Gay Marriage: What's the problem?

[jmisk]

It is more severe than you are giving credit for here, if you are asking for a Catholic’s opinion.

I too am a catholic. Why you stated in a Catholic’s opinion is odd.

Homosexual acts are intrinsically evil according to the teaching of the Church. It is abominable in the sight of God, according to scripture and the Magisterium.

roger. Agreed. I believe what the Catholic teachings say about it as a sin. No arguments.

If you believe that homosexual acts, the “lifestyle” as it were, is intrinsically evil per the teaching of the Church, then, under the current atmosphere of intolerance toward dissent that the proponents of homosexual marriage (abortion, birth-control, pornography, prostitution, etc.) have, you will be punished for any expression of that belief and branded a bigot or worse for your beliefs.

Yeah, again I do believe it is a sin. You say, “If you believe…” I don’t believe that so let’s get back to the original question is the federal government can force Priest to perform Gay marriages

It has already happened in other areas. The conscience clause under 0bamacare for those that oppose abortion or birth control has been gutted so that there are no protections for people of faith. It used to be there under all previous administrations since Roe vs. Wade.

Closer…

Already there are lawsuits against people for exercising their conscience over homosexual marriage. And having a sign expressing a “right to refuse service” is of no consequence. The State will punish whomever it chooses, whenever it chooses. People are being punished in the military over the issue of homosexuality, not because they are homosexual, but because they believe the conduct is immoral.

I am in the military and we’re a little focused on the rape cases right now to hand out article 15s to joes who don’t like gays. Really wish you had a link or source for that.

To think that this will not affect the Catholic Church, with the State’s attempting to force Catholic institutions already to do what is against their beliefs is, in my opinion, very naïve.

I do believe all the other examples you gave to affect the Church. But again I wasn’t asking about the big picture. I was asking about the Federal Government or State governments passing laws that would require Priests to marry Gays.

But you are entitled to your opinion. It is not in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church. And it is not in accordance with scripture.

This statement really hurt my feelings. You don’t know me. I do believe every teaching the Catholic Church teaches including every writing relating to homosexuality. How dare you respond so rudely to a person honestly trying to find websites, documents or sources that can prove the government can or has overstepped it’s authority. Please in the future don’t belittle or pass judgment or assume you understand a persons beliefs because they limit a topic to a specific question.

Again I was not interested in reading if homosexuality is sinful (I know that is is) or that is has social impacts (I know that is does). What I wanted to pull from this large forum was resources that showed specific cases (like HHS mandate) where the government had began to overrule Catholic rights, which in turn could allow the government to require priest to marry Gay couples.

God Bless

 

[Corki]

Source for the bolded part please.

Bob Jones University case.

 

[Corki]

From my own expierence as a married Catholic, there is no legally binding document that the church offers or provides by its own authority. The marriage certificate from the state that was signed by the priest is a legally valid document and is controlled by the state. So if the Gay couple is refused by the priest why would they not seek a different religion or legal means of becoming married in the states eyes. Since the Catholic Church does not marry in the States presence but the presence of God.

How I understand it. Catholic marriages are overseen by priests but carried out by God by way of the vows and promises the couples takes in his presence.

The state though marries by its own authority. This is the authority that grants rights, privileges etc that the Gays want and can legally obtain.

I just don’t see how the Church can be forced to supply a legal service it never claimed to form (ours is a covenent through God and honored by the state) by a group that can freely receive the service and stutus by other means.

Wow, so many misstatements in a single post.

In the Catholic understanding of marriage, the spouses convey the Sacrament on each other with the priest or deacon as their witness.

Religious weddings pre-dated the idea of purely secular weddings.

The Church cannot be forced to marry anyone. But that is not the only issue. The Church could, for example lose it’s tax exempt status due to her refusal to participate in same-sex “marriages.” If that happens, many people suffer - mostly the poor.

Your scenario of a couple simply moving on to another venue if they can’t get married in the Church is actually very on-point with what is wrong. The Church has said all along that she resists the re-definition of marriage. As you point out, a same-sex couple could treat a wedding as the object of a shopping expedition. Just keep shopping until you find a “store” that carries what you want. That is a redefinition of marriage and is demeaning to those of us who sought Sacramental marriage through the Church.

 

[ricofall]

My question is, “How does the legalization of Gay Marriage effect the Church?”

The post here seem to be going around in circles so I will start with answering your question.

 The legalization does not affect the Church in a sense that the Church will be forced to recognised SS marriage. The Church has survived this and much more.  If you were to force a Priest to perform a marriage ceremony for two gay men, then Church will not see it has a marriage or even as a commitment.   It would see it in the same light as the [Catholic Women Priest ](http://romancatholicwomenpriests.org/) movement.  

 However with that said, the Church is trying to protect the foundation of the family.  A traditional marriage is the "Cell" of our organization. One man, one woman, and (hopefully) children. The state has protected this unit by giving it legal recognition and benefits.  Now other people wants to broaden the privilege so they can feel accepted, vindicated, or whatever.  This and other things like no fault divorce (divorce in general), ABC, abortion, start to eat away at the family unit where it is no longer a special joining of a man and woman.  It is a legal right that all people have and they can marry who, what, or how many they want to.  After all if 3 women want to marry 2 men (Group marriage?), how can the state say no?  Then after all of this makes its way through our system, the big question a young couple may ask is why even get married?  What is the real advantage? A few tax breaks or medical privileges?  Why not just live together, have a child (maybe), and see if things work out.  Maybe get married when we are older.  Of course living in sin is not a Christian value so why even go to Church.  They can just claim non-denominal or atheist or something.

Look at other governments that treated marriage like any other legal process.
China went from a traditional culture where sex is only for marriage to being married is almost an impossibility. For a while, you had to get permission from your work to get married.
Russia is now trying to correct its course after generations of treating people “equally”. Of course Russia’s main problem was that they taught their population that life did not matter unless you had power. Why have children if they could be starved to death, beaten to death, or even just disappear. Once the communist regime fell, the fight for human rights began and still do. They have such a low birth rate (1.54 ) that they are trying to get families to produce more kids.
Europe has had progressive countries. They have allowed SSA marriage for many more years than then the US. They also allowed ABC to be dolled out like Pez, abortion on demand, and other population control measures. Oh, an they are also suffering low birth rates as well.

I hope you see a pattern here. The Church is not fighting for us. It is fighting for our future, our kids future, and our country’s future. After all, the Church has been here for over 2000 years, she is not going anywhere.

 

[jonathan_hili]

SS couples who are legally married are legally married. The church may not like that, but they are legally married. I don’t see how acknowledging that a legal marriage has taken place is in any way necessarily an endorsement of that marriage.

I guess this is a counter-example:

A man guilty of murdering ten people has been found legally innocent, even though he is actually guilty and everyone knows - he got off by bribing the jury or something like that. Now, would it be right for everyone to acknowledge his legal innocence if they know full well that he is actually guilty? I think they would rightly consider the verdict of legal innocence as nothing more than a charade, which, in all honesty is how many consider legalised same-sex “marriage”.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Bob Jones University case.

According to this article, the Supreme Court ruling in Bob Jones University v. United States applied only to educational institutions that discriminated.

‘Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education . . . which substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on [the University’s] exercise of their religious beliefs.’ The Court made clear, however, that its holding dealt 'only with religious schools—not with churches or other purely religious institutions.'

Unless you can cite some other relevant court case, it would seem then that a church would not lose its tax exempt status for refusing to perform SSMs.

 

[cornbread_r2]

I guess this is a counter-example:

A man guilty of murdering ten people has been found legally innocent, even though he is actually guilty and everyone knows - he got off by bribing the jury or something like that. Now, would it be right for everyone to acknowledge his legal innocence if they know full well that he is actually guilty? I think they would rightly consider the verdict of legal innocence as nothing more than a charade, which, in all honesty is how many consider legalised same-sex “marriage”.

What everyone thinks or proclaims does not change the fact that your man was found not guilty.

 

[Corki]

According to this article, the Supreme Court ruling in Bob Jones University v. United States applied only to educational institutions that discriminated.

‘Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education . . . which substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on [the University’s] exercise of their religious beliefs.’ The Court made clear, however, that its holding dealt 'only with religious schools—not with churches or other purely religious institutions.'

Unless you can cite some other relevant court case, it would seem then that a church would not lose its tax exempt status for refusing to perform SSMs.

I didn’t say it would, only that it could. The Bob Jones case has been cited as precedent in several challenges to the tax exempt status of churches and church related organizations. So far, those challenges have not been successful. No one ever thought the government would be successful in making the Church provide birth control either but that’s happening with the ACA. The definition of “purely religious institutions” is getting narrower and narrower.

 

[Kevin_B]

I didn’t say it would, only that it could. The Bob Jones case has been cited as precedent in several challenges to the tax exempt status of churches and church related organizations. So far, those challenges have not been successful. No one ever thought the government would be successful in making the Church provide birth control either but that’s happening with the ACA. The definition of “purely religious institutions” is getting narrower and narrower.

The Church has not been required to provide birth control.

Schools which are run by the Church are required to provide birth control (to employees).

You might not see a difference, but there is one, and it is huge. Businesses have always been required to serve anyone, regardless of who runs them. Churches have always been allowed to go about their business in accordance with the 1st Amendment.

That’s why so many conservative arguments fall flat. They completely ignore the difference between Constitutional laws and Unconstitutional laws.

So far, the entire homosexual rights movement has been entirely within their constitutional rights. Forcing churches to marry them would not be. I see no reason to believe that the Supreme Court would force churches to perform ceremonies for the first time in history, especially considering all their judgements up until this point have been entirely constitutional.

 

[Corki]

The Church has not been required to provide birth control.

Schools which are run by the Church are required to provide birth control (to employees).

You might not see a difference, but there is one, and it is huge. Businesses have always been required to serve anyone, regardless of who runs them. Churches have always been allowed to go about their business in accordance with the 1st Amendment.

That’s why so many conservative arguments fall flat. They completely ignore the difference between Constitutional laws and Unconstitutional laws.

So far, the entire homosexual rights movement has been entirely within their constitutional rights. Forcing churches to marry them would not be. I see no reason to believe that the Supreme Court would force churches to perform ceremonies for the first time in history, especially considering all their judgements up until this point have been entirely constitutional.

There isn’t a difference. The Church is still being required to provide the birth control. She is not required to provide it to her parish or chancery employees but she is being required to provide it to her school, health care and social service employees. There is a difference in the beneficiary but not in the payor.

Businesses have not “always” been required to serve anyone and still aren’t. Schools are a good example. It is perfectly legal for a parish school to only enroll parishioner’s children and only hire Catholic teachers. There are more restrictions on for-profit business but the “serve everyone” requirement is not absolute. But my example had nothing to do with serving everyone. It doesn’t even have to do with hiring anyone. It has to do with providing immoral benefits and being forced to pay for them against the tenants of our faith or be penalized by the government.

 

[Corki]

What everyone thinks or proclaims does not change the fact that your man was found not guilty.

But it doesn’t make him innocent either.

 

[epan]

Please don’t read the title of the Thread and just post your view.

My question was in regards to the Federal or State laws requiring Catholic Priests to marry Gays.

I understand the social significance. I’m not arguing that at this time. I am trying to see if there is a great probability of legal authority that the Federal or State legislature can invoke upon the Catholic Churches in America.

Please read the entire original post.

This is a Government Vs Catholic Law question

NOT NOT NOT NOT

Is Gay marriage wrong or not? Thread

I believe that the US Constitution would protect the Catholic Church from being required by the government to perform any religious ceremony.

However, the US Government does withhold funding from parties who do not abide by federal law, in areas of discrimination. I don’t know what will happen, but it would not surprise me if there are some financial repercussions, somehow.

Catholic adoption agencies who will not adopt to gay adoptive parents have seen that decision affect their federal subsidies.

Nobody knows how all of this will play out. It is going to be messy, and the legal battles have just begun. The two recent ruling will open the door for a flurry of equal protection and due process cases to overturn state laws, perhaps on a nationwide basis. The section 2 ruling on DOMA appears to portend the complete reversal of DOMA in the near future.

If that happens, then every state will be required to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. At that time, I would think that the Catholic Church could be affected financially, in areas where it receives federal funding, if there are any.

 

[Corki]

I believe that the US Constitution would protect the Catholic Church from being required by the government to perform any religious ceremony.

However, the US Government does withhold funding from parties who do not abide by federal law, in areas of discrimination. I don’t know what will happen, but it would not surprise me if there are some financial repercussions, somehow.

**Catholic adoption agencies who will not adopt to gay adoptive parents have seen that decision affect their federal subsidies. **

Nobody knows how all of this will play out. It is going to be messy, and the legal battles have just begun. The two recent ruling will open the door for a flurry of equal protection and due process cases to overturn state laws, perhaps on a nationwide basis. The section 2 ruling on DOMA appears to portend the complete reversal of DOMA in the near future.

If that happens, then every state will be required to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. At that time, I would think that the Catholic Church could be affected financially, in areas where it receives federal funding, if there are any.

Just a point of clarification. It’s not just withholding money. In one of the states with the adoption center, the centers are not allowed to operate at all if they won’t accept same-sex couples as prospective parents. The state not only held the purse strings but the final approval strings too. The only option left (other than to close) was to have all adoptions set up as private adoptions with a lawyer working directly with both sets of parents.

 

[JimG]

Just a point of clarification. It’s not just withholding money. In one of the states with the adoption center, the centers are not allowed to operate at all if they won’t accept same-sex couples as prospective parents. The state not only held the purse strings but the final approval strings too. The only option left (other than to close) was to have all adoptions set up as private adoptions with a lawyer working directly with both sets of parents.

Yes, it wasn’t just a matter of withholding state funds, or prohibiting the use of state funds if the agency didn’t provide adoptive children to same sex couples. Because sexual orientation was a protected class, the agency was deemed in violation of state regulation for not providing children to homosexuals. It had to do gay adoptions of close up shop, whether or not it received state funding. I can see that happening more often.

 

[marymary1975]

Please don’t read the title of the Thread and just post your view.

My question was in regards to the Federal or State laws requiring Catholic Priests to marry Gays.

Answering your specific question: the Federal government cannot pass a law forcing catholic priests to marry gays. Two reasons: a law like that with that wording would.clearly violate freedom of religion, and I cannot see any source from which Congress can obtain power to pass such a law. Moreover with the last decision on DOMA is clear that marriage is a state matter so no the Fed. gov. Can’t.

States: I find it.highly unlikely that a State law that specifically says that catholic.priests have to marry gays would be considered constitutional as again violates freedom of religion. However, and this is the big but… what a State can do is pass a law that creates an incidental burden on the catholic church, and if that law is neutral and the burden is merely incidental then catholic priests would be forced to do whatever the incidental burden is.

 

[cornbread_r2]

…]

States: I find it.highly unlikely that a State law that specifically says that catholic.priests have to marry gays would be considered constitutional as again violates freedom of religion. However, and this is the big but… what a State can do is pass a law that creates an incidental burden on the catholic church, and if that law is neutral and the burden is merely incidental then catholic priests would be forced to do whatever the incidental burden is.

I’m not having any luck imagining a law that would create an incidental burden on the CC that would also result in forcing a priest to perform a sacramental marriage. Though unlikely, I can imagine a situation where ministers might lose their faculties to perform civil marriages if they refused to perform SSMs, but that isn’t the same thing. Can you suggest an example of such a state law?

 

[mek42]

The Church will not be forced to conduct holy matrimony on anyone not eligible now. This will have no impact on tax status.

If a priest or other authority figure comes too close to saying, Vote for the anti SSM guy, at the altar, this may well effect tax status.

Regarding the possibility of SSM couples renting ancillary structures for receptions, if you really want to prevent this, choose to reorganize as a private club. This will be a tax change, but one you can choose whether money or morality is more important.

 

[bobbyhillisabro]

My question is, “How does the legalization of Gay Marriage effect the Church?”

I would argue that it doesn’t. If I was a gay man and wanted to marry my partner in the Catholic church, the church would say no and we would move on to another religious establishment that would grant our desire to marry in a religious place. It is my understanding that the SCOTUS decision does not require Religious institutions to officiate marriage services. Is that correct?

I understand the social significance of fighting the culture war but is the Catholic church really impacted by federal law? The chasm the separates Church and State seems to be unaffected by any federal or state laws.

Is this a correct view of the situation or is it more severe than I’m giving it credit for.

Because all governments have an obligation to uphold God’s moral law even if they deny his existence or are another religion. There is one God and on Truth. The idea that it is ok as long as it isn’t in The Church is very widespread today. This is immoral within itself because it is another way of condoning immoral behavior, and by not caring about what other people do as long as it doesn’t effect you, you are helping others sin and putting their souls in danger.

 

[bobbyhillisabro]

There isn’t a difference. The Church is still being required to provide the birth control. She is not required to provide it to her parish or chancery employees but she is being required to provide it to her school, health care and social service employees. There is a difference in the beneficiary but not in the payor.

Businesses have not “always” been required to serve anyone and still aren’t. Schools are a good example. It is perfectly legal for a parish school to only enroll parishioner’s children and only hire Catholic teachers. There are more restrictions on for-profit business but the “serve everyone” requirement is not absolute. But my example had nothing to do with serving everyone. It doesn’t even have to do with hiring anyone. It has to do with providing immoral benefits and being forced to pay for them against the tenants of our faith or be penalized by the government.

The health mandate is nothing but an attack on the Church and an attempt to eliminate our hospitals, schools, and other establishments. The only group of people that stand adamantly opposed to everything that the mandate stands for while also being frequently under assault by liberal politicians is The Catholic Church.

 

[jonathan_hili]

What everyone thinks or proclaims does not change the fact that your man was found not guilty.

Ummm…sure. But don’t you realise how beside the point that is? Unless you’re asserting that legal proclamations create the truth?