Church's stance on gay civil unions

  • Thread starter Thread starter cosine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cosine

Guest
What is it?

I have to know, because on the 7th WI is having a referendum for gay marriage on the ballot. I’m adamantly against homosexual “marriage,” but the referendum would be so drastic as to amend WI’s constitution. WI, by the way, already does not reconize any marriage between anyone else than one man and one woman as being valid. The referendum is mostly to amend WI’s constitution to prevent civil unions or other legal type arrangments or unions with benefits for the two parties similar to marriage as being valid. As of right now, I don’t know if there is a problem with that. If there wants to be a legal type agreement between two parties with benefits similar to marriage, but that is not marriage and is not called marriage, I don’t know if there is a problem with that. I don’t know what the Church’s stance on that is.

You can read the referendum yourself here: elections.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=9220&locid=47
 
cosine said:
What is it?

I have to know, because on the 7th WI is having a referendum for gay marriage on the ballot. I’m adamantly against homosexual “marriage,” but the referendum would be so drastic as to amend WI’s constitution. WI, by the way, already does not reconize any marriage between anyone else than one man and one woman as being valid. The referendum is mostly to amend WI’s constitution to prevent civil unions or other legal type arrangments or unions with benefits for the two parties similar to marriage as being valid. As of right now, I don’t know if there is a problem with that. If there wants to be a legal type agreement between two parties with benefits similar to marriage, but that is not marriage and is not called marriage, I don’t know if there is a problem with that. I don’t know what the Church’s stance on that is.

You can read the referendum yourself here: elections.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=9220&locid=47
Click to expand...
Any relationship that is sexually active outside of a sacramental marriage is illicit and gravely sinful - this most definitely includes civil unions.
 
Riley259 said:
Any relationship that is sexually active outside of a sacramental marriage is illicit and gravely sinful - this most definitely includes civil unions.
Click to expand...
I fully know that, and agree with that.

I should mention, I am going to vote for the amendment.

What is the Church’s stance on heterosexual civil unions? I know in the eyes of the Church they are illicit, and that the sexual activity is gravely sinful, but in the eyes of the Church should they be illegal or not reconized as valid with the benefits of marriage? I’m talking about for non-Catholics here.
 
Never mind, it just hit me. The Church would be opposed to civil unions or legal type agreements with benefits similar to marriage (even if it is not called marriage) for homosexuals because by doing so it gives their disordered lifestyle legitimacy in the eyes of the government on par with actual marriage or civil unions between heterosexual couples.

Thanks to all who opened this thread willing to help.
 
I’m glad you’re going to vote for the amendment. One of the key reasons that these kinds of amendments are necessary is because liberal activist judges have overturned state laws banning same sex marriage on the basis that those laws were unconstitutional. So, the WI law banning same sex marriages/unions is not safe from state judges (federal judges are a different story) until that amendment is passed.
 
ChristIsTheWay said:
I’m glad you’re going to vote for the amendment. One of the key reasons that these kinds of amendments are necessary is because liberal activist judges have overturned state laws banning same sex marriage on the basis that those laws were unconstitutional. So, the WI law banning same sex marriages/unions is not safe from state judges (federal judges are a different story) until that amendment is passed.
Click to expand...
Didn’t know that either. Thanks.
 
Yeah, I wouldn’t support it because it seems to lend legitimacy to it. Not calling it “marriage” but having it be exactly the same is just a semantics issue.

The question then arises, “well, what if two people are not sexually active? What if it’s just that two older sisters want to make the same type of one-time exclusive agreement with the benefits of marriage for the sake of handling their money.” If the government wants to give such a “one time civil partnership deal” to all people (regardless of “love” etc)…I suppose they can, but I still don’t support it for the following reason:

I believe, legally, that civil marriage is a PRIVELEDGE. It is certainly not a right. And it is a priveledge given TO ENCOURAGE A PARTICULAR THING: heterosexual reproduction and stable families. No one has a “right” to make a special legal monetary agreement with one person (if it were a right, you’d be able to make it with as many people as you wanted). It is a gift the government gives, as it were, to encourage one particular model. But if you start giving it to everyone, you might as well give it to no one…because then it is no longer encouraging one thing over any other thing…so there is no reason to have it. If you don’t want to give heterosexual couples benefits (because you find it discriminatory) the logical conclusion is to leave marriage to the churches and give NO ONE the benefits…not give it to everyone! That would be crazy…it’s supposed to be legal and monetary INCENTIVE to choose one model over all others. But if it no longer favors one and inclines people to choose that one…then it has no legal point and could be left to the church.

It’s like giving extra credit for staying after class to help wash the boards…but then everyone else demands it even though they didn’t wash the boards. It was supposed to be an extra incentive for doing something not obligatory, and instead people start demanding it as if it’s a right. No, if you don’t do the thing I’m trying to encourage with my offer…you shouldn’t get the benefits. And if you find that discriminatory (that I am trying to favor one thing over all others) the logical conclusion is not for me to favor both, but for me to favor niether. If you are saying it is unjust for me to be biased towards one group…the solution is not becoming biased towards BOTH. The solution is being biased towards NIETHER. See what I’m saying? Leveling the playing field in baseball comes by taking away steroids from the one team, not by giving them to the other!
 
Remember there is a difference between what they should do, and **what control you should have **over them
 
Texas_Roofer said:
Remember there is a difference between what they should do, and **what control you should have **over them
Click to expand...
:amen: I admit I am for any legislation that will limit the unions people can enter into with the express purpose of financial gain that is undue… by that I mean brothers marrying brothers just to get medical or income tax back. The whole purpose of these benefits was to help support families and children…why does everyone think they are entitled? They should just call this child tax credit or minor family member benefits!
 
It is important to distinguish between a legal status founded on a sexual relationship outside of marriage (ie. civil unions or domestic partnerships) versus granting benefits on some other basis.

The former is clearly immoral under church doctrine. The latter is permissible, but may or may not be prudent as a matter of policy.

The Wisconsin and Arizona amendments include a prohibition on the legal status of domestic partnerships and civil unions, because such unions have been used repeatedly by activist courts to undermine the rationale for marriage as we recently saw in NJ. In essence, the courts say if you have gone this far, there is no rational reason for the legislature not to go all the way. The proposed amendments do not prohibit benefits so long as such benefits are not based on a marriage like status such as civil unions.

See:
Civil Unions: Trojan Horse to Conquer Marriage
alliancealert.org/2005/20050415.pdf

Prop 107: Arizona’s Proposed Marriage Amendment Proves the Outcome in New Jersey Was Easily Predicted
constitutionallycorrect.com/archive/2006/11/02/191.aspx

Rick Esenberg: Why Does Wisconsin’s Proposed Marriage Amendment Forbid Any Legal Status Substantially Similar to Marriage?
constitutionallycorrect.com/archive/2006/11/02/190.aspx

Please do vote in favor of the Wisconsin Marriage Amendment or if you are in Arizona vote for Prop. 107. It is very important!
 
…however:

The “entire meaning and purpose” of marriage has been altered many times over the years — over centuries, in fact — and that this is not because of a “single politician or court or legislature,” but because of the evolution of society. Marriage is no longer about the joining of two families for economic benefit; it’s no longer about dowries and the subsuming of a woman’s legal identity into that of a man; it’s no longer about the survival of your tribe. For some people it’s not even about having children. Marriage can be about having children, and raising a family, and it usually is. But not always. It can be about happiness and personal stability. It can be about economic benefits. People get married for all sorts of reasons today, and liberalized divorce laws attest to how much society’s definition of marriage has changed over the years.” “….the “entire meaning and purpose” of marriage has been altered many times over the years — over centuries, in fact — and that this is not because of a “single politician or court or legislature,” but because of the evolution of society. Marriage is no longer about the joining of two families for economic benefit; it’s no longer about dowries and the subsuming of a woman’s legal identity into that of a man; it’s no longer about the survival of your tribe. For some people it’s not even about having children. Marriage can be about having children, and raising a family, and it usually is. But not always. It can be about happiness and personal stability. It can be about economic benefits. People get married for all sorts of reasons today, and liberalized divorce laws attest to how much society’s definition of marriage has changed over the years.

Just something to think about.
 
BlestOne said:
:amen: I admit I am for any legislation that will limit the unions people can enter into with the express purpose of financial gain that is undue… by that I mean brothers marrying brothers just to get medical or income tax back. The whole purpose of these benefits was to help support families and children…why does everyone think they are entitled? They should just call this child tax credit or minor family member benefits!
Click to expand...
As far as I know, the Church is not against laws allowing adults who cannot marry to nevertheless legally set up “reciprocal benefits”, as long as a sexual arrangement not morally allowed within marriage is not implied by the law.

It is not necessarily a matter of entitlement. For instance, if the two brothers (let us say they are widowed with children) truly keep one household, then there is nothing unjust about an arrangement in which one goes out and gets a job, with healthcare for the children included and assets are shared, because of their legal arrangement, while the other one takes care of the children. This does not mock marriage. It encourages mutually beneficial cooperation between adults by protecting the interests of the two parties putting their individual interests at risk, just as legal contracts normally do. If, OTOH, laws are set up in which a sexual arrangement is implied, then the sexual arrangement must be a moral one.

If brothers or other relatives are excluded from male-male contracts of this sort, for instance, then the sexual arrangement is implied and the law is not morally acceptable, excepting where a greater moral imperative exists, such as preventing some other sort of injustice, the magnitude of which justifies the exception. For the sake of argument (I’m not arguing whether or not a real example of this kind exists in this particular case, so let’s not go there), let us say that with a particular law homosexual marriage would seem to be implied and without the law homosexual lives would be put in real danger. Preserving life would be the greater moral imperative.

That is my understanding of the matter.
 
cosine said:
Never mind, it just hit me. The Church would be opposed to civil unions or legal type agreements with benefits similar to marriage (even if it is not called marriage) for homosexuals because by doing so it gives their disordered lifestyle legitimacy in the eyes of the government on par with actual marriage or civil unions between heterosexual couples.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are correct. But if you need further documentation of the Church’s stance, you can refer to Consideration Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons
 
Let’s get real. Marriage is a sacrament. Implied in this is that it is between a man and a woman. Civil unions are civil unions - there is nothing more implied in them except contractual obligation. Anything more is inference. Opinions about the morality of homosexuality aside - I ask…why is the church involved in the civil union discussion. The catholic church, since shortly after its founding, has been, on many issues utterly and totally wrong, unjust and cruel. There is no such thing as infallibility, especially if earthly man has a hand in it. Perhaps it would be best if the church and many of its members, just, and only just, take whatever moral stance they deem appropriate and leave the matter of civil unions out of their moral conversations and arguments. Argue for or against civil unions on the basis of what they are — contracts. A civil union is not a sacrament.
 
simsge said:
Let’s get real. Marriage is a sacrament. Implied in this is that it is between a man and a woman. Civil unions are civil unions - there is nothing more implied in them except contractual obligation. Anything more is inference. Opinions about the morality of homosexuality aside - I ask…why is the church involved in the civil union discussion. The catholic church, since shortly after its founding, has been, on many issues utterly and totally wrong, unjust and cruel. There is no such thing as infallibility, especially if earthly man has a hand in it. Perhaps it would be best if the church and many of its members, just, and only just, take whatever moral stance they deem appropriate and leave the matter of civil unions out of their moral conversations and arguments. Argue for or against civil unions on the basis of what they are — contracts. A civil union is not a sacrament.
Click to expand...
I thought this, too, until I read in the Oregonian that most advocates of homosexual rights think that writing a law that allows reciprocal benefits or civil unions (or whatever you want to call them) between *any * pair of adults who cannot marry, including blood relatives, would be “demeaning to homosexuals.”

There is room for personal opinion, but the opinion of the Church is that the way laws are written to enshrine non-marital contracts has everything in the world to do with whether the sacrament of marriage is protected and revered as it ought to be. What marriage is, this is not an isolated opinion of the Catholic Church. It is the truth. The Church doesn’t teach a particular flavor of marriage, or a societal option. It teaches what marriage is.

The other argument you hear is that marriage is in such a shambles that homosexual marriage cannot do it any more harm than the hetrosexuals have done to it. Sure…the building is on fire, so by all means, dump on a little more gasoline. What harm can be done?

Oy, vey.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top