Prop. 8: Gay-marriage ban unconstitutional, court rules

[rlg94086]

Again, some of the couples have been together longer than I’ve been alive, and a marriage license from the courthouse threatens the rest of us…how?

As it stands now if this came to a ballot in my state my conscience would force me to vote yes to recognizing civil unions, and I have a few reasons for it impelling my conscience (i.e. state sanctioned discrimination is wrong), has the Church provided a definitive argument against the issue of same-sex civil unions (not marriage)? If so I would like to see it.

I am not rigid in my ways, my thinking on abortion has changed much more to that of the Church as it was able to be presented in a logical and orderly fashion and there is a clear moral impetus behind it…with this…I really just don’t see it falling under the moral umbrella of the church…as wide as that may be, in a separation of church and state nation like ours.

I’m glad your heart is not hardened. Here is the latest explanation from the USCCB:
usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/promotion-and-defense-of-marriage/questions-and-answers-on-marriage-and-religious-freedom-letter-jan-12-2012.cfm

1. Why does the redefinition of marriage pose a serious threat to religious freedom?

Marriage is fundamental to a just and flourishing society. As the union of one man and one woman, it is the foundation of the family, which is the first and vital cell of society (see Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 211 and Catechism, no. 2207). When marriages suffer, society suffers, as has been seen especially through the effects of divorce and fatherlessness on men, women and children. The legal redefinition of marriage poses a multi-faceted threat to the common good, and one facet is the threat to religious freedom. In general, the legal redefinition of marriage threatens religious liberty by forcing religious individuals and groups that adhere to the authentic definition of marriage to provide same-sex sexual relationships the same special treatment legally due to actual marriages.When those religious groups resist, the result would be various forms of government sanction, ranging from court orders compelling action against conscience, to awards of money damages and other financial penalties, to marginalization in public life. And because the legal redefinition changes not one law but hundreds at once, the full range of consequences for religious liberty will be widespread and difficult if not impossible to anticipate.

1. Let’s say religious freedom could be fully or mostly protected by an exemption … would that then justify the redefinition of marriage?

In legislation to redefine marriage (including legislation for civil unions, domestic partnerships, and similar arrangements), language is sometimes inserted which claims to protect religious institutions and/or individuals from government coercion or pressure to act against their consciences. This language is commonly called a religious exemption. In practice, such exemptions either address genuine concerns but do so inadequately, or address “red herring” concerns that are unlikely ever to arise. However, no religious exemption—no matter how broadly worded—can justify a supportive or neutral position on legislation to redefine legal marriage. Such “redefinition” is always fundamentally unjust, and indeed, religious exemptions may even facilitate the passage of such unjust laws. Protecting marriage protects religious liberty; the two are inseparable.

1. What about civil rights? Isn’t the debate today over marriage a civil rights issue?

Respecting everyone’s civil rights is unmistakably important. And yes, today’s debate over marriage’s definition does implicate civil rights, but not those that commonly come to mind. First, children’s civil rights are at stake. Children have a basic human right to be welcomed and raised by both their mother and father together in a loving home. The proposal to redefine marriage ignores that basic human and civil right and not only encourages and privileges fatherless and motherless situations, but also teaches that fathers and mothers are dispensable.

Furthermore, the right to marry, which itself is a civil right, is the right to enter into a very particular kind of relationship having distinct characteristics that serve important social purposes; the “right to marry” is not the right to enter a relationship that is not a marriage, and then to force others by law to treat that relationship as if it were a marriage. Advocates for so-called same-sex “marriage” ignore this distinction. Far from serving the cause of civil rights, redefining marriage would also threaten the civil right of religious freedom: it would compel everyone—even those opposed in conscience to same-sex sexual conduct—to treat same-sex relationships as if they represented the same moral good as marital relationships.

 

[hazmat]

Apples and oranges. We are all created equal…male and female, we were created. Race has nothing to do with it.

not really. itll be easier for you to see the parallels in a decade or so, when gay marriage is legal in every state.

 

[Befink]

Both documents make the assumptions that we are compromising the family and the children by allowing parents to be same sex couples. There no evidence at all supporting claims that children or families are worse off in this scenario. By this logic the Church would be arguing to make it illegal for divorced straight parents to raise children since children are actually worse off in a broken home. Easy for judges to see religions have no logical arguments supporting their case.

Agree that there would be some heat on religious institutions to marry gays. Can’t see laws being passed though to make us change our practices. We now have the right to chose with whom we perform the sacrament of marriage. We can require a man and woman, both regularly practicing Catholics (or special permission when one is not). We can make them do retreats. We can make them promise to raise their children in the Catholic faith. Clearly we are allowed to have our own rules which differ from the rest of society.

Ten years to nationwide marriage equality? I’d bet more on two!

My son who will have been raised Catholic will one day ask why our church was/is against this basic human right.

 

[rlg94086]

not really. itll be easier for you to see the parallels in a decade or so, when gay marriage is legal in every state.

Sexual preference and same sex relationships will never be equivalent to race. It is a complete red herring, and its an insult to those who have been racially discriminated against to compare sexual deviance to race.

 

[rlg94086]

Both documents make the assumptions that we are compromising the family and the children by allowing parents to be same sex couples. There no evidence at all supporting claims that children or families are worse off in this scenario. By this logic the Church would be arguing to make it illegal for divorced straight parents to raise children since children are actually worse off in a broken home. Easy for judges to see religions have no logical arguments supporting their case.

Agree that there would be some heat on religious institutions to marry gays. Can’t see laws being passed though to make us change our practices. We now have the right to chose with whom we perform the sacrament of marriage. We can require a man and woman, both regularly practicing Catholics (or special permission when one is not). We can make them do retreats. We can make them promise to raise their children in the Catholic faith. Clearly we are allowed to have our own rules which differ from the rest of society.

Ten years to nationwide marriage equality? I’d bet more on two!

My son who will have been raised Catholic will one day ask why our church was/is against this basic human right.

Not if your son is a faithful Catholic. It’s been decades since abortion was legalized, and faithful Catholics still stand with the Church. Only heretics and cafeteria Catholics oppose Church teaching on these matters.

 

[hazmat]

interracial sex was considered deviant too. still is by some…

 

[rlg94086]

interracial sex was considered deviant too. still is by some…

Again, there is no comparison. Quit embarrassing yourself.

 

[bellasbane]

Again, there is no comparison. Quit embarrassing yourself.

If there is no comparison, then what was the basis for laws forbidding interracial marriage? Where they based on moral, legal or “scientific” reasoning? You say there is no comparison. I disagree.

 

[bellasbane]

It took less time to find than I thought! According to Wikipedia - this is the reasoning behind Anti-miscegenation laws (i.e., laws that enforced racial segregation at the level of marriage and intimate relationships by criminalizing interracial marriage and sometimes also sex between members of different races.)

“The evil tendency of the crime [of adultery or fornication] is greater when committed between persons of the two races … Its result may be the amalgamation of the two races, producing a mongrel population and a degraded civilization, the prevention of which is dictated by a sound policy affecting the highest interests of society and government.” (Pace & Cox v. State, 69 Ala 231, 233 (1882)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pace_v._Alabama
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_statute

Sounds like a moral/scientific argument to me.

 

[rlg94086]

If there is no comparison, then what was the basis for laws forbidding interracial marriage? Where they based on moral, legal or “scientific” reasoning? You say there is no comparison. I disagree.

It took less time to find than I thought! According to Wikipedia - this is the reasoning behind Anti-miscegenation laws (i.e., laws that enforced racial segregation at the level of marriage and intimate relationships by criminalizing interracial marriage and sometimes also sex between members of different races.)

“The evil tendency of the crime [of adultery or fornication] is greater when committed between persons of the two races … Its result may be the amalgamation of the two races, producing a mongrel population and a degraded civilization, the prevention of which is dictated by a sound policy affecting the highest interests of society and government.” (Pace & Cox v. State, 69 Ala 231, 233 (1882)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pace_v._Alabama
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_statute

Sounds like a moral/scientific argument to me.

1. Find where the Catholic Church held that position.
2. While I find the argument cited repugnant, it still has no comparison to same sex relationships. The latter have no ability to procreate, so there is no danger of a “mongrel population.” The argument is not the same. You are insulting interracial couples by comparing them to same-sex relationships.

I never said that moral/scientific arguments were never made about interracial marriage. They were just poor arguments with no solid basis morally or scientifically.

 

[Publisher]

Apples and oranges. We are all created equal…male and female, we were created. Race has nothing to do with it.

There ARE similarities.

At one time it was against the law for people of different races to marry.

Same sex marriage is not yet the law of the land

At one time religious/biblical reasons among conservative believers were cited to disqualify inter-racial marriages as “natural”.

At this time religious/biblical reasons among conservative belvievers are cited to disqualify same sex couples from being married as “natural”

At one time it was suggested that the children of inter-racial marriages would some how suffer due to their parentage.

At this time it is suggested that the children of same-sex couples suffer due to the parents sexuality.

The same reasoning of God’s disapproval was/is used.

At one time inter-racial couples were discriminated against, refused housing, employment and social acceptance

At this time same sex couples face discrimination, have been refused housing and lodging and have been denied employment.

While race and sexuality ARE different…the reasoning AND statements between inter-racial marriage and same sex marriage IS similar or THE SAME.

Both sub groups were/are denied marriage rights for MORAL/RELIGIOUS reasons…often FOR THE IDENTICAL SET OF REASONS provided by conservative religious believers. THIS is the similarity.

I’m sure we can find additional similarities that justified the discrimination of inter-racial couples that ARE NOW APPLIED to same sex couples.

 

[mathematoons]

What’s really interesting is your comment about conscience. I feel the same way that I can’t go along with the Church’s teaching in this case because it’s not right in my heart. Luckily that is very rare.

A Catholic’s conscience needs to be formed by Church teaching. “The heart is deceitful above all things.” (Jeremiah 17:9)

Everything that is right about the church comes down to love as is true always in the world. The teachings are designed to help us love God as well as our neighbors and ourselves. Usually the church can do an excellent job explaining why the teachings are what they are, not just in religious terms but in secular terms.

This isn’t a hard-and-fast rule and should not be treated as such. There are things we would not know if God had not revealed them to us. This includes all the Trinitarian theology and all the sacraments.

When you can’t believe a teaching, you have to trust the Church anyway.

Also, from looking at your posts on this thread, it sounds like you’ve heard all the secular arguments and disagree. In that case, something is making it difficult for you to accept them.

In this case, they just can’t show why being against marriage equality is the right path to love. I don’t feel closer to Jesus by denying other human beings the same rights I have in marriage.

It’s not about homosexuals having marriage rights or not. It’s about the question of whether a same-sex couple can be married at all. They can have a legal partnership, but is that a marriage?

Let me put it this way: A triangle, by definition, has 3 sides. You can try to make a 4-sided triangle, but once it has 4 sides, it’s not a triangle. Calling it a quadrilateral instead of a triangle is not discrimination, it’s the truth.

Luckily the church effectively welcomes all worshipers (except gays themselves) regardless of where they are in their spirituality.

Of course. The Church is a hospital for sinners.

On CAF there are many who will spend way too much of their lives trying to convince everyone that their ways are the only ways. They don’t represent the majority of Catholics who in fact support gay marriage.

The majority of Catholics at one time supported the Arian heresy (that Jesus is a lesser being than God, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses today say). That doesn’t make it true. Even if you are in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth, as Gandhi said.

It will be interesting to watch marriage equality unfold in our society. Eventually the Church will probably have to revisit their view on it as they’ve done throughout history on issues.

The teachings on marriage are part of the deposit of faith that can never be changed. The Church can never allow certain things, like contraception, sodomy (or the hating of sodomites, for that matter), abortion, and women priests.

Homosexuality is not about who a person is, it’s about what he does. If a person has SSA but is celibate, we have no problem.

Also, it’s not just “the Church” that says these things, it’s God. If God personally appeared to you and told you that supporting same-sex “marriage” is wrong, would you believe Him? Well, guess what: God has spoken to all of us through the Bible and the Church; a Catholic, by definition, believes this. Since He is God, we have to believe whatever He tells us. We can’t just believe what we like and not believe what we don’t like. Otherwise, we’re claiming to know more than Him.

 

[rlg94086]

There ARE similarities.

At one time it was against the law for people of different races to marry.

Same sex marriage is not yet the law of the land

At one time religious/biblical reasons among conservative believers were cited to disqualify inter-racial marriages as “natural”.

At this time religious/biblical reasons among conservative belvievers are cited to disqualify same sex couples from being married as “natural”

At one time it was suggested that the children of inter-racial marriages would some how suffer due to their parentage.

At this time it is suggested that the children of same-sex couples suffer due to the parents sexuality.

The same reasoning of God’s disapproval was/is used.

At one time inter-racial couples were discriminated against, refused housing, employment and social acceptance

At this time same sex couples face discrimination, have been refused housing and lodging and have been denied employment.

While race and sexuality ARE different…the reasoning AND statements between inter-racial marriage and same sex marriage IS similar or THE SAME.

Both sub groups were/are denied marriage rights for MORAL/RELIGIOUS reasons…often FOR THE IDENTICAL SET OF REASONS provided by conservative religious believers. THIS is the similarity.

I’m sure we can find additional similarities that justified the discrimination of inter-racial couples that ARE NOW APPLIED to same sex couples.

The arguments are not at all similar. Same-sex couples can’t reproduce - Biology 101.

 

[Publisher]

The arguments are not at all similar. Same-sex couples can’t reproduce - Biology 101.

Race and sexuality IS NOT BEING equated…the REASONS for denying inter-racial couples marriage and same sex couples marriage are similar if not THE SAME. The struggle of marriage equality between the sub groups face the same difficulties in society,are you saying the difficulties and discrimination is not similar?

While same sex couples cannot reproduce…they can bring children into the relationship and the REASONS of why same sex marriage AND inter-racial marriage is harmful to the children rasied in same sex marriages or inter-racial marriages was/is used.

Simple question…inter-racial marriage was once deemed “unnatural” and against the will of God. Same sex marriage is deemed “unatural” and against the will of God…are not these two reasons the same? The SAME words are used…both were/are discriminated against in relation to housing and employment…both being denied housing due to the circumstance they find themselves DUE TO THE RELATIONSHIP they hold are the same.

Perhaps someone more articulate than I could speak to additional similarities that the two sub-groups of adults faced/face?

 

[rlg94086]

Race and sexuality IS NOT BEING equated…the REASONS for denying inter-racial couples marriage and same sex couples marriage are similar if not THE SAME. The struggle of marriage equality between the sub groups face the same difficulties in society.

While same sex couples cannot reproduce…they can bring children into the relationship and the REASONS of why same sex marriage AND inter-racial marriage is harmful to the children rasied in same sex marriages or inter-racial marriages was/is used.

The Catholic Church fought for the right of interracial couples to marry, so there are not even similarities. The family consists of a father, mother and children, so those who argued that interracial marriage was harmful to children had no sound basis. Their argument was immoral.

Depriving children of a father or mother based on a false understanding of equality is immoral. “Gay marriage” advocates are on the side of immorality, in this case. Gay couples are not a sub-group being denied marriage. They are incapable of marriage.

 

[Publisher]

The Catholic Church fought for the right of interracial couples to marry, so there are not even similarities. The family consists of a father, mother and children, so those who argued that interracial marriage was harmful to children had no sound basis. Their argument was immoral.

Depriving children of a father or mother based on a false understanding of equality is immoral. “Gay marriage” advocates are on the side of immorality, in this case. Gay couples are not a sub-group being denied marriage. They are incapable of marriage.

No one is denying the struggle the Catholic church made on behalf of inter-racial couples…my religious community is engaged in SIMILAR struggles on behalf of same sex couples as the Catholic church made on behalf of inter-racial couples…another similarity…religious organizations were/are engaged in the struggle of marriage equaltity for each of the sub-groups.

Neither sub-group is incapable of marriage AS DEFINED by secular law…not religious beliefs.

 

[JimG]

The arguments are not at all similar. Same-sex couples can’t reproduce - Biology 101.

It’s not simply that same sex couples cannot reproduce. Same sex couples can not engage in marital relations.
Marital relations require sexual complementarity, not sameness. Any relationship between same sex couples is by biolgical necessity not a marital relationship. If there can be no marital relationship, there can be no marriage. This is been the case for about the last 10,000 years, at least since human societies came into existence. The law has no power to change it.

 

[rlg94086]

No one is denying the struggle the Catholic church made on behalf of inter-racial couples…my religious community is engaged in SIMILAR struggles on behalf of same sex couples as the Catholic church made on behalf of inter-racial couples…another similarity…religious organizations were/are engaged in the struggle of marriage equaltity for each of the sub-groups.

Neither sub-group is incapable of marriage AS DEFINED by secular law…not religious beliefs.

Your religious community is on the side of immorality, in this case. It isn’t a matter of inequality because same-sex couples are incapable of marriage. We are a pluralistic society, not a secular one. I will vote based on my religious beliefs and convictions. You and the rest of the secularists will not silence Christ’s Church.

 

[Publisher]

It’s not simply that same sex couples cannot reproduce. Same sex couples can not engage in marital relations.
Marital relations require sexual complementarity, not sameness. Any relationship between same sex couples is by biolgical necessity not a marital relationship. If there can be no marital relationship, there can be no marriage. This is been the case for about the last 10,000 years, at least since human societies came into existence. The law has no power to change it.

Seuxual expression between consenting adults IS a reality…again seeking to impose ones religious definitions on a secular institution as defined by secular law and definition isn’t the issue…both homsexual couples and heterosexual couples can engage in sexual experiences with one another…the “bits” don’t have to be different for sexual relations to occur.

 

[Publisher]

Your religious community is on the side of immorality, in this case. It isn’t a matter of inequality because same-sex couples are incapable of marriage. We are a pluralistic society, not a secular one. I will vote based on my religious beliefs and convictions. You and the rest of the secularists will not silence Christ’s Church.

They are not incapable of “marriage” as defined by secular law…nor are they incapable of “marriage” based on the religious beliefs of my faith community…perhaps by those definitions which your religous community puts forth…but not mine…I have signed the marriage certificate for those who were “married under the care of the meeting”…married in the same way using the same words as I used when I was married “under the care of the meeting”.