Confusion about Marriage Debate

[CollegeKid]

There’s something I don’t understand about the debate on legalizing gay “marriage.”

Obviously, only a union between a man and a woman is a true marriage, no matter what laws regarding marriage are made by any human government.

A marriage is only sacramental if it is performed by a Catholic priest.

Going by this logic, even if the federal or some state government were to legalize gay “marriage,” to the effect that gay couples are entering into unions recognized by judges who give them certificates of marriage, none of that would have any bearing on the Catholic Church’s sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

I guess I’m not completely sure as to the reason for our opposition to legalizing or failing to criminalize gay “marriage.” Is it in the interest of preserving the traditional order of society? (note-I do not think this is a bad motive)

Is is because marriages performed by judges are nonetheless valid, even if not sacramental? (if so I need clarification as to what makes a marriage valid but not sacramental).

It just kind of seems like the Church is trying to impose the proper administration of a sacrament on human governtments, but I thought only the Church, or at least baptized Christians if its baptism, can carry out the sacraments?

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Going by this logic, even if the federal or some state government were to legalize gay “marriage,” to the effect that gay couples are entering into unions recognized by judges who give them certificates of marriage, none of that would have any bearing on the Catholic Church’s sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

It would affect the way matrimony was perceived, maybe the attitudes of people entering into it. Just as divorce, though not recognised by the church, has had a big impact on marriages, including even intact ones.

I guess I’m not completely sure as to the reason for our opposition to legalizing or failing to criminalize gay “marriage.” Is it in the interest of preserving the traditional order of society? (note-I do not think this is a bad motive)

Is is because marriages performed by judges are nonetheless valid, even if not sacramental? (if so I need clarification as to what makes a marriage valid but not sacramental).

It just kind of seems like the Church is trying to impose the proper administration of a sacrament on human governtments, but I thought only the Church, or at least baptized Christians if its baptism, can carry out the sacraments?

If two Muslims get married, then they are in every commonsense term man and wife. They live together, share their money, bring up children just like Catholics. They are quite clearly not just living together. However their understnading of marriage is rather defective - divorce is allowed, as it taking of a second wife. No matter that, in practise, these wicked strictures of Mohammed are seldom followed.
So the marriage is a real marriage, but a defective one. It is not a full sacramental marriage, and it is not understood as a sacrament.

As far as the Church interfering in secular matters goes, it is always the case that laws affect Catholics as well as the surrounding society. Gay marriage is built on a pretence that homosexual sex is somehow equal to normal sex, and deserves exactly the same treatment and respect. The real agenda isn’t the handful of homosexuals who will play with the idea of being married, conducting ceremonies with stripping vicars and so on, but the millions of heterosexuals who see sex as a right and a pleasure, and want to shut out everything else.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

There’s something I don’t understand about the debate on legalizing gay “marriage.”

Obviously, only a union between a man and a woman is a true marriage, no matter what laws regarding marriage are made by any human government.

A marriage is only sacramental if it is performed by a Catholic priest.

Going by this logic, even if the federal or some state government were to legalize gay “marriage,” to the effect that gay couples are entering into unions recognized by judges who give them certificates of marriage, none of that would have any bearing on the Catholic Church’s sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

I guess I’m not completely sure as to the reason for our opposition to legalizing or failing to criminalize gay “marriage.” Is it in the interest of preserving the traditional order of society? (note-I do not think this is a bad motive)

Is is because marriages performed by judges are nonetheless valid, even if not sacramental? (if so I need clarification as to what makes a marriage valid but not sacramental).

It just kind of seems like the Church is trying to impose the proper administration of a sacrament on human governtments, but I thought only the Church, or at least baptized Christians if its baptism, can carry out the sacraments?

Marriage is Sacramental when it is valid (according to civil and Church law) and between a validly Baptized Man and a validly Baptized Woman. It makes no difference who officiates.

Allowing gay “unions” would be legitimizing a clearly immoral relationship, according to natural law, which applies to every human person.

It is like Abortion which is the legalization of the murder of innocent human persons. It is against natural law to intentionally kill any innocent human being.

 

[jemfinch]

A marriage is only sacramental if it is performed by a Catholic priest.

Marriages are performed by the two entering into the sacrament together, the man and the woman. The priest (or deacon) only witnesses their entrance into the covenant. In cases where a priest or deacon is unavailable, baptized Catholics can still enter into the sacrament with (iirc) two baptized believers as witnesses.

Jeremy