Is it reasonable to oppose same-sex marriage politically?

[Tis_Bearself]

I don’t sit around worrying about the imminent failure of our Constitution. I don’t think it’s a useful or productive thing to do. But if you choose to do that, that’s your prerogative.

 

[Fets]

I didn’t say I sit around worrying. Anyone who has two eyes can see what’s going on in this country. If you agree that the failure of the Constitution is imminent, I think it is prudential for Catholics to prepare other ways in which we can secure religious freedom for ourselves.

 

[Jbrady]

DeSales111:

If same sex marriage stayed secular

It mostly does.

That’s even true for opposite-sex marriages. Only about 20% of the weddings performed in the US nowadays are performed by religious institutions.

Even among Catholics, the proportion getting married in church has been decreasing for decades. More and more are dispensing with marriage altogether, religious or civil.

 

[Freddy]

That’s not what I suggested. But you know that.

You asked if society can survive without healthy two parent families. On the assumption you are referring to heterosexual couples who have children, then no. But is society going to collapse if some are not heterosexual and/or don’t want children? Obviously no.

Are heterosexual marriages worth affirming? No, it’s not required. Bot meets girl, boy falls in love with girl, girls falls in love with boy, they get married.

That’s not going to change just because ssm has been allowed.

 

[otjm]

I’m asking this question because I have no idea how to address the topic when it comes up in political discussions.

I have a fairly large number of friends who are Protestant, and a few Catholics, who believe that gays should be able to marry.

For my part, I stay out of the conversation as there appears to be no purpose to it.

Justice Scalia noted when Obergefell was being decided that there was going to be a collision between an unidentified right (penumbra) and a defined right; the !st Amendment.

In Christianity, it has been held that marriage is between a man and a woman, and the belief is hewed to by a significant number of Christians. It really matters not if fewer or more Christians desire to overturn that dogmatic principle; dogma is not a matter of simply voting on what Christians believe.

And certainly there are many agnostics and atheists who believe that gay marriage is fine and dandy, along with those I would call secularists, who may or may not be in the same category.

We are in the middle of hearings on an individual to fill a vacancy for the Supreme Court whose judicial philosophy is that the Courts are not to legislate - which the SC did in the above case. And the conflicts have already occurred and are occurring.

It will be up to the SC to determine how they are going to unwind the Gordian Knot they created, and it may be years before that decision is made.

So, as far as politics is concerned, the Constitution states that the Government is prohibited from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

It is crystal clear that from the time the mind of man remembereth not, marriage was between a man and a woman. Christianity is not the only religion to so hold; Islam takes an exceedingly dim view of homosexual relations, to the point where in some countries, Gays are executed.

Congress is exceedingly not likely to overturn Obergefell, and it remains to be seen if the SC will either overturn the case, or try to modify it out of existence.

So politics will have little (at least theoretically) to do with it; those who see the Court as a second (or even third) arm of creating law will likely respond as if their heads are exploding, should it be overturned. But the reality is that unless and until the SC sorts it out, the matter will continue as set forth in the case law.

I remain silent because it is matter of strong emotional reaction among its proponents and I am not going to change their emotions. Mainline Protestant churches are still battling over the issue and are divided; I am not going to succeed in telling them how to follow Scripture and Christ.

So the short of all of that is, “Don’t address it. Stay out of the conversation.”

 

[Genesis315]

The civil power simply does not have the authority to sanction or establish such putative marriages as public institutions. As all authority comes from God, its exercise must be consonant with the moral law. Such positive establishment and incentivization of a direct violation of the moral law is directly contrary to the common good.

One could certainly make the argument that it better serves the common good in our circumstances to tolerate such relationships without making them public institutions or treating them as positive goods (the state doesn’t need to punish all sin all the time.) In fact, I think the Church and most faithful Catholics would be fine with that.

 

[Freddy]

The civil power simply does not have the authority to sanction or establish such putative marriages as public institutions. As all authority comes from God, its exercise must be consonant with the moral law. Such positive establishment and incentivization of a direct violation of the moral law is directly contrary to the common good.

One could certainly make the argument that it better serves the common good in our circumstances to tolerate such relationships without making them public institutions or treating them as positive goods (the state doesn’t need to punish all sin all the time.) In fact, I think the Church and most faithful Catholics would be fine with that.

The rest of us? Not so much.

 

[Polak]

Unlike abortion which is completely justified in fighting against

Isn’t same-sex marriage one of those cases where our religious beliefs can’t infringe on the “pursuit of happiness” of others?

Pro-choicers would argue you are infringing on the woman’s right and her pursuit of happiness, by trying to ‘force’ her to have a baby that she doesn’t want to have.

 

[BornInMarch]

Isn’t same-sex marriage one of those cases where our religious beliefs can’t infringe on the “pursuit of happiness” of others?

I don’t see the rationale behind fighting against same-sex marriage politically. It seems like it would be equivalent to Jews fighting to outlaw pork because they believe it is harmful.

You should listen to this instinct, because there is no valid secular argument on why same-sex marriage should be illegal. The consensus in the scientific community is that there is no material harm done to the partners, or to the children raised in such unions.

The United States is a country with freedom of religion and separation of church and state, so I find it inappropriate to attempt to enshrine religious teachings into law and thereby force them on people who may not adhere to that religion or it’s teachings.

 

[Fets]

With respect, your post was very well thought out. Idk, I enjoyed reading it. You’re obviously pretty educated. I think its a shame that someone like you chooses to remain silent. I do understand why though. I wasn’t very outspoken about gay marriage when it was more in the debate. Again, I just think its a shame that our voices are being silenced.

Its certainly a tactic of the Left. You can’t lose a debate you don’t have. And they rarely believe in legitimate debate over anything. They just delegitimize and use ad-hominems against their opponents.

 

[Aulef]

Yes, it is reasonable and necessary to oppose same sex unions

 

[Freddy]

And they rarely believe in legitimate debate over anything. They just delegitimize and use ad-hominems against their opponents.

You do realise what you just did there?

 

[otjm]

The Catholic couple I mentioned - Mass every Sunday; he is in the choir so at least one practice a week, and they are very involved with a rummage sale the parish has in support of a foreign mission - they and I have had a few go-rounds. I will say he is the most loving person I know, and he just cannot accept that gays don’t have the same right to happiness we have in marriage.

The rest of them, because they are Protestant, are on a different footing than I am for a start, and they have no interest in the Catholic Church or what the Church teaches, and in large part they are faithful Christians attending Sunday service with regularity.

They do not silence me; I seriously doubt they have much of a mistake about what I believe. I have been a team member on two different RCIA teams for a total of around 25 years; and have participated as a team member in CAtholics REturning Home in three parishes = probably about 8 to 10 years. So I am no wall flower in being able to articulate my faith.

I prefer to do so with someone who is itnerested.

I have worked with a number of men and women who are homosexual, most of them in what I prefer to call long term partnerships. One in particular decided to say a bit about her background (terrible relationship with her father) and did not say further, nor did she seem interested in doing so. She knew I was Catholic, and she allueded to having been raise Catholic. She chose to not ask me to her “wedding”, for which I was grateful as it avoided issues at work., However she had a Masters in Finance, and we would have discussions about various companies.

I prefer to operate on the saying which St. Francis of Assisi did not make, but which is ascribed to him: “Preach the Gospel; if necessary, use words.”

And some of that may be due to having been around a long time.

As to political discussions, I tend to not enter with liberals as I find two things from my experience. 1) They feel strongly about trying to do what the perceive as what is best for others (which is a polite way of saying they run on emotions, with a “Please don’t confuse me with facts; I already have my mind made up”), and 2) I have some fairly strong training in critical thinking which hits a brick wall when it collides with their emotions.

We have entered a period of time where this country is more divided than perhaps any time since the Civil War. Watching the not so quiet revolution that found its feet with the election of President Obama, and has gone full blown this last 4 years, I am - what, baffled? Dismayed? Aghast at the level of open Marxism that so many people seem totally unable to identify, and coupled with that the inability of the major news networks to identify things as simple as the difference between what is a legitimate protest and what is a riot. which is totally unrelated to the original protests (the death of George Floyd. How can one have a conversation when language has been stripped from any centuries old meaning?

 

[Inquisitor85]

The problem with that argument is that it only applies to Catholics and other religious groups that broadly agree with you. Anyone else it goes no where.

 

[Willing_Spirit]

Pro-choicers would argue you are infringing on the woman’s right and her pursuit of happiness, by trying to ‘force’ her to have a baby that she doesn’t want to have.

Yes, and that is obviously an irrational defense when abortion infringes on the pursuit of happiness, along with life and liberty, of an unborn child.

My only reason for mentioning abortion was just to clarify that I am aware some political views are wrongly dismissed as “imposing religious beliefs”, and that I was specifically looking for justification of the political views against the legalization of same-sex marriage that weren’t solely founded on religious beliefs.

 

[TC3033]

Hear hear! Isn’t the end goal the promulgation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
I think Catholics really need to examine what participating in multicultural secularist democracies is worth. If these political systems, and the policies of these governments hinders us from spreading the Gospel and making the whole world Catholic, then we should be in favor of creating new political systems.

As a non-Catholic Christian in the US I’d say no thank-you, and say thank you for the 1st Amendment (wouldn’t that idea be one of the ideals the settlers were running from…?)

Catholics aren’t exactly a fringe group. We’re the largest religious group in the U.S., and in the world. If we started to say, “We want a different way”, it would have a huge impact.

Get out there and rock the vote then.