Would this be the best compromise re: gay "marriage" ?

[Gnarwhal]

Do you think the root of this particular social issue is that we've intermingled civil and religious marriage and in so doing we've philosophically combined the two in our collective consciousness when they're not the same concepts?

With that in mind, I've heard that New Zealand has essentially separated the secular and legal status from the sacramental. In other words, every Kiwi couple regardless of their religion or sexuality enters a civil union in the eyes of the government, all the necessary documents are signed to make it official and legitimate. Then, on a separate occasion religious couples can hold a wedding within their respective traditions.

Is this even possible as Catholics or is this sacramentally a non-starter? If the Church sees this as acceptable then it seems like the best possible way to protect marriage and the LGBT mob still gets what they want (which is some sense of equality with actually married people).

 

[zippy2006]

Ideally marriage should not be separated from the secular sphere. This is because it has an inherently social function, and ultimately is not a "merely religious" matter. That said, in certain unfortunate circumstances it would be possible to separate them, and this is what may end up happening in Western countries.

There may be a point in the future when the "Benedict Option" is no longer optional, and this would be a move in that direction.

 

[Gnarwhal]

Ideally marriage should not be separated from the secular sphere. This is because it has an inherently social function, and ultimately is not a "merely religious" matter. That said, in certain unfortunate circumstances it would be possible to separate them, and this is what may end up happening in Western countries.

There may be a point in the future when the "Benedict Option" is no longer optional, and this would be a move in that direction.

I agree, ideally we would live in a world that fully aligned with the true understanding of marriage. I guess I'm thinking of this as a pragmatic third way for our fallen world that does it's best to protect the sacrament.

 

[Paidiske]

This is how the French legal system handles marriage, and it seems to work well for Catholics in France (and places where the legal code derives from French precedents).

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It may happen that there will be a separation between civil marriages and sacramental marriages by the various
religions.

However, state marriage originated for the protection of children and their mothers. Fathers were held
responsible to support their children and wives. That ended when the 1960's replaced motherhood with
career and of course, abortions and birth control. Also, homosexual activists rejected civil unions in states
like Vermont, because they want their unions to be accepted as the moral equivalent of marriage.


So, although I support the separation between civil unions and sacramental marriages by religions, I'm
not sure the LGBTQ activists groups will accept it. To me, it's just another slippery slope we'll be on as
we never thought that children would be taught to separate the biological reality of their gender from
emotional distortions they are convinced of.

The bottom line is, what does God tell us? Lets follow Him instead of our own made up ideologies.

 

[zippy2006]

I agree, ideally we would live in a world that fully aligned with the true understanding of marriage. I guess I'm thinking of this as a pragmatic third way for our fallen world that does it's best to protect the sacrament.

Well, the world doesn't need to fully align with the understanding of marriage. It probably never has. But the fallen world has never in its past failed to understand that marriage occurs between members of the opposite sex.

It seems to me that this is a bridge that should only be burned when there is no other choice. We should defend it as long as possible. It should only be burned when a government is coercing priests to marry same-sex couples.

So on my view it isn't really related to "protecting the sacrament." It's more a matter of religious freedom. What is your idea behind "protecting the sacrament"?

 

[zippy2006]

So, although I support the separation between civil unions and sacramental marriages by religions, I'm
not sure the LGBTQ activists groups will accept it.

Apart from infiltrating the religion or erecting a totalitarian state, there is nothing these activist groups can do about the internal affairs of religious groups.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Apart from infiltrating the religion or erecting a totalitarian state, there is nothing these activist groups can do about the internal affairs of religious groups.

I see lawsuits brought against religions more and more in order to financially bankrupt them.

There are lawsuits today by homosexual groups against religions, but the US Constitution has protected
us. Society in general however, is rejecting religion so it will come that only civil unions will be the norm
and even those will not be what they were.

 

[zippy2006]

I see lawsuits brought against religions more and more in order to financially bankrupt them.

But there is no basis for a lawsuit when the civil prerogatives of a religious institution, such as sacramental marriage, are removed, and that is the case we are considering.

 

[zippy2006]

Based one what you suggested though aren't we saying rather that it'd be best to pivot to some kind of separation of civil unions and religious marriages if the state begins a process of forcing priests to preside over same-sex unions? It seems like the lawsuit are what would build towards that shift.

Yes, lawsuits would build towards that shift, but JimR had claimed, "So, although I support the separation between civil unions and sacramental marriages by religions, I'm not sure the LGBTQ activists groups will accept it... [They will bring lawsuits]." So the whole hypothetical is premised on considering a time after the shift. After the shift, what could a lawsuit be for? Mere inclusion without any reference to tangible goods or prerogatives? Even the thinnest form of religious liberty would parry a lawsuit based on mere inclusion.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

But there is no basis for a lawsuit when the civil prerogatives of a religious institution, such as sacramental marriage, are removed, and that is the case we are considering.

Doesn't matter. Bring a lawsuit and the defendant has to hire a lawyer. Then drop the lawsuit before it gets into the
court system. Still costs the defendant $$$.

We're one of the few free countries that doesn't have a financial recovery system for frivolous lawsuits.

 

[zippy2006]

Doesn't matter. Bring a lawsuit and the defendant has to hire a lawyer. Then drop the lawsuit before it gets into the
court system. Still costs the defendant $$$.

This applies to any antagonistic party in the U.S. legal system. It has no specific relevance to Catholic-LGBT relations. There is nothing we could ever do to prevent this sort of action. Saying, "Well, we could make sacramental marriage non-civil, but antagonistic LGBT parties could still bring frivolous lawsuits in order to sap our funds," is not a real argument. It's like saying, "Well, we could make sacramental marriage non-civil, but we would still get wet if we are caught in the rain." Rain will make us wet no matter what we do. It has no bearing on what we should do.

...On the other hand, I agree that if the opposing party is not willing to compromise, then there is no use in seeking out a compromise.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

This applies to any antagonistic party in the U.S. legal system. It has no specific relevance to Catholic-LGBT relations. There is nothing we could ever do to prevent this sort of action. Saying, "Well, we could make sacramental marriage non-civil, but antagonistic LGBT parties could still bring frivolous lawsuits in order to sap our funds," is not a real argument. It's like saying, "Well, we could make sacramental marriage non-civil, but we would still get wet if we are caught in the rain." Rain will make us wet no matter what we do. It has no bearing on what we should do.

...On the other hand, I agree that if the opposing party is not willing to compromise, then there is no use in seeking out a compromise.

Right, it applies to anyone.

However, in this case we're talking about LGBTQ cases against religions they don't like.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Women are now liberated to carry other people's babies (surrogacy). I wonder, if they do have a job, do they get maternity leave? Does that health insurance pay for it?

I never understood the mindset of being a surrogate mother. I knew one years ago, who got pregnant and gave her babies to
gay males. Christian charity prevents me from saying what I thought about her at the time.

 

[RileyG]

I never understood the mindset of being a surrogate mother. I knew one years ago, who got pregnant and gave her babies to
gay males. Christian charity prevents me from saying what I thought about her at the time.

How sad- I'm sure she would miss her children.

 

[tampasteve]

ADMIN HAT ON
This thread has had a cleaning of posts and replies to posts that were not in line with the forum's Statement of Purpose.
ADMIN HAT OFF

 

[OldAbramBrown]

If I'm allowed, as no longer a self-proclaiming catholic, to speak strongly in favour of this idea from a catholic which is already in successful implementation in France (for all denominations incidentally) I am strongly in favour of it for all denominations. I say this with my long term understanding of sacraments dating from the time I was a self-proclaiming catholic as well as my (sympathetic?) understanding on non catholics' sacraments.