Church's Double Standard with Gay Marriage and Divorce and Remarriage

[xixxvmcm85]

Thee is no social force against it, in large part, because Catholics do not organize against it. Furthermore, being against “no fault” divorce only is hardly taking a principled stand against the breaking of the sacrament, no?

Moreover, abortion is legal and has been for 40 years. Should the church not fight against this either? I really don’t understand the reasoning here. And your mentioning of resources hardly matters when so much of Catholic speech is virtually free. The press will cover Catholics who speak against divorce and call for it to be outlawed. Believe me, they will cover them and the coverage will be free.

My point was concerning expediency. When divorce was a controversial topic in the society at large the Church did take a very political stance against it. Unless there’s a significant amount of voters willing to be persuaded I don’t see why the Church would implore us to essentially waste our votes by insisting on anti-divorce candidates and anti-divorce legislation. Same-sex marriage is still relatively controversial and so just as the Church has done before she has positioned herself in a lobbying capacity and I assume will continue to do so as so long as the controversy is there. It is my opinion that in 50 years if same-sex marriage takes significant hold in the country and becomes near universally acceptable in society at large the Church in the US will give up the lobbying force while still teaching against SSM, just as she has done with divorce. This is precisely why I brought up the Philippines as an example; a place where divorce is currently not granted and where there is a sizable force to legalize it. There the Church is politically rallying against it.

The preceding is just personal speculation as to the motives of the USCCB. Without any official correspondence from the Bishops, I cannot say definitively why the Church in the US actively fights SSM but not divorce.

 

[Ender]

So, is the clearer public opposition to gay marriage a “double-standard” or not? That is the question here.

No, it is not, and xixxvmcm85 gave a very reasoned explanation for why it is not. Don’t diminish the practical aspects involved in influencing public opinion or ignore the foolishness of making the perfect the enemy of the good.

Ender

 

[larkin31]

My point was concerning expediency. When divorce was a controversial topic in the society at large the Church did take a very political stance against it. Unless there’s a significant amount of voters willing to be persuaded I don’t see why the Church would implore us to essentially waste our votes by insisting on anti-divorce candidates and anti-divorce legislation. Same-sex marriage is still relatively controversial and so just as the Church has done before she has positioned herself in a lobbying capacity and I assume will continue to do so as so long as the controversy is there. It is my opinion that in 50 years if same-sex marriage takes significant hold in the country and becomes near universally acceptable in society at large the Church in the US will give up the lobbying force while still teaching against SSM, just as she has done with divorce. This is precisely why I brought up the Philippines as an example; a place where divorce is currently not granted and where there is a sizable force to legalize it. There the Church is politically rallying against it.

The preceding is just personal speculation as to the motives of the USCCB. Without any official correspondence from the Bishops, I cannot say definitively why the Church in the US actively fights SSM but not divorce.

Thanks, and I agree. Catholics, by and large, no longer fight against legal divorce of any kind. Principle has yielded to political expedience. THAT has been my point, too. I just also call it a double standard (“principle” only being applied in the one case and not the other). It’s not a strong criticism from me, by the way. I think that Catholics should drop the fight against gay marriage, too. I consider them wrong, likely to lose in the long run (which is actually drawing nearer), and more helpful in other fights (the poor, the middle class health care, charity) that have nothing to do with private sexual mores.

 

[larkin31]

No, it is not, and xixxvmcm85 gave a very reasoned explanation for why it is not. Don’t diminish the practical aspects involved in influencing public opinion or ignore the foolishness of making the perfect the enemy of the good.

Ender

I don’t ignore political expedience. I just don’t use it as a mask for the double standard. All churches enact double standards; every human institution does at one time or another. Some are harmless. Some are quite deleterious and unjust. It all depends on the principle involved.

 

[Corki]

I don’t ignore political expedience. I just don’t use it as a mask for the double standard. All churches enact double standards; every human institution does at one time or another. Some are harmless. Some are quite deleterious and unjust. It all depends on the principle involved.

It’s not a double standard at all. Nor is it an unjust difference.

First of all, the Church isn’t against ALL divorces and remarriages as seen from the civil side (and that’s the only side we can affect legislatively). If a person obtains a civil divorce, then the first marriage is found to have been null and the person marries validly in the Church, the civil authorities would look at this as a remarriage even if the Church does not. To lobby against all divorce or remarriage would be to strand thousands of couples who married legally but invalidly.

There are many cases where a civil divorce or a second civil marriage are completely in line with Church teaching. There is NO case where a “gay” “marriage” could ever be compatible with Church teaching.

 

[larkin31]

It’s not a double standard at all. Nor is it an unjust difference.

First of all, the Church isn’t against ALL divorces and remarriages as seen from the civil side (and that’s the only side we can affect legislatively). If a person obtains a civil divorce, then the first marriage is found to have been null and the person marries validly in the Church, the civil authorities would look at this as a remarriage even if the Church does not.

It is my understanding that for Catholics to divorce and remarry without an annulment is a grave sin. Am I incorrect about this? And does not the CC teach that civil divorce for anything other than adultery or abuse is a sin?

To lobby against all divorce or remarriage would be to strand thousands of couples who married legally but invalidly.

?? Strand them how? Sorry, but I don’t understand what you mean here? Is it not the same argument in the case of abortion? You simply outlaw all future divorces (abortions). It has no bearing on past divorces.

There are many cases where a civil divorce or a second civil marriage are completely in line with Church teaching.

Even without annulment? Really? I have never heard such a claim before, and I have been told quite the opposite here at CA. Can you help me see this better? I would love to see this correctly from the Catholic point of view. Just how often is divorce and remarriage ok for Catholics if there is no annulment? And, therefore, does the Catholic church actually no longer object to the sin of remarriage?

There is NO case where a “gay” “marriage” could ever be compatible with Church teaching.

Presently, sure. But the same was said of virtually all divorce at one point, too. Are you telling me that the CC accepts divorce now and does not call it a grave sin? Can an unrepentant divorced and remarried Catholic continue to participate in the Eucharist, for example, even if one has not procured an annulment?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I don’t ignore political expedience. I just don’t use it as a mask for the double standard. All churches enact double standards; every human institution does at one time or another. Some are harmless. Some are quite deleterious and unjust. It all depends on the principle involved.

I don’t understand. How is it a double standard when expediency is the standard? I’m arguing that the Church will put up a fight when she has a reasonable chance in winning that fight and she will refrain from quixotic ordeals with windmills. She’s done it with divorce in the Philippines, same-sex marriage in the US, and also with public displays of religion in “Catholic” nations. Do you think its a double standard that the church in Italy fights to keep crucifixes in public schools but doesn’t do so here in the US?

 

[larkin31]

I don’t understand. How is it a double standard when expediency is the standard? I’m arguing that the Church will put up a fight when she has a reasonable chance in winning that fight and she will refrain from quixotic ordeals with windmills. She’s done it with divorce in the Philippines, same-sex marriage in the US, and also with public displays of religion in “Catholic” nations. Do you think its a double standard that the church in Italy fights to keep crucifixes in public schools but doesn’t do so here in the US?

ah

ok, I see your point now: principle is not guiding this process, but rather political expediency

I am surprised, but I see your point now

 

[Corki]

It is my understanding that for Catholics to divorce and remarry without an annulment is a grave sin. Am I incorrect about this? And does not the CC teach that civil divorce for anything other than adultery or abuse is a sin?

No you are correct. That’s why my example used the words “the first marriage is found to have been null”.

And no, the Church does not say that divorce for reasons other than adultery or abuse is a sin. There are many reasons a spouse might seek to live apart and/or to obtain a civil divorce.

?? Strand them how? Sorry, but I don’t understand what you mean here? Is it not the same argument in the case of abortion? You simply outlaw all future divorces (abortions). It has no bearing on past divorces.

The civil law neither knows or cares about annullments or tribunal decisions. A marriage found to be null usually frees the individuals to marry from the Church’s viewpoint. If remarriage after civil divorce was illegal, those individual would not be able to civally marry. (remarry according to the civil law).

Even without annulment? Really? I have never heard such a claim before, and I have been told quite the opposite here at CA. Can you help me see this better? I would love to see this correctly from the Catholic point of view. Just how often is divorce and remarriage ok for Catholics if there is no annulment? And, therefore, does the Catholic church actually no longer object to the sin of remarriage?

Where did I say there was no annullment!?!? In most of those cases, an annullment would be the process followed but there are also the cases of lack of cannonical form, Petrine Privalege and Pauline Privalege.

The Church only objects to remarriage if there is a prior valid bond.

Presently, sure. But the same was said of virtually all divorce at one point, too. Are you telling me that the CC accepts divorce now and does not call it a grave sin? Can an unrepentant divorced and remarried Catholic continue to participate in the Eucharist, for example, even if one has not procured an annulment

No, such a person would not be a state of grace or able to receive Communion. No change there and nothing that I said implied that there was. But divorce itself is not always a grave sin. To say the Church “accepts divorce” is a stretch but she recognizes that sometimes it is necessary to protect one spouse or the children. See CCC 2382-2386.

 

[larkin31]

No you are correct. That’s why my example used the words “the first marriage is found to have been null”.

And no, the Church does not say that divorce for reasons other than adultery or abuse is a sin. There are many reasons a spouse might seek to live apart and/or to obtain a civil divorce.

The civil law neither knows or cares about annullments or tribunal decisions. A marriage found to be null usually frees the individuals to marry from the Church’s viewpoint. If remarriage after civil divorce was illegal, those individual would not be able to civally marry. (remarry according to the civil law).

Where did I say there was no annullment!?!? In most of those cases, an annullment would be the process followed but there are also the cases of lack of cannonical form, Petrine Privalege and Pauline Privalege.

The Church only objects to remarriage if there is a prior valid bond.

No, such a person would not be a state of grace or able to receive Communion. No change there and nothing that I said implied that there was. But divorce itself is not always a grave sin. To say the Church “accepts divorce” is a stretch but she recognizes that sometimes it is necessary to protect one spouse or the children. See CCC 2382-2386.

I know that “sometimes” divorce is ok. I am asserting that in the majority of divorce cases that there does not follow an official Catholic process of nullifying the first marriage. You are the first poster that I have encountered who keeps asserting since that “some” divorces are accepted by the CC that, therefore, divorce is no longer really considered a grave sin.

I thought that recent Popes have been sharply critical of divorce in America. But maybe I am wrong about that. I have never heard the CC say anything about divorce except, generally, and at times specifically, to be quite critical of it.

Do you have any idea how many Americans divorce? Do you know how many Catholics do? Do you know how many Catholics who divorce then follow up with some sort of nullification process? I do not, but I know that some posters here DO know these numbers and have posted them from time to time.

 

[larkin31]

ReligiousTolerance.org cites two studies that show Catholic divorce rates at around 21%, right in line with nearly all other Christian religious groups.

 

[larkin31]

Another stat:

Catholic Annulment Statistics:
“For the year 2002: of the 56,236 ordinary hearings for a declaration of
nullity, 46,092 received an affirmative sentence. Of these, 343 were handed
out in Africa, 676 in Oceania, 1,562 in Asia, 8,855 in Europe and 36,656 in
America, of which 30,968 in North America and 5,688 in Central and South
America.”

Wow, huh?

 

[larkin31]

And check this out:

Parents with daughters are more likely to divorce and have trouble remarrying than parents with sons:

slate.com/id/2089142/

 

[kalwein]

Does the church have a double standard with being so openly against gay marriage but not openly against divorce and remarriage (at least in the realm of law)? The church is against homosexual marriage being allowed by the law, but the church is not against banning divorce and remarriage. Obviously the Church does not recognize either gay marriage or divorce and remarriage without annulment. Why does the church not advocate against both.

Is this a double standard? What am I missing here? Thanks!

Yes, I think so.

I’ve been pondering this for some time. It seems to me that the key issue is that Catholics in general simply do not understand the term “Marriage” as it is used outside of the Catholic church.

In a Catholic (religious) Marriage, the partners are involved in a sacrament, a covenant between themselves and God. The argument against divorce is essentially that one cannot break such a covenant with God, as he has acted to unite the couple with his specific blessing. There are therefore THREE partners in this marriage – the couple & God. Perfectly reasonable, given that for good Catholics, God would always be present in all of their actions, in theory.

In a secular or (Civil Marriage) God is simply NOT part of the Marriage covenant. He wasn’t invited. It is NOT a sacrament. He may, of course, choose to be present, but that’s up to Him. In secular ceremonies, God, certainly as we understand Him in the Catholic Church, is a persona non-grata. I can’t understand why the Catholic Church would EVER condone or accept such a thing.

In fact, in secular marriage, civil law gives the state the power that is reserved to God in Catholic Marriage. The government reserves to itself the ability to validate or invalidate marriages because it presumes that the couple is entering a covenant with the state. Essentially, the government takes the place of God. This is why one must request a divorce in a government court; because one is broaching one’s agreement with the government as well. Replacing God with the Government seems like quite the mortal sin, BTW.

To me logic says that the goal of the Church should be to either convert any such marriage to a Catholic norm, by holding an additional Sacramental Marriage, or to essentially condemn it as an unsanctified form of legalized fornication. Middle ground seems… lazy.

The same logic applies to Gay Marriage. Really, unless Gay people are demanding SACRAMENTAL CATHOLIC marriage, who cares? By Catholic doctrine, all marriages outside the church aren’t real… not worth the paper they are written on, and are automatically legalizing sinful fornication.

It’s perfectly reasonable for the Church to govern the application of Church Sacraments and limit them to theologically sound doctrine. Anyone (Gay, Straight, White, Black, Liberal, Conservative, short, tall, or whatever) disagreeing with this should be politely set straight. Those who do it agressively or interrupt Church services, should be firmly escorted out.

It’s seems entirely unreasonable and possibly against some of Jesus’ teachings for Catholics to start breaking people in mortal sin into different categories of acceptability based on the type of fornication in question. It seems … judgemental… at the very least. Possibly hateful, too.

Why would we, as Catholics, care what rules and benefits were applied by the government to people who would fall into these different categories? Sacramental Marriage needs no defense; the rules for it are not changing anytime soon, and can’t be legislated away, in any case. Secular Marriage is not for Catholics, or sinful; firmly outside the Church’s jurisdiction…unless Catholics are involved.

Render unto Caesar…

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’ve been pondering this for some time. It seems to me that the key issue is that Catholics in general simply do not understand the term “Marriage” as it is used outside of the Catholic church.

Wrong. Couldn’t be more wrong. The general term marriage is understood by Catholics in the traditional way society understands it: one man, one woman. I’m talking about definitions of marital couplings, not definitions of sacraments

unless Gay people are demanding SACRAMENTAL CATHOLIC marriage, who cares?

(1) Because marriage affects all of us.
(2) Because, since you are a Catholic, you need to search the USCCB documents on what Catholics are to promote and discourage about marriage, in the civil realm. I’ve posted these several times on CAF, but you can find them quite easily on the USCCB website (homosexual civil unions, homosexual “marriage,” etc. – not as in the Catholic Church, in SOCIETY.

Render unto Caesar…

That’s not the correct application of that lifted scriptural phrase.

So many Catholics here have so much to learn about their faith.

 

[Phemie]

Yes, I think so.

I’ve been pondering this for some time. It seems to me that the key issue is that Catholics in general simply do not understand the term “Marriage” as it is used outside of the Catholic church.

In a Catholic (religious) Marriage, the partners are involved in a sacrament, a covenant between themselves and God. The argument against divorce is essentially that one cannot break such a covenant with God, as he has acted to unite the couple with his specific blessing. There are therefore THREE partners in this marriage – the couple & God. Perfectly reasonable, given that for good Catholics, God would always be present in all of their actions, in theory.

In a secular or (Civil Marriage) God is simply NOT part of the Marriage covenant. He wasn’t invited. It is NOT a sacrament.

That is not what the Catholic Church teaches. If the couple are baptized but not Catholic, a civil marriage IS a sacrament.

He may, of course, choose to be present, but that’s up to Him. In secular ceremonies, God, certainly as we understand Him in the Catholic Church, is a persona non-grata. I can’t understand why the Catholic Church would EVER condone or accept such a thing.

In fact, in secular marriage, civil law gives the state the power that is reserved to God in Catholic Marriage. The government reserves to itself the ability to validate or invalidate marriages because it presumes that the couple is entering a covenant with the state. Essentially, the government takes the place of God.

I don’t know where you live, but where I live the priest is also an agent of the State. And in more than one country, the couple has to marry civilly before they marry religiously because, like it or not, marriage IS a legal contract as well as a religious covenant. The State has a stake in marriages.

 

[kalwein]

Wrong. Couldn’t be more wrong. The general term marriage is understood by Catholics in the traditional way society understands it: one man, one woman. I’m talking about definitions of marital couplings, not definitions of sacraments >

I don’t agree. For Catholics, marriage is a supernatural sacrament. For the rest of society, this is not necessarily so. For a Catholic, there should be no division possible between a marital coupling and marriage as an ongoing product of a sacrament. This is simply and flatly not so for secular marriages. In secular marriage, marriage is a contract, between the couple and the state. God in no way enters it.

This is well explained in this excerpt (from catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/p/Sac_Marriage.htm )

"A Supernatural Institution:

In the Catholic Church, however, marriage is more than a natural institution; it was elevated by Christ Himself, in His participation in the wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11), to be one of the seven sacraments. A marriage between two Christians, therefore, has a supernatural element as well as a natural one. While few Christians outside of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches regard marriage as a sacrament, the Catholic Church insists that marriage between any two baptized Christians, as long as it is entered into with the intention to contract a true marriage, is a sacrament."

—Quote—
unless Gay people are demanding SACRAMENTAL CATHOLIC marriage, who cares?
—End Quote—
(1) Because marriage affects all of us.

Secular marriage has no effect on me. Please elaborate on your perceived effect. I see no difference between the effects of two “married” male/female atheists, male/female pagans, or male/male Christians. All three groups would not be validly sacramentally married as far as the Church is concerned. Technically speaking, I suspect the two theoretically secularly “married” male/male Christians could be in better shape from a religious perspective than the male/female atheist or pagan couples.

A law that granted the legal privileges and tax breaks of marriage to people of Irish ancestry who have red hair, would similarly no affect me.

(2) Because, since you are a Catholic, you need to search the USCCB documents on what Catholics are to promote and discourage about marriage, in the civil realm. I’ve posted these several times on CAF, but you can find them quite easily on the USCCB website (homosexual civil unions, homosexual “marriage,” etc. – not as in the Catholic Church, in SOCIETY.

I reviewed them, again. The documents are in need of clarification. They refer at various points to Christian Marriage, which is inherently sacramental, and to secular marriage. They presume them to be interchangeable, and move back and forth rather fluidly. This is an error in logic. Perhaps this is a matter of wishful thinking, too. There may well have been a time when those concepts were interchangeable; that time is not now. In the U.S., two atheists who marry secularly are simply not in a Christian marriage.

—Quote—
Render unto Caesar…
—End Quote—
That’s not the correct application of that lifted scriptural phrase.

I disagree, again. Those who have denied the authority of Christ, and placed their faith in the hands of secular authority clearly belong to Caesar.

 

[kalwein]

Phemie:
Marriage between non-Christians is not a sacrament. Presumably not recognized as a marriage at all. Please see Catholic Encyclopedia below:

newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm —“As we have several times emphasized, not every marriage is a true sacrament, but only marriages between Christians. One becomes and remains a Christian in the sense recognized here through valid baptism.”

Priests who function as an agent of the state are performing dual roles. This does not change that there are other agents of the state performing non-sacramental marriage, that theoretically is not recognized by the Church.

 

[John21652]

Yes, I think so.

I’ve been pondering this for some time. It seems to me that the key issue is that Catholics in general simply do not understand the term “Marriage” as it is used outside of the Catholic church.

So, your ‘ponderings’ have led you to beleive that Catholics don’t understand the law of the land and what goes on outside their own little parishes. Is that the sum total of you ‘ponderings’? You think Catholics are dumb?

In a Catholic (religious) Marriage, the partners are involved in a sacrament, a covenant between themselves and God. The argument against divorce is essentially that one cannot break such a covenant with God, as he has acted to unite the couple with his specific blessing. There are therefore THREE partners in this marriage – the couple & God. Perfectly reasonable, given that for good Catholics, God would always be present in all of their actions, in theory.

You have identified yourself as a Catholic, so what’s with the “…in theory”?

I

n a secular or (Civil Marriage) God is simply NOT part of the Marriage covenant. He wasn’t invited. It is NOT a sacrament. He may, of course, choose to be present, but that’s up to Him. In secular ceremonies, God, certainly as we understand Him in the Catholic Church, is a persona non-grata. I can’t understand why the Catholic Church would EVER condone or accept such a thing.

What would you have the Catholic Church do? Demonstrate outside registry offices?

In fact, in secular marriage, civil law gives the state the power that is reserved to God in Catholic Marriage. The government reserves to itself the ability to validate or invalidate marriages because it presumes that the couple is entering a covenant with the state. Essentially, the government takes the place of God. This is why one must request a divorce in a government court; because one is broaching one’s agreement with the government as well. Replacing God with the Government seems like quite the mortal sin, BTW.

No one is replacing God with the state. Your “ponderings” have led you up the garden path.

To me logic says that the goal of the Church should be to either convert any such marriage to a Catholic norm, by holding an additional Sacramental Marriage, or to essentially condemn it as an unsanctified form of legalized fornication. Middle ground seems… lazy.

Your willingness to condemn Catholicism is now showing. Catholics get married inside Catholic Churches, non-Catholics get married wherever they want. What would you have the Church do, kidnap and convert non-Catholics?

The same logic applies to Gay Marriage. Really, unless Gay people are demanding SACRAMENTAL CATHOLIC marriage, who cares? By Catholic doctrine, all marriages outside the church aren’t real… not worth the paper they are written on, and are automatically legalizing sinful fornication.

The very notion of ‘Gay Marriage’ is an affront to all of humanity. Homosexuality is disordered and has been outside the norm of accepted human behaviour ever since whenever. If you are a Catholic, as you say you are, you will accept and promulgate the Catechism and what it says about homosexuality and you will voice your disapproval at the notion of ‘gay marriage’.

It’s perfectly reasonable for the Church to govern the application of Church Sacraments and limit them to theologically sound doctrine. Anyone (Gay, Straight, White, Black, Liberal, Conservative, short, tall, or whatever) disagreeing with this should be politely set straight. Those who do it agressively or interrupt Church services, should be firmly escorted out.

And of course, this applies to you too?

It’s seems entirely unreasonable and possibly against some of Jesus’ teachings for Catholics to start breaking people in mortal sin into different categories of acceptability based on the type of fornication in question. It seems … judgemental… at the very least. Possibly hateful, too.

Now you are questioning Church Doctrine. Worse, you are denegrating it. See above paragraph.

Why would we, as Catholics, care what rules and benefits were applied by the government to people who would fall into these different categories? Sacramental Marriage needs no defense; the rules for it are not changing anytime soon, and can’t be legislated away, in any case. Secular Marriage is not for Catholics, or sinful; firmly outside the Church’s jurisdiction…unless Catholics are involved.

The Church is a teacher and guardian of morality. Morality is the glue which holds societies together. Once that ‘glue’ begins to melt, societies fracture. History is full of such examples. I suggest you go forth and continue your ‘ponderings’, because they, so far, have seriously compromised your Catholicism.

Render unto Caesar…

And unto God.

 

[kalwein]

You think Catholics are dumb? .

Hardly. I do believe there is a huge blind spot here, though. Very few people, in general, realize the implications of secular marriage contracts. Almost no one truly realizes that secular marriage contracts make them the inferior partners to the state in their marriage.
Here’s a sample citation on that, btw — there are MANY more…
lawfulpath.com/ref/secularmarriage.shtml

You have identified yourself as a Catholic, so what’s with the “…in theory”?

I simply doubt that even good Catholics are thinking about God 100% of the time, in all their actions. It’s a great goal, and one that striving for helps us all. Achieving it would be beyond saintly, as even the Lives of the Saints record instances of the Saints having extranaeous thoughts or activities.

What would you have the Catholic Church do? Demonstrate outside registry offices?

Not quite. I simply wonder why the Church needs to be involved in the secular legalities of marriage at all. There are other Sacraments which it does not register with secular authority, such as Confirmation, for example. They remain perfectly valid within the Church. Catholics who marry could also register seperately with the secular authority as well.
As radical as that sounds, keep in mind that the Church did exactly that throughout most of its existence, as secular marriage licenses were totally unheard of before the 1600’s and were not normal until the 1800’s, when they were secularly instituted primarily as a means of ensuring that interracial marriage was not allowed.

No one is replacing God with the state. Your “ponderings” have led you up the garden path.

Really? So you are not aware of a single person who was technically raised Catholic who opted for a Civil Marriage ceremony, rather than a Church wedding? Kudos to you, because I have a friend trying to convince their sister that a Church wedding is the way to go, who is having lots of trouble. She is far from the only case I have heard of. Another raised Catholic, former Altar boy, is currently mulling over marrying a Jewish girl in a secular ceremony.
See lawfulpath.com/ref/secularmarriage.shtml – quoted below.

“He said, in the traditional sense a marriage is a covenant between the husband and wife and God. But in the Secular Contract with the state, reference to God is a “dotted line,” and not officially considered included in the Secular Contract at all. He said, if the husband and wife wish to include God as a party in their marriage, that is a “dotted line” they will have to add in their own minds. The state’s marriage license is “strictly secular,” he said.”

Your willingness to condemn Catholicism is now showing. …

My apologies, I was merely being critical of the seeming contradiction in refusing to be critical of the secular marriage customs of say, Adulterers, Atheists, Satanists, etc., and singling out the unacceptability of the Gay subgroup to be activist about. We don’t even whisper about the other groups.

(Second Part of Response in seperate post) …