Prop 8 found to be unconstitutional...struck down!

[Suudy]

No, see you’re missing the HUGE point here. Children under the age of consent cannot enter into the legal contract that is marriage. That won’t change.

Of course 50 years ago the same was said of homosexuality (i.e. “That won’t change.”). The response is “Yet.” The point being is twofold:

1. Marriage is more than a contract. Contracts come and go everyday. But marriages coming and going has caused more harm to society than most other social ills, including alcohol and drug abuse (IMO).
2. The very same arguments used to justify gay “marriage” are equally valid for incestuous and polygamous marriages. Yet I’ve not seen a single gay “marriage” proponent suggest these should be made legal. If gay are allowed to “marry,” why not mothers and sons, brothers and sisters, a woman and four men?

Also, saying that something that disgusting, sickening, and EVIL would ever be accepted BECAUSE SAME SEX MARRIAGE WAS is just and I mean this nicely, idiotic. I am not saying that you are, just that argument is idiotic.

On what authority do you call something evil? If you appeal to the Church, you must accept her authority on gay “marriage” as well. If not the Church, then what?

 

[estesbob]

Interesting.

So if marriage is defined to be “A union that may be formed by any two willing human beings who are above the age of consent, not already married, not within a certain ‘genetic distance’ from one another, and of the opposite gender” I am denying equal protection to same sex individuals- but am I not denying that same protection to those who wish to marry those who are unwilling, below the age of consent, close relatives, or already married?

I am not making a slippery slope argument here- simply pointing out that if refusing to recognize a relationship as marriage is denying equal protection, then many other criteria are also discriminatory- in fact, ALL other criteria are also discriminatory.

With a same-sex marriage there is no need to require genetic distance. There is absolutely no reason that a father should not be allowed to marry his son ,a mother her daughter , two brothers or two sisters. I cannot see anything whatsoever in the ruling the judge gave that would also not justify the above relationships being enshrined in marriage. What the judge has done is give sexual behavior the same protected status as race, creed, gender and country of national origin. He has opened a Pandora’s box that hopefully the United States Supreme Court will shut

 

[xixxvmcm85]

The Church doesn’t say that same sex marriage would be invalid. It says that they would be impossible.

Wouldn’t the Church still deem a same-sex-marriage as invalid in the same way that she deems a baptism in Coke or a confirmation with peanut butter as invalid? Wouldn’t the fact that the individuals involved are not of complementary sex result in improper matter, which is one of the possible requirements for an invalid Sacrament?

 

[Adam1986]

Just to clarify: A marriage between agnostics, or between atheists, or even between Satanists, (assuming they are not Catholic) is recognized as valid by the Catholic Church.

A divorced atheist or agnostic or satanist, who sought to marry someone else in the Catholic Church, would need to have the prior marriage considered by a marriage tribunal to determine whether in fact, there was evidence that it was invalid from the outset. But the marriages would be presumed valid, not presumed invalid.

The Church doesn’t say that same sex marriage would be invalid. It says that they would be impossible.

The Church may recognize it as a marriage, but is not valid. If it were valid or good enough, then Catholics wouldn’t need to be married in the Church. Getting married in court of law by a judge would be not be considered invalid.

 

[estesbob]

This is a major victory for everyone who supports equal rights. I am so incredibly happy right now. We have won a major battle here.

I wouldn’t be too happy-you have had one homosexual judge say homosexuals have the right to get married. In doing so he overruled the specific wishes of 7 million Californians. You may call that equal rights-I called a travesty of justice and one that will surely be overturned when judges who are not homosexual review this based on the rule of law and not their sexual feelings.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

The Church may recognize it as a marriage, but is not valid. If it were valid or good enough, then Catholics wouldn’t need to be married in the Church. Getting married in court of law by a judge would be not be considered invalid.

No, sorry you’re wrong. Please see my previous post on it. The fact that the Church recognizes it makes it valid by very definition.

I have an anecdote that explains it:

There’s a man in our Parish wishing to convert. He’s never been Catholic. He was once married to another non-Catholic, obviously outside of a Catholic Church. Given the presumption the Church works on when understanding the validity of marriages between non-Catholics in non-Catholic environments, he is still not allowed to marry anyone else, even though he and his wife legally divorced prior to his conversion. This wouldn’t be the case if the Church didn’t recognize his non-Catholic marriage as valid.

The reason why valid Catholic marriages must be performed within a church by a priest is because Catholics are bound by Canon Law.

 

[Corki]

The Church may recognize it as a marriage, but is not valid. If it were valid or good enough, then Catholics wouldn’t need to be married in the Church. Getting married in court of law by a judge would be not be considered invalid.

Wrong. The Church recognized the marriage of any two non-Catholics as valid, even if it is a JP wedding. If they are Baptized, it is a valic Sacramental marriage. If they are not, it is a valid natural marriage. It is only a requirment to be married in the Church if one of the couple is Catholic.

 

[JimG]

Wouldn’t the Church still deem a same-sex-marriage as invalid in the same way that she deems a baptism in Coke or a confirmation with peanut butter as invalid? Wouldn’t the fact that the individuals involved are not of complementary sex result in improper matter, which is one of the possible requirements for an invalid Sacrament?

Well sure, it would be de facto invalid by reason of invalid matter, just as an attempted ordination of a woman be invalid because of lack of proper matter. Both situations are impossibilities.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I wouldn’t be too happy-you have had one homosexual judge say homosexuals have the right to get married. In doing so he overruled the specific wishes of 7 million Californians. You may call that equal rights-I called a travesty of justice and one that will surely be overturned when judges who are not homosexual review this based on the rule of law and not their sexual feelings.

By what evidence do you conclude that Judge Walker ruled due to his sexual orientation? Or is this nothing more than a cheap shot at the man’s character?

 

[Adam1986]

I agree. Arguing to a slippery slope or appealing to the untold dangers of Pandora’s Box is a pretty poor debate strategy.

But I humbly think that your argument that refusing the legal recognition of your marriage some how means the law views you as less than human, is equally lacking. Could you expound upon this a bit?

Yes.

I have in the last page or on this one explained it more fully, but I will give you a simple question to ponder;

If at some point because you were Catholic and just because you were Catholic; you were denied the right to be married. And you were only allowed it to be called a civil union; wouldn’t you feel that the law views YOU as less than human.

If EVERYBODY else can get married, straight, gay, white, black, Jewish, Muslim, Agnostic, Protestant, Baptists, whatever. They can all get MARRIED and you CAN’T. Now you get the same benefits but for you it is called a civil union.

Wouldn’t you feel a little bit like the law deems you as less then human??

 

[estesbob]

I wouldn’t want to be a Democrat officeholder at any level after today.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I wouldn’t want to be a Democrat officeholder at any level after today.

Seriously! Prior to today the GOP only had fiscal issues to sway voters for the upcoming Mid-Terms. Now they can call on their trusted social-voters who normally wouldn’t come out to vote.

 

[Corki]

I’m not sure exactly what the process is, but for someone to be excommunicated it takes A LOT MORE than a PERSONAL feeling. And you can ask anyone else on here who is more knowledgeable in this manner. Being excommunicated is a HUGE deal and is not taken lightly. For anyone to be truly excommunicated, they need to be informed in writing from I think the Pope, though it might be through a council of bishops. Not really sure on this manner. I’m sure someone else can shed more light and correct any mistakes.

Again, wrong. The Pope hardly ever pronounces on excommuniations. Bishops councils aren’t involved in excommunications at all. Occasionally, a Bishop will pronounce on an excommunication. But most excommunications, these days, are automatic (latae sententiae). No written document is required or expected.

You are correct that separation from the Church requires more than personal feeling. However, publicallly advocating a position that is clearly against Church teaching is a lot more than “personal feeling”. Depending on the subject matter, it’s either dissent, heresy or apostasy. (the latter two are excommunicable)

 

[JimG]

The Church may recognize it as a marriage, but is not valid. If it were valid or good enough, then Catholics wouldn’t need to be married in the Church. Getting married in court of law by a judge would be not be considered invalid.

A marriage between two baptized protestants married in a non-Catholic ceremony would be considered not only valid, but sacramental–by reason of the baptismal seal. Two non-Christians married in a civil ceremony would also be considered valid. Non-Catholics are not subject to Catholic marriage law. If they later divorced and sought to be married in the Church, the prior non-sacramental marriage would need to be investigated for validity. If found to be properly contracted, their marriage would be considered valid and permanent; they could not enter into a second marriage

 

[FreeAmerican]

You can prove this, right?

Have you seen any gay couples on Divorce Court?
Do you know how Ellen Degeneres is doing with her married partner?

I knew a family of 8 siblings that were married and one of them was gay and was married to this same sex partner. As years went by there were many divorces among the siblings and the only that held its own was the gay marriage.

Does that prove my point?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Yes.

I have in the last page or on this one explained it more fully, but I will give you a simple question to ponder;

If at some point because you were Catholic and just because you were Catholic; you were denied the right to be married. And you were only allowed it to be called a civil union; wouldn’t you feel that the law views YOU as less than human.

If EVERYBODY else can get married, straight, gay, white, black, Jewish, Muslim, Agnostic, Protestant, Baptists, whatever. They can all get MARRIED and you CAN’T. Now you get the same benefits but for you it is called a civil union.

Wouldn’t you feel a little bit like the law deems you as less then human??

Well, yes, if my understanding of marriage were the same as the law’s, which it isn’t. And I admit that we Catholics (and all other advocates of traditional marriage) are in a bit of a sticky mess which is why I think the best compromise we could get is seeing legal marriage abolished in the US.

I was under the impression that you were arguing for Sacramental same-sex-marriage, so pardon the mix up.

 

[Corki]

Well sure, it would be de facto invalid by reason of invalid matter, just as an attempted ordination of a woman be invalid because of lack of proper matter. Both situations are impossibilities.

In other words “impossible” is always “invalid” but not all “invalids” are “impossible”. In the case of same-sex marriage or women’s ordingation, an attempt would be both invalid and impossible.

 

[Adam1986]

Have you seen any gay couples on Divorce Court?
Do you know how Ellen Degeneres is doing with her married partner?

I knew a family of 8 siblings that were married and one of them was gay and was married to this same sex partner. As years went by there were many divorces among the siblings and the only that held its own was the gay marriage.

Does that prove my point?

That is the truth when gay people do find their soul mate, they do stay together more often then straight people do. In a lot of ways more same sex marriages are more based on love then their straight counter parts.

NOW I AM NOT SAYING ANYONE ON HERE, OR EVEN MOST CATHOLICS IN GENERAL.

But there is a higher ratio of people marrying for money, power, etc in the straight community. Almost all same sex marriages are based on true love.

 

[JimG]

In other words “impossible” is always “invalid” but not all “invalids” are “impossible”. In the case of same-sex marriage or women’s ordingation, an attempt would be both invalid and impossible.

Yes, invalidity would be a foregone conclusion. It would be as if I had a minister witness my marriage to my car, and pronounce us married. Impossible therefore not valid.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

please explain to me how gay marriage is something the framers of the constitution intended with the constitution to be legalized in the future? the constitution says nothing about gay marriage–contraception wasn’t legalized until at least 1920s.

this proves beyond a doubt that we live in chaos where reason and truth are turned upside down.

this is judge is a DIRTY RAT!!! i’m sure someone here is offended by my post. go ahead and complain.