Catholicvote Endorses Rick Santorum

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1332362830' post='2404856']
allowing for easily accessible divorce fundamentally defines the contract that the state offers, such that I fully disagree that the state is offering anything resembling "permanance" of any kind in the contracts that it offers. I fail to see any similarity to an unwed couple using contraception or abortion and all other murders; the state's "marriage" license is a temporary contract between two individuals who agree to live together and share expenses and get tax benefits for as long a period of time as they both wish to continue it. it is not a marriage, it is an unjust mockery of marriage in my eyes... I would rather see it gotten rid of entirely... for, as you have said, " It is unjust to have something that looks and acts like marriage but isn't." So the modern temporary marriage contract, which looks and acts like marriage but [i]isn't[/i], is unjust.

laws against murder are still laws against murder even if some murders are not illegal. but easily accessible divorce absolutely defines what the marriage contract fundamentally is, it defines it as a temporary agreement.[/quote]I addressed this some in my post above, but no marriage is determined for a specific period of time at its outset. No law in the US, as far as I know, contradicts this. Ergo the assumption of the law is permanence. Divorce after the fact may be included in peoples' minds and allowed by the state, but the state does not offer the divorce up front. Therefore these remain two separate acts. The Church offers annulments, which declare that the marriage was not valid in the first place. It's very possible that these annulments are given too freely. Does this mean that marriage should not exist in the Church?

What are the aspects of marriage? Do all of them have to be legislated at all times for a marriage to be valid? Because one aspect of natural marriage isn't legislated or is easily abrogated under the law, does that mean that all are invalid? Furthermore, are all these aspects of marriage equal? Does the absence of one then invalidate the act so much that the others are no longer necessary? This was my point with sexual intercourse. Just because a couple has corrupted the act does not mean that the act cannot become more corrupted. Just because couples get divorced doesn't mean that the act cannot be further corrupted.

Furthermore, no one has answered my objection to the question of adoption very well. When a couple adopts, if it is clear that they are not to remain married the adoption often is not permitted (especially in the case of Chinese adoptions). We should be working to make sure this is always the case. Is it fair to have kids adopted by homosexual couples? [b]A child has a fundamental right to a father and a mother.[/b] I don't believe in divorce and think that single parents shouldn't be adopting. Your position would make it legal for homosexual couples to adopt simply because we allow divorced people to adopt.

[quote]anyway, the way you have objected to my argument of subsidiarity makes it sound as if it would be just for an international law defining marriage... subsidiarity applies even to things that can never be moral and must always be illegal, ie the proper level of government ought to be the thing illegalizing them. [b]in the United States it's hard to determine what the proper level of government is because we have that dynamic between states who are supposed to have a certain degree of sovereignty unto themselves and a federal government that is supposed to be extremely limited;[/b] so it would be different to say that the National Government of France should govern the laws of marriage of France than to say that the National Government of the United States should govern the laws of marriage of the United States; an analogy to Europe would actually be better served if we viewed the Federal Government like the European Union government; the EU government should not be defining marriage, it should be the individual nations of Europe that decide that issue. So it is with a Federalist view of the United States: just as the EU government or the UN government should not be the ones deciding these issues, neither should the US Federal Government decide them.

but again, I remain unconcerned as to whether temporary contracts can be entered into between two or three or eleven people who all want to share expenses and be housemates and each other's emergency contacts with full rights to visit each other in the hospital and such. It is no less a mockery of marriage to me than the current temporary "marriage" contracts offered by the state. I would much rather fight to see "covenant marriage contracts" being given legal recognition than care much about what that mockery of marriage, the temporary marriage license of the modern state, is up to.
[/quote]I will respond only to the part bolded above: when it is a matter of interstate responsibility, then who should decide?

When a contract is accepted in one state, other states must honor that contract. Well what happens if one state finds another state's contract to be invalid? In this case, the idea that marriage can be determined state-by-state won't work on a practical level.

[qfnol31]

I feel like I've been on the defensive for a while, but now I must ask. What's wrong with the bishops?

[quote name='Pope Benedict']In this regard, particular mention must be made of the powerful political and cultural currents seeking to alter the legal definition of marriage. The Church’s conscientious effort to resist this pressure calls for a reasoned defense of marriage as a natural institution consisting of a specific communion of persons, essentially rooted in the complementarity of the sexes and oriented to procreation. Sexual differences cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to the definition of marriage. Defending the institution of marriage as a social reality is ultimately a question of justice, since it entails safeguarding the good of the entire human community and the rights of parents and children alike.[/quote]Al, you just contradicted this statement by saying that the attempts to redefine marriage aren't a big deal because they're already corrupt.

This statement was made in reference to the US specifically.

Winchester never said what he found objectionable on the bishops' site. So please tell me, why are the bishops wrong to fight gay marriage?

I will concede that they don't really talk about national vs. the state level, but from experience I know this isn't viable.

Edited March 21, 2012 by qfnol31

[Adrestia]

(Homosexual couples are already allowed to adopt.)

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1332361882' post='2404849']
[size=5][size=4]Catholics and/or other religions cannot force their moral view of marriage onto the populace. Catholics should be able to demand the Government to recognize their Marriage as a 'civil union', and allow Governments to determine what legal benefits and responsibilites go along with 'civil unions'. It's only semantics to debate wether a civil union is a marriage because it's all about how either are defined. However, Religions should not have to accept whatever Governments define as 'civil marriages' as a marriage within their religions. [/size][/size]
[/quote]

This is coming next. If the bishops fold over the HHS mandate, they will have no ground to stand on when homosexual couples request spousal benefits from Catholic employers.

[Aloysius]

when I say they're not a big deal, I'm more saying why they're not high on my priority list. the temporary contract of a state marriage license doesn't concern me that much, it seems to already belong to the devil; sure, people who go to justices to get married are married, but that's [i]in spite of [/i]the temporary contract that the state offers them. they'd be just as married if they had gone to the captain of a ship or the cheif of some tribe in the Amazon, though it'd be less provable from a canonical perspective if they didn't have a paper record. I don't feel that I am at all at odds with Pope Benedict's quote here, actually, I want marriage to be defended against all forms of mockery--including the form of mockery wherein the state authorizes a temporary contract that mimics marriage. marriage is a vow, not a contract, and it ought to be permanent.

and it's not about whether all the aspects of an ideal marriage are legislated, but what the actual legislation views marriage as being. since the actual legislation constitutes a temporary contract, it's a mockery IMO. that's not to say that the law ought to in any way try to legislate that a marriage should be procreative or anything, because that's way outside the purview of the contract the state would be recognizing... in offering a marriage license, the state is attempting to give some legal structure to the vow itself. since that legal structure is impermanent, it makes a mockery of a permanent vow. procreation doesn't really have much directly to do with the wedding vow as it has to do with the marriage afterwards, it's the wedding vow that is being enshrined in civil contract when the state issues a marriage license.

as for adoption, as Adrestia just said, it is already legal for homosexuals to adopt. if you want to illegalize that, be my guest in that fight, personally I'm not overly concerned and I think allowing single people to adopt is perfectly permissible, though I want the rights of Catholic (and other Christian) adoption agencies to be respected if they wish to only allow heterosexual couples to adopt. it is ideal for a child to have a mother and a father, but that ideal is not always attainable and it is not immoral to allow a single person to adopt a child and raise them alone, IMO.

when it comes to whether or not other states recognize housemate contracts, well it would all depend on what they had to recognize. if one state recognizes that contract as providing a certain tax status, the other state doesn't exactly have to recognize that. but say the contract detailed a certain obligation of the one party to the other party (in something that was the purview of the state, like financials or something, obviously nothing like a sexual obligation lol, it's only the Santorums of the world who think sexual activity is the purview of the state), I'd say another state certainly should enforce that because people should be held responsible for keeping promises they make in contracts. and if it defines the two partners of a contract as being next of kins and able to visit each other in the hospital and all that kind of silly stuff, then fine I think people should be allowed to designate whoever they want to have those rights related to them, parent, friend, uncle, stranger, if that's the person they want notified and able to visit and able to make medical decisions, then so be it, why should any state refuse to recognize that? but nothing can force a state to give a special tax status to two people just because another state had given it to them.

it's all quite reasonable, and the We the People Act would keep the courts from coming in and trying to make it unreasonable again, I think. individual states govern marriage laws now, and I think it should remain that way and should not be put in the power of the Federal government, or the U.N. government, or the government of the United Federation of Planets. I'm perfectly content to let the states decide.

should the states give a special recognition and status to traditional marriage and not let any civil contracts similar to marriage that are entered into by gay people have that same status? absolutely. part of doing this would be granting special status and recognition specifically to "covenant marriages" in which couples sign a contract that says they will not divorce... presently states generally do not enforce such contracts, I think that they should.

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1332362172' post='2404853']
That is an indefensible statement. Provide some data or studies that backs that up. As Aloy pointed out, civil marriages are easily entered and exited now. What difference does it make if it's to persons of the same sex?
[/quote]

Haha I got into an argument on facebook about this. Basically what I said was that the burden of proof lies on the proponents of gay marriage, not the other way around. The arguments centering around celebrity drive-thru marriages don't prove in any way that it's beneficial for the state to extend the same tax breaks (which is essntially what we're talking about here right? A gay couple can get all other priveleges associated with marriage, except of course precious recognition of their sexual love as legitimate, which would be forcing a belief on the populace).

The point is it's not on the opponents of gay-marriage to prove why gay marriage would be harmful/not beneficial, it's up to the proponents who wish to change the status quo. I don't believe they have the data/evidence to do so, but once they stop trying to shift the burden of proof, I'll be listening.

I recommend this: http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html .

But then again I'm also against the state being able to define marriage, but since the pro-gay marriage types tend to be left-leaning lovers of the State, I think this point is playing by their rules.

pax

[Winchester]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1332369627' post='2404882']
I feel like I've been on the defensive for a while, but now I must ask. What's wrong with the bishops?

Winchester never said what he found objectionable on the bishops' site.
[/quote]
Then you haven't been reading.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1332375316' post='2404923']
Then you haven't been reading.
[/quote]Enlighten me and tell me again exactly on what point you disagree.

[Winchester]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1332375402' post='2404925']
Enlighten me and tell me again exactly on what point you disagree.
[/quote]
Reread my posts. They still exist. Draw your own conclusions and then pray that I accept the omnipotent government the facile arguments of the USCCB would have established.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1332373714' post='2404906']
when I say they're not a big deal, I'm more saying why they're not high on my priority list. the temporary contract of a state marriage license doesn't concern me that much, it seems to already belong to the devil; sure, people who go to justices to get married are married, but that's [i]in spite of [/i]the temporary contract that the state offers them. they'd be just as married if they had gone to the captain of a ship or the cheif of some tribe in the Amazon, though it'd be less provable from a canonical perspective if they didn't have a paper record. I don't feel that I am at all at odds with Pope Benedict's quote here, actually, I want marriage to be defended against all forms of mockery--including the form of mockery wherein the state authorizes a temporary contract that mimics marriage. marriage is a vow, not a contract, and it ought to be permanent.[/quote]I am happy to hear that it's that it's not a high priority rather than it's not a grave matter. Unfortunately I live in an area where the consequences have been felt and have started to destroy the good work of the Church.

Pope Benedict does stress the permanence and procreative aspects of marriage in his address, calling for good catechesis. In the quote I give, however, he doesn't just address the need for catechesis; he also calls for action in society.

[quote name="CCC"]2202 A man and a woman united in marriage, together with their children, form a family. This institution is prior to any recognition by public authority, which has an obligation to recognize it. It should be considered the normal reference point by which the different forms of family relationship are to be evaluated.[/quote]The Catechism points to this union of man and woman with children as [b]the[/b] fundamental point that must be defended by authority. In our country we have failed to do so. It then goes on to address the responsibilities of the family. This part stands out because it speaks of public authority; in the whole section, the concept of public authority or government arises three times. With respect to the family, this is the only directive mentioned in the Catechism at this point, and it speaks only of the union between man and woman with their children.

Again, I believe that the fact that people enter into relationships that end up not being permanent does not invalidate them in the first place. Simply because it didn't last does not make it invalid in the first place. There must be a conscious decision for it not to be permanent in the first place, but the state doesn't recognize these before the marriage begins. If it does at some point allow for temporary marriages, then I think that such unions are reprehensible. Yet these aren't the norm.

[quote]and it's not about whether all the aspects of an ideal marriage are legislated, but what the actual legislation views marriage as being. since the actual legislation constitutes a temporary contract, it's a mockery IMO. that's not to say that the law ought to in any way try to legislate that a marriage should be procreative or anything, because that's way outside the purview of the contract the state would be recognizing... in offering a marriage license, the state is attempting to give some legal structure to the vow itself. since that legal structure is impermanent, it makes a mockery of a permanent vow. procreation doesn't really have much directly to do with the wedding vow as it has to do with the marriage afterwards, it's the wedding vow that is being enshrined in civil contract when the state issues a marriage license.[/quote]Just a theological point here: you have to go into a marriage being open to life; otherwise, you invalidate the marriage.

[quote]as for adoption, as Adrestia just said, it is already legal for homosexuals to adopt. if you want to illegalize that, be my guest in that fight, personally I'm not overly concerned and I think allowing single people to adopt is perfectly permissible, though I want the rights of Catholic (and other Christian) adoption agencies to be respected if they wish to only allow heterosexual couples to adopt. it is ideal for a child to have a mother and a father, but that ideal is not always attainable and it is not immoral to allow a single person to adopt a child and raise them alone, IMO.[/quote]This point is key. First of all, I live in such an area where Catholic entities have been forced to provide adoptions for homosexual couples and legally they have no standing to refuse. They went out of the adoption business here. Cardinal Wuerl was very specific that since the Church has no legal recourse to fight this issue, they will no longer provide adoptions period in DC. I fear MD is next. This shows how important this issue is. Our religious freedom is in danger and there is very little we can do about it when it is left to the states.

[quote name='[url="http://marriageuniqueforareason.org"]Marriageuniqueforareason.org[/url]'][b]4. Why is a child meant to have both a father and a mother?[/b]
The fact is, every single child, without exception, does have a mother and a father. Sexual difference between a husband and wife is necessary to conceive a child. But its importance does not end there. Men and women bring unique gifts to the shared task of parenting, that is, of fathering and mothering. Only a woman can be a mother. Only a man can be a father. Each contributes in a distinct and unique way to the formation of children, helping them to understand their identity as male or female. Respecting a child’s dignity means affirming his or her need for – and right to – a mother and a father.

[b]5. What about single parents? These families lack a father or a mother, just like households headed by two men or two women.[/b]
A child is meant to be raised by his or her own, married father and mother. But there are times when, due to family tragedies or other unfortunate circumstances, this ideal cannot be realized. The Church acknowledges the difficulties faced by single parents and seeks to support them in their often heroic response to meet the needs of their children. [b]There is a big difference, however, between dealing with the unintended reality of single parenthood and approving the formation of “alternative families” that deliberately deprive a child of a father or a mother, such as arrangements headed by two men or two women.[/b] [i](My emphasis)[/i] Undesired single parenthood can still witness to the importance of sexual difference by acknowledging the challenges faced by single parents and their children due to the lack of a father or mother. In contrast, arrangements of two men or two women are incapable of such witness and present motherhood and fatherhood as disposable. These arrangements of themselves contradict the conjugal and generative reality of marriage and are never acceptable. Children deserve to have their need for a father and a mother respected and protected in law.[/quote]

And see: [quote name='Pope Benedict]"Sexual differences cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to the definition of marriage [...] "Defending the institution of marriage as a social reality is ultimately a question of justice, since it entails safeguarding the good of the entire human community and the rights of parents and children alike."[/quote]

[quote]when it comes to whether or not other states recognize housemate contracts, well it would all depend on what they had to recognize. if one state recognizes that contract as providing a certain tax status, the other state doesn't exactly have to recognize that. but say the contract detailed a certain obligation of the one party to the other party (in something that was the purview of the state, like financials or something, obviously nothing like a sexual obligation lol, it's only the Santorums of the world who think sexual activity is the purview of the state), I'd say another state certainly should enforce that because people should be held responsible for keeping promises they make in contracts. and if it defines the two partners of a contract as being next of kins and able to visit each other in the hospital and all that kind of silly stuff, then fine I think people should be allowed to designate whoever they want to have those rights related to them, parent, friend, uncle, stranger, if that's the person they want notified and able to visit and able to make medical decisions, then so be it, why should any state refuse to recognize that? but nothing can force a state to give a special tax status to two people just because another state had given it to them.[/quote]The Texas Supreme Court said that Texas cannot allow homosexual couples to divorce because the state does not recognize gay marriage as a valid entity. It's a bit ironic, but it goes to show the point. It's not just about the taxes.

[quote]it's all quite reasonable, and the We the People Act would keep the courts from coming in and trying to make it unreasonable again, I think. individual states govern marriage laws now, and I think it should remain that way and should not be put in the power of the Federal government, or the U.N. government, or the government of the United Federation of Planets. I'm perfectly content to let the states decide.

should the states give a special recognition and status to traditional marriage and not let any civil contracts similar to marriage that are entered into by gay people have that same status? absolutely. part of doing this would be granting special status and recognition specifically to "covenant marriages" in which couples sign a contract that says they will not divorce... presently states generally do not enforce such contracts, I think that they should.
[/quote]Unfortunately leaving the problem to the state will give the whole issue to the Supreme Court. At some point these disputes will inevitably be argued before the Court.

Furthermore, "We the People" may sound good right now, but it has no real political support to get it enacted. Just as a clarification, I find "We the People" to be politically naive rather than theologically false, but that's just full disclosure on my part.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1332375619' post='2404927']
Reread my posts. They still exist. Draw your own conclusions and then pray that I accept the omnipotent government the facile arguments of the USCCB would have established.
[/quote]I reread your posts in this thread. You haven't disagreed with them once except to say that you disagree with them and find them naive.

Other than that, you've specifically disagreed with interpretations that follow from their ideas.

[Aloysius]

the We the People act has a higher chance of success than many other things, because all it would require is a simple majority in the congress to enact. it may not have the support now, but if we start promoting it to the people as an answer to the problems of runaway federal power, it can start to gain traction. defining the jurisdiction of the courts is a constitutional balance available to the legislature that is necessary when the judicial branch starts overreaching its boundaries. and whether you think it's practical or not, marriages belong to the states and not to the Federal government. to give the Federal government power to define marriage is to set the precedent for the other side to eventually use the Federal government to define marriage the other way around; it is for the states to decide these things, I will unequivicolly oppose using the power of the Federal Government, or the UN or the EU or the United Federation of Planets, to define what marriage is or is not. it's not within the scope of any of those authorities IMO.

nota bene: audit the fed was once a political pipe dream, politically naive, without a prayer. the tides are shifting in the congress against too much Federal power, and I think there's a real shot coming up for more and more legislation like the We the People act to bring federalism back to the federal government.

it is not the fact that the relationships end up not being permanent that is the problem, I'm not evaluating anyone's relationships; I'm evaluating the modern state's marriage license, which I view as a temporary contract and thus a mockery of marriage. Unless it's enforced as a permanent contract, I don't respect it.

not being open to life can potentially be cause for nullity, but the legal construct of a marriage license is doing nothing but recognizing the vow that the two people have made to each other as a civilly binding contract between two parties.

as regards protecting the rights of Catholic and other Christian adoption agencies, I view that as an entirely separate issue.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Aloysius

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1332377788' post='2404949']
the We the People act has a higher chance of success than many other things, because all it would require is a simple majority in the congress to enact. it may not have the support now, but if we start promoting it to the people as an answer to the problems of runaway federal power, it can start to gain traction. defining the jurisdiction of the courts is a constitutional balance available to the legislature that is necessary when the judicial branch starts overreaching its boundaries. and whether you think it's practical or not, marriages belong to the states and not to the Federal government. to give the Federal government power to define marriage is to set the precedent for the other side to eventually use the Federal government to define marriage the other way around; it is for the states to decide these things, I will unequivicolly oppose using the power of the Federal Government, or the UN or the EU or the United Federation of Planets, to define what marriage is or is not. it's not within the scope of any of those authorities IMO.[/quote]Unfortunately you've forgotten DOMA, which went into effect about 20 years ago. The authority already been given to the federal government.

Practicality isn't my only objection. I also see the problem either needing the Supreme Court (which automatically hears all interstate contract conflicts) or the government to step in.

[quote]it is not the fact that the relationships end up not being permanent that is the problem, I'm not evaluating anyone's relationships; I'm evaluating the modern state's marriage license, which I view as a temporary contract and thus a mockery of marriage. Unless it's enforced as a permanent contract, I don't respect it.

not being open to life can potentially be cause for nullity, but the legal construct of a marriage license is doing nothing but recognizing the vow that the two people have made to each other as a civilly binding contract between two parties.[/quote]The contract not being binding isn't in the current contract itself. It's external to that. This is important. As I said above, however, the state's recognition doesn't make the marriage less of a marriage in itself. I know you don't agree on this point, but your argument raises a new issue, I'll ask below.

[quote]as regards protecting the rights of Catholic and other Christian adoption agencies, I view that as an entirely separate issue.
[/quote]The bishops entirely disagree (sorry about the bad paste, the website is down):
[quote name='Marriageuniqueforareason'][b]2. How are marriage and religious liberty connected?[/b]
Marriage (the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife) and religious liberty are two distinct goods that are also related to each other. The protection of each good follows from the duty to protect the inviolable dignity of the human person. But even more directly, the legal protection of marriage as the union of one man and one woman also protects the religious freedom of those who adhere to that vision of marriage.

[b]3. How could changing the legal definition of marriage have any effect on religious liberty?[/b]

Changing the legal term “marriage” is not one change in the law, but rather amounts to thousands of changes at once. The term “marriage” can be found in family law, employment law, trusts and estates, healthcare law, tax law, property law, and many others. These laws affect and pervasively regulate religious institutions, such as churches, religiously-affiliated schools, hospitals, and families. When Church and State agree on what the legal term “marriage” means (the union of one man and one woman), there is harmony between the law and religious institutions. When Church and State disagree on what the term “marriage” means (e.g., if the State redefines marriage in order to recognize so-called same-sex “marriage”), conflict results on a massive scale between the law and religious institutions and families, as the State will apply various sanctions against the Church for its refusal to comply with the State’s definition. Religious liberty is then threatened.

[b]4. But would ministers really be forced to officiate at the “wedding” of two persons of the same-sex?[/b]

This question is a red herring. In other words, it is a false caricature of the real concerns about religious liberty, and is actually used to distract from the real concerns. It is unlikely in the extreme that the State will force ministers and churches to officiate same-sex “marriage” ceremonies, although it is easily foreseeable that many church ministers and communities could be sued in court over this question. There are, however, other more probable and pervasive concerns.

[b]5. What’s the real threat to religious liberty posed by same-sex “marriage”?[/b]

The legal redefinition of marriage can threaten the religious liberty of religious institutions and individuals in potentially numerous ways, involving various forms of government sanction, ranging from court orders compelling action against conscience, to awards of money damages and other financial penalties, to marginalization in public life:
[b]Compelled Association[/b]: the government forces religious institutions to retain as leaders, employees, or members those who obtain legalized same-sex “marriage”; or obligates wedding-related businesses to provide services for same-sex “couples.”
[b]Compelled Provision of Special Benefits[/b]: the government forces religious institutions to extend any special benefit they afford to actual marriage to same-sex “marriage” as well.
[b]Punishment for Speech[/b]: preaching, political action, or conversation reflecting moral opposition to same-sex “marriage” represents actionable “harassment” or “discrimination,” or forbidden “hate speech”.
[b]Exclusion from Accreditation and Licensure[/b]: those who adhere to the definition of marriage are excluded from participation in highly regulated professions and quasi-governmental functions, as licenses are revoked and religious institutions lose accredited status.
[b]Exclusion from Government Funding, Religious Accommodations, and Other Benefits[/b]: those who adhere to the definition of marriage are excluded from receiving government grants and contracts to provide secular social services, and from various tax exemptions.

[b]6. Have any of these threats come to pass?[/b]

Yes. Examples include, but are not limited to, the following: the extension of married student housing to same-sex “married” couples (a Catholic college in MA); the extension of spousal employment benefits to same-sex “domestic partners” (Catholic Charities in Portland, ME); th[b]e loss of funding and licenses to provide adoptions for refusal to place with same-sex couples (Catholic Charities in Massachusetts and DC)[/b]; the imposition of tax penalties for preaching about marriage amendments (Montana); and the loss of state tax exempt status for a religiously-affiliated camp (New Jersey). These threats have been manifest in other countries as well, often to an even more persistent and invasive extent.

[b]7. Doesn’t a religious exemption protect institutions and individuals if they believe that marriage can only be between a man and a woman?[/b]

Sometimes. A religious exemption may provide protections, but so far those protections have been drawn very narrowly and fail to cover known risks. More broadly, because “marriage” so pervades the law, it is difficult to foresee all circumstances where religious freedom conflicts may arise. But even further, no religious exemption—no matter how broadly worded—can justify a supportive or neutral position on the redefinition of marriage (see CDF, 1992, no. 16). Such “redefinition” is always fundamentally unjust, and indeed, religious exemptions may even facilitate the passage of such unjust laws. Protecting marriage protects religious liberty; the two are inseparable.[/quote] [i](I added my own emphasis to the one segment in bold)[/i]

An old theology prof of mine posted this link: [url="http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=25-01-024-f#ixzz1panVUvD1"]http://www.touchston...f#ixzz1panVUvD1[/url] It addresses the fact that these two issues are very much related.


Another, important question arises (I alluded to it above): how are natural marriages determined in our country presently? Or are they not?

Edited March 22, 2012 by qfnol31

[Anomaly]

A couple of thoughts.
qfnol31-kudos on the the well thought out posts that illustrate your arguments.

On the point of what is the authority of the Government and their control over religions. It seems one of their biggest complaints is loss of tax exempt status. Personally, I think this is a weak argument because it is not based on moral grounds, but financial only. This should be an argument secondary to the Government forcing the religion to act in a certain way. For example, forcing religions to perform a marriage for any sort 'civil union' the Government allows. qfnol (I think) has a link to an article that makes a good point about employment practices, forcing Religious organizations to hire openly gay or activist persons. I don't know labor laws well enough to know how that would be argued out.

As far as adoption, my thoughts are that a couple have two duties that are important to the State and general welfare, as well as moral obligations in the eyes of the Church. Not only is procreation (being open to life) important, but the joining assumes the couple will look to the welfare of the partner as well as children. A same sex or single parent adopter is making a committemnt to look for the welfare of a child. Though not ideal, it appears that is better than an orphanage or the foster parent system.

[Aloysius]

I don't see it as external to the contract at all, if it's a temporary contract it's a temporary contract. how a contract is enforced defines what the contract is in the eyes of the state; if cell phone contracts were easily gotten out of for some no-fault reason, we would say that those contracts were temporary by nature. the state defines the marriage license contract it offers, and it currently defines that marriage license contract as something [i]temporary.[/i]

at present marriages are still conducted at the state level. the Defense of Marriage Act does not cede authority over marriages to the Federal Government, it protects the rights of individual states to not recognize other states' same sex marriages. Ron Paul supports this act, and so do I, because it is a federal act guaranteeing states rights on the matter.

[quote]
"While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government! Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil society. Many people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church and their creator, not with receiving their marriage license, thus being joined in the eyes of the state.
If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress's constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state."
-Ron Paul [/quote]

as regards the bishops religious liberty concerns, I think that they are all valid concerns, which is why we must fight in each individual state to ensure that religious liberty is never infringed upon in these ways. but if same sex partnership contracts are recognized in this or that state, that should not automatically mean religious liberty will be trampled; we must fight to maintain religious liberty, and that can be done no matter what contracts any individual state recognizes. adoption agencies need to be free to turn down homosexual partners if they so wish, whether or not those partners have any type of recognition by their state governments.

as regards fair employment labor laws, it was recently well established by a 9-0 unanimous decision of the Supreme Court that religious institutions have an exemption in who they choose to hire or not related to their religious morality, and this exemption was granted unanimously for an institution that was not a church but actually a church-affiliated school that hired people that were members of other religions, so I am not so concerned about that, legal precedent is on our side on that matter.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Aloysius

[Aloysius]

anyway, what exactly are we arguing about here, btw? what federal policies are you supporting here that has you disagreeing with my call to leave it at a state level? what are you disagreeing with Ron Paul about and agreeing with Santorum about? I'm not quite sure, but I think I might have missed a page or two of this argument. DOMA is a good thing, but I don't want to start legislating something from the Federal Government that disallows states from recognizing contracts between same sex couples, because such legislation would invariably give power to the federal government to start disallowing states from not recognizing those contracts. the Federal government protecting states' rights to hold different laws and different recognitions on the matter is a good thing, IMO.