What if the Church did this in response to the same-sex "marriage" debate?

[JimG]

Changing the name would do nothing to change the reality. The Church opposes both ‘marriage’ and civil unions between same sex couples. Same sex couples are incapable of marital intercourse, just as are permanently impotent heterosexual couples. Changing the name will do nothing to mitigate the adverse effects on society. It should be noted, though, that it is not same sex ‘marriage’ that is primarily destroying the institution of marriage. The widespread acceptance of contraception started the destruction of marriage, and it continues.

 

[epan]

There is definitely a movement to coerce individuals who do not agree with same sex marriage to be forced to comply despite holding a legitimate contrary moral position. A petition has been started on the petitions.whitehouse.gov site to brand the Catholic Church as a hate group because of its stand on marriage.

This prompted another group to begin a petition to counter the first one.

catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=40260

It doesn’t look like that one is going anywhere, being more than 20,000 signatures short. One may make a petition for anything on that site. Here is one to ban protests within 300 feet of a funeral, which is getting close to its goal. This would remove people like the WBC from funerals. I tend to agree that a funeral or memorial service is not the place to make a political statement: petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/ban-protests-any-cause-within-three-hundred-feet-any-funeral-service-both-during-and-two-hours-and/byxbF4Vq

 

[sw85]

As the state adopts the doctrine of demons called “same-sex marriage”, what if the Church began to always call marriage between a man and a woman either “sacramental marriage” or “natural marriage” instead of just “marriage” to distinguish marriage as it was in the beginning from newly invented artificial concepts of “marriage”?

Why should they cede this ground? Instead, refer to the state-abomination as “the simulacrum of marriage mistakenly called ‘marriage.’”

 

[andrewstx]

If you’re in Canada, pastors/priests can be legally prosecuted for refusing to “marry” homosexuals:

m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/saskatchewan-says-marriage-commissioners-must-wed-same-sex-couples/article1874896/?service=mobile

As for the topic: No, I don’t believe changing a name will solve the problem. The point of “gay marriage” is to marginalize and destroy the sanctity of traditional marriage. If a name change to traditional marriage ever picked up popularity it would only be a matter of time until there was legal pressure to start attaching the same title to homosexual unions.

The only way to fight satan is head on!

But the article does not say priests and ministers. It says “marriage commissioners”. I have no idea what marriage commisioners are. Are they always clerics? Can’t they be secularists or athiests as well?

 

[edwest2]

There is no debate. The Church will not change its stance.

Civil Union
Domestic Partnership
Same-sex marriage? Why was that on my ballot? Who put it there?

Gays will not accept anything short of the word “marriage.” Otherwise, they would consider themselves second-class citizens.

Just go to the Marriage Equality web site or the Freedom to Marry site.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Giants]

But the article does not say priests and ministers. It says “marriage commissioners”. I have no idea what marriage commisioners are. Are they always clerics? Can’t they be secularists or athiests as well?

They’re employees of the government. What they “are” aside from that is irrelevant.

 

[Rence]

This article says that marriage commissioners, appointed by a government that recognizes SSMs, are not allowed to deny SSCs the right to marry on the basis of their religious convictions. It doesn’t say that priests or pastors can be legally prosecuted for refusing to marry homosexuals. The one guy that got fined $2,500 (and kept his job) was only identified as a devout Baptist.

I think it’s an equivalent of a Justice of the Peace. Here in the US, priests perform the Sacramental marriage, but also act as JOP by signing the marriage license. The priest does this for the couple as a courtesy since the State doesn’t recognize Sacramental marriage and the Church doesn’t recognize civil marriage for Catholics. If it ever came down to it, which I doubt will happen, priests can simply only perform the Sacramental part and stop acting as JOP. This is a non-issue.

 

[Rence]

They’re employees of the government. What they “are” aside from that is irrelevant.

So they need to not be employees of the government and that will solve their problem.

 

[Kevin_B]

The Church will not be forced to marry homosexuals any more than they are forced to marry atheists.

The Church has always had different rules then the government over who can get married, and they have never been forced to follow the governments rules, and they never will.

Of all the non issues, this is one of the worst. Think about it this way: if you’re worried about someone suing the church to marry them, then the only marriages which will be legal are marriages approved by the church (marriages involving at least one catholic). But maybe a Baptist Church won’t want to marry Catholics, so the Catholics could sue them, so marriages involving Catholics would have to be illegal as well.

If you think about it, it’s an extremely absurd argument.

 

[MidnightSun12]

But the article does not say priests and ministers. It says “marriage commissioners”. I have no idea what marriage commisioners are. Are they always clerics? Can’t they be secularists or athiests as well?

I was mistaken on this one. I had thought that it was merely a pastor who was being persecuted here, I didn’t know that he was also a government-appointed marriage commissioner. Not that this justifies anything and the Canadian government’s actions were, as usual, pure evil in this regard. This case just wasn’t quite as sensational as the cases that I have posted below which show an even more scary side of Canada that will soon be a reality for Americans if the gay agenda continues unchallenged.

Remember, Canada legalized gay “marriage” in 2005… Maybe this will be what the US looks like in a few years…

cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/story/2011/10/11/whatcott-saskatchewan-human-rights.html
lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2005/nov/05113006
lifesitenews.com/news/ontario-gvmt-to-mandate-gay-straight-alliances/
lifesitenews.com/news/government-funded-registry-of-homophobic-acts-launched-today-in-quebec

 

[guanophore]

The Church has always had different rules then the government over who can get married, and they have never been forced to follow the governments rules, and they never will.

I wish this were true, but the daily news makes it clear that it is not. The battle is now taking place over the HHS mandate, but this is only the beginning.

Try listening to Kresta in the Afternoon on EWTN. Download the podcast, and you may get another side of the news.

 

[andrewstx]

They’re employees of the government. What they “are” aside from that is irrelevant.

I think it is very relelvant. This whole thread is about relgiious 'Persecution". Since the marriage commisioners are acting on the part of the state and not any church I don’t see where religious persecution comes into play. No one said priests and ministers are being penalised.

Canada has church/state seperation as well.

 

[epan]

I wish this were true, but the daily news makes it clear that it is not. The battle is now taking place over the HHS mandate, but this is only the beginning.

Try listening to Kresta in the Afternoon on EWTN. Download the podcast, and you may get another side of the news.

Don’t you think that the HHS mandates are another issue, as they only affect employment law? But, if your point is that there is a “slippery slope”, then I agree with you. We must be wary of the implication of things.

The most salient example I can think of, with respect to this thread, is that the gay marriage movement is the predictable and expected outcome of the women’s rights movement, if you follow the trajectory. I am all for women’s rights, but this shows how complicated it is that one issue can lead to another, in unexpected ways.

History is full of these examples.

 

[Kevin_B]

“I was mistaken on this one. I had thought that it was merely a pastor who was being persecuted here, I didn’t know that he was also a government-appointed marriage commissioner. Not that this justifies anything and the Canadian government’s actions were, as usual, pure evil in this regard. This case just wasn’t quite as sensational as the cases that I have posted below which show an even more scary side of Canada that will soon be a reality for Americans if the gay agenda continues unchallenged.

Remember, Canada legalized gay “marriage” in 2005… Maybe this will be what the US looks like in a few years.”

It already is. For instance, if a justice of the peace’s religion requires them to oppose interracial marriage, they would have to go against those religious beliefs in their job. However, I am guessing you mean that it will look like this just for people who oppose same-sex marriage.

If the government would ban same-sex marriage just for the sole purpose of protecting those who oppose it, then it must also ban interracial marriage just for the sole purpose of those that oppose it. The government is not allowed to put one religion above another, that would be respecting the establishment of a state religion.

Anyway, none of the issues you pointed to concern gay marriage in the least.

1. Hate speech fliers. Hate speech is legal in America, first of all. Second of all, even if you are worried about hate speech being criminalized (which would require a constitutional amendment, since the Supreme Court has consistently ruled against banning it), it has nothing to do with legalizing same-sex marriage. Hate speech could be banned while same-sex marriage is still illegal, or same-sex marriage could be allowed while hate speech is still allowed.
2. This has nothing to do with same-sex marriage being legalized. Two people standing next to each other and saying “we are married” is not illegal anywhere in this country. And if you rent out a reception hall, you are not allowed to discriminate against whom you will rent it to, even if they are just two people who want to stand up in there and claim they are married. Legalizing same-sex marriage does not affect that in any way. Any person, or organization, that provides a public service is not allowed to discriminate based on race, gender, age, creed, or sexual orientation.
3. Private organizations in the US have always been allowed to act as they please. Look at the boy scouts, who have won supreme court decisions allowing them to ban gay people (discrimination which, according to the Church, is immoral). Canada is not the US, they have different laws than we do, and this always has been and always will be illegal.
4. Whether or not people in the US can speak negatively against homosexuals has nothing to do with whether or not same-sex marriage is legal.

“I wish this were true, but the daily news makes it clear that it is not”

So will the Church be forced to marry atheists?
If so, shouldn’t we make marriage between atheists illegal?

 

[MidnightSun12]

1. Hate speech fliers. Hate speech is legal in America, first of all. Second of all, even if you are worried about hate speech being criminalized (which would require a constitutional amendment, since the Supreme Court has consistently ruled against banning it), it has nothing to do with legalizing same-sex marriage. Hate speech could be banned while same-sex marriage is still illegal, or same-sex marriage could be allowed while hate speech is still allowed.

It’s what you define as hate speech. In Canada, merely suggesting that the gay lifestyle is immoral is considered discrimination (which is what those flyers were doing).

1. This has nothing to do with same-sex marriage being legalized. Two people standing next to each other and saying “we are married” is not illegal anywhere in this country. And if you rent out a reception hall, you are not allowed to discriminate against whom you will rent it to, even if they are just two people who want to stand up in there and claim they are married. Legalizing same-sex marriage does not affect that in any way. Any person, or organization, that provides a public service is not allowed to discriminate based on race, gender, age, creed, or sexual orientation.

To hear this said on a Catholic forum is quite disturbing. To rent that hall out would have been giving scandal to mortal sin. The souls of those men in KoC would have been put in danger if they had rented out that hall and endorsed that sinful union in any way.

Essentially, this is an example of the state legally requiring Catholics to commit mortal sin or be persecuted. This is the logical equivalent of the days of Ancient Rome when the government required Catholics to physically offer small gestures of worship to the statues of Roman gods or face legal consequences (of course, Canada’s consequences for disobedience are less severe… for now).

1. Private organizations in the US have always been allowed to act as they please. Look at the boy scouts, who have won supreme court decisions allowing them to ban gay people (discrimination which, according to the Church, is immoral). Canada is not the US, they have different laws than we do, and this always has been and always will be illegal.

Laws change. We weren’t always this bad either.

1. Whether or not people in the US can speak negatively against homosexuals has nothing to do with whether or not same-sex marriage is legal.

It’s what comes after legalization. Because sodomy violates natural law, it needs to be forced on a population through censorship in order to create the illuson of equality… that means no dissent and lots of propaganda. I’m just giving you guys a warning of what’s to come.

 

[down_under]

The whole society will be changed if it becomes legal like it has changed in Canada and England for instance

how about the 30 year old who was found lounging in the women’s gym facilities and was in full view of 6 -10 year olds (did I mention he was wearing his birthday suit) and it was found perfectly legal. As the father of 3 girls I cannot even tell you what I would do if this was my girls. I would go off my head. my kids would not go to that school anymore that’s for sure, but entirely beside the point. how long until this starts being the norm. NOT LONG

and how about that story (pick one there were several lifesitenews documents this all the time) of the bed and breakfast who refused to offer services to gays (in there home mind you) as they found it morally objectionable and were found guilty by the human rights EU court and forced to pay damages. (not sure about there appeal status)

Not to mention the fact that in Canada just now people get in deep legal problems for even speaking against the gay agenda never mind in a catholic school. lawsuits abound and are well documented.
By redefining marriage you necessarily create a protected class of citizens who in reality have more rights then religious people or straight people or anyone else. suddenly its a hate crime to SPEAK you mind. no first amendment for you. charges of hate speech are so common in England they are actually having to role back the law because they were abused sooo much by the gay community. street preachers were (and we are talking last year) being arrested because a gay friendly person walked up to them and asked the preacher his opinion about gay actions. upon being told they were sinful by the preacher they walked up to police designated to stop HATE crimes and told the cop to arrest the preacher. AND HE DID ARREST HIM. all he did was speak his mind and he was guilty of a hate crime. look it up it made international news at least in major internet websites like lifesitenews among others.

no no anyone who says that this is not going to change everything and make anyone who disagrees second class citizens or criminals is simply living in a fairy tail land. IT IS ALREADY HAPPENING.

 

[atheistgirl]

what if the Church began to always call marriage between a man and a woman either “sacramental marriage”

That is what the Church calls it isn’t it

Two people (hetrosexual man and woman) getting married in a Church have gone through the hoops and been cleared by the Church authorities for a ‘‘sacramental’’ marriage, and that’s what the Church performs, isn’t it

Or am I now totally confused about Christian marriage

Sarah x

 

[JimG]

That is what the Church calls it isn’t it

Two people (hetrosexual man and woman) getting married in a Church have gone through the hoops and been cleared by the Church authorities for a ‘‘sacramental’’ marriage, and that’s what the Church performs, isn’t it

Or am I now totally confused about Christian marriage

Sarah x

The Church recognizes natural marriage as well as sacramental marriage. In fact it presumes a marriage to be valid until proven otherwise. A sacramental marriage is simply a marriage beween two baptized Christians.

It does not recognize impossibilities such as same sex marriage, which is a contradiction in terms.

 

[atheistgirl]

A sacramental marriage is simply a marriage beween two baptized Christians.

So if two baptized individuals get married in at the city hall, the Church will call that a sacramental marriage?

I don’t think so.

I thought a sacramental marriage was one conducted by a priest, in Church - that’s how the sacrament is conferred?

No?

Sarah x

 

[JimG]

So if two baptized individuals get married in at the city hall, the Church will call that a sacramental marriage?

I don’t think so.

I thought a sacramental marriage was one conducted by a priest, in Church - that’s how the sacrament is conferred?

No?

Sarah x

I’m not an expert on marriage rites. But if two baptized Protestants got married in a Methodist Church, for example, and the elements of a marital commitment were exchanged, involving commitment to each other for life, that marriage would be sacramental.

If a Catholic married a Protestant without obtaining consent of the Church, the marriage would not be valid, because the Catholic is bound to follow the marital law of the Church. Not so with two protestants.

The Church considers the proper ministers of marriage to be the bride and groom: they confer the sacrament on one another with their marital vows. The priest acts as the official witness of the Church.