For those who want a legal end to Gay Marriage

[SenorSalsa]

Do you also want a legal end to all marriage that occur outside of the Catholic Church. A heterosexual marriage by a justice of the peace is no more a sacremental marriage than a homosexual one.

And the basis of the argument seems to generally be a homosexual marriage is not a true marriage becuase of the “guidelines” of the Sacrament.

Not to mention a law would not stop homosexual couples, all it would do is stop them from recieving the financial benifits that come with a government(not church) recognized marraige. Tax breaks, pensions, social security, etc.

The couple may spend 50 years together, married or not. But when one dies, the other gets nothing, becuase legally, he has no connection to the deceased.

14th ammendment to the Constitution-“Equal Protection Under The Law”

 

[kleary]

Do you also want a legal end to all marriage that occur outside of the Catholic Church. A heterosexual marriage by a justice of the peace is no more a sacremental marriage than a homosexual one.

And the basis of the argument seems to generally be a homosexual marriage is not a true marriage becuase of the “guidelines” of the Sacrament.

Not to mention a law would not stop homosexual couples, all it would do is stop them from recieving the financial benifits that come with a government(not church) recognized marraige. Tax breaks, pensions, social security, etc.

The couple may spend 50 years together, married or not. But when one dies, the other gets nothing, becuase legally, he has no connection to the deceased.

14th ammendment to the Constitution-“Equal Protection Under The Law”

Not entirely true. This argument is very weak.

Marriages “outside the church” for non-Catholics (Man and woman) are considered valid. The same for Catholics who have a Justice of the Peace officiating with a priest or deacon present and approved by the local ordinary.

However Men cannot marry other men and women cannot marry other women because it is impossible to join man to man and woman to woman. Totally impossible. If you would read the Catechism of the Catholic Church you will read as to what a valid marriage is.

The Catholic Church is not fighting for an end to marriages performed outside the Church, but she demands that Catholics, under penalty of excommunication, marry under the auspices of the Church.

The Church recognizes the validity of non-Catholic marriages as long as the proper form and matter are present to make the bond happen. The “bond” happens when the marital act is performed. The proper way to perform the marital act you should know without me going into further details here. Two men cannot perform the marital act together the same way two women cannot perform the marital act together. Without the “Sexual Intercourse” (Marital Act) there is no marriage- it is not valid unless that is ratified by the Marital Act.

Ken

 

[v3orb]

To quote a very intelligent person: “If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get one, and shut the f*** up.”

 

[Mighty_Q]

To quote a very intelligent person: “If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get one, and shut the f*** up.”

The same could be said about abortion, murder, drugs, rape, incest, and various other things.

 

[SenorSalsa]

The same could be said about abortion, murder, drugs, rape, incest, and various other things.

the only difference is, abortion, murder, rape, and sort of incest all trounce on the rights of others “the right of my fist ends at your nose”. Thats why those are illegal. Drugs are illegal because of the damage that they cause to a person(and even this one i could argue both sides of legality.)

 

[Gamera]

Next will be polygamy. After all, why should the narrow religious view of “one husband / one wife” be crammed down the throats of people who simply want to marry five or six people at a time? Don’t polygamists have the religious freedom to marry as they see fit?

Gee, I don’t know … possibly because the family is the fundamental unit of society, and society has a right and a duty to preserve its own basic structure? “Gay marriage” is proof that society’s collective brain is falling out of its head.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Do you also want a legal end to all marriage that occur outside of the Catholic Church. A heterosexual marriage by a justice of the peace is no more a sacremental marriage than a homosexual one.

And the basis of the argument seems to generally be a homosexual marriage is not a true marriage becuase of the “guidelines” of the Sacrament.

Not to mention a law would not stop homosexual couples, all it would do is stop them from recieving the financial benifits that come with a government(not church) recognized marraige. Tax breaks, pensions, social security, etc.

The couple may spend 50 years together, married or not. But when one dies, the other gets nothing, becuase legally, he has no connection to the deceased.

14th ammendment to the Constitution-“Equal Protection Under The Law”

Your reasoning does not hold water.

Do you also want a legal end to all marriage that occur outside of the Catholic Church.

I don’t believe anyone has ever said that, The Catholic Church does have authority over all Marriage involving Christians.

A heterosexual marriage by a justice of the peace is no more a sacremental marriage than a homosexual one.

A normal Marriage by a JP could be a valid Sacramental Marriage, depending on Church law. A homosexual marriage can never be a Sacramental marriage, because it can never be a valid Marriage.

And the basis of the argument seems to generally be a homosexual marriage is not a true marriage becuase of the “guidelines” of the Sacrament.

No a homosexual marriage can never be a true marriage because it opposes God’s natural law, not because it opposes Church law.

Not to mention a law would not stop homosexual couples, all it would do is stop them from recieving the financial benifits that come with a government(not church) recognized marraige. Tax breaks, pensions, social security, etc.

That is true

The couple may spend 50 years together, married or not. But when one dies, the other gets nothing, because legally, he has no connection to the deceased.

That is false, anyone can leave anything, house, personal property, life insurance, bank accounts, and so on, to anyone they want through legal documents and wills. You can go out front and grab any stranger off the street you want and give them Power-of-Attorney over your affairs or health decisions, you can make them executor of your estate.
You do not need to be Married to someone for this.

14th ammendment to the Constitution-"Equal Protection Under The Law.

I don’t believe that the Constitutional ammendment can be interpreted to mean that everyone has the right or entitlment to everything everybody else has.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

To quote a very intelligent person: “If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get one, and shut the f*** up.”

The answer is if you don’t like the definition of Marriage, go invent another term to use. Don’t try to re-define the term Marriage.

 

[cecilia97]

the only difference is, abortion, murder, rape, and sort of incest all trounce on the rights of others “the right of my fist ends at your nose”. Thats why those are illegal. Drugs are illegal because of the damage that they cause to a person(and even this one i could argue both sides of legality.)

Some would say gay marriage harms all of society.

 

[SenorSalsa]

The couple may spend 50 years together, married or not. But when one dies, the other gets nothing, because legally, he has no connection to the deceased.

That is false, anyone can leave anything, house, personal property, life insurance, bank accounts, and so on, to anyone they want through legal documents and wills. You can go out front and grab any stranger off the street you want and give them Power-of-Attorney over your affairs or health decisions, you can make them executor of your estate.
You do not need to be Married to someone for this.

what i was referring to was Social Security and whatnot. My grandmother recieves social security at the rate my grandfather qualifed for before he died, even though my grandmother herself qualified for a much lower amount. If they were not married, she would not get this.

 

[SenorSalsa]

Some would say gay marriage harms all of society.

The Supreme Court has set in many many court cases about various topics that something cannot be outlawed simply becuase we dont like it.

For example from Texas v. Johnson, concerning flag burning:

"f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

or Edwards v. South Carolina, about a protest march

Stewart called the marchers’ actions an exercise of First Amendment rights “in their most pristine and classic form” and emphasized that a state cannot “make criminal the peaceful expression of unpopular views”

both taken from oyez.org

 

[Cari]

the only difference is, abortion, murder, rape, and sort of incest all trounce on the rights of others “the right of my fist ends at your nose”. Thats why those are illegal. Drugs are illegal because of the damage that they cause to a person(and even this one i could argue both sides of legality.)

It has been argued (check out this article from msnbc, for example: msnbc.msn.com/id/21838575/) that children raised in homes without both biological parents are far more likely to be subjected to physical and sexual abuse.

Last time I checked, any children raised in a homosexual households normally do not have both biological parents living with them. Therefore, it would seem that the rights of others ARE being “trounced on” in the case of homosexual “marriage”- at least if it involves children.

 

[SenorSalsa]

It has been argued (check out this article from msnbc, for example: msnbc.msn.com/id/21838575/) that children raised in homes without both biological parents are far more likely to be subjected to physical and sexual abuse.

Last time I checked, any children raised in a homosexual households normally do not have both biological parents living with them. Therefore, it would seem that the rights of others ARE being “trounced on” in the case of homosexual “marriage”- at least if it involves children.

maybe they should live with anyone, after all, a child who lives with an adult is more likely to be sujected to physical and sexual abuse than a child who lives in solitude.

 

[cecilia97]

The Supreme Court has set in many many court cases about various topics that something cannot be outlawed simply becuase we dont like it.

For example from Texas v. Johnson, concerning flag burning:

or Edwards v. South Carolina, about a protest march

both taken from oyez.org

I personally don’t care if civil marriages between homosexuals are legalized or not. The Catholic Church won’t recognize them, ever, so it’s no skin off my *particular *nose.

But the examples above of murder, incest, drugs, etc, hurting people, and being illegal as a result, could be argued to also apply in the case of gay activity. I’m not a parent, but I’m sure some parents feel their children have been harmed by having to question and hear explanations of why two men or two women can get married.

I have two very old friends of the same sex who have always lived together. Wether they’re gay or not is not my business…they are not “out” if they are. I do think they should have CIVIL rights about hospital visits, benefits, etc, especially now that they are in very old age. I think even if they’re heterosexual, they should have those rights, since they have clearly chosen to spend their lives together and they rely on each other.

I may be alone in my old age, and I want to be able to ask a dear female friend to visit me in the hospital and help make decisions about my care, if need be. Homosexuals aren’t the only people with those problems. There’s no monopoly on aloneness.

 

[mlchance]

I do think they should have CIVIL rights about hospital visits, benefits, etc, especially now that they are in very old age…

If only there were such things as powers of attorney and wills.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Cari]

maybe they should live with anyone, after all, a child who lives with an adult is more likely to be sujected to physical and sexual abuse than a child who lives in solitude.

First off, I assume you mean “maybe they should NOT live with anyone”.

Second off, such insanely silly arguments don’t help your cause. When faced with statistics saying that children are more likely to be abused in households of unrelated adults, you counter with a “child raised in solitude then must be safer” argument?

 

[Newbie2]

Do you also want a legal end to all marriage that occur outside of the Catholic Church. A heterosexual marriage by a justice of the peace is no more a sacremental marriage than a homosexual one.

True. But marriage is defined in the CC as being between a man and a woman, regardless of whether it’s sacramental or not.

And the basis of the argument seems to generally be a homosexual marriage is not a true marriage becuase of the “guidelines” of the Sacrament.

It’s not even a false marriage. It’s not marriage at all.

Not to mention a law would not stop homosexual couples, all it would do is stop them from recieving the financial benifits that come with a government(not church) recognized marraige. Tax breaks, pensions, social security, etc.

It would also codify our society’s time proven adage that marriage between a man and woman and the nuclear family are the basis for a successful society. Figure out a different way that benefits, etc. can be passed on to a partner without calling it marriage.

The couple may spend 50 years together, married or not. But when one dies, the other gets nothing, becuase legally, he has no connection to the deceased.

Not it they’ve legally prepared for such an event.

14th ammendment to the Constitution-“Equal Protection Under The Law” Equal protection from what, are you claiming?

 

[clmowry]

The couple may spend 50 years together, married or not. But when one dies, the other gets nothing, becuase legally, he has no connection to the deceased.

Well actually, I think that is what why we have wills. You can leave your belongings to anyone you choose.

Chuck

 

[clmowry]

Do you also want a legal end to all marriage that occur outside of the Catholic Church. A heterosexual marriage by a justice of the peace is no more a sacremental marriage than a homosexual one.

And the basis of the argument seems to generally be a homosexual marriage is not a true marriage becuase of the “guidelines” of the Sacrament.

Not to mention a law would not stop homosexual couples, all it would do is stop them from recieving the financial benifits that come with a government(not church) recognized marraige. Tax breaks, pensions, social security, etc.

The couple may spend 50 years together, married or not. But when one dies, the other gets nothing, becuase legally, he has no connection to the deceased.

14th ammendment to the Constitution-“Equal Protection Under The Law”

I think you have legal issues you should be addressing with your state and federal legislatures.

The Catholic moral and religious assessment on the issue has long been settled and will never be changed.

Chuck

 

[cecilia97]

If only there were such things as powers of attorney and wills.

– Mark L. Chance.

Thank you! And that’s what my friends have done. They do have the occasional problem at the hospital because they’re not “related”. One thing they could not have done for many years was share health insurance, before companies had “domestic partner” choices for employees. But this has not been a large problem for them as they both had long careers and have their own coverage.

Someone mentioned inheritance earlier, too. This is not Jane Austen’s England where the money has to go to the oldest son by law. Write a will! We can give it to the bum on the corner if we want.

As for social security…we’re probably not going to get any anyway in a few more years. Same-sex couples can make each other beneficiaries on 401ks.