Banning Civil Marriage in California

[Elizabeth502]

KayCee (and I hope you also saw my post 38), the real problem occurred with the lame ruling last year of the CA court, okaying gay “marriage.” Because now, with the passage of Prop 8, and probably its reiteration by the Court, gays will argue that there have been created two unequal classes of gay couples: a group who was allowed to marry, a group from the same class (they’ll call themselves a “protected class,” since they’re covered by certain anti-discrimination laws) who cannot. It seems that logically, the only way the Court could argue at this point is to admit that they erred in their May 2008 decision, which will happen a few millenia after Hell freezes over.

Lent or not, I’ll never forgive the Court for their decision last year.

 

[DavWan]

The proposition text is certainly something which should be opposed:

The proposed measure calls for the term “marriage” to be removed from government legislation. The State of California’s Law code would have “marriage” replaced with “domestic partnership,” while the definition and the rights provided would remain the same. The purpose of which is to provide equality amongst all couples, regardless of sexual orientation, without offending the religious sect Legally speaking, “Marriage” itself would become a social ceremony, recognised by only non-governmental institutions. Furthermore, the initiative would void Proposition 8.

While it claims to be “moderate,” it is anything but.

First of all, this would remove the right of the Church to conduct marriage as anything legally binding, and would make it merely “social.” This is certainly broad enough to justify anything, such as the denial of any marriages which take place out of state.

Second, if Marriage is merely “social” and only recognized by “non-governmental” institution, it allows for interference in anything the state is involved in. Remember, Housing and Employment laws forbid discrimination on grounds of marital status. Replace “marriage” with “domestic partnership,” and no group governed under these laws will have the right to refuse on grounds of conscience.

Third, voiding Proposition 8 is the main intent, masquerading as reasonable under the fallacy of the middle ground. nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html

Claiming to be the reasonable compromise between proponents and opponents of Prop. 8, this bill is actually giving the opponents everything they want, and revoking Prop 8 and what the proponents fought for: the recognition of marriage as an institution between two people.

One hopes this is rejected, and it is certainly something we in California need to oppose

 

[Kay_Cee]

KayCee (and I hope you also saw my post 38), the real problem occurred with the lame ruling last year of the CA court, okaying gay “marriage.” Because now, with the passage of Prop 8, and probably its reiteration by the Court, gays will argue that there have been created two unequal classes of gay couples: a group who was allowed to marry, a group from the same class (they’ll call themselves a “protected class,” since they’re covered by certain anti-discrimination laws) who cannot. It seems that logically, the only way the Court could argue at this point is to admit that they erred in their May 2008 decision, which will happen a few millenia after Hell freezes over.

Lent or not, I’ll never forgive the Court for their decision last year.

I’m beginning to think more and more that we do not live in a democracy. We live in a judicial oligarchy.

I think the Founders of the United States would be absolutely horrified if they saw what our nation has degraded into.

I too blame the Court, but mostly I blame the real enemy, the common enemy of all mankind, the one who wants to undermine the family.

I thought you would like to see something I printed from a blog a few years ago. Link: thrownback.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2004-08-23T06%3A22%3A00-05%3A00&max-results=50 Posted July 15, 2004.

*Defining Deviancy Down *

*One of my commentors made an excellent observation about Same Sex Marriage and the dissolution of the institution of marriage. *

*He pointed out that “redefinition is the first step to destroying an institution.” *

*The history of that redefinition: *

*Original Definition of Marriage: The permanent and exclusive union of one man and one woman for the begetting and raising of children. *

*Enter Contraception, and marriage = permanent exclusive union between one man and one woman. *

*Enter No Fault Divorce, and marriage = exclusive union between one man and one woman. *

*Enter Same Sex Marriage, and marriage = exclusive union of two people. *

*Enter “Open Marriage”, and marriage = union of people. *

With every step, marriage means less and less, with the result that it will soon become completely meaningless. The result of that is already being seen in Sweden and The Netherlands, where, increasingly, people aren’t bothering to get married at all.

I have to agree that gay “marriage” is just the latest step. Polygamy will be next.

 

[Benadam]

state.

Second, if Marriage is merely “social” and only recognized by “non-governmental” institution, it allows for interference in anything the state is involved in. Remember, Housing and Employment laws forbid discrimination on grounds of marital status. Replace “marriage” with “domestic partnership,” and no group governed under these laws will have the right to refuse on grounds of conscience.

 

[Kay_Cee]

The proposition text is certainly something which should be opposed:
The proposed measure calls for the term “marriage” to be removed from government legislation. The State of California’s Law code would have “marriage” replaced with “domestic partnership,” while the definition and the rights provided would remain the same. The purpose of which is to provide equality amongst all couples, regardless of sexual orientation, without offending the religious sect Legally speaking, “Marriage” itself would become a social ceremony, recognised by only non-governmental institutions. Furthermore, the initiative would void Proposition 8.
While it claims to be “moderate,” it is anything but.

First of all, this would remove the right of the Church to conduct marriage as anything legally binding, and would make it merely “social.” This is certainly broad enough to justify anything, such as the denial of any marriages which take place out of state.

Second, if Marriage is merely “social” and only recognized by “non-governmental” institution, it allows for interference in anything the state is involved in. Remember, Housing and Employment laws forbid discrimination on grounds of marital status. Replace “marriage” with “domestic partnership,” and no group governed under these laws will have the right to refuse on grounds of conscience.

Third, voiding Proposition 8 is the main intent, masquerading as reasonable under the fallacy of the middle ground. nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html

Claiming to be the reasonable compromise between proponents and opponents of Prop. 8, this bill is actually giving the opponents everything they want, and revoking Prop 8 and what the proponents fought for: the recognition of marriage as an institution between two people.

One hopes this is rejected, and it is certainly something we in California need to oppose

I shudder to think that if I lost my marriage license, the state would issue me a “domestic partnership” license instead.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I shudder to think that if I lost my marriage license, the state would issue me a “domestic partnership” license instead.

Doesn’t matter. Lost or kept, the language of the Initiative declares your marriage void. Your license will be decorative, sentimental, and without legal force. Whether you seek a duplicate (old) license or a newly titled license, your previous marriage will be dissolved, legally.

(“Be afraid. Be very afraid.”)

 

[Benadam]

Doesn’t matter. Lost or kept, the language of the Initiative declares your marriage void. Your license will be decorative, sentimental, and without legal force. Whether you seek a duplicate (old) license or a newly titled license, your previous marriage will be dissolved, legally.

(“Be afraid. Be very afraid.”)

I’m not understanding how a bond between persons can be dissolved by an authority that is beneath what binds it. What has it lost? is a rose still a rose called by any other name? This isn’t about the matrimonial bond. This is about the conversion of morals based on inherent dignity of human life to human dignity defined by a utilitarian value system.

It is extremely sad but what will evaporate the meaning of marriage is a title that no longer means what it really is. At least civil unions that were not really a matrimonial bond were something not visible before, and they have done much damage, to allow bonds that are visibly not marriage to be called that will seal the tomb.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’m not understanding how a bond between persons can be dissolved by an authority that is beneath what binds it.

You and I and probably a few million Californians.

“How” it can happen is what I referred to earlier: probably the most secular/atheistic state in the nation, which by that fact sees itself as “progressive.” They do not recognize (as the Hebrew National commercial used to say) “a higher authority.” They are The Authority.

It’s one thing to recognize the voters of the state as authority. It’s another thing to set aside the complete voter population in preference to a minority of voters with a fringe lifestyle.

 

[Benadam]

You and I and probably a few million Californians.

“How” it can happen is what I referred to earlier: probably the most secular/atheistic state in the nation, which by that fact sees itself as “progressive.” They do not recognize (as the Hebrew National commercial used to say) “a higher authority.” They are The Authority.

It’s one thing to recognize the voters of the state as authority. It’s another thing to set aside the complete voter population in preference to a minority of voters with a fringe lifestyle.

I guess I’m confused because the way you are wording things makes it seem as if you believe the bond you have with your husband will be dissolved in reality if this happens. I think you are really wording it this way to emphasie that this is your state too and if this happens as a citizen of it you are not married.

If I’m understanding what you mean correctly now. You’re a soldier. I thank God for you.

 

[Elizabeth502]

sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm

and scroll to bottom of page. (Domestic Partnership Initiative) It is pending, however – not yet approved for the 2010 ballot; there will be an attempt to gather Proposition signatures if the Court as expected upholds Prop 8. This summary in .pdf form does not make it clear whether “marriage” will be dissolved retroactively or merely renamed proactively, but I read the actual wording somewhere, which did indicate an absolute nullification of all previously legitimate marriages in CA.

 

[c659smith]

sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm

and scroll to bottom of page. (Domestic Partnership Initiative) It is pending, however – not yet approved for the 2010 ballot; there will be an attempt to gather Proposition signatures if the Court as expected upholds Prop 8. This summary in .pdf form does not make it clear whether “marriage” will be dissolved retroactively or merely renamed proactively, but I read the actual wording somewhere, which did indicate an absolute nullification of all previously legitimate marriages in CA.

So I do not want the State to have the authority to use the word marriage but rather Civil Unions. It was the State that wanted to collect a fee for a license and call it a marriage license. I don’t need no license to tell you or anyone else that I was married in Church with witnesses, a priest, and God.

I have a marriage certificate given to me by the Catholic Church 33 years ago and I am still on my honeymoon.

 

[DavWan]

So I do not want the State to have the authority to use the word marriage but rather Civil Unions. It was the State that wanted to collect a fee for a license and call it a marriage license. I don’t need no license to tell you or anyone else that I was married in Church with witnesses, a priest, and God.

I have a marriage certificate given to me by the Catholic Church 33 years ago and I am still on my honeymoon.

However, a person who marries in the Church if this passes, merely has a “social meaning” in the eyes of the state, which means such a couple would have no legal rights for their marriage, even though it is the real marriage.

Imagine the abuses this could justify.

 

[c659smith]

However, a person who marries in the Church if this passes, merely has a “social meaning” in the eyes of the state, which means such a couple would have no legal rights for their marriage, even though it is the real marriage.

Imagine the abuses this could justify.

What abuses?

If as a couple we want to have a contract under state rules (civil unions) we will in addition to our Church marriage.

The gay community is not going to win this one. Remove the title of Marriage from the State of California (so what!!)

So a gay couple can get married in a gay church but we know it is not sanctified under God.

We know that no respectable Christian, Moslem, Or Jewish houses of worship will conduct these civil unions to marriage so the gay community loses this battle once again.

 

[Benadam]

What abuses?

If as a couple we want to have a contract under state rules (civil unions) we will in addition to our Church marriage.

The gay community is not going to win this one. Remove the title of Marriage from the State of California (so what!!)

So a gay couple can get married in a gay church but we know it is not sanctified under God.

We know that no respectable Christian, Moslem, Or Jewish houses of worship will conduct these civil unions to marriage so the gay community loses this battle once again.

as another poster mentioned it would make religious agencies such as adoption agencies, offer services intended for married couples to offer them to gay unions as well. If this movement will, in the end, deny respect to conscience I will conclude that like their quasidefined unions, they have a quasiconscience that has replaced the sanctuary that God created for Himself in us.

My position is there is no alternative. We live a lie, we act against our conscience, or we live the difficult truth of our faith even if it drives us out of the buying and selling of what this darkened culture calls ‘goods’

 

[c659smith]

as another poster mentioned it would make religious agencies such as adoption agencies, offer services intended for married couples to offer them to gay unions as well. If this movement will, in the end, deny respect to conscience I will conclude that like their quasidefined unions, they have a quasiconscience that has replaced the sanctuary that God created for Himself in us.

My position is there is no alternative. We live a lie, we act against our conscience, or we live the difficult truth of our faith even if it drives us out of the buying and selling of what this darkened culture calls ‘goods’

Rediculous and the States would go bankrupt if they tried to do this and the Churches removed themselves from such agencies, clinics, hospitals, etc… Let them try

Massachussetts is still reeling over the Catholic Church geting out of the adoption business there.

Now how many Christian and Jewish Hospitals, Adoption agencies, Clinics, etc…

 

[DavWan]

What abuses?

If as a couple we want to have a contract under state rules (civil unions) we will in addition to our Church marriage.

The gay community is not going to win this one. Remove the title of Marriage from the State of California (so what!!)

So a gay couple can get married in a gay church but we know it is not sanctified under God.

We know that no respectable Christian, Moslem, Or Jewish houses of worship will conduct these civil unions to marriage so the gay community loses this battle once again.

I think you miss the point here. Nobody denies that the Church has a valid marriage regardless of what the state holds. Nor do we think Churches will be forced to host gay marriages. What does matter is the defense of legal rights a married couple has already had.

Consider such things as joint filing of income taxes, visitation rules for spouses in hospitals, the rights of parents and children. While the state should have no say in these things, it does in reality.

Consider the Church facing a law which once said a person may not be discriminated against on grounds of marital status. Now picture marriage replaced by “Domestic Partnership.”

This can affect all of us because the law is so vague, one can use it to attack marriage in many ways.

 

[c659smith]

I think you miss the point here. Nobody denies that the Church has a valid marriage regardless of what the state holds. Nor do we think Churches will be forced to host gay marriages. What does matter is the defense of legal rights a married couple has already had.

Consider such things as joint filing of income taxes, visitation rules for spouses in hospitals, the rights of parents and children. While the state should have no say in these things, it does in reality.

Consider the Church facing a law which once said a person may not be discriminated against on grounds of marital status. Now picture marriage replaced by “Domestic Partnership.”

This can affect all of us because the law is so vague, one can use it to attack marriage in many ways.

I understand what you are saying but it is an argument for the gay community to fight the new law in California. A scare tactic

Give the State what is the States.

Remember also that “the goverment shall make no laws in regard to religion”.

Do you remember where this is written?

Again we would not descriminate because of marital status as it relates to a civil contract entered into by a Gay couple witnessed by the State. Gays cannot get married so we would not descrimate due to marital status.

Are you trying to say one cannot descriminate because of a civil contract. Make sense–nope

 

[c659smith]

I think you miss the point here. Nobody denies that the Church has a valid marriage regardless of what the state holds. Nor do we think Churches will be forced to host gay marriages. What does matter is the defense of legal rights a married couple has already had.

Consider such things as joint filing of income taxes, visitation rules for spouses in hospitals, the rights of parents and children. While the state should have no say in these things, it does in reality.

Consider the Church facing a law which once said a person may not be discriminated against on grounds of marital status. Now picture marriage replaced by “Domestic Partnership.”

This can affect all of us because the law is so vague, one can use it to attack marriage in many ways.

But churches do discriminate. Stop worrying about the word discriminate

If you are a sexually active homosexual with the same sex and not repentative then you are pretty much excommunicated from the Catholic Church until that time you repent and do your best to turn away from that sin.

You cannot receive a Sacrament in the Catholic Church unless you are a practicing Catholic.

You cannot adopt a child run by Catholic Charities as a gay couple.

Like Massachussetts if they try to force the issues Catholic Charities will remove itself from the Adoption business in that State.

The State looses in having to incur the hundreds of million of dollars to run this agencies.

We should worry more on the work of Christ not the work of the State.

Be from this world not of it

If this was the case the 501 business and taxes would not silence the work of the Lord in our Church.

Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s

 

[DavWan]

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.

 

[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.

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.