- Status
R
Rau
Guest
You each speak of different things, but use the same term of civil unions. The Pope refers to a legal structure for regulating economic affairs such as medical care. He explicitly describes them as non-marital.
S
SMGS127
Guest
^ this.
When we discussed going all-in on “everybody gets a civil union!” (Cue Oprah), we were discussing eliminating a legal recognition of marriage altogether and merely having a legal recognition of commitments, with childcare benefits separate. As marriage legally has already devolved into a simple recognition of commitments, it wouldn’t change anything, while keeping the recognition of any form of marital relationship out of state hands. The civil union itself would merely provide inheritance, joint banking, medical/legal authority, etc. Nothing specific to marriage.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
The problem with this solution is that society does have a positive interest in recognizing and encouraging true marriage as a unique relationship that benefits society. To “de-recognize” marriage as nothing more than a contract of mutual care between adults is yet one more step towards eroding its necessary place in the foundation of society.
A society without true marriage or a society that does not understand what marriage is? That is a society in trouble, and one does not have to be Christian to see that. That so many Christians cannot even see it shows how far the contraceptive view of human sexuality has gone.
S
SMGS127
Guest
Well the point is that either it’s all civil unions with no marriage represented or marriage is extended to all, in which case true marriage is STILL not represented properly. But at least in the former case, there is no false representation of marriage.
S
spunjalebi
Guest
Personally, I think the Church shouldn’t have to recognize civil marriages. There is no need for a civil marriage to be before the sacramental union in the Church.
I am not for gay marriage, and you won’t see me protesting with a “Marriage Equality” sign at the capitol. But I can already see pressuring the State to abide by Christian morals and principles has been a dying fight. What I have a problem with is people insisting that sacramental marriages are going to be threatened by secularly recognized marriages. I’ve already asked this before, but how does the State recognizing a “marriage” or union between gay people interfere with my own sacrament? Or the marriages of other Christians? The State is on its way to recognize unions between multiple people; in fact, other states in the US are on their way there or already there.
I am not against, or for legal gay marriage. It hasn’t proven any logical sense to take a stance against it, since we’re allowing the State to say what marriage is. As Catholics, we already know what marriage is and I daresay, many marriages recognized by the State aren’t true marriages due to the divorce and remarriage rate. I don’t think we as Catholics need to rely on what the State says is marriage, nor should we based on what the State says is not marriage.
I am not for gay marriage, and you won’t see me protesting with a “Marriage Equality” sign at the capitol. But I can already see pressuring the State to abide by Christian morals and principles has been a dying fight. What I have a problem with is people insisting that sacramental marriages are going to be threatened by secularly recognized marriages. I’ve already asked this before, but how does the State recognizing a “marriage” or union between gay people interfere with my own sacrament? Or the marriages of other Christians? The State is on its way to recognize unions between multiple people; in fact, other states in the US are on their way there or already there.
I am not against, or for legal gay marriage. It hasn’t proven any logical sense to take a stance against it, since we’re allowing the State to say what marriage is. As Catholics, we already know what marriage is and I daresay, many marriages recognized by the State aren’t true marriages due to the divorce and remarriage rate. I don’t think we as Catholics need to rely on what the State says is marriage, nor should we based on what the State says is not marriage.
V
Vico
Guest
The Church certainly is opposed to it. From the prefect of the CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH we read that:
The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.
and
Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity.
G
glendab
Guest
Hello Spunjalebi.
Glenda
I’ll answer all of your questions this way: The promotion of SSM is more about religious liberties than about marriage. It is about pushing an agenda on the Church and those persons who are gay and want a civil union are simply being used by the politicos who hate the Church. Sound far fetched? Think on this: When and if the USA passes a law that states clearly that any and all persons who want a “marriage” can have them, including all the rights and privileges that go with such things, what will prevent Steve and Ray, Sally and Janie from knocking on the Church doors and insisting with the help of the laws of the land and their civil rights lawyers from attempting to force the Priest at said parish to deliver a Church wedding to the lovely couples? ANSWER IS NOTHING EXCEPT THAT PREISTS ABILITY TO REFUSE. But they will do it and it will happen and we’ll have another fight for our religious liberties on our hands. Now, do you still wonder why you should oppose it? And as you’ve also noted, polygamy will once again rear it’s ugly head and if the gays have civil unions what will prevent the rest who desire multiple spouses from obtaining their special type of civil union?
Glenda
R
Rau
Guest
I don’t think this is legally sound. The Church is not like the proverbial cake shop that has to accept orders from all comers. Should you see some legal opinions on the subject, I’d be very interested to read them.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
The Church has no choice but to recognize reality as reality. Two non-Catholics who marry civilly (without any impediments) are validly married. That has been the case from long before the Church ever existed. It is still the case today. The Church cannot simply say that two people who are validly married aren’t really married simply because they are not Catholic. That would be dishonest. The Church has no authority to do such a thing.
G
glendab
Guest
Hello Joe.
Glenda
The Church has never said a valid marriage isn’t real. You’re confusing Sacramental Marriage and all others marriages. The two aren’t the same thing.
Glenda
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I think maybe you misunderstood what point I was making. Spunjalebi said “Personally, I think the Church shouldn’t have to recognize civil marriages.” I was responding to this by explaining that the Church simply recognizes what is reality when She recognizes civil marriages. It isn’t something the Church can simply “opt out” from doing anymore than She could opt out of recognizing valid Baptisms that are administered in non-Catholic venues.
A valid marriage is a valid marriage. And if both parties are baptized, it is raised to the level of a sacrament.
S
spunjalebi
Guest
My issue stems from the fact the Church requires a civil marriage license before the sacramental marriage date. Why do we have to be recognized by the State first before we have a sacrament? That’s why I don’t think the Church should be forced to acknowledge a civil marriage first before a marriage ceremony.
S
spunjalebi
Guest
This argument has been made over and over, yet nothing has happened. The laws allowing gays to marry and obtain legal recognition won’t change the way the law handles religious institutions. I don’t just care about Christians in this respect, but all religious traditions which have what we call a “natural marriage.”
But the question remains-- what does any of that have to do with the sacraments WE have? Do we suddenly get annulments because a couple of gay people get legal recognition from the State on their union, or if the Sister Wives get married to the same man? What we believe as a sacrament won’t change.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Then this returns to the DEFINITION of Marriage.
While the Church rightly recognizes a civil marriage of two non Catholics as valid, it cannot recognize a civil “marriage” of two people of the same sex as a marriage.
S
spunjalebi
Guest
If the Church already has a definition of marriage, why does it matter if the State creates a new definition of marriage? We no longer have an overlap of the Church and the State-- that was destroyed during the Reformation. If the State says it’s legal for three parents to be recognized for children, it doesn’t change the fact the Church has defined families, parentage, and marriage differently.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Since marriage (a union of man and woman) proceeded the state and is necessary for the continuation of the state (procreation) the state has no authority to redefine marriage to include a same sex relationship.
S
spunjalebi
Guest
Listen, I get the arguments, I really do. However, there are always going to be questions the opposing side has to answer:
If marriage between a man and a woman is necessary for the continuation of the State, what about people who are infertile? People who find out after marriage they’re infertile? People who get married over the age of fertility? People who choose not to have children? Elderly grandparents who remarry? Are any of those people assisting the continuation of the State? Do any of those people have any business getting married? If marriage is going to be tied up into biological heterosexual fertility, I think it’s time we start coming up with some honest answers.
K
kozlosap
Guest
I think that the justices of the Supreme Court would laugh you out of their courtroom. Talking as if we don’t live a country that has civil laws is ridiculous.
R
Rau
Guest
The class of man/woman relationships is necessary. However, no individual instance is necessary. From the secular perspective it would be pointless and impractical to impose a control.
The State is at liberty to institute other arrangements for asset sharing, mutual care etc for those in eligible for marriage.
- Status