Can we really legalize morality?

chelseamb11

So I've been struggling for a couple years now about my thoughts on gay marriage.  After a lot of prayer and relfection, about a year ago I did come to my personal conclusion that it was wrong (Which was SUUUPER hard for me to do, as I have a ton of friends who are gay and went to one of the most liberal colleges in the state). 

But one thing I still can't figure out (and hope I don't have to) is how I would vote on any sort of marriage amendment.  My reasoning is this.  I have every right to find it wrong and believe that God truly intends marriage to be between a man and a woman.  But this is SOLELY based on morality and God.  Is this really something that should legally be legislated?

I do believe God's laws trump all other laws, but there of course is freedom of religion in our country and part of me thinks that voting against gay marriage is me inserting my religion into the government.  This makes me feel like a hypocrite because I have been fighting tooth and nail with people about the HHS mandate and how it infringes on religious liberty.  If we are going to demand freedom of religion, we have to also give it right?

One thing I LOVED about France was how they have two different types of marriages: civil and sacramenta.  Everyone has to do civil (i.e. going down to the coutrhouse and getitng your marriage legally recognized) but then many choose to head straight down to the church and do the sacramental one.  That separation seems like such a good idea to me here because it truly separates church and state.

One thing that has crossed my mind about this too (legislating morality) is about abortion.  I will fight to the death for right to life and with making abortion illegal.  But in my mind, this is different because it's not a religious matter like many people think.  The only religious line that laws NEED to cross are laws that save lives.

Idk.  Something I've been struggling with and I think this is a good board to bring it to. Any input/thoughts?
I know the answers really vary on this board to these questions so I'm going to ask them:
Do you believe gay marriage is okay?
Do you believe it should be illegal?

Calypso1977

But in my mind, this is different because it's not a religious matter like many people think. The only religious line that laws NEED to cross are laws that save lives.

i think abortion is in many ways, a religoius issue, the main reason being that an aborted baby is denied the right to a baptism.  but try to argue that anywhere in a political forum and it of course goes no where becuase its a purely religious argument and of course many would never baptize their child anyway.

i guess i dislike the label of gay "marriage".  i am sympathetic and epathetic to gay couples with regard to issues like having someone be able to make your medical decisions, and stuff like that (although marriage doesnt always guarantee that stuff any way, case in point Terri Schaivo, whose husband famously battled with her parents about removing her life support).  and i do think its absurd that for tax purposes they file one way witt their state return (in states where its legal) but federally its different rules.  we have to tax our same sex couples something called "imputed income" becuase they are not allowed ot have pre-tax deductions on their family health insurance plan for purposes of federal tax.  so i do think whatever is decided on the matter, it shoudl be federally rather than all 50 states individually.

so i guess legally/civililly im not entirely opposed to it, but from a religious standpoint i am.  so where that actually leaves me at the polls is confused and conflicted and usually voting "no".

lalaith50

I don't have time to type out/argue the reasons for this now, but there *are* good secular reasons for marriage. (the purpose of marriage being procreation, and following on that creating a stable home for the rearing of children and therefore the stability of society, although we've already lost that connection with contraception and easy divorce, but anyhow what's the purpose of an institution just so people can publicly say they "luuuuuv" each other?) I've read a couple of good but long articles about that online, but again I dont have time to find them at the moment, but I could if you really are interested in learning more about that. (unless you think you've "heard it all.")

meltoine

Personally, I don't think that the government should recognize or sanction marriage at all. I don't think the benefits are all that big of a deal - the tax breaks are not that much and could easily be given in another way. The legal issues, like inheritance, joint property, medical decisions, etc.... Would be better handled by individuals actually drawing up a will, a health care proxy, and a living will. Even within marriage, sometimes these issues are not discussed or there's an argument between parents and spouse that gets drawn out, and we'd all be better served by a system that is clearer. I know that this is impractical seeing as few people have these documents to begin with, but with what I went through after my father died with no will, I think everyone should have one no matter what. I keep begging my mom to write one, especially as her wishes are outie the norm, (her partner lives with her, but they are not married and he doesnt jointly own the house, so if she dies first, my sister and I own the house, but he still lives there and it will create all sorts of issues) but she won't. I believe that there is a public good in promoting marriage, but honestly, no one is getting married for the tax breaks and most children are born outside of marriage now, so that's not an impetus either. It's a sad state of affairs, but mixing legality and romantic love is not practical or beneficial any longer. Let people do what they will. We Catholics will continue to get sacramentally married, and other people can have a ceremony that has meaning to them.

ootmother3

Sorry but what you are terming "morality", those with differing opinions call it constitutional rights

Calypso1977

meltoine, i so agree with you on the will thing.  everyone, especially anyone with a child, should absolutely have a will.  even though you cant legally will your child to someone (they arent property), the courts do take into serious consideration the wishes of the parents in terms of who they would like to have raise their child in the event something happens.  without that, you could have any multitude of people fighting over the child.  And if someone is named, in the event of a family battle, they will at least place the child temporarily with whoever is named, rather than in a foster home.

s-aries8990

Chelsea, I agree with you that civil marriage, or unions, should be separate from religious ones. I think a religious marriage should be sufficient for a civil marriage, but that civil marriages should be made available for same-sex couples.

I am firmly against law-makers making laws based on their personal religious beliefs rather than basing them on the will of the people. We are supposed to live in a country by the people, for the people, and it's not that way right now.

chelseamb11

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_can-we-really-legalize-morality?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:d2185bbf-6fe4-4f3b-b1c6-b74097738570Post:65d9accf-78a2-4ee1-b123-f280bfcbdde1">Re: Can we really legalize morality?</a>:
[QUOTE]Sorry but what you are terming "morality", those with differing opinions call it constitutional rights
Posted by ootmother3[/QUOTE]
You are reading way to far into what I was saying based on the word "morality".
What I mean by "can we legalize morality" is can we make/vote on laws about what we feel is moral/not moral.

ETA Not to mention, if you even read my post, you would see that I DO recognize that there are differing opinions out there and that I'm trying to understand my own personal line of what is acceptable from a legal standpoint, not a moral one.

chelseamb11

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_can-we-really-legalize-morality?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:d2185bbf-6fe4-4f3b-b1c6-b74097738570Post:ce03dd6e-53a5-4bca-894b-db4516c6f7bd">Re: Can we really legalize morality?</a>:
[QUOTE]I don't have time to type out/argue the reasons for this now, but there *are* good secular  reasons for marriage. (the purpose of marriage being procreation , and following on that creating a stable home for the rearing of children and therefore the stability of society, although we've already lost that connection with contraception and easy divorce, but anyhow what's the purpose of an institution just so people can publicly say they "luuuuuv" each other?) I've read a couple of good but long articles about that online, but again I dont have time to find them at the moment, but I could if you really are interested in learning more about that. (unless you think you've <strong>"heard it all.")</strong>
Posted by lalaith50[/QUOTE]



You can never hear too much! If you have the links to those articles, I'd love to see them.

Riss91

I think this is something many people struggle with. We are citizens of a country that believes in freedom and equality. So, as a citizen it seems "wrong" to vote for something that might go against those beliefs. I used to feel that I could separate my personal (religious) beliefs as a standard for myself, from those standards which I should expect the typical American to be held to. And that can work in many ways. I'm not voting for everyone to be forced to go to mass every week by law or supporting laws that would imprison adulterers. But, the problem is - your own soul is at stake here. Who do you answer to at the end? God is above all. You are first and foremost His follower. Your duties as a citizen come second. When you cast a vote, you are allowing/supporting those actions/causes. If they are sins, you are part of the sin.

I do agree with meltoine and others that the govt shouldn't set benefits/rules based on marriage. Especially given that the government doesn't really have and standards for marriage as a permanent institution. I just don't believe/trust that the government really cares to protect the instituation of marriage. If they aren't going to get rid of "no fault" divorce, why should they even bother defining something that clearly has no standard? Just stop being an authority on marriage. Institute legal "households" so that citizens can form unions (both romantically and non-romantically) for legal/tax purposes.

I have two self-proclaimed "spinster-sister" aunts. They are in their 50s and they have lived together their whole lives. Why shouldn't they have the same rights/benefits as a "married" couple? They love each other (though not romantically) and you could say that they are committed to each other for their lifetime. Why shouldn't they be afforded the same "rights" as a couple that may not really be committed to each other?

All "rights" have to come from somewhere. Even those in the consitution came from some basic idea of morality, as defined by our "founding fathers". But, how is morality defined outside of the faith in the secular world? Each state has a different set of "rights", which are based on a different definition of morality (though that isn't how they are thought of). Over time, governments change these rules and these rights. But, God doesn't. These have been the same truths. Of course the ideal (for us Catholics) is for the goverment to act according to the rule of God. When we vote, we can help bring the government closer to God, or push it further away.

I realize that this is the most terrifying thing to non-believers! The beauty of democracy is that majority does rule - whether you want it to or not.

Peledreamsofrain

All I know is that I got downright scared when Bush tries to use the Constitution to deny a group of people rights that others had based on religion.  Seriously, I was.  

The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the powers of the Federal Government.  Not only did this proposal display a breath-taking and fundamental misunderstanding of a document upon which an entire country built itself, but the proposal completely flouts the reason for it existing.  To place a curtailment upon any population segment using a document that was specifically created to protect citizens from government overreach is deeply and fundamentally wrong.  I held my breath during that time-period, because we were poised to step into territory that would lead to a downward spiral.

If they can use a document intentended to protect citizens from them to strip rights and benefits from one segment, you can bet your hiney that they'll use it as precedent to keep going.  That's what law is all about: precedent.  The next group of people that earns public disfavor (and there is ALWAYS a group), gets a law against them.  Then the next.  Then the next.

What happens if you are in that next group?  "But it's not fair!  It's MY life that gets curtailed" you say.  That's what happens when you don't fight for EVERYONE'S rights in your country.  Because the next day you wake up, and it's your rights that are taken, because precedent of public disinterest and fragmentation has been set.  

If we all break up and squabble over laws like petty children, refusing to share toys with one another, then our 'representatives' will come in and take what they think their share is.  How often do you complain that your 'representatives' don't represent you?  That they don't vote the way you'd like?  That they only listen to lobby parties?  That they're corrupt and childish and destructive?

Their hands don't belong on the only thing that is keeping you free of their complete power.  No matter what 'morality' or 'issue' you think you have.  

That's my view.

lalaith50

<span style="font-size:11px;line-height:14px;">[QUOTE]If they can use a document intentended to protect citizens from them<strong> to strip rights and benefits</strong> from one segment, you can bet your hiney that they'll use it as precedent to keep going.</span>
Posted by Peledreamsofrain[/QUOTE]
This isn't about "stripping" rights. It's about GIVING NEW "rights" to a group of the population that has never in the history of the world had these particular benefits.

Resa77

I, too, am very torn on this.  I don't want to vote for something that's immoral, but I also don't want the  government making laws about it.  If there was a vote held asking whether or not people should be allowed to use contraception, would I have to vote "no?"  If there were a vote about whether premarital sex should be legal, would I have to vote "no" on that?  Would I have to demand that the government compromise one's ability to exercise free will?  Thankfully our society does not hold votes on all these issues, but if they did, would we really all be morally responsible for voting against sin?  As much as I don't want to be labelled "pro-contraception" or "pro-premarital sex," I also don't thinki it's good for the government to dictate morality.  I think that's VERY dangerous.  I don't want to live in a society where it's illegal for an unmarried couple to live together, or where it's illegal to gossip.  God's law trumps all law, for sure, but that's why I like to leave a good amount of punishment/judgment up to Him, and not enforce it so much with laws.

I think this is a great conversation to have, and I'm always very interested in what you ladies have to say.  I'm sure I'll learn a lot from this thread!

newlyseliski

I think that Riss is right that the government and citizens of the U.S. have already done a pretty bang-up job at destroying, respectively, the civil institution and covenantal union of marriage.  Further expanding/diluting what is defined by the government as "marriage" will only add another nail in the coffin.  At the same time... what the government legalizes... they also enforce in a myriad of ways that will infringe upon my religious freedom as an individual and eventually as a parent.  It has already happened in several states, and will likely happen everywhere.  If the government would like to legislate contrary to the natural law... they can go crazy... and continue to reap the consequences that are already running rampant in our society.  Below is the best (and long) article that I've found with a mostly secular argument against the legalization of same-sex marriage:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155 

Tami87

Chelsea this is something I struggle with too. Overall I guess I tend to be in favor of having marriage be a religious ceremony and have everyone also get a legal civil union. Although I'm not sure how much of a solution this really is. I hear arguments like why shouldn't gay people be allowed to marry when straight celebrities have marriages that last all of a week, and it just makes me think how sad the marriage situation in this country is. If all society defines marriage as is a declaration of your love for another person in front of family and friends with the option to divorce whenever if things don't work out,  than I agree it doesn't make sense why gay couples could not do that too. But of course the Church teaches that marriage is much more than publicly declaring your love for your spouse.

If you talked to me about 6 years ago I was strongly in favor of gay marriage and didn't understand why people would be upset about two people loving eachother. Over the last few years I have come to better understand the church teaching that marriage is for procreation and that we are to accept children lovingly from God. When you accept that being open to children is a requirement for marriage it makes more sense why the church says marriage can only be between one male and one female. Obviously it is physically impossible for a gay couple to have P in V sex and have biological children (without in vitro manipulations or donors). I also think it is interesting that there used to be a societal idea (that I believe doesn't just come from Catholics) that a marriage had to be consummated to be legal and valid and again this is impossible for same sex couples.

I do sympathize though with partners that have trouble getting certain legal rights that married couples have like making medical decisions, visitation rights, insurance benefits etc. I do think this should be changed. Overall I tend to support some type of civil union idea. My biggest issue is with the terminology because I define marriage as a sacrament that has specific requirements and obviously society and many straight couples how are married no longer share that definition.

 I also agree with lalaith that there are some good secular reasons for encouraging marriage and making it harder or more of a social stigma to divorce (unless there are serious reasons such as abuse). Family units make up the foundation of society. Raising children in a nurturing environment should also be important to society. There is research that supports the idea that children do best in families with both male and female role models (although they don't necessarily have to be parents). Clearly divorce can have a impact on children and may lead to future relationship issues.

That was kind of a lot of rambling. Overall I think it is a complicated issue that a lot of Catholics struggle with and I agree that it can be difficult when deciding how to vote.

erin5286

This is a topic that I've thought about a lot as well, and everyone above has made some really great points.  I don't have anything additional to add to the discussion right now that hasn't already been said, but just wanted to note how grateful I am to have found this board of such intelligent and well-spoken ladies to help me learn and think more on difficult topics like this. 

agapecarrie

The bishops are clear that we cannot support ss marriage in our voting. 

Resa77

Erin, I totally agree with you!  This board has been extremely helpful for me in coming to a better understanding of many issues.  

I agree that we can't just say "oh well, people are already sinning, so let's make it easier to commit more sins."  At the same time, though, we cannot single out one group that already faces a lot of hateful treatment, and turn a blind eye to others' abuses.  Think of all the adultery happening every.single.day...how many people are in second marriages that invalid?  How many people are in open marriages?  The list goes on.  So the real question becomes, how do we fix what's already incredibly broken? 

libby18bell

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_can-we-really-legalize-morality?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:d2185bbf-6fe4-4f3b-b1c6-b74097738570Post:efbee084-7a5f-4676-a44d-7c400369c623">Re: Can we really legalize morality?</a>:
[QUOTE]I believe that God's plan for love, sex, and marriage is for a man and a woman to be together.  That said, I have several friends and family who are in same-sex relationships.  I love them dearly and attempt to balance my love for them with my love for my faith.  It's not easy. I do find it unfair how our country has many rights associated with marriage.  I say 'unfair' because these are rights that I think taxes, custody, and medical decisions should be able to be decided by the person and not the government.  For example - my aunt has breast cancer.  I fully expect her partner to be able to make decisions regarding her health and treatment if she cannot make them for herself.  I also believe that my aunt's partner should never be denied visitation and should be able to designate my aunt as the <strong>beneficiary for her insurance</strong>. Things get emotional and personal FAST when we use one word (marriage) to denote both a sacramental covenant and legal rights.  
Posted by TXKristan[/QUOTE]<div>
</div><div>I'm still in the middle of reading all the posts, but just wanted to clarify something.  With regards to insurance, if you are referring to life insurance, that is a contract and never determined by relation.  You list someone as your beneficiary and that's all there is to it, the insurance company doesn't decipher your relationship to that person.

</div>

libby18bell

Since we are all Catholics, at least I would assume so with the forum.  How do you ladies feel about a marriage offciated by someone ordained by the First Church of Atheism?  That's the bigger issue with me.  I like the way the French handle it, I had never heard that before; I love learning something new everyday.  My FI thinks that all marriages should be civil unions per se according to the Federal Gov't.  Since even if you are married by a JOP, your marriage isn't recognized by the church, why not just take government out of the equation all together.  If you want a church wedding and fulfill the sacrament, which every Catholic does, then so be it, since that's special to the two of you, but your choice shouldn't impact another's right.  Or you can take the complete drastic approach and just take out all the tax benefits and what not associated with marriage.  Catholics don't get married for that reason, we get married because it's a sacremental covenant we are making with our spouse, and the church makes sure we take it seriously.

Just a a point of information, I have a friend whose wedding was officiate by the groom's brother, who was ordained by the First Church of Atheism.

caitriona87

This issue encompasses much more than religion. I can attest to that as my views on the question of civil marriage have changed very much while my religious ones have remained the same.

Here is a three-part article that explains how changing the definition of marriage to have nothing to do with sex actually represents an instance of government overreach, both at the outset and in the future, not the other way around.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/04/5069/
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/04/5071/
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/04/5073/


"Traditional" marriage law has historically corresponded to the realities of parenthood--exclusivity, male/female, permanence, duality. (Note that permanence and indissolubility are not the same thing. The marriage contract (civilly) is dissoluble, but permanence is assumed going in.) It simply does  not make sense to remove only one of these parameters. They are all valid or none are. It is a civil institution primarily for that reason--to create legal ties between the parents of each child and between children and their parents. This is necessary for the common good. We've seen the mess that results when third-party reproduction scenarios go sour--who are the parents and why? This is the opposite side of the same coin.

As someone mentioned above, the issue of sex being necessary for marriage gets muddled too. In fact in the UK it's been noted that if marriage is redefined to discount sex/gender, then it follows that a) divorce cannot be granted for reasons of adultery (because what constitutes adultery if intercourse is not intrinsic to marriage? Where to draw the line on what is "sex"?) and b) annulment cannot be granted for non-consummation (for the same reason.)

newlyseliski

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_can-we-really-legalize-morality?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:d2185bbf-6fe4-4f3b-b1c6-b74097738570Post:a4ab2521-dd0c-46f4-aa3d-f5d4027d19ff">Re: Can we really legalize morality?</a>:
[QUOTE]<a href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/04/5069/" rel="nofollow">http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/04/5069/</a> <a href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/04/5071/" rel="nofollow">http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/04/5071/</a> <a href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/04/5073/" rel="nofollow">http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/04/5073/</a>
Posted by caitriona87[/QUOTE]

<div>Good articles!  Pretty sure this quote sums up my frustration with how the government has helped destroy marriage:</div><div>
</div><div>"The government is already deeply involved in many aspects of human life that affect people’s decisions of what kind of relationship to be in. For instance, government’s policies regarding welfare, health care, and housing have contributed to the near-disappearance of marriage from the lower classes, not only in America, but throughout the industrialized world."</div><div>
</div><div>Granted... that cannot be completely blamed for the 50%+ divorce rate...  that's all our own fault as selfish and sinful human beings.  </div>

CrazyCatLady3

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_can-we-really-legalize-morality?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:d2185bbf-6fe4-4f3b-b1c6-b74097738570Post:ccaeb760-248b-4158-b18f-d04f24e8523d">Re: Can we really legalize morality?</a>:
[QUOTE]This isn't about "stripping" rights. It's about GIVING NEW "rights" to a group of the population that has never in the history of the world had these particular benefits.
Posted by lalaith50[/QUOTE]

<div>If we use this logic, women would never have been given the right to vote.</div>

CrazyCatLady3

 I do believe God's laws trump all other laws, but there of course is freedom of religion in our country and part of me thinks that voting against gay marriage is me inserting my religion into the government.  This makes me feel like a hypocrite because I have been fighting tooth and nail with people about the HHS mandate and how it infringes on religious liberty. 

Chelsea I am really glad you said this.  Religious freedom (or freedom to be non-religious) has to go both ways.  Just as the state should not be able to force a catholic church to perform a gay wedding against its beliefs, the catholic church should not lobby to ask the government not to allow *civil* same sex marriages.  Why should any religion be able to force its mores on others who do not follow it?

The line is drawn where one person's rights infringe on anothers.  We could say that legislating against murder is legislating morality, but there, one person is, against his/her will, losing his/her life due to another's actions.  In the CA trial on Prop 8, the same sex marriage opponents' experts even conceded under oath that they did not know how allowing a same-sex couple to wed would hurt the marriage of any opposite sex couple.  As long as the gov't doesn't force religious groups to allow same sex marriage in their own churches, there is no infringement on those believers.  But telling gay non-believers that they can't have a civil marriage is infringing on those individuals' rights based solely on your religious beliefs. 

CrazyCatLady3

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_can-we-really-legalize-morality?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:d2185bbf-6fe4-4f3b-b1c6-b74097738570Post:a4ab2521-dd0c-46f4-aa3d-f5d4027d19ff">Re: Can we really legalize morality?</a>:
[QUOTE]It is a civil institution primarily for that reason--to create legal ties between the parents of each child and between children and their parents. This is necessary for the common good. We've seen the mess that results when third-party reproduction scenarios go sour--who are the parents and why? This is the opposite side of the same coin. As someone mentioned above, the issue of sex being necessary for marriage gets muddled too. In fact in the UK it's been noted that if marriage is redefined to discount sex/gender, then it follows that a) divorce cannot be granted for reasons of adultery (because what constitutes adultery if intercourse is not intrinsic to marriage? Where to draw the line on what is "sex"?) and b) annulment cannot be granted for non-consummation (for the same reason.)
Posted by caitriona87[/QUOTE]<div>
</div><div><p style="margin:20px 0px 0px;padding:0px;font-size:14px;line-height:18px;font-family:Georgia, Times, Arial, serif;color:#000000;">Those who.. argue that  marital rights to same-sex couples would render marriage meaningless...say that the sexual union of a man and a woman, capable of producing children, is essential to marriage and is its centerpiece.</p><p style="margin:20px 0px 0px;padding:0px;font-size:14px;line-height:18px;font-family:Georgia, Times, Arial, serif;color:#000000;">The history of marriage laws tells a more complex story. The ability of married partners to procreate has never been required to make a marriage legal or valid, nor have unwillingness or inability to have children been grounds for divorce.</p>
</div><div>From: <em style="color:#000000;font-family:Georgia, Times, Arial, serif;font-size:12px;line-height:18px;">Nancy F. Cott’s expert report submitted in the case of </em><span style="color:#000000;font-family:Georgia, Times, Arial, serif;font-size:12px;line-height:18px;">Perry v. Schwarzenegger</span><em style="color:#000000;font-family:Georgia, Times, Arial, serif;font-size:12px;line-height:18px;"> in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.</em></div>

CrazyCatLady3

Also on the children issue, allowing gay marriages *strengthens* families in cases like this:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/we-found-our-son-in-the-subway/

CrazyCatLady3

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_can-we-really-legalize-morality?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:d2185bbf-6fe4-4f3b-b1c6-b74097738570Post:d1cd6b9b-7b1c-4dea-8b5e-af6ff1de510a">Re: Can we really legalize morality?</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Can we really legalize morality? : Good articles!  Pretty sure this quote sums up my frustration with how the government has helped destroy marriage: "The government is already deeply involved in many aspects of human life that affect people’s decisions of what kind of relationship to be in. For instance, government’s policies regarding welfare, health care, and housing have contributed to the near-disappearance of marriage from the lower classes, not only in America, but throughout the industrialized world." Granted... that cannot be completely blamed for the 50%+ divorce rate...  that's all our own fault as selfish and sinful human beings.  
Posted by newlyseliski[/QUOTE]

<div>So do you think the government shouldn't have welfare, healthcare etc for single people because they should just get married instead?  What if the single person can't find a stable, suitable, willing partner?  As someone who did not meet her partner until she was 31, I would have been in a really bad position had I been in poverty in my 20s and needed assistance to get by, but the gov't just told me to "get married" to take care of my problem.</div>

CrazyCatLady3

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_can-we-really-legalize-morality?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:d2185bbf-6fe4-4f3b-b1c6-b74097738570Post:d0259630-a878-4524-b094-f653415f9b42">Re: Can we really legalize morality?</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Can we really legalize morality? : Thanks for "outing" me  (pun intended) Okay, here's my "devil's advocate" response.  Our laws legislate morality already.  It's immoral to steal or kill.  Those are moral standards we can all agree to (well, except for the ones who break it).   The tricky part is deciding whose morality will "win" and become law.  
Posted by TXKristan[/QUOTE]

<div>I would refer you to my post above, where I use this argument:</div><div>
</div><div><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#ffffff;">The line is drawn where one person's rights infringe on anothers.  We could say that legislating against murder is legislating morality, but there, one person is, against his/her will, losing his/her life due to another's actions.  In the CA trial on Prop 8, the same sex marriage opponents' experts even conceded under oath that they did not know how allowing a same-sex couple to wed would hurt the marriage of any opposite sex couple.  As long as the gov't doesn't force religious groups to allow same sex marriage in their own churches, there is no infringement on those believers.  But telling gay non-believers that they can't have a civil marriage is infringing on those individuals' rights based solely on your religious beliefs. </span></div>

libby18bell

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_can-we-really-legalize-morality?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:d2185bbf-6fe4-4f3b-b1c6-b74097738570Post:3af5ba5a-484b-416d-a984-d70fff2f7925">Re: Can we really legalize morality?</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Can we really legalize morality? : I'm sorry - I really don't understand your question. I think you might be asking if Catholics can just have a sacramental marriage and not a civil one.  I honestly don't think that is legally possible.  My understanding is that a Catholic priest or deacon who witnesses a wedding must do so only in accordance with the local government.
Posted by TXKristan[/QUOTE]

<div>What I meant with regards to my question is that Catholics are against the marriage of two people of the same sex, but doesn't seem to have issues when a marriage takes place of two people of the opposite sex where the idea of god is not involved at all.  There is nothing in any state that has gay marriage that forces any church to perform said marriage.  </div><div>
</div><div>
</div>

chelseamb11

Thank you everyone so much for your input!  Riss, I do like what you said about not furthering/aiding people to sin.  I'm actually in a very different debate right now with a similar concept, ew're talking about parenting and teenage sex.  Some argue to just give the kid BC and not tell the kid "NO YOU CAN'T HAVE SEX"  since theyr'e going to do it anyway.  Even if they will, I wouldn't be able to live with myself knowing that I stood by and did nothing (and even enabled them) while they were engaging in negative behaviors.  This almost seems to parallel the point you made Riss.


I'm still torn though. Idk, I'm guessing it's going to take some more prayer on my part.  I still don't feel like we can demand religous liberty and use the argument of religious liberty against the HHS mandate but then turn around and say "well MY God says that gay marriage is wrong, so therefore NOBODY should have it (even if they don't believe what I believe".  We can't have our cake and eat it too.

Blegh.  So complicated lol.

Riss91

I see your point, however I don't think they are necessarily in conflict from a Catholic perspective. When strip it down to sins - you are supporting the argument that leads to the least sin. Paying for birth control coverage is assisting in a sin. Sexual acts outside of marriage between and man and a women is a sin. All sins hurt everyone, not just the people involved. As a Catholic, the charitble thing to do is to help others avoid sin. Obviously, this is nearly impossible to do in every circumstance, but you should do whatever you can.

I can understand that from a secular perspective it seems unfair - "have your cake and eat it too", and this is where most of the tension comes from. But when you believe in God and His Church, your duty is to Him. Love thy neighbor - don't assist in sin.

It is a very difficult topic. No one wants to do something that will hurt others' feelings. No one wants to make others upset or feel oppressed or outcast. And it quickly escalates because there is such passion involved. Above all we need to be loving, kind and charitable. We are all sinners. My sins aren't "better or worse" than anyone else. Heterosexuals don't have any better chance to get to heaven than homosexuals. We all will face the same day of judgment. We each have to personally decide what we are willing to "chance" in our decisions and actions. What marks will be on our soul? He is a merciful God, but we don't know for sure what He will be willing to overlook.

I am glad this conversation has been productive and free from attacks. I hope others than join in will have equal respect. This truly isn't easy for anyone.