Gay Marriage, Permissible Catholic Views

[dairygirl4u2c]

ty

[Groo the Wanderer]

leave it to the states. this is not a power reserved to the feds per the Constitution.



then...those that allow the abomination can be kicked out of the union. let them form their own country.

[thessalonian]

I don't see how as a Catholic one can say it should be left to the states. It is left to God and he has spoken!

[kujo]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1336939890' post='2430248']
I don't see how as a Catholic one can say it should be left to the states. It is left to God and he has spoken!
[/quote]

Really? God said gays can't enter into a personal, secular contract with each other? Interesting. What page in the Bible was [b]THAT[/b]?!?

[kujo]

Leaving this issue "to the states" will create a slave-state/free-state dilemma. You can't decide enfranchisement in the voting booth. It needs to be consistent from state to state, one way or the other.

[qfnol31]

I can't vote in this because the answers are too narrow. I believe our Constitution should be followed so long as it is not in contradiction to Natural Law. The Constitution on this particular matter isn't very clear, which means it probably ought to fall to the states.

However, I think that our country won't function well as a country if we leave it up to the states.

As a Catholic I want marriage defended in its truest form in the best way possible. I think leaving it up to the states is asking for a disaster, as recent Maryland law has demonstrated, but I don't think this simply as a Catholic. I think this as an informed American.

[Ice_nine]

The state has already hijacked the word marriage. I seem to recall someone posting a blog about how maybe we as Catholics should recapitulate on terms of vocabulary, and start referring to real marriage as "holy matrimony." It was a good link if anyone remembers wth I'm talking about, but I tend to agree that would should probably give up the term.

because what the state calls marriage is basically indistinguishable from a civil union, except semantically "marriage" seems to have more legitimacy. Which is dumb really. That's partially why the LGBT movement wants gay "marriage" so the term will help or affirm the legitimacy of sexually deviant relationships. And seeing as how many people look to the state as the moral arbiter and and caretaker, it will probably work out that way.

So I think the real answer is neither the state nor the fed have ever gained so much power to define marriage. Not sure if that can be untangled at this point, or how it could play out. But yeah . . .

[4588686]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1336933700' post='2430240']
leave it to the states. this is not a power reserved to the feds per the Constitution.



then...those that allow the abomination can be kicked out of the union. let them form their own country.
[/quote]

This was almost a reasonable and thoughtful position.

[4588686]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1336957132' post='2430314']
Leaving this issue "to the states" will create a slave-state/free-state dilemma. You can't decide enfranchisement in the voting booth. It needs to be consistent from state to state, one way or the other.
[/quote]

I can see the judiciary striking down state provisions that ban gay marriage. And they should, in my opinion. But I don't see how or where the legislature and executive would have the power under the constitution to positively dictate this issue.

[kujo]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1336962925' post='2430382']


I can see the judiciary striking down state provisions that ban gay marriage. And they should, in my opinion. But I don't see how or where the legislature and executive would have the power under the constitution to positively dictate this issue.
[/quote]

Agreed. Hence, the amendment to the Constitution defining state-sponsored marriage as a contract between 2 consenting adults.

[cmotherofpirl]

So if a brother and sister wish to marry or a mother and son that is perfectly permissible, as long as they consent.

[4588686]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1336963391' post='2430386']
Agreed. Hence, the amendment to the Constitution defining state-sponsored marriage as a contract between 2 consenting adults.
[/quote]

Why only 2?

[kujo]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1336963882' post='2430387']
So if a brother and sister wish to marry or a mother and son that is perfectly permissible, as long as they consent.
[/quote]

Incest laws are already on the books.

[kujo]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1336963928' post='2430389']


Why only 2?
[/quote]

TBH, I don't really have an answer to that question. The circumstances and arrangements of other peoples' marriages aren't really anybody's business.

[4588686]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1336964247' post='2430390']
Incest laws are already on the books.
[/quote]

So are anti gay marriage laws. Her point is a valid one. I'd say yes. Incest is not a serious problem. If a mother and son or brother and sister want to have sex we really can't stop them and we don't make it illegal for a couple likely to have a child with down syndrome to get married, so why incest.

Conservatives want to protect their understanding of marriage. I'm fine with that. Let's do away with state marriage and leave marriage to private institutions. Let the state confer civil unions on whichever consenting adults wish to enter into them.