More questions about gay marriage

[CaliLobo]

1. Now that gay marriage is legalized in over 30 US states, am I correct to say that the issue is now coming off the table, and that it will no longer be so angrily discussed in Catholic circles?
2. In turn, will that have the benefit of making it easier for more people to enter the Church, as it will no longer be a hot topic?
3. In most of these states, courts overruled the popular vote by overturning voted-on bans. Is this a sign that God, in his power, is rebuking conservative Christians for what could be misguidedness on their part?

 

[Joe_Ca]

1. Now that gay marriage is legalized in over 30 US states, am I correct to say that the issue is now coming off the table, and that it will no longer be so angrily discussed in Catholic circles?

No.

1. In turn, will that have the benefit of making it easier for more people to enter the Church, as it will no longer be a hot topic?

No.

1. In most of these states, courts overruled the popular vote by overturning voted-on bans. Is this a sign that God, in his power, is rebuking conservative Christians for what could be misguidedness on their part?

No.

Morality is not decided by the United States Supreme Court, lesser courts down to the local level, or popular vote.

Abortion has been legal in the United States by judicial fiat for over 40 years and it is still intrinsically immoral.

There is not a single instance documented of God communicating through the civil courts. Courts routinely make immoral decisions:

Supreme Court Decision on the Nuremberg Race Laws

.

 

[BostonBarrister]

Law and morality can be two completely different things, and that is particularly true in the context of these forums.

I think it is possible that gay marriage ceases to be a widely discussed issue on the national political stage. It seems to me that most elected officials would be happy if the issue never darkened their doorway again.

However, here at least, we are not treating the issue as a simple question of civil liberties, and the issue as to how fully immersed practicing gay people can be in our community of faith is still very much alive.

 

[fencersmother]

Last time I looked, US courts were trying to get God out of their jurisdictions, not acquiesce to God’s will!

 

[Joe_5859]

1. Now that gay marriage is legalized in over 30 US states, am I correct to say that the issue is now coming off the table, and that it will no longer be so angrily discussed in Catholic circles?
2. In turn, will that have the benefit of making it easier for more people to enter the Church, as it will no longer be a hot topic?
3. In most of these states, courts overruled the popular vote by overturning voted-on bans. Is this a sign that God, in his power, is rebuking conservative Christians for what could be misguidedness on their part?

Come on, Cali, you don’t really believe that traditional marriage proponents are going to toss up their hands and say, “Aw shucks, well I guess we tried. Time to move on to other things.” Do you?

As the other Joe said, abortion has been legal for over 40 years and that is still very much a hot button topic. Those who advocate for moral truths are not going to simply stop even if the majority loses their heads over a topic.

As to whether it will be easier for people to enter the Church, I think this will depend far more on what comes out of the two synods on the family than on who wins the “culture wars” in the U.S. My hope is that the synod will be able to articulate the Catholic teaching (which, of course, will not change) in such a way that it makes more sense to people and draws them in to the Catholic faith.

Interpreting the court decision as God rebuking conservative Christians is downright silly. That’s really nothing more than a rhetorical ploy to claim that “God is on our side”. But that sort of contradicts 2000 years of the interpretation of Scripture and Tradition. I don’t think that God is communicating any brand new revelation to us today through our secular courts. If it affirmed what was already taught, that would be a different story. But since public revelation is closed, sorry, no dice on that one.

 

[Mumbles140]

1. Now that gay marriage is legalized in over 30 US states, am I correct to say that the issue is now coming off the table, and that it will no longer be so angrily discussed in Catholic circles?
2. In turn, will that have the benefit of making it easier for more people to enter the Church, as it will no longer be a hot topic?
3. In most of these states, courts overruled the popular vote by overturning voted-on bans. Is this a sign that God, in his power, is rebuking conservative Christians for what could be misguidedness on their part?

1. I hope it isn’t discussed ‘angrily’, but rather ‘fervently, with all due charity afforded a human being.’
2. I think people are leaving the Church because of what the Church teaches regarding love, sexuality, reproduction, etc - it is not an easy path, especially in today’s world. Since the laws of a country don’t affect the Magisterium, the teachings will not change, and so those who do not accept the Teachings as Truth will continue to seek it elsewhere.
3. No, it is a sign that judges feel they are more competent at interpreting the Constitution than the population of a given state. Even Congress has rules that are struck down by the Supreme Court - does that mean we should abolish the Legislative Branch?

 

[signit]

1. Now that gay marriage is legalized in over 30 US states, am I correct to say that the issue is now coming off the table, and that it will no longer be so angrily discussed in Catholic circles?

It’ll still be opposed by Catholics.

But if it becomes settled law (as it is in some states) it won’t be a major factor in elections. You won’t have a significant push to vote for the anti-gay candidate instead of the pro-gay candidate, as you might conclude the anti-gay candidate won’t be able to do anything about it.

 

[mountee]

The specifics of your three questions have been answered by others better than I could have done. But, the issue about things being discussed angrily in Catholic circles is something I would like to tackle for a moment. In the past few years I have been involved in conversations with old friends who want the Catholic Church to change. These people do get quite angry as the conversations play out and generally they end up calling the Church and people who are faithful to it names like misogynistic and discriminatory, etc. I have no earthly idea how they can continue to attend Catholic Churches or call themselves Catholic because they truly are not anymore but when asked why they don’t just go somewhere else they always say things like I been Catholic forever and I like the people, if you are referring to these types of people who have angry conversations I just have to tell you that they do not represent the faithful Catholics who love the Church and its doctrines. The people who are angry are the people who want the world to change the Church and do not understand that the Church changes the world.

 

[AprilFoolish]

Last time I looked, US courts were trying to get God out of their jurisdictions, not acquiesce to God’s will!

I thought US Constitution kept church and state separate.

 

[Mumbles140]

I thought US Constitution kept church and state separate.

Not exactly true. The Constitution states that the government cannot establish a state religion, nor force government officials to hold certain religious beliefs. The phrase “a wall of separation between church and state” comes from President Jefferson’s letter to a very specific group regarding a very specific circumstances - the group being a Christian denomination writing about rumors that another denomination would be named the national religion.

 

[AprilFoolish]

Not exactly true. The Constitution states that the government cannot establish a state religion, nor force government officials to hold certain religious beliefs. The phrase “a wall of separation between church and state” comes from President Jefferson’s letter to a very specific group regarding a very specific circumstances - the group being a Christian denomination writing about rumors that another denomination would be named the national religion.

Do you think states should have a ‘national religion or God’. Would the USA for example ever have a president that did not believe in God. (or at least willing to admit it publicly?) Apologies that this is getting a bit off topic.

 

[Brendan]

1. Now that gay marriage is legalized in over 30 US states, am I correct to say that the issue is now coming off the table, and that it will no longer be so angrily discussed in Catholic circles?

What makes you say that? It still is against the Law of God. Some Catholics do not believe that, but it remains for the Church to instruct them otherwise.

1. In most of these states, courts overruled the popular vote by overturning voted-on bans. Is this a sign that God, in his power, is rebuking conservative Christians for what could be misguidedness on their part?

No more so that the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision was a Divine rebuke to the antebellum abolitionists.
.

 

[Mumbles140]

Do you think states should have a ‘national religion or God’. Would the USA for example ever have a president that did not believe in God. (or at least willing to admit it publicly?) Apologies that this is getting a bit off topic.

I don’t think a state should endorse a particular religion as the true religion of the state. Such is the case in England, where a Catholic cannot rule because the monarch is also the Head of the Church of England.

However, I do not think this must mean that all religion is to be stripped from public life.

As for an atheist President, I think a lot of past Presidents have had to ‘play up’ their Christianity to draw that vote, as Christianity is the religion of the majority of our population. I can tell you I’d be more apt to respect a candidate who was true about his lack of belief than one who feigned religion to receive more votes. That being said, I likely wouldn’t vote for someone who is atheist because his political opinions and choices would likely vary significantly from mine.

Also, my use of “his” above does not imply that I think only men should be in power - it’s just 1) Accurate for the historic comparison, and 2) Easier than the his/her usage. Although, after writing all of this out, I’ve probably cancelled out my efficiency…

 

[AprilFoolish]

However, I do not think this must mean that all religion is to be stripped from public life.

In the US, it does seem that that religion and believing in a God plays a significant part in politics and public life, in a way that is difficult to imagine in other countries in the West. In the UK, it would be hard to imagine a prime minister or politician wishing to be taken seriously, being overly religious in public.

 

[Catholic13]

Catholicism is not a democracy. I’m tired of gays and gay supporters trying to twist and change God’s laws. Just stop.

 

[AprilFoolish]

Catholicism is not a democracy. I’m tired of gays and gay supporters trying to twist and change God’s laws. Just stop.

Catholicism may not be a democracy, but many advanced countries are; and gay people have rights to equality, just as catholics have rights to freedom to believe in their Gods.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Catholicism may not be a democracy, but many advanced countries are; and gay people have rights to equality, just as catholics have rights to freedom to believe in their Gods.

If homosexuality were equal to heterosexuality then gay people should be rightfully treated equally under the law.

Their problem is…homosexuality and heterosexuality are not equal.

 

[Catholic13]

**but many advanced countries are; and gay people have rights to equality, just as catholics have rights to freedom to believe in their Gods. **

That has nothing to do with what I just said.

 

[epan]

If homosexuality were equal to heterosexuality then gay people should be rightfully treated equally under the law.

Their problem is…homosexuality and heterosexuality are not equal.

Actually, the legal argument is quite clear, and your assumption is incorrect (in terms of the law).

I would recommend that you read Judge Walker’s decision. It is one of the more brilliant elucidations of the legal issues, and the nature of equality under the law for gay people who wish to marry.

The gay marriage movement was started by the women’s rights movement, and was its logical consequence, as Judge Walker clearly delineates.

 

[AprilFoolish]

If homosexuality were equal to heterosexuality then gay people should be rightfully treated equally under the law.

Their problem is…homosexuality and heterosexuality are not equal.

Many countries have moved towards equal rights for homosexuals as they have done for race and gender.

Many countries still have a way to go. Religion can be a stumbling bock for some, but it is not insurmountable an issue. Religions progress just like the rest of society, albeit more slowly.