MARRIAGE AND THE SUPREME COURT - USCCB Nationwide Bulletin Insert

[unstoppable_II]

… the Social Security Administration takes the position that conventional couples living together, irrespective of a legal marriage, are married in the eyes of the SSA for purposes of some benefits,
…

How do they prove it?

 

[unstoppable_II]

…
What would it take to solidify marriage? A Constitutional amendment?
…

That won’t work since the court could simply declare it unconstitutional based on the argument that it denies a basic right [equality].

 

[josie_L]

We have spent more time playing for both sides and criticzing countries like Uganda or even Russia than fighting anything.

I only started criticizing Russia (or rather Putin) after they invaded several sovereign nations under false pretenses. Just saying.

 

[Thorolfr]

For example, the Social Security Administration takes the position that conventional couples living together, irrespective of a legal marriage, are married in the eyes of the SSA for purposes of some benefits, so they’ll include both of their incomes together for purposes of determining income eligibility. They haven’t done that with same gender couples. . . yet.

They will.

Kicking some people off of SSA benefits.

Probably not the movements desired result.

This is only possible if the couple represents themselves in public as being “married”. In this case, it’s considered to be a common-law marriage. I’ve read about this in Social Security Administration documents. As it says in Wikipedia:

The original concept of a “common-law marriage” is a marriage that is considered valid by both partners, but has not been formally recorded with a state or religious registry, or celebrated in a formal religious service. In effect, the act of the couple representing themselves to others as being married, and organizing their relation as if they were married, acts as the evidence that they are married.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

 

[boar2roar]

I only started criticizing Russia (or rather Putin) after they invaded several sovereign nations under false pretenses. Just saying.

Not talking about an internet forum where you can find almost any view held by a random poster, the we is people in higher leadership roles associated with the church.

 

[EasterJoy]

Have you taken a poll of enough Catholics to support this conclusion? Where does all this social engineering end?

I think this was the stance the Archdiocese of Portland took up: that is, they were willing to recognize that the health care system has been set up so that it would be just to have a means for adults who cannot marry to set up households in which they get certain legal protections for an arrangement of mutual care. At that time, the advocates for “civil unions” didn’t want the more inclusive definition of who could apply for civil union benefits because they wanted the unions to be all about homosexuality. So much for “just wanting a way for people who love each other to take care of each other.” (That reaction made the smoke screen pretty obvious.)

 

[unstoppable_II]

… So much for “just wanting a way for people who love each other to take care of each other.” …

And so much for “All we want is to be left alone.”

There are public and personal purposes for marriage. I have not yet come across a public purpose for homosexual “marriage”.

 

[Mongo]

A bulletin insert is meaningless. What they need to do is disassociate themselves from state marriage by refusing to be a proxy for state marriage. What the Catholic Church offers is a sacrament, it is holy matrimony and it has a purpose which is denied by the state. Extra ecclesial marriages shouldn’t be accepted, except maybe on a case by case basis or on a church by church basis. If they did that it would mean something and it might be effective. So far they have only offered words which end up being meaningless, because the church participates in the same process the state does.

 

[unstoppable_II]

A bulletin insert is meaningless. What they need to do is disassociate themselves from state marriage by refusing to be a proxy for state marriage. What the Catholic Church offers is a sacrament, it is holy matrimony and it has a purpose which is denied by the state. Extra ecclesial marriages shouldn’t be accepted, except maybe on a case by case basis or on a church by church basis. If they did that it would mean something and it might be effective. So far they have only offered words which end up being meaningless, because the church participates in the same process the state does.

I agree with this. Anyone who was paying attention and connecting the dots could have seen the writing on the wall at least three years ago. Therefore, there is no excuse for not having a plan similar to the above ready to roll out.