Banning Civil Marriage in California

[Rolltide]

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.

AHHHHH… ok. See, I suspected we were talking past each other. I misunderstood that the law removed clerical marriage as well. I was working on the assumption that clerical marriage would be protected, but civil marriage was thrown out. Now, that’s an entirely different situation from the way things were historically done in the Catholic Church in the past.

 

[Badaliyyah]

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.

Given that the only thing the state of California cares about is what legal responsibilities and benefits you have in relation to another person, whatever they call it, it already isn’t marriage in the Catholic sense. Legal marriage is not a sacrament, and the sacrament is not a legal contract between two persons (which is effectively what legal unions are).

salaam.

 

[Kay_Cee]

AHHHHH… ok. See, I suspected we were talking past each other. I misunderstood that the law removed clerical marriage as well. I was working on the assumption that clerical marriage would be protected, but civil marriage was thrown out. Now, that’s an entirely different situation from the way things were historically done in the Catholic Church in the past.

Okay, then. I hope we’re okay with each other now. :hug3:

 

[fix]

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.

Does that mean anything goes?

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.

The problem is we have too many in governemnt who embrace moral relativism. The answer is not marginalizing the natural institution of marriage.

 

[Badaliyyah]

Does that mean anything goes?

The problem is we have too many in governemnt who embrace moral relativism. The answer is not marginalizing the natural institution of marriage.

It means we need to stop pretending that there is this basic compatibility between being Catholic and being American. The way in which American Catholics have embraced liberal gov’t since the 1960s (just to use JFK’s speech as a marker) was based on a fundamental misreading of the situation. Catholicism became content with playing the American game in which religious institutions prop up the state and are allowed to exist as long as, and insofar as, they support American values. The longer the Church in America continues to play this game, and both ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’ as those terms are used here play precisely this game, the harder it will be to disentangle itself and be the Catholic Church.

E.g.: Get out of the business of performing marriage for the states while it is still relatively easy to untangle ourselves from the mess that legally goes under the name “marriage”.

salaam.

 

[Rolltide]

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

Most of Latin America is highly Catholic. Mexico and Guatemala, however, have had terrible conflicts regarding the Catholic Church in the twentieth century. In both of these countries, the situation has improved significantly. That said, it still resulted in the conversion of almost half the population of Guatemala to Protestantism.

 

[fix]

It means we need to stop pretending that there is this basic compatibility between being Catholic and being American. The way in which American Catholics have embraced liberal gov’t since the 1960s (just to use JFK’s speech as a marker) was based on a fundamental misreading of the situation. Catholicism became content with playing the American game in which religious institutions prop up the state and are allowed to exist as long as, and insofar as, they support American values. The longer the Church in America continues to play this game, and both ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’ as those terms are used here play precisely this game, the harder it will be to disentangle itself and be the Catholic Church.

E.g.: Get out of the business of performing marriage for the states while it is still relatively easy to untangle ourselves from the mess that legally goes under the name “marriage”.

salaam.

I agree the answer is not the JFK avenue. That does not mean Catholics should not be a source of good to infuse morality into society.

Retreating is not the answer.

 

[Princess18]

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?

True, but they already tout the equality of their disposable legal “marriage” as equal to my sacramental one. This validates the temporary nature of modern marriage as little more than a piece of paper that provides for cheaper health insurance and tax deductions.

Honestly if a teacher told my kid that getting rid of marriage was progress and took them on a gay-nup field trip, I’d yank them out. Society already celebrates homosexuality, rampant sexual activeness, cohabitation, and lack of religion - that’s bad enough for me not to want to put my future kids in public school as it is.

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.)

Religious organizations should retain the right to refuse domestic partnership ceremonies on the grounds that they are not acknowledged by the Church. A priest cannot perform a wedding ceremony that is only legal and not sacramental, nor can two people of the same gender be married. The government cannot dictate who can receive sacraments.

Vendors are already dealing with the repercussions of refusing to provide services to homosexual couples. It is not unusual for a gay pair to have a “commitment” or “ring” ceremony. They dress up likes brides and grooms, say vows, cut the cake, the whole nine yards. Lawsuits are already filed for discrimination - see here. They can’t make a law that protects someone for refusing business based on religious or personal beliefs … otherwise a Christian photographer could refuse to shoot a Jewish wedding.

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.

I’m not sure what you mean here. If he wants to have legal ties to her, then he gets a certificate from the state that says they’re in contract with each other. If they are not affiliated with a religion, it is unlikely they would care that they are not married in the eyes of a church. As it is, far too many couples who DO have religious affiliation think that legal marriage should be “good enough” for God. Nothing is preventing them from having kids, any more than cohabiting couples are prevented from having kids.

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.

I don’t see it as either of those. I see it as a correction of something the state should never have been involved in to begin with. The government does not make marriages, God (through churches) does.

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.

Your marriage is a sacrament and absolutely nothing can downgrade that. Renaming, redefining, or even removing the legal component cannot undo the grace that was bestowed upon you and your husband. Rationally, I’m confident you know that.

I (and others that have posted with similar sentiments) hold marriage in the highest regard, not as something to be played at, disposed of when bored, or violated on a whim. Legal “marriage” makes a mockery of what we value most. Homosexual couples have commitment ceremonies because they want to imitate what we have … true marriage, which they cannot have. They don’t gain any privileges from it, so why else do it? Changing the legal terminology will not grant them this. In fact, it makes it more obvious they are NOT married, that they can’t be.

 

[c659smith]

The subject is not civil unions but marriage.

The point is that most of the gay community wants to be affirmed of a marriage under God.

I think you will find very few disagreements of civil unions amongst the Religious Community. That is fine and is a contract between the State and the individuals entering into a contract for equal rights.

But Marriage is to affirm it is ok with God. All the major Religions states it is a sin. Marriage is defined and gets it’s roots from them.

 

[Cathy]

Marriage pre-dates the state and is the foundation for the state. It is an institution that promotes the common good. It is also the only state institution which protects the basic rights of children to know and be brought up by their biological mother and father if at all possible. Sociology tells us this is best for children and for society. Morality, true philosophy, and science, teach; and the heart of every child knows this is an ideal worth fighting for.

 

[c659smith]

Marriage pre-dates the state and is the foundation for the state. It is an institution that promotes the common good. It is also the only state institution which protects the basic rights of children to know and be brought up by their biological mother and father if at all possible. Sociology tells us this is best for children and for society. Morality, true philosophy, and science, teach; and the heart of every child knows this is an ideal worth fighting for.

Cathy do you agree that if a gay couple want to enter into a civil contract it is their business. If the state wishes to give them financial advantages that is their business. A business agreement.

Marriage though is between one man and one woman

That the Gay community is looking for spiritual acceptance under God and this is what the issue is all about. However the Religious Community calls this adultery and not accepted under God.

Why does California forget the marriage part and go with the word civil unions? Because it is not what the gay community is looking to accomplish. They do not want equality under the law but acceptance by God and it is not ours to give them by definition (marriage)

 

[Kay_Cee]

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!

 

[Elizabeth502]

KayCee,
Emotionally, I prefer to see it your way (as a practicing Catholic myself). But I think any Catholic who “favors” some form of legally inclusive arrangement does so out of preventative pragmatism, so to speak. That is, in the secular State and States in which we live, the religious ideal, including the Catholic ideal, does not dominate the judicially minded and legislatively minded population – especially in the West. The Catholic ideal is the minority ideal – even though, joined with Mormons and traditional Black churches, that ideal won out in November with Proposition 8. And the West in particular is highly susceptible to secular influence, media pressure, and changing political winds. I mentioned this recently on CAF when citing the underpublicized results of the recent Field Poll which records a popular shift slightly away from Prop 8, and which results (or anticipated results) were the reasons for the introduction of this new Ballot Initiative seeking to reverse Prop 8 and seeking to obliterate “marriage” language.

The forces of secularism, atheism, paganism, and New Age are larger, both qualitatively and quantitatively, in CA than religious forces. We got some out-of-state help for Prop 8, but that will not carry the day ultimately, legally. The CA legislature is extremely Left and has a heavy political agenda. The state courts are very Left; if they weren’t, the original decision backing ‘gay marriage’ in May of '08 would never have passed with the one vote margin.

So what Catholics in CA are saying is, 'O.K., have your “weddings,” go ahead and freely associate & “copulate” and cohabit as is allowed in a free society. Pick out your place settings and “play house,” but do it with a different name. Because we value the sacredness of natural marriage, allied as we see it with sacred matrimony, we will go down fighting for the name.

KayCee, I will still fight this ballot initiative with everything I have. I think it will create a nightmare bureaucratically, because I for one will not stand for having my straight marriage nullified by gays with no authority to nullify that legal, legitimate marriage. (And even the recent State Supreme Court arguments indicate that the decision about Prop 8, when it is released, will NOT nullify the “gay marriages” now on the books!) The ballot initiative would mean that millions of legally married straight couples who want to stay married in name as well as in fact, will then “re-marry” via a church. (Probably merely will be issued a new, legitimate marriage certificate, rather than having to go through an actual ceremony.) Some will choose not to go through the effort, but I suspect that most will want to reclaim the stolen title.

I think that many people who argue for civil unions do so out of desperation and realism, not out of idealism.

Blessings,
E.

 

[Kay_Cee]

KayCee,
Emotionally, I prefer to see it your way (as a practicing Catholic myself). But I think any Catholic who “favors” some form of legally inclusive arrangement does so out of preventative pragmatism, so to speak. That is, in the secular State and States in which we live, the religious ideal, including the Catholic ideal, does not dominate the judicially minded and legislatively minded population – especially in the West. The Catholic ideal is the minority ideal – even though, joined with Mormons and traditional Black churches, that ideal won out in November with Proposition 8. And the West in particular is highly susceptible to secular influence, media pressure, and changing political winds. I mentioned this recently on CAF when citing the underpublicized results of the recent Field Poll which records a popular shift slightly away from Prop 8, and which results (or anticipated results) were the reasons for the introduction of this new Ballot Initiative seeking to reverse Prop 8 and seeking to obliterate “marriage” language.

So, then, they think we should just cave in?

The forces of secularism, atheism, paganism, and New Age are larger, both qualitatively and quantitatively, in CA than religious forces. We got some out-of-state help for Prop 8, but that will not carry the day ultimately, legally. The CA legislature is extremely Left and has a heavy political agenda. The state courts are very Left; if they weren’t, the original decision backing ‘gay marriage’ in May of '08 would never have passed with the one vote margin.

So what Catholics in CA are saying is, 'O.K., have your “weddings,” go ahead and freely associate & “copulate” and cohabit as is allowed in a free society. Pick out your place settings and “play house,” but do it with a different name. Because we value the sacredness of natural marriage, allied as we see it with sacred matrimony, we will go down fighting for the name.

Then they don’t understand what’s going on here. This isn’t something that would exist in addition to marriage. It’s meant to ***replace ***marriage.

KayCee, I will still fight this ballot initiative with everything I have. I think it will create a nightmare bureaucratically, because I for one will not stand for having my straight marriage nullified by gays with no authority to nullify that legal, legitimate marriage. (And even the recent State Supreme Court arguments indicate that the decision about Prop 8, when it is released, will NOT nullify the “gay marriages” now on the books!) The ballot initiative would mean that millions of legally married straight couples who want to stay married in name as well as in fact, will then “re-marry” via a church. (Probably merely will be issued a new, legitimate marriage certificate, rather than having to go through an actual ceremony.) Some will choose not to go through the effort, but I suspect that most will want to reclaim the stolen title.

I think that many people who argue for civil unions do so out of desperation and realism, not out of idealism.

Blessings,
E.

I don’t think you quite understand. There will be no new marriage certificates in California. None at all. How could there be when the word “marriage” is to be striken from all state documents?

I appreciate your willingness to fight this, and I think I understand what you’re trying to say about Catholics who support it, but they simply don’t understand. My marriage would be legally voided. An attitude of “Well, it’s coming anyway, and this seems like a good compromise” doesn’t get it at all. *This is not a compromise!!! *This is the replacement of marriage with something less. How any Catholic can support that is beyond me.

 

[Elizabeth502]

So, then, they think we should just cave in?

Then they don’t understand what’s going on here. This isn’t something that would exist in addition to marriage. It’s meant to ***replace ***marriage.

I don’t think you quite understand. There will be no new marriage certificates in California. None at all. How could there be when the word “marriage” is to be striken from all state documents?

I do understand. I read the Initiative.

**STATE documents, not religious documents. You didn’t seem to read down further in my post, when I alleged that those of us who want to remain married, in name and fact,**will have to petition our religious institutions to re-claim the name. You think the RCC will stand for an abolition of duly performed marriage ceremonies, within their own walls? Not on your life.

I appreciate your willingness to fight this, and I think I understand what you’re trying to say about Catholics who support it, but they simply don’t understand. My marriage would be legally voided.

As would mine! You didn’t read the part where I indicate I will not stand for my marriage being voided, whatever the result of the Initiative vote?

An attitude of “Well, it’s coming anyway, and this seems like a good compromise” doesn’t get it at all. *This is not a compromise!!! *This is the replacement of marriage with something less. How any Catholic can support that is beyond me.

I am not “supporting” it? You didn’t read that I will fight this with everything I have?

 

[Kay_Cee]

I am not “supporting” it? You didn’t read that I will fight this with everything I have?

Oh, yes! I never so much as meant to imply that you are in support of it. My comments were directed at your explanation of why some Catholics would support it. If you’ll check, you’ll see my first comment was “So then they think we should just cave in?” not “So then you think we should just cave in.”

But you did mention “being issued a new, legitimate marriage certificate.” I assumed you meant a state document, and you didn’t specify which kind you mean. I’ve already had to battle some folks here who have assumed “domestic partnership” would be in addition to marriage instead of a replacement for it.

You don’t have to get upset. We’re on the same side, so let’s work together on this, okay? :hug3:

 

[Elizabeth502]

KayCee,
I think one of the dangers of this Initiative, if passed, is that it will result in a mega-class action lawsuit to retain the legitimacy of the marriage title, granted BOTH by the state and in many cases simulatneously by a religious institution, by those already married. That is why I do NOT support it (among other reasons!). I also think this probable result has to be publicized by the “No” group. We married or previously married will seek to overturn this Initiative on legal grounds, and multiple legal grounds. That effort in itself will produce a nightmare of bureaucracy in an already bureaucratically-laden State. And since the State Supreme Court has already indicated that legally performed marriages (including gay ones) will likely NOT be overturned by their impending ruling on Prop 8, this whole initiative attempt is fraught with legal problems at the outset. In the event that it does pass (hopefully not!), the Court has already hinted that dissolution of previously sanctioned marriages are not likely to be received well by the Court. That in itself should help to defeat the Initiative at the ballot box or afterward.

I hope my position is clearer now.

 

[Elizabeth502]

But you did mention “being issued a new, legitimate marriage certificate.” I assumed you meant a state document, and you didn’t specify which kind you mean. I’ve already had to battle some folks here who have assumed “domestic partnership” would be in addition to marriage instead of a replacement for it.

Correct. What would happen is that the Catholic Church, and every branch of Judaism (which holds marriage to be dearly sacred) – these two at the very least (and I’m sure many Protestant brethren, probably Muslims too – would demand a state recognition of their marital ceremonies as marriage in fact, with the title (since the state did approve them as “marriage” prior to this Initiative), regardless of the fact that the ceremonies and name did not originate with the state: they were certified by the state.

Let me give you another example. One can get in CA – and perhaps in other States – a marriage “license” not issued by the courts but by a self-appointed “minister” (anyone can acquire the title). It’s called something other than a marriage “license” but is equal to it and recognized by the courts/gov’t. Some couples choose to go this route, for various reasons (some of them strictly convenience). For example, if you don’t want to go the courthouse, but want a simple ceremony in your own backyard and don’t want to wait for practically a year to get married in a church, you can avail yourself of one of these “lay ministers” and get a document parallel to a marriage license, which grants you the same status and is recognized by the State. It says you are officially married.

Catholics, Jews, Mormons, devout Protestants, Muslims – at the least – would sue for a parallel document to a marriage license if this initiative passes, which is one of the many reasons that I hope and pray it doesn’t. (Also, the legally married gay couples – several thousand of them “married” before Prop 8 passed – would similarly sue for a parallel document recognized by the State.) It’s up to all those who oppose this Initiative to publicize these downsides and educate the public as to how uncontrollable such a result would become. That will also discourage those who are dreaming of similar “abolish marriage” initiatives in other states.

 

[Kay_Cee]

KayCee,
I think one of the dangers of this Initiative, if passed, is that it will result in a mega-class action lawsuit to retain the legitimacy of the marriage title, granted BOTH by the state and in many cases simulatneously by a religious institution, by those already married. That is why I do NOT support it (among other reasons!). I also think this probable result has to be publicized by the “No” group. We married or previously married will seek to overturn this Initiative on legal grounds, and multiple legal grounds. That effort in itself will produce a nightmare of bureaucracy in an already bureaucratically-laden State. And since the State Supreme Court has already indicated that legally performed marriages (including gay ones) will likely NOT be overturned by their impending ruling on Prop 8, this whole initiative attempt is fraught with legal problems at the outset. In the event that it does pass (hopefully not!), the Court has already hinted that dissolution of previously sanctioned marriages are not likely to be received well by the Court. That in itself should help to defeat the Initiative at the ballot box or afterward.

I hope my position is clearer now.

Ah, I see.

I agree that it would prove to be legal nightmare, including at the federal level (Married, filing jointly?). That, of course, is not the main reason I’m opposed, but I agree it is an argument that would appeal to the secular crowd.

Even now, I don’t see how a homosexual marriage can be legal in California, despite the handing out of some certificates and some ceremonies. A marriage, under state law, must be consummated in order to be legally binding. Otherwise, a civil annulment can be granted. So, let’s say we have two lesbians, and one earns far more than the other. They have gotten “married” in California. But things don’t work out, and they decide to “divorce.” But the wealthier one can claim they were never legally married since the “marriage” was not consummated, and therefore there are no marital assests.

This problem hasn’t cropped up yet, but if it does, I don’t expect it to persuade the courts into agreeing that all homosexual “marriages” are eligible for annulment. Yet all heterosexual marriages that are not consummated are eligible for annulment.

In other words, I’m not relying on the courts.

 

[Benadam]

I think it an honor to secular governments and a tribute to the Church 's guidance over them that the laws they uphold for the formation of families were harmonious with the law God ordained making civil unions open to the matrimonial bond.

Don’t forget it’s the bride and groom that minister the Sacrament of marriage not the Church not the State. The Church offers the grace to help the couple realize the matrimonial bond the state does not.

If the civil laws are no longer harmonious with the order God established for the proper formation of the matrimonial bond then civil unions include bonds that are not open to the matrimonial bond and the word associated with it should be withdrawn. The civil unions that cannot possibly be matrimonial make it impossible for the secular government to define their unions with the title that designates it.

The groom ministers the vow to the bride and visa versa be it in front of a representative of a civil authority or a religious one changes nothing. The civil authority never added anything anyway except a body of laws that made the union under it’s authority properly ordered and open to the possibility that the bond is trully matrimonial…What the Church offers to the vows it still will. What makes it impossible to call civil unions marriage is it includes unions that are not open to the matrimonial bond and impossible to call marriage.