Gay Marriage and The Law

  • Thread starter Thread starter PhantomPhanatic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PhantomPhanatic

Guest
Hello all!

I have a question about gay marriage, and I’m wondering if anyone could point me in the right direction. I am fully aware that the Catholic Church always has been, and always will be, against gay marriage and civil unions among homosexuals. However, I am a bit confused as to what direction the Church in America is hoping to go in after gay marriage became legal in the U.S. in 2015.

Here’s what I mean by this. If I understand correctly, the Catholic Church always has been, and always will be, opposed to the use of contraception. However, at the same time, the Church is not advocating for contraception to become illegal; instead, they just require Catholics to make the decision not to use it (despite the fact that it is legal).

Has this become the case with gay marriage, or no? i.e. Is the Church fighting to repeal the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize gay marriage? Is the Church hoping that lay Catholics will start a movement to make gay marriage illegal once again? Or has this issue now become similar to how we view contraception - i.e., should we certainly continue to oppose gay marriage, but not concern ourselves with trying to make it illegal?

I have searched the USCCB’s website through and through and I can’t seem to find anything directly answering my question. Any insight would be greatly appreciated! I am mainly looking for resources directly from the Church itself (as opposed to personal opinions).

Thanks, and God Bless! 🙂
 
Supreme Court decisions are reversed via Amendments to the Constitution. For example:

The Eleventh Amendment (Amendment XI) to the United States Constitution, which was passed by Congress on March 4, 1794, and ratified by the states on February 7, 1795, deals with each state’s sovereign immunity and was adopted to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793).
 
Hi Deacon Jeff! Your reply to my post was incredibly helpful, thank you so much for the information! I think I see what you’re saying now. Previously (just a few years ago), the Church in America was advocating for gay marriage to stay illegal. But now, since SCOTUS ruled gay marriage as legal, it’s incredibly unlikely that we’d be able to overturn that decision. So the Church in America is not going to push for it to become illegal once again (despite still denouncing it) simply because we’ve already “lost the fight” as you said. Is that correct? Thank you again, this is extremely helpful! (And explains why I couldn’t find anything official from the Church on the matter).

As a follow-up question – in the upcoming election, should Catholics be concerned with candidates’ beliefs on gay marriage (as we were 4 years ago)? Or would it be accurate to say that gay marriage isn’t really a factor anymore in discerning which candidate to vote for given that we have “lost the fight” in trying to keep it illegal?

Thank you once again Deacon, this is extremely helpful!
 
Just_Lurking said:
Supreme Court decisions are reversed via Amendments to the Constitution. For example:

The Eleventh Amendment (Amendment XI) to the United States Constitution, which was passed by Congress on March 4, 1794, and ratified by the states on February 7, 1795, deals with each state’s sovereign immunity and was adopted to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793).
Click to expand...
Hello there! Thanks for the post! I am very unfamiliar with Supreme Court decisions and amendments to the constitution aside from what Deacon Jeff mentioned. So it sounds like you’re saying that the only way to ‘overrule’ a Supreme Court decision would be to add an amendment to the constitution, is that correct? How exactly does the constitution become amended? (i.e. who starts the movement to do that, who decides to do that, who actually amends it, etc.). I’m assuming the likelihood of amending the Constitution to override SCOTUS’s ruling on gay marriage is fairly unlikely at this point in time?

My apologies, I know I’m asking questions about legal issues I should have learned in elementary school, haha. Thank you both again for the help!
 
church will continue to be against it.

however, i don’t think it’ll actively fight against it (make huge noise about it)

it’ll try to open its doors for people with ssa. As in to teach them about our beliefs and all…

I feel like there is a point where it’s pointless to fight over laws, and instead we say “ok, catholics should not _____”. We see this in the contraception issue. Because let’s be real, we can be soooo preoccupied with the sins of others, or the church can focus on battles that can be won. Don’t know if I phrased this correctly, but there’s more to the Church than abortions, gay marriage and contraception. The Church knows this, which is why the pope talks about the poor and all…to give some attention back on other important parts of the faith.

this is not to say that the church gives up, but just not fighting for it in the way you are talking about (fighting for ___ to be illegal). Besides abortions and the death penalty.
 
PhantomPhanatic said:
How exactly does the constitution become amended? (i.e. who starts the movement to do that, who decides to do that, who actually amends it, etc.).
Click to expand...
Congress starts the ball rolling by passing a joint resolution (by a 2/3 margin in both the House of Representatives and the Senate) that fixes the exact wording of the amendment. Then 3/4 of the states have to ratify the amendment for it to become a part of the constitution.
 
PhantomPhanatic said:
Hi Deacon Jeff! Your reply to my post was incredibly helpful, thank you so much for the information! I think I see what you’re saying now. Previously (just a few years ago), the Church in America was advocating for gay marriage to stay illegal. But now, since SCOTUS ruled gay marriage as legal, it’s incredibly unlikely that we’d be able to overturn that decision. So the Church in America is not going to push for it to become illegal once again (despite still denouncing it) simply because we’ve already “lost the fight” as you said. Is that correct? Thank you again, this is extremely helpful! (And explains why I couldn’t find anything official from the Church on the matter).

As a follow-up question – in the upcoming election, should Catholics be concerned with candidates’ beliefs on gay marriage (as we were 4 years ago)? Or would it be accurate to say that gay marriage isn’t really a factor anymore in discerning which candidate to vote for given that we have “lost the fight” in trying to keep it illegal?

Thank you once again Deacon, this is extremely helpful!
Click to expand...
Yes. The Church is still concerned about what is called gay marriage. Politicians should not support it. Catholics need to know where the candidates stand.

Ed
 
A more pressing issue is that law makers are beginning/continuing to push the Church making it even harder for the Church to speak her mind on issues of sexual identity and gender orientation.

Instead of asking whether the Church is becoming less vocal, take a look at the rising oppression of free speech in this area. In many jurisdictions it is now illegal to publically express views which were considered mainstream 50 years ago.

My views on marriage, for example, are basically the same as my grandparents. Yet if my kind and loving grandparents were alive today, their sincerely held views about normal, natural sexuality would be labelled as bigoted ‘hate speech’.

Just remember that! When the LGBTQ lobby calls you a homophobe and a hater, they are also attacking past generations of your family who thought exactly the same about marriage and the nuclear family.

When did I ‘become’ a homophobe? Answer - I didnt. My parents weren’t homophobes. Neither were my grandparents. Nor my great grand parents. Nor theirs.
 
Lion_IRC said:
A more pressing issue is that law makers are beginning/continuing to push the Church making it even harder for the Church to speak her mind on issues of sexual identity and gender orientation.

Instead of asking whether the Church is becoming less vocal, take a look at the rising oppression of free speech in this area. In many jurisdictions it is now illegal to publically express views which were considered mainstream 50 years ago.

My views on marriage, for example, are basically the same as my grandparents. Yet if my kind and loving grandparents were alive today, their sincerely held views about normal, natural sexuality would be labelled as bigoted ‘hate speech’.

Just remember that! When the LGBTQ lobby calls you a homophobe and a hater, they are also attacking past generations of your family who thought exactly the same about marriage and the nuclear family.

When did I ‘become’ a homophobe? Answer - I didnt. My parents weren’t homophobes. Neither were my grandparents. Nor my great grand parents. Nor theirs.
Click to expand...
This all happened by design. Just read this book’s description.

amazon.com/Marketing-Evil-Pseudo-Experts-Corruption-Disguised/dp/1942475217/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1476478517&sr=1-1&keywords=marketing+of+evil+by+david+kupelian

I think exactly like those who understand what marriage and family actually means.

Ed
 
Just_Lurking said:
Congress starts the ball rolling by passing a joint resolution (by a 2/3 margin in both the House of Representatives and the Senate) that fixes the exact wording of the amendment. Then 3/4 of the states have to ratify the amendment for it to become a part of the constitution.
Click to expand...
I can’t imagine getting a 2/3 majority in Congress to pass a resolution and 3/4 of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment reversing same-sex marriage and every year that passes, the less likely it would be, especially since a majority of people under thirty support same-sex marriage.
 
Lea101 said:
church will continue to be against it.

however, i don’t think it’ll actively fight against it (make huge noise about it)

**it’ll try to open its doors for people with ssa. As in to teach them about our beliefs and all…
**
I feel like there is a point where it’s pointless to fight over laws, and instead we say “ok, catholics should not _____”. We see this in the contraception issue. Because let’s be real, we can be soooo preoccupied with the sins of others, or the church can focus on battles that can be won. Don’t know if I phrased this correctly, but there’s more to the Church than abortions, gay marriage and contraception. The Church knows this, which is why the pope talks about the poor and all…to give some attention back on other important parts of the faith.

this is not to say that the church gives up, but just not fighting for it in the way you are talking about (fighting for ___ to be illegal). Besides abortions and the death penalty.
Click to expand...
Sadly this does not work as they refuse to separate deeds from their ideas. Sensitive in the extreme.

How will you cross the barrier between accepting THEM and accepting what they do?
 
Lion_IRC said:
A more pressing issue is that law makers are beginning/continuing to push the Church making it even harder for the Church to speak her mind on issues of sexual identity and gender orientation.

Instead of asking whether the Church is becoming less vocal, take a look at the rising oppression of free speech in this area. In many jurisdictions it is now illegal to publically express views which were considered mainstream 50 years ago.

My views on marriage, for example, are basically the same as my grandparents. Yet if my kind and loving grandparents were alive today, their sincerely held views about normal, natural sexuality would be labelled as bigoted ‘hate speech’.

Just remember that! When the LGBTQ lobby calls you a homophobe and a hater, they are also attacking past generations of your family who thought exactly the same about marriage and the nuclear family.

When did I ‘become’ a homophobe? Answer - I didnt. My parents weren’t homophobes. Neither were my grandparents. Nor my great grand parents. Nor theirs.
Click to expand...
My main concern about your view is that, in all likelihood , your great grandparents also did not believe that biracial marriage should be allowed, or even interfaith marriage, two concepts which are now considered normal and an everyday occurance. As time marches on, our views on different social constructs change.
 
kozlosap said:
My main concern about your view is that, in all likelihood , your great grandparents also did not believe that biracial marriage should be allowed, or even interfaith marriage, two concepts which are now considered normal and an everyday occurance. As time marches on, our views on different social constructs change.
Click to expand...
Ummmm. A biracial man woman couple can have a child. People of different faiths can have a child. Do you realize the comparison you just made does not work?
 
kozlosap said:
My main concern about your view is that, in all likelihood , your great grandparents also did not believe that biracial marriage should be allowed, or even interfaith marriage, two concepts which are now considered normal and an everyday occurance. As time marches on, our views on different social constructs change.
Click to expand...
Person’s who held the views to which you refer held them on the basis of an idea they manufactured. A prejudice of no foundation. The incongruity of two men binding themselves together in a sexual relationship arises from their fundamental and bodily incompatibility - a reality, not an invention, not a prejudice.
 
goout said:
Ummmm. A biracial man woman couple can have a child. People of different faiths can have a child. Do you realize the comparison you just made does not work?
Click to expand...
To be able to conceive a child is totally irrelevant for marriage.
Rau said:
The incongruity of two men binding themselves together in a sexual relationship arises from their fundamental and bodily incompatibility - a reality, not an invention, not a prejudice.
Click to expand...
It is a prejudice that sexual compatibility is somehow tied to “procreation”.
 
goout said:
Ummmm. A biracial man woman couple can have a child. People of different faiths can have a child. Do you realize the comparison you just made does not work?
Click to expand...
Ummmm. Group influenced perceptions of what is right and wrong regularly change over time, often from the prejudiced to the more objective…
Do you realise the statement you just made somehow missed that ;)?
 
Blue_Horizon said:
Ummmm. Group influenced perceptions of what is right and wrong regularly change over time, often from the prejudiced to the more objective…
Do you realise the statement you just made somehow missed that ;)?
Click to expand...
Please don’t change the subject. You weren’t the post I responded to, so let me directly quote the post I responded to, and I hope you can talk about that, not something else.
kozlosap said:
My main concern about your view is that, in all likelihood , your great grandparents also did not believe that biracial marriage should be allowed, or even interfaith marriage, two concepts which are now considered normal and an everyday occurance. As time marches on, our views on different social constructs change.
Click to expand...
These beliefs of the past were wrong because they are not ordered to the goods of marriage. The goods of marriage are unity and procreativity. The race of the couples has no effect on pursuing the goods of marriage. Nor does the faiths of the couple. (although a discussion could be had about the unifying aspects of common faith).

So the comparison of these issues to gay marriage made by the poster is a non-starter, and is an attempt to reduce civil rights to “our views on social constructs”.

Do I hear you saying that civil rights is based on popular viewpoints, and not on something objective? Popular viewpoints can be morally sound or corrupt. Popular viewpoints are not morally sound because the are popular viewpoints, they are morally sound to the degree they are “good”.
Do you see what the conversation is about now?
 
goout said:
Please don’t change the subject.
Click to expand...
No subject change.
Simply observing the same truth the poster meant which you seem unable to agree with.
Namely, tradition by that fact alone is no guarantee of objectivity.
You either get it or you don’t 🤷.
Do I hear you saying that civil rights is based on popular viewpoint
Click to expand...
Yes I think this proposition has significant support in Church Political theory/Politics… if by civil rights we mean State legislation tolerating some widespread and hard to eradicate personal moral evils like prostitution, gambling, drinking, contracepting and homosexual acts.
Such is sometimes needed for the common good of a society that is fragile or pluralistic.

Christendom failed long ago my friend. Nobody agrees with the equivalent of Catholic Shariah.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top