Catholic opponents of same-sex marriage - would you ban all marriage not recognised by the Church?

[stanczyk]

scottfillmer.com/2008/07/06/christian-photographer-refused-gay-wedding/

The photographer lost and it was on the grounds that refusing to work the wedding because it was an immoral wedding was violating the couples civil rights. At first I assumed it was a contract issue, but that doesn’t appear to be the case. The photographer declined the contract in the first place. This is what we have to look forward to.

PS- There is evidence that one of the lesbian in question actually sought out this photographer by calling several photographers until one refused to work her ceremony.

There is difference between that case and your theoretical lawsuit to force the Church to administer the sacrament of marriage to a same sex couple. A photography business can no more discriminate against a homosexual than a restaurant can discriminate against an African American. Would I be wrong to assume that you support the civil rights act of 1964? If so, the above case is its logical conclusion.
There is no danger of courts forcing the Church to provide the sacrament of marriage for homosexuals.

 

[Publisher]

“will” happen. We already see private businesses losing their freedom of religion. The homosexual lobby’s tolerance of religion is extremely limited.

Again…apples and oranges…public operated businesses do not have the right to discriiminate if they operate a public business WITH a public business license…religous institutions are not operated under same guidelines as “public businesses”…

 

[Allegra]

There is difference between that case and your theoretical lawsuit to force the Church to administer the sacrament of marriage to a same sex couple. A photography business can no more discriminate against a homosexual than a restaurant can discriminate against an African American. Would I be wrong to assume that you support the civil rights act of 1964? If so, the above case is its logical conclusion.
There is no danger of courts forcing the Church to provide the sacrament of marriage for homosexuals.

Actually, it wouldn’t have to be as bad as forcing the church to pretend a sacramental marriage between homosexuals for it to be absolutely wrong. It would be a horrific injustice, in my opinion, to force ANYONE to acknowlege something as abhorant as a pretend marriage between homosexual partners under any circumstances. Churches of any denomination should not have to provide their facilities for such a purpose. Individuals that own reception halls should not have to either any more then she should have to provide them for a swinger’s club gathering or a cock fight. What must be preserved is an individual and an organization’s right to say that homosexual behavior is wrong and homosexual unions are not marriages. The photographer in this instance was not being asked to provide her services for a graduation, 50th birthday, or bar mitzfa of a homosexual person. They were being asked to participate in a gravely immoral practice. A person should have the right to decline without being dragged into court. It has already been demonstrated mulitple times the many differences between opposing an event because of the sinful nature of the event itself and opposing it because of the physical appearance of the participants so I won’t bother dignifying that with a response.

 

[Publisher]

This is a case of WILL happen and IS ALREADY happening.

Please cite a case of religous groups being sued for not providing their religious rites and ordinances to those who according to the religiouos group the communicate does not meet the religious requirments to receive the sacraments or ordinances?

 

[stanczyk]

Such profound intolerance of homosexuals is highly problematic for the Church. It is important to put one’s priorities in order.

 

[epan]

Such profound intolerance of homosexuals is highly problematic for the Church. It is important to put one’s priorities in order.

I agree, if you are suggesting that there are far more important issues facing us, than this one. I am an outsider, and not being critical, but I sometimes wonder at the judgement of Church leaders, and not only Catholics, but in general, when they spend so much energy some issues, while neglecting others.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I have a question for Catholic opponents of same-sex marriage - would you given the political practicality of such a move, also ban other marriages deemed not to be marriages by the Church - such as the ‘marriages’ of divorced people, or the ‘marriages’ of baptized Catholics outside the Church?

Assuming you are referring to traditional 1 male/1 female marriages, the answer is No.

Hokomai:

if so, I assume for the same reason you oppose gays being able to marry each other. If not, why not, and why are you not campaigning for a ban?

The Catholic position is a REACTION against the idea of redefining marriage to exclude it’s orientiation towards procreation. The “campaigning” parties are those who seek to impose the new definition - completely uncoupled from the procreative nature of marriage. Catholics simply think the traditional definition is worth preserving.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Allegra]

Such profound intolerance of homosexuals is highly problematic for the Church. It is important to put one’s priorities in order.

Am I to assume that you consider refusal to acknowledge a homosexual relationship as a marriage as “profound intolerance”? Perhaps we could put the shoe on the other foot and wonder why it matters so much to the other side that some people won’t play along with them. There are, as you say, more important things to worry about. There is nothing prohibiting gay people from seeking out whatever kind of relationship they want, getting a good job, owning their own home, engaging in any activity they want. They can certainly go around calling each other a spouse if they want to. They can attempt to convince family and friends to do the same and many of them will. Why is it so important when there are starving children in Africa, a gazillion dollar deficit, and a quickly depleting polulation of elephants and dophins that every single American citizen and company be legally required to believe that a homosexual relationship is the same as a marriage or shutup and keep it to themself?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

But it requires an unCatholic definition.

No, it does not.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Actually, there was a time when it would have been a new idea. Therefore “traditional marriage” is not so traditional, as marriage has changed numerous times throughout history.

Divorce (like infidelity) has been around since the beginning. It does not alter the definition of marriage as the union of man and woman for the purpose of mutual support, and the mutual support of any children arising from the union. Sadly, people break their marital vows all the time. It does not mean that the definition of marriage has been altered.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Allegra]

I agree, if you are suggesting that there are far more important issues facing us, than this one. I am an outsider, and not being critical, but I sometimes wonder at the judgement of Church leaders, and not only Catholics, but in general, when they spend so much energy some issues, while neglecting others.

Because when you ignore a small problem, it grows into a much bigger problem. A few years ago, I would have probably said, “What’s the difference if gay marriage is allowed? They’re already playing house now.” Now we see photographers being dragged into court.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Yet the legal arguments appear to support same sex marriage, as the definition of marriage has changed legally with respect to gender over the past 70 years. Rather than changing the definition of marriage, the same sex marriage advocates are advocating the normal legal progression, which was set in motion by the women’s rights movement.

No. The argument for so-called “gay marriage” STARTS with a redefinition that completely rejects the union’s orientation towards procreation and the raising of children. This change was not “set in motion” by laws that weakened marriage. It is another avenue of attack that will, if allowed, completely alter what marriage is.

epan:

The principal objections to homosexual behavior is religious. So, I think your response is non-responsive to the OP’s question.

No. The principal objections to the redefinition of marriage are based in natural law, as well as history and reason. The fact that many faiths support the traditional definition of marriage does not make the argument “principally religious.”

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

The government shouldn’t be in the business of marriage in the fist place. The US Constiuion requires equal protection under he law for all persons. If you want to uphold the US Constitution, then either gay marriage must be recognized, or get the government out of marriage altogether. But to permit straight marriage without allowing same sex marriage is,as anybody who understands Constitutional law knows, discriminatory and a violation of the fourteenth amendment.

ONLY if you FIRST redefine marriage to be nothing but the commitment of two people to live their lives together for an indeterminate period. IF the traditional definition of marriage is upheld, it is not discriminatory to deny two people of the same gender to enter into marriage, because such persons are not “similarly situated” for purposes of an equal protection analysis.

In other words, marriage is fundamentally about procreation, and two people of the same gender cannot procreate. Thus, it is not discriminatory to limit marriage to male/female relationships, because they are unique. A person who is a homosexual may enter into a marriage - and is free to do so - although they would not choose to do so because marriage is incompatible BY ITS VERY NATURE with homosexual unions. Please note that this argument does not belittle someone’s sexual orientation, or pass judgment on their chosen lifestyle or raise the slightest suggestion that unjust discrimination should be heaped upon same-sex couples. Nor is the argument premised upon Church doctrine or biblical definitions of marriage. It is entirely based upon the historical observation of what marriage has been around the world, from the beginning of recorded history up to *very recent *times. I suggest that if the definition of marriage is to be changed, it is the side proposing the change that bears the burden of showing why it is in the best interests of society to alter one of its fundamental institutions.

To date, the “best” answer I’ve heard is something like, “love is love and it should be respected.” While one can discuss the subjective elements of “love” this is no basis for changing marriage, any more than it is to say that marriage defines love. The argument assumes that unless society bestows the term “marriage” upon a same-sex union, the relationship is not “real” but the conclusion simply does not follow. All that one can conclude under the circumstance is that the relationship is different from a marriage, because it acknowledges the truth - that two people of the same gender cannot procreate.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Prague]

There is a bakery in Colorado also being sued for refusing to make a wedding cake for two guys. On Fox news website today.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

The whole affair is exceptionally orwellian. It is, as stated, similar to the Government making a law which means we have to refer to dogs as horses. Not good.

Well said.

I try to use the analogy of changing the definition of “mother” to include both male and female parents. If people can see that it is not discriminatory to men to simply acknowledge there is a unique relationship between a child and its female parent that is summed up in the word “mother” then perhaps they will see that - without being discriminatory - there is a unique relationship between husband and wife that is summed up in the word “marriage.” There is real value to society in simply recognizing these kinds of distinctions. At the very least, it keeps us intellectually honest with each other and out of the world of newspeak.

If the definition of marriage changes as the same-sex-marriage side desires, I can imagine a time when it will become politically incorrect to use phrases like “bride and groom” or “husband and wife.” Indeed, I can see such terms will become the equivalent of homophobic slurs, because the terms necessarily imply the underlying reality of marriage that the culture is actively trying to subvert.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Publisher]

There is a bakery in Colorado also being sued for refusing to make a wedding cake for two guys. On Fox news website today.

A business…not a relgious institution where the guys are asking for religious rites and ceremonies which are against the faiths precepts…they are asking for equality in regards to being served thru a public venue where the owner of the business has a business license which does not allow discrimination in the public arena…BIG DIFFERENCE…apples and oranges.

 

[stanczyk]

I agree, if you are suggesting that there are far more important issues facing us, than this one. I am an outsider, and not being critical, but I sometimes wonder at the judgement of Church leaders, and not only Catholics, but in general, when they spend so much energy some issues, while neglecting others.

That is exactly what I mean. Prolife issues make this issue look like a joke by comparison. Homosexual “marriage” is a sin, no doubt, but so is cohabiting unmarked straight couples. I don’t see people up in arms about that.

Catholics need to learn how to pick their battles. US law clearly supports gay marriage equality. Why on earth are we making a stand over this insignificant issue when things like abortion ( on which there can be no compromise) require our full attention. It just
makes Catholics look bigoted, because it really is based on nothing more than bigotry.

 

[stanczyk]

A business…not a relgious institution where the guys are asking for religious rites and ceremonies which are against the faiths precepts…they are asking for equality in regards to being served thru a public venue where the owner of the business has a business license which does not allow discrimination in the public arena…BIG DIFFERENCE…apples and oranges.

Correct.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

There is a bakery in Colorado also being sued for refusing to make a wedding cake for two guys. On Fox news website today.

Here’s another sad episode. Knights of Columbus were sued in B.C. for refusing to rent their hall for a lesbian wedding. Canadian human rights tribunal found in favor fo the lesbian couple despite the KofC’s Catholic faith beliefs. The Knight that was in charge of bookings was then fired from his job at Costco, by his openly gay boss.

Here’s a link to the story

If marriage changes, everyday people who object to the change - for whatever reason - will be the subject of lawsuits, or at the very least accusations of “intolerance, bigotry, and hatred.” It’s not a question of fact. It’s undisputed that it’s already happening in areas where gay marriage is the law.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Catholics need to learn how to pick their battles. US law clearly supports gay marriage equality. Why on earth are we making a stand over this insignificant issue when things like abortion ( on which there can be no compromise) require our full attention. It just makes Catholics look bigoted, because it really is based on nothing more than bigotry.

It’s not bigoted. It’s not based on bigotry. You’re missing the importance of this issue. That’s not to say there are not other issues of equal importance. I agree that abortion is an even bigger issue. But it’s no reason to shy away from the issue of defining marriage, simply because the other side paints those who support traditional marriage as “bigoted.” The proper response is to continue to speak up, in charity, in defense of truth.

Peace,
Robert