How Do Those Who Call Themselves Catholic Support Gay Marriage?

[kanrok]

The issue at hand is whether or not Catholics should oppose gay marriage because homosexual acts are frowned upon within the church. I pose a natural question- to Catholics seek to legislate based on similar reasoning in other areas? I suspect you’ll find that the answer is no. The gospels (Matthew?) specifically show that Jesus was against divorce, and yet we see no demands that the US reverse course in order to save souls.

Well, we certainly are still fighting against abortion - and making headway in many areas.

As for divorce laws, New York became the 50th state to enact a “no fault” law.

People fought that law to the bitter end.

gothamist.com/2010/06/16/catholic_church_and_now_blast_divor.php

I would argue that there was a fight against those laws in each of the 50 states where it was enacted by the Catholic Church.

Care to argue otherwise?

We now address the issues that are on our plate.

 

[kanrok]

None of the rights in question are “judge made.” That point of view implies that the protections which you agree with are indeed constitutional, and those which you disagree with are “judge made.” I find that view to be somewhat juvenile in perspective. Yes, judges do preserve and protect our rights under the Constitution, as they understand it. Yes, for every winner of a lawsuit, who agrees with the ruling, there is also a loser who disagrees with it. That is exactly why we have our courts, to adjudicate such disagreements. If everyone agreed, then we would not need the courts.

As for the politician’s motives, I am sure that it varies from one person to another. You won’t find the answer on a case by case basis here.

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.

 

[livingwordunity]

The majority of American Catholics also voted for abortion and SS’M’ in the last two presidential elections. But these times were prophesied in the Holy Bible:

“But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of stress. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people. For among them are those who make their way into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and swayed by various impulses, who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth.” - 2 Timothy 3:1-7

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Well, we certainly are still fighting against abortion - and making headway in many areas.

As for divorce laws, New York became the 50th state to enact a “no fault” law.

People fought that law to the bitter end.

gothamist.com/2010/06/16/catholic_church_and_now_blast_divor.php

I would argue that there was a fight against those laws in each of the 50 states where it was enacted by the Catholic Church.

Care to argue otherwise?

We now address the issues that are on our plate.

So would you expect that most Catholics would or should support ending no fault divorce/divorce period?

I’d think the general idea is that the Catholic supporters if gay marriage believe that people have a right to do things the church disapproves of. This is why adultery and not going to church aren’t crimes.

 

[kanrok]

So would you expect that most Catholics would or should support ending no fault divorce/divorce period?

I’d think the general idea is that the Catholic supporters if gay marriage believe that people have a right to do things the church disapproves of. This is why adultery and not going to church aren’t crimes.

I expect all Catholics to follow the teachings of the Church, not pick and choose those they want to follow.

That’s why I started this thread.

To try to understand how someone who calls himself Catholic can blithely cast aside the teachings.

I believe people have the right to do things the Church disapproves of as well.

It’s called “free will.”

That is categorically different than actively supporting someone in committing intrinsically disordered actions.

Certainly you understand the distinction?

 

[Nacho45]

To be fair, the Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia actually has declared marriage to be a constitutional right.

No, it actually did not. This was a racism case and it stated was the state could not deny a man and a woman the ability to marry based on the color of their skin. There are; however, several reasons the state CAN deny. Race just isn’t one of them. Also, case law and constitutional law are not identical. Besides, this is a rabbit hole and has little to do with real marriage. Abortion is legal, but that means nothing either.

 

[Nacho45]

That’s right. I phrased it badly: Religion is not allowed to influence the state’s view on marriage.
Yes, it absolutely does - but the idea is that it’s not supposed to. That was my thinking on why some people might be saying things that contradict their religion while working with politics.

It’s true, church and state are not separate. But America does still generally maintain that in a perfect society, they would be; and many many still try to make their own contributions to that

Everybody seems to kind of take their own stance on separation of church and state. Since it’s such a subjective things, it is pretty much only upheld by those who believe in it So whether or not that policy can explain these Catholic’s actions really depends on what sort of views they take on politics and on their religion

The separation of Church and State is nowhere in the founding documents. It was in a personal letter from Jefferson to the Dansbury Baptists when they thought the government was going to declare an official religion. It was a paraphrase in his own words reiterating the government cannot constitutionally do such a thing as religious liberty is protected under the constitution. The intent was never to keep religion out of the government, but to keep the government out of religion. Everyone has it backwards these days. Our entire legal system was based on Judeo-Christian moralities. To claim the the original intent was the opposite of what I have stated is either a statement out of honest innocent ignorance of history or disingenuous. In fact, the Ten Commandments are engraved all over the Supreme Court building. But again, this detracts from the OP. I only wanted to clarify as there seemed to be a little confusion.

 

[Nacho45]

In an attempt to answer this question, I spoke with two people I know who regularly attend Mass and also support gay marriage. After respectfully asking them how they reconcile these two divergent actions, it came down to both of them saying they just didn’t believe that homosexual acts are sinful.

I asked if they read what the Catechism and the Bible had to say.

Both said that society has “progressed” to a point where much of what was written in these books no longer makes sense.

I blame poor catechesis and the daily hammering we all get from secular sources.

And this is what it boils down to, ultimately. Reject the Church and replace it with what makes one feel good on the inside. Turn from God because society has progressed past God.

 

[Nacho45]

I once told someone to look at things in an objective light.

If marriage has always been between a man and a woman, but is now redefined as between anyone who wants to get married, does the change in definition actually change what marriage is?

In the same way, if a man or woman spends thousands of dollars to alter their body in a way it makes them appear to look like the opposite sex, call themself the opposite sex, and live as the opposite sex, does that really make them the opposite sex?

No, to both. One is reality, the other is fiction.

 

[Nacho45]

I expect all Catholics to follow the teachings of the Church, not pick and choose those they want to follow.

Precisely! If one is unable to do this, one should leave the Church until one is able to abide by its teachings instead of attempting to change the Church.

 

[SMGS127]

No, it actually did not. This was a racism case and it stated was the state could not deny a man and a woman the ability to marry based on the color of their skin. There are; however, several reasons the state CAN deny. Race just isn’t one of them. Also, case law and constitutional law are not identical. Besides, this is a rabbit hole and has little to do with real marriage. Abortion is legal, but that means nothing either.

You claimed that marriage was not a constitutional right in this country. I brought up a Supreme Court case where marriage WAS declared a constitutional right. You may disagree with the gay community on whether the constitutional right extends to the gay community, but to say that people have no constitutional right to a marriage is incorrect. Also note how I said there was no human right to a marriage, merely a constitutional one. The Constitution does not override moral law, of course.

You would have to convince the leadership that the spiritual body exists, for one, and that protecting it is worth the opprobrium to be received from the gay sector.

Sadly, susceptibility to brainwash and group pressure is one of the democratic republic’s fatal flaws.

ICXC NIKA

Well maybe in addition to putting pressure on politicians, we should be doing evangelical work in the gay community then. Why is it that we try to bring the drug users and the sexually promiscuous and the Christ-deniers, etc. back to the Church but blatantly push off the gay community without even making an attempt there? If you want gay people to view gay “marriage” differently, show them how they are still loved in the Church, attractions not-withstanding, and that we all face self-denial that we must deal with in our lives out of love for Christ, especially self-denial of sexual impulses of any variety [outside marriage.]

We’re in this mess because the public interacts with gays who deal with the “God doesn’t love you as long as you are attracted to members of the same sex” Protestant crowd on a daily basis and thinks that’s BS. We need to show them that the Truth is much better, loving, and sensible than that, and that denying marriage to gay couples isn’t about any form of hatred of their person.

 

[One_point]

You claimed that marriage was not a constitutional right in this country. I brought up a Supreme Court case where marriage WAS declared a constitutional right. You may disagree with the gay community on whether the constitutional right extends to the gay community, but to say that people have no constitutional right to a marriage is incorrect. Also note how I said there was no human right to a marriage, merely a constitutional one. The Constitution does not override moral law, of course.

Prohibition of discrimination does not translate to a right to something. For example, there isn’t a right to a free meal from the Government, but neither can the government distribute free meals on the basis of race. If someone sued the government for denying them a free meal based on their race, and the court ruled that this discrimination violated the complainant’s (plaintiff) constitutional rights, it will not then mean that there is now a constitutional right to a free meal from the government. It will simply mean that it’s unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of race. There are legal restrictions on marriage in every country I can think of.

 

[weller2]

What am I missing?

Separation of church and state.

 

[Nacho45]

You claimed that marriage was not a constitutional right in this country. I brought up a Supreme Court case where marriage WAS declared a constitutional right. You may disagree with the gay community on whether the constitutional right extends to the gay community, but to say that people have no constitutional right to a marriage is incorrect. Also note how I said there was no human right to a marriage, merely a constitutional one. The Constitution does not override moral law, of course.

You have it backwards.

 

[weller2]

The separation of Church and State is nowhere in the founding documents.

But it’s everywhere in the historical context of these documents. The founders of the US came from a continent which has been ravaged by religious wars over several centuries.

The idea of separation of church and state was born out of experiences with the previous system, known as “whose realm, his religion”. A major inadequacy of that system was that the Catholic Church would instigate Catholic rulers to go to war against their protestant neighbors, in hopes to convert them back to Catholicism.

Here is a great example: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-Swedish_union

 

[Nacho45]

But it’s everywhere in the historical context of these documents. The founders of the US came from a continent which has been ravaged by religious wars over several centuries.

The idea of separation of church and state was born out of experiences with the previous system, known as “whose realm, his religion”. A major inadequacy of that system was that the Catholic Church would instigate Catholic rulers to go to war against their protestant neighbors, in hopes to convert them back to Catholicism.

Here is a great example: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-Swedish_union

Religious freedom was protected because in Europe the government controlled the Church (i.e., England and the Church of England). People and their religious liberty (or lack of) were controlled by the government. Our founders wanted to prevent that from happening here. Sadly, we have all but destroyed that dream in recent years.

 

[SMGS127]

Prohibition of discrimination does not translate to a right to something. For example, there isn’t a right to a free meal from the Government, but neither can the government distribute free meals on the basis of race. If someone sued the government for denying them a free meal based on their race, and the court ruled that this discrimination violated the complainant’s (plaintiff) constitutional rights, it will not then mean that there is now a constitutional right to a free meal from the government. It will simply mean that it’s unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of race. There are legal restrictions on marriage in every country I can think of.

You have it backwards.

Chief Justice Earl Warren:

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival… To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications 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 discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

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.

 

[weller2]

Religious freedom was protected because in Europe the government controlled the Church (i.e., England and the Church of England). People and their religious liberty (or lack of) were controlled by the government.

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.

 

[kanrok]

Separation of church and state.

So this is how a Catholic supports gay marriage?

Very convenient.

Is this how a Catholic supports abortion as well?

By whose law are we required to accept these things?

 

[kanrok]

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s.

If Caesar wants to recognize gay unions as marriage, so be it. If Caesar wants to give tax breaks and other “marital” benefits to homosexual couples, so be it. Caesar can do whatever he wants with his money. Our representative republic is built on the idea that we do not discriminate with public money against any group of people…more or less.

Those who are Christians will oppose the idea that these “unions” are sacramental. Thus, we reach a Church-State divide, and we may eventually reach a point where we have to distinguish one type of marriage v another in normal conversation.

I was sacramentally married in the Catholic Church 25 years ago. What others do elsewhere is between them, Caesar and God.

Interestingly, the Tribute Episode you refer to here ("render onto Cesar what is Cesar’s and to God that which is God’s) is often misinterpreted.

Here are some things to ponder:

lewrockwell.com/2010/03/jeffrey-f-barr/render-unto-caesar-amostmisunderstood-newtestamentpassage/

And a speech by Archbishop Chaput:

focusequip.org/discover/apologetics/church-history/archbishop-charles-chaput-render-unto-caesar.html