Implicit Endorsement of "Homosexual Marriage"?

[SavannahGal]

No qualification was proposed by me and nor do I suggest any (negative)
qualification is desirable. Such would be highly inappropriate.

“We are so grateful to Mr Joe Citizen and Mr Steve Guy for their generous donation to our Winter Appeal”.

That seems to be a “simple thank you” that deceives no one. Were a man and a woman living together unmarried, would it be necessary to mention that?

They are a legally married couple, not two unmarried people living together.

Had it been a heterosexual married couple that made the donation, would you not thank them as a married couple?

“We are so grateful to Mr. and Mrs. Joe and Jane Citizen for their generous donation to our Winter Appeal.”

Again, it is important to thank people in the manner they presented their donation. Obviously, this couple donated money to the organization as a married couple and they deserve to be acknowledged and thanked in the same manner one would thank a married heterosexual couple.

 

[Rau]

They are a legally married couple, not two unmarried people living together.

Had it been a heterosexual married couple that made the donation, would you not thank them as a married couple?

“We are so grateful to Mr. and Mrs. Joe and Jane Citizen for their generous donation to our Winter Appeal.”

Again, it is important to thank people in the manner they presented their donation. Obviously, this couple donated money to the organization as a married couple and they deserve to be acknowledged and thanked in the same manner one would thank a married heterosexual couple.

“We are so grateful to Mr Joe Citizen and Ms Jane Do for their generous donation to our Winter Appeal”. Are they married? Maybe. It’s clearly a joint donation. Is it relevant to ensure their legal relationship is exposed, or may that simply be inferred from their name as per your example?

 

[SavannahGal]

“We are so grateful to Mr Joe Citizen and Ms Jane Do for their generous donation to our Winter Appeal”. Are they married? Maybe. It’s clearly a joint donation. Is it relevant to ensure their legal relationship is exposed, or may that simply be inferred from their name as per your example?

Yes. When husband and wife have different last names, the relationship may not be readily apparent, however, while “Mr. Joe Citizen and Ms. Jane Do” is a perfectly acceptable way to address correspondence, and would be perfectly acceptable on a list of donors, it’s not sufficient for the type of article the OP is writing.

Think of it in this way. If you attended a fundraiser for an organization and I was introducing you to this couple, I would not perpetuate the ambiguity created by maintaining different last names.

“I would like to introduce you to Mr. Joe Citizen and his wife Ms. Jane Do.”

And I would offer some basic information or points of interest to encourage conversation.

“Jane is a Research Fellow over at the University and a contributing editor to the Star Journal. And she’d never tell you this herself, but she has the most beautiful garden in the entire county.”

That is the type of article this should be…a basic introduction, in this case to the reader in which you take the opportunity to voice your appreciation for what is most likely a very sizable donation.

The fact that this is a same sex couple should make no difference. It should be handled no differently.

“Rau, I’d like for you to meet Mr. Joe Citizen and his husband Mr. Steve Public,” etc.

There’s no implicit approval of the marriage in that statement because it’s just a statement of fact. Introducing them simply as Mr. Joe Citizen and Mr. Steve Public, leaving out the word “husband” or “spouse” would however indicate my disapproval of their relationship because I would be refusing to acknowledge something that is just a fact due to my disapproval. It would be incredibly rude, which is why, as the OP said, the boss is insisting it not be omitted.

 

[Rau]

Yes. When husband and wife have different last names, the relationship may not be readily apparent, however, while “Mr. Joe Citizen and Ms. Jane Do” is a perfectly acceptable way to address correspondence, and would be perfectly acceptable on a list of donors, it’s not sufficient for the type of article the OP is writing.

Think of it in this way. If you attended a fundraiser for an organization and I was introducing you to this couple, I would not perpetuate the ambiguity created by maintaining different last names.

“I would like to introduce you to Mr. Joe Citizen and his wife Ms. Jane Do.”

And I would offer some basic information or points of interest to encourage conversation.

“Jane is a Research Fellow over at the University and a contributing editor to the Star Journal. And she’d never tell you this herself, but she has the most beautiful garden in the entire county.”

That is the type of article this should be…a basic introduction, in this case to the reader in which you take the opportunity to voice your appreciation for what is most likely a very sizable donation.

The fact that this is a same sex couple should make no difference. It should be handled no differently.

“Rau, I’d like for you to meet Mr. Joe Citizen and his husband Mr. Steve Public,” etc.

There’s no implicit approval of the marriage in that statement because it’s just a statement of fact. Introducing them simply as Mr. Joe Citizen and Mr. Steve Public, leaving out the word “husband” or “spouse” would however indicate my disapproval of their relationship because I would be refusing to acknowledge something that is just a fact due to my disapproval. It would be incredibly rude, which is why, as the OP said, the boss is insisting it not be omitted.

The scope of the article will determine whether it is viable to omit the fact of the marriage license. It is clearly unnecessary to mention it in a Brief thank you acknowledgement as I demonstrated above, and much more difficult in a full “profile” article. But therein lies the problem for the OP. The “full profile” will paint a lovely picture of two happily “married” people who live in the lovely house on the corner with the white picket fence, with their baby (procured via surrogacy?), living the American Dream. The most wonderful and natural thing in the world!

I support the OP in her right not to contribute to the implicit endorsement of that picture as any such article in this context must clearly do.

I sense you are quite comfortable with the State endorsing SSM, and do indeed find it a “natural” situation. Catholic principles suggest otherwise.

 

[kozlosap]

Yes. When husband and wife have different last names, the relationship may not be readily apparent, however, while “Mr. Joe Citizen and Ms. Jane Do” is a perfectly acceptable way to address correspondence, and would be perfectly acceptable on a list of donors, it’s not sufficient for the type of article the OP is writing.

Think of it in this way. If you attended a fundraiser for an organization and I was introducing you to this couple, I would not perpetuate the ambiguity created by maintaining different last names.

“I would like to introduce you to Mr. Joe Citizen and his wife Ms. Jane Do.”

And I would offer some basic information or points of interest to encourage conversation.

“Jane is a Research Fellow over at the University and a contributing editor to the Star Journal. And she’d never tell you this herself, but she has the most beautiful garden in the entire county.”

That is the type of article this should be…a basic introduction, in this case to the reader in which you take the opportunity to voice your appreciation for what is most likely a very sizable donation.

The fact that this is a same sex couple should make no difference. It should be handled no differently.

“Rau, I’d like for you to meet Mr. Joe Citizen and his husband Mr. Steve Public,” etc.

There’s no implicit approval of the marriage in that statement because it’s just a statement of fact. Introducing them simply as Mr. Joe Citizen and Mr. Steve Public, leaving out the word “husband” or “spouse” would however indicate my disapproval of their relationship because I would be refusing to acknowledge something that is just a fact due to my disapproval. It would be incredibly rude, which is why, as the OP said, the boss is insisting it not be omitted.

Those who wish to continually tilt at windmills are not doing themselves or anyone else a service by continuing to deny reality. The couple gave a generous donation and should be acknowledged for doing so no matter what. People that are civally married whether they are straight or gay, are just that, MARRIED. Sometimes just cutting to the chase is the best solution and the easiest. “GASP!!”, Papa Francis used the word gay and the world did not explode! Using the correct language when thanking a married couple will not send anyone to hades.

 

[Rau]

Those who wish to continually tilt at windmills are not doing themselves or anyone else a service by continuing to deny reality.

Which reality is being denied here?

Isn’t it better to deny the “reality” of a wayward State Law and a deluded community than the reality of the nature of man and God’s law?

If I am guilty of denying the former, others are guilty of denying the latter.

 

[kozlosap]

Which reality is being denied here?

Isn’t it better to deny the “reality” of a wayward State Law and a deluded community than the reality of the nature of man and God’s law?

If I am guilty of denying the former, others are guilty of denying the latter.

I don’t think so. Do you deny that straight couples that are married civally are truly married? If you were to advocate that all people who didn’t sacramentally marry are not married then your reasoning would be on solid footing, but when you accept one group who civally marry , and not another then there is a problem. We must live in a world where the Church is not the authority presiding over civil life - no matter how much we might like to deny it , society needs governance. Just remember Lord if the Flies as an example. Here in the Industrialized West, we don’t have theocracies, Thank God. In addition , what is your standing on divorced people civally marrying?

 

[Rau]

I don’t think so. Do you deny that straight couples that are married civally are truly married? If you were to advocate that all people who didn’t sacramentally marry are not married then your reasoning would be on solid footing, but when you accept one group who civally marry , and not another then there is a problem. We must live in a world where the Church is not the authority presiding over civil life - no matter how much we might like to deny it , society needs governance. Just remember Lord if the Flies as an example. Here in the Industrialized West, we don’t have theocracies, Thank God. In addition , what is your standing on divorced people civally marrying?

I didn’t mention the Church or a wedding before a Church minister as necessary for “true marriage”.

A man and a woman can marry as I understand that term (and as most everyone used to understand it). Marriage is that Union that arises from the nature of man, the complementarity of the sexes, and in the best interests of the care of the young. This is not a rule from any Church, though Churches also make this observation.

If there is a need for a State provided framework for the Union of 2 men (seeking to form a single household, share assets, care for each other, etc), let that case be put and argued.

I see no reason for the State to deny marriage to a divorced person.

 

[Peebo]

Hi all,

So, at my workplace I am being asked to write a profile (for publication) of two donors who have contributed generously to our organization. The issue is that they are gay “spouses”, and the money comes from their shared marital funds. I worry that in writing about this gift I will be endorsing their shared possession of money through “gay marriage”. Am I being scrupulous? On the other hand, I have also considered that this might be irrelevant, and that all that I need to be concerned with is that the two men are mutually making a generous gift. This is consistent with the possibility that they are making the joint gift as friends. And maybe this is true even if they are gay partners.

In any case, the issue keeps bothering me. Any insight or advice will be much appreciated.

I need to turn in a draft very soon, so I would be especially thankful for timely replies.

Thank you,

Sapling

Are they using the same surname…if so then just refer to the gift as a generous donation from Mr. Fred Smith and Mr. John Smith…apparently some same sex married couples still use their own surnames…so just thank them as Mr. Fred Smith and Mr. John Jones…you are not addressing their marital status…or the fact that they are in a “gay” marriage…you are not supporting their marriage…you are writing a profile that your employer has requested in regard to their donation…has your employer insisted that you specifically refer to them as a married couple…I doubt that…how do you know they are from shared funds…they might still have separate accounts…did your employer tell you they have a joint account…did “they” tell you…just write a generic type of profile as you would for any heterosexual couple…you are not endorsing gay marriage

 

[SavannahGal]

The scope of the article will determine whether it is viable to omit the fact of the marriage license. It is clearly unnecessary to mention it in a Brief thank you acknowledgement as I demonstrated above, and much more difficult in a full “profile” article. But therein lies the problem for the OP. The “full profile” will paint a lovely picture of two happily “married” people who live in the lovely house on the corner with the white picket fence, with their baby (procured via surrogacy?), living the American Dream. The most wonderful and natural thing in the world!

I support the OP in her right not to contribute to the implicit endorsement of that picture as any such article in this context must clearly do.

I sense you are quite comfortable with the State endorsing SSM, and do indeed find it a “natural” situation. Catholic principles suggest otherwise.

But you seem to be suggesting that any mention of the marriage, no matter how dispassionate or matter-of-fact in its presentation is necessarily biased in affirming gay marriage, so there is no way as Catholics that we can thank a gay couple for a kind and generous act without creating ambiguity surrounding their relationship by simply omitting any mention of it in our expression of gratitude?

Consider a situation in which omitting mention of the marriage would be pointless due to the notoriety of the couple? Say we’re speaking of Ellen DeGeneres and Portia DeRossi. Perhaps they make a very generous donation to an organization. Because they are a well known gay married couple, as Catholics, would we simply not be able to offer any thank you to them under any circumstances?

 

[Rau]

But you seem to be suggesting that any mention of the marriage, no matter how dispassionate or matter-of-fact in its presentation is necessarily biased in affirming gay marriage, so there is no way as Catholics that we can thank a gay couple for a kind and generous act without creating ambiguity surrounding their relationship by simply omitting any mention of it in our expression of gratitude?

Consider a situation in which omitting mention of the marriage would be pointless due to the notoriety of the couple? Say we’re speaking of Ellen DeGeneres and Portia DeRossi. Perhaps they make a very generous donation to an organization. Because they are a well known gay married couple, as Catholics, would we simply not be able to offer any thank you to them under any circumstances?

“List of donors:
…
Ms Ellen deGeneres and Ms Portia de Rossi”

 

[Burning_Sapling]

Consider requests like the following- “Christ, as a sinner, I come to you asking forgiveness.” What seems notable for our present purposes about statements like these is that they show that one can do something good even if they are acting in the capacity of something that is in a way bad. In this case, the good action is asking forgiveness and the agent that is engaged in the action is a sinner. Maybe saying that the two men gave the donation “as a couple” is in a way analogous. The two men gave the donation as a couple that is, on some level, whether conscious or not, crying out to be saved by Christ. Just in the same way that we can perform acts of penance as sinners that are crying to be saved by Christ. Make sense?

 

[Rau]

Consider requests like the following- “Christ, as a sinner, I come to you asking forgiveness.” What seems notable for our present purposes about statements like these is that they show that one can do something good even if they are acting in the capacity of something that is in a way bad. In this case, the good action is asking forgiveness and the agent that is engaged in the action is a sinner. Maybe saying that the two men gave the donation “as a couple” is in a way analogous. The two men gave the donation as a couple that is, on some level, whether conscious or not, crying out to be saved by Christ. Just in the same way that we can perform acts of penance as sinners that are crying to be saved by Christ. Make sense?

Forgiveness for…what?

I have to assume that the giving of the donation was a good act, since to think otherwise (absent evidence) would be uncharitable.

I am not inclined to think that all homosexually involved couples, when doing a good thing, concede by that act (or otherwise) that their sexual relationship is sinful. I am sure many do not. As we know, some Churches do not.

We are all sinners, but this does not make us totally evil. We remain capable of good acts, while still captured by some vice.

Have you written the “profile” yet. How did you handle the difficulty you outlined in the OP?

 

[Burning_Sapling]

Forgiveness for…what?

I have to assume that the giving of the donation was a good act, since to think otherwise (absent evidence) would be uncharitable.

I am not inclined to think that all homosexually involved couples, when doing a good thing, concede by that act (or otherwise) that their sexual relationship is sinful. I am sure many do not. As we know, some Churches do not.

We are all sinners, but this does not make us totally evil. We remain capable of good acts, while still captured by some vice.

Have you written the “profile” yet. How did you handle the difficulty you outlined in the OP?

Well, for better or for worse, I did mention in one line that they gave the gift as a couple. There is no lengthy glamorization or romanticization of their lifestyle. Neither is there any attack on homosexuality or much less on the two men for being “married” to one another (actually I don’t even mention that they are married, just that they are a couple). I just felt that in saying that they gave the gift as a couple I left open the possibility that they were acting as a couple that was trying to break free of sin, or right their wrongs, or transform spiritually. And after all, they did want the gift to be made in the name of their couple. In this sense, I did not think that I would be endorsing anything sinful.