Does The Government Have The Right To Rule On Gay Marriage?

[Anastasia13]

Does the government have the right to rule on gay marriage? Church and state? Should the courts and politicians butt out of what we call a sacrament?

[truthfinder]

But marriage is also part of natural law.  The church recognizes marriages between atheists, druids, etc (as long as they weren't Catholic to start with).  To transgress the natural law is a something which affects the state, despite sometimes also having a Church/spiritual component. 

[jim111]

Here is what the popes have taught. To summarize error has no rights, and it is the duty of the state to protects its people both body and  soul.

 

"32. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law. A well-spent life is the only way to heaven, whither all are bound, and on this account the State is acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to

lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue. To exclude the Church, founded by God Himself, from life, from laws, from the education of youth, from domestic society is a grave and fatal error."  'Immortale Dei, Pope Leo XIII'

 

3. But, although we have not omitted often to proscribe and reprobate the chief errors of this kind, yet the cause of the Catholic Church, and the salvation of souls entrusted to us by God, and the welfare of human society itself, altogether demand that we again stir up your pastoral solicitude to exterminate other evil opinions, which spring forth from the said errors as from a fountain. Which false and perverse opinions are on that ground the more to be detested, because they chiefly tend to this, that that salutary influence be impeded and (even) removed, which the Catholic Church, according to the institution and command of her Divine Author, should freely exercise even to the end of the world -- not only over private individuals, but over nations, peoples, and their sovereign princes; and (tend also) to take away that mutual fellowship and concord of counsels between Church and State which has ever proved itself propitious and salutary, both for religious and civil interests.1

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"3 and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."  'Quanta Cura, Pope Pius IX,

 

"34. But, to judge aright, we must acknowledge that, the more a State is driven to tolerate evil, the further is it from perfection; and that the tolerance of evil which is dictated by political prudence should be strictly confined to the limits which its justifying cause, the public welfare, requires. Wherefore, if such tolerance would be injurious to the public welfare, and entail greater evils on the State, it would not be lawful; for in such case the motive of good is wanting. And although in the extraordinary condition of these times the Church usually acquiesces in certain modern liberties, not because she prefers them in themselves, but because she judges it expedient to permit them, she would in happier times exercise her own liberty; and, by persuasion, exhortation, and entreaty would endeavor, as she is bound, to fulfill the duty assigned to her by God of providing for the eternal salvation of mankind. One thing, however, remains always true - that the liberty which is claimed for all to do all things is not, as We have often said, of itself desirable, inasmuch as it is contrary to reason that error and truth should have equal rights." 'Liberates, Leo XIII'

 

Also here is a link to a very orthodox website on catholic issues on government. faithful answers

 

 

 

[Luigi]

Since the founding of this country, marriage has been a matter of STATE law, not federal law. 

 

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

Marriage ought to be gay, but I don't see how the state can really do much about it. Maternity and paternity leave? Subsidized marriage encounter weekends?

[truthfinder]

Well played, L_D. 

[Basilisa Marie]

Natural marriage, yes.  Sacramental marriage, no.  It's high time we spent some time helping people understand the difference. 

[Oremoose]

Natural marriage, yes.  Sacramental marriage, no.  It's high time we spent some time helping people understand the difference. 

please do. what do you mean by "Natural marriage"? 

Please use simple terms. walls of text scare me.

[truthfinder]

The text wall summary is that error has no rights.  Same-sex marriage is an error.  It has no right even in secular societies.  It is not ordered towards the good.  

[Basilisa Marie]

please do. what do you mean by "Natural marriage"? 

Please use simple terms. walls of text scare me.

 

Marriage between baptized persons is sacramental. Natural marriage is marriage between unbaptized persons, or one baptized and one unbaptized person. :)

 

Here's an article that goes into more detail.

 

Civil marriage is different still, because civil marriage is marriage recognized by the state. A sacramental marriage and a natural marriage can be civil marriages too (they almost always are). The government can say that gay marriage is civil marriage, but it can't say that it's natural marriage or sacramental marriage. 

 

I probably should have originally said sacramental and civil marriage. 

 

Head spinning yet? :)

 

Anywho, the government has a vested interest in marriage, because marriage helps create new people and new family units. Plus in secular eyes, it's two people (generally) agreeing to live together and support each other and give each other special rights, so the government needs to at least keep records of it and have procedures to deal with marriage disputes in order to function properly. 

Edited December 20, 2014 by Basilisa Marie

[Oremoose]

Marriage between baptized persons is sacramental. Natural marriage is marriage between unbaptized persons, or one baptized and one unbaptized person. :)

 

Here's an article that goes into more detail.

 

Civil marriage is different still, because civil marriage is marriage recognized by the state. A sacramental marriage and a natural marriage can be civil marriages too (they almost always are). The government can say that gay marriage is civil marriage, but it can't say that it's natural marriage or sacramental marriage. 

 

I probably should have originally said sacramental and civil marriage. 

 

Head spinning yet? :)

 

Anywho, the government has a vested interest in marriage, because marriage helps create new people and new family units. Plus in secular eyes, it's two people (generally) agreeing to live together and support each other and give each other special rights, so the government needs to at least keep records of it and have procedures to deal with marriage disputes in order to function properly. 

 ok that is what i thought. Would it be okay as a catholic to say I disagree with the Gay lifestyle yet won't stand in the way of gays getting a civil "marriage" because they have free will?

[Basilisa Marie]

Well, that's something that people argue about. Some people say that the law is a teacher and that promoting or tacitly not opposing gay marriage is promoting ideas contrary to the Church. On the other hand, some people say that civil law doesn't matter too much because Church Law is above civil law. There's a lot to be said for gay people being allowed certain secular benefits that are allowed to married couples, as two people who have made a lifelong commitment to each other (hospital visitation rights, death benefits, etc). But gay marriage is a grave evil for a lot of reasons (distorts the meaning and purpose of marriage, promotes homosexual sexual activity, etc).  So it's complicated.  You have to do your best to form your conscience well, and use good judgment. 

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

The Government does not have the right to change the definition of marriage which is between a man and a woman. There is also nothing stopping the Government from issuing the same benefits to homosexuals under a different title rather than marriage.  The problem with that though is it is this very title of marriage which the homosexual community wants more than the benefits itself.   This is because marriage is looked at in society as the normal and highest end of all loving relationships between a man and a woman who typically want to start a family.  The homosexual community want's this title of marriage, so society will look at their relationships with that same spirit of normalcy as is given to men and women.

 

Marriage was instituted by God for the sole purpose of building and raising a family.  Where a man and a woman make a vow to each other for the rest of their life and the two then become one flesh (children).   Marriage recognizes this bond in nature and that all human beings come from one man and one woman.  This is another reason for why marriage was instituted, and that is because all children should have a mother and father, and it is the ideal that it be their biological mother and father.  Homosexual couples will never be able to meet these requirements since no human being ever came from two men or two women.  The homosexual couples recognize this in their own relationships when both parties are called wife in the case of lesbians, and husband in the case of male homosexual partnerships.  The same goes for when they adopt children where both women are called mother, and where both men are called father.

 

Lastly this idea that homosexuals were never allowed to marry is incorrect.  Homosexual men and women have always had the right to marry provided their marriages were between a man and a woman.

 

 

Edited December 22, 2014 by Oremus Pro Invicem

[Oremoose]

 

Marriage was instituted by God for the sole purpose of building and raising a family... 

 

You sure about that?? The seem sketchy. What about an infertile couple? they discern that adoption is not for them? are they not married?

[Socrates]

There's a lot to be said for gay people being allowed certain secular benefits that are allowed to married couples, as two people who have made a lifelong commitment to each other (hospital visitation rights, death benefits, etc).

 

Unmarried persons (whether homosexual or not) can already legally arrange things such as hospital visitation rights, death benefits, inheritance, etc. by power of attorney.

 

People in a homosexual "relationship" shouldn't be granted any special legal recognition or benefits not granted other unmarried individuals.

 

The Church strongly opposes legal "civil unions" for homosexual couples similar to those of legal marriage, even if they are not called "marriage."

 

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH: CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION

TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

 

The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.