Should Catholic leaders make gay marriage illegal?

[puer.dei]

why is the American constitution treated like the holy grail? Why can’t it be amended, again, since it already has amendments? Was there a time limit on when amendments were allowed and after that passed, no more amendments can be made again, ever?

Are you from the U.S.? Because if you are, you should have a basic understanding of how the Constitution works.

 

[Polak]

Nope, I’m not.

 

[whatistrue]

Then why are you so concerned with how the US Supreme Court ruled on a matter that has absolutely no impact on you in any way?

 

[Bithynian]

treated like the holy grail?

It’s a matter of local perspective. The US Constitution, at ~230 years old, is the 2nd longest enduring of any nation state. Because of its longevity, it has an especially visible presence in public discourse.

In continenral Europe, most countries have their current constitutions dating from the post-WW2 period: Germany 1949, France 1958, Poland 1997. Australia, despite only becoming a country in 1901, has a constitution older than those in most of Europe.

 

[goout]

This was point raised a while ago in one of the many Republican v Democrat discussions on the forums, and I wanted to pick up on it.

Should a Catholic president or head of government make gay marriages illegal?

Would you say they have that right, even though many of the citizens they preside over might not be Catholic or even religious in any way? Is this an infringement, putting your own beliefs ahead of those of others, even if you have a strong conviction?

My own thoughts, honestly, I haven’t made up my mind yet. My views in the past have been much more clear cut. Of course they should, I used to think. If you are Catholic, it would be wrong to legalise it, as it goes against the teaching you believe in. This was my belief.

Now I’m wondering, if much like God has shown us what is right and wrong, but gives us the free will to do as we choose, should we be imposing Catholic rules on others, or merely pointing out that they would be wise to follow them?

Some might make the argument that if you cannot separate yourself from your beliefs, you should not be standing for a position of authority where many of your citizens won’t hold the same beliefs as you. What does this mean though? If you’re not Catholic you should never run for government or president unless you are prepared to make laws that go against your beliefs?

It’s a difficult one.

What are you thoughts?

As always, the proper basis for moral evaluation is in reference to the good.

1. Human life is good (should be obvious, but we have to say it in these days…)
2. and the union of a man and woman is the unique way of procreating human life (should also be obvious but…)

So the union of a man and woman is uniquely good, and society ought to acknolwedge, affirm, and protect that union. It’s the unique foundation of human life and flourishing.

Whatever positive things you might want to say about other types of relationships, and many come to mind, the union of a man and woman is unique by comparison.
(it’s a sad commentary on the current state of reason, that even this self evident reality is debated…)

 

[JimG]

Same sex marriage is just a contradiction in terms. There is nothing marital about it. So the supreme court declared that an impossibility was possible just to make some people feel better. It’s like saying that henceforth spaghetti can be called tuna casserole.

 

[Polak]

Then why are you so concerned with how the US Supreme Court ruled on a matter that has absolutely no impact on you in any way?

It was brought up in the discussion and I commented on it. Am I not allowed to have an opinion because I am not an American?

 

[whatistrue]

Am I not allowed to have an opinion because I am not an American?

You are. But it should be an informed one, and it is fair to ask how you are impacted by it. Also it is fair to wonder why you started a thread over it if you are not impacted by it or aware of how the system you are complaining about works.

 

[neophyte]

whatistrue:

Then why are you so concerned with how the US Supreme Court ruled on a matter that has absolutely no impact on you in any way?

It was brought up in the discussion and I commented on it. Am I not allowed to have an opinion because I am not an American?

I disagree that it doesn’t impact people outside of the US. We are not an island unto ourselves.

 

[whatistrue]

I disagree that it doesn’t impact people outside of the US

How does it really impact anyone not desiring to become involved in the described relationship? Is your marriage “less” because Bill and Steve can go to the courthouse and get a marriage license? I know that mine isn’t. It has absolutely no effect on me whatsoever. What effect has it had on you?

 

[TMC]

Secular leaders should make their decisions on a secular basis, so no.

 

[sealabeag]

It depends what you mean I suppose. Should ceremonies between consenting adults be made illegal? No, I don’t think so. But should gay “marriage” be legally acknowledged, on the same level as genuine marriage? No. But the president doesn’t wield such power, must of us live in democracies, so… In an ideal world, gay “marriage” wouldn’t exist, of course.

 

[whatistrue]

I didn’t realise I wasn’t allowed to start a thread on anything that doesn’t directly impact me.

Oh, please. I never said you couldn’t do that; I only said it was fair to ask about the impact on you.

 

[CoffeeCatholic]

Through the years many states already enacted sodomy laws - which cross over to this topic. 13 still have them on the books and 3 of them are explicit in gearing it towards homosexual relations. Having said that however, no president, Catholic or otherwise would ever, in this day and age be able to get such a law passed anyway.

 

[Hodos]

This was point raised a while ago in one of the many Republican v Democrat discussions on the forums, and I wanted to pick up on it.

Should a Catholic president or head of government make gay marriages illegal?

I don’t think it does any good if the culture as a whole disagrees with you, and unfortunately, that is where I think we are at this point. The Enlightenment culture has defined for itself what is right and wrong as opposed to following God’s will on these matters. And having already granted the right to civil marriage, it would be very difficult to take this right back. Personally, I think it was a mistake to redefine marriage, even from a strictly civil standpoint. However, I don’t think the Church’s job is necessarily to enforce its view upon peoples who don’t subscribe to our belief in Christ. I think we are much better served by modeling God’s view of marriage and teaching this view to our children. We are called to be faithful as sojourners in this world, rather than to necessarily enforce our will on others. I struggle with this issue though because I have a nuanced view on what civil government in the temporal realm is supposed to do.

 

[blackforest]

Like you, I cannot wrap my mind around arguments that LGBT marriage has any impact on me. My 20+ - year marriage has withstood challenges including a major chronic illness, a child with severe ADHD, crises of faith, and numerous career-related and financial woes.

I’m pretty confident that it can survive the presence of married gay couples somewhere out there.

 

[neophyte]

Yes I’m aware I could have phrased the question better

I think you phrased it well enough. I wasn’t poking holes in it, I was just recasting it so the reasonong of my response would be clear.

 

[Polak]

Oh, please. I never said you couldn’t do that; I only said it was fair to ask about the impact on you.

Well actually you didn’t. You said it was only fair to wonder why I started a thread over it (which I didn’t) if I am not impacted by it.

 

[whatistrue]

Well actually you didn’t.

This ring a bell?

and it is fair to ask how you are impacted by it

And of course the bit you did quote, neither of which said you couldn’t start one. But your privilege of starting threads doesn’t insulate you from questions, even pointed ones.

ETA:

why I started a thread over it (which I didn’t)

Your first post on this thread is #1, which indicates that you started this thread.

 

[Nepperhan]

The United States is a pluralistic society. Government officials take an oath to support the US Constitution. A Catholic government official faced with a crisis of conscience cannot insert his or her views for applicable law.

As the most prominent US Catholic archbishop stated on slavery when the US was riven by civil war with Catholics fighting on both sides; “there is but one rule for a Catholic wherever he is, and that is, to do his duty there as a citizen.”