The Marriage Amendment

[anilorak13ska]

I am trying to understand why the Church’s stance on same-sex marriage is something that is supposed to be imposed on non-Catholics by way of a ban on same-sex marriage? The Catholic church is also opposed to divorce, but no one is proposing a secular ban on divorce. Of the two (divorce and same-sex unions), it’s divorce that threatens our marriages, by promoting the idea that it’s ok for us to bail out the moment things get difficult. That’s a fundamental value that can and often does easily rub off on the rest of us. The existence of same-sex marriages/unions is in no way going to make me or my husband gay or otherwise affect our commitment to one another. I only say this bc that’s what I’ve heard as the argument against same-sex marriage, that it somehow threatens traditional marriage. That ship has long sailed with the 50%+ divorce rate we have.

If someone could explain to me the difference, and the reason for picking some Catholic teachings but not others and trying to impose them on people not in our church, without being snooty about it (bc I truly would like to understand what I’m not understanding), that’s be much appreciated.

 

[SonCatcher]

In my husband’s native El Salvador, it is very common for folks to have church marriages without civil marriages, precisely because of the associated costs. This is also a very poverty-stricken nation. The result is a common tradition of children’s surnames very often belonging to the mothers, when the parents are married only in the church, versus having the fathers’ surnames if married by the state.

If it is punitively expensive in an impoverished region, an exception can be made for those affected couples. That is not an issue in the U.S. Simply disliking the associated fee (as in CatherineOH’s case) is not reason enough to avoid it.

I am trying to understand why the Church’s stance on same-sex marriage is something that is supposed to be imposed on non-Catholics by way of a ban on same-sex marriage? The Catholic church is also opposed to divorce, but no one is proposing a secular ban on divorce. Of the two (divorce and same-sex unions), it’s divorce that threatens our marriages, by promoting the idea that it’s ok for us to bail out the moment things get difficult. That’s a fundamental value that can and often does easily rub off on the rest of us. The existence of same-sex marriages/unions is in no way going to make me or my husband gay or otherwise affect our commitment to one another. I only say this bc that’s what I’ve heard as the argument against same-sex marriage, that it somehow threatens traditional marriage. That ship has long sailed with the 50%+ divorce rate we have.

If someone could explain to me the difference, and the reason for picking some Catholic teachings but not others and trying to impose them on people not in our church, without being snooty about it (bc I truly would like to understand what I’m not understanding), that’s be much appreciated.

The Church’s views on divorce are know. She objects to every attack on marriage. It is difficult, however, to focus efforts on rebuilding the institution of marriage when new attacks are still underway.

 

[Jake_Parker]

I am also a resident of Minnesota. I am SO happy to see the orange signs everywhere.

Here is a great article from the Star Tribune (a Minneapolis/St.Paul newspaper):

"Here, for your reading pleasure, is what a yes vote and passage of the amendment will not do:
• It will not stop people from being gay. Nope. There is no such thing as antifairy dust. That guy in the coffee shop will not suddenly begin gawking at miniskirts and buying clashing furniture. There has been homosexuality among humans since Adam and Steve walked the Earth eons ago, and if you think it’s a choice, then you have not been paying attention. Consider this: Mychal Judge, the Catholic priest who died at the foot of the World Trade Center while helping New York firefighters, was both gay and celibate. Repeat after me: There is no lifestyle. You’re either gay or you’re not. Period.

• Voting yes will not stop gay couples from bearing or adopting children and raising them together. There are families near you doing just that right now, and, aside from some creative naming challenges for each parent, they’re normal families with normal joys and normal struggles. There is precisely zero chance of changing this.

• Voting yes will not improve your own marriage. If you and your spouse’s happiness depends on who else is married to whom, you don’t need to be in the voting booth. You need to be in counseling.

• Finally – get a load of this – voting yes will not stop gay couples from getting married. Wait, what?? How can that be? Well, I hate to be the one to tell you, but gay couples have been walking down the aisle, saying “I will,” wearing rings, cutting cake and going on honeymoons for years – right here in Minnesota. Many pastors and priests will marry a gay couple – after decent premarital counseling, of course. Jane can still refer to her “wife” and Steve can still gripe about his “husband” and, unless we want to set up a Nazi-like state, where we control how people speak in public, that isn’t going to change, either.

Well, gosh, if a yes vote won’t stop any of those things, what will it actually accomplish? From a practical standpoint, absolutely nothing: Gay marriage is already illegal in Minnesota – meaning that the state doesn’t recognize a family when it sees one.

So, why have we spent all the time and money to place the question on the ballot this November? Well, the stated reason is to protect marriage from the scary, deviant gays who will surely do something terrible to the institution by, well, honoring it.

The real reason it’s on the ballot is to create an issue that will excite and encourage social conservatives to come to the voting booths this November and vote against Democrats. This is right out of the Karl Rove and ALEC playbook: make 'em scared, make 'em mad, make 'em vote.

Same-sex couples are denied more than 515 state rights that pertain to married couples and 1,100 federal ones; a yes vote will make that denial a permanent part of the Minnesota Constitution. That’s it. So, we can talk about defending marriage and values until the cows come home. The only thing this amendment will do is make a very long list of legal and financial benefits forever unattainable for these families.

Do you really care if a gay couple gets to file their taxes together or buys a family fishing license? Because when it really comes down to it, that’s all they want. Whether we call them married, coupled, partnered or unioned is beside the point. They’re going to use whatever term they feel like using, and nobody can do squat about it.

So, not only should you vote no on the amendment, you should begin to consider the family-friendly thing: giving same-sex couples the 515-plus rights that they deserve. It’s the right thing to do. It’s the practical thing to do. It’s not hard to imagine them being married, raising children and having families. Because they already are."

[startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/171613531.html?page=1&c=y&refer=y]](http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/171613531.html?page=1&c=y&refer=y])

I will be proudly voting NO in November and am encouraging all my Christian friends to do the same! -Both Catholic & Protestant-

 

[frenchbeatle]

I will be proudly voting NO in November and am encouraging all my Christian friends to do the same! -Both Catholic & Protestant-

Which reminds me of the other yard sign I’ve been seeing: Another Catholic Voting No.

 

[Jake_Parker]

Yeah. It’s nice to hear so many Catholics that are able to see that equal rights should be available to gay couples. Even if we do have SSM legalized in the future, no church will be forced to perform a ceremony for gay couples.

 

[maryj]

I am trying to understand why the Church’s stance on same-sex marriage is something that is supposed to be imposed on non-Catholics by way of a ban on same-sex marriage? The Catholic church is also opposed to divorce, but no one is proposing a secular ban on divorce. Of the two (divorce and same-sex unions), it’s divorce that threatens our marriages, by promoting the idea that it’s ok for us to bail out the moment things get difficult. That’s a fundamental value that can and often does easily rub off on the rest of us. The existence of same-sex marriages/unions is in no way going to make me or my husband gay or otherwise affect our commitment to one another. I only say this bc that’s what I’ve heard as the argument against same-sex marriage, that it somehow threatens traditional marriage. That ship has long sailed with the 50%+ divorce rate we have.

If someone could explain to me the difference, and the reason for picking some Catholic teachings but not others and trying to impose them on people not in our church, without being snooty about it (bc I truly would like to understand what I’m not understanding), that’s be much appreciated.

marriagematters.mncc.org/2012/04/responding-to-common-accusations-and-fallacies/

 

[maryj]

Yeah. It’s nice to hear so many Catholics that are able to see that equal rights should be available to gay couples. Even if we do have SSM legalized in the future, no church will be forced to perform a ceremony for gay couples.

“no church will be forced to perform a ceremony for gay couples”
REALLY!!
catholicnewsagency.com/resources/life-and-family/homosexuality/the-unintended-consequences-of-gay-marriage/

 

[Faithdancer]

Those who defend holy matrimony are in my prayers, in Minnesota and everywhere!

 

[Ophelia23]

“no church will be forced to perform a ceremony for gay couples”
REALLY!!
catholicnewsagency.com/resources/life-and-family/homosexuality/the-unintended-consequences-of-gay-marriage/

 

[Faithdancer]

“no church will be forced to perform a ceremony for gay couples”
REALLY!!
catholicnewsagency.com/resources/life-and-family/homosexuality/the-unintended-consequences-of-gay-marriage/

Yes, if the mockery that is homosexual “marriage” is legalized in a state, churches in that state may face discrimination suits if they refuse to perform such “marriages.”

Reminder: It is heretical for a Roman Catholic to obstinately oppose Church teachings and to actively oppose Church teachings, including the teaching that marriage is a Holy Sacrament between a man and a woman only.

 

[Slavonic]

“no church will be forced to perform a ceremony for gay couples”
REALLY!!
catholicnewsagency.com/resources/life-and-family/homosexuality/the-unintended-consequences-of-gay-marriage/

What about a priest or minister who similarly refuses to preside at such ceremonies?

There no examples. It’s fear mongering. It hasn’t happened in any state where same sex marriages are legal not Massachusetts or Iowa or Connecticut or New York or Vermont or New Hampshire.

Consider what happened in Massachusetts in 2004: Justices of the peace who refused to preside over same-sex unions due to moral or religious objections were summarily fired. Since same-sex unions were entitled to be treated the same as traditional marriages, this refusal was discrimination and a firing offense.

What if a Justice of the Peace refused to marry any couple as long as same-sex couples were prohibited from marrying? He’s refusing on moral grounds. Should he be fired? Remember a Justice of the Peace is functioning as an officer of the law.

It had been rented out for marriages, but the ministry refused to rent it for civil unions because it is a religious structure, and civil unions are not recognized in the United Methodist Church Book of Discipline.

The Methodist Church was not forced to change its teaching. It did have to respect non-discrimination laws.

Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary, Canada, was investigated by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for doing little more than writing about this teaching in a newspaper column. Åke Green, pastor of a Pentacostalist church in Sweden, was tried, convicted, and sentenced to a month in prison for a sermon that insulted homosexuals.

The US has the strongest free speech protections in the world. It can’t happen in the US.

 

[Bradski]

What age do you think it would be OK for a young girl to have sex? It’s legal in Canada if the girl is 14. You surely don’t class that as paedophilia?

Strawman

Strawman? Someone’s comparing homosexuality with paedophilia and suggesting that they are changing laws in Canada to allow it. The law says a girl can be 14 - is that paedophilia?

 

[maryj]

Fear mongering…catholic news agency…CHECK got that!
The methodist church not forced to change its teachings…they just can’t discriminate! That’s the point of this whole thing, Catholic priest personally can be sued because they won’t be able to discriminate, their Christian views will not matter…slippery slope!
How about Christian photographers, they certainly can’t make their decisions based upon their own Christian beliefs, whether or not to take a job to photograph a same sex union…lifesitenews.com/news/photographers-guilty-of-discrimination-for-refusing-to-shoot-same-sex-weddi/
And free speech can’t be squelched in the united states…yeah that will never happen.
How about the fact that our Church, our Holy Father and Jesus Christ himself, The WORD of God teaches us that marriage is between one man,one woman open to the gift of life…shouldn’t that be enough for all catholics, why is it that there is even an argument among catholics about this? Pray,fast,repent…oh Holy Mother of God, Pray for us, pray for our church here on earth, pray for our nation.

 

[CopticChristian]

I am also a resident of Minnesota. I am SO happy to see the orange signs everywhere.

Here is a great article from the Star Tribune (a Minneapolis/St.Paul newspaper):

"Here, for your reading pleasure, is what a yes vote and passage of the amendment will not do:
• It will not stop people from being gay. Nope. There is no such thing as antifairy dust. That guy in the coffee shop will not suddenly begin gawking at miniskirts and buying clashing furniture. There has been homosexuality among humans since Adam and Steve walked the Earth eons ago, and if you think it’s a choice, then you have not been paying attention. Consider this: Mychal Judge, the Catholic priest who died at the foot of the World Trade Center while helping New York firefighters, was both gay and celibate. Repeat after me: There is no lifestyle. You’re either gay or you’re not. Period.

• Voting yes will not stop gay couples from bearing or adopting children and raising them together. There are families near you doing just that right now, and, aside from some creative naming challenges for each parent, they’re normal families with normal joys and normal struggles. There is precisely zero chance of changing this.

• Voting yes will not improve your own marriage. If you and your spouse’s happiness depends on who else is married to whom, you don’t need to be in the voting booth. You need to be in counseling.

• Finally – get a load of this – voting yes will not stop gay couples from getting married. Wait, what?? How can that be? Well, I hate to be the one to tell you, but gay couples have been walking down the aisle, saying “I will,” wearing rings, cutting cake and going on honeymoons for years – right here in Minnesota. Many pastors and priests will marry a gay couple – after decent premarital counseling, of course. Jane can still refer to her “wife” and Steve can still gripe about his “husband” and, unless we want to set up a Nazi-like state, where we control how people speak in public, that isn’t going to change, either.

**Well, gosh, if a yes vote won’t stop any of those things, what will it actually accomplish? From a practical standpoint, absolutely nothing: **Gay marriage is already illegal in Minnesota – meaning that the state doesn’t recognize a family when it sees one.

So, why have we spent all the time and money to place the question on the ballot this November? Well, the stated reason is to protect marriage from the scary, deviant gays who will surely do something terrible to the institution by, well, honoring it.

The real reason it’s on the ballot is to create an issue that will excite and encourage social conservatives to come to the voting booths this November and vote against Democrats. This is right out of the Karl Rove and ALEC playbook: make 'em scared, make 'em mad, make 'em vote.

Same-sex couples are denied more than 515 state rights that pertain to married couples and 1,100 federal ones; a yes vote will make that denial a permanent part of the Minnesota Constitution. That’s it. So, we can talk about defending marriage and values until the cows come home. The only thing this amendment will do is make a very long list of legal and financial benefits forever unattainable for these families.

Do you really care if a gay couple gets to file their taxes together or buys a family fishing license? Because when it really comes down to it, that’s all they want. Whether we call them married, coupled, partnered or unioned is beside the point. They’re going to use whatever term they feel like using, and nobody can do squat about it.

So, not only should you vote no on the amendment, you should begin to consider the family-friendly thing: giving same-sex couples the 515-plus rights that they deserve. It’s the right thing to do. It’s the practical thing to do. It’s not hard to imagine them being married, raising children and having families. Because they already are."

[startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/171613531.html?page=1&c=y&refer=y]](http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/171613531.html?page=1&c=y&refer=y])

I will be proudly voting NO in November and am encouraging all my Christian friends to do the same! -Both Catholic & Protestant-

Jake,

For someone that believes the YES vote will do absolutely nothing you say too much. I suggest that based on this everyone in Minnesota should vote YES since it will do absolutely nothing.

 

[exnihilo]

We have a ‘Vote Yes: One Man, One Woman’ sign in our yard… but when I go to the sidewalk and look down the street, I am overwhelmed by the number of bright orange “Vote No!” signs. Having the sign in our yard has already identified us as hate filled bigots by some. It feels like a battle that can’t be won. Losing this nearly guarantees the legalization of same-sex “marriages” in our state.

Please pray. Please join me in prayer for my state, and the others who are voting this year on the same issue. I believe there are five states total that are voting on this issue.

I can offer you my observations from NC where we just voted in May to add a constitutional amendment defining marriage as marriage. Leading up to the vote I was discouraged myself. I had the same observation, that there were far more signs against the amendment than for it. I was also discouraged by seeing well organized efforts by those against the marriage. My wife was discouraged by seeing most people on Facebook advocating against the marriage amendment. Some news reports of polls suggested the amendment would lose. The amendment actually passed with I believe 60% of people voting in favor.

We live in an urban area. Cities tend to be immoral places. If you live in a city I would not be surprised to see more signs against your amendment. I also think people are afraid to stand up for marriage. This fear tells you who really is being discriminated against by the way. A good way to tell who has the power is to see who you can not speak against. No corporations or well known people outside of politics were standing up for marriage. Plenty of people were standing against marriage, including many clergy in particular in the Episcopal and Methodist denominations.

Regarding my wife’s Facebook experience I think she learned that a shocking number of her friends were against civilization (marriage is the heart of any civilization). The arguments she encountered were mostly false. Those against the amendment claimed that married people enjoy all sorts of rights that unmarried couples do not. In NC, and most states I imagine, that is not really true. You need health care power of attorney to make big medical decisions for a spouse. Without a will your assets will be divided by law with a percentage going to your parents or children. So marriage does not give you all these great rights. Even if married you still need to hire an attorney and draw up wills and power of attorney documents.

I am sure Minnesota is more liberal than NC. So I’m not as hopeful about the final results. But I’d not be discouraged by some of what you observe. I think in the end you might find more support for the amendment than you think there is.

I am trying to understand why the Church’s stance on same-sex marriage is something that is supposed to be imposed on non-Catholics by way of a ban on same-sex marriage? The Catholic church is also opposed to divorce, but no one is proposing a secular ban on divorce. Of the two (divorce and same-sex unions), it’s divorce that threatens our marriages, by promoting the idea that it’s ok for us to bail out the moment things get difficult.

The same could be asked of any law. Why does the church impose its stance on murder on non-Catholics or non-Christians? Everyone believes in some moral foundation and they want to impose that moral foundation on others. The pro homosexual ‘marriage’ crowd believes it is moral to engage in homosexual behavior and that justice therefore dictates they be allowed to ‘marry’. They wish to impose that on everyone. Whenever there is a disagreement about a serious issue the law is going to weigh in one way or the other and support one side or the other. That is just the way it will be. When things get blurry you have to take a stand.

 

[Slavonic]

Fear mongering…catholic news agency…CHECK got that!
The methodist church not forced to change its teachings…they just can’t discriminate! That’s the point of this whole thing, Catholic priest personally can be sued because they won’t be able to discriminate, their Christian views will not matter…slippery slope!

It is fear mongering. Frankly, traditional marriage supporters should rely on their supposed reasoned principles, instead of scare tactics if they want to be taken seriously. Even people who agree with the author should agree that he should use better ways to make his point.

What is also a slippery slope is determining what legal exemptions are granted for religious beliefs. Religion has been and still is manipulated to perpetrate some truly horrible acts.

I suggest that based on this everyone in Minnesota should vote YES since it will do absolutely nothing.

If you are going to bold things in red at lest drag the cursor to include the whole phase to give some context. It says, “Gay marriage is already illegal in Minnesota…” The only thing a yes vote does is place a cruel roadblock to LGBT families so that the right can ‘get out the vote’ for conservative politicians.

 

[CopticChristian]

It is fear mongering. Frankly, traditional marriage supporters should rely on their supposed reasoned principles, instead of scare tactics if they want to be taken seriously. Even people who agree with the author should agree that he should use better ways to make his point.

What is also a slippery slope is determining what legal exemptions are granted for religious beliefs. Religion has been and still is manipulated to perpetrate some truly horrible acts.

If you are going to bold things in red at lest drag the cursor to include the whole phase to give some context. It says, “Gay marriage is already illegal in Minnesota…” The only thing a yes vote does is place a cruel roadblock to LGBT families so that the right can ‘get out the vote’ for conservative politicians.

Slavonic,

Thank you and anyone lurking reading your posts should realize that your thinking and writing are contrary to Catholic teachings depsite your Monikor. Your views do not represent Catholic teaching and you are at odds with the magesterium.

 

[anilorak13ska]

The same could be asked of any law. Why does the church impose its stance on murder on non-Catholics or non-Christians? Everyone believes in some moral foundation and they want to impose that moral foundation on others. The pro homosexual ‘marriage’ crowd believes it is moral to engage in homosexual behavior and that justice therefore dictates they be allowed to ‘marry’. They wish to impose that on everyone. Whenever there is a disagreement about a serious issue the law is going to weigh in one way or the other and support one side or the other. That is just the way it will be. When things get blurry you have to take a stand.

I don’t see how allowing for gay people to marry in any way imposes straight people to be affected. Murder is a different thing, because if it weren’t illegal, anyone could murder any of us and not be punished. Gay marriage only affects gay people, who without the law will still be gay and will still be in a relationship whether we like it or not. I guess I don’t see the threat or harm that comes to society at large from people’s private sexual lives.

As for pedophilia, this is NOT in any way a “gay” thing. Most pedophiles are straight men. It is completely unfair to categorize these two groups together, since one group engages in mutually consentual acts (whether others agree with them or not), whereas the other group is guilty of rape or child abuse. VERY big difference. HUGE.

 

[anilorak13ska]

Yes, if the mockery that is homosexual “marriage” is legalized in a state, churches in that state may face discrimination suits if they refuse to perform such “marriages.”

I find drive-through Vegas marriages a mockery of the holy institution of marriage. I do not find two adults who love each other and want to commit to each other, even if we agree that their love/attraction is misguided or contrary to God’s law, in any way a “mockery”. They actually want what we want - a lifelong commitment and all that comes with it. They do not take it lightly, like half the heterosexual couples who divorce, many without much thought to reconciliation. If they didn’t honor marriage and what it stands for, I don’t think they’d be fighting so hard to be allowed to marry. :shrug:That’s much more praiseworthy than a heterosexual Las Vegas drive-through “marriage” that is doomed to fail within the year.

 

[maryj]

It is fear mongering. Frankly, traditional marriage supporters should rely on their supposed reasoned principles, instead of scare tactics if they want to be taken seriously. Even people who agree with the author should agree that he should use better ways to make his point.

What is also a slippery slope is determining what legal exemptions are granted for religious beliefs. Religion has been and still is manipulated to perpetrate some truly horrible acts.

If you are going to bold things in red at lest drag the cursor to include the whole phase to give some context. It says, “Gay marriage is already illegal in Minnesota…” The only thing a yes vote does is place a cruel roadblock to LGBT families so that the right can ‘get out the vote’ for conservative politicians.

You dual quoted, from two different people, I would appreciate that if you would clear that up. thank you