What Should We Do If Gay "Marriage" Becomes Legal?

[marymary1975]

And, no, your parish will not have to change forms from Husband and Wife to Spouse A and Spouse B. Civil marriage deals with the state, which is the only entity that will have the ‘Spouse A and Spouse B’ changes made to their marriage application forms. The Catholic Church (or any church, for that matter) will not have to change anything about its ceremonies unless it elects to. The Catholic Church already has restrictions and regulations regarding who is and is not eligible for a Catholic marriage ceremony, and since no one’s come after the RCC for that and been successful, I think you’re in the clear.

The Supreme Court upheld the Boy Scouts’ right to deny membership to LGBT persons as a private organization. That same legal precedent can and would apply to the Catholic Church, as well. They don’t have to marry anyone they don’t want to. Gays and lesbians will be married in the eyes of their government, regardless, because they’ll have a marriage license. If a gay or lesbian couple wants a religious ceremony to accompany that marriage license, then the responsibility falls on them to find a religious organization willing to perform the ceremony, just as that responsibility falls on heterosexual couples.

I heavily disagree with this. Sometime ago there was a case from Utah that went to the supreme court ( it didn’t involve catholic church.instead it was the religion of a native group but given that it addresses religion it does apply to catholics) where the Court ruled that if a law is passed by a state and it has an incidental burden (or is against) on the practice of a religion, said religion is binded by that law. These means that if a state passes a law saying “all marriage certificates” must say spouse a and b, then the catholic church had to comply with it. Now what they can’t do is pass a law saying “the catholic church mist issue marriage certificates that say…”, that they can’t, but the government can force all religions to issue those certificates as it would be seen as “incidental.”

With regard to the boy scouts, they are considered a private organization, legally speaking pure private organizations and religions are two different things so no, the boy scout case doesn’t set a precedent over the church because they are not a religion.and the grounds that the courts use to rule on private organizations are different to the grounds to be use with religion.

 

[marymary1975]

Personally I think the catholic church should take a stance if homosexual marriage wins, maybe withdrawimg themselves from civil marriages or something like but do something that shows their stance, otherwise it is going ti be the same as when no fault divorce wad legalized.

Personally I think DOMA is going to be declared unconstitutional because Congress didn’t have the power to enact it, especially after listening to the hearings but is hard to guess what is going to be the Court’s outcome particularly with how unpredictable Kennedy is so we don’t know yet if they are going to make homosexual marriage legal. There is a good chance is left to the States and there is a good chances it will end up like Casey v. Planned Parenthood where Kennedy made a hybrid out of the two positions. But only God knows. Also lately all Kennedy does is voting with the conservative wing so I think what we should do know is pray that Roberts can convince Kennedy to join his side.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Celebrate the civil rights victory. Celebrate equality for gay couples. Celebrate it as a new chapter of the civil rights movement heralded by Martin Luther King. Celebrate the fact that people will not be persecuted for their private conduct.

Yes, let’s celebrate the ongoing destruction of the only institution that unites children to their natural parents. Hooray.

CaliLobo:

Celebrate that the government will not intrude into our bedrooms.

Marriage is not about the privacy of the bedroom. It is about public perception. The Courts have long ago declared the government’s inability to intrude into private sexual affairs. Again, the argument for gay marriage is muddled and confused here.

CaliLobo:

Show disgust for those Americans in our previous history who have misapplied Biblical teaching to justify hatred for gays for so long.

I don’t think we need to wait for national acceptance of gay marriage to express such a sentiment. As a Catholic, I understand we are called to love our neighbor. That would include people who self-identify as “gay.”

CaliLobo:

Be an example to other countries in the world who still reject equality for gays. Show them that Jesus would never want to have gay people suffer for the way God created them.

I agree that the US should be an example of tolerance and equal rights under the law. I don’t feel that marriage must be redefined to reach that goal with respect to homosexual couples. I also think that your comment that Jesus would never want “gay people” to “suffer for the way God created them” is an unproven hypothesis that, at best, oversimplifies a very complex pattern of sexual development. What I mean to say, is that it’s not clear whether people who self-identify as “gay” were “made” that way. Moreover, it’s not clear at all that God would be “happy” with anyone’s decision to self-identify as “gay” - which implies one’s acceptance of objectively immoral conduct.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

What do Catholics do on the marriage front if gay “marriage” becomes a legal reality in the United States?

What was expected of us when no-fault divorce was legalized? What was expected of us when slavery was still legal?

Do we protest and march?

Just curious what everyone else thinks.

I think that Catholics must continue to speak the truth, in charity, to the rest of the world. This will undoubtedly lead to persecution of Catholics and others who refuse to accept the redefinition of marriage. Catholic business owners who cannot morally accept this new institution will be pillaried by the press, held up to scorn, and named as defendants in civil actions. Church pastors who speak out in favor of traditional marriage will be labelled as “haters” and “bigots.” Persecution will come. It’s already happening in states that recognize the new definition.

Fear not, however. The sun will continue to shine on both the just and the unjust.

Peace,
Robert

 

[DexUK]

Yes, let’s celebrate the ongoing destruction of the only institution that unites children to their natural parents. Hooray.

Marriage is not about the privacy of the bedroom. It is about public perception. The Courts have long ago declared the government’s inability to intrude into private sexual affairs. Again, the argument for gay marriage is muddled and confused here.

I don’t think we need to wait for national acceptance of gay marriage to express such a sentiment. As a Catholic, I understand we are called to love our neighbor. That would include people who self-identify as “gay.”

I agree that the US should be an example of tolerance and equal rights under the law. I don’t feel that marriage must be redefined to reach that goal with respect to homosexual couples. I also think that your comment that Jesus would never want “gay people” to “suffer for the way God created them” is an unproven hypothesis that, at best, oversimplifies a very complex pattern of sexual development. What I mean to say, is that it’s not clear whether people who self-identify as “gay” were “made” that way. Moreover, it’s not clear at all that God would be “happy” with anyone’s decision to self-identify as “gay” - which implies one’s acceptance of objectively immoral conduct.

Peace,
Robert

If a homosexual couple ends up recognised in law as married, it is simply nonsense to say that this outcome will somehow ‘destroy’ marriage for heterosexual couples. They will still have all that they ever had. Nothing changes for them on any practical level at all. And matrimony as a sacrament will remain unchanged too, since the sacrament is not being opened to same gender couples.

As for the genesis of the homosexual condition, whether it be genetic, hormonal, chemical, or imposed, I don’t think there are any sensible people out there who truly believe that homosexuals are actually heterosexuals rebelling against their nature. However the sexual orientation comes into being, it is experienced, in the main, by the ‘owner’ of that condition as immutable.

What may be objectively immoral to a heterosexual person (and it would certainly be immoral if a heterosexual person deliberately acted in a homosexual way) need not necessarily apply to a homosexual person for no other reason than mortal sin requires understanding, acceptance and grave matter. Since a homosexual person is, immutably (at least to the limit of their knowledge and experience) fixed in that orientation, they would not be able to experience their acts as immoral that the knowledge gained from the standpoint of the heterosexual would provide.

 

[livingwordunity]

the real question - should marriage be redefined so that it no longer is an institution that connects a man and a woman to any children that they produce. That is what marriage is, and has always been. Secular institutions embrace marriage because it is a social good to unite parents with their offspring legally as well as socially. So called “gay marriage” completely severs this purpose from the institution - whether it is secular or religious. That is the real question. It is not a “gay” issue. Marriage is, and always has been, a family issue. It is not cruel to deny same-sex couples entry into an institution that by its very nature simply does not apply - unless it is redefined to exclude the connection of father and mother to children.

The Church’s objection to so-called “gay marriage” is not based on any lack of good faith with respect to gay couples. It concedes that all people want a close connection with those who they love. What it posits is that redefining marriage is not the panacea for this angst, nor should marriage be redefined to advance political agendas or social acceptance of the gay lifestyle. Rather, marriage has a specific role in society that is not applicable to a same-sex couple - no matter how loving, and regardless of the fact that they may have children from some other male-female union.

No one is barring them from citizenship, happiness, or a full life. The Church is saying that marriage - by its nature - is not applicable to even the most loving same-sex union because the union does not bond the couple to children that are the product of the union. Rather, same-sex marriages ultimately deprive children legally tied to that union of at least their mother or their father. It is not discrimination to say to a man, “You cannot be a mother, you can only be a Father.” Is the man “less of a citizen” because he is denied motherhood? Do we need to redefine motherhood to include male parents? What impact would doing so have on our understanding of “motherhood” in 5 years? In ten years? In a generation? Would motherhood lose it’s meaning and become simply a synonym for “parent.”

Why is it that emotional arguments like Casey’s always look right past the children who are negatively effected by so-called “same-sex marriage.” It guess because it’s all about “personal happiness,” and children are only seen in the abstract at the outset of a marriage?

This :clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[SuperLuigi]

I live in a state where gay “marriage” is legal. To be honest, I really don’t notice it much. I know the homosexual acts that probably go along with this redefinition of marriage are wrong, but it fortunately doesn’t seem to affect my life much. Maybe gay marriage should be allowed under the guises of free will…if others want to sin…well, all we can do is pray that the Holy Spirit helps them out.

Problem is that it isn’t always about two GLBTQ folks riding off together in the sunset.

Businesses that refuse to accommodate them on religious grounds have been sued.

What people don’t seem to realize is that there is a very anti-freedom activism associated with this, not to mention that your taxes will probably be paying for their sex life.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Celebrate the civil rights victory. Celebrate equality for gay couples.

They already have equality. They can marry someone of the opposite sex. That’s equal opportunity.

Celebrate it as a new chapter of the civil rights movement heralded by Martin Luther King.

Dr. King would have approved of so-called “gay marriage”?

Celebrate the fact that people will not be persecuted for their **private **conduct.

Wedding photographers sued:

cbn.com/cbnnews/357084.aspx

Bed and Breakfasts sued:

foxnews.com/us/2013/04/15/judge-rules-in-favor-lesbians-suing-hawaii-bb/

topix.com/forum/city/branson-mo/T7L5R44JGJIH6GK60

Celebrate that the government will not intrude into our bedrooms.

If it involves my tax dollars, too late!

Show disgust for those Americans in our previous history who have misapplied Biblical teaching to justify hatred for gays for so long.

Just Biblical, not with the Koran?

And show disgust? So is the gay “marriage” movement about revenge instead of “love?”

Be an example to other countries in the world who still reject equality for gays. Show them that Jesus would never want to have gay people suffer for the way God created them.

Funny, a lot of progressives in media who seem to favor gay rights think that marriage itself is suffering.

And our nation is supposed to be an example in the name of Christ? I’m for that, but why would someone who argues for “separation of Church and state” in favor of so-called gay “marriage” want us to promote Jesus in another case?

 

[SuperLuigi]

If a homosexual couple ends up recognised in law as married, it is simply nonsense to say that this outcome will somehow ‘destroy’ marriage for heterosexual couples. They will still have all that they ever had. Nothing changes for them on any practical level at all.

.

Nothing changes,huh:

"Just last year, two women filed a complaint in New Jersey because they were denied use of a pavilion for their civil union ceremony. The pavilion was owned by a Methodist ministry. 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. Due to the ministry’s refusal to rent it for the lesbian ceremony, New Jersey revoked its tax-free status.

The Des Moines Human Rights Commission found the local Young MENS Christian Association in violation of public accommodation laws because it refused to extend “family membership” privileges to a lesbian couple that had entered a civil union in Vermont. Accordingly, the city forced the YMCA to recognize gay and lesbian unions as “families” for membership purposes, or lose over $100,000 in government support.

Perhaps the most notorious example of a state forcing its view on a church agency comes from Massachusetts, where Boston Catholic Charities ran an adoption agency that had been placing children with families for over 100 years. In 2006, Archbishop Sean P. O’Malley announced that the agency would abandon its founding mission rather than submit to a state law requiring it to place children with homosexual couples. (A Vatican document from 2003 described gay adoptions as ''gravely immoral.")"

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/life-and-family/homosexuality/the-unintended-consequences-of-gay-marriage/

"Christian photographers Elane Photography in New Mexico were approached by a same sex couple looking to hire a wedding photographer. **Elane Photography politely declined **citing their Christian faith and were sued by the couple under the state’s anti-discriminatory laws, and won. In New Mexico you apparently have no right to your free expression and practice of faith any longer.

• In Lexington, Ky., a T-shirt shop called Hands On Originals was approached by the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization about printing shirts for the group. The T-shirt company politely declined and even sought out quotes and gave the group referrals to other T-shirt printers, along with comparable prices. They were promptly sued by the group under Lexington’s anti-discriminatory laws and forced to comply with a lengthy investigation. The city’s power-drunk human rights commission said the shop will be "required by law to participate in the investigation.”

"We have subpoena power and have the backing of the law,” Raymond Sexton, the executive director of the Human Rights Commission told Fox News.“We are a law enforcement agency and people have to comply.”

Read more: foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/26/gay-marriage-religious-freedom-are-incompatible/#ixzz2SA6aC4dk

foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/26/gay-marriage-religious-freedom-are-incompatible/

 

[stewstew03]

If a homosexual couple ends up recognised in law as married, it is simply nonsense to say that this outcome will somehow ‘destroy’ marriage for heterosexual couples. They will still have all that they ever had. Nothing changes for them on any practical level at all. And matrimony as a sacrament will remain unchanged too, since the sacrament is not being opened to same gender couples.

As for the genesis of the homosexual condition, whether it be genetic, hormonal, chemical, or imposed, I don’t think there are any sensible people out there who truly believe that homosexuals are actually heterosexuals rebelling against their nature. However the sexual orientation comes into being, it is experienced, in the main, by the ‘owner’ of that condition as immutable.

What may be objectively immoral to a heterosexual person (and it would certainly be immoral if a heterosexual person deliberately acted in a homosexual way) need not necessarily apply to a homosexual person for no other reason than mortal sin requires understanding, acceptance and grave matter. Since a homosexual person is, immutably (at least to the limit of their knowledge and experience) fixed in that orientation, they would not be able to experience their acts as immoral that the knowledge gained from the standpoint of the heterosexual would provide.

A couple of things could change…

• We might see laws that ban, or at least make it more difficult for churches (or other organizations such as the BSA) to discriminate against sexual orientation;
• We will definitely see more openness toward polygamous marriage; and
• We might even see, in the name of equal rights and liberty, the decriminalization of incest, paedophilia, zoophillia, or child pornography.

.

 

[marymary1975]

Nothing changes,huh:

"Just last year, two women filed a complaint in New Jersey because they were denied use of a pavilion for their civil union ceremony. The pavilion was owned by a Methodist ministry. 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. Due to the ministry’s refusal to rent it for the lesbian ceremony, New Jersey revoked its tax-free status.

The Des Moines Human Rights Commission found the local Young MENS Christian Association in violation of public accommodation laws because it refused to extend “family membership” privileges to a lesbian couple that had entered a civil union in Vermont. Accordingly, the city forced the YMCA to recognize gay and lesbian unions as “families” for membership purposes, or lose over $100,000 in government support.

Perhaps the most notorious example of a state forcing its view on a church agency comes from Massachusetts, where Boston Catholic Charities ran an adoption agency that had been placing children with families for over 100 years. In 2006, Archbishop Sean P. O’Malley announced that the agency would abandon its founding mission rather than submit to a state law requiring it to place children with homosexual couples. (A Vatican document from 2003 described gay adoptions as ''gravely immoral.")"

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/life-and-family/homosexuality/the-unintended-consequences-of-gay-marriage/

"Christian photographers Elane Photography in New Mexico were approached by a same sex couple looking to hire a wedding photographer. **Elane Photography politely declined **citing their Christian faith and were sued by the couple under the state’s anti-discriminatory laws, and won. In New Mexico you apparently have no right to your free expression and practice of faith any longer.

• In Lexington, Ky., a T-shirt shop called Hands On Originals was approached by the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization about printing shirts for the group. The T-shirt company politely declined and even sought out quotes and gave the group referrals to other T-shirt printers, along with comparable prices. They were promptly sued by the group under Lexington’s anti-discriminatory laws and forced to comply with a lengthy investigation. The city’s power-drunk human rights commission said the shop will be "required by law to participate in the investigation.”

"We have subpoena power and have the backing of the law,” Raymond Sexton, the executive director of the Human Rights Commission told Fox News.“We are a law enforcement agency and people have to comply.”

Read more: foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/26/gay-marriage-religious-freedom-are-incompatible/#ixzz2SA6aC4dk

foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/26/gay-marriage-religious-freedom-are-incompatible/

Thanks superluigi for posting my exact thought. And I just wanted to point out that the Massachusetts lawsuits all came after same sex marriage was legalized. Also there are a couple of other smaller lawsuits in MA suing schools for using the words mother and father, suing father-daughter school dances, the st Patrick’s.parade suit and many more all after same sex marriage was approved. So my question is if all that homosexuals want is the right to be married why they keep suing everybody if they already have the right o marry?

 

[livingwordunity]

Thanks superluigi for posting my exact thought. And I just wanted to point out that the Massachusetts lawsuits all came after same sex marriage was legalized. Also there are a couple of other smaller lawsuits in MA suing schools for using the words mother and father, suing father-daughter school dances, the st Patrick’s.parade suit and many more all after same sex marriage was approved. So my question is if all that homosexuals want is the right to be married why they keep suing everybody if they already have the right o marry?

It’s obvious that when a state says “yes” to redefining marriage, the “gay” activists immediately see it as a green light to start suing everyone who won’t accept it.

 

[Corki]

Celebrate the civil rights victory. .

Except the same-sex marriage is neither a civil rights issue or a victory.

Celebrate equality for gay couples.

This doesn’t create equality for same-sex couples. No law can do that. It only creates a fiction that same-sex couples can participate in and act like they are equal to a normal couple.

Celebrate it as a new chapter of the civil rights movement heralded by Martin Luther King.

MLK would be shocked that his name and legacy are being used this way.

Celebrate the fact that people will not be persecuted for their private conduct.

These laws do nothing in that regard. To the extent that anyone has been “persecuted” for homosexual behavior, that ened with the Loving case. This just allows a new version of persecution to be accepted.

Celebrate that the government will not intrude into our bedrooms.

Old argument - solved decades ago. Started up down this slippery slope.

Show disgust for those Americans in our previous history who have misapplied Biblical teaching to justify hatred for gays for so long.

No, I will not. For the most part any “hatred” displayed was due to a wrong understanding of homosexual attraction. I certainly won’t “show disgust” for anyone who acted out of ignorance any more than I will “show disgust” for you who post out of ignorance. Sadness, yes; disgust, no.

Be an example to other countries in the world who still reject equality for gays.

Stand up and support countries like Colombia which refuse to set aside morality for political correctness. We should never support violence against any group in any country but we don’t have to cave to the whims of a deviant group either - in any country.

Show them that Jesus would never want to have gay people suffer for the way God created them

You are correct. Jesus would never want anyone to suffer for any of the consequences of original sin. That’s how sickness and disorder entered the world and that’s what he came to save us from. But Jesus did not end blindness, paraplegia, cancer or homosexuality. Those disorders all still exist in our world. Someday, we may find an answer to all of those problems.

 

[DexUK]

We might even see, in the name of equal rights and liberty, the decriminalization of incest, paedophilia, zoophillia, or child pornography.

If you really think that, then there’s no point arguing with you, as you’re already beyond any form of logic.

Quite how you think that homosexual consensual unions can be compared at any level with abusive and non-consensual acts should be beyond any rational person.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

If a homosexual couple ends up recognised in law as married, it is simply nonsense to say that this outcome will somehow ‘destroy’ marriage for heterosexual couples.

You’re misconstruing the argument. To put it simply - in order for there to be such a thing as a same-sex marriage, the institution will have to be redefined in such a way that it is unrecognizable from any other close personal relationship. It’s not that “gay-marriage” will take anything away from real marriage. It’s that real marriages will be obscured by the very “institution” that has been redefined to be more “inclusive.”

DexUK:

Nothing changes for them on any practical level at all. And matrimony as a sacrament will remain unchanged too, since the sacrament is not being opened to same gender couples.

Sacramental marriage is not at issue. On a practical level, the redefinition of marriage will by necessity exclude the institution from completing it’s primary purpose - connecting man and woman to any biological offspring from their union.

DexUK:

As for the genesis of the homosexual condition, whether it be genetic, hormonal, chemical, or imposed, I don’t think there are any sensible people out there who truly believe that homosexuals are actually heterosexuals rebelling against their nature. However the sexual orientation comes into being, it is experienced, in the main, by the ‘owner’ of that condition as immutable.

Whether homosexuality is perceived as immutable or not is not determinative of divine origin. Your comment assumes that “gay” people are “how God made them” and that concusion is a denial free will.

DexUK:

What may be objectively immoral to a heterosexual person (and it would certainly be immoral if a heterosexual person deliberately acted in a homosexual way) need not necessarily apply to a homosexual person for no other reason than mortal sin requires understanding, acceptance and grave matter. Since a homosexual person is, immutably (at least to the limit of their knowledge and experience) fixed in that orientation, they would not be able to experience their acts as immoral that the knowledge gained from the standpoint of the heterosexual would provide.

This argument is absurd! By your rationale, a psychopath is not sinning when he or she commits a murder because, even though non-psychopaths perceive murder as immoral, a psychopath is immutably fixed as such and cannot perceive his or her acts as immoral in the same way that a non-psychopath would perceive the act of killing as immoral. Is that really a position you want to defend? The Church teaches that one must know that an act is a grave matter, that it is a sin, and yet freely choose to engage in it knowing that to do so is a sin. How one actually experiences the act is not the determinative factor. A psychopath knows that he or she is committing murder, and is freely engaging in the act, knowing it is wrong - because they derive pleasure from the act of killing.

A homosexual man who knows that homosexual acts constitute grave matter that is objectively sinful, but who freely chooses to engage in such conduct is committing a serious sin, whether he “feels” good about it or not.

Peace,
Robert

 

[stewstew03]

If you really think that, then there’s no point arguing with you, as you’re already beyond any form of logic.

Quite how you think that homosexual consensual unions can be compared at any level with abusive and non-consensual acts should be beyond any rational person.

It’s not the union I’m comparing, it’s the legal precedent.

If this is about “equal rights” and “love” then why wouldn’t you at least give once-forbidden acts a second look?

There are cultures that practice paedophilia (for example, a mother consoling an infant with fellatio), but they don’t consider it “sex” so it’s not molestation or rape or incest.

Animals are considered property, and have no liberties. As far as laws against bestiality, they are similar to laws against sodomy – basically unenforceable.

I’ve posted this before, but I will post it again:

Paedophilia and zoophilia advocacy groups claim that:

• They promote the well-being of the children/animals;
• What they advocate is legitimate, has been around for centuries and is found across cultures;
• What they do can be beneficial for children/animals;
• People of all stripes should be free to practice their chosen activity;
• The legal system unjustly discriminates against them;
• Their chosen activity is not really ‘sex’ because it’s not procreative intercourse, and so it’s misunderstood in a society that persecutes them and labels them as “evil sinners.”

Finally, with regard to child pornography, you realize that after the Court struck down the Child Pornography Prevention Act in 2002, manufactured images of children are acceptable, as long as real children aren’t used for the images. In other words, you could take a picture of a nude 18-year old woman, photoshop it to make her look 12, and it wouldn’t be considered child pornography.

.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

What do Catholics do on the marriage front if gay “marriage” becomes a legal reality in the United States?
…
Do we protest and march?

Just curious what everyone else thinks.

By the phrasing of your OP, you invited Catholic defenders of traditional marriage who do not agree with the legalization of gay “marriage.” With the current momentum of the gay “marriage” movement and its success in states where it is now legal, you raise an important question.

With Catholic Answers being an open forum, homosexual practitioners vested in seeing gay “marriage” enshrined in law and their sympathizers some of whom are de facto disobedient or dissenting Catholics find it necessary to hereby post to rub in their taste for victory for this invented civil right of a man to “marry” another man and a woman another woman. It is, in essence, a bold destruction of natural marriage, natural family, and natural parenting. It is doubtful that the framers of the Constitution would have left open the language intentionally to such legal machinations.

At any rate, we Catholics set our sights beyond the here and now. We need to hold our ground even if it means marginalization and persecution, the signs of which are already being foisted on individuals and organizations choosing Catholic teaching and values over unjust dictates of the state. We can expect more unjust claims of bigotry and discrimination.

The eloquent words of Archbishop Cordileone in his interview last month touched on this concern. Following are clips and not the entirety of the interview which you can read by clicking on the provided link.

Q: If the Supreme Court opens the floodgates to gay marriage in California (or beyond), what will be the result?

A: If the Supreme Court overturns Prop 8, this will not go down in history as the Loving v. Virginia but as the Roe v. Wade decision of our generation.

No matter what the Supreme Court rules, this debate is not over. Marriage is too important and the issues raised by treating same-gender unions as marriages are too fundamental to just go away. Just as Roe v. Wade did not end the conversation about abortion, so a ruling that tries to import same-sex marriage into our Constitution is not going to end the marriage debate, but intensify it.

We will have a bitterly polarized country divided on the marriage issue for years if not generations to come.
…

Q: How would the allegation that opponents are bigoted lead to their rights being abridged?

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

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

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

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

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

[con’t]

 

[InSearchofGrace]

[con’t]

Q: You have spoken of gay marriage as a “natural impossibility.” But in terms of procreation, how does it differ from opposite-sex couples who are elderly or infertile?

A: Our bodies have meaning. The conjugal union of a man and a woman is not a factory to produce babies; marriage seeks to create a total community of love, a “one flesh” union of mind, heart and body that includes a willingness to care for any children their bodily union makes together.

Two men and two women can certainly have a close loving committed emotional relationship, but they can never ever join as one flesh in the unique way a husband and wife do.

Infertility is, as you point out, part of the natural life cycle of marriage (people age!), as well as a challenge and disappointment some husbands and wives have to go through. People who have been married for 50 years are no less married because they can no longer have children.

Adoption can be a wonderful happy ending for children who lack even one parent able or willing to care for them. But notice, when a man and woman cannot have children together, that’s an accident of circumstances, the exception to the rule. When a husband and wife adopt, they are mirroring the pattern set in nature itself. …

Treating same-sex relationships as marriage is the final severing by government of the natural link between marriage and the great task of bringing together male and female to make and raise the next generation together in love.
…

Q: Has it become more difficult to oppose gay marriage over the years? Does it seem the tide is turning against you?

A:There is a problem here – an injustice, really – in the way that some people are so often identified by what they are against. Opposition to same-sex marriage is a natural consequence of what we are for, i.e., preserving the traditional, natural understanding of marriage in the culture and in the law.

But of course people who are for the redefinition of marriage to include two men or two women are also against something: They are against protecting the social and legal understanding that marriage is the union of a husband and wife who can give children a mother and father.

So there are really two different ideas of marriage being debated in our society right now, and they cannot coexist: Marriage is either a conjugal union of a man and a woman designed to unite husband and wife to each other and to any children who may come from their union, or it is a relationship for the mutual benefit of adults which the state recognizes and to which it grants certain benefits. Whoever is for one, is opposed to the other. …

Those of us who favor preserving the traditional understanding of marriage do not do so because we want people who experience attraction to their same sex to suffer. We recognize and respect the equal human dignity of everyone. Everyone should be treated equally, but it is not discrimination to treat differently things that are different. Marriage really is unique for a reason.

Q: What are your main goals: Supreme Court, lower courts, state legislatures, public opinion, religious liberty?

A: My main goal is none of these. I’m a faith leader, and my main goal is to seek to create a Catholic community in San Francisco where people know what the church teaches and uses this knowledge to guide their own lives and get to heaven. I want to help people understand the truth of natural marriage and, for people of my own faith, the deeper, theological, even mystical meaning of marriage as designed by God.

Using words, though, is only one way of teaching. Usually one’s actions speak louder than words. So there is a place for public manifestations of principle. The civil rights marches of the '60s are a good example of that. Yes, they were a way to agitate for long overdue political change, but they also had a teaching effect in that they got people to think about the injustices of racism.

Engaging with the broader culture is also part of my teaching role as an archbishop, and of course my right as U.S. citizen.

Q: Are you worried about the recent trend in courts and states going against you? How best to stop that trend?

A: The natural law has a power written on the human heart that doesn’t go away.

Notice how there is no controversy in this country now over the evil of Jim Crow laws. Shortly after the Civil Rights Act the cultural change was complete. This is because it was the right thing to do. The truth cannot be suppressed indefinitely.

Draw a contrast here with the pro-life movement: After the Roe decision, it was commonly thought that our society would soon easily accept the legitimacy of abortion. But what has happened? The pro-life movement is stronger now, 40 years later, than it ever has been. This is because of the truth: Abortion is the killing of an innocent human life. That is not a matter of opinion or religious belief; it is a simple fact that cannot be denied.

The same principle applies with marriage: It is simply a natural fact that you need a man and a woman to make a marriage and that a child’s heart longs for the love of both his or her mother and father. Even if the Supreme Court rules against this truth, the controversy will not die out, as it hasn’t on the abortion issue.

The problem is, the longer a society operates in denial of the truth, the greater is the harm that will be done. The examples of the racist policies and practices of the past in our own country make this clear, as does all the harm that abortion has done to women and all those in her network of relationships.

With marriage, we have to consider the harm that will be caused by enshrining in the law the principle that children do not need a mother and a father. The circumstances of our struggles change but the truth does not.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Here is what Cardinal George says about the matter.

If you don’t read the entire article, at least begin with paragraph 5 which begins, “What is, then, at stake in this proposed legislation?”

Thanks for posting this wonderful link.
,

 

[ndcatholic1990]

Pray pray ban. bussiness that promotes. gay unions. THEY ARE NOT MARRIAGES