Prop 8 goes down: Now what?
Given that interested parties have had weeks to prepare alternate press releases on the fate of California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in that state, I'm a little surprised--even a little disturbed--by the silence emanating from most Catholic quarters in the wake of yesterday's news. The USCCB website has a short press release that features conference president Cardinal Francis George of Chicago denouncing the ruling, seconded by Louisville Archbishop Joseph Kurtz.
Judge Vaughn Walker's lengthy decision unloads with all barrels, finding in favor of same-sex couples on both equal protection and due process grounds, arguing that marriage is a fundamental right and that homosexual people make up a "suspect class" that has suffered discrimination. Absent any compelling state interest--and Walker finds none--all that is left to thwart gay marriage is personal morality and "tradition," which Walker finds rationally insufficient to discriminate against same-sex couples.
There can be little doubt that Walker's argument will eventually win the day--whether you agree with his reasoning or not--though the current Supreme Court may not follow him. It is practically unimaginable that 50 years from now this matter will have long been decided in favor of gay marriage.
And so what are the bishops and others who oppose civil same-sex marriage to do? One option is to protest until hoarse, but given the drift of public opinion and the lack of evidence from Massachusetts or anywhere else that same-sex marriage is somehow damaging to society, that course is not likely to have any effect in the civic arena.
There is also another problem: Put simply, the way people are creating families is changing, as our September cover story ("First comes love...") notes. The church may hammer away against sex and children outside of marriage, against divorce and remarriage, and against same-sex relationships, but there is a strong an unmistakable drift away from what we have come to think of as the "traditional" family--and those families will have a hard time feeling at home in a church constantly pointing out their shortcomings, church teaching-wise.
Is it possible for Catholics to have a conversation about families in all their forms (without collapsing into name-calling)? I have written three columns in the magazine over the past few years raising those questions: "Extending family" about the many kinds of Catholic families, "Marriage of convenience" about couples that don't follow the traditional path to the altar, and "Mind the gap" about same-sex couples, their children, and church teaching.
I don't expect these next few years to be very easy, inside or outside the church. But am I foolish to hope that at the end of it, a little charity, creativity, and grace might bring us safely to the other side?
World vs Church
By Karen (not verified) on Saturday, August 14, 2010There is an enormous danger to Christians in the change of legal definition of marriage. I may not even be aware of the full impact, but I do know that a couple of issues will arise immediately. The schools will begin teaching my children immorality & treating it as right & appropriate. I will either have to homeschool, or otherwise start constantly having to counter the misinformation being taught. The school will be portraying their parents as hate filled.
Another issue will be the question of churches being sued for refusing to perform same sex "marriages" & my pastor being attacked for "hate speech" when he teaches from scripture.
I have no doubt these things will occur.
But, while I have extremely valid concerns about the above, I am most concerned about the failure of churches to stand up for what's right. That the church is going with expedience & political correctness rather than show respect & honor to God. That the church is very clearly picking & choosing from scripture, & ignoring what Christ has made clear.
I feel MY speech needs to be directed to fellow Christians. It is not my responsibility to change non-believers minds. It is my responsibility to remind fellow Christians of what is right & true as taught clearly in scripture.
I will definitely vote in favor of real marriage, that is one man/one woman. I will support leaders that stand strong on that. But, Otherwise, I am leaving the world to do what the world will do.
Lies = bearing false witness
By Truth be told (not verified) on Tuesday, September 7, 2010"Another issue will be the question of churches being sued for refusing to perform same sex marriages".
This is mis-/dis-information at its worst (aka a LIE, aka the bearing of false witness, aka a SIN) so stop it!. When you can name ONE SINGLE Catholic Church or priest that has been "forced" to perform marriages (see how now scary smarm quotes are needed around the word marriage) for divorced people or non-Catholics, you might be believed. When you can name ONE SINGLE Orthodox Jewish synagogue or rabbi that has been "forced" to perform inter-faith marriages, then you might be believed. Until that (very fictional) day, consider yourself exposed as a big fat liar.
"I have no doubt these things will occur."
Only fools have no doubts.
Karen wrote:
By social democrat (not verified) on Sunday, August 15, 2010"I feel MY speech needs to be directed to fellow Christians. It is not my responsibility to change non-believers minds. It is my responsibility to remind fellow Christians of what is right & true as taught clearly in scripture. "
Precisely! So instead of forcing your views on the rest of us, why not follow the example of the Amish, Mennonites, Hassidic Jews, Mormons, and many others throughout American history? Go off and form your own communities where you can enforce your own morality? There's still plenty of room in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Texas.
We as Christians DID go off
By Robert (not verified) on Saturday, March 5, 2011We as Christians DID go off and form our own communities, they were the original 13 colonies and subsequently the United States of America, you may of heard of it?
Who do you think founded this country? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't Muslims like President Obama seems to think.
But unlike other religious communities they did something unheard of, they asserted that EVERYONE had freedom OF religion, please note that is NOT freedom FROM religion. Nowhere in the 27 amendments to the US constitution is there ANY mention of a freedom to not be offended. So, suck it up and deal with it.
The liberal left is always screaming about tolerance, well here the Christians really started it, by being tolerant of other denominations and even non believing heathens! So how about showing a little of that tolerance to those who do believe in something.
Priests will never be sued for not performing gay marriages
By Anonymous (not verified) on Saturday, August 14, 2010That's crazy. Not gonna happen. I wish giving gay couples the same legal rights straight ones enjoy such as property rights, seeing each other in hospitals etc could be called something other than marriage, but that's what it's called in our society. I asked Jerry D this and he never answered. Now I'll ask you. Do you think gay couples should have the rights I described or not? Please answer yes or no or do like Jerry and skip the question. It's simple, should they have the same rights as us or should they be denied because their lifestyle and practices go against Church teaching? My brother-in-law is gay and has been with his partner for over 10 years. I've worked with and known enough gays to be convinced that they are probably born that way. It's a stereotype but with most of them it's just so obvious. It's also obvious with priests many of whom are effeminate. I don't think denying these people the civil rights married people have if they decide to commit that far is moral. They are citizens. They are also some of the most creative people in society. Maybe there's a reason they are the way they are. I can't understand wanting another man like that, I love women too much, but it's not up to me to understand to agree that they should have their rights. Clergy could never be forced to perform marriages that are denied by their faiths. That would be unconstitutional.
re:Priests will never be sued for not performing gay marriages
By Pamela (not verified) on Saturday, August 14, 2010You say that as if you can guarantee it. Have you kept up with the so called Human Rights Commission activity in Canada? You are aware that priests and other Christian ministers have been brought to trial (at great personal expense) for teaching the Church's position on homosexuality, aren't you? I realize this is not Canada, but the same thing is happening all over the world where homosexual 'marriage' has been legalized. It will happen here, too. Clearly, many judges today see the constitution as they wish it to be, rather than as it is. One will find it constitutional to protect the 'rights' of the homosexual to be free of the 'discrimination' of the clergy.
Also, do you think priests are the only ones who should be afforded freedom of conscience in this matter? What about other Catholics or Christian people? Should a business person be forced to choose between their faith or their business? How do you feel about the New Mexico case where the photographer refused to photograph a homosexual union ceremony and was successfully sued for over 6000 dollars? So where do her rights end and the homosexual's rights begin? What happens when they overlap? What rights are there to immoral behavior in the first place? Oh, but we can't legislate morality, right? Then there can be no legislation and we should be living in anarchy.
As Expected
By Anonymous (not verified) on Saturday, August 14, 2010You did not answer my question. I will answer your points when and if you do.
Prop 8 goes down
By Al from Fl (not verified) on Tuesday, August 10, 2010Prop 8 changed the CA constitution and it still holds until the state changes the constitution. The judge ruling is one step in a legal process with a rationale that challenges the meaning of reason in my view. The activists say that the ban takes away their right to marry but marriage is between a man and a woman which is not taken away. They say they want equal benefits but civil union laws give them that so this must be to redefine marriage. Since when does a judge or judicial fiat have the right to redefine marriage? That's for the people to decide. If we redefine marriage, then it becomes open for more redefinition. In the meantime, we will have to coin a new phrase for a union between a man and a woman. Then what? The author states: "lack of evidence from Massachusetts or anywhere else that same-sex marriage is somehow damaging to society" Interesting so-called fact.
Judicial Wisdom
By John Chuchman (not verified) on Tuesday, August 10, 2010Would that Catholic hierarchy--so called Christians--would tap into this judge's Christ-like Wisdom:
That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8
is irrelevant.
Fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote;
they depend on the outcome of no elections.
There is no rational basis to exclude gays and lesbians
from the institution of marriage.
Same-sex and opposite-sex couples are of equal quality.
Supporters of the ban
are clearly motivated by moral disapproval of homosexuality.
Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis
on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians,
The evidence shows conclusively that a ban on gay marriage enacts,
without reason,
a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples.
Tradition alone cannot form a rational basis for a law.
The idea of restricting marriage to one man and one woman
was an artifact of a foregone notion
that men and women fulfill different roles in civic life.
Brian and the far left are so predictable
By Married, faithful Catholic (not verified) on Tuesday, August 10, 2010Brian tells us,
"The church may hammer away against sex and children outside of marriage, against divorce and remarriage, and against same-sex relationships", --but US Catholic and its writers defend them all. (and abortion candidates)
Homosexual marriage(along with abortion) is part of the core of the anti-rel;igious left.
Our Suday Visitor just advertised a work by Tim Samples that outlines Church Teaching on these matters. Brian should read it. Beyond that common sense shows the problems caused by the radical positions like those of US Catholic--which denigrate the Sacrament of Matrimony. Right now 7 of 10 black children are born out of wedlock. Black teens have the highest drop out rate, crime rate, and unemployment rate in the country. This is the disaster caused by the left and their fellow travelers who worship abortion, homosexuality, and sex-outside of marriage and who are attacking professors and clergy who oppose them. Leftists will push Homosexual church marriages--with law suits. Watch!


