How did you react when same sex marriage became legal?

[David_Goliath]

Shalom!

I would just like to know how some of you felt when you found out same sex marriage (“SSM”) was legal.It could be any situation: in your state, when Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional etc.

If you were/are against legalized civil SSM did you experience any sort of “facepalm reaction”? Imagine you really wanted a certain president to win and he/she did not. Was your reaction to SSM being legalized similar to that if that president didn’t win? Was like facepalm “oh no!!!”?

I’m just trying to get a sense of how people FELT/FEEL.

As for me: I was happy, but more like happy for others because I myself am a heterosexual man.

As for my beliefs, they, like for lots of Jews (even “religious” ones), fluid:
Here’s a starting point:
myjewishlearning.com/life/Sex_and_Sexuality.shtml

 

[MaryT777]

I was extremely sad to think the state could redefine marriage. I support the Catholic position on gay marriage though which is the Biblical definition.

It opened the door to gay adoption and I feel a child is best served In a two parent family
one male and one female married.

Mary.

 

[JimG]

Same sex marriage is not legal in my state, but any time it is legalized anywhere I feel the same way that I would whenever any other impossibility is made legal.

 

[David_Goliath]

Thank you for your replies.

On further reflection, I think my previous description of being “happy” slipped out of my fingers too fast. When it happened in the state of MA I didn’t even know. I remember I was still an undergraduate university student and must have been so busy I didn’t realize it until a few weeks later. As I think harder, I think I had almost no reaction. It popped up on some Yahoo graphic and I specifically thinking “oh, that’s interesting” then I remember I was hungry and then ate a Hebrew National hotdog.

I know it became legal in many USA states in 2014. I still didn’t even realize it until a few weeks ago. My reaction is a kind of “oh, that’s interesting”, again. I think that counts as “happy”?

 

[Regina7]

I was seriously sad. I still am. I’m sad for my kids, who will be called bigots for supporting a Biblical definition of marriage (as I am called). I’m angered that my state will now be indoctrinating kids as young as kindergarten that homosexual marriage is normal and those who oppose are the problem. I’m sad for the children who will be purposely placed in a home without a mother or father.

 

[Dorothy]

I, too, am sad. Much prayer and sacrifice is needed to change wrong thinking.

I believe that the grace of God, when received by same-sex attraction people, can enable them to live chaste lives. With God all things are possible!

There is a Catholic organization called “Courage” which helps them do just that. There are many who are living chaste lives in that situation, but they do not get the publicity.

When heterosexual men and women lose their spouse they too can live chaste lives with the grace of God.

Chastity is possible in all the situations that it is required. It is possible with the grace of God!

That grace must be sought after and received, with the help of the Lord.

 

[Johann_du_Toit]

It was legalized here in South Africa here around 2008. I was pretty left wing and still agnostic then, so I didn’t think much about it, but with hindsight it’s been a disaster for the family here in South Africa. It has also failed to lead to greater tolerance of homosexuals here in South Africa, as same sex marriage advocates thought it would, as hate attacks against gays are just as high as ever.

I don’t hold any ill will against homosexuals, and oppose unfair discrimination and (especially) violence against them, but I don’t believe in same sex marriage as that is not the ideal for the family that God intended. The rights of children to be raised in a stable family unit is often ignored when it comes to debate on this issue.

 

[JackVk]

I was disappointed. But for a time beforehand (and more so now), I considered “defending marriage” an unwinnable, Vietnam-esque fight. I still think sodomy is sinful, but I’m not whistling Dixie over some wholly imagined returned to “traditional family values”.

Bottom line, it’s over. We lost. Time to fall back and focus on other fronts.

 

[Trekker47]

It saddens me every time it’s legalised in another area, because what they’re legalising is an impossibility and unhealthy for everyone involved, but also because as Regina said, it will encourage the indoctrination of kids into believing that this is normal and just as valid as marriage between a man and a woman. Weakening the family is bad for everyone, but nowadays anyone who says this is a bigot.
On a related note, Ireland is having its SSM referendum in May, please pray for my country.

 

[Isca]

SSM is legal in the UK as are civil partnerships, where two same-sex people can enter into a legally-binding partnership with all the financial safeguards that marriage confers. It’s a strange situation now, as civil partnerships pre-date the SSM legislation, so in effect there are two ways for gay couples to have their partnership recognised in law. People who have already entered into a civil partnership can now ‘convert’ that to a marriage. Some heterosexual couples who don’t believe in marriage have been campaigning to have the same choice!

I have gay friends who are decent, kind people in a very long-term, monogamous relationship, who will no doubt be marrying soon. One of them is a cradle Catholic and I think still believes in God. I asked him if he ever saw himself returning to the Church and he smiled and said that he wouldn’t be welcome - ‘they won’t want me’ were I think his exact words.

This saddened me, as of course he is wanted. For me, I am more interested in my friend’s character and good works than his sexual orientation, and for that reason I am not too indignant about SSM. I would have preferred it if the legislation had not been passed here as we already have civil partnerships, but it’s now in place and it won’t be undone.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I didn’t care (I’m from Oregon, on the Left Coast of the USA).

I’ve never thought it was the purview of the State to define the terms of a Catholic Sacrament. I should think Catholics would be hopping mad if the State attempted to do so (except, perhaps, when the State happens to agree with us).

The State has the legal concept of a civil union (which I fully support), and the Church has a Sacramental concept of Holy Matrimony (which I fully support). I see no relation between the two, and I cannot conceive of an intrinsic reason why the two concepts should be aligned.

As long as the State does not attempt to compel priests to “marry” gay couples, I don’t care how the State defines its terms, or what protections and privileges the State extends to “couples” or groups of any definition.
.

 

[on_the_hill]

To tell you the truth, I had to look it up just now because I wasn’t sure whether or not it is legal in my state.

It is. For about a year now.

So you can see how much impact it has had. No one talks about it. I don’t think anyone noticed.

 

[David_Goliath]

To tell you the truth, I had to look it up just now because I wasn’t sure whether or not it is legal in my state.

It is. For about a year now.

So you can see how much impact it has had. No one talks about it. I don’t think anyone noticed.

Same here. I moved to a new state a few years ago. I never knew it was legal until after a year. I never knew that my synagogue (conservative branch) Rabbis performed sAme sex marriages until a few months ago.Before I was born, the Reform Judaism movement starting pushing for SSM. It seems like no one in my synagogue made a big deal about it and includes even the elderly.
During kiddush (community lunch after our services) I never noticed same sex couples until recently.

 

[signit]

I’m a Catholic. I neither endorsed not accepted it.

But I wasn’t as negative about it as some others.

I knew members of my faith would still believe what we believe, and practice what we believe.

 

[MJJean]

I didn’t care (I’m from Oregon, on the Left Coast of the USA).

I’ve never thought it was the purview of the State to define the terms of a Catholic Sacrament. I should think Catholics would be hopping mad if the State attempted to do so (except, perhaps, when the State happens to agree with us).

The State has the legal concept of a civil union (which I fully support), and the Church has a Sacramental concept of Holy Matrimony (which I fully support). I see no relation between the two, and I cannot conceive of an intrinsic reason why the two concepts should be aligned.

As long as the State does not attempt to compel priests to “marry” gay couples, I don’t care how the State defines its terms, or what protections and privileges the State extends to “couples” or groups of any definition.
.

This is pretty much where I am on the issue. I don’t have a problem with SSM being legal because how the state defines a legal marriage is up to the state.

 

[David_Goliath]

This is pretty much where I am on the issue. I don’t have a problem with SSM being legal because how the state defines a legal marriage is up to the state.

Is this an acceptable position in the Catholic Church? It is really hard for me to tell. I remember a video clip with some Bishop saying “clear and empathic opposition to SSM is a duty”.

Was it a sin for a Catholic to vote against Proposition 8 in California, that is actively vote for SSM?

 

[signit]

Is this an acceptable position in the Catholic Church? It is really hard for me to tell. I remember a video clip with some Bishop saying “clear and empathic opposition to SSM is a duty”.

Was it a sin for a Catholic to vote against Proposition 8 in California, that is actively vote for SSM?

According to this, we have to “oppose” it (last paragraph of section 5).

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Of course the question was not whether I have to “oppose” it but my reaction to it.

 

[Corki]

Is this an acceptable position in the Catholic Church? It is really hard for me to tell. I remember a video clip with some Bishop saying “clear and empathic opposition to SSM is a duty”.

Was it a sin for a Catholic to vote against Proposition 8 in California, that is actively vote for SSM?

No, it is not an acceptable position for a Catholic. Clear and emphatic opposition to same sex “marriage” and to any other civil structure IS a duty of Catholics. The way in which that is expressed changes, however. The type of opposition when such a thing is being considered (e.g. when Prop 8 was up for a vote) and the opposition one can make against a standing law can be different.

As for Prop 8 specifically, it would have been gravely wrong for a Catholic to oppose Prop 8. Whether it was sinful would depend on how much the person actually knew about Catholic teaching and what he/she hoped to accomplish by the vote. It is not a sin to vote for something that you consider bad law, even if you agree with the reason behind the law. But it would be sinful to vote against Prop 8 because you actually wanted to give state recognition to SS"M".

 

[Jeanne_S]

Acting on SS desires is disordered and cannot bode well for those involved. Trying to normalize that which isn’t normal ,is destructive to our society.
Tradition family as we know it,one man , one woman is what undergirds our society.To dismantle that or change it will create chaos and confusion.I think we are already seeing this.
All of a sudden we have moved towards transgender rights,so what will be next?This is horrific for the future of our children and grandchildren.As others’ have mentioned the push to indoctrinate our children as young as five into believing SSA,etc is merely another lifestyle choice is frightening.God help us all.

 

[Kevin_Keith]

SSM is not legal in Texas. It wasn’t until the past 40 or 50 years that homosexuality was viewed as an aberrant lifestyle, not an alternative lifestyle. Our society had been being conditioned for the eventuality. Now, to stand for and believe in marriage as “one woman and one man for life” is the aberrant viewpoint. I was not surprised when states began to authorize SSM.