Constitution, Catholicism and Homosexuality

[pullnshoot25]

As a Catholic and a Libertarian, how do I reconcile the strict moralistic view of marriage with my view of limited government? I ask this not because I am doubting my faith but because I need to be better able to argue the point with Constitutional enthusiasts.

Any help is appreciated.

 

[Christopher68]

This is not an issue for the ‘federal’ government. It is a state issue. You can be a good Libertarian by opposing any action by the federal government on this issue in any manner (either for or against). And you can be a good Catholic by opposing gay marriage on a state level.

 

[JimG]

I’m not sure what you mean by a strict moralistic view of marriage.

If you are a strict constitutional constructionist as well as a libertarian, ask yourself whether those who wrote the constitution (as well as the 14th amendment) thought that it provided for same sex marriage.

I personally doubt it.

Marriage was given some particular governmental benefits because it as an institution was seen as a benefit to society. Man and woman, in marriage, provided that there would be a next generation, and raised and educated that next generation. Children benefited by having a mother and a father (as is, of course, the natural order of things.)

If a homosexual couple had said they wished to have children, the first question to be asked would be “How?” Of course, now they can design their own, through various genetic technologies and the use of sperm donors and egg donations and womb renters.

The next question would have been “Why?” What good social purpose could be served by sanctioning such an unnatural arrangement? Is it of any benefit to society? Should it receive government sanction, any more than polygamy, or polyandry, or man-child marriage?

 

[aspawloski4th]

The first marriage liscense was granted in 1870, based on a law that the purpose was to keep blacks and whites from intermarrying. Before that the government was not involved in marriage at any level. Marriage is a church issue only and the government should have no involvement.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

Since we are talking about the word ‘marriage’, take the discussion out of the theological realm and into the scientific (since most people like to dwell there). Argue linguistically that in all cultures (before the homosexual stuff started being mainstream) the general secular definition of ‘marriage’ has always been man and woman. I don’t say one man and one woman, because that part of the secular definition is debated. The man and woman part is not. For example, look at Ancient Greece, where homosexuality was okay - still marriage was man and woman. In the same way, in Japan, even when homosexual intercourse was considered to be the highest form, marriage was still man and woman. This is because marriage is about more than love (although love is a big part); it is about children, which only come from the union of man and woman.

I hope that helped.

Pax.