Banning Civil Marriage in California

[Kay_Cee]

In another thread, I brought up the following:

According to my morning paper, there’s a movement afoot in California to create a ballot measure for the next election. It would ban the word “marriage” from all state laws, replacing it with “domestic partnership.”

In other words, there are those who want to claim I am not married at all, only in a “partnership.” According to the paper, “The proposal is in response to a voter-approved same-sex marriage ban that passed in November.”

You can read the other thread here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=317387&page=5 Start with post 71. You can view the proposal here: sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm

What bothers me is that another poster, one who claims to be Catholic, has said “this might be the ideal solution.”

To me this is a classic definition of envy, one of the seven deadly sins: “I can’t have this good thing you have; therefore, I will see to it that you can’t have it either.”

I also see this as an attack on marriage itself and am appalled that anyone would be in favor of this.

Comments?

 

[Princess18]

I don’t know. Marriage is one area where I think there SHOULD be a separation between church and state … and by that I mean “what God has joined, let no man put asunder”. I don’ t think that civil authorities should have the right to dissolve a marriage.

Taking that a step further would be to say that civil authorities do not have the authority to create a real marriage. What they create is legal unions. Calling it marriage is kind of insulting if you think about it … the disposable nature of legal marriage cheapens the real life-long commitment of the sacrament.

Here’s an imaginary plan: If you want to start or end a legal union between you and any other person, go for it. This isn’t foreign territory, as legal unions currently don’t even have to be between people, they can be between corporations. You’d be subject to the terms of your contract as far as assets, debts, decision-making authority, insurance, acquisitions, etc. However, if you want to be married and considered husband and wife, you have to go to church to do it and it’s permanent. This is the only option if you want to make decisions about each others’ lives, children, medical care, and so forth.

(Okay, so the idea needs a lot of tweaking).

I agree with not allowing gay marriage as a way to preserve the sanctity of marriage … but how about taking steps to make sure that “sanctity of marriage” is something that actually exists?

I think baptism is scarily close to going the secular route as well. I have a friend that’s an atheist that wanted her son baptised. I asked how can someone who doesn’t believe in God feel a need for this? She says “Well, it’s like marriage, the piece of paper doesn’t mean actually mean anything. One day he will appreciate that I performed a ceremony meant to help him be a good person”.

YIKES

 

[fix]

What bothers me is that another poster, one who claims to be Catholic, has said “this might be the ideal solution.”

Ideal? It may be some sort of solution, but it is not Catholic and not good.

There is no reason to change what marriage actually is or to re-write civil law to marginalize marriage. The solution is to have more authentic, faithful, Catholics involved in law and politics. That would help change perception among the sea of relativists.

 

[newbetx]

Well, I hear in Mexico you need a civil marriage THEN you can get married in the Church. Not sure that this isn’t the same thing. In other words, Marriage is reserved for the religious sacrement… the partnership is the legal/financial contract.

 

[Eucharisted]

I can think of a good commerical to help us pro-marriage folks:

Picture a bride and a groom at the altar, happily smiling, laughing, overflowing with joy, the minister smiling at them, beautiful music playing. Then it cuts to a family, happy, a son doing his homework and a daughter playing with the dog, while the husband goes to play with the dog too and the mother helps the son. Then it cuts to a black screen with the message Save Marriage, Save the Family.

A Christian pro-marriage commercial could go like this:

There is a large wedding in ancient Israel, and a servant goes to get the wine. But there is none left, it’s all been drunk. The servant goes to Mary, who tells him to do what her Son says. He than goes to Jesus, and He tells him to fill the jars with water. The servant is baffled, but he dose it anyways. Water pours into the jars, but they get filled with wine, and the miracle brings joyous surprise to all at the wedding, especially the bride and bridegroom. Then it cuts to a white screen with the message Marriage Is Holy.

 

[Badaliyyah]

it would get California out of a separate-but-equal situation in which the exact same rights are being given to two different groups under two different names (marriage for two persons of the opposite sex and civil unions for two persons of the same sex). The current situation in California is absurd.

On the other hand, I don’t think this is really going to go anywhere. What you are actually going to see in California is a marriage amendment appear repeatedly on the California ballot until public opinion in the state shifts decisively in one direction or the other with regards to marriage.

Going off on a slight tangent, it would not hurt the Catholic Church to get out of the marriage business for the states. If all that was going on in a Catholic marriage ceremony were sacramental marriage then you would get fewer people using the Catholic Church when all they want, in reality, is a civil union. This would allow greater focus on the purpose of marriage in the Catholic Church.

This kind of separation between the sacrament and the civil union is already in place in many other countries (Mexico, parts of South America, etc.).

salaam.

 

[magdelaine]

Well, I hear in Mexico you need a civil marriage THEN you can get married in the Church. Not sure that this isn’t the same thing. In other words, Marriage is reserved for the religious sacrement… the partnership is the legal/financial contract.

This is the same basically in California, except that you turn in one set of paperwork with the church, and one set with the county registrar. It’s not the double set of hoops to jump through that is the problem; it’s calling one set “domestic partnership”. Another poster is right, this is totally a case of sour grapes with a large case of "If I can’t have it, neither can you!

 

[magdelaine]

it would get California out of a separate-but-equal situation in which the exact same rights are being given to two different groups under two different names (marriage for two persons of the opposite sex and civil unions for two persons of the same sex). The current situation in California is absurd.

I agree it’s absurd. I think it’s absurd that the civil union exists in the first place. I think that it’s absurd that although it *does *exist homoactivists won’t be happy until it’s called marriage and thus destroys the institution that actually *is *marriage. Separate but equal has no bearing here because a marriage is not a marriage without there being a bride and groom.

The solution is neither to change the meaning of “marriage” nor is it to change the word to “domestic partnership”.

 

[apromisemade]

Personally I think a lot of the anti-gay-marriage movement brought this on themselves. By making the laughable argument that they “just don’t want the word marriage redefined”, they made it sound as though it *was *all about just a word. Which is not only ridiculous but more of an evasion tactic than anything else.
I don’t see it as envy so much as an attempt at compromise. Maybe if both sides of this issue would quit their childish antics and actually communicate with eachother we wouldn’t need the state to mediate the way it is.
I hardly see any point in discussing it anymore. Gay marriage will be legal in this country before my time on this earth is up. Any fool could see that’s just inevitable. The majority of anti-gay activists in this nation are members of the older population. Fighting against gay marriage amongst my peers is just not something you do. Once my generation takes over and equality prevails everyone will look back at this conflict and simply shake their heads and wonder what the heck we were thinking even considering gay people be treated unequally under the law in such a blatantly prejudice way.

 

[magdelaine]

There is unrest in the forest
There is trouble with the trees
For the maples want more sunligh
And the oaks ignore their pleas

The trouble with the maples
(and theyre quite convinced theyre right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light
But the oaks cant help their feelings
If they like the way theyre made
And they wonder why the maples
Cant be happy in their shade?

There is trouble in the forest
And the creatures all have fled
As the maples scream oppression!
And the oaks, just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
the oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light
Now theres no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet,
Axe,
And saw …

The Trees
by Rush

 

[Rolltide]

I’m reposting my response to the original poster from the original thread over here also:

I think what might be happening here is that we’re talking past each other, while trying to say somewhat the same thing. I don’t know how I’m supporting the idea of your husband no longer being your husband. You’re married in the Catholic Church, right? Well, then you’re married! What the state says matters in no way at all, except with regard to the preservation of legal rights. The way I’m reading this bill, and I may not be reading it right, is that the state is simply getting out of the marriage business. This is just how the Catholic Church USED to have things for 1800 years until civil governments thought they knew better and started “civil” marriage in the first place. I’m interpreting this bill as protecting the sanctity of marriage by returning it to the actual definition… an oath to God (and sacrament) proclaiming the permanent union of a man and woman who love each other for the purposes of raising a family. The state would finally leave marriage alone, and put it back in the hands of religious leaders. The legal rights of these marriages would then be recognized. You go sign another document, and the state recognizes a combination of assets and legal rights. That’s all. This is how things used to be, and it’s how it remains in many countries throughout the world (most ESPECIALLY Catholic countries, such as in Latin America). In fact, this was essentially the system that the church tried to PROTECT during the chaos of the French Revolution and the Latin American wars of independence (especially Pope Pius VI and VII)!

Remember when Henry VIII wanted a divorce? He petitioned the Catholic Church for an annulment, and it was refused. The state could do nothing about it. Long story short, he breaks from Rome and forms his own church that then validates his divorce. Now, the state was the protector of the LEGAL rights of the married couple, but it wasn’t a civil marriage. Clearly, people of that era were genuinely married. I read this California law as returning to a system something akin to this. The state would no longer perform marriages, but recognize the legal rights of those performed by religious denominations. As I mentioned before, civil marriage came about when people wanted to separate church and state, and a statistically significant number of people became deists, agnostic, or atheists. They wanted to maintain “marriage”, but as a partnership of love, not of family, and without any religious connotations. This is where the definition of marriage really starts to change. People who were non-religious or marginally religious tried to take over the definition of the institution so that it wasn’t a religious institution anymore.

Now, if this law actually states that there is no longer such a thing as marriage, even as performed by religious denominations inside of a church, THEN we have a problem!

 

[thunderballs75]

I think the state should stay out of marriage. Only the Church has the power to provide true marriage. The state should only give civil unions which guarantees legal rights for partners.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I agree with the “absurdity” arguments, but I think this is so obviously a response to what is foreseen as a fait accompli in the CA Supreme Court within 60 days. Gays are fighting with the same weapons that we pro-prop8 people fought with: the Initiative process. And why? Because a little-publicized Field Poll from last week stated that there has been a slight shift by the voting public as a result of the brainwashing…I mean, publicity…of the anti-8 forces since November: Now 47% of the public say they would vote No on 8; 46% Yes, 5% undecided.

Wake up, Catholics, Mormons, all you who love the traditional family. As soon as gay couples acquire the same rights as non-gay couples, they will claim equal access to parenthood, so adoption agencies will have to consider them equally with straight couples, not in any priority list. I think it is calculated that they are calling these “partnerships” and not civil unions. I do approve of insurance, property, inheritance, hospital equal access, etc. But all those rights can be acquired through civil unions. We’ve talked about this on many other threads. This is about “equalizing” the sexuality behavior and about re-appropriating language so as to neutralize the concept of morality within society and our social institutions. Interesting timing since I just watched Fr. Corapi on Pacwa’s show tonight.

 

[elts1956]

I agree with the “absurdity” arguments, but I think this is so obviously a response to what is foreseen as a fait accompli in the CA Supreme Court within 60 days. Gays are fighting with the same weapons that we pro-prop8 people fought with: the Initiative process. And why? Because a little-publicized Field Poll from last week stated that there has been a slight shift by the voting public as a result of the brainwashing…I mean, publicity…of the anti-8 forces since November: Now 47% of the public say they would vote No on 8; 46% Yes, 5% undecided.

Wake up, Catholics, Mormons, all you who love the traditional family. As soon as gay couples acquire the same rights as non-gay couples, they will claim equal access to parenthood, so adoption agencies will have to consider them equally with straight couples, not in any priority list. I think it is calculated that they are calling these “partnerships” and not civil unions. I do approve of insurance, property, inheritance, hospital equal access, etc. But all those rights can be acquired through civil unions. We’ve talked about this on many other threads. This is about “equalizing” the sexuality behavior and about re-appropriating language so as to neutralize the concept of morality within society and our social institutions. Interesting timing since I just watched Fr. Corapi on Pacwa’s show tonight.

Elizabeth, there are already state laws specifying a service organization cannot refuse to place children with homosexual couples. Boston Catholic Charities have stopped providing adoption services because of this law rather than going against their conscience. Sound familiar? The Catholic Hospitals and Catholic medical providers may be next because of FOCA.

 

[fix]

Those catholics who think the state should not have laws protecting marriage should
take a look at what this Catholic is teaching:

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…
Joseph Card. Ratzinger

 

[fix]

This kind of separation between the sacrament and the civil union is already in place in many other countries (Mexico, parts of South America, etc.).

salaam.

Don’t places like Mexico have a history of anti clericalism?

 

[Badaliyyah]

Don’t places like Mexico have a history of anti clericalism?

One would hardly call the United States a Catholic country, nor is it noted for having great respect for authorities simply for authority’s sake.

The Church would be well served to get out of business of performing marriages for the state. When you perform a function on the behalf of the state, the state gets to tell you what that function is and what it means: namely whatever the law says it is. It is a way of controlling the Church.

salaam.

 

[Kay_Cee]

**Now, if this law actually states that there is no longer such a thing as marriage, even as performed by religious denominations inside of a church, THEN we have a problem! **

That is exactly what this law proposes!!! There would be no marriage within the state of California, not in the legal sense. If you had a wedding inside the Catholic Church, the Church would call it a marriage, but the state would not. The state would insist it’s a “domestic partnership.” You wouldn’t have a marriage license, you would have a “domestic partnership” license. Since I wouldn’t be married in the eyes of the state, my husband would no longer be my husband in any legal sense. (The licenses during the time gay marriage was legal here eliminated the words “bride” and “groom,” substituting “spouse A” and “spouse B.”) Well, I want to be recognized by all as my husband’s wife, not just my spouse’s spouse.

Have you stopped to think about the problems this will cause? This is what will be taught in our public schools! Children will be told one “domestic partnership” is equal to another, thereby validating homosexuality. They will be taught about how we finally became enlightened enough to get destroy that old institution marriage and create glorious domestic partnerships instead. They may very well be taken on field trips to observe a “domestic partnership ceremony.” (Already a kindergarten class–against the parents’ wishes–was taken to observe a gay “wedding.”) You want your kids and grandkids taught that?

Since one “domestic partnership” will be legally equal to another, those who in the past have supplied services for weddings–such as photographers, florists, musicians, etc.-- will not be able to legally deny their services to gay couples, thereby being forced to either go against their consciences by giving tacit approval to such relationships or go out of business altogether. Catholic organizations that rent property will be forced to rent it to gay couples celebrating their “domestic partnership” reception or be slapped with a lawsuit. You want that too? (If you think this won’t happen, think again. It already has.)

We should not be downgrading marriage. We should desire that civil marriage be closer to religious marriage, not driving it further away. I object to having my marriage, at any level, being downgraded. I’m sure you don’t see it this way, but I see your support of this as an attack on my marriage, and I take that very personally.

In every way, shape, and form we should be promoting society getting closer to the Catholic ideal. Instead, you applaud it being driven futher away. Have you stopped to think how this will affect heterosexual couples with no religious affiliation? If a man wants to marry a woman in order to beget children and thereby create a family, he will not be able to do so.

If the gay community gets behind this, it will show their real intentions. They had an anti-prop 8 ad that stated, “What if you couldn’t marry the person you love?” Well, what if you couldn’t marry, period? They claim they want marriage. But this is not marriage; this is “non-marriage.” If they get behind this, it will show what they have really wanted all along is the destruction of marriage.

You seem to see this as some sort of compromise, as an alternative to marriage. That is not what’s being proposed here. What’s being proposed is a *substitution, *not an alternative.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Elizabeth, there are already state laws specifying a service organization cannot refuse to place children with homosexual couples. Boston Catholic Charities have stopped providing adoption services because of this law rather than going against their conscience. Sound familiar? The Catholic Hospitals and Catholic medical providers may be next because of FOCA.

I know that, elts, but again, you miss my point. “Refusing to place children” is not the same as preferring traditional couples. Plenty of agencies are allowed to do that now, because of the legal fact that homosexual unions are not considered in the same category of unions. It’s all about the categories, believe me. They want to obliterate all distinctions. I’m not usually a paranoid type, but given the gay influence in the CA press, I don’t think it’s accidental that both the Field Poll and the Ballot Initiative were under-publicized. (And they were.) That’s given that both are major news.

 

[Newbie2]

Have you stopped to think about the problems this will cause? This is what will be taught in our public schools! Children will be told one “domestic partnership” is equal to another, thereby validating homosexuality. They will be taught about how we finally became enlightened enough to get destroy that old institution marriage and create glorious domestic partnerships instead. They may very well be taken on field trips to observe a “domestic partnership ceremony.” (Already a kindergarten class–against the parents’ wishes–was taken to observe a gay “wedding.”) You want your kids and grandkids taught that?

Since one “domestic partnership” will be legally equal to another, those who in the past have supplied services for weddings–such as photographers, florists, musicians, etc.-- will not be able to legally deny their services to gay couples, thereby being forced to either go against their consciences by giving tacit approval to such relationships or go out of business altogether. Catholic organizations that rent property will be forced to rent it to gay couples celebrating their “domestic partnership” reception or be slapped with a lawsuit. You want that too? (If you think this won’t happen, think again. It already has.)

You seem to see this as some sort of compromise, as an alternative to marriage. That is not what’s being proposed here. What’s being proposed is a *substitution, *not an alternative.

VERY well put.