How Do Those Who Call Themselves Catholic Support Gay Marriage?

[Nacho45]

Again, there was found to be a Constitutional right to marriage. Whether or not it extends to gays is completely irrelevant, when you (Nacho, not One point) claimed a blanket statement that there has never been found a Constitutional right to marriage.

Also, may I add that the government recognizes fake “marriages” all the time, pretty much every day. Whether the marriages are between people not allowed to be married, divorced spouses with living exes and unable to get annulments, permanently impotent people at the time of marriage, etc. Honestly, I’m tired of the government acting like they have any say in deciding who’s married and who’s not.

I suppose all I can say now is thank you for proving my point.

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man (not constitutional),” fundamental to our very existence and survival(this excludes homosexual unions). To deny this fundamental freedom (not constitutional right)on so unsupportable a* basis as the racial classifications** (race case/issue)embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations(race case/issue). Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person **of another race ** (race case/issue) resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. *

So, what this case stated was it was unconstitutional to deny them marriage based on their race, not that marriage was a constitutionally protected right. That’s about it.

 

[Nacho45]

This is exactly backwards.

The medieval kings in Europe ruled by divine mandate, as proclaimed by the Church. The king would receive his crown from the archbishop during the ceremony in the cathedral – in a rite that was a sacrament in all but a name. Further, the Pope held the ultimate authority over the king, as excommunication voided the oath of loyalty of king’s subjects – which meant that the Pope could depose a king by a decree of excommunication. In return, the king usually had a say in appointment of the bishops. This arrangement was needed, because the churchmen were the only people in the kingdom who coud write – and so, they were needed to run the state administration. The most serious conflict between the Church and state in the middle ages came to be known as the investiture controversy: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investiture_Controversy

After the Investiture Controversy, the states realized that they must increase their independence of the Church, and started building up secular administrative structures. That process took until around 16th century to be completed. But the Church still had a lot of influence on the king – due to the excommunication mechanism. And would use it to persuade the king to take certain actions, irrespective of the interests of the state – and then leave the king to pick up the tab. This is an excellent example: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade_of_Varna

The Reformation was a blessing to the rulers, because it offered them a way to break allegiance with Rome. Rome responded by counter-reformation efforts. This has first led to a series of domestic wars, which ended with establishing the “whose state, his religion” rule. That rule ended domestic wars, but led to a series of conflicts between protestant and catholic states – partially fueled by Rome’s desire to bring the stray flock back under papal leadership (that, and climate cooling which increased competition for agricultural resources). The Polish-Swedish wars of the 17th century are a great example of this.

Regarding the Henry VI and the Church of England – he has only succeeded because he was ruling an island, which made foreign invasion impossible. If he was on the continent, he would probably spend the rest of his life fighting a bloody war against a neighboring Catholic country.

And this is the historical context which gave rise to the idea of separation between the church and state.

You use Wikipedia a lot. You, of course, realize its not a reliable source of information?

Our Founding Fathers set this great nation of ours upon the twin towers of religion and morality. Our first president, George Washington, said that anyone who would attack these twin towers could not possibly consider themselves to be a loyal American. Not only did they set us up as a nation under God, but a nation founded upon the Judaic-Christian principles summarized in the words, “The laws of nature and the laws of nature’s God,” words that we find in the Declaration of Independence.

freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/987191/posts

This country was established upon the assumption that religion was essential to good government.

lc.org/resources/myth_of_separation_church_state.html

Since you are fond of Wikipedia:
Echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams—who had written in 1644 of “[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world”— Jefferson wrote, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”[1]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

A good beginning to read up on. I apologize for not being able to submit historical texts, but I am confident you are able to conduct appropriate research based on what you have already posted. Also, let us not forget, Jefferson was not one of the founding fathers gathered in Philadelphia. He was serving as minister to France in Paris.

 

[adawgj]

We have a lot of baptized Catholics, but more unlearned Catholics (unlearned as in they don’t know anything about the faith)

 

[Nacho45]

Ultimately, it all boils down to the Catholic Church is against homosexual “marriage” and opposes the practice of homosexuality in any form. To argue this is to argue against the Church in its entirety. To act in opposition to the teachings of the Church is a violation and I do not understand how a “good” Catholic would ever do such a thing. To do so is a blatant act of dissent, IMO, I suspect the Catholic Church agrees as there are laws written which state people who do such things are to be denied communion until they confess.

 

[edwest2]

There are those Catholics who hear the 24/7 slogans and absorb them. Of course, these slogans do not mention Church teaching. Everyone’s heard about Coke and Pepsi, but why do they still advertise? To keep you thinking about them. With this subject, well-known people and people in positions of power often argue for fairness. Even if you’re not Catholic, why does anyone need your or my permission to live how they want?

That’s the bottom line. Placing trust in the wrong people, and not examining the issue, since it has been made into such a big issue. Catholics started the whole push for Gay Marriage? Of course not.

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

So, don’t be surprised. The Church follows Christ and does not bellow like the crowd.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Origen52]

Yes, I am suggesting that the government should protect its citizens, even if it means from themselves. We ban people from having free access to methadone for the health of their physical bodies, so what’s wrong with banning access to a mockery of a Sacrament for the health of their spiritual bodies?

What would the difference be between this and sharia law imposed in some Muslim countries? A civil marriage is not a sacrament. As far as drugs go, laws are very arbitrary, cigarettes are still legal and they are very lethal.

 

[epan]

None of the rights in question are “judge made.”

Really?

Where in the constitution is it written that marriage is a right?

Where in the constitution is the right to “marital privacy” written?

Conversely, the right to freely practice religion is in the first amendment.

In order to reach the decisions the Supreme Court made in cases like Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade, for instance, they had to rely on “penumbras” and “emanations” of other constitutional protections.

Hence, these cases provided for “judge made” rights that didn’t exist before.

You may not like the characterization, but it is factually true.

Just because a court decides an issue does not constrain others similarly situated from arguing otherwise - and being successful in the future.

Right. So now you say that marriage is not a right that enjoys constitutional protection. You just lost all credibility in this discussion. I would suggest that you review the jurisprudence on the topic since about 1860. Just about every court, regardless of political leanings, has interpreted marriage to be a fundamental right, and protected by the Constitution. Your view, as you correctly state, is nothing other than a “characterization” of the Constitution, and has little relevance to the body of law which applies to the subject.

 

[JTD_Eagle1]

Yes. Another thread on gay marriage.

But I have not seen this issue addressed in any significant manner in any of the other myriad threads on this subject.

For the life of me, I cannot understand how any Catholic with a passing knowledge of the Bible, the Catechism, Papal directives like Humane Vitae and the corporal and spiritual works of mercy could ever support gay marriage.

Yet here we are.

In Illinois, my home state, gay marriage was recently signed into law.

It could not have reached this end without the assistance of some so-called Catholic legislators. It was signed into law by our Governor, who also claims to be Catholic.

I too can’t understand how any catholic can support same sex “marriage”. You can either follow the teachings of the church, or try to appease society. Those who do are what you would call cafeteria catholics, who aren’t catholics at all. To support same sex “marriage” is to support others in sin, which is not true love. I hope more bishops step up and start denying communion to those who support it.
If we, as Catholics, truly believe that unconfessed mortal sin will place at risk of losing our salvation, isn’t supporting gay marriage akin to telling someone that you couldn’t care less about their soul?

Isn’t support of gay marriage fomenting scandal?

What am I missing?

 

[JTD_Eagle1]

I don’t know why it qouted what I meant to say

I too can’t understand how any catholic can support same sex “marriage”. You can either follow the teachings of the church, or try to appease society. Those who do are what you would call cafeteria catholics, who aren’t catholics at all. To support same sex “marriage” is to support others in sin, which is not true love. I hope more bishops step up and start denying communion to those who support it.

 

[kanrok]

Right. So now you say that marriage is not a right that enjoys constitutional protection. You just lost all credibility in this discussion. I would suggest that you review the jurisprudence on the topic since about 1860. Just about every court, regardless of political leanings, has interpreted marriage to be a fundamental right, and protected by the Constitution. Your view, as you correctly state, is nothing other than a “characterization” of the Constitution, and has little relevance to the body of law which applies to the subject.

Looks like reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

Please point out where I said “marriage is not a right that enjoys constitutional protection.”

I’ll wait.

Until then, perhaps you can actually read what I wrote.

 

[frobert]

Yes. Another thread on gay marriage.

But I have not seen this issue addressed in any significant manner in any of the other myriad threads on this subject.

For the life of me, I cannot understand how any Catholic with a passing knowledge of the Bible, the Catechism, Papal directives like Humane Vitae and the corporal and spiritual works of mercy could ever support gay marriage.

Yet here we are.

In Illinois, my home state, gay marriage was recently signed into law.

It could not have reached this end without the assistance of some so-called Catholic legislators. It was signed into law by our Governor, who also claims to be Catholic.

If we, as Catholics, truly believe that unconfessed mortal sin will place at risk of losing our salvation, isn’t supporting gay marriage akin to telling someone that you couldn’t care less about their soul?

Isn’t support of gay marriage fomenting scandal?

What am I missing?

You are not missing anything. Gay marriage is now a reality. For many Catholics it is incompatible, others Catholics of goodwill may have examined their conscience and concluded that it is not incompatible. I am not saying they are correct just that it is not our right to judge their conscience. A catholic has every right to speak out against gay marriage and to believe that God will in time deal with gay marriage supporters appropriately but we the right to judge conscience stops with our own.

 

[kanrok]

You are not missing anything. Gay marriage is now a reality. For many Catholics it is incompatible, others Catholics of goodwill may have examined their conscience and concluded that it is not incompatible. I am not saying they are correct just that it is not our right to judge their conscience. A catholic has every right to speak out against gay marriage and to believe that God will in time deal with gay marriage supporters appropriately but we the right to judge conscience stops with our own.

I don’t disagree with the concept of free will.

I am searching for reasons why a Catholic would exert theirs in this fashion, knowing what the Church teaches.

I also agree that we cannot judge the content of a person’s soul.

But we, as Catholics are required to know what constitutes sinful behavior - if for nothing else than to understand what we can and cannot do.

I’m not saying we have to confront people and yell at them for committing sin. We’d first have to confront ourselves.

But I cannot see how a Catholic can support gay marriage in any form. It is not charitable to do so, and it has the potential to foment scandal.

My question is, after an examination of conscience, how can a person who claims to be Catholic support gay marriage?

 

[aidanbradypop]

I’m not saying we have to confront people and yell at them for committing sin. We’d first have to confront ourselves.

Very true.

But I cannot see how a Catholic can support gay marriage in any form. It is not charitable to do so, and it has the potential to foment scandal.

Is it charitable to deny them the rights and protections every heterosexual has?

Are homosexuals equal to heterosexuals?

My question is, after an examination of conscience, how can a person who claims to be Catholic support gay marriage?

I support same-sex civil unions that the state upholds. I believe, as the Episcopal Church states, homosexual persons are children of God who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church.

The Episcopal Church strives to be a beacon of love, justice, and compassion, where ALL PEOPLE are equally embraced and empowered.

 

[frobert]

I don’t disagree with the concept of free will.

I am searching for reasons why a Catholic would exert theirs in this fashion, knowing what the Church teaches.

I also agree that we cannot judge the content of a person’s soul.

But we, as Catholics are required to know what constitutes sinful behavior - if for nothing else than to understand what we can and cannot do.

I’m not saying we have to confront people and yell at them for committing sin. We’d first have to confront ourselves.

But I cannot see how a Catholic can support gay marriage in any form. It is not charitable to do so, and it has the potential to foment scandal.

My question is, after an examination of conscience, how can a person who claims to be Catholic support gay marriage?

I don’t understand what you are confused about. You have every right to believe that any supporter of gay marriage is committing a grave sin, we may not understand why they do but they do. People knowingly choose to sin, if they confess their sin and are truly repentant God forgives them if not He deals with them appropriately.

 

[GEddie]

Are homosexuals equal to heterosexuals?

The **persons **are.

The behavior and lifestyle are not; they are an abberation.

Objectively, this is not hard to see.

A society with no homosexuality is not weakened in any way; a society in which everybody was homosexual would perish.

So accepting persons does not imply accepting or embracing all of their behaviors or lifestyle choices, or supporting legal changes that affirm those choices.

ICXC NIKA

 

[aidanbradypop]

The **persons **are.

The behavior and lifestyle are not; they are an abberation.

Objectively, this is not hard to see.

A society with no homosexuality is not weakened in any way; a society in which everybody was homosexual would perish.

So accepting persons does not imply accepting or embracing all of their behaviors or lifestyle choices, or supporting legal changes that affirm those choices.

ICXC NIKA

So what you are saying is that a homosexual is NOT equal to a heterosexual because of a sin?

 

[GEddie]

So what you are saying is that a homosexual is NOT equal to a heterosexual because of a sin?

No, just that a person is NOT his behavior, and accepting one does not imply both.

ICXC NIKA

 

[kanrok]

I don’t understand what you are confused about. You have every right to believe that any supporter of gay marriage is committing a grave sin, we may not understand why they do but they do. People knowingly choose to sin, if they confess their sin and are truly repentant God forgives them if not He deals with them appropriately.

That doesn’t confuse me one bit.

What I’m having a difficult time with is how a person who calls him or herself “Catholic” can justify supporting gay marriage, considering the Church’s stance on the issue.

If a person publicly pronounces themselves Catholic and then publicly pronounces themselves in favor of gay marriage they are fomenting scandal.

How they thereafter deal with their sin is none of my business.

My question deals with how they square the circle.

Based upon my limited discussions with Catholics I know who do support gay marriage, the best they could do is ultimately say they didn’t believe sodomy was sinful.

 

[carpenter383]

How Do Those Who Call Themselves Catholic Support Gay Marriage?

Simple, they have the ability to lie to themselves

 

[Origen52]

That doesn’t confuse me one bit.

What I’m having a difficult time with is how a person who calls him or herself “Catholic” can justify supporting gay marriage, considering the Church’s stance on the issue.

If a person publicly pronounces themselves Catholic and then publicly pronounces themselves in favor of gay marriage they are fomenting scandal.

How they thereafter deal with their sin is none of my business.

My question deals with how they square the circle.

Based upon my limited discussions with Catholics I know who do support gay marriage, the best they could do is ultimately say they didn’t believe sodomy was sinful.

Do you also have a problem with people who call themselves catholic supporting divorce? Jesus never addressed homosexuality, but he did discuss divorce.

Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.
Luke 16:18

So why no rallies, court challenges and condemnation of the laws which allow divorce. Is it not as great a sin?