Should Catholic leaders make gay marriage illegal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Polak
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is an interesting academic question, but it is practically impossible.

A State where there was a Catholic utopia is fascinating, but wouldn’t work; simply due to the fact of the broken-ness of humanity.

I believe the founder of Domino’s Pizza attempted something like this in Florida some years ago.

Generally, governments move more permissive over time. So if a new Catholic president could somehow convince both houses of Congress to pass such a law, knowing it would be signed into law, it would be instantly challenged in a court case.

I can’t imagine the Supreme Court going against its previous permission to allow gay marriage. Has the Court ever allowed something significant like interracial marriage, gay marriage, sodomy, or the like and subsequently upheld a newer, more restrictive law against what was previously deemed constitutional?
Perhaps some of the attorneys could chime in if there is an example of this. @Tis_Bearself @dochawk @otjm
Click to expand...
What would happen to the gay people who married when it was legal?

In the USA, a candidate for national office who voted in a truly Catholic way on ALL legislation would have a microscopic chance of getting elected. Multiply that small chance by enough congressional representatives, senators, and the president, and the likelihood becomes infinitesimal.

I pray that striking down Roe will become a reality soon,
Deacon Christopher
 
Last edited:
I see you won’t let this go, so I’ll have to be the adult here and just drop this discussion.
 
buffalo said:
The concept is just plain silly.
Click to expand...
Well, its not silly to those who are in those marriages. And there is no question that they are in civilly sanctioned legal relationships. Is this just a semantic thing to you? What would you suggest it be called?
 
He’s right - from a Catholic point of view, homosexual “marriage” does not exist. An analogy might be if I donned a police uniform and called myself a policeman - this doesn’t change the reality, which is that I am not one. Marriage is the union of a man and woman in a lifelong bond. That’s what marriage is. Homosexual unions are something, but it’s not marriage. And marriage is not something which is defined either by governments or common consent via democracy. It is what it is by its nature, and as ordained by God.
 
Last edited:
sealabeag said:
And marriage is not something which is defined either by governments or common consent via democracy
Click to expand...
For secular marriages it is. And if the government doesn’t define it at all, why do you need a civil marriage license to marry in the Church?
 
TMC said:
Well, its not silly to those who are in those marriages. And there is no question that they are in civilly sanctioned legal relationships. Is this just a semantic thing to you? What would you suggest it be called?
Click to expand...
It certainly does not rise to marriage.
 
whatistrue said:
You are using the Church definition.
Click to expand...
The Church definition is aligned with the natural law definition, and the natural law definition stands on its own. You keep trying to make this about religion, when it’s not.
 
neophyte said:
40.png
signit:
which in turn is based on your religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
So you think that my understanding that only a man and a woman can make babies is merely my own odd religious belief?
Click to expand...
No.

But your definition of marriage, as including only the union of a man and a woman, is based on your religious belief.
 
neophyte said:
You keep trying to make this about religion, when it’s not.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, I am trying to point out that the religious (specifically Catholic) definition that is being used is not the only one in common use by everyday people, and is not the only possible definition to use. But the main point I am trying to make, which no one has so far really responded to, is that whether or not 2 men or 2 women enter into a relationship sanctioned by their government under the legally defined status of marriage can have no impact on your own marriage under any other defined status.
 
I don’t think this is true? Church and civil marriage are separate affairs. And secular marriage is not what it is because it has been defined so by some government or other. It is natural marriage, that is the marriage of a man and woman.
 
sealabeag said:
An analogy might be if I donned a police uniform and called myself a policeman - this doesn’t change the reality, which is that I am not one.
Click to expand...
Well, except that if the authority in charge of police said you were, then you would be, regardless of what someone else thought. A better analogy would be if I thought that women should not be police, and a woman police officer pulled me over, I could not say that she is not police. I can advocate against allowing her to be a police officer, but she is one.

So we could say that these folks are civilly married, but that the Church does not recognize their marriage. But from a civil standpoint, they are married.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top