Gay Marriage

[OraLabora]

I do not understand the churches active campaign against ``gay marriage". Of course there is no such thing as a sacramental marriage between two people of the same sex, nor is there any such thing as a sacramental marriage between a male and a female if either one is married to someone else, irrespective of whether a civil divorce has been granted. However, if we are prepared to, e.g., pay health benefits to the partner of a worker in a contractual marriage where one of the two is divorced, we should, out justice, be prepared to pay benefits to the partner of a worker in a same sex contractual relationship. The churches obligation is to catechize the enormous difference between these two contractual arrangements and a real, permanent sacramental marriage.

I am concerned about the vocal opposition of the church because it seems to me that this dilutes the churches stance against the totally unacceptable evil of abortion. Bishop’s MUST deny the Eucharist to any politician who is openly in favor of legalized abortion. I have seen some people argue that politicians who support same-sex marriage should be similarly denied the Eucharist, but this would be an abuse of Canon 915. Just as a Catholic Attorney has a responsibility to seek a minimum sentence, or not guilty verdict for a murderer even if their client acknowledges guilt, so too does a politician have a responsibility to assure equal legal rights to all people is similar situations (i.e., two people living together as spouses without being in a sacramental marriage but with a civil contract).

Why draw the line at sex (for state benefits)? My widowed mother and her spinster sister lived together and supported each other economically for 30 years in a dependent relationship, particularly as they got older and more frail. Yet my mother did not have any access to her sister’s generous public pension benefits. It seems to be discrimination to make the only grounds to establish a dependent relationship either sexual activity or parent-sibling.

So we have to draw the line somewhere. If we’re going to have to pay benefits to same-sex couples then we should pay them for all co-dependents. But we should not call it “marriage”. Calling a cow, a horse, won’t make it a horse.

Perhaps the state should get out of the marriage business, and stick to “civil unions”.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Why draw the line at sex (for state benefits)? My widowed mother and her spinster sister lived together and supported each other economically for 30 years in a dependent relationship, particularly as they got older and more frail. Yet my mother did not have any access to her sister’s generous public pension benefits. It seems to be discrimination to make the only grounds to establish a dependent relationship either sexual activity or parent-sibling.

So we have to draw the line somewhere. If we’re going to have to pay benefits to same-sex couples then we should pay them for all co-dependents. But we should not call it “marriage”. Calling a cow, a horse, won’t make it a horse.

Perhaps the state should get out of the marriage business, and stick to “civil unions”.

hey!, you cant say that in canada! the government will tell you what to say! when they want you to say it!

just posting such politically incorrect hate speech will get you a fine from the provincial politburos comissars of human rights, comrade.

 

[OraLabora]

hey!, you cant say that in canada! the government will tell you what to say! when they want you to say it!

just posting such politically incorrect hate speech will get you a fine from the provincial politburos comissars of human rights, comrade.

Hah! You said it. My country is the same country that, when they had an inter-faith service to commemorate the victims of the Swissair Flight 111 crash (just off the coast of Nova Scotia), Christians were specifically forbidden to mention Jesus Christ.

But then I live in Quebec, the Language Police will probably get to me first