F
fix
Guest
No, because even if they do not objectively they are able to do so. There is a complementarity that does not exist between same sex individuals.
- Status
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
I am not clear as to your point, but I will address it as I understand. First, in any legal contract, only consenting adults may be a party. As with any contract, minors could not enter into them without parental consent. Joining of good and real property in a marriage arrangement would be no different.
In other thought, why does not the Church define marriage legally? If people think it is too difficult to draw up their own contract, or buy a prefab, The Church could have one drawn up according to its teachings, available at any parish when people marry. This is just one alternative to the current statist system.
F
fix
Guest
I think that will make think that will make things worse.
The history in this country is that we have the state involved. That is not new. The state has a role in protecting marriage. It may not be exactly equal to the Church, but that does not mean the state should have no role or has no obligation to defend against attacks.
Replacing civil marriage with a mere contract simply teaches the young, and old, that anything goes. Like it or not the civil law plays an imprtant role in how people form their conscience. It we want a more civilized society the answer is not less protection of the family, but greater protection.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
Which parents? That is the problem everybody knows a man and a woman made the child however in the proposed system that child should be a free standing legal entity. Now since the 3 year old cannot function as a free standing legal entity, and the legal system does not want to acknowledge the actual male/female pair as a married couple who is the parent you speak of? If the baby lives with Bill and Ted who is the responsible party? Who decides? Who pays? Who takes the baby in a split-up? These are the very reasons government wants married biological parents. Now government can issue civil marriage certificates to Bill and Ted but they do not have the conditions of the biological married parents. So Bill and Ted’s civil marriage is based on no inherent need.
Define or articulate? The Church cannot define marriage as that is an existing constraint by god. The Church does articulate the best interpretations of god’s Natural [Moral] Law concerning marriage. The civil authority cannot define marriage either, they can use the term marriage improperly.
G
greggy53
Guest
Concerning your first commnet I don’t think you understood what I was saying, but that may be because of the way I said it, so I’ll let that pass.
Secondly, I most certainly disagree with you about Marriage being a spiritual union. It most certainly is. Jesus talked repeatedly about the chuch being his bride, and I don’t think you can take that comparison lightly.
If what you say concerning “marital union” not being possible is true then lets supose a soldier who was wounded in battle loses his ability to have sex falls in love with a woman and wants to marry?? If what you say is true no marriage is possible. Why would they even want to marry? Many people in those unfortunate circumstance have and the Church has had no qualms about marrying such couples. I stand my ground on Marriage being a “spiritual” union between a man and woman. Perhaps the church recognizes civil marriages now a days, but not too long ago they did not. The requiement as I understood it back in 1997 was that if one spouse was not Catholic they had to at least be a baptised Christian.
I have never heard that the Church recognizes common law marriages, although many States do.
J
JimG
Guest
That’s correct, in the Catholic Church, anyway. A condition of permanent and irreversible impotence or inability to have marital intercourse on the part of either party is an impediment to marriage. (The impediment would not, however, invalidate a marriage which had validly occurred before the existence of the impediment.) Temporary or curable impotence is not an impediment.
But that is Church law. Civil law, does not, as far as I know, take a position on the issue, either of impotence as a barrier to marriage, or non-consummation of the marriage. (Altho, I believe that in some states, an unconsummated marriage may be annulled civilly.)
The Church doesn’t recognize a civil marriage in which a Catholic is involved, because the Catholic is violating the marriage laws of the Church. But it recognizes most marriages as valid unless proven otherwise.
I didn’t really make any comments about common-law marriages, but the Church would probably consider them pretty much the same as civil marriages. (I discovered while in the mortgage banking business that most people in common-law marriages have a hard time saying just ‘when’ they got married; but in any case they were required to sign the documents as “a married couple,” thereby settling the matter.)
L
ladybri77
Guest
The state of Maine just legalized same sex marriage. They are now the 5th state. How exactly does it come about? Lobbyists? What is to stop other groups from claiming the same rights?
G
greggy53
Guest
I will have to look that up, I don’t believe that two Catholic Christians cannot marry in the Church only because one is not physically able to consummate the marriage. To be sure there would be some counseling involved especially if one candidate is of child bearing age, and able. I also have trouble believing that the Church would recognize any common law marriage. That is strictly a secular legal, or civil term for what the Church teaches as living in adultery! I don’t believe that anyone is truly married ( by the Christian definition of marriage) in any civil ceremony. It is a purely legal contract, and Marriage is so much more.
G
greggy53
Guest
Absolutely, What would prevent the state form recognizing a union between man and dog?? Nothing if you base the law on situational ethics. If 51% of the folks in Vermont believe it’s ok, who is the state to say no?
And the problem the rest of us have is that according to the constitution a legal contract in one state must be recognized in another…
F
fix
Guest
Take a look here:
Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.
§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.
The Church certainly recognized valid, natural marriages.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
greggy53
The logic is the impotent person cannot fulfill the marriage commitment. Remember the impotent person can cohabitate without concern of sin related to sex.
On the second part only Catholics are bound by church law so two non-Catholics claiming to be married have no suspicion.
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
This position is strange to me, since the legal parents are established at birth with a birth certificate, not at marriage. Even now, when two non-married parents have a child, parental rights and responsibilities exist. I am not clear how their not being married, by the state or otherwise, changes their position as parents. Nor do I see how the child is suddenly a “free-standing entity.” I am not saying the state would no longer recognize marriage, only no longer issue licenses which define marriage and in which the state gives you permission to marry, which it has no right to do.
Again, there is no reason to believe that the state cannot recognize contracts which bring individuals to one another, in a married setting or otherwise, defining benefits and shared property. Why must a government marriage license define the relationship? Almost all the theoretical problems you propose can discussed in arbitration or in court, as it is already. What does a marriage license have to do with this? For most of Western history there have been no marriage licenses. Why are they indispensible now?
To say the Church has no power over marriage sounds erroneous. The Roman Rota as a tribunal works as one of its powers in determining whether a given marriage is valid or not. If they had no jurisidiction over this, why do they do it? Certainly, the Church cannot define marriage outside of God’s definition, but it is through the Church we know that this is God’s definition and She defines it in Her legitimate power. To say otherwise is silly because ALL Church doctrine is defined by God. These are not “interpretations,” but complete doctrine as handed by the Holy Ghost.
When I recommended the Church draw up a sample contract, I meant for availability to Catholics at the time of marriage. They can use them or get their own. You can already get many legal documents, such as leases, at the drug store. Why not a Catholic marriage contract available at the parish? This way the Catholic definition would be inherent legally and sacramentally. Other groups could also introduce their own contracts if they wish. Why should we be subject to a secular state’s definition, which as you rightly acknowledge it does not have the power to do anyway?
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
Thanks Eve
I am still trying to follow you
hope that helps
I am still trying to follow you
actually that is not quite correct. the courts have repeatedly held that a man married to a woman who gives birth is legally responsible for the child. EVEN in case where the man was not present! (as in prison, overseas, impotent, etc) Several men have sued using blood tests however the courts still hold them responsible. Now for the second part the non married person: guess what is bound to happen a girl will write her female partner in as the “father” so what happens then?
historically marriage was used to define the “parents” who were the responsible party. In the absence of marriage the mother was typically the sole parent and responsible party. Men whether father or not were second class, the mother can sue the father (many states do that for free on her behalf) yet fathers rarely have any success even if they sue the mother. So if there is no marriage license available it would seem the mother is in charge? Now I am sure the new replacement contract will have issues like “void if pregnancy occurs”, “Man shall have zero liability for babies of other fathers” etc, etc. So will the court recognize this? (not a chance)
So if grandparents marry grandchildren there will be no inheritance taxes, right?
Since the raising of children has many strains and requirements the government wants to assist parents rather than have the government raise the children
They are dispensable however the old system of man in charge is also gone so the new system will be a drastic change. (probably mother choses government performs)
Because Catholics must be free to marry before a catholic marriage, otherwise there is no need
I would suggest the rate of annulments granted in the US today indicates a change in the discipline of marriage
I think that all exists today? The Catholics issue a record of the sacrament which is well spelled out in Canon Law. The others do exactly as you describe. The issue at hand is can a male/male pair recieve that civil contract
hope that helps
A
AmyBrownEyes
Guest
You are right. We must speak up when natural law is being violated and sin is being legalized. I urge my fellow Catholics to vote against gay marriage. Gays should be entitled to protection from law enforcement, but they should not force their beliefs on children. In Massachussets, right now, little kids are being forced by State run schools to read a gay story book.
Gay people should never be harassed or belittled.
Ed,
I am a lesbian and a Catholic. However you do have something I agree with gays shouldn’t be harassed or belittled but we are, people don’t accept it our sexuality. And how gays need protection from the law enforcement, however we won’t be protected by the law. In 2006 two teenage boys in Iran or may it was Iraq they were executed for being gay. People believe homosexuality is un-natural if a woman loves a woman or a man loving another man. The Matthew Shepard Act was passed a bill that makes discrimination against sexual orientation a crime. Have you ever heard of the bill? It was named after a young kid, Matthew Shepard, 21 years old was tied to a fence and beaten almost to the point of death he passed away five days later in the hospital. He was murdered because he was gay and this happened in 1998, I was only 8 years old and I had never heard of Matthew until just recently. I don’t have a problem with schools having children read a gay story book. And I am sure they are not forced into reading them.
I think it is good that children read a gay story book. It might teach them not to hate gays and to love them even if they are different. As for gay marriage I support it. Gay marriage should be legalized because it is violating our freedom in this country. At a point interracial marriage was illegal now is it is legal. There isn’t any difference between interracial marriage and gay marriage, except in gay marriage it is same sex marriage even people of different races are doing same sex marriage… Society has to change the way it views the gay community. Being gay doesn’t make you less than a straight person however in America that seems to be true. You should watch Brokeback Mountain it might turn your life around and how you view the gay community.
Loving lesbian,
Amy
Gay people should never be harassed or belittled.
Ed,
I am a lesbian and a Catholic. However you do have something I agree with gays shouldn’t be harassed or belittled but we are, people don’t accept it our sexuality. And how gays need protection from the law enforcement, however we won’t be protected by the law. In 2006 two teenage boys in Iran or may it was Iraq they were executed for being gay. People believe homosexuality is un-natural if a woman loves a woman or a man loving another man. The Matthew Shepard Act was passed a bill that makes discrimination against sexual orientation a crime. Have you ever heard of the bill? It was named after a young kid, Matthew Shepard, 21 years old was tied to a fence and beaten almost to the point of death he passed away five days later in the hospital. He was murdered because he was gay and this happened in 1998, I was only 8 years old and I had never heard of Matthew until just recently. I don’t have a problem with schools having children read a gay story book. And I am sure they are not forced into reading them.
I think it is good that children read a gay story book. It might teach them not to hate gays and to love them even if they are different. As for gay marriage I support it. Gay marriage should be legalized because it is violating our freedom in this country. At a point interracial marriage was illegal now is it is legal. There isn’t any difference between interracial marriage and gay marriage, except in gay marriage it is same sex marriage even people of different races are doing same sex marriage… Society has to change the way it views the gay community. Being gay doesn’t make you less than a straight person however in America that seems to be true. You should watch Brokeback Mountain it might turn your life around and how you view the gay community.
Loving lesbian,
Amy
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
Fair amount of ground to cover so I will do my best here.
I see nothing wrong with having the mother, in a homosexual situation, being the sole parent legally. To say that her “partner” is the other parent is demonstrably untrue, since her “partner” could not conceive with her. Now for purposes of parental responsibilty, if the mother wants to assign legal guardian status to her “partner,” the court can deem their situation inherently unfit, which I would agree with. This would go for homosexual adoption as well. There is no reason why the state should recognize homosexuals as have legal standing in matters aside of mutual concern. If two homosexuals wish to consent to a contract which binds them legally, this is fine. But it is not in the state’s power to assign a minor third party to this situation, since this is clearly not in the child’s interest, and the state cannot make it so.
I see no reason why the court should not recognize a legal contract . The presumption in my assertion is that since marriage licenses have been abolished, the contracts which replace them legally will also replace them in the eyes of the court. If a man and woman have a contract of their own creation which binds them , this couple would be the parents on a birth certificate. The fact that marriage licenses no longer exist would not make them any less legally joined. The only time this would not apply is with homosexuals, which, while bound to each other contract-wise, cannot be made into parents, since this can never be done, statist attempts to the contrary not withstanding. The state cannot make what never was. The recognition of some legal benefits by the state does not automatically equate others. For example, one may be legally permitted to work here, but not be able to vote .
I do not believe in inheritance taxes anyway, so either way I am good.
All joking aside, remember that this contract only defines benefits and real property, it does not confer a marriage in the strict sense. When I said the state would still recognize marriages, I meant in the legal definition, that these contracts would define mutual beneficiaries as a legal marriage does now. Homosexuals, grandparents, anyone could do it. I am not sure how giving the government the power to define marriage is automatically the only solution for making the rerposibilities of parenting easier.
While it is true marriage gives records of the sacrament itself, it does not define in those records what the benefits associated with marriage are. The state does that with licenses. I am suggesting a legal contract written by the Church to define the benefits and duties of the enjoined state from the Catholic perspective.
Now these I suggest only as solutions for secular states, which these United States are. This solution would help to prevent governments from having the power to redefine marriage, at either the state or federal level. If a state decided to make Catholicism, or even generic christianity, the officially recognized religion like the Church says it should, than the state would automatically recognize Catholic marriages and the defined benefits therein. All other defenitions would be unnecessary as only the Christian one would be relevant. In my eyes, the real solution does not end with stopping homosexual “marriages,” but in ending the secular state. Only then will the ability to restrain state power, and indeed the state itself, be philosophically grounded.
I hope this helps make things somewhat clearer, since it is so complex an issue.
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
AmyYou are right. We must speak up when natural law is being violated and sin is being legalized. I urge my fellow Catholics to vote against gay marriage. Gays should be entitled to protection from law enforcement, but they should not force their beliefs on children. In Massachussets, right now, little kids are being forced by State run schools to read a gay story book.
Gay people should never be harassed or belittled.
Ed,
I am a lesbian and a Catholic. However you do have something I agree with gays shouldn’t be harassed or belittled but we are, people don’t accept it our sexuality. And how gays need protection from the law enforcement, however we won’t be protected by the law. In 2006 two teenage boys in Iran or may it was Iraq they were executed for being gay. People believe homosexuality is un-natural if a woman loves a woman or a man loving another man. The Matthew Shepard Act was passed a bill that makes discrimination against sexual orientation a crime. Have you ever heard of the bill? It was named after a young kid, Matthew Shepard, 21 years old was tied to a fence and beaten almost to the point of death he passed away five days later in the hospital. He was murdered because he was gay and this happened in 1998, I was only 8 years old and I had never heard of Matthew until just recently. I don’t have a problem with schools having children read a gay story book. And I am sure they are not forced into reading them.
I think it is good that children read a gay story book. It might teach them not to hate gays and to love them even if they are different. As for gay marriage I support it. Gay marriage should be legalized because it is violating our freedom in this country. At a point interracial marriage was illegal now is it is legal. There isn’t any difference between interracial marriage and gay marriage, except in gay marriage it is same sex marriage even people of different races are doing same sex marriage… Society has to change the way it views the gay community. Being gay doesn’t make you less than a straight person however in America that seems to be true. You should watch Brokeback Mountain it might turn your life around and how you view the gay community.
Loving lesbian,
Amy
It would seem you are frustrated, please relax. Catholic teaching has never been to “hate” in fact we have threads on whether hating is ever acceptable as for murders, rapist, etc. Second gays are not having any rights violated, none what so ever. Probably before you were born a massive equal rights amendment was underway, that amendment was never passed, because there were no laws discriminating against women left on the books. Since women had the same legal rights the amendment was moot. The same is true today; civil marriage is about children absent of that the issue is moot. Church law is different and mark these words the government will one day drop the hypocrisy and when it does it will acknowledge women are different than men. One closing comment children to not need exposed to sex until they are adolescents, they deserve the right to be free of all sex issues until puberty, regardless of the type of sex issue.
I hope that helps
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
I should make one thing clear here, which I may not have before.
I believe the state should only recognize heterosexual marriage as valid. If contracts are arranged for mutual benefit, then only heterosexual ones should be called marriages, if that is the type of agreement they are entering into. I am not saying that the state should no longer recognize marriage, but that it should no longer have the power to define it through marriage license. When a state says in its records: We recognize this man and woman as being in the married state, according to the norms of the ceremony they were in, they are simply recognizing a fact: this couple is married. When it issues a license, it is saying: We give this couple permission to marry, and we will define what that is in the license. This is the power I do not think the state should have. Government recognizing the institution of marriage and having the power to regulate it are entirely different things. It is like the right to bear arms. The government was not conferring the right to own arms, merely recognizing that this fact already existed.
Under these circumstances, the parents listed on a birth certificate would still be the married couple. Homosexuals would not be recognized since they cannot be married, and the state cannot make this so. I am saying that people should be able to arrange their own marriage, and not be forced to accept how the state defines it.
I see nothing wrong with having the mother, in a homosexual situation, being the sole parent legally. To say that her “partner” is the other parent is demonstrably untrue, since her “partner” could not conceive with her. This would go for homosexual adoption as well. There is no reason why the state should recognize homosexuals as having legal standing in matters aside of mutual concern. If two people wish to consent to a contract which binds them legally, this is fine. But it is not in the state’s power to assign a minor third party to this situation, since this is clearly not in the child’s interest, and the state cannot make it so.
I see no reason why the court should not recognize a legal contract . The presumption in my assertion is that since marriage licenses have been abolished, the contracts which replace them legally will also replace them in the eyes of the court. If a man and woman have a marriage contract of their own creation which binds them, this couple would be the parents on a birth certificate. The fact that marriage licenses no longer exist would not make them any less married. The only time this would not apply is with homosexuals, which, while bound to each other contract-wise, cannot be made into parents, since this can never be done, statist attempts to the contrary not withstanding. The state cannot make what never was. The recognition of some legal benefits by the state does not automatically equate others. For example, one may be legally permitted to work here, but not be able to vote .
I do not believe in inheritance taxes anyway, so either way I am good.
I am not sure how giving the government the power to define marriage is automatically the only solution for making the rerposibilities of parenting easier.
While it is true the Church gives records of the sacrament itself, it does not define in those records what the benefits associated with marriage are. The state does that with licenses. I am suggesting a legal contract written by the Church to define the benefits and duties of the enjoined state from the Catholic perspective, instead of a prefab secular license.
I hope this helps make things somewhat clearer, since it is so complex an issue.
M
mystagogia
Guest
Here is Mr. Kurtz’ response to the Slate attack:
Unhealthy Half Truths
These stats argue against your conservative case for gay marriage. It did not deliver, since demographic decline continued unabated after it was adopted. Gay marriage does not contain a salvific effect for marriage or family.
Interestingly, you make a good point for yourself then strangely defeat it in an own-goal. Ironically, yes, a perfectly ordered world does make it harder to teach moral decision. Those who have no appreciation or experience with real hazard are indeed the most fearless (or foolhardy). A good argument exits why evil must exist in the world (and evidence suggests God agrees! haha).
I would not presume that you should expect, or need, a world devoid of moral turmoil in order to teach the eternal value of goodness.
But I sympathize.
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
Forgive me, everyone, for the multiple posts. I had a computer error. The most recent post is the only accurate one. In my first one I made inadmissable concessions to homosexuality, which I regret, so I apologize to everyone. I am so embarassed! 
- Status