Statement of Chicago's Cardinal George Regarding Supreme Court Decisions on Marriage

[Kevin_B]

Nice try at deflecting what I said. I never said that we should have a third party. As a matter of fact, at this point I would be against it since a Catholic party would have no chance of winning. All I did is point out that as Catholics the Church says we need to be involved in politics and to vote like a Catholic. Voting like a Catholic means voting for what is most compatible with the teachings of the bishops and the Magisterium. If we have one political party that is totally in love with abortions and teaches that sodomy can be called marriage this political party is obviously fundamentally incompatible with Catholic morality. For more on this, please read Pope John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae.

“A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” - Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae

The opinion that religion should not be involved with politics is an atheist point of view and is foreign to the Catholic Church. How about actually addressing what I said instead of erecting a straw man?

Where to begin? First, the party is not declaring sodomy to be marriage, it declared that two people of the same gender can enter into a legal contract. The fact that this legal contract is also sometimes called " marriage" is irrelevant, since the church also opposes a similar contract called “civil unions”. This contract has absolutely nothing in common with the sacrament of marriage. The former is a legal document that grants legal rights such as tax breaks, the latter is a sacrament uniting two people in the eyes of God. I can think of no moral reason to restrict who can or cannot sign a legal document.

Second, I have no problem with establishing a nation that has Catholicism as it’s legal religion and enforces all the laws of that faith.

The problem is that you are trying to do it illegally. The correct way to do it would be to repeal the 1st amendment and replace it with an amendment declaring Catholicism the national religion. Therefore any moral laws stated by the pope automatically become the law of our nation with no voting necessary, at least not where morality is concerned.

So that’s where my problem lies. The church is asking me to do something which is against my interpretation of the constitution and therefore illegal.

The idea of a government which is not in the hands of moral decrees by a Church authority was not the idea of atheists, it was the idea of the founders of our county

 

[Kevin_B]

Also, I know that many may disagree with my interpretation of the 1st amendment. However, since “interpretation of constitutional amendments” is not within the area of papal infallibility, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

 

[JimG]

A contract that is the opposite of marriage, and yet wants to be known by the same name as marriage? Seems sort of deceptive.

 

[livingwordunity]

A contract that is the opposite of marriage, and yet wants to be known by the same name as marriage? Seems sort of deceptive.

Deceptive is the nicer way to describe it.

 

[fix]

A contract that is the opposite of marriage, and yet wants to be known by the same name as marriage? Seems sort of deceptive.

Having to describe the self evident makes rational people want to cry.

 

[manualman]

Where to begin? First, the party is not declaring sodomy to be marriage, it declared that two people of the same gender can enter into a legal contract. The fact that this legal contract is also sometimes called " marriage" is irrelevant, since the church also opposes a similar contract called “civil unions”. This contract has absolutely nothing in common with the sacrament of marriage. The former is a legal document that grants legal rights such as tax breaks, the latter is a sacrament uniting two people in the eyes of God. I can think of no moral reason to restrict who can or cannot sign a legal document.

I’m not sure if you don’t get it or don’t want to. Gay people have ALWAYS been able to enter into legal contracts together. They’ve been able to name one another in wills, to assign durable power of attorney, etc.

What’s new is that gay couples have demanded that the state include them in legal benefits that were designed to incentivize a relationship that is fundamentally oriented towards parenthood, which is both expensive and crucial to civilization.

In short, the legal perks of marriage are a MUTUALLY beneficial relationship between the couple and the state. Broadening these benefits to gay couples establishes a one way benefit where the couple benefits and the state (i.e. taxpayers) get NOTHING. Objecting to this is in no way an imposition of religion on the populace.

 

[livingwordunity]

I’m not sure if you don’t get it or don’t want to. Gay people have ALWAYS been able to enter into legal contracts together. They’ve been able to name one another in wills, to assign durable power of attorney, etc.

What’s new is that gay couples have demanded that the state include them in legal benefits that were designed to incentivize a relationship that is fundamentally oriented towards parenthood, which is both expensive and crucial to civilization.

In short, the legal perks of marriage are a MUTUALLY beneficial relationship between the couple and the state. Broadening these benefits to gay couples establishes a one way benefit where the couple benefits and the state (i.e. taxpayers) get NOTHING. Objecting to this is in no way an imposition of religion on the populace.

Awesome post! If you don’t mind, I’m going to save it for later reference. We should all just have these answers ready for copy and paste since the same questions that have been answered a thousand times keep repeating.

 

[Mulligan2]

Actually, I would say the same of your argument. There have already been moral consequences that hurt others due to gay marriage. Society as a whole loses out when we re-define marriage to be anything we subjectively choose. Next would be polygamists, incestuous marriages, etc. Because with your belief in marriage “equality”, why would you “discriminate” against polygamist couples. They even have a word for that now “thruples.” Why couldn’t minors and adults marry. Couldn’t they argue that age is just a number and they truly love each other. Why would you deny them their “equality.” What about that fact that many children surrogated for gay couples will not have the benefit of knowing their biological mothers/fathers much like many surrogates for straight. Then what happens in divorce court? There’s already been an issue where a gay couple splits up and all three (each gay dad and the surrogate mom (I think, it could’ve been another ex-lover that lived with the child) want custody of the child. Wow! That won’t mess with a kid’s head. They say that the effect from divorce is similar to that of one of the parents dying. What will this do?

Yes. I know that there will always be gay people in society. My issue is not with gay people. My issue is with the re-definition of marriage and the denigration of society, slowly but surely, in which I believe SSM is in part to blame. Not saying that heterosexuals are exempt. Divorce and living together with children born out of wedlock will also suffer ill effects and these too contribute to society’s ills. Frankly, I’m not sure why gay people even want to get married seeing that the majority of heterosexuals who have enjoyed the institution for centuries, seem lately to have all but rejected it. Nonetheless, sexual sins have consequences, not only for those who engage in it but society as a whole when that society endorses it. God designed man and woman to come together and create life. That bond from that commitment is called marriage. It was not designed for two men or two women because their bodies are not complementary and will never be able to do what a marriage is designed for - To bring life into the world and raise children in the security of knowing they have a mom & dad who love them. That is the ideal and design of marriage. That is its design purpose.

The primary role of government is to protect “individual” rights. “Society” is simply a collection of individuals. It is immoral to enact laws that you think will somehow benefit society if the laws will discriminate against individuals. So the examples you have given are not an apt comparison to the examples I gave earlier.

I read a recent quote from someone named Austin Ruse, who is president of an organization called the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. He said “you admire some of the things they’re doing in Russia against propaganda.” I am unfamiliar with this organization, and I don’t know if they have any connection to the Catholic Church. But I find Mr. Ruse’s comments appalling. Russia has cracked down on the rights of their citizens to peaceably assemble. In addition, some Russian lawmakers have said that gays should be barred from government jobs, undergo forced medical treatment or be exiled.

 

[livingwordunity]

The primary role of government is to protect “individual” rights. “Society” is simply a collection of individuals. It is immoral to enact laws that you think will somehow benefit society if the laws will discriminate against individuals. So the examples you have given are not an apt comparison to the examples I gave earlier.

I read a recent quote from someone named Austin Ruse, who is president of an organization called the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. He said “you admire some of the things they’re doing in Russia against propaganda.” I am unfamiliar with this organization, and I don’t know if they have any connection to the Catholic Church. But I find Mr. Ruse’s comments appalling. Russia has cracked down on the rights of their citizens to peaceably assemble. In addition, some Russian lawmakers have said that gays should be barred from government jobs, undergo forced medical treatment or be exiled.

Do you believe that “gay” activists have the right to stage protests during (and inside) a Catholic Mass or to protest naked in front of the Pope? And if so, do you believe that the Westboro Baptists should have the right, for example, to go inside a “gay” bar and protest if they wanted to?

 

[manualman]

The primary role of government is to protect “individual” rights. “Society” is simply a collection of individuals. It is immoral to enact laws that you think will somehow benefit society if the laws will discriminate against individuals.

This is demonstrably NOT so. Government does NOT simply exist to protect individuals and enable individualism. It fundamentally exists to protect the human community against damage and provide for the COMMON good.

All property owners have to pay property taxes to fund public schools. This isn’t protecting my individual rights. It is imposing on me in order to provide for the common good (universal opportunity for education). I have to pay my taxes even if I’m sterile. That would be an injustice by your standard, but not mine.

I know people that are absolute pacifists. They’ve disavowed violence, even to protect themselves and their families (I’m not one of these people). Nevertheless, they have to pay their full income tax levy. They can’t subtract 20% since that amount goes towards maintaining the US armed forces. This would be “immoral” by your standards.

A lottery winner is going to have to pay around 30% of the jackpot in income taxes even though he’s unlikely to get anywhere NEAR that amount of public services from the government. If was poor before and DIDN’T win the lottery, he’d probably never pay a penny in federal income taxes, but would get earned income tax credits (free money) from the government for life. This is a policy set for the common good, not protection of the individual’s rights.

In short, your statement has more holes than swiss cheese. It’s simply not how the government functions.

 

[Mulligan2]

This is demonstrably NOT so. Government does NOT simply exist to protect individuals and enable individualism. It fundamentally exists to protect the human community against damage and provide for the COMMON good.

All property owners have to pay property taxes to fund public schools. This isn’t protecting my individual rights. It is imposing on me in order to provide for the common good (universal opportunity for education). I have to pay my taxes even if I’m sterile. That would be an injustice by your standard, but not mine.

I know people that are absolute pacifists. They’ve disavowed violence, even to protect themselves and their families (I’m not one of these people). Nevertheless, they have to pay their full income tax levy. They can’t subtract 20% since that amount goes towards maintaining the US armed forces. This would be “immoral” by your standards.

A lottery winner is going to have to pay around 30% of the jackpot in income taxes even though he’s unlikely to get anywhere NEAR that amount of public services from the government. If was poor before and DIDN’T win the lottery, he’d probably never pay a penny in federal income taxes, but would get earned income tax credits (free money) from the government for life. This is a policy set for the common good, not protection of the individual’s rights.

In short, your statement has more holes than swiss cheese. It’s simply not how the government functions.

Wrong. The common good is served by protecting individual rights.

 

[Mulligan2]

Do you believe that “gay” activists have the right to stage protests during (and inside) a Catholic Mass or to protest naked in front of the Pope? And if so, do you believe that the Westboro Baptists should have the right, for example, to go inside a “gay” bar and protest if they wanted to?

That’s a red herring. You might have noticed that I said “peaceably” assembly.

 

[Holly3278]

Do you believe that “gay” activists have the right to stage protests during (and inside) a Catholic Mass or to protest naked in front of the Pope? And if so, do you believe that the Westboro Baptists should have the right, for example, to go inside a “gay” bar and protest if they wanted to?

http://oi45.tinypic.com/29uvcs1.jpg

I know you weren’t addressing me but personally I do not feel like “gay rights activists” should *not *be able to protest inside a Catholic Church during Mass or inside of any other religious building especially not when a service is going on. To me it would be very disruptive and downright disrespectful. This is why I really like Russia’s law which basically criminalizes things like what that one group whose name I won’t mention because it is very vulgar did in an Orthodox church. They seriously disrupted the service. That kind of serious disruption should definitely be criminal.

That said, I like your graphic.

 

[Slavonic]

I’m not sure if you don’t get it or don’t want to. Gay people have ALWAYS been able to enter into legal contracts together. They’ve been able to name one another in wills, to assign durable power of attorney, etc.

Yet in only 13 can they enter in a contract that would grant federal benefits to one or both partners. That contract is called a marriage. I don’t think you have a grasp of some of the basic issues, or else you would have not said something like that.

 

[manualman]

Yet in only 13 can they enter in a contract that would grant federal benefits to one or both partners. That contract is called a marriage. I don’t think you have a grasp of some of the basic issues, or else you would have not said something like that.

Or perhaps you don’t grasp the issue. The civil marriage contract involves THREE parties: two spouses and the state. In real marriage, the state gets the benefit of a relationship fundamentally ordered towards perpetuating healthy society (i.e. future taxpayers). As a result, the state has agreed to incentivize marriage with certain tax and legal benefits. Gay marriage takes those benefits from the state even though the relationship lacks those aspects for which those benefits were established in the first place.

Put it this way. Say I’m single and I have a lifelong best friend / roommate. Should I be able to demand that he be covered by my federal employer health insurance? Should he be entitled to my Social Security benefits if I die? Should he be entitled to inherit my property if I die without probate? Why not? What’s the difference between my non-romantic friendship and two gay lovers as far as federal benefits are concerned? The kissing? Seriously?

My position is logically consistent, yours isn’t. I say neither gay couples nor platonic best friends should qualify for those perks because neither relationship is of a nature like actual marriage that is oriented towards the sacrifices of parenthood or the benefits that are returned to society. In both friendships and gay relationships, each party remains responsible for himself. Nothing about that relationship naturally brings more people into being that the union becomes responsible for raising.

 

[ProVobis]

As a matter of fact, at this point I would be against it since a Catholic party would have no chance of winning.

Then you should have no problem realizing that 22% has little chance of setting all the policy in this country? (rhetorical question)

But for the record, I agree with the general sentiment expressed by Cardinal George. In fact I find it uncomfortable just to watch two grown men holding hands for the Our Father.

 

[Slavonic]

Or perhaps you don’t grasp the issue. The civil marriage contract involves THREE parties: two spouses and the state. In real marriage, the state gets the benefit of a relationship fundamentally ordered towards perpetuating healthy society (i.e. future taxpayers). As a result, the state has agreed to incentivize marriage with certain tax and legal benefits. Gay marriage takes those benefits from the state even though the relationship lacks those aspects for which those benefits were established in the first place.

Put it this way. Say I’m single and I have a lifelong best friend / roommate. Should I be able to demand that he be covered by my federal employer health insurance? Should he be entitled to my Social Security benefits if I die? Should he be entitled to inherit my property if I die without probate? Why not? What’s the difference between my non-romantic friendship and two gay lovers as far as federal benefits are concerned? The kissing? Seriously?

My position is logically consistent, yours isn’t. I say neither gay couples nor platonic best friends should qualify for those perks because neither relationship is of a nature like actual marriage that is oriented towards the sacrifices of parenthood or the benefits that are returned to society. In both friendships and gay relationships, each party remains responsible for himself. Nothing about that relationship naturally brings more people into being that the union becomes responsible for raising.

The government doesn’t look into sham marriages (note I didn’t say fraudulent). If you and your roommate want a sham marriage that’s your business. Also, some gay couples adopt children, thus holding up their end of your alleged bargain (which I reject because of hysterectomies). There lots of places where those couples wish they could be married.

 

[manualman]

The government doesn’t look into sham marriages (note I didn’t say fraudulent). If you and your roommate want a sham marriage that’s your business. Also, some gay couples adopt children, thus holding up their end of your alleged bargain (which I reject because of hysterectomies). There lots of places where those couples wish they could be married.

Objectively wrong again. The government can and does look into sham marriages when they are entered into by US citizens and wannabe immigrants looking for a quick path to citizenship. Why? Because it is unjust for a relationship to receive the benefits of marriage when it isn’t.

Gay couples that adopt children are rare precisely because they are operating outside their nature. It is the NATURE of a married man and woman to become parents. Some fight that nature and contracept indefinitely, true. But that too is rare because humans tend to be what they are. Gay couples are sterile by nature. It’s possible for them to adopt, but it’s possible to roll snake eyes three times in a row too. Nevertheless, one is a fool to bet on it.

Hysterectomies, post menopause, yadda yadda. Women don’t stop being women when they become sterile, nor men men. Their incidental physical attributes don’t alter their nature. Two gay men are sterile by nature. Their physical sterility isn’t irrelevant, it’s a surface manifestation of a deeper truth about the relationship.

 

[Slavonic]

Gay couples that adopt children are rare precisely because they are operating outside their nature. It is the NATURE of a married man and woman to become parents. Some fight that nature and contracept indefinitely, true. But that too is rare because humans tend to be what they are. Gay couples are sterile by nature. It’s possible for them to adopt, but it’s possible to roll snake eyes three times in a row too. Nevertheless, one is a fool to bet on it.

If there is any exception to something, then it is not a universal truth and cannot be considered the nature of all of humanity.

Hysterectomies, post menopause, yadda yadda. Women don’t stop being women when they become sterile, nor men men. Their incidental physical attributes don’t alter their nature. Two gay men are sterile by nature. Their physical sterility isn’t irrelevant, it’s a surface manifestation of a deeper truth about the relationship.

You’re confusing biological reproductive capabilities and sexual orientation. The fact that humans reproduce sexually (as opposed to asexually), says nothing about a particular person’s attractions and relationships with the same or opposite sex.

 

[livingwordunity]

Or perhaps you don’t grasp the issue. The civil marriage contract involves THREE parties: two spouses and the state. In real marriage, the state gets the benefit of a relationship fundamentally ordered towards perpetuating healthy society (i.e. future taxpayers). As a result, the state has agreed to incentivize marriage with certain tax and legal benefits. Gay marriage takes those benefits from the state even though the relationship lacks those aspects for which those benefits were established in the first place.

Put it this way. Say I’m single and I have a lifelong best friend / roommate. Should I be able to demand that he be covered by my federal employer health insurance? Should he be entitled to my Social Security benefits if I die? Should he be entitled to inherit my property if I die without probate? Why not? What’s the difference between my non-romantic friendship and two gay lovers as far as federal benefits are concerned? The kissing? Seriously?

My position is logically consistent, yours isn’t. I say neither gay couples nor platonic best friends should qualify for those perks because neither relationship is of a nature like actual marriage that is oriented towards the sacrifices of parenthood or the benefits that are returned to society. In both friendships and gay relationships, each party remains responsible for himself. Nothing about that relationship naturally brings more people into being that the union becomes responsible for raising.