Can Catholics support same-sex civil unions?

[Usige]

Where on earth do you live?

That is not that unusual. Many gay activist claim they want the same rights but then balked at anything that did not equate heterosexual and homosexual relationships as the same. Many said that civil unions were “separate but equal”. There are those that bridle at the phrase same sex marriage because they claim marriage is marriage and there is nothing special about heterosexual marriages.

Long and short is that most gay rights activist don’t want merely the same rights, they want normalization where people don’t think there is any difference between relationships. Until people just consider marriage as a sexual union between adults they will not be satisfied that they have won the fight.

 

[pensmama87]

That is not that unusual. Many gay activist claim they want the same rights but then balked at anything that did not equate heterosexual and homosexual relationships as the same. Many said that civil unions were “separate but equal”. There are those that bridle at the phrase same sex marriage because they claim marriage is marriage and there is nothing special about heterosexual marriages.

Long and short is that most gay rights activist don’t want merely the same rights, they want normalization where people don’t think there is any difference between relationships. Until people just consider marriage as a sexual union between adults they will not be satisfied that they have won the fight.

Right.

 

[pensmama87]

Where on earth do you live?

Legal stuff is expensive. Creating legal classes like civil unions is also expensive. But in that case the cost is shifted to society. Someone has to pay for the government ‘services’ including courts that are used to support civil unions. And it is typically not the people using services, even if some nominal fee is charged.

In the metro area of a mid-size US city.

I understand that government services need to be paid for. In this case, I think it can be well argued that this would be worthy of using tax dollars for. (Of course, that’s not the question of the OP.)

That is not that unusual. Many gay activist claim they want the same rights but then balked at anything that did not equate heterosexual and homosexual relationships as the same. Many said that civil unions were “separate but equal”. There are those that bridle at the phrase same sex marriage because they claim marriage is marriage and there is nothing special about heterosexual marriages.

Long and short is that most gay rights activist don’t want merely the same rights, they want normalization where people don’t think there is any difference between relationships. Until people just consider marriage as a sexual union between adults they will not be satisfied that they have won the fight.

Right.

 

[Rau]

So I understand why same sex marriage cannot occur in the Catholic Church, and I understand why same sex sexual acts are wrong, but does the matrimony issue carry over into the secular world? Does the Church condemn same-sex civil unions?

I raise this question because civil unions don’t really have all of the string attached, per se, like matrimony does in the Catholic Church. People who get married by the government aren’t making a promise to consummate and bring children into the world like those getting married by the Catholic Church do. So can we support same-sex civil unions outside of the Catholic Church?

Civil unions are marriage-like. The partners are barred from close familial relationship as are the partners to marriage. So the nature of the union is clear. As a Catholic, how would you “support” such an arrangement? Would you be pleased if your sister were to enter one with another woman? Would you be pleased to see primary school reading books depicting romantically involved same sex couples as routine and normal? This is the logical progression.

 

[Rau]

…most gay rights activist don’t want merely the same rights, they want normalization where people don’t think there is any difference between relationships.

That is my observation to. The claim is that any couple who “love each other” are eligible to marry, and there must be no discrimination - thus we must have “marriage equality”. Any suggestion that marriage is primarily about children is discarded of course. as that would suggest some couples (eg. man + woman) have a greater claim to marriage than others.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

For instance allowing for a civil joining of assets and rights to unmarried sisters or even longtime friends who live together would achieve the same thing as a “same sex civil Union” and be more inclusive.

That is not that unusual. Many gay activist claim they want the same rights but then balked at anything that did not equate heterosexual and homosexual relationships as the same.

There was a state that had granted civil unions (I don’t remember which one). A joined couple had gone to court about some matter and we’re denied by the court because they had a civil union instead of a marriage. From the outcome it was clear that to get the desired rights nothing but “marriage” would be acceptable. There were other cases too such as civil unions not being recognized across state lines, so on.

While it’s possible to get some of the rights of a marriage through other contracts and arrangements they are not all available. The fifth ammendment right to not be compelled to testify against your significant other comes immediately to mind. There are other situations such as making medical decisions for someone that cannot make declarations for themself where showing that one has been granted legal power to make decisions is less burdensome for people that are married than people that have some other arrangement.

 

[Rau]

There was a state that had granted civil unions (I don’t remember which one). A joined couple had gone to court about some matter and we’re denied by the court because they had a civil union instead of a marriage. From the outcome it was clear that to get the desired rights nothing but “marriage” would be acceptable. There were other cases too such as civil unions not being recognized across state lines, so on.

While it’s possible to get some of the rights of a marriage through other contracts and arrangements they are not all available. The fifth ammendment right to not be compelled to testify against your significant other comes immediately to mind. There are other situations such as making medical decisions for someone that cannot make declarations for themself where showing that one has been granted legal power to make decisions is less burdensome for people that are married than people that have some other arrangement.

If pairs of significant others, not married/eligible for marriage can make a case for various rights, they should do so. I imagine a pair of elderly sisters might have some claims of the kind you envisage. Married people are catered for in the legal framework of marriage. I’m not opposed to a framework for others. But that should not be confused with marriage.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’m not opposed to a framework for others.

It’s been proposed before to separate marriage from the legal framework. Something for which there was vocal disagreement.

 

[edwest2]

Catholics can’t support them.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Ed

 

[Thorolfr]

Just like it is wrong for a man and woman to imitate marriage by living together, so is wrong for two men to imitate marriage.

So the Church would even be opposed to two men living together because it’s an imitation of marriage?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It is silly to suggest that people are advocating for domestic partnerships with no view towards sex.

Not only is it not silly, but it makes sense. There is no reason to advocate for domestic partnership just because one is looking forward to having sex. They already can do that without domestic partnerships (at least now after the last anti-sodomy laws were repealed). A domestic partnership does nothing one way or the affect the opportunities to have homosexual sex. Sure, they are probably doing it. But that has nothing to do why they want domestic partnerships.

 

[exnihilo]

So the Church would even be opposed to two men living together because it’s an imitation of marriage?

Obviously not if the men are simply roommates. If they want to pass themselves off as ‘married’ then that would be wrong.

Not only is it not silly, but it makes sense. There is no reason to advocate for domestic partnership just because one is looking forward to having sex. They already can do that without domestic partnerships (at least now after the last anti-sodomy laws were repealed). A domestic partnership does nothing one way or the affect the opportunities to have homosexual sex. Sure, they are probably doing it. But that has nothing to do why they want domestic partnerships.

Marriage laws have at times required consummation. consummation is an act between a man and a woman. Sex is a part of marriage. A same sex marriage or union is about homosexual sex whether or not any particular pair who wish to enter into one are having sex or plan to have sex as a result of their union.

 

[Thorolfr]

Marriage laws have at times required consummation. consummation is an act between a man and a woman. Sex is a part of marriage. A same sex marriage or union is about homosexual sex whether or not any particular pair who wish to enter into one are having sex or plan to have sex as a result of their union.

Even the Catholic Church does not require consummation for a marriage to be valid if both spouses agree to forgo sex. So how do you know that all same-sex marriages or unions are about sex if all heterosexual marriages are not about sex?

 

[exnihilo]

Even the Catholic Church does not require consummation for a marriage to be valid if both spouses agree to forgo sex. So how do you know that all same-sex marriages or unions are about sex if all heterosexual marriages are not about sex?

Accepting your claim about validity it is absolutely true that the Church distinguishes between marriages that have not been consummated. Even non consummated marriages are sexual in that it is still expected that those in the marriage will not be having sex with a person who is not their spouse.

I dont claim that all same sex ‘marriages’ or unions are about sex nor do I claim all real marriages are about sex. There are plenty of marriages that are entered into for reasons other than sex. But sex is a part of marriage which is why there is marriage at all. Therefore sex is a part of homosexual unions which intend to ape marriage.