Catholic Marrage vs Gay Marrage

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonild
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Glen_Ellen said:
In terms of restrictions that the government can put on churches performing marriages, it depends on which state you are in. (Partly a matter of history, and whether in the early days of the state’s history marriage was believed to be a civil matter (e.g., those states with Puritan protestant religious heritages), or a church sacrament (e.g., States with a Catholic, Anglican or Lutheran background).)

In my State, marriage is seen as completely a civil matter. It is governed completely by statute, and you cannot perform marriages unless you comply with the State’s requirements. Those who perform marriages in violation of State law (e.g., until recent developments, same sex marriages) could face not only being stripped of the power to marry but criminal prosecution.

In a State like mine, homosexual advocates will say over and over that they are not affecting your church right to restrict marriage to one-man, one-woman. But the fact is the State could easily say you could not perform any marriages unless you also performed same-sex marriages. That is the risk. In other words, although my State cannot technically force a church to conduct same-sex marriages, it could say that you cannot perform any marriages at all unless you also do same-sex marriages.

That is why you will see battles in same-sex marriage legislation over putting “conscience” clauses in the law to allow Christian marriages to continue (e.g., “no minister or church shall be compelled to conduct a same sex marriage ceremony or be punished for refusal to do so”).
Click to expand...
Even at that say the State does take away the “civial” authority for a Preist to preform a marriage. The couple would then be required to have two cerimonies. One presided over by a cival authority to fullfill the states requirement and then one in the chruch which would be the really marriage.

The State can not stop the Church from marring couples. All it can do is to then require the couple to obtain a civial ceremony to have it legally recongnized. And althought it may be inconvenent It maybe what we are forced to do.

If I am not mistaken there are some countries were this is already the way it is and has been for a long time.
 
oneGODoneCHURCH said:
If I am not mistaken there are some countries were this is already the way it is and has been for a long time.
Click to expand...
Yes, there are. But as far as I know, in those countries no Church wedding is legally recognized. With the way this is going, Catholic, Morman and a few other religions would be treated differently with respect to the civil recognition of the weddings they perform from other denominations that go along with the ‘gay’ agenda.

This would be a sad state for a country that claims freedom of religion. 😦
 
Corki said:
Yes, there are. But as far as I know, in those countries no Church wedding is legally recognized. With the way this is going, Catholic, Morman and a few other religions would be treated differently with respect to the civil recognition of the weddings they perform from other denominations that go along with the ‘gay’ agenda.

This would be a sad state for a country that claims freedom of religion. 😦
Click to expand...
I agree it would be a sad state for the counrty. But have to realize it is a possibility and be ready for it.

That is why we really need to start teaching what a marriage is and why to have a valid marriage one has to do what the Chruch says a cival ceremony does not count.
 
tonild said:
Is it possible this Gay marrage could end the church marrage. With Laws about to pass in new york, and probably san fransisco, Would we be sued because we refused to Marry a Gay couple? or if a church rents out a building and would not rent to a Gay couple?

We have seen in some cities Catholic charities had to end adoptions, because we would not put children into Gay homes. So would this happen with marrage as well? And I hear of worse stories in Canada.
Click to expand...
The result is not a marriage, nor is there a wedding. It is a satanic ritual, with the result
a contract to promise to compound a blasphemy with every opportunity satan presents to them in the future.
 
Here is an interesting overview of recent legal developments in the US w/ regard to the infringement of the State on the Church. blog.speakupmovement.org/church/religious-freedom/same-sex-marriage-what-would-it-mean-for-churches/

Altho the First Amendment’s protection of the separation of church and state used to be quite powerful, in recent years it has been more and more twisted. for instance, instead of protecting religion from the State, recent judicial history shows the reverse. Don’t say “God” or “pray with me” at graduation ceremonies, teachers can’t wear a crucifix, etc.

The real issues, as I see them and FWIW, are tax-exempt status and “anti-discrimination” laws. As to the gay marriage issue the easiest thing for the State to do is to say that if you won’t perform gay marriages, then you will lose your tax-exempt status.

To remove this from the first amendment sphere, when the feds wanted motorcycle helmet laws passed, they made state highway funding contingent on the state passing said laws. don’t pass the law, lose funding. same thing happened with speed limits. This is how the State can really impact change–taxes and funding.
 
also FWIW, Glen Ellen’s law firm is giving great advice, imho, to churches to stop allowing their spaces to be used by non-church groups. any non-member use is going to open the floodgates, and it’s best to change the policy now rather than later.
 
GraceSofia said:
You’re kidding? Teachers in U.S. of America cannot wear a crucifix?
Click to expand...
The case I’m thinking of was a school district ban on crosses, crucifixes and more, which was upheld by a lower court. unfortunately, I can’t find the actual news story now, but here’s a little clip from First Freedom Center firstfreedom.org/education/CRC-FAQ.html
In the case of a tragedy or an individual student’s need for counseling, if a student brings up his or her faith, the student should be permitted to talk about it. The counselor should let discussion of religion come from the student, and then should refer the student to parents or clergy for answers. The question of what teachers may or may not wear to teach has not been settled by the courts. Most legal experts agree that teachers may wear modest religious jewelry, but not proselytizing messages. Your school district or state may have rules or guidelines for you to consult.
Click to expand...
 
Well, then, I hope all the Christian teachers are wearing their crosses and crucifixes while they can – and also to send the message that there are a lot of them, and that it will be difficult to tell them what they can and can’t wear. 😉
 
GraceSofia said:
You’re kidding? Teachers in U.S. of America cannot wear a crucifix?
Click to expand...
In California, the have taken crosses off the some of the Mission Churches, the ones that are state run any way. So they are just museums but the state still makes money on them. Also, they have removed crosses from city seals. Perhaps some day you will no longer travel to San Jose or San Fransisco, but to the cities of Joe and Frank.
 
Separation of Church and state is a provision of the Constitution of the nation. It is a unilateral declaration of the state. It is easier to think that the government of the nation champions it and, therefore, will restrict itself from encroaching into affairs of the Church. Government people will rather consult the Church before legislating on matters that pertain to life of individual human beings and their ways of life.
They would not dictate on the Church in any way. They will realize, on time, that such is a violation of a unilateral declaration of the state which is incorporated in the Constitution.
This is, however, possible only when all people running the government are using their gray matter inside their skulls in accordance with the plan of the One who created them.
 
roads152 said:
Separation of Church and state is a provision of the Constitution of the nation. It is a unilateral declaration of the state. It is easier to think that the government of the nation champions it and, therefore, will restrict itself from encroaching into affairs of the Church. Government people will rather consult the Church before legislating on matters that pertain to life of individual human beings and their ways of life.
They would not dictate on the Church in any way. They will realize, on time, that such is a violation of a unilateral declaration of the state which is incorporated in the Constitution.
This is, however, possible only when all people running the government are using their gray matter inside their skulls in accordance with the plan of the One who created them.
Click to expand...
The main problem is that there is no separation of Chruch and state ( the way it is used today) in the Constitution. The Constitution states that the State can not mandate a religion nor can it obstruct the free expression of religion. There is no limits placed on the religion by the Constitution on what it can do with expression of itself in matters of the State.
 
That is precisely the meaning of separation of Church and state, oneGODoneCHURCH. Mandating a religion or limiting the expression of any given religion is simply beyond the competence of the state.
The state is competent in matters of relationships between man and man or among human beings.
Relationships between man and God is the competence of religion.
Matrimony is a relationship between two human beings and a relationship of those two and God.
The state competently regulates marriages inasmuch as they are contracts between parties. But the state is not competent to do anything about relationship between two contracting parties, on one hand, and God, on the other. The power of Sacred Orders is necessary for this.
 
tonild said:
Ah, but what to do about the city of angels. Blessed Father Serra, Pray for us.
Click to expand...
The city of the angels is probably safe since New Age types are into angels. Everybody loves angels. 😉 (I think).
 
I’m surprised the ACLU has not yet filed suit to force a name change for Corpus Christi, however.

Just remembering all the fits they had over a tiny cross being in the seal for Los Angeles County . . . .
 
tonild said:
Is it possible this Gay marrage could end the church marrage. With Laws about to pass in new york, and probably san fransisco, Would we be sued because we refused to Marry a Gay couple?
Click to expand...
No, because the State doesn’t recognize Sacramental Marriage in the first place. The two are completely separate. When you get married in a Catholic Church, you’re married Sacramentally. The priest just signs the marriage license for you, which he doens’t have to do: it’s not part of the Catholic marriage ceremony. He just does it for convenience so you don’t have to go to City Hall to do it. You can go to city hall and do it, but frankly, it’s just another errand to run.
tonild said:
We have seen in some cities Catholic charities had to end adoptions, because we would not put children into Gay homes. So would this happen with marrage as well? And I hear of worse stories in Canada.
Click to expand...
Adoption is a function of the State. Adoption is a civil and legal arrangement. Adoption agencies act as brokers to match children with families with certain personnel of that adoption agency being designated to file the appropriate paperwork with the state. Since adoption is a function of the state, the rules are set forth by the state, and all adoption agencies are subject to those rules and laws.

If you want to compare adoption to marriage, think of it this way. Civil marriage has nothing to do with the Catholic Sacrament of marriage. The State doesn’t recognize the Sacrament of marriage. You can’t just go to Church and have the Sacramental marriage and not file the civil marriage license, otherwise you’re not considered married legally. But there is no Catholic adoption mutually exclusive from civil adoption. Adoption is a function of the State.

The Church could still do private adoptions though, outside of an adoption agency. These are privately arranged between families and mothers-to-be and finished by a lawyer. This would take religious out to the communities rather than the communities going to a Catholic adoption agency.
 
michelleds:

… and of course the state will then move on to the external religious symbols of the Muslim religion… :rolleyes: Don’t hold your breath.

Andy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top