves married (for the few hours until they sober up and get a quickie divorce…) than it would for the government to tell me (if I were married) that in their eyes I wasn’t married, and that my children will never be married in their eyes either. What the state says or doesn’t say shouldn’t matter since it’s only how God sees your relationship with your husband that matters.

Personally, I don’t want the government to be able to tell ANYONE that they are married, because that is not for them to decide. All a marriage license is good for are the legal rights a privileges that are bestowed upon married couples. It might say you are married, but that is only a matter of semantics. If you aren’t married in God’s eyes, then you aren’t married. I have always believed that the government should never have had the right to give marriage licenses in the first place. In a backwards way, the Prop 8 controversy might finally force the country to take this idea more seriously.

The law is a teacher. What some want the state to teach is that marriage is of minor import and anything goes. The truth is the state should be protecting marriage as it is fundamental to a stable society.

 

[RobbyS]

The injustice here is that the recognized rights of marriage are removed, and given to another institution. This proposition is not the seeking to elevate homosexual unions, but rather to reduce marriage to the same level.

Also, I think you are wrong in saying "They are fighting for Marriage-Union accepted by God and they cannot get that. " I doubt they care about this at all. They are looking for their relationships to be viewed as the moral equal of a heterosexual marriage. Therefore, if Proposition 8 prevents them from elevating “civil unions” to marriage, the next thing is to reduce marriage to a “domestic partnership.”

Correct.

 

[RobbyS]

The law is a teacher. What some want the state to teach is that marriage is of minor import and anything goes. The truth is the state should be protecting marriage as it is fundamental to a stable society.

Correct. In this country, what is legal is moral. Many of the informal restraints on bad behavior have been removed, with the result we have a huge prison population, because people push the envelope until they are locked up.

 

[fix]

Correct. In this country, what is legal is moral. Many of the informal restraints on bad behavior have been removed, with the result we have a huge prison population, because people push the envelope until they are locked up.

We cannot discount the roles of relativism and hedonism in all this. I read constantly that people think anything goes as long as there is no immediate, direct, physical harm. The bar is set so low because they have an erroneous understanding of freedom.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Something else has occurred to me. If the state of California tells me I do not have a marriage, that I have only a domestic partnership, that is a lie. Such a thing is the bearing of false witness.

To support such a thing is to endorse the bearing of false witness.

 

[chasgoose]

And again I will state that they should not be allowed to tell me I’m not married. It’s not their place. Yet, that is exactly what this law would do.

That is flat out incorrect. Currently, one must marry a person of the opposite sex. In a so-called domestic partnership, that does not apply.

While it is true that I would still be married in the eyes of God, that is absolutely not all that really matters. I have to live on this earth too. I would be told my husband is not my husband. I would be told I am not his wife. My children would be told their parents aren’t married. They would be told they could never marry. The way relationships are viewed does make a difference. If you don’t think this will adversely affect the family, you are living in a dream world.

It is not a solution at all. It is a destruction.

Placed by whom, exactly? (And please do answer that question!)

As for equal rights, homosexuals already have that. They have the exact same equal right to marry in the state of California that heterosexuals do–which is that if they marry, they must marry a person of the opposite sex.

RE: “Placed by whom, exactly?” I guess my point wasn’t so much that getting rid of civil marriage will place control of marriage in the hands of the church/God, merely that it would reflect that the state should not have the authority to “marry” people, as I believe that only God can do that. How can you argue that gay marriage is a threat to the institution of marriage and not see civil marriage with no foundation in God as a similar, if not as damaging, threat. Even before gay marriage was even a consideration, marriage was already under siege by the many Americans that don’t take marriage seriously enough. The divorce rate has hovered around 50% for decades now, and if that isn’t a threat to marriage, I don’t know what is. You argue that civil marriages would encourage people to take the institution of marriage more seriously, but unfortunately that has simply not been the case since civil marriages were made available and I don’t see that changing any time soon. European countries have done this for years now and the institution of marriage managed to continue on unharmed.

The problem is that the state has never viewed marriage as a sacred institution. In their eyes, it’s merely a demographic term that entitles those who receive a marriage license to certain rights and protections that other couples do not have. Stripping the term “marriage” from the state and replacing it with “domestic partnership” would more accurately reflect the rather cavalier attitude they have displayed towards marriage. I think the institution of marriage would be better protected if it were only made available to those who treated it with the seriousness of purpose and reverence that it deserves. It shouldn’t matter how the state refers to your marriage. If you were married in a church, you are married, enough said. Nothing the state does can change that. I also wouldn’t worry about how your children will be taught about marriage in schools. The terms “marriage,” “husband,” and “wife” are so entrenched in our vocabulary and a semantic change to the civil definition of marriage will not affect that. Yes there will probably be more couples (male/female couples included) that will refer to themselves as “partners” rather than “husband and wife,” but to be honest those people clearly never took and never will take the institution of marriage seriously so that really isn’t a huge loss.

Finally, to address your argument that the state should encourage couples to take a more Catholic attitude towards marriage, I simply can’t agree. I am a devout Catholic, but civil law has to reflect society as a whole, not just the beliefs of one group. By rejecting civil marriage, the state can more accurately represent all of its citzens, while allowing individual religious groups to treat marriage as they see fit.

 

[fix]

The state derives its authority from God. They can use it or misuse it. The state is composed of citizens. It is not some separate entity that should be separated from moral truth or devoid of moral values.

In fact, proposing abolishing civil marriage seems another step toward tryanny. It is another way to marginalize virtue and prop up vice. All the while playing silly legal games.

 

[Kay_Cee]

RE: “Placed by whom, exactly?” I guess my point wasn’t so much that getting rid of civil marriage will place control of marriage in the hands of the church/God, merely that it would reflect that the state should not have the authority to “marry” people, as I believe that only God can do that. How can you argue that gay marriage is a threat to the institution of marriage and not see civil marriage with no foundation in God as a similar, if not as damaging, threat. Even before gay marriage was even a consideration, marriage was already under siege by the many Americans that don’t take marriage seriously enough. The divorce rate has hovered around 50% for decades now, and if that isn’t a threat to marriage, I don’t know what is. You argue that civil marriages would encourage people to take the institution of marriage more seriously, but unfortunately that has simply not been the case since civil marriages were made available and I don’t see that changing any time soon. European countries have done this for years now and the institution of marriage managed to continue on unharmed.

I never said the bolded portion above. What I said was that we should encourage civil marriage to become more like Catholic marriage. This includes making it actually mean “until death do us part.”

The problem is that the state has never viewed marriage as a sacred institution. In their eyes, it’s merely a demographic term that entitles those who receive a marriage license to certain rights and protections that other couples do not have. Stripping the term “marriage” from the state and replacing it with “domestic partnership” would more accurately reflect the rather cavalier attitude they have displayed towards marriage. I think the institution of marriage would be better protected if it were only made available to those who treated it with the seriousness of purpose and reverence that it deserves. It shouldn’t matter how the state refers to your marriage.

Lies don’t matter? Bearing false witness doesn’t matter?

If you were married in a church, you are married, enough said. Nothing the state does can change that. I also wouldn’t worry about how your children will be taught about marriage in schools. The terms “marriage,” “husband,” and “wife” are so entrenched in our vocabulary and a semantic change to the civil definition of marriage will not affect that. Yes there will probably be more couples (male/female couples included) that will refer to themselves as “partners” rather than “husband and wife,” but to be honest those people clearly never took and never will take the institution of marriage seriously so that really isn’t a huge loss.

And, as “domestic partnership” becomes more and more accepted, the terms “marriage” and “husband” and “wife” will become less and less used.

Finally, to address your argument that the state should encourage couples to take a more Catholic attitude towards marriage, I simply can’t agree. I am a devout Catholic, but civil law has to reflect society as a whole, not just the beliefs of one group. By rejecting civil marriage, the state can more accurately represent all of its citzens, while allowing individual religious groups to treat marriage as they see fit.

I can scarcely believe you said *this! *It is our duty as Catholics to help make the entire world more Christ-like. We *tolerate *opinions we disagree with; we do not *accept *them. And we certainly should not desire for them to be written into law.

But, as you say above, I am married. So then it follows that if the state says I am not married, that is a lie. You say you’re a devout Catholic, but you seem to having no problem with the state spawning a lie. And we all know where lies come from (hint: not from heaven).

 

[Benadam]

So, in the state of California, is it better to allow the word ‘marriage’ to be abused by the state, along with the original union instituted, by allowing it to institute unions that do not meet the requirements the word was originally coined for,

or

is it better to have the word removed altogether which no longer reinforces in the state of California, the dignity of the marital bond as defined by the Church?