Question about Gay Marriage

[randomguy0187]

Hi all,
I’m from CA, where we barely got Proposition 8 (restoring the true definition of marriage) passed

Here’s where I’m in a bind: many of my friends, who are Catholic (or at least refer to themselves as such) voted against Prop 8 and are very unhappy with the results. For example, one of my friends writes as her status on Facebook, “[name of person] knows Jesus would never deny a human right & people that use the Bible to say yes on Prop 8 show their ignorance and uncompassionate heart for human rights.”

So, I’m working on ways to present what the Church teaches about marriage and homosexuality (and gay “marriage”). The primary argument against Prop 8 frames marriage as an equality and civil rights issue.

Here’s my question though: is marriage definable as a “human right”? I’m struggling to come up with a definite answer from a Catholic perspective. Also, if anyone has any general ideas for ways to explain TRUE Catholic teaching in this regard, I’d appreciate it.

 

[PeteVZ]

No, Marriage is not a right. Marriage is a sacrament. A gift from God to help us come in closer union to him. Since same-sex couples cannot come closer to God through any type of union with each other, they could never obtain a valid Marriage.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

No, Marriage is not a right. Marriage is a sacrament. A gift from God to help us come in closer union to him. Since same-sex couples cannot come closer to God through any type of union with each other, they could never obtain a valid Marriage.

Peter, I think you need to be slightly more nuanced here. No–marriage is not a right. Yes–marriage is a sacrament. But–what else is marriage? In the eyes of a state, it is a contractual agreement.

No, the state has no right to govern sacraments, but yes, a state has every right to oversee contracts.

What is often forgotten is that the contractual view of marriage is the most ancient, culturally. It had more to do with building alliances, controlling wealth, property, territory, etc. The degree to which marriages were contracted and dissolved for political purposes throughout history is testament to this fundamental fact of marriage. With the advent of the courtly love tradition and the invention of romance, the prospect of a loving relationship actually occurring within a marriage became a possibility and ultimately an expectation (see, for instance, the legends and writings of the times–Tristan and Isolde is a good example: love is for relationships outside marriage, and love is dangerous because it can lead you to break the marriage contract). With the expectation of romantic love (and not merely usefulness) in marriage, the cultural understanding of it began to shift–marriage, the sacrament, came to be seen as the crowning ritual act of a loving relationship, not merely the church’s stamp of approval.

With this shift in the understanding of marriage, other people in loving relationships desired to have their relationships crowned by the sacrament–a desire which would not have occurred to our ancestors–love itself was never the sole reason to get married. Now, more often than not, it is.

However, the state, in the midst of all this, never stopped governing contracts. Marriage, in the eyes of the state, remained a contract. The state has nothing to do with love, nothing to do with sacraments. It helps enforce contracts.

BUT, people began to confuse the contract with the romantic sentiment with the sacrament. These things need to be sorted out. And the easiest way to do this would be to leave contractual matters to the state and sacramental matters to the spiritual authorities. The idea of voting on the definition of marriage is absolutely and totally ludicrous (as is voting on the definition of any sacrament). It’s just too surreal. Sacraments are not up for voting. Equally ridiculous in this day and age is denying the contractual benefits and liabilities of the state contract to loving couples who want to enter into it–particularly if this denial is on religious grounds! The contract is between the couple and the state, not the couple and the state’s constituency. (Really, if the people of a state are to be asked to vote on what the marriage contract means, shouldn’t they also vote on the terms of all other state-governed contracts? Shouldn’t the terms of my cell-phone agreement be up for a vote?)

Let the church, the synagogue, the mosque, the temple, decide for their communities what marriage means, and let the state deal with the contract.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy–Deo gratias!

 

[edwest2]

Love was not instituted by secular society. What mother or father does not love their child? So, since ancient times, the two people responsible for bringing life into the world have cared for their children and each other.

Here is the Catholic perspective on this issue:

americancatholic.org/newsletters/cu/ac0304.asp

God bless,
Ed

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Love was not instituted by secular society. What mother or father does not love their child? So, since ancient times, the two people responsible for bringing life into the world have cared for their children and each other.

Hi Ed. I think you misunderstand my point. As a contractual agreement, love between a husband and wife (or wives!) had nothing to do with anything. Mothers and fathers love their children for the most part, sure, but marriage is no guarantee of that. In fact, in patriarchal cultures, marriage is the contract which helps make sure that a child belongs to its father and so makes things like inheritances and the preservation of a material legacy a bit easier. But love has nothing to do with the contractual aspect of either the relationship between the married parties or inheritances.

So yes, you’re right, the state didn’t invent love. But my point is that the state has nothing to do with love PERIOD (particularly romantic love). It has a lot to do with enforcing contracts, but nothing to do with who loves whom.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy–Deo gratias!

 

[PeteVZ]

I apologize for giving my brief answer. Marriage is a sacrament given by God long before legal contracts came into being. Marriage itself should have nothing to do with anything that can be governed by men. If two people join their household for companionship and/or financial reasons, the states can decide if they have the right to tax and insurance benefits. The states can decide if the two people are old enough, capable enough, the right color, or the right gender, etc. This however has nothing to do with Marriage.

The problem is when people consider Marriage as a means to achieve benefits which they consider to be rights.

Years ago, I knew of a couple that were best friends. One male and one female. They were both gay. They decided to get married, simple in order for her to get his health benefits because she was ill, and “for the adventure of it”. While they did love each other, they never intended to consumate their relationship, or even remain faithful to each other. They were merely using the institution to take advantage of the situation. Even though the marriage could have been valid since they were of opposing genders, it was not a sacrament since they were undertaking it under false pretenses.

 

[edwest2]

Hello Mark,

You speak of the State as an inhuman entity. It is made up of human beings. Property and inheritance were considered long ago. But these things are not as important as love and trust, two key concepts that seem to be missing from any debate about the family. Aside from arranged marriages, two people willingly agree to help each other and bring children into the world - that is marriage.

Perhaps you are familiar with these words? “…all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights…”

The Founders of this country recognized something beyond themselves. The State, as you call it, should be concerned about human beings as human beings, like themselves.

Peace,
Ed

 

[randomguy0187]

Ok, let me rephrase my question: what is the Church’s **official **teaching regarding the view that “marriage is a human right”?

 

[edwest2]

Here you are:

americancatholic.org/newsletters/cu/ac0304.asp

Peace,
Ed

 

[thistle]

Is the State Government in California now obliged to change the constitution to ban gay “marriages” now that the people have spoken? I hope they do but I wondered if they are compelled to do so otherwise why put it to the vote?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Here’s my question though: is marriage definable as a “human right”? I’m struggling to come up with a definite answer from a Catholic perspective. Also, if anyone has any general ideas for ways to explain TRUE Catholic teaching in this regard, I’d appreciate it.

The answer is yes, marriage is a human right, and gays have the right to marry. But most of them aren’t interested in getting married, because the gay men don’t want a wife, and the lesbians don’t want a husband. It is also their right to not get married.

It just isn’t possible for a gay man to marry another gay man. That’s not marriage.

 

[Scottgun]

Vatican documents on civil unions:

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

It’s all worth reading, but pertinent quotes (my bold):

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.

The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

You speak of the State as an inhuman entity. It is made up of human beings. Property and inheritance were considered long ago. But these things are not as important as love and trust, two key concepts that seem to be missing from any debate about the family.

Hi Ed,

Yes, the state is made up of human beings, but it’s more than that (actually, it’s less than that)–at bottom, the state is fundamentally an instrument of authority/coercion created by human beings by which human beings made be governed according to agreed upon principles of justice, but not necessarily of compassion or love. The state as an instrument of governance is inhuman–it is quite consciously a machine, the goal of which is the objective administration of the concept of justice, however that concept is understood (and it is always understood imperfectly–such is our nature!) by those who control the instruments of power.

As such, loving and caring families are not its purview–protection of property, however, is. Love and trust in a relationship have nothing to do with the state.

This is why I disagree with the section of the link you posted regarding the Bishops’ opinion on the importance of marriage and family to society–it assumes a material reality that does not actually exist. If the state were to ensure that every marriage produced a family (understood in the same terms as the bishops understand it), then I could concede the point. But the state’s interest is not in happy children–it’s interest is in a malleable workforce. It’s interest is not in mom and dad using their genitals for lovingly procreative purposes only–its interest is in what the “family unit” can contribute monetarily, materially, to the economy.

Given that homosexual households (we could call them families, even) generally have statistically higher incomes than their heterosexual counterparts, supporting these households would naturally be in the best interests of the state. In terms of workforce creation, allowing these households to raise and adopt unwanted heterosexual offspring would also be in the interests of the state.

However, homosexual adoption and homosexual “marriage” suffer because of a confusion between the religious understanding of the value of the family unit and the state understanding of the value of the family unit–loving household on the one hand, economic powerbase on the other. As I mentioned earlier, these understandings need to be teased apart and dealt with accordingly. The spiritual authorities should define marriage, and the state should preside over unions. The idea that the state can produce a marriage or have anything to do with the sacrament (as witnessed by Pete above in the example of his gay friends) is quite ludicrous. Render under Caesar what is Caesar’s (contract law) and unto God what is God’s (the sacrament).

It is often the case that we wish the state to reflect our own values on a multitude of issues and topics. But the idea that the state could or should perfectly mirror Christian values is actually just as utopian (and just as impossible) as the communist ideal. Worse, it’s a betrayal of Christianity–it implies that the State can become the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of Grace just by a simple show of hands, by voter turnout, or by use of force. It implies that the State can be its own source of grace. No State, however, is the Kingdom. That’s the point. States and governments, empires, parliaments and congresses are all of this world and doomed to fail and pass away. And because they are concessions to human sinfulness, they bear witness to our fall. And because a state is not a human being, it is not radically redeemable or open to grace in the same way human beings are. To expect the Kingdom from a State is entirely wrongheaded. That is not to say that States cannot be used as instruments of the good. It means that they are fundamentally imperfect (and ultimately imperfectible) instruments. We do not pray for States, we pray for people.

The more we believe that the State can produce the Kingdom, the more we turn our faith into a political platform. The more, in other words, we betray it. This is why church/state separation is so important–not because the state should not have the benefit of the influence of the church, but because the church should not be spoiled, degraded, and compromised by the state. Keep them separate.

My two cents, at any rate.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy–Deo gratias!

 

[randomguy0187]

Thanks Ed and Scott for the links

to Thistle: the text of the proposition, which is a constitutional amendment, reads: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.” There’s going to be litigation (of course…as an aside, another thing that bothers me about the pro-gay “marriage” side is that instead of addressing the voters directly with their own amendment, they try to sneak it through the courts ) to the result itself. I’m sure there will also be litigation to see if Prop. 8 is retroactive, thus dissolving the 16,000 or so “marriages” since May, when the court ruling allowing gay “marriages” came out.

to Neil: yeah, that was one of my points as well (that gay people can get married, just not to a person of the same sex). My confusion I guess comes from my perception that marriage is a vocation from God and a covenant and therefore a gift rather than seeing it as a right.

 

[Ruthie]

Marriage is *not *a right under government. Just like driving, it requires a license. The license can be denied to someone who is not fit to be married - for instance, someone who is already married, or (in some states) someone who has certain STDs.

Also, in this country, the majority rules. The courts should not override majority rule unless it is ***clearly ***unconstitutional.

If the majority decides that a marriage license does not apply to homosexuals, then it should be the law.

The problem lies in the right to the “pursuit of happiness.” This right is subordinate to the good of the people. (And, it’s not mentioned in the Bill of Rights.) Robbers and burglars are certainly pursuing happiness. But when we catch them, we deprive them of the right of liberty, for the good of the rest of us. You may not pursue happiness if it injures me, and vice versa.

So we have to ask the question if homosexual unions benefit the rest of us.

The Church answers this question “No.” That’s enough for me.

And don’t ***dare ***call me a homophobe!

God bless us all,

Ruthie

 

[edwest2]

Grace & Peace!

Hi Ed,

Yes, the state is made up of human beings, but it’s more than that (actually, it’s less than that)–at bottom, the state is fundamentally an instrument of authority/coercion created by human beings by which human beings made be governed according to agreed upon principles of justice, but not necessarily of compassion or love. The state as an instrument of governance is inhuman–it is quite consciously a machine, the goal of which is the objective administration of the concept of justice, however that concept is understood (and it is always understood imperfectly–such is our nature!) by those who control the instruments of power.

As such, loving and caring families are not its purview–protection of property, however, is. Love and trust in a relationship have nothing to do with the state.

This is why I disagree with the section of the link you posted regarding the Bishops’ opinion on the importance of marriage and family to society–it assumes a material reality that does not actually exist. If the state were to ensure that every marriage produced a family (understood in the same terms as the bishops understand it), then I could concede the point. But the state’s interest is not in happy children–it’s interest is in a malleable workforce. It’s interest is not in mom and dad using their genitals for lovingly procreative purposes only–its interest is in what the “family unit” can contribute monetarily, materially, to the economy.

Given that homosexual households (we could call them families, even) generally have statistically higher incomes than their heterosexual counterparts, supporting these households would naturally be in the best interests of the state. In terms of workforce creation, allowing these households to raise and adopt unwanted heterosexual offspring would also be in the interests of the state.

However, homosexual adoption and homosexual “marriage” suffer because of a confusion between the religious understanding of the value of the family unit and the state understanding of the value of the family unit–loving household on the one hand, economic powerbase on the other. As I mentioned earlier, these understandings need to be teased apart and dealt with accordingly. The spiritual authorities should define marriage, and the state should preside over unions. The idea that the state can produce a marriage or have anything to do with the sacrament (as witnessed by Pete above in the example of his gay friends) is quite ludicrous. Render under Caesar what is Caesar’s (contract law) and unto God what is God’s (the sacrament).

It is often the case that we wish the state to reflect our own values on a multitude of issues and topics. But the idea that the state could or should perfectly mirror Christian values is actually just as utopian (and just as impossible) as the communist ideal. Worse, it’s a betrayal of Christianity–it implies that the State can become the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of Grace just by a simple show of hands, by voter turnout, or by use of force. It implies that the State can be its own source of grace. No State, however, is the Kingdom. That’s the point. States and governments, empires, parliaments and congresses are all of this world and doomed to fail and pass away. And because they are concessions to human sinfulness, they bear witness to our fall. And because a state is not a human being, it is not radically redeemable or open to grace in the same way human beings are. To expect the Kingdom from a State is entirely wrongheaded. That is not to say that States cannot be used as instruments of the good. It means that they are fundamentally imperfect (and ultimately imperfectible) instruments. We do not pray for States, we pray for people.

The more we believe that the State can produce the Kingdom, the more we turn our faith into a political platform. The more, in other words, we betray it. This is why church/state separation is so important–not because the state should not have the benefit of the influence of the church, but because the church should not be spoiled, degraded, and compromised by the state. Keep them separate.

My two cents, at any rate.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy–Deo gratias!

Your view of the state is highly distorted. The Declaration of Independence begins “We The People…” In your view, the state is a mechanism but that is not true. It is not just a service provider but an integral unit of society.

In the United States, the state was not set up as an autonomous entity. It was designed by human beings for the good of all citizens. Your view is prejudiced and does not consider that aside from its more mechanistic functions, all branches of the state are subject to checks and balances and to the will of the people. That is why there are voters who make decisions for the common good.

Until the late 1800s, the Bible was used as a school book in public schools. Did you know that?

In the early 1960s, I said the following with my classmates:

We pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
And to the Republic for which it stands
One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I suggest you read President George Washington’s address to the people of the United States right after he left office. It was published in the newspapers of the time and is available online.

If you have ever seen pictures of the Supreme Court Building, near the top is a sculpture of Moses holding the Ten Commandments.

Peace,
Ed

 

[HLS_Catholic]

Hi all,
I’m from CA, where we barely got Proposition 8 (restoring the true definition of marriage) passed

Here’s where I’m in a bind: many of my friends, who are Catholic (or at least refer to themselves as such) voted against Prop 8 and are very unhappy with the results. For example, one of my friends writes as her status on Facebook, “[name of person] knows Jesus would never deny a human right & people that use the Bible to say yes on Prop 8 show their ignorance and uncompassionate heart for human rights.”

So, I’m working on ways to present what the Church teaches about marriage and homosexuality (and gay “marriage”). The primary argument against Prop 8 frames marriage as an equality and civil rights issue.

Here’s my question though: is marriage definable as a “human right”? I’m struggling to come up with a definite answer from a Catholic perspective. Also, if anyone has any general ideas for ways to explain TRUE Catholic teaching in this regard, I’d appreciate it.

This article should help:

catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/ho0064.html

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

Hi all,
I’m from CA, where we barely got Proposition 8 (restoring the true definition of marriage) passed

Here’s where I’m in a bind: many of my friends, who are Catholic (or at least refer to themselves as such) voted against Prop 8 and are very unhappy with the results. For example, one of my friends writes as her status on Facebook, “[name of person] knows Jesus would never deny a human right & people that use the Bible to say yes on Prop 8 show their ignorance and uncompassionate heart for human rights.”

So, I’m working on ways to present what the Church teaches about marriage and homosexuality (and gay “marriage”). The primary argument against Prop 8 frames marriage as an equality and civil rights issue.

Here’s my question though: is marriage definable as a “human right”? I’m struggling to come up with a definite answer from a Catholic perspective. Also, if anyone has any general ideas for ways to explain TRUE Catholic teaching in this regard, I’d appreciate it.

It’s only a right under the government.

You know, the only significant thing in religion in general–that even atheists may cherish-- is marriage. I still wonder why this is.

sigh If only domestic partnership had the exact same rights as married couples did, things would be way better. It would put, I think, a decent distance between church and state.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[thistle]

Was California the only State to put this to the vote? If so, why? Wouldn’t this have been a great opportunity for all States to quash this gay marriage affront to God once and for all?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Was California the only State to put this to the vote? If so, why? Wouldn’t this have been a great opportunity for all States to quash this gay marriage affront to God once and for all?

A lot of other states already have similar amendments to their constitutions. But it was more urgent in California because they’ve actually been issuing gay marriage certificates there.