Federal judge overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage

[Personanongrata]

As Catholics, we are required to be actively against even the civil recognition of homosexual unions: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

My neighbors have been together as a couple for 33 years. They are finally getting married and are so excited. I am happy for them. I don’t know any straight couples that have been together that long. I will not actively oppose them in any way because that is just mean.

 

[JamesTheJust]

My neighbors have been together as a couple for 33 years. They are finally getting married and are so excited. I am happy for them. I don’t know any straight couples that have been together that long. I will not actively oppose them in any way because that is just mean.

I’m afraid it is our duty as Catholics. It’s no more “mean” than actively opposing an incestuous marriage. Though the couple may have a seemingly loving and perfect relationship, it is just against natural and Divine law.

 

[Personanongrata]

Can someone explain…if a divorced Catholic remarries in a civil ceremony isn’t that person classed as an adulterer living outside the teachings of the Catholic Church…that Catholic would have to receive an annulment from his/her previous marriage to be in full communion with the church because a civil marriage is still recognized as a valid marriage…a homosexual marriage is also outside the teachings of the church…could they at some future time claim that the Catholic Church is discriminating against them…as the church considers adultery a sin but allows annulments even in civil marraiges…so why would homosexual marriages in a civil union not be afforded the same acceptance…hope someone can figure out what I’m trying to say…I’m worried that the next move will be for homosexual couples to take the Catholic Church to court for discrimination…one way or the other.

Stop your worrying. Homosexuals know how the Catholic Church feels about them. Why on earth would they want to get married there? Would a black couple want to be married in a church operated by the KKK?

 

[JamesTheJust]

Stop your worrying. Homosexuals know how the Catholic Church feels about them. Why on earth would they want to get married there? Would a black couple want to be married in a church operated by the KKK?

Are you comparing your own Church, divinely instituted by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit, to an organization which lynched, terrorized, and hated an entire demographic based on skin color?

 

[SeannyM]

I think that most same sex marriage advocates do not want that. They would object to having an institution that could not be called marriage. If religious institutions could offer marriages but civil law could only offer civil unions, there still would be claims of discrimination.

Still, it amounts to the same thing. Whether the word stays or goes, man + woman does not equal man + man, and to call them by the same name is simply an untruth. Once same sex unions are generally accepted, marriage means nothing and will decline, as will family stability and societal stability.

I don’t think it would be discrimination… they could still get married in churches that allow it if they want. As long as separate but equal… or in many case separate and unequal… is not the law.

Same sex marriage has been legal since 2004… there has been no decline in any of those things.

 

[JamesTheJust]

Same sex marriage has been legal since 2004… there has been no decline in any of those things.

You can’t expect the full effects of SSM to happen in 9 years!

However, I would argue that the decline has begun. There is an increasing amount of people who “don’t believe in marriage” and are of a hedonistic persuasion in which they seek pleasure, not family.

 

[vsedriver]

huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/20/utah-same-sex-marriage_n_4482703.html

This could be the case that finally ends the debate over whether gay people are entitled to the same right to marry as straight people. .

gay people have always had the same right to marry as straight people. No one has ever been asked their sexual preference on a marriage license. Gays have been and are married the same way straights are married.

This has nothing to do with rights. This is an attempt to change the nature and purpose of marriage.

If same sex marriage becomes legal in all 50 states I think it is only fair that polygamy and incest be legalized as it is a human right to be able to love who you wish, including how many and how closely related. All you need for marriage is consenting adults, right? No reason to put any other restrictions on it.

 

[vsedriver]

That debate has been over for decades. Marriage was defined as a civil right by the Supreme Court almost 40 years ago.

 

[vsedriver]

No, it doesn’t. But culture does. What’s right for a community changes over time. And, so does the information available to make a decision. Also, the court at that time wasn’t ruling on gay marriage. They were using the words for spouses that were used at that time, not intentionally ruling that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

duh, husband by definition is male and wife by definition is female. If they had wanted to say spouses, they could have said that. Their choice of language implies two sexes by definition. Yeah, they were intentionally ruling that marriage was only between a man and a woman that’s what their language means.

 

[Peebo]

Stop your worrying. Homosexuals know how the Catholic Church feels about them. Why on earth would they want to get married there? Would a black couple want to be married in a church operated by the KKK?

Well…using that analogy…if black people hadn’t stepped out and challenged white people over segregation then nothing would have changed…but they did challenge…and the law was on their side…and things did change…in that case for the better…my worry is some “gay” couples may challenge in the courts that the Catholic Church is discriminating against them…and not necessarily because they want the church to recognize their “marriage”…maybe they just want to “stick it” to the church.

 

[jmr_1985]

When a majority of the posts on a “Catholic” forum see no problem with the legalization of “gay marriages” there is something evil afoot.

Amen. God, come to our assistance.

 

[epan]

Are you comparing your own Church, divinely instituted by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit, to an organization which lynched, terrorized, and hated an entire demographic based on skin color?

You are treading on extremely thin ice, if you are trying to begin a discussion of acts of torture, execution, and discrimination perpetrated by representatives of the Catholic Church. It is more sordid in its scope than the actions of the KKK. Shall we continue with the history lesson… ? Or do you concede that torture, discrimination and unjust execution were the normal practices of church officials throughout much of its history?

 

[HappyCatholic01]

Yes, apparently it does. The court also use to consider slaves to be equivalent to 3/5 of a person. That changed too. The law has to be able to change, and as our understanding changes, other things are likely to change too.

And that is what you simply can’t grasp.

No person was ever truly 3/5 of a person.

Marriage can never be anything but a man and a woman.

What tax ascriptions to attach to either is up for debate.

What each one is isn’t.

That was Judge Roberts point. If I decided to suddenly start calling my pet cat “my father,” people would think I was crazy. Most of us view your trying to change the definition of something you can’t change like marriage the same way.

You can you boys girls, call cats dogs, and call your mother your father, but it is pretty much meaningless and no one would take you seriously as an adult, nor should they.

Had the gay community and the secular progressives who want to destroy God’s creation be sincere, they would have pushed for the same tax benefits that have been ascribed to marriage. A few have.

Rather than do that, they decided to attack marriage itself in a selfish and frankly malevolent way in order to destroy it. To that end, you can’t give benefits to something that no longer exists.

 

[HappyCatholic01]

There is indeed. When a majority of the posts on a “Catholic” forum see no problem with the legalization of “gay marriages” there is something evil afoot. Perhaps it is because it is no longer preached from the pulpit that this is one of the sins that cry to heaven for justice? Just because secular society accepts these things does not make it right and okay. Same with abortion, but then how many “Catholics” voted for Obama who is the most pro abortion president ever? What happened to Sodom and Gomorrah? I don’t think that God was very happy with them and they were destroyed by fire reigning down on them.

Also, these judges who overturn the rule of the law in these individual states to impose their own beliefs or opinions is disgusting. Kentucky has a similar law on the books, are they going to make a ruling that overturns our marriage law as well? So basically our vote means nothing? What a sad and sorry state of affairs in this country anymore.

I pray for our country and it’s future. It is very dark indeed. :bighanky:

We are essentially ruled by federal and judicial dictate. That is why we must seize power at all costs. The secular progressives and decided to rule by edict and fiat, regardless of the will of the people. We know live under the tyranny of the minority.

Assuming good people can actually assume power again (certainly not all Republicans, which is why choosing the nominee is crucial), this same minority will need to be crushed under foot politically before they destroy any more of society. Oh they will whine and cry about their rights, but they care nothing for rights, and need to relegated to nothing more than a painful memory in history. Otherwise, you risk giving the Devil too much power.

These types of people work for Satan, and that is his only agenda. That’s why you have to ignore many of the posts on here that seem borderline demonic or evil. Without naming nay names so as to avoid breaking forum rules, you don’t know who on here is actually who they say they are. I could go to an atheist website and claim anything. Try and ignore the more obviously over the top posts who serve to further evil causes. The sincere Catholics who simply disagree through their own ignorance are obvious and can be debated somewhat rationally.

In the end, every website has trolls, no matter what the subject matter.

 

[Ceil-1]

You are treading on extremely thin ice, if you are trying to begin a discussion of acts of torture, execution, and discrimination perpetrated by representatives of the Catholic Church. It is more sordid in its scope than the actions of the KKK. Shall we continue with the history lesson… ? Or do you concede that torture, discrimination and unjust execution were the normal practices of church officials throughout much of its history?

---

I would not concede that. An informed person should recognize that these things have been grossly embellished, overstated and misrepresented. To say that these contrived things are more sordid than the KKK borders on silliness. You have been watching the History channel for your information, epan.

Therein lies much of where all these problems come. Lack of critical analysis, lack of use of logic, lack of interest in objective truth. We are in deep doo-doo, people.

 

[gilliam]

We are essentially ruled by federal and judicial dictate. That is why we must seize power at all costs. .

Are you advocating the violent overthrow of the government?

Sounds like late night radio (or the “History” channel.) Just to be clear, the people on late night radio are entertainers. They make their money by being outrageous and selling books and DVDs. The more outrageous they can be, the more conspiracies they can concoct, the more books and DVDs they sell and the more money they make. It is a business like any other.

Getting back to the topic of the thread. The chances are this ruling will be “stayed” on Monday pending the appeal process. The judge that overturned the law was a recent appointee of Obama’s (elections have consequences.)

 

[JimG]

Are you advocating the violent overthrow of the government?

Sounds like late night radio (or the “History” channel.) Just to be clear, the people on late night radio are entertainers. They make their money by being outrageous and selling books and DVDs. The more outrageous they can be, the more conspiracies they can concoct, the more books and DVDs they sell and the more money they make. It is a business like any other.

Getting back to the topic of the thread. The chances are this ruling will be “stayed” on Monday pending the appeal process. The judge that overturned the law was a recent appointee of Obama’s (elections have consequences.)

Exactly so. Many of the president’s Catholic supporters forget that any president can leave an indelible mark on the entire federal judiciary which continues long after his presidency, with consequences which endure for good or ill. Voting for a president is the only chance we get to vote on the makeup of the federal judiciary.

 

[JimG]

That is a good thing, but not the issue. It is denying the uniqueness of male-female marriages that will cause further problems. The idea of “marriage equality” is a false dogma perpetuated by supporters of same-sex unions.

The idea of marriage being between man and woman is lately spoken of as if it were a religious belief. It is not a religious belief, but a biological imperative. Male / female sexual complementarity is a fact of biology, not a religious belief. Biology and anatomy hasn’t changed over the course of several millennia.

 

[Farsight001]

Stop your worrying. Homosexuals know how the Catholic Church feels about them. Why on earth would they want to get married there? Would a black couple want to be married in a church operated by the KKK?

Unfortunately, several gay couples (obviously in states where gay marriage is legal) have already sued Catholic churches for the right to get married there. Thus far the cases have been thrown out, but it proves that the desire to not just get married there, but to force us to let them does in fact exist.

And you are right - a black couple does not want to be married in a church operated by the KKK and I can find no case of THEM suing the KKK for the right to do so, which really should tell you where the real difference and real intolerance rests here.

 

[BellsMom]

The idea of marriage being between man and woman is lately spoken of as if it were a religious belief. It is not a religious belief, but a biological imperative. Male / female sexual complementarity is a fact of biology, not a religious belief. Biology and anatomy hasn’t changed over the course of several millennia.

I disagree. Marriage is not a biological imperative, procreation is. There are more then enough sexually active heterosexuals around to cover that.