Homosexual civil unions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dakota_Roberts
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Me1234 said:
The Catholic Church is and was against slavery. But that doesn’t mean all catholics listened. The Popes have condemned it but that doesn’t stop some catholics from doing it. Plus groups like the KKK were also anti-catholic besides being racist so I can assure you no catholic was in that big pro-slavery group, it was all protestants. If you want proof you can look into it on this website: cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a003.html

You don’t think it will affect our lives too? It will. It brings down the virtue of society as a whole and I have to live in that society.
Click to expand...
I don’t want to overdo it or get strident here, but I just noticed this as a response to my posting.

Yes, I agree that as a society, we are and we will be affected by the conferring of equal rights on gay people. We have benefited from the abolition of slavery, from the women’s movement, from racial equality, and we will benefit from the civil rights movement for gays. It might be the last minority of its size to achieve equal rights in our society.

I understand the Church’s position. The Church and all Catholics have the right to observe their own religious beliefs. There are some who make rather credible and convincing arguments that this should not be the case. I disagree with that position. But, I would also point out that allowing the Church to have a voice in these matters, and to use its resources to influence political events, also affects me and society. Even when I disagree with its views, I also affirm its right to do so.

For anyone to say that gays should be denied their rights, simply because it would affect them, is hypocritical in my view, because even the utterance of that statement affects gay people. You can’t have it both ways. You have the freedom to exercise your own religious views. You do not have the right to force them on others.

This thread is about CIVIL MARRIAGE, not about religious marriage. There is a difference.

I would also point out that there are churches which recognize gay religious marriages. You may assert that your church is the only valid sacramental authority, but you would disagree with most of the rest of the world. Are you suggesting that those churches should not be allowed to practice their religious beliefs? Are you suggesting that your religious beliefs should be the standard for civil authority, while the views of other churches are irrelevant? What about aetheists? Do they have a place at the CIVIL table? Most of them respect your right to your views, while they disagree with it. There numbers are growing faster than yours. What should happen when they are the majority? Should Catholic marriages be banned?

Our society is made richer by mutual respect of our diversity. Beyond that, the legal writing is on the wall, just as it has been in the past on other social justice issues.
 
JustinH said:
The protection of personal liberty is a compelling interest of the state. This has been confirmed many times in the courts. This is a foundational tenet of our form of government and our society.
Click to expand...
Yep. It’s called freedom of association. It is definitely foundational. It does not equal freedom to create or redefine or expand a social institution (such as the institution of marriage). The freedom to associate does not in itself translate to the next step: a demand for formal social structures for those associations. Certain rights are granted to heterosexually married couples because that form is judged by the state to be most helpful & advantageous to the continued stability of the state.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
Yep. It’s called freedom of association. It is definitely foundational. It does not equal freedom to create or redefine or expand a social institution (such as the institution of marriage). The freedom to associate does not in itself translate to the next step: a demand for formal social structures for those associations. Certain rights are granted to heterosexually married couples because that form is judged by the state to be most helpful & advantageous to the continued stability of the state.
Click to expand...
It is far more than freedom of association. Marriage is a basic civil liberty. The first affirmation of this legal principle came with the abolition of slavery. Prior to abolition, slaves could not enter the contract of marriage. The right to marry is a civil right which goes beyond the freedom of association.

Further, your notion of the interest of the state has already been decided legally. That is history. However, it has yet to be tested in the US Supreme Court. That will happen once the current matter in the ninth circuit is adjudicated. No matter what the decision, the matter will be sent to the US Supreme Court, which is likely to hear the matter.

The consensus among the attorneys whom I know is that the Walker decision is sound. Two of those attorneys are former US Supreme Court clerks, and currently constitutional law professors.

Time will tell, but this is apparently a matter of time, as other civil rights issues have been.

The Church is entitled to its opinion, which I imagine will change as have some of its other opinions, over time.
 
JustinH said:
Marriage is a basic civil liberty. The first affirmation of this legal principle came with the abolition of slavery. Prior to abolition, slaves could not enter the contract of marriage. The right to marry is a civil right which goes beyond the freedom of association.
Click to expand...
Those were not gay ex-slave marriages, but heterosexual ones. What you are doing is subjectively expanding legal concepts, legal definitions, and legal rulings beyond what the Courts have already decided.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top