Banning Civil Marriage in California

[c659smith]

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.

The state derives no authority from God. Give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s and give unto God that which is God.

Jesus told Pilot you have no authority over Me.

 

[jayeverett]

Have you studied history in the old testament? Well, you should so that you can see history repeating itself. Read about the cities destroyed by fire and brimstone because they were so wicked (sexual acts). Then take a good look at what is happning today. This will continue as we enter into a very dark age (2009-2020). Why? Because of LUST!!!
California will be the hotbed of the so called gay life which by the way is sanctioned by the United Nations as an acknowledged life style. We are in the age of permisiveness so be prepared to see all kinds of horrors…

 

[DavWan]

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?

I disagree with your assessment. The question is, whether it is better to have the rights of married people respected by the state or whether to reduce marriage in the eyes of the state to mere ceremony, and impose a different requirement for you to get back the legal rights you should already possess by the nature of marriage.

 

[Benadam]

I disagree with your assessment. The question is, whether it is better to have the rights of married people respected by the state or whether to reduce marriage in the eyes of the state to mere ceremony, and impose a different requirement for you to get back the legal rights you should already possess by the nature of marriage.

Doesn’t the state of California attach the word marriage to same sex unions?

 

[DavWan]

The state derives no authority from God. Give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s and give unto God that which is God.

Jesus told Pilot you have no authority over Me.

"Jesus answered him, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin.” (Jn 19:11).

From the CCC:

1899 The authority required by the moral order derives from God: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."17

 

[c659smith]

I disagree with your assessment. The question is, whether it is better to have the rights of married people respected by the state or whether to reduce marriage in the eyes of the state to mere ceremony, and impose a different requirement for you to get back the legal rights you should already possess by the nature of marriage.

There will be no legal rights removed from couples who are married but only truth.

Civil Unions designate a contract between two or more individuals by a state.

There is now and has always been throughout history Civil Unions.

This is not what the actively sexual Gay Community wants. (civil unions)

They want the recognition of the word marriage. Do not protest too much as this proposal will never get off the ground. it is an attempt to get the Religious Community to turn back proposition 8

In most states a license by the Goverment preceeds the marriage.

If anything it will let our young people know that a union through the State is not a marriage and bring more youing people back to Church if they want to get married rather than a civil union.

 

[Benadam]

Doesn’t the state of California attach the word marriage to same sex unions?

I should know the subject before posting opinions. Sorry. My opinions were based on the wrong assumption that the word marriage was attached to same sex unions.

 

[DavWan]

There will be no legal rights removed from couples who are married but only truth.

Civil Unions designate a contract between two or more individuals by a state.

There is now and has always been throughout history Civil Unions.

This is not what the actively sexual Gay Community wants. (civil unions)

They want the recognition of the word marriage. Do not protest too much as this proposal will never get off the ground. it is an attempt to get the Religious Community to turn back proposition 8

In most states a license by the Goverment preceeds the marriage.

If anything it will let our young people know that a union through the State is not a marriage and bring more youing people back to Church if they want to get married rather than a civil union.

You seem to have the intent of the proposed Initiative entirely backwards. As it is believed Proposition 8 will survive the Constitutional challenge, this is an attempt to make homosexual relationships the equivalent of heterosexual relationships by reducing the concept of marriage to domestic partnership. Note that the text specifically states it is to repeal Proposition 8.

As for it not getting off the ground, I surely hope not, and we need to oppose it to ensure it does not. However, “It can’t happen here” seems to happen much more often than people want to believe.

 

[Kay_Cee]

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?

It is better for the state of California to tell the truth.

I am married in the Catholic Church. The wedding took place in California.

God: She is married.
California: She is not married.

The state would not be saying I have both a marriage and a “domestic partnership.” It would not be saying I am married in a sacramental sense but not in a legal sense.

It would be saying I am not married at all, in any sense. Period.

That would be calling God a liar.

Calling God a liar is evil.

 

[fix]

The state derives no authority from God. Give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s and give unto God that which is God.

Jesus told Pilot you have no authority over Me.

You have it exactly backward.

**

1899

**

The authority required by the moral order derives from God: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."17

2238 Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts:43 "Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution. . . . Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God."44 Their loyal collaboration includes the right, and at times the duty, to voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community.

And Jesus said to Pilate you would have no authority over me if it were not given to you from above.

 

[graceandglory]

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.”

Comments?

Marriage is the “primordial sacrament” according to Pope John Paul 2. As a Sacrament, it should be separate from a “domestic partnership.” This will give Church’s the freedom to limit the Sacrament of Marriage to between one man and one woman.

This is not a theocracy. Do I think it’s great that the country is in the state it is in now? NO. But, I want our sacraments protected from civil law.

Anyone can have a “domestic partnership.” Anything goes. But a sacrament of marriage should be defined by the Church. Nothing less than one man and one woman, in a community of life and love that is free, total, faithful, and fruitful.

 

[graceandglory]

I

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

I agree.

I can see this also as a way for a “godless” male/female couple to cohabitate, yet with some protection of the woman. Would you see more couples cohabitate? Probably not. Would they be more or less inclined to stay together for “benefits?” I think it’s likely.

Of course, would the civil courts want to have to preside over the “new” divorce court?

 

[Kay_Cee]

Marriage is the “primordial sacrament” according to Pope John Paul 2. As a Sacrament, it should be separate from a “domestic partnership.” This will give Church’s the freedom to limit the Sacrament of Marriage to between one man and one woman.

This is not a theocracy. Do I think it’s great that the country is in the state it is in now? NO. But, I want our sacraments protected from civil law.

Anyone can have a “domestic partnership.” Anything goes. But a sacrament of marriage should be defined by the Church. Nothing less than one man and one woman, in a community of life and love that is free, total, faithful, and fruitful.

What you are neglecting is that the state of California will also tell me I do not have a marriage.

That is a lie.

Is it okay to lie?

 

[fix]

Marriage is a natural institution. There are many non sacramental valid marriages. We should stick with the Church and oppose any laws that contradict marriage. The idea is to help transform society, not make society more pagan.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Marriage is a natural institution. There are many non sacramental valid marriages. We should stick with the Church and oppose any laws that contradict marriage. The idea is to help transform society, not make society more pagan.

Yes! Thank you!

 

[Benadam]

It is better for the state of California to tell the truth.

I am married in the Catholic Church. The wedding took place in California.

God: She is married.
California: She is not married.

The state would not be saying I have both a marriage and a “domestic partnership.” It would not be saying I am married in a sacramental sense but not in a legal sense.

It would be saying I am not married at all, in any sense. Period.

That would be calling God a liar.

Calling God a liar is evil.

I don’t understand how the state would be saying anything about marriage. You would be in a domestic partnership that the state recognizes as such, that so happened to also be a marriage. The state would not be in the business of making those classifications.

That would be a tragedy for society IMHO. I would only want this course of action( withdrawing the word marriage) if the California laws used the word marriage to describe unions that could not possibly be open to the matrimonial bond and there was little hope of reversing those laws.

 

[DavWan]

I don’t understand how the state would be saying anything about marriage. You would be in a domestic partnership that the state recognizes as such, that so happened to also be a marriage. The state would not be in the business of making those classifications.

That would be a tragedy for society IMHO. I would only want this course of action( withdrawing the word marriage) if the California laws used the word marriage to describe unions that could not possibly be open to the matrimonial bond and there was little hope of reversing those laws.

Think of it this way: The State, under Prop 8 can never say Homosexuals can marry. Therefore they say married people have a Domestic Partnership, the same as homosexuals. Through this legal legerdemain, they have made homosexual relationships the equivalent of heterosexual marriage in the eyes of the law.

 

[Benadam]

Think of it this way: The State, under Prop 8 can never say Homosexuals can marry. Therefore they say married people have a Domestic Partnership, the same as homosexuals. Through this legal legerdemain, they have made homosexual relationships the equivalent of heterosexual marriage in the eyes of the law.

Defining all civil unions as Domestic Partnerships would be a tragedy.

I had mistakenly assumed that the state law included homosexual unions under the definition of marriage because that would be the only reason I think it would be preferable to call all civil unions Domestic Partnerships.

If marriage is still defined in a way that is in harmony with the order established in the beginning I see no reason to call for changing the definition of all civil unions to Domestic Partners.

 

[c659smith]

Think of it this way: The State, under Prop 8 can never say Homosexuals can marry. Therefore they say married people have a Domestic Partnership, the same as homosexuals. Through this legal legerdemain, they have made homosexual relationships the equivalent of heterosexual marriage in the eyes of the law.

Personally I do not believe that Homosexual should be in a civil union or marriage.

However If male #1 and male #2 write a contract between them and the state is a witness ( not under God ) but as an agent witnessing the agreement then you have a simple civil union.

Now the State needs to keep out of the Insurance business by trying to force rights under such a contract.

However Hospitals and other business needs to allow the freedom for visitations, etc…

 

[Kay_Cee]

Defining all civil unions as Domestic Partnerships would be a tragedy.

I had mistakenly assumed that the state law included homosexual unions under the definition of marriage because that would be the only reason I think it would be preferable to call all civil unions Domestic Partnerships.

If marriage is still defined in a way that is in harmony with the order established in the beginning I see no reason to call for changing the definition of all civil unions to Domestic Partners.

Under this proposition, marriage would not be defined at all. According to the state, there would be no marriage for anyone, period. How could there be, when the very word “marriage” would be banned from all state documents?

The state would not say I am in both a “domestic partnership and a marriage.” It would say there is no such thing as marriage; therefore, I cannot be in anything other than a “domestic partnership.”

To answer your earlier question, it therefore follows that the state would indeed have something to say about marriage. It would say there is no such thing. It would therefore say I am not married, which is a lie.