Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Same-Sex Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
EIF5A said:
But that doesn’t answer the question why old people are allowed to get married but not gays, IF the only argument is the ability to bear children (I’m not saying it is or isn’t…but the liberal side seems to think it’s a glaring error or something).
Click to expand...
First, Welcome Home

Well, I knew a couple who had a civil marriage but were denied convalidation because the priest said that since the husband could not engage in the conjugal act they could only be considered “brother and sister”. The thing is in this situation they were treated the same as a SS couple. They could not engage in relations so their biology could not function in a way that is “open to life” (irrespective of age).

On the flip side a relative married a woman in her 40s. They could not get pregnant but could have relations. They found a doctor who assisted them with church approved ART after determining she was healthy enough to carry a child. They used church approved ART which specifies that pregnancy has to occur from the conjugal act. They had two successful pregnancies and have no plans to have other kids but at the same time they are open to life if it happens to occur without any outside assistance. Their biology allows for this “possibility” in theory even though they know that without assistance they will not produce any more children BUT God is not limited and it could happen! I think this couple is actually using NFP now-to be on the safe side.

Even though an elderly could cannot produce children they at least represent to society the male and female compliment to one another that could have produced children had they been younger-that is if they can have relations. Marriage is a package deal: It is about love, coupleness, sex but most importantly about being open to cooperating with God to welcome life if that is what their sexual relations result in. Now how to explain this in a way that makes sense to the secular mind, I don’t quite know.

Marriage is more than papers and titles. You can get the license and use the title but to just reduce it down to that is insulting. Adopting or creating children through illicit ART or surrogacy in no way “makes up” for what is not possible from a biological standpoint. You cannot do something on the surface and honestly say it is equivalent to marriage in the traditional sense. We adopted a baby in 2008 (his mom knew we were catholic and said that she was going to abort unless we agreed to adopt him-we’re so glad we did) the following year I had my last child (I had to have a hysterectomy when my uterus ruptured) I was able to do both, adopt and have a child myself. Doing one didn’t exclude the possibility of the other.

At the end of the day it is about being able to serve all aspects of the vocation of marriage worthily. Not about having parts of a vocation and rejecting or working around what is not possible.

Contraception in a marriage is illicit as well for the same reason. Marriages can be annulled if a spouse lies about being open to life but sterilizes themselves beforehand and doesn’t disclose that or decides to not stop using birth control during the marriage but gets married claiming they won’t use the pill anymore.

Marriage is just as much about sacrifice and self giving as an other religious vocation.
 
Hypothetically speaking, is it immoral to concede to same-sex civil union with the rights of married couples? Same question for same-sex couples who use surrogate mothers.
 
I hope it passes, I am getting awfully annoyed at the travel expenses for the gay weddings I’ve attended that have to take place outside of Texas.

Its interesting to hear all the tones the religious posters are using to elevate child bearing. I see marriage as a tool for self-fulfillment same goes for kids. If a maried couple was happy to have no kids and be in love and use the rediculous amounts of money and time to vacation and be with each other more power to them. Life is short, Happiness is fleeting.
 
Another great scorcher (short!) opinion piece from National Review. These guys have been so inspiring on this topic. (that magazine can get a bit dusty and dry - they have really come alive on this one - urgency I guess)
If the Supreme Court rules that all state governments must recognize same-sex unions as marriages, it will not just be saying that the view that marriage should be defined in law as the union of a man and a woman is wrong—and saying that without any clear constitutional warrant. It will be officially declaring that this view is irrational, in opposition to the country’s fundamental principles, and, quite possibly, bigoted. The Court should refrain from taking that reckless step.
Click to expand...
nationalreview.com/article/417600/constitution-silent-same-sex-marriage-editors
 
Birdpreacher said:
I hope it passes, I am getting awfully annoyed at the travel expenses for the gay weddings I’ve attended that have to take place outside of Texas.

Its interesting to hear all the tones the religious posters are using to elevate child bearing. I see marriage as a tool for self-fulfillment same goes for kids. If a maried couple was happy to have no kids and be in love and use the rediculous amounts of money and time to vacation and be with each other more power to them. Life is short, Happiness is fleeting.
Click to expand...
Well, if marriage is only a “tool for self-fulfillment,” there’s no reason for the state to sanction it at all. All recognition and state or federal benefits pertaining to marriage should be revoked. That would solve the matter. No more joint filing.
 
Birdpreacher said:
I hope it passes, I am getting awfully annoyed at the travel expenses for the gay weddings I’ve attended that have to take place outside of Texas.

Its interesting to hear all the tones the religious posters are using to elevate child bearing. I see marriage as a tool for self-fulfillment same goes for kids. If a maried couple was happy to have no kids and be in love and use the rediculous amounts of money and time to vacation and be with each other more power to them. Life is short, Happiness is fleeting.
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity, would you and/or the “gay community” (define it however you want) have been content with legally recognized civil unions?

It seems it’s more than about the rights that married people have. It’s forcing something to be when it cannot.

It’s like saying a decorative apple is an edible apple because it’s “close enough”. Who gets to define what an apple is, goes one of the argument.

There’s a false perception of injustice that if one cannot get married, one is deemed to be a lesser member of society. There’s a sense of something being taken away from someone, even though it never really existed in the first place and it’s not necessary for inherent human dignity, worth, or happiness.

Aside from the legal standpoint, what is the driving force behind this call for “marriage equality”?
 
EIF5A said:
Hypothetically speaking, is it immoral to concede to same-sex civil union with the rights of married couples? Same question for same-sex couples who use surrogate mothers.
Click to expand...
Strictly, speaking morally, it is immoral for a secular authority to marry a SS couple. Legality in no way makes an immoral act moral. Roe v. Wade did not make abortion moral. Forcing a religious minister to perform a marriage may make it legally valid but not moral and a priest that chooses to do this or is even convinced to do this is acting immorally and is materially cooperating with that immorality which does put the salvation of all persons involved in jeopardy.

A priest or other minister who knows this is immoral must refuse to do this, agree to arrest and prosecution or as a last resort may have to give up the priesthood or a ordination if he/she is protestant clergy. With that said, if a priest is put under extreme duress and literally forced to do a ceremony and has no way to escape it, he will not be liable as he in no way agreed with or cooperated willingly. In this case I don’t know what the church would to him or if they could do anything to shield priests. The church cannot compromise to continue as it is. The churches as a whole will have to demand exemptions and use every legal means available.

In other words, you can have things that are legal and protected by law but will never be legal/moral in the churches. Can churches be sued? Yes. Would lawsuits stand up in court? That is a good question. This will create some precedents, for sure.
 
elsker said:
Strictly, speaking morally, it is immoral for a secular authority to marry a SS couple. Legality in no way makes an immoral act moral. Roe v. Wade did not make abortion moral. Forcing a religious minister to perform a marriage may make it legally valid but not moral and a priest that chooses to do this or is even convinced to do this is acting immorally and is materially cooperating with that immorality which does put the salvation of all persons involved in jeopardy.

A priest or other minister who knows this is immoral must refuse to do this, agree to arrest and prosecution or as a last resort may have to give up the priesthood or a ordination if he/she is protestant clergy. With that said, if a priest is put under extreme duress and literally forced to do a ceremony and has no way to escape it, he will not be liable as he in no way agreed with or cooperated willingly. In this case I don’t know what the church would to him or if they could do anything to shield priests. The church cannot compromise to continue as it is. The churches as a whole will have to demand exemptions and use every legal means available.

In other words, you can have things that are legal and protected by law but will never be legal/moral in the churches. Can churches be sued? Yes. Would lawsuits stand up in court? That is a good question. This will create some precedents, for sure.
Click to expand...
But a civil union (with a piece of paper conferring some sort of legal rights) would not have to be a marriage in a church.

If civil unions for gays and lesbians were allowed, is it morally permissible to not oppose it?
 
Surrogacy in any instance is a grave matter. The use of a surrogate creates a separation between the conjugal act and procreation in the same way IVF does. Surrogacy uses another’s body to benefit other people, then the surrogate is obligated to turn the child over to the people she works for even though the baby was in her body. This set up is akin to slavery and paying for these services doesn’t remove that aspect. Using another’s reproductive faculties to produce a human being in this way is immoral as it turns the surrogates and the babies into commodities and products that can be bought and hired with money. It’s not moral for Straights or SS couples irregardless of infertility or the relationship a couple has with the surrogate.

I am not attempting to convince anyone of anything if they already disagree and I would see no reason to go to a secular forum to discuss this. I don’t understand why people who disagree come to this forum knowing their minds are set. Why bother reading threads on a religious forum? We will just have to agree to disagree.
 
EIF5A said:
Just out of curiosity, would you and/or the “gay community” (define it however you want) have been content with legally recognized civil unions?
Click to expand...
I’d say its 50-50 wihin my group of gay friends. 1/2 just want the benifits and could care less what “moral” society thought of them. The other half wants their love to be recognized and celebrated as if they were straight.

I think any religious argument is flawed and any gay couple ought to be married just as if they were straight. I don’t see the world imploding as a result. Life is short, I have seen good gay relationships and bad ones, no different than straight couples.
It seems it’s more than about the rights that married people have. It’s forcing something to be when it cannot.
Click to expand...
It’s like saying a decorative apple is an edible apple because it’s “close enough”. Who gets to define what an apple is, goes one of the argument.
Click to expand...
Here is the major difference, Religous people of any faith will be caught up on the sexual aspect of the relationship. Since gays can’t have sex the exact same way as straights and the only sexual acts gays can do are often deemed the “wrong way” to have sex by a holy book, then religious people see a difference through their theology which justifies their exclusion of rights to people in non-religious society.
There’s a false perception of injustice that if one cannot get married, one is deemed to be a lesser member of society. There’s a sense of something being taken away from someone, even though it never really existed in the first place and it’s not necessary for inherent human dignity, worth, or happiness.
Click to expand...
But being told you CAN’T marry, even if you want to means you have no control over that aspect of your life, thus making you a less valued member of society while straight couple may exercise complete control of their lives marrying as many times as they wish.

Life is short, who is to say what makes one happy. For a majority of posters here, life and happiness steam from a religion. For others not abiding to the Catholic Faith these personal relationships with someone of the same gender are beautiful things which make life worth living. Why deny people the happiness of marriage when they are in love?
 
JimG said:
Justice Scalia asked a question which I don’t think was adequately answered. If same sex marriage becomes a constitutional right, not just a matter decided on by the states, then religious bodies may be required—constitutionally—to marry same sex couples, if they wish to retain their ability to perform marriages recognized by the state.

When states approve same sex marriage, they can make religious and ministerial exemptions. If same sex marriage is embedded in the constitution by judicial fiat, there will be no room for such exemptions. I have no doubt that some gay rights organizations will force the issue.
Click to expand...
While I often disagree with him, I have great respect for Justice Scalia’s jurisprudence, so frankly, I was a bit a surprised to hear him engage in this rather dubious line of questioning during oral arguments. To be honest, it had me a bit concerned.

It is generally well understood that First Amendment protections extend to clergy in these matters. A priest is not currently compelled by the state to marry any two heterosexual people who make that request. Why would he be compelled to marry a same sex couple?

In other words, if this were a legitimate concern, the problem would exist already. Clergy turn away heterosexual couples all the time, and have every right to do so.
 
Birdpreacher said:
I’d say its 50-50 wihin my group of gay friends. 1/2 just want the benifits and could care less what “moral” society thought of them. The other half wants their love to be recognized and celebrated as if they were straight.

I think any religious argument is flawed and any gay couple ought to be married just as if they were straight. I don’t see the world imploding as a result. Life is short, I have seen good gay relationships and bad ones, no different than straight couples.

Hmm…I guess we have our first difference in worldview here. Life isn’t short. Earthly life, yes. But we don’t search for final hope and happiness in this age. But I guess to an agnostic person, this falls on deaf ears.

Here is the major difference, Religous people of any faith will be caught up on the sexual aspect of the relationship. Since gays can’t have sex the exact same way as straights and the only sexual acts gays can do are often deemed the “wrong way” to have sex by a holy book, then religious people see a difference through their theology which justifies their exclusion of rights to people in non-religious society.

As alluded to by previous posters, the purpose of sex is to be open for producing children. We don’t believe in a holy book; we believe in God Who created the world and designed humans to act according to a predetermined design. The holy book you mention just puts it into intelligible words to remind us how to behave.

And what rights are you referring to? Hospital visitation?

But being told you CAN’T marry, even if you want to means you have no control over that aspect of your life, thus making you a less valued member of society while straight couple may exercise complete control of their lives marrying as many times as they wish.

It’s a non-applicable scenario. It’s like a dolphin comparing itself to a fish and saying, “It’s not fair that I can’t breathe underwater with gills and I have to come up for air to breathe. I’m a second-class citizen of the sea.”

Life is short, who is to say what makes one happy. For a majority of posters here, life and happiness steam from a religion. For others not abiding to the Catholic Faith these personal relationships with someone of the same gender are beautiful things which make life worth living. Why deny people the happiness of marriage when they are in love?

Religion is a means to a final end: hope for eternal life without corruption of body and soul. As to the details of what heaven is like, I can’t say. But I hear it’s lovely this time of year.
Click to expand...
 
EIF5A said:
I’m asking how does one reconcile the fact that IF the ability to bear children is the main reason for marriage, why are old people allowed but not gays? What’s the argument against that?
Click to expand...
Because the point is not about being able, in fact, to bear children, but in essence. That is, absent any accidental defect (where “accidental” is in the philosophical sense), only a man and a woman are capable of producing offspring. Infertility, due to age or other cause, doesn’t change the essence of the relationship. Gay couples are–by nature, by essence–incapable of producing offspring. Even if their reproductive systems are in perfect health, they cannot produce offspring.

The difference is one of nature, not of accident. And marriage is a natural relationship, not an accidental one.
 
To EIFSA

Thank you for your questions. Questions are awesome in that they allow us to educate each other. It is difficult for new catholics and seekers to understand what the RCC teaches in regards to these complex issues. All the discussion has been great except for the jab about flying to weddings and such.
Dawnia said:
‘CIVIL’ MARRIAGE DOES NOT EXIST
Click to expand...
The thing I’ve never understood is why a priest or religious minister needs us to give him our license before he is allowed to marry us. No priest or minister should need permission to join us in a sacrament. That is as silly as a priest needing to see a license to hear confession or to baptize. Priest don’t demand to see proof of our FHC to give us the Eucharist so why in marriage?

The government should get out of the marriage business and not instead try to define marriage for all of us. If the government can’t get it right it should just get out of licensing it at all. The government should have no say in what sacraments a person receives.

What’s interesting is in Europe a couple has two weddings- a civil ceremony and then a religious ceremony if they are religious. You cannot get around the civil ceremony. This separates the legal from the religious and I think that is in some ways fairer. I don’t know if ministers are required to marry SS couples. I think in some countries a minister can be sued for refusing but I’m not sure.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Catholic Schools Could Lose Non-Profit Status if Court Rules Gay Marriage a Right

ncregister.com/blog/matthew-archbold/catholic-schools-could-lose-non-profit-status-if-court-rules-gay-marriage-a/#ixzz3YinRQ1tK
Click to expand...
I am of the opinion that any religious organization that employees staffs should have to pay taxes because having employees on a payroll is behaviour that defines a business in part. If lifting tax exemption can some how give clergy a leg up in this marriage debate then maybe churches should pay taxes but remain privately held.

If a store is not a publicly traded company why can it be sued for denying to bake a cake or take a photo? A neighborhood bakery is not the same as publicly traded Starbucks.
 
elsker said:
I am of the opinion that any religious organization that employees staffs should have to pay taxes because having employees on a payroll is behaviour that defines a business in part. If lifting tax exemption can some how give clergy a leg up in this marriage debate then maybe churches should pay taxes but remain privately held.

If a store is not a publicly traded company why can it be sued for denying to bake a cake or take a photo? A neighborhood bakery is not the same as publicly traded Starbucks.
Click to expand...
With very few exceptions ( and always in the Catholic Church) Churches pay payroll taxes on their employees.vBeing tax-exempt does not exempt a nonprofit from payroll taxes
 
elsker said:
To EIFSA

Thank you for your questions. Questions are awesome in that they allow us to educate each other. It is difficult for new catholics and seekers to understand what the RCC teaches in regards to these complex issues. All the discussion has been great except for the jab about flying to weddings and such.

The thing I’ve never understood is why a priest or religious minister needs us to give him our license before he is allowed to marry us. No priest or minister should need permission to join us in a sacrament. That is as silly as a priest needing to see a license to hear confession or to baptize. Priest don’t demand to see proof of our FHC to give us the Eucharist so why in marriage?

The government should get out of the marriage business and not instead try to define marriage for all of us. If the government can’t get it right it should just get out of licensing it at all. The government should have no say in what sacraments a person receives.

What’s interesting is in Europe a couple has two weddings- a civil ceremony and then a religious ceremony if they are religious. You cannot get around the civil ceremony. This separates the legal from the religious and I think that is in some ways fairer. I don’t know if ministers are required to marry SS couples. I think in some countries a minister can be sued for refusing but I’m not sure.
Click to expand...
But the rights and privileges conferred by the government do not stem from the sacrament of marriage, and vice-versa.

Civil unions/domestic partnerships are different from marriage — has nothing to do with sacraments or being performed by a priest. Is it morally permissible to not have objections to same-sex civil unions/domestic partnerships that confer some of the rights that married people have?
 
Suudy said:
Because the point is not about being able, in fact, to bear children, but in essence. That is, absent any accidental defect (where “accidental” is in the philosophical sense), only a man and a woman are capable of producing offspring. Infertility, due to age or other cause, doesn’t change the essence of the relationship. Gay couples are–by nature, by essence–incapable of producing offspring. Even if their reproductive systems are in perfect health, they cannot produce offspring.

The difference is one of nature, not of accident. And marriage is a natural relationship, not an accidental one.
Click to expand...
Is this philosophical line of reasoning strong enough to hold up in court?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top