Civil Marriage

[SMGS127]

besides the point made by Corky there are legal reasons why you can’t eliminate civil marriage and turn it into a mere union. Civil marriage didn’t appear because someone though it was pretty or because some religious person though it should have been taken to the State. Civil marriage was create at a government level because its unexistant creates severe problems from areas ranging from inheritance, paternity, etc. to property. So besides the religious reasoning, if you were to apply the OP suggestion you would have complete anarchical chaos which is one of the reasons why governments exists.

If we retroactively applied all financial, legal, etc. policies that we do to civil marriage to a new civil union-style structure, would that not solve all the “anarchical” problems you are discussing and also alleviate the requirement that anyone consider same-sex unions to be marriages?

In addition, I am not advocating for the recognition of same-sex unions. I am merely saying that if courts are about to force us to recognize legal same-sex “marriages,” would it not be better to instead change the legal term altogether to avoid that?

 

[marymary1975]

If we retroactively applied all financial, legal, etc. policies that we do to civil marriage to a new civil union-style structure, would that not solve all the “anarchical” problems you are discussing and also alleviate the requirement that anyone consider same-sex unions to be marriages?

In addition, I am not advocating for the recognition of same-sex unions. I am merely saying that if courts are about to force us to recognize legal same-sex “marriages,” would it not be better to instead change the legal term altogether to avoid that?

then is not a civil union anymore, is a marriage. Civil marriage and a civil union are different things. If you apply everything that is into marriage to a civil union, then it is not a civil union amymore. You cannot just change legal terms like that. Is like if you wanted to change assault into battery, you can’t do it because if you put into the definition of assault the elements of battery then it stops being an.assault and it becomes a.battery. I mean nothing prevents a bill from being passed to change a definition but doing something like that just…makes no sense at all.

 

[SMGS127]

then is not a civil union anymore, is a marriage. Civil marriage and a civil union are different things. If you apply everything that is into marriage to a civil union, then it is not a civil union amymore. You cannot just change legal terms like that. Is like if you wanted to change assault into battery, you can’t do it because if you put into the definition of assault the elements of battery then it stops being an.assault and it becomes a.battery. I mean nothing prevents a bill from being passed to change a definition but doing something like that just…makes no sense at all.

Well, would not a same-sex civil union be viewed as just that, a civil contract between two people engaging in homosexual conduct, by the Church, whereas a heterosexual civil union would still be seen by the Church as a marriage (albeit potentially not Sacramental)? In addition, a heterosexual civil union involving a permanently impotent member at the time of marriage would be viewed by the Church as just a civil contract between two people engaging in fornication. It would allow the Church to completely define which were and which weren’t marriages.

As it stands, if same-sex “marriage” is forced on all 50 states (which I imagine absolutely will happen in the next five years), while the Church is still defining what is and isn’t an actual marriage, many Catholic businesses and such will still be forced to recognize these “marriages” or close. I would imagine it would be much easier on the Catholic business(wo)man’s conscience to have to recognize a civil contract between gay lovers vs. to recognize a sham “marriage.”

 

[marymary1975]

Well, would not a same-sex civil union be viewed as just that, a civil contract between two people engaging in homosexual conduct, by the Church, whereas a heterosexual civil union would still be seen by the Church as a marriage (albeit potentially not Sacramental)? In addition, a heterosexual civil union involving a permanently impotent member at the time of marriage would be viewed by the Church as just a civil contract between two people engaging in fornication. It would allow the Church to completely define which were and which weren’t marriages.

As it stands, if same-sex “marriage” is forced on all 50 states (which I imagine absolutely will happen in the next five years), while the Church is still defining what is and isn’t an actual marriage, many Catholic businesses and such will still be forced to recognize these “marriages” or close. I would imagine it would be much easier on the Catholic business(wo)man’s conscience to have to recognize a civil contract between gay lovers vs. to recognize a sham “marriage.”

Wo wo wo…wait a minute now you mixed things with religion and you confused everything. First let’s separate areas. As to religion reasons Corky already explained very well the religious aspect. Moving to legal area, neither marriage nor same sex unions nor so called same sex marriages are civil contracts. Marriage is a legal status granted by the state and it has its.own and separate area of the law called domestic or family law. Civil contracts and family law are different things and governed by completely different areas of law. At some point way back in history and I mean way very very back in time, somewhere marriage was viewed as a contract but that view was dropped many many years ago and evolved separately from civil contracts so don’t mix the two things. And besides the subject what in the world the church has to do with contracts either you don’t have a good understanding of what it is or you are confused because that sentence makes no sense.

The last part of your first paragraph makes no sense to me. There is no such thing as a heterosexual civil union. Then impotence both legally and canonically is something that would cause a marriage to be annulled. Third a person who suffers from impotence cannot by any means fornicate, and finally what in the world the church has to do with contracts, sorry but I can’t understand your point there.

And as it stands, if SSM is legalized in the entire country the result would be similar as to when divorce was legalized or for example, it would be as in MA where it has been legal for a while.

 

[SMGS127]

Wo wo wo…wait a minute now you mixed things with religion and you confused everything. First let’s separate areas. As to religion reasons Corky already explained very well the religious aspect. Moving to legal area, neither marriage nor same sex unions nor so called same sex marriages are civil contracts. Marriage is a legal status granted by the state and it has its.own and separate area of the law called domestic or family law. Civil contracts and family law are different things and governed by completely different areas of law. At some point way back in history and I mean way very very back in time, somewhere marriage was viewed as a contract but that view was dropped many many years ago and evolved separately from civil contracts so don’t mix the two things. And besides the subject what in the world the church has to do with contracts either you don’t have a good understanding of what it is or you are confused because that sentence makes no sense.

The last part of your first paragraph makes no sense to me. There is no such thing as a heterosexual civil union. Then impotence both legally and canonically is something that would cause a marriage to be annulled. Third a person who suffers from impotence cannot by any means fornicate, and finally what in the world the church has to do with contracts, sorry but I can’t understand your point there.

And as it stands, if SSM is legalized in the entire country the result would be similar as to when divorce was legalized or for example, it would be as in MA where it has been legal for a while.

First, may I say that I didn’t realize the discrepancy in discussing fornication with an impotence sufferer >.<. I meant that someone who could not validly enter a marriage would thus be fornicating, not having marital sex, but obviously I used the wrong example.

Secondly, I’m asking why we are just sitting back and watching it happen. There have to be active laws we can put in place that won’t be struck down by courts. I’m advocating for us to put into place laws that provide for no financial discrepancy for a court to stand on in their ruling. It shouldn’t just be a shrug response every time our country descends morally, and I feel like that’s exactly what we’ve been doing as Catholics the whole half century. First divorce/contraception/SS’M’ bans get put into place, then we fight like crazy to keep them, then after they’re gone, we lament that they’re gone but don’t really do anything about it. How is that fighting for moral law? Abortion (albeit understandably why) has been the only immoral injunction we as Catholics have fought hard to overturn since legalized nationwide.

I want to provide for a situation where we aren’t playing from behind, where a secular court could see no reason whatsoever that they could throw same-sex ‘marriage’ on everyone in the first place. Do you understand what I’m arguing now?

Thirdly, my point was that the Church is forced to legitimate many marriages now that it doesn’t like, including some heterosexual marriages (impotency, severe mental illness), and I felt like my solution of removing all civil recognition of marriages and calling them a completely different name would separate the financial & legal benefits from the religious aspects. Again, it is hardly the ideal or most moral solution, but it is perhaps the most moral we can have in the United States, and surely it does provide a direct comparison exemption to the eighth mode of responsibility. May I add that Cardinal Bergoglio supported civil unions as a direct comparison exemption in Argentina as well.

 

[marymary1975]

First, may I say that I didn’t realize the discrepancy in discussing fornication with an impotence sufferer >.<. I meant that someone who could not validly enter a marriage would thus be fornicating, not having marital sex, but obviously I used the wrong example.

Secondly, I’m asking why we are just sitting back and watching it happen. There have to be active laws we can put in place that won’t be struck down by courts. I’m advocating for us to put into place laws that provide for no financial discrepancy for a court to stand on in their ruling. It shouldn’t just be a shrug response every time our country descends morally, and I feel like that’s exactly what we’ve been doing as Catholics the whole half century. First divorce/contraception/SS’M’ bans get put into place, then we fight like crazy to keep them, then after they’re gone, we lament that they’re gone but don’t really do anything about it. How is that fighting for moral law? Abortion (albeit understandably why) has been the only immoral injunction we as Catholics have fought hard to overturn since legalized nationwide.

I want to provide for a situation where we aren’t playing from behind, where a secular court could see no reason whatsoever that they could throw same-sex ‘marriage’ on everyone in the first place. Do you understand what I’m arguing now?

Thirdly, my point was that the Church is forced to legitimate many marriages now that it doesn’t like, including some heterosexual marriages (impotency, severe mental illness), and I felt like my solution of removing all civil recognition of marriages and calling them a completely different name would separate the financial & legal benefits from the religious aspects. Again, it is hardly the ideal or most moral solution, but it is perhaps the most moral we can have in the United States, and surely it does provide a direct comparison exemption to the eighth mode of responsibility. May I add that Cardinal Bergoglio supported civil unions as a direct comparison exemption in Argentina as well.

Oh ok, you uses the wrong example, better now because when I read it I was like

I have to say I agree with your second paragraph, I think the church needs to take a stand and Do something because this is not going to stop here. however, to me the granting of a civil union is not the way. The battle horse of gay activist was the tax issues so I think probably what we should be advocating is for some tax benefits to be eliminated. Also, maybe the church needs to be more outspoken in the right way and attack the arguments of gay activist better. The other story used is the health care issue and hospitals, they like this because it makes people feel had for gays. Well this is a complete lie as a health care proxy will resolve all the problems, and personally I have experience with someone to whom.the hospital allowed his live in girlfriend with no HC proxy and nothing to take each and every decision over that person. Those things need to be said and nobody says them. Also there are many other legal ways to solve the issues that gay activist call “rights being denied to them” eliminating the need for SSM. But again no one speaks about that all that is heard is about the poor discriminated gays suffering because their rights are denied and while the argument is full of lies nobody refuted it.

Sometimes I think that the church takes a lay back position because they know they hold the truth and practically let the “attacker” attack without stepping up and say this is not true because this this and that, I think that is what is giving gay activist the advantage. I thin what we need is to he more outspoken about the lies being told, and use more.secular driven arguments to add.

Finally, just a clarification, impotency is cause for annulment in the church so the church has nothing to legitimize.

 

[SMGS127]

Oh ok, you uses the wrong example, better now because when I read it I was like

I have to say I agree with your second paragraph, I think the church needs to take a stand and Do something because this is not going to stop here. however, to me the granting of a civil union is not the way. The battle horse of gay activist was the tax issues so I think probably what we should be advocating is for some tax benefits to be eliminated. Also, maybe the church needs to be more outspoken in the right way and attack the arguments of gay activist better. The other story used is the health care issue and hospitals, they like this because it makes people feel had for gays. Well this is a complete lie as a health care proxy will resolve all the problems, and personally I have experience with someone to whom.the hospital allowed his live in girlfriend with no HC proxy and nothing to take each and every decision over that person. Those things need to be said and nobody says them. Also there are many other legal ways to solve the issues that gay activist call “rights being denied to them” eliminating the need for SSM. But again no one speaks about that all that is heard is about the poor discriminated gays suffering because their rights are denied and while the argument is full of lies nobody refuted it.

Sometimes I think that the church takes a lay back position because they know they hold the truth and practically let the “attacker” attack without stepping up and say this is not true because this this and that, I think that is what is giving gay activist the advantage. I thin what we need is to he more outspoken about the lies being told, and use more.secular driven arguments to add.

Finally, just a clarification, impotency is cause for annulment in the church so the church has nothing to legitimize.

Well, your main problem here is getting legislation through a legislature. What legislature is going to go to their constituents and be like “we’re raising your taxes…to keep gays from marrying!” The first four words make it highly implausible. I think we need to equalize financial benefits by giving gays the benefits, not by eliminating them for straights. However, the problem is that I don’t see a way for us to keep straights classified in one term and gays in another while Anthony Kennedy is on the bench. That’s why I suggested my idea.

Secondly, I agree with you. I think the Church gets too comfortable with the fact that it knows the Truth, and it hunkers down into a corner every time it gets politically defeated. Obviously they didn’t when it came to abortion, but considering that’s genocide, that’s on a somewhat different plane. But look at IVF for an abortion-related example! The conservative Protestants support us against abortion, but since they’re split on IVF (a distinction that I find quite insane), the Church doesn’t even bother TRYING to change public opinion on the matter or inform people of how many little kids die every time they try to have one child through the procedure. And since we weren’t proactive on IVF, look how difficult it is to change a single person’s mind on the issue; all people see are the happy couples with a newborn, not the kids they had to kill to make their child . We need to be more proactive!!

And I know about impotency being an impediment to marriage. My point is that it, like homosexuality, makes a marriage invalid, period. If we’re going to fight for the illegalization of gay ‘marriage,’ we should fight for the illegalization of impotent marriage and divorce as well. Having the Church only target some of the moral outrages committed against our society makes gays feel targeted and ends up with less looking into our Church and seeing the love in it and the Truth over moral conduct .

 

[Corki]

And I know about impotency being an impediment to marriage. My point is that it, like homosexuality, makes a marriage invalid, period. If we’re going to fight for the illegalization of gay ‘marriage,’ we should fight for the illegalization of impotent marriage and divorce as well. Having the Church only target some of the moral outrages committed against our society makes gays feel targeted and ends up with less looking into our Church and seeing the love in it and the Truth over moral conduct .

Impotency is nowhere near the same category as same-sex partnering. Impotency is an impediment to marriage because the marriage cannot be consummated. However, a valid marriage can be contracted without consummation. Without consummation, the marriage is dissoluble but not invalid.

A couple where the man is impotent is still a rightly ordered couple. If the impotency could be healed the couple’s marriage could occur. A same-sex couple can never be rightly ordered. There is nothing that can happen that would make the marriage possible.

 

[marymary1975]

Well, your main problem here is getting legislation through a legislature. What legislature is going to go to their constituents and be like “we’re raising your taxes…to keep gays from marrying!” The first four words make it highly implausible. I think we need to equalize financial benefits by giving gays the benefits, not by eliminating them for straights. However, the problem is that I don’t see a way for us to keep straights classified in one term and gays in another while Anthony Kennedy is on the bench. That’s why I suggested my idea.

Secondly, I agree with you. I think the Church gets too comfortable with the fact that it knows the Truth, and it hunkers down into a corner every time it gets politically defeated. Obviously they didn’t when it came to abortion, but considering that’s genocide, that’s on a somewhat different plane. But look at IVF for an abortion-related example! The conservative Protestants support us against abortion, but since they’re split on IVF (a distinction that I find quite insane), the Church doesn’t even bother TRYING to change public opinion on the matter or inform people of how many little kids die every time they try to have one child through the procedure. And since we weren’t proactive on IVF, look how difficult it is to change a single person’s mind on the issue; all people see are the happy couples with a newborn, not the kids they had to kill to make their child . We need to be more proactive!!

And I know about impotency being an impediment to marriage. My point is that it, like homosexuality, makes a marriage invalid, period. If we’re going to fight for the illegalization of gay ‘marriage,’ we should fight for the illegalization of impotent marriage and divorce as well. Having the Church only target some of the moral outrages committed against our society makes gays feel targeted and ends up with less looking into our Church and seeing the love in it and the Truth over moral conduct .

so what you mean is like for the church to take several moral issues together like let’s say divorce, SSM, child abuse, etc… together and attack them together? I agree on that but then again I think it comes back from the fact that when fact that when we lose on some area the church lays back and they tend to focus on the latest. Back in the day the church was strongly oppose to no fault divorce and was heavily attacked by opposing it but after it was legalized then it laid back. Now gay marriage is the new thing so they were focus on that. Again the main solution is to be more outspoken, refresh people’s memory ad many seem not to remember and do more pro life activist. I am hoping that the church does not lay back with the latest decision because there is more to come than just SSM.

With regard to taxes the problem is that historically taxes are used by governments as a way to promote certain behaviors therefore by giving tax benefits to SSM the is also working to encourage that conduct. We don’t want to encourage SSM so the last thing we as catholic want is for the government to use an encouraging tactic on something as day marriage. If we want to give them so called.equality (which is not equal in reality) then take the benefits away from everybody. However, truth is neither is going to happen.

 

[SMGS127]

Impotency is nowhere near the same category as same-sex partnering. Impotency is an impediment to marriage because the marriage cannot be consummated. However, a valid marriage can be contracted without consummation. Without consummation, the marriage is dissoluble but not invalid.

A couple where the man is impotent is still a rightly ordered couple. If the impotency could be healed the couple’s marriage could occur. A same-sex couple can never be rightly ordered. There is nothing that can happen that would make the marriage possible.

I’m hardly arguing they’re on the same level. Just that I don’t understand why the Church wouldn’t want to be have the freedom to define all marriages (which at one point and time, it did for the whole Western developed world)

Also, when I say “permanently impotent” I mean more like a circumcision accident than ED or a vaginal spasm disorder, by the way. Something that can’t possibly change.

 

[Corki]

I’m hardly arguing they’re on the same level. Just that I don’t understand why the Church wouldn’t want to be have the freedom to define all marriages (which at one point and time, it did for the whole Western developed world)

Also, when I say “permanently impotent” I mean more like a circumcision accident than ED or a vaginal spasm disorder, by the way. Something that can’t possibly change.

The thing about making it a legal issue is that it has to be wrong for an entire class.

– For some men, impotence is not permanent. For some who think it is (like your circumcision example) medical science could find a treatment in the future.

– For **some **couples, civil divorce is an acceptable way to protect a family member physically, psychologically or financially.

– For same-sex couples, there is no “some” situation where it might be moral. It is always going to be wrong.

The Church cannot come out categorically against civil divorce since in some cases it is the only prudent course to take.The Church is not against all impotent men marrying. Such a marriage, if it is not a Catholic couple, would be considered valid but dissoluble. The impediment to marriage applies to a couple seeking to marry in the Church.

But there is a categorical answer to same sex “marriages”.

 

[SMGS127]

The thing about making it a legal issue is that it has to be wrong for an entire class.

– For some men, impotence is not permanent. For some who think it is (like your circumcision example) medical science could find a treatment in the future.

– For **some **couples, civil divorce is an acceptable way to protect a family member physically, psychologically or financially.

– For same-sex couples, there is no “some” situation where it might be moral. It is always going to be wrong.

The Church cannot come out categorically against civil divorce since in some cases it is the only prudent course to take.The Church is not against all impotent men marrying. Such a marriage, if it is not a Catholic couple, would be considered valid but dissoluble. The impediment to marriage applies to a couple seeking to marry in the Church.

But there is a categorical answer to same sex “marriages”.

Hmm, this makes sense. Thanks for the detailed reply. It just frustrates me because gays tend to feel targeted by the Church since same-sex “marriage” is so much more prevalent an issue these days. I’ve tried being apostolic to many of my gay friends, but only a few of them can get past the (very incorrect!!!) “why would I be part of an institution that hates me” attitude and get to the meat of the “why does the Church teach against SS’M’?” discussion.