Why does a religious institution care about civil marriage?

[sdeco]

Hi everyone,

Thanks to all who answered my questions on contraception. I have another question about a church teaching that is far less relevant to me personally but that I nevertheless have trouble understanding – why does the Church care about civil gay marriage?

Let me be clear that I agree with Church teaching on homosexuality. I think homosexual acts are sinful and that people with a homosexual orientation are called live a celibate life unless and until they can change. I believe God created marriage to be between one man and one woman. I certainly don’t think the Catholic Church should marry homosexuals. But what difference does it make if gays can get married legally? Civil marriage and religious marriage are two completely different things. Not everything that’s a sin should be a crime. Aren’t we imposing our religious beliefs on others by trying to keep gay marriage illegal?

Look at it this way – if two heterosexuals get married in front of a justice of the peace, the Church doesn’t consider them married in the eyes of God, because they aren’t married in the Catholic Church, or in any church. So why do they care if two homosexuals get married in front of a justice of the peace? If homosexuals were trying to get married in the Catholic Church that would be a different story, but I don’t see why civil marriage should matter to the Church. While I think it’s a good idea to get legally married for practical purposes, the legality of my marriage means nothing to me. Whether or not you are legally married has nothing to do with whether or not you’re married in the eyes of God.

I also disagree with sodomy laws that make homosexual acts illegal. Yes, homosexual acts are wrong, but to me these laws are the equivalent of a law forcing everyone to go to mass on holy days or something. It’s imposing our religious beliefs on others. (And it’s different from abortion, which has a clear victim – the unborn child. I think abortion should be illegal because it’s wrong from both a secular and a religious perspective, like murder or rape. Homosexuality is only wrong from a religious perspective).

Another question – if any of you do think sodomy should be illegal, should premarital heterosexual sex also be illegal? And if not, why not?

 

[manualman]

Because the church rejects the American idea of rugged individualism. We do not believe that every man is an island and should have the license do do whatever he pleases. We believe that the actions of each individual has and effect on the entire community.

It is a balancing act to determine when it is required to speak out and call for consensus public affirmation of morality (such as church teaching on ‘homosexual civil unions’) versus when to work to convert hearts without legal activism (such as in contraception, where few if any church leaders would call for a legal ban on condoms). I think the difference is that the church feels legally supporting moral principles is justified when the general sense of society supports the principle in question, whereas she sees the need to convert hearts first when it is an unpopular concept.

Note, that this is different than putting different priorities on things. Both may be equally vexing moral problems, but each requires different pastoral approaches for the culture as a whole.

 

[YinYangMom]

The Church cares about the preservation of Truth.

The Truth is men and women were not created to lay with people of the same sex.

For the Church to look the other way from civil homosexual marriage is to fail in Her obligation to speak the Truth at all times, regardless of whether or not it is popular opinion.

She has to voice God’s position on the matter. He left the Truth in Her care for such a purpose.

The thing to keep in mind is it isn’t so much that the Church cares as much as it is God cares. Jesus would not remain silent on the matter, therefore the Church cannot either.

 

[Corki]

Because marriage between two people of the same sex would be a violation of the natural law. It is unfair to equate this with mandating Mass attendance. How a person practices his faith is not a part of the natural law. The formation of family units is. It isn’t about religion at all, it is about how humans form families.

 

[utica]

You ask some great questions!

Another question – if any of you do think sodomy should be illegal, should premarital heterosexual sex also be illegal? And if not, why not?

I’ll take a stab at this part.

I do believe that sodomy is a morally grave act. In my opinion, though, it should not be illegal, at least not in my state.

I also believe that premarital sex is a morally grave act. Again, it’s my opinion that it should not be illegal in my state.

However, I do believe that the states ought to have the right to regulate these two acts, and that the people of the state ought to have the right to make these acts illegal if they want.

Of coarse, this brings in the whole notion of the “right to privacy”, and whether or not the Griswold case was a sound decision by the Supreme Court.

Not all vices ought to be made illegal. It’s my opinion that, at the moment, in my state it would cause more harm than good to make laws against sodomy and pre-marital sex. However, dynamics could change in the future in such a way as to make it wise to make them illegal.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Some good question here but some things rather mixed up

1. Homosexuals are called to celibacy via church rules
2. The church cares because “marriage” would imply and probably practice the opposite of celibacy, thus condemning the parties. As well as risking the standing (social, financial, legal) of marriage as the church sees proper marriage
3. The civil union as mentioned above would imply we are encouraging sin into the life of the person which is opposite our hope.
4. Sodomx and Premarital sex have been made illegal in many places but I believe the federal courts have refused to uphold them effectively making them useless as laws

I caution you and others to look at the legal systems use of the word “married” as in death benefits, social security, estate laws, inheritance laws, insurances, depend care, etc, these are child raring support system for society which are affected by marriage definitions.

 

[thechrismyster]

why does the Church care about civil gay marriage?

or:

why would gays care about a religious institution like “marriage”?

 

[cameron_lansing]

“Why does the Church care about civil gay marriage?”

The doctrine of the Church is drawn from “an analysis of the nature of marriage and its essential characteristics in the light of the natural law.” This law is “inscribed by God in the nature of the person.”

True human freedom “is called to accept the moral law given by God. In fact, human freedom finds its authentic and complete fulfilment precisely in the acceptance of that law.”

Simply said, "Marriage is not just any union between human persons that can be formed according to a variety of cultural models. "

In part see the papal speeches of 1999 and 2001 to the Roman Rota from which the above quotations were extracted: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/index_spe-roman-rota.htm .

 

[puzzleannie]

Look at it this way – if two heterosexuals get married in front of a justice of the peace, the Church doesn’t consider them married in the eyes of God, because they aren’t married in the Catholic Church, or in any church.

your basic premise is wrong. The Catholic Church considers all civil marriages as valid, unless one of the parties is a Catholic. Only Catholics are bound by Church law on marriage. Two non-Catholics who marry civilly, or in any religious ceremony are considered validly married. Two baptized persons are also considered sacramentally married. Since marriage is established by God, and even through natural law can be seen as obviously restricted to one man and one woman, to even suggest the possibility of two persons of the same gender “marrying” is ludicrous and contradictory.

 

[Liberian]

Sdeco,

If two men were to get civilly “married” in a court and then apply to adopt a child, how would the Church respond? This has already happened in Massachusetts, where the state government has ordered Catholic Charities to place adopted children with homosexual couples. (Catholic Charities has responded by stopping all its adoption placement activities in that state, by the way.)

• Liberian

 

[minkymurph]

This may be a little off the point, but is anal intercourse between a married couple a sin? Is it as bad as pre marital sex?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

This may be a little off the point, but is anal intercourse between a married couple a sin? Is it as bad as pre marital sex?

“Sin” Yes
“As Bad As” I do not know how to tell
Both actions violate the proper role of sex in life

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Why would a religious institution not care about what the greater society does? We don’t live in our own little bubble. We are supposed to witness the Kingdom of God. We don’t believe that God prohibits marriage or sex between gays because God hates them. We believe that God prohibits these things because he loves them.

Also, we cannot forget that, being in a democracy, we are the ruling class. We are bound to use what authority we are given for the greater good. Enacting laws that encourage gay marriage are not for anyone’s good. It is one thing to refuse to crimininalize a sin. It is quite another to give an incentive to commit it. Marriage is an incentive that were conceived to encourage life-long fidelity between parents and the responsibility of one spouse to another.

I had a secular friend, co-habitating, ask me to give her an explanation for her secular boyfriend about why they should get a civil marriage. She had no worries that he was going anywhere. I told her that marriage isn’t just a contract between the marrying parties. It is a contract between the marrying parties and society. It give the couple rights that unmarried adults do not have, like the right to make medical decisions, and so on. It also gives the right to marital relations.

Do we want to create a right to homosexual relations? In other words, do we want to be in a position that by persuading someone to abandon a gay sexual relationship by their own free will, we will be alienating affection or attacking a marriage? I don’t think so.