Marriage Has Been Redefined: Now What?

[Bubba_Switzler]

From the Catholic Answers Blog.
Marriage Has Been Redefined: Now What?

A good article but I think he went offtrack here:

As long as opposition to so-called same-sex marriage is perceived as an attack on people with a particular sexual identity, we won’t make any appreciable headway in defending marriage.

As long as Christians allow themselves to be held hostage to perceptions of their antagonists they will be impotent in their arguments. I’m not suggesting that Christians validate the characticures but simply that any argunent contrary to the SSM position will be treated as “an attack on people with a particular sexual identity” so get over it.

 

[St_Francis]

A good article but I think he went offtrack here:

As long as Christians allow themselves to be held hostage to perceptions of their antagonists they will be impotent in their arguments. I’m not suggesting that Christians validate the characticures but simply that any argunent contrary to the SSM position will be treated as “an attack on people with a particular sexual identity” so get over it.

Looking at this:
As long as opposition to so-called same-sex marriage is perceived as an attack on people with a particular sexual identity, we won’t make any appreciable headway in defending marriage. Therefore, we must double down on fighting for marriage’s permanence and sexual exclusivity, both in our arguments in the public square and in choosing to value permanence, sexual exclusivity, and openness to life in the privacy of our own homes.

IMBO, marriage was in bad shape before this issue came along, and whaf had eroded marriage was borth control and no-fault divorce, and all he followed in the wake of these teo things.

I agree with the author of the blog. What good would it do to fight for a return to the terribly flawed 1990s model of marriage? Why restore marriage only to a less damaged state? Let us instead work to restore marriage to what it is supoosed to be.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Maybe everyone should just try to stay calm and stop panicking.

Just because two people of the same sex will be able to get married in 50 states tomorrow instead of the 36 it was yesterday, it doesn’t mean:

They are trying to persecute the church
There will be polygamy
People will want to marry their dogs
The Catholic church will be pressured to change their doctrine
The end of the world is near

Canada has had legal same-sex marriage for a decade now, and they are all doing very fine and happy and healthy over there–better than the US, in fact, when it comes to taking care of their fellow people and living loving, peaceful lives.

So pour yourself a glass of wine, take out your rosary, and have some trust in humankind and the goodness of people.

.

First of all Marriage has not been redefined, otherwise it would not need the Same Sex before it as a term. However, "In Canada, it is considered discriminatory to say that marriage is between a man and a woman or that every child should know and be raised by his or her biological married parents. It is not just politically incorrect in Canada to say so; you can be saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, fined, and forced to take sensitivity training.

Anyone who is offended by something you have said or written can make a complaint to the Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals. In Canada, these organizations police speech, penalizing citizens for any expression deemed in opposition to particular sexual behaviors or protected groups identified under “sexual orientation.” It takes only one complaint against a person to be brought before the tribunal, costing the defendant tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. The commissions have the power to enter private residences and remove all items pertinent to their investigations, checking for hate speech.

The plaintiff making the complaint has his legal fees completely paid for by the government. Not so the defendant. Even if the defendant is found innocent, he cannot recover his legal costs. If he is found guilty, he must pay fines to the person(s) who brought forth the complaint." http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/"

"In Toronto there lives a man named Bill Whatcott. During the last two decades or so, he has spent much of his time traveling around Canada, waving protest signs at gay-pride parades and Planned Parenthood clinics, agitating for the criminalization of homosexual acts and abortion, and distributing fliers packed with incendiary language about gays and graphic images of aborted fetuses. In 2010 the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal fined him $17,500 for distributing “hateful” materials; an appeals court overturned the ruling, whereupon the province’s Human Rights Commission appealed the case to the Canadian Supreme Court. Now the Court has ruled, and it’s an icy day for freedom in the Great White North.

One of the many striking aspects of the Court’s decision is the insistence that any judge, jury, or commission seeking to determine whether a speech act crosses the threshold of being punishable by law must not look to the speaker’s intent but must, rather, make an assessment of the potential of that speech act for causing hate…Another key detail is that** truth is no defense**: it is impermissible even to state demonstrable facts if, in the authorities’ estimation, those facts might spark enmity toward a group. Yet another point worth mentioning is that any judgment rendered in such matters must, the Court posited, be arrived at in an “objective” manner." frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/canadian-supreme-court-kills-last-hope-for-free-speech/

One might ask how and why this escalated to such a twisted, monstrous state of affairs. Natural law is self-evident. Unnatural law like the phony Aryan race theory has to be implemented by force. Truth doesn’t need a whip to promote itself but lies need propagandists. An eminent Boston physician was fired recently not because of incompetence but telling the truth, the clear and present dangers of the homosexual lifestyle and practices. Already in the US businesses have been targeted, harassed and even ruined because they want to conduct their public life in conjunction with their religious values.

The supreme irony of utopian liberalism is the assumption that human beings if they just act according to their whims and desires are essentially good. The Founding Fathers of the US had the Christian view that human nature is fallen and must be restrained in society. Free speech was not seen as a threat to the fabric of society but of course actions are prosecutable. Contrast that with the thought police of the Communists, Nazis and now the Homo-fascists.

 

[Amisius]

^ I didn’t know the free speech situation in Canada was that bad. Truly frightening.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I agree with the author of the blog. What good would it do to fight for a return to the terribly flawed 1990s model of marriage? Why restore marriage only to a less damaged state? Let us instead work to restore marriage to what it is supoosed to be.

I don’t know anyone concerned about marriage who would be content merely to roll back this ruling. There is no point in such half-measures; the situation requires arguing for a marriage ideal to compete with that which lead to divorce and homosexuality alike.

Unfortunately, I think reliance upon tradition and common sense has not served Christians well.

One line of argument that deserves more consideration is this: what are the consequences of this decision now that it (and simlar changes in other countries including many traditinoally Catholic) are upon us?

 

[Joegrane]

DaddyGirl: Maybe everyone should just try to stay calm and stop panicking.

** Like a frog in water that is gradually increasing in temperature.

Just because two people of the same sex will be able to get married in 50 states tomorrow instead of the 36 it was yesterday, it doesn’t mean:

They are trying to persecute the church

** A bakery in Oregon was fined $100,000 for not baking a cake for a “gay wedding”.
csmonitor.com/USA/2015/0428/Oregon-bakery-fined-135-000-for-refusing-to-make-gay-couple-s-cake

** Why wouldn’t they just use their freedom to create their own tradition, call it whatever they like and get their elected representatives to assign privileges such as hospital visitation, inheritance, tax advantages, medical benefits, etc? By getting marriage redefined they’ll use big government to impose their views on the public.

There will be polygamy
People will want to marry their dogs

** Instead of gays, polygamists and a guy with a dog creating their own traditions, calling them what they like and using the legislative process, each will have to attack marriage by getting judges to pretend constitutions say something about their situations.

The Catholic church will be pressured to change their doctrine

** When have they NOT been pressured.

The end of the world is near

** Our democracy continues to erode. Socialists and Communists are closer to their goal–elimination of democracy so they can control the public and therefore enhance their hold on power.

Canada has had legal same-sex marriage for a decade now, and they are all doing very fine and happy and healthy over there–better than the US, in fact, when it comes to taking care of their fellow people and living loving, peaceful lives.

** My understanding is that priests have to be careful about what they say about the gay agenda from the pulpit because of “gay police”. The gay activists up there are apparently willing to give up freedom of speech when convenient for them.

** This is a report on the situation in Europe.
christianheadlines.com/columnists/al-mohler/criminalizing-christianity-swedens-hate-speech-law-1277601.html
telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html

So pour yourself a glass of wine, take out your rosary, and have some trust in humankind and the goodness of people.

** You don’t read much history or the world news much, huh? You are not aware of all of the Christian blood split by godless Communists last century and the current suffering in China? Have you not been paying attention to the Muslim violence against Christians in Africa and the Middle East?!

** Goodness comes from God. Why would we expect people who don’t know God or seem to have rejected God to exhibit goodness? cf Lk 18.19

** Gay activists probably hope we will only take out our rosary and not be prepared to debate them.

** Joe

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’ve been wondering how Catholics would react if/when SSM was mandated. Now that this is no longer a hypothetical perhaps it is time to concentrate on that question.

The terms “sacramental marriage” and “sacramentally married” will become more common.

Ex.: “My wife and I were sacramentally married 25 years ago.”

 

[Tomdstone]

Polygamy will be recognized as well for how can you allow SSM but deny it to three or more people?

50 countries already recognize polygamy.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Will America be judged by God for abortion and same sex marriage?

I feel like I live in Pagan Rome.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Think about this: if Sonia Sotomeyer had not been chosen as a Justice, and in her place was instead a Justice with more of an outlook of Justice Scalia for example, there may have been a very different result yesterday. That’s why it’s very important President is and the next President after that … Judicial nominations. No only regarding the Supreme Court but lower courts.

Ryan T Anderson authored an article after last year’s DOMA and Prop 8 rulings regarding what should happen next . I’m not sure I agree with everything in article but this is a very important part of the article:

Whatever happens, it is essential to take the long view, and to be ready to bear witness to the truth even if law and culture grow increasingly hostile. There are lessons to be learned from the pro-life movement.

Consider the pro-life movement in February 1973, just weeks after Roe v. Wade. Public opinion was against them, by a margin of two to one. With each passing day another pro-life public figure — Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, Al Gore, Bill Clinton — evolved to embrace abortion on demand. The media kept insisting that all the young people were for abortion rights. Elites ridiculed pro-lifers as being on the wrong side of history. The pro-lifers were aging; their children, increasingly against them.

But courageous pro-lifers put their hand to the plow, and today we reap the fruits.

Read more at: nationalreview.com/article/378538/marriage-where-do-we-go-here-ryan-t-anderson

Academics wrote the books and articles making the scientific and philosophical case for life. Statesmen like Henry Hyde, Ed Meese, and Ronald Reagan crafted the policy and used the bully pulpit to advance the culture of life. Activists and lawyers got together, formed coalitions, and devised effective strategies. They faithfully bore witness to the truth.

And the Christian community woke up — the Southern Baptists at the time, we sometimes forget, were in favor of abortion rights and supported Roe. Today they are at the forefront of the cause for life. This should caution us not to write off those who today might be on the wrong side of the marriage debate.

Everything the pro-life movement did needs to happen again, but on this new frontier of marriage.

Read more at: nationalreview.com/article/378538/marriage-where-do-we-go-here-ryan-t-anderson

 

[Kay_Cee]

This is exactly what will happen,

The exact same thing happened when the district of Columbia mandated that the Catholic Church facilitate adoption for same sex couples. The Church simply got out of the adoption business altogether.

Sad, but that’s what will happen.

-Tim-

I agree. Look at our history. The Church was willing to let an entire country go rather than compromise its doctrine on marriage by allowing Henry VIII a divorce.

If necessary, the Church will perform marriages that are legal under canon law but not under civil law.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Think about this: if Sonia Sotomeyer had not been chosen as a Justice, and in her place was instead a Justice with more of an outlook of Justice Scalia for example, there may have been a very different result yesterday. That’s why it’s very important President is and the next President after that … Judicial nominations. No only regarding the Supreme Court but lower courts.

Indeed, or unmarried Elena Kagan who has had an incredible record with promoting LGBTism in Harvard. It’s incredible that 310 million are held hostage by the opinions of 5 unelected people. In fact, it is sheer Bolshevism, working the system to ram through an agenda.

 

[Pat_Payne]

I’m sure Cannon lawyers are already working on this.

I kinda suspect if we "cannon"ed more lawyers in this country (preferably with that big job Georges Melies used in A Trip to the Moon and shot 'em into the center of the Bermuda Triangle) the world might be a better place… (Joke! Joke!)

More seriously, while I agree that the Church cannot accept same-sex “marriage”, governments, including our own one have not been all that responsive to what the Catholic Church can and cannot accept – see for instance the ridiculous “concession” “graciously” extended by our overlords to the Little Sisters of the Poor with regards to the HHS mandate. They just don’t get what the Church stands for and think it’s another social club that can either change its views by majority vote or have those views changed by legislative or judicial fiat.

 

[benjohnson]

To the OP:

From the Church’s standpoint, marriage hasn’t been redefined. The civil law just changed - and that’s all.

My random thoughts:

For myself, I find that this is a good wake up call. We, as 20th century Christians probably thought we could rely on the civil Law to help mould our children and our society.

But upon reflection this has never really been the case - the civil law has supported slavery, segregation, divorce, sodomy, prostitution, usury, racism and abortion - all contrary to Christian norms.

For me, this is just a wake up call that I have to be a good Parent and a better disciple of Christ Jesus.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

To the OP:

From the Church’s standpoint, marriage hasn’t been redefined. The civil law just changed - and that’s all.

My random thoughts:

For myself, I find that this is a good wake up call. We, as 20th century Christians probably thought we could rely on the civil Law to help mould our children and our society.

But upon reflection this has never really been the case - the civil law has supported slavery, segregation, divorce, sodomy, prostitution, usury, racism and abortion - all contrary to Christian norms.

For me, this is just a wake up call that I have to be a good Parent and a better disciple of Christ Jesus.

I suspect that there is a bit more to it than that. For while the civil law has supported slavery et alia it never went so far as to redefine it.

To see what’s ahead, imagine if the Supreme Court redefined left as right and up as down. Yes, we could all carry on with our “traditional” understanding of these words but I suspect it would become increasingly confusing and difficult and our children would be very inclined to adapt themselves to the new conventions if only to get along with others.

 

[benjohnson]

Yes, we could all carry on with our “traditional” understanding of these words but I suspect it would become increasingly confusing and difficult and our children would be very inclined to adapt themselves to the new conventions if only to get along with others.

I’m certain you’re correct - the Christian response will be to guard our children’s education very carefully. Perhaps we should either remove our children from Public-Government Schools, or give them additional proper education at home.

Christians have always had to stand apart from mainstream society, and we Americans are just going to have to learn how to do this again and again.

 

[pianistclare]

I’m certain you’re correct - the Christian response will be to guard our children’s education very carefully. Perhaps we should either remove our children from Public-Government Schools, or give them additional proper education at home.

Christians have always had to stand apart from mainstream society, and we Americans are just going to have to learn how to do this again and again.

Well stated.
As a DRE, I can tell you that the Church holds that the parents are the primary educators of their children.
In practice, we don’t see this all that much. Parents expect catechists and youth ministers to have those “tough conversations” and instruct them when they have already been influenced by popular media and their peers with regard to sex, SSA, abortion, even Mass attendance. They either don’t have (won’t devote) the time, or their children have been allowed so much leeway in deciding “for themselves” on so many issues, that they find it nearly impossible to influence them in a Catholic/Christian way.
So they expect the Church to do it. Time for everyone, all Christians, to wake up.

 

[ialsop]

What I think will happen is that he Synod this fall will conclude that the Catholic Church should no longer consider civil marriages valid.

That solves both the divorce and remarried issue, no annulment needed, just confession. And it solves the homosexual issue too.
See, with divorce and homosexuality a growing percentage of civil marriages are invalid, and the Synod I think will announce that the Church no longer recognizes no sacramental marriages as valid, for anybody.

What will happen next will be a persecution of the Church by way of lawsuits and fines.
People will try to make the Church conform to civil laws.

But…if the Church does not consider civil marriages legal at all…they have no reason to CONSIDER gay marriage even if it is legal in every state. It is no concern to them.
And the “Father but the Court said…” line will blow away.

 

[St_Francis]

What I think will happen is that he Synod this fall will conclude that the Catholic Church should no longer consider civil marriages valid.

That solves both the divorce and remarried issue, no annulment needed, just confession. And it solves the homosexual issue too.
See, with divorce and homosexuality a growing percentage of civil marriages are invalid, and the Synod I think will announce that the Church no longer recognizes no sacramental marriages as valid, for anybody.

What will happen next will be a persecution of the Church by way of lawsuits and fines.
People will try to make the Church conform to civil laws.

But…if the Church does not consider civil marriages legal at all…they have no reason to CONSIDER gay marriage even if it is legal in every state. It is no concern to them.
And the “Father but the Court said…” line will blow away.

The Church has the stance that it has on marriages contracted by non-Catholics because of the nature of the ministry of the sacrament: that the two people marrying are the ministers of the sacrament. The Church can ot just decide to change the way it evaluates various types of marriages because how the Church sees marriages is based on something.

 

[Corki]

What’s going to happen to Catholic caterers, wedding photographers, bridal shop owners, bakers, etc. who refuse to do business with gay weddings? Will there be a conscience exemption, or will they be forced to comply?

I am not sure anyone answered this yet. This is where state authority becomes important. People of faith who are in businesses that serve weddings will be faced with competing rights. Yes, same-sex couples have the “right” to contract a “marriage” but all Americans have a right to live out their religious beliefs. States will have to figure out how to balance these competing rights.

Yesterday, in my state of Texas, the Governor and the Attorney General both stated that the right to obtain a same-sex marriage license cannot create a situation where any Texan is forced to act against his or her religious beliefs. It looks like this will apply, in Texas, to clerks and JOPs who will probably be allowed to exercise conscientious exemption. But in other states, the governing authorities will surely tip the balance the other way.