Oregon voids gay marriages

[fix]

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

I see no point in going around and around on this.

I agree.

Richardols:

As a lawyer, I’m always very careful to read all the definitions and to careful read what a law is providing.

It doesn’t matter what the law is providing if it recognizes a union between 2 people of the same sex.

Richardols:

I’m not saying that a particular state’s laws won’t be contrary to what the Church insists upon. They well may be. I’d have to read the fine print.

As a lawyer and a Democrat, you are looking for loopholes that would justify some type of legal recognition of a union between 2 people of the same sex when the Church clearly says that there cannot be any justification for ANY legal recognition. God doesn’t use fine print. People do. God used BIG BOLD print. People try to find loopholes. This is your choice. You can follow the BIG BOLD print of God or you can try to find loopholes.

Richardols:

I think that the bishops in a particular state would do the same.

Yes. Some probably would. Especially the homosexual ones, and the homosexual sympathizers. Doesn’t make it right by God.

Richardols:

I’ll reserve judgment until I read the Bill being proposed.

That’s great. God’s already made His judgement. I’ll stick with Him.

 

[Brad]

fix:

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

I posted that link but apparently Richardols knows more than the writers of the document.

 

[Richardols]

Brad:

As a lawyer and a Democrat, you are looking for loopholes that would justify some type of legal recognition of a union between 2 people of the same sex when the Church clearly says that there cannot be any justification for ANY legal recognition.

No, as as lawyer and a Democrat, I oppose homosexual marriages. (Just as my very liberal and pro-choice Democratic Congressman Vic Snyder does).

No one has to go around and around on what marriage is. Offering marriage to homosexuals is wrong. Period.

I just don’t know what “civil union” means in a particular context. Does it mean just-short-of-marriage or does it mean allowing survivorship benefits and such? That’s why reading a proposed bill is so important - for Catholics and non-Catholics.

 

[fix]

Brad:

I posted that link but apparently Richardols knows more than the writers of the document.

Let us be more clear:

Where the government’s policy is* de facto*

tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

 

[Richardols]

"…reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality…"

That’s the Golden Line I believe has to be addressed in particular situations. What are the limits? What is being offered? E.g., is the granting of survivorship rights approval of evil? Is the state’s civil union tantamount to marriage?

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

No, as as lawyer and a Democrat, I oppose homosexual marriages. (Just as my very liberal and pro-choice Democratic Congressman Vic Snyder does).

No one has to go around and around on what marriage is. Offering marriage to homosexuals is wrong. Period.

I just don’t know what “civil union” means in a particular context. Does it mean just-short-of-marriage or does it mean allowing survivorship benefits and such? That’s why reading a proposed bill is so important - for Catholics and non-Catholics.

Allowing survivor benefits from one homosexual partner to another is a legal recognition of a homosexual union which is to be opposed according to the document. This is not complicated.

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

That’s the Golden Line I believe has to be addressed in particular situations. What are the limits? What is being offered? E.g., is the granting of survivorship rights approval of evil? Is the state’s civil union tantamount to marriage?

Per the document, the limits are drawn at ANY legal recognition of unions. The phenomenom (homosexuality, which acts thereof are mortal sin) must be contained and not expanded by legally recognizing a union in ANY way, shape, or form. You are looking for acceptable legal recognition in some form. The document says NO. Period.

 

[Richardols]

Brad:

Per the document, the limits are drawn at ANY legal recognition of unions. The phenomenom (homosexuality, which acts thereof are mortal sin) must be contained and not expanded by legally recognizing a union in ANY way, shape, or form. You are looking for acceptable legal recognition in some form. The document says NO. Period.

As neither you nor I are Canon Lawyers and therefore competent in this area, I will just say that you are entitled to your opinion and I to mine.

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

As neither you nor I are Canon Lawyers and therefore competent in this area, I will just say that you are entitled to your opinion and I to mine.

I’m willing to end the discussion but it’s not my opinion. The document is clear. The Church has spoken. It doesn’t take a Canon lawyer.

 

[fix]

discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve:*** unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions;*** reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon.

 

[Brad]

fix:

discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve:*** unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions;*** reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon.

Unmasking indeed.

 

[Richardols]

Brad:

The document is clear. The Church has spoken. It doesn’t take a Canon lawyer.

Sez you. Fine.

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

Sez you. Fine.

:tsktsk:

 

[Fiat]

Richardols:

It said “legal recognition of homosexual unions.” It did not say “all unions.” I would have to see the Church’s definition of a homosexual union and compare it with what some state might be offering in a civil union before I could determine whether the two are incompatible.

One’s state’s civil union might be acceptable, another’s might not. One would have to examine any proposed bill IMO, and the local bishop’s office would also, I presume, do the same before passing judgment.

How exactly might one state’s civil union be acceptable and another’s might not? Are you trying to suggest that the Catholic Church opposes homosexual civil unions based on the number of civil rights that may or may not be granted? Give us a break!

 

[Lisa_N]

FWIW our “Catholic” governor is trying to shove a civil union bill through the legislature. It’s not so much the civil union that disturbs me but attached to the bill are all kinds of favoritism to homosexuals. Civil Union will appear as the FIRST choice with marrige being defined as a form of civil union in effect. Plus they are calling homosexuals a ‘minority group’ thus they are eligible for all kinds of special protection. The bill even suggests that the STATE take the lead in providing favoritism in employment etc for homosexuals as a protected group.

I realize that they are simply asking for the moon and seeing what they get. But the idea that a BEHAVIOR turns someone into a ‘minority group’ is really quite frightening. It just shows how deeply this perversion has infiltrated our mindset, particularly in this wierdo state. I just do not understand this at all.

Lisa N

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I was waiting for this day to come, but I was expecting the negative results to come about. Those guys arent going to stop until they get their way. The fact that Oregon put a pie in their face with measure 36 isnt stopping them, I am sure that one day we are going to wake up and find that they passed something along the lines of civil unions.

 

[Richardols]

Fiat:

How exactly might one state’s civil union be acceptable and another’s might not? Are you trying to suggest that the Catholic Church opposes homosexual civil unions based on the number of civil rights that may or may not be granted?

No, that’s not what I said. Re-read my posts.

I would wonder, however, how we might oppose a civil union law that is civilly constitutional even as it might be contrary to the Church’s position, and therefore one we must reject.

For example, the Church forbids us to use contraceptives. How would one try to repeal state laws allowing the sale of contraceptives, given that the laws are both constitutional and accepted by most non-Catholics? We certainly can’t call on Canon Law in the American courts.

The same with civil unions. If we are to oppose it based on our adherence to Church directives, how are we to oppose it in the civil arena where civil unions may be constitutional and accepted by the majority of voters?

I believe that you are also a lawyer, fiat. Any thoughts on this dilemma?

 

[Fiat]

Richardols:

No, that’s not what I said. Re-read my posts.

I would wonder, however, how we might oppose a civil union law that is civilly constitutional even as it might be contrary to the Church’s position, and therefore one we must reject.

For example, the Church forbids us to use contraceptives. How would one try to repeal state laws allowing the sale of contraceptives, given that the laws are both constitutional and accepted by most non-Catholics? We certainly can’t call on Canon Law in the American courts.

The same with civil unions. If we are to oppose it based on our adherence to Church directives, how are we to oppose it in the civil arena where civil unions may be constitutional and accepted by the majority of voters?

I believe that you are also a lawyer, fiat. Any thoughts on this dilemma?

A couple items. First, I suggest you reread my post. I never accused you of saying anything. You will notice that I asked you whether you were suggesting something. (Hence the question mark “?” at the end of my sentences.)

Secondly, you asked “how are we to oppose it in the civil arena where civil unions may be constitutional and accepted by the majority of voters?”

Well, Richardols, in the United States, we have what’s called a Bill of Rights, and the Bill of Rights gives us ways in which we can express our opinions, assemble, etc. We can vote people in and out of office. We can publish newspapers. We can protest. Etc. The law gives us any number of ways we can express our opposition to laws that are constitutional. Perhaps you’ve heard of the pro-life movement?

 

[Richardols]

Fiat:

Well, Richardols, in the United States, we have what’s called a Bill of Rights, and the Bill of Rights gives us ways in which we can express our opinions, assemble, etc. We can vote people in and out of office. We can publish newspapers. We can protest. Etc. The law gives us any number of ways we can express our opposition to laws that are constitutional.

These are obvious, and you are correct. I was, however, considering the civil union situation specifically, and I was referring to the situation at the present time, before the laws are passed. Arguments from Church doctrine work with you and me, but it may mean nothing to many non-Catholics.

Perhaps you’ve heard of the pro-life movement?

Sure, I’m part of it. But, we’ve been working against the abortion laws for three decades now, and there’s little shift in our direction. And that is a subject where one can give non-Catholics solid secular arguments against abortion.

I don’t want to wait decades for a repeal of homosexual marriage or even civil union laws. And secular arguments, as such there are, would not have the weight that secular anti-abortion arguments have.

I’m hoping some might have some arguments for opposing civil union laws on other than theological grounds.