SSM and forcing churches to comply

[Julianna]

And why they chose to sue a photographer and cake company rather than find another business that would serve the?

I guess because they wanted to waste their money on a frivolous law suit.

 

[Julianna]

If this is the case, why then do they attack Catholicism?

Is Catholicism the only religion homosexuals spend a lot of their time attacking? I had no idea.

 

[rossum]

It is not discrimination, even in a neutral sense of the word. It is the historic teaching of the Church and scripture.

If a normal private employer said “No women need apply”, then they would be discriminating. The Catholic Church (and others) are specifically excepted from the law. The proposed SSM law in the UK contains a similar exception for churches; they don’t have to perform same sex marriages if they don’t want to. Each church gets to decide for itself.

In legal terms, what the Catholic Church does is discrimination, but it is legal discrimination.

rossum

 

[Crescentinus]

Is Catholicism the only religion homosexuals spend a lot of their time attacking? I had no idea.

I’ll clarify two things.

1. To be fair, it’s not just Catholicism that gets attacked. However, it’s Catholicism that gets attacked a lot.
2. Not all the attackers are homosexuals as far as this issue is concerned. There’s plenty of heterosexuals who support the homosexual lifestyle. Ergo, I use the term “homosexualist” since it’s more encompassing.

 

[livingwordunity]

Abp. Cordileone & Gay Marriage–A Tutorial

Thanks to Kathryn Lopez for highlighting this interview in USA Today with Archbishop Cordileone on gay marriage.

Anybody who wishes to enter into a debate about gay marriage with friends, family, co-workers, neighbors, or anyone else should read this interview and memorize each and every answer by the Archbishop.

This, folks, is how it is done. Do not accept their premises at all.

This is not a debate about tolerance or a live and let live mentality. If it was, some form of civil union or benefit structure would have been sufficient. This is about criminalizing the opposing views and driving Christianity further into the cubby hole.

Read this. Memorize it. Regurgitate.

Q: What is the greatest threat posed by allowing gays and lesbians to marry?

A:The better question is: What is the great good in protecting the public understanding that to make a marriage you need a husband and a wife?

I can illustrate my point with a personal example. When I was Bishop of Oakland, I lived at a residence at the Cathedral, overlooking Lake Merritt. It's very beautiful. But across the lake, as the streets go from 1st Avenue to the city limits at 100th Avenue, those 100 blocks consist entirely of inner city neighborhoods plagued by fatherlessness and all the suffering it produces: youth violence, poverty, drugs, crime, gangs, school dropouts, and incredibly high murder rates. Walk those blocks and you can see with your own eyes: A society that is careless about getting fathers and mothers together to raise their children in one loving family is causing enormous heartache.

To legalize marriage between two people of the same sex would enshrine in the law the principle that mothers and fathers are interchangeable or irrelevant, and that marriage is essentially an institution about adults, not children; marriage would mean nothing more than giving adults recognition and benefits in their most significant relationship.

How can we do this to our children?
...
Q: How would the allegation that opponents are bigoted lead to their rights being abridged?

A: Notice the first right being taken away: the right of 7 million Californians who devoted time and treasure to the democratic process, to vote for our shared vision of marriage. Taking away people's right to vote on marriage is not in itself a small thing.

But the larger picture that's becoming increasingly clear is that this is not just a debate about what two people do in their private life, it's a debate about a new public norm: Either you support redefining marriage to include two people of the same sex or you stand accused by law and culture of bigotry and discrimination.

If you want to know what this new public legal and social norm stigmatizing traditional believers will mean for real people, ask David and Tanya Parker, who objected to their kindergarten son being taught about same sex marriage after the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized it in that state and wanted to pull him out of class for that lesson. He was arrested and handcuffed for trying to protect his son's education, and they were told they had no right to do so.

Ask the good people of Ocean Grove Methodist camp in New Jersey that had part of its tax-exempt status rescinded because they don't allow same-sex civil union ceremonies on their grounds. Ask Tammy Schulz of Illinois, who adopted four children (including a sibling group) through Evangelical Child Family Services — which was shut down because it refuses to place children with same-sex couples. (The same thing has happened in Illinois, Boston and Washington, D.C., to Catholic Charities adoption services). ... Ask the doctor in San Diego County who did not want to personally create a fatherless child through artificial insemination, and was punished by the courts.... Ask Amy Rudnicki who testified in the Colorado Legislature recently that if Catholic Charities is shut out of the adoption business by new legislation, her family will lose the child they expected to adopt this year. ... Nobody is better off if religious adoption agencies are excluded from helping find good homes for abused and neglected children, but governments are doing this because the principle of "anti-discrimination" is trumping liberty and compassion. ...

When people say that opposition to gay marriage is discriminatory, like opposition to interracial marriage, they cannot also say their views won't hurt anybody else. They seek to create and enforce a new moral and legal norm that stigmatizes those who view marriage as the union of husband and wife. ... It's not kind, and it doesn't seem to lead to a "live and let live" pluralism.

Full USA Today article

 

[livingwordunity]

“Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” - 2357, The Catechism of the Catholic Church

“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings” - 2 Timothy 4:3

“and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” - Romans 1:27

“but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the man by whom the temptation comes!” - Matthew 18:6-7

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” - Isaiah 5:20

Love the sinner, but hate the sin.

 

[rossum]

If this is the case, why then do they attack Catholicism?

Perhaps because senior churchmen speak publicly against same sex marriage. I am not surprised that the other side speaks against the Catholic Church. If you support Proposition 8, then you have to expect criticism from opponents of Proposition 8. It is called politics; people attack each other in politics.

rossum

 

[Crescentinus]

Perhaps because senior churchmen speak publicly against same sex marriage. I am not surprised that the other side speaks against the Catholic Church. If you support Proposition 8, then you have to expect criticism from opponents of Proposition 8. It is called politics; people attack each other in politics.

rossum

I do know what politics is.
The Catholic Church is that institution in society which just wouldn’t be killed by this issue, much to their dismay. No matter what they do, they can’t change the teachings.

 

[Publisher]

But refusing to marry divorced persons is different (and the Church will in fact marry divorced persons if they received a declarartion of nulllity for their 1st marriages. Even if one half of a gay couple were to get a sex change, the Church still wouldn’t officiate their wedding), there’s no “civil rights discrimination” (or “hate speech”) involved with divorce, like there will be with ssm. I do wonder though what will happen once polygamy is allowed (and it will be. There’s absolutely no basis for denying polygamy if same sex marriage is legal. Please tell me if think there is one). Of course, by then the Churches will likely have lost their tax exempt status so it won’t matter if they don’t want to officiate polygamous marriages.

In Christ,
Ellen

I thought if a decree of nullity was granted…there really was no “divorce” in the first place…since the church cannot marry divorced people…only those whose marriages have been decreed to “never really have happened”…so, no the church does not marry divorce people…so again…will the state require divorced people to be allowed to be married within the Catholic church? If not…they will not require the church to marry same sex couples since both divorced and same sex couples are not allowed to be married in the church.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Tell that to the Catholic adoption charities in Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington DC… which had to shut down because they were required by law to adopt to same sex couples.

Scott, I think it’s important that you actually put out the entire story. It’s a fact that the adoption wing of the Catholic Charities did shut down rather than comply with the goverments non-discrimnation rules when it came to adopting children to gay and lesbian parents. The part that you are leaving out and this is especially true of Catholic Charities of Boston is that the adoption wing was basically operating as a quasi-government agency and was being funded by the state government to perform adoption and foster care services. When the state is paying someone to perform a service it’s the states rules, not the state trying to violate an entities First Amendment rights. Since CC chose not to follow the states rules then they no longer get the right or the states funding to perform that function. If Chatholic Charities of Bosoton’s adoption wing was totally funded by what you put in the plate every Sunday and only arranged private adoptions and did not work as an agency of the state, then the state would be violating their First Amendment rights by imposing on them thee states non-discrimination policy. However this was not the case.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I do see it as a potential danger, in which if churches refuse to acknowledge homosexual marriage they will either be forbidden to officiate marriages or loose their tax exempt status. It won’t be immediately, but over time once homosexuals realise people are still “discriminating” against them it will come to a focal point. Thats what I see happening.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

I thought if a decree of nullity was granted…there really was no “divorce” in the first place…since the church cannot marry divorced people…only those whose marriages have been decreed to “never really have happened”…so, no the church does not marry divorce people…so again…will the state require divorced people to be allowed to be married within the Catholic church? If not…they will not require the church to marry same sex couples since both divorced and same sex couples are not allowed to be married in the church.

The Church in the U.S. won’t even investigate a marriage (for an annullment) until the couple gets a civil divorce. It’s not that it’s not “recognized”, it’s simply that a civil divorce does not end a valid marriage in God’s eyes. The couples civil marriage is ended as far as the government is concerned, and the Church acknowledges that (according to the Catechism, sometimes in order to protect one of the spouses and the children, physically or financially, a civil divorce can be necessary) Religiously speaking they are still married.

In Christ,
Ellen

 

[Julianna]

Scott, I think it’s important that you actually put out the entire story. It’s a fact that the adoption wing of the Catholic Charities did shut down rather than comply with the goverments non-discrimnation rules when it came to adopting children to gay and lesbian parents. The part that you are leaving out and this is especially true of Catholic Charities of Boston is that the adoption wing was basically operating as a quasi-government agency and was being funded by the state government to perform adoption and foster care services. When the state is paying someone to perform a service it’s the states rules, not the state trying to violate an entities First Amendment rights. Since CC chose not to follow the states rules then they no longer get the right or the states funding to perform that function. If Chatholic Charities of Bosoton’s adoption wing was totally funded by what you put in the plate every Sunday and only arranged private adoptions and did not work as an agency of the state, then the state would be violating their First Amendment rights by imposing on them thee states non-discrimination policy. However this was not the case.

Thank you, (I knew it). And that’s the rest of the story.

 

[Kal2012]

The idea of the 1st amendment is nice, but look at all the hate-speech and ‘free speech zones’ that are already in existence and enforced. Look at all the ‘human rights’ ordinances that are being forced onto local municipalities in the name of tolerance and promoting themselves as “open to a diverse workforce”.

A lot of this is about dismantling the moral authority of the church. Pushing it into the dustbin of history.

Let’s not kid ourselves.

People are free to call “chicken little” if you want. However, looking at history, we see how small, incremental changes change a nation’s culture and society.

Hitler didn’t just wake up one day in the 1940’s and decided to exterminate the Jews. There were laws and policies implemented over time that led to this outcome.

If it’s okay to punish people for not baking wedding cakes and taking wedding photographs, then it almost seems to be an inevitable conclusion that churches will - in the future - end up having to abdicate their power in other areas.

Being a conscientious objector doesn’t get you much these days. The military doesn’t respect that position and soldiers end up in jail for not going to Afghanistan. And it’s not like Canada will take you in these days either.

Look at what’s already going in the church over the ‘birth control mandate’ in the new ‘health care law’.

It’s all about power and marginalizing the church - making it irrelevant.

Still, if you are going to point to "chicken little’, then I shouldn’t have to remind you that a few years ago that there were those of us who argued that the cost of health care was going to rise as a result of this new law. (Oh boy! Did we hear it from supporters! We were wrong and liars and this and that and the other…)

It’s interesting how recent data (w/in the past few days) on this issue is confirming this. Even the HHS Secretary confirms that health care costs are going to rise! (Duh! I knew this years ago! It’s not exactly shocking news - unless you actually believed the rhetoric).

My point it that just because someone doesn’t want to see the truth doesn’t make someone’s rhetoric “a lie”.

It means that people have their heads in the sand and don’t want to see the trend line because it’s uncomfortable to look at.

I know that I’m really close to crossing the line because this isn’t the right place to talk specifically about the new health care law in the States. Still, that’s a perfect example of people being accused of ‘chicken little’ rhetoric and having that outcome turn out to be true. (Which is why I’m using it here).

It’s nice that we have a Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but I’d argue that for most of our government, these are documents used to keep the population from revolting against them - they don’t actually care about things like freedom of religion or speech - especially when the greater goal is creating a subservient population. Government can’t be God if we already know Jesus. So, of course, a lot of people want to get rid of Jesus…

 

[CatholicServant]

Your friend is engaging in Chicken Little Syndrome which is most likely a byproduct of listening to conservative talk radio.

No one is going to tell individual churches that they have to change their theology and marry certain persons. It violates the separation of church and state. Though, considering how much religion tries to stick its nose in government business, I find it ironic that the same organizations are terrified about the big, bad government coming to get them.

This, of course, is assuming you live in the United States. I can’t speak for any other country.

Actually, I don’t want to be rude, but that is a pretty simplistic response “which is most likely a byproduct of” your own political/ideological bent and not really thinking about the question posed.
The marriage, for the State’s purpose/recognition, requires a legal witness to the nuptials, the Church performs both functions - the Sacramental religious ceremony and on the State’s behalf witnesses the nuptials for the civil marriage.
So, as an attorney, I can foresee lawsuits against the Church based upon discrimination and withholding its legal witness.
The Church in response - as one solution - might have to notify each State that it is withdrawing it’s legal witness status and only perform the Sacramental religious ceremony to avoid lawsuits and thus each Church wedding couple would also have to perform a civil ceremony as well with a State recognized legal witness. (this is why a civil divorce per the State does not have any affect on the status of the marriage per the Church).

I am not saying this is going to happen or should, but it is an answer to the OP’s concerns.

 

[4Squarebaby]

IgnatianPhilo:

I do see it as a potential danger, in which if churches refuse to acknowledge homosexual marriage they will either be forbidden to officiate marriages or loose their tax exempt status. It won’t be immediately, but over time once homosexuals realise people are still “discriminating” against them it will come to a focal point. Thats what I see happening.

In other words if you don’t service all comers as a deputy of the state then you can’t provide that service for anybody. At which point the wedding ceremony becomes religious only forcing couples to go through a state proscribed ritual first. It may mean simply signing a ceritificate, so then why would they give an offering to a church and pastor or chapel? Just for a backdrop for pictures? I do believe some states already run civil ceremony only and what the church does is up to the church.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[ALLGIRLS]

Is Catholicism the only religion homosexuals spend a lot of their time attacking? I had no idea.

It’s #1. Conservative and fundamentalist Protestants and Mormons are next. They should also attack Orthodox Jews, but that wouldn’t be politically correct, and of course, Muslims believe they should be executed, but, like everyone else in secular society, homosexuals are too scared to critisize them.

In Christ,
Ellen

 

[ALLGIRLS]

The idea of the 1st amendment is nice, but look at all the hate-speech and ‘free speech zones’ that are already in existence and enforced. Look at all the ‘human rights’ ordinances that are being forced onto local municipalities in the name of tolerance and promoting themselves as “open to a diverse workforce”.

A lot of this is about dismantling the moral authority of the church. Pushing it into the dustbin of history.

Let’s not kid ourselves.

People are free to call “chicken little” if you want. However, looking at history, we see how small, incremental changes change a nation’s culture and society.

Hitler didn’t just wake up one day in the 1940’s and decided to exterminate the Jews. There were laws and policies implemented over time that led to this outcome.

If it’s okay to punish people for not baking wedding cakes and taking wedding photographs, then it almost seems to be an inevitable conclusion that churches will - in the future - end up having to abdicate their power in other areas.

Being a conscientious objector doesn’t get you much these days. The military doesn’t respect that position and soldiers end up in jail for not going to Afghanistan. And it’s not like Canada will take you in these days either.

Look at what’s already going in the church over the ‘birth control mandate’ in the new ‘health care law’.

It’s all about power and marginalizing the church - making it irrelevant.

Still, if you are going to point to "chicken little’, then I shouldn’t have to remind you that a few years ago that there were those of us who argued that the cost of health care was going to rise as a result of this new law. (Oh boy! Did we hear it from supporters! We were wrong and liars and this and that and the other…)

It’s interesting how recent data (w/in the past few days) on this issue is confirming this. Even the HHS Secretary confirms that health care costs are going to rise! (Duh! I knew this years ago! It’s not exactly shocking news - unless you actually believed the rhetoric).

My point it that just because someone doesn’t want to see the truth doesn’t make someone’s rhetoric “a lie”.

It means that people have their heads in the sand and don’t want to see the trend line because it’s uncomfortable to look at.

I know that I’m really close to crossing the line because this isn’t the right place to talk specifically about the new health care law in the States. Still, that’s a perfect example of people being accused of ‘chicken little’ rhetoric and having that outcome turn out to be true. (Which is why I’m using it here).

It’s nice that we have a Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but I’d argue that for most of our government, these are documents used to keep the population from revolting against them - they don’t actually care about things like freedom of religion or speech - especially when the greater goal is creating a subservient population. Government can’t be God if we already know Jesus. So, of course, a lot of people want to get rid of Jesus…

Excellent post!

And, will you be “officially Catholic” on Saturday? Welcome home!

In Christ,
Ellen

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I don’t pretend to know what the government may or may not try to do. I will say this that it would not suprise me if it did try to force the Church to preform ssm if the future if it becomes the law of the land. If we look at The health care reform act we can already see that it is trying to force religions institutions to provide services that go against their beliefs. one way or the other the Church will stand. We may be forced unground but it would not be the first time.

 

[JonNC]

If a normal private employer said “No women need apply”, then they would be discriminating. The Catholic Church (and others) are specifically excepted from the law. The proposed SSM law in the UK contains a similar exception for churches; they don’t have to perform same sex marriages if they don’t want to. Each church gets to decide for itself.

In legal terms, what the Catholic Church does is discrimination, but it is legal discrimination.

rossum

Actually, then in legal terms, it is God that discriminates.

This is what happens when government interprets “equal” as being “the same”.

As for the UK, the government also, at one time, allowed its citizens the right to bear arms. They have a knack for giving “exceptions” then taking them away.

Jon