The Catholic church has come out with another strong condemnation of gay marriage, and once again, I am confused as to what the debate is really about. It is clear what the Vatican does not approve of (buggery of small children- we’ll get back to you on that one- consensual sex between consenting adults- jeebus, are you out of your mind?):
The Vatican today condemned gay marriages as “deviant” in a document that instructs clergy and Catholic politicians on how to stop the legislative momentum in favor of gay marriages in North America and Europe.
In a 12-page set of guidelines, issued with the approval of Pope John Paul II, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith urged Catholic lawmakers to lobby and vote against bills that would recognize gay marriage, saying they have a “moral duty” to do so.
The congregation, which was formed in the sixteenth century to defend the church against heresy, defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman and said that “homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.”
So, the Vatican is against ANY recognition of marriage, same-sex unions, whatever you may call it. MY own personal stance is that I am in favor of extending the legal benefits of marriage to homosexual couples, I would just prefer that they use a name other than ‘marriage.’ I think many people would have no problem with a legal contract known as same-sex unions, but what seems inflammatory and troublesome is calling it marriage. Is this a middle ground that many others share?, or am I the only one who is nuts on this? My approach seems to be rather simple (I am opening myself up for accusations of simple-mindedness, I know), but it seems to me what upsets most people is the use of the term marriage, not the legal benefits or recognition of homosexual unions.
Am I way off base here?
hln
No, you are not way off base at all. I said the same thing to my husband a couple of weeks ago regarding extending same-sex couples legal benefits but “calling it something other than marriage.” It is the use of the term.
From the church’s standpoint, though (addressing your other issue), any sexual conduct between people other than those known as husband and wife, is condemned – not condoned – by the church. The church must therefore, since man and man and woman and woman can never be husband and wife, take a stand against gay marriage. It’s really that simple and black and white, I think. From a purist standpoint, the church states and states only this in that regard: Thou shalt not commit adultery.
hln
Steve Malynn
John, I point you to your earlier post: Gay High Schools. It really is a question of equal rights v. special rights. The electorate/legislature should decide whether it wishes to continue to provide extra benefits to married couples with kids. The gay-rights activists should not be allowed to define themselves into this preferred group. In either case it should be a legislative decision. Are you saying that the Pope should not advocate his position?
James Joyner
John: I agree with you on the public policy end. From the Catholic standpoint, though, I hardly see how they could say anything different. “Disregard 2,000 years of Church teaching and the plain meaning of the Bible. Homosexuality is not actually an ‘abomination’ but part of God’s divine plan. Sorry for the misunderstanding.”
John Cole
The point of mentioning the Catholic church was twofold:
1.) It was the story of the Pope’s announcement that made me post about ‘gay marriage.’
2.) I am still furious at the limp attempts to handle the pedophile case, so any opportunity to bash them is appropriate.
I agree the Pope and the Catholic church have no option to have any position but the one they have taken. I respectfully disagree with the Catholic church on yet another issue.
Steve Malynn
John, as a conservative catholic, I am disgusted with 80% of the American Bishops who with the liberal seminaries that pumped-out these homosexual predatory priests, then protected them rather than admit any problem. The crazy thing is that 90% of the parish priests are marvelous men (particularly those who have no desire to become a bishop). The whole church is suffering for the gross malfeasance of a few, and the fact that the Bishops hid rather than stopped that malfeasance. But as one of “them”, a practicing catholic layman with no position in the church, bashing the whole church is counter productive, indead unduely biased.
st
I think your position is pretty reasonable (coincidentally, it’s the same one Dean espouses). Denying to same-sex couples the specific federal/state/healthcare/etc. benefits that accrue to married people is a fairneass issue; the labeling of such a status as “marriage” or “matrimony” is essentially a religious issue, arising as those terms do from a series of specific religious practices. Granted, the civil, non-religious (justice-of-the-peace, power-invested-in-me-by-the-state) ceremonies are also labelled “marriage,” but that is a matter of custom, and no bar to creating a “civil union” status available to same-sex couples.
And yes, I’ve heard the argument that this is just another “separate but equal” status that is inherently discriminatory, but that analogy is specious bullshit.
Duke Nukem
I’ve been called a lot worse than simple-minded for espousing the same position you’re taking. Most right-minded people(Pat Robertson and his ilk thereby necessarily excluded)would probably agree with providing legal protections that would normally be associated with a spouse. For example, a same sex couple that lives near an old girlfriend have been together for more than 10 years. When a medical decision had to be made about one of them, the other was not be consulted: the next of (blood only) kin was called instead. Some type of legal standing should be accorded to that significant other which would have allowed them to make that decision. And I agree completely with st’s last statement above.
Steve Malynn
John, a blog specifically for this issue: MarriageDebate.com.
Some flesh for my earlier bare bones concern re: the intent of the advocates for gay marriage:
ideas have consequences. At issue is not the motivation of people who advocate for gay marriage. Kurtz is right: some are interested in destroying marriage as a social institution, and many of these people have powerful and influential posts in family law. I notice Andrew avoids the whole issue of the American Law Institute’s current recommendations on family law, that include stripping the law of the assumption a child has just two parents (by creating lots of categories of parenthood: legal parenthood, parenthood by estoppel, defacto parenthood–biological parenthood is noticeably missing) and creating a kind of defacto polygamy as well by allowing a person to (under certain limited circumstances) form a legitimated domestic partnership with a person who is already married. Not two spouses, but a spouse and a legal concubine. ALI is the most mainstream organization there is in the legal field and it is already deconstructing the couple as the basic unit of family law.
Francis W. Porretto
I have yet to hear of even one consequence of “gay marriage” that would benefit anyone, except by:
1) giving homosexuals a claim to inclusion in certain redistributionist social programs, and:
2)giving them the ability to browbeat employers into insuring their lovers for free.
The marriage contract evolved as protection for vulnerable women and dependent children — vulnerable to male promiscuity, fickleness, and the temptations toward abandonment. Inasmuch as, by definition, the parties to a “gay marriage” would be of the same sex, and the two could not produce children without elaborate prior artificial arrangements which could easily include a contract for responsibility and support, who would be protected by it, and from whom and what?
See also this.
Andrew Lazarus
Francis, would you be in favor of modifying marriage so that it didn’t apply (or applied only partially) in the case of two-career heterosexual families? To some extent this can and has been done by means-testing survivor entitlements. And, frankly, I favor universal health care (I hear you fainting); indeed that gets rid of the joint health insurance issue.
On the original question, I’m wondering if we shouldn’t COMPLETELY decouple the word “marriage” from civil union for EVERYBODY. Marriage could be performed by religious officials to civilly-unioned couples of whatever faith and lifestyle their religion permits. (Religious Jews and Catholics already have to deal with two different authorities in case of divorce.)
Peter
The medical horror stories we keep hearing about are completely avoidable by simple and inexpensive mutual power of attorneys.
I would submit that if gay marriage or civil unions come to pass with the same legal standing as marriage, we will all lose our dependant’s health care insurance through our employers, at least those in the private sector who can neither print nor extort money.
I don’t claim to know, nor do I care about the exact percentages but a significant minority, possibly even a plurality, of gays live a very self destructive lifestyle. I’m not interested in the why, for fear that I’d find out it’s all, somehow my fault, I simply know that I’m not willing to subsidise other’s disasterous choices any more than I do now.
When the gay bathhouses are history, when the worst night of a cop’s week is not going to the public parks and chasing the gays for having public sex, then let’s talk about it.
I know that some will hate this, too bad. Ten years after gay marriage, private health insurance will be a thing of the past. Hide and watch.
Dave
I pretty much agree with you, John. Calling same-sex… unions, “marriage” stirs something up in me. But if you want to give whatever other term you assign to it, the same -legal- benefits, fine.
Just don’t call it marriage, please.
Argh. Now I’m starting into a rant… I’ll have to blog it.
Ryan Waxx
It seems to me that modern marriage has 3 seperate components:
1. Religous aspect and authority.
2. Legal contract between 2 individuals making them one.
3. Parenting prefrences granted by the state.
Now when marriage was originally concieved, it made sense to package all 3 together. But no more.
I’m not certain exactly how the 3 should be arranged, but they must be split for the result to make any sense.
Little Miss Attila
Peter:
The existence of promiscuous, flamboyant homosexuals is a problem for the many sober, hard-working and decent ones who just want to live their lives in peace.
Just as many straight couples choose to live together rather than marry, a lot of gay couples would not opt for civil unions or marriage simply because it was available to them. The numbers, statistically, are very small–so your fears of grotesquely inflated health insurance costs are unfounded.
Besides, my husband’s health plan is obligated to cover me. Why should my friend, who has had a commitment ceremony with her girlfriend and lived with her for years, go uninsured because her girlfriend is female? It makes no sense. If the system can absorb me, it can absorb my friend.
Francis, I know that marriage is an economic contract. And to the degree that it is, I think the benefits therefrom should be extended to gays, rather than them having to spend thousands drawing up separate contracts.
But as far as your contention that it’s all about money is concerned . . . I married for love. We’re partners, but it was all about my feeling that I wanted to spend the rest of my life with this one man.
And I think that’s near-universal. Which is why we need some legal recognition of gay unions: it’s only fair.
Chris
Hi.. Just wanted to say that i am gay! I totally disagree with Gay marriages!
I am a Roman Catholic, and I believe that marriage is something that was intended to be between Man & Woman – simple as!
However I find it unfair that some peeople seem to think of gay people as deviant etc. I am gay, but I come from a good back-ground, I am currently studying for my degree in Criminal Justice, also I do absolutely loads of charity work, and I am going to join the police force on fast-track promotion.
I can not help who/what I am… I do NOT throw my sexuality in people’s face’s.. it’s not really an issue!
All I have to ask.. Is why shouldn’t a Gay couple be allowed to have legal rights.. like ‘Next of Kin’ etc?
Brian Laursen
Gay Marriage Vs. Union status:
All I have to comment on this subject is “where is the Constitution on this issue”?
The US Constitution clearly defines all “other” associations by the term “creed”. In all Civil Rights laws this term “creed” lends itself readily to the description of minority status individuals or groups which do not fall under sex, age, national origin, etc., and if it does lend itself so readily, even in a social context such as “gay” or “lesbian”, then it is a moot point as to whether you can or cannot discriminate based upon “creed” in offering civil services to, or legal protection for these citizens.
That is the only real point. The religious fans as I like to describe them, “Moral Majority” or the “foundation for the American Way”, etc are trying their damndest to put the Constitution aside for the benefit of their own “control” agenda. They would, of course, love to discriminate against anyone not of their “creed” or association by religion, or “religious” affiliation, including Muslims, Buddhists, Animists, etc. This is simply an extension of a futile political agenda, which includes raising the Roe V. Wade decision as a possible overturn target for a “conservative” judiciary in the Supreme Court. Futile, because the decision was not based on social norms at the time, but rather upon interpretation of Privacy issues protected by the Documents contents. It however raised the timely issue, and it had yet to be decided in the legal forum in a decisive way. This is the same “issue” we have been dealing with in the media. Just the entertainment of the idea that we can discriminate against a non-majority grouping or “creed” such as Gays or Lesbians, is in my opinion, silly and pedestrian at best, and not in the arena of legally indistinct issues which currently and in the past, have plagued our judiciary and society. Why just 50 years ago, in many states, laws were in full swing which discriminated against mainly blacks and whites marrying. All sorts of state laws which didn’t recognize such marriages in other states. These laws are so well known in their effect that to quote them would be a waste of space.
Leave the “issue” of gay marriage where it belongs. To the discussion and subsequent discrimination in the church pews by those adherents who profess a love for all mankind, regardless of status or sin. Leave it in your church, and don’t bring it into the halls of serious legal constructs. You are wasting our time and consideration. (*one straight Male amongst everyone else in the crowd here.)
Tyrone
I think if two people love each other and want to marry, why should we be able to stand in their way? Two men or two women, that’s their buisness. As for as I am concerned about the Pope’s view, remember this is a man who has for years covered up for the priest who has been abusing young boys, which the media never calls it what it is, they are homosexuals, am I off base here? So if it’s good enought for his priest, why is it bad for two adults who want each other?
gabriela
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY IS THAT, GAY PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANT, AND THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, SO IT SAYS ON THE CONSTITUTION!!
Savannah
There’s no reason why gay couples shouldn’t be allowed to be legally joined with the person they love and call it what it is: marriage. It shouldn’t have to come with a euphamism like “civil union” to put peoples’ minds at ease. Marriage is about the two people involved, and the decision to marry someone of the same sex doesn’t concern the group of people who are so opposed to it. It wouldn’t change the institute of marriage any more than it had already changed (if anything has threatened its sanctity it’s Vegas, not gays). So my opinion is live and let live. Spend your life with the person you love, and allow others to do the same in peace.
Dirty D
Personally I believe do you have the right to get married and sould the right of other people. But the fact is that you can’t reproduce so you no longer adding to society. You no longer contine your blood line so you are a dead end to humanity.
Bob
This is from a person who does not care much about religion but the question still remains as why? So what if the gays get married? Why should it matter to the “common” strait society? The fact is it should not. The Ten Commandments from the bible have no bearing on American society except culturally of course. What about America’s Ten Commandments? The Bill of Rights clearly state segregation of church and state in the first article. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This was clear when the country first formed, then why is it not true now? Congress should not be held by the restraints of religion and act to give marital status to gays in the United States.
Leisha
Dirty D, don’t you think the world would be a little better off if there were a couple fewer mouths to feed? Plus, there are gay couples adopting those children they cannot have themselves. If gay couples are a dead end to society, I guess you consider people who are barren or past their childbirthing years deadends too.
derek h.
i think that everybody should get married, its just fun. i mean you get all the sex you want whenever you want it. the only downside is that u have to start to provide stuff for other people and pay soem taxes and stuff.
James Nadeau
What’s funny about all this is that i don’t really think it has anything to do with religion has nothing to do with this to a point. If u really think hard look at are worlds morals. Morals don’t just come from religion, but they come from what you feel is the right thing to do. No one does the right thing anymore. The US is going to Hell. WE should rise up and attack hell with full force and get rid of this gay marriage bull shit. You don’t need to get married if your gay and if no one wants to take in children with out parents then maybe poeple should stop having sex and or be careful with it. THeres a reason there are scyo out there. TO get rid of gays, people that like gays and that flont them selves to look like sexy toys. What happen to just a man and a women no its Butch and barbra. Come now
Danielle
Gay Marraige Should Be Legal. If You Dont Think So Thats Your Opinion But Its Not Hurting Anybody If Gay’s Marry
Danielle
Gay Marraige Should Be Legal. If You Dont Think So Thats Your Opinion But Its Not Hurting Anybody If Gay’s Marry
Kym
I think gay marriages should be legal, because, if you love someone it shouldn’t matter if your the same sex or not…you just love them.
Kassandra
I think that you people shouldnt care what others do in their bedrooms. If I want to marry my lover then I will. Gay people love and care about people just like you strait people. I wish that you people would stop caring about something so small that doesnt affect you at all. I dont care what “The God” wrote. I will do what I want to do.
Dani
Gay Marraige Should Be Legal. Out Of 90 People 60 Say It Should And 30 Say It Shouldnt But It Not Like It Effects Any Of The People That Dont Agree I Think You Should Mind Your Buisness And Let The People That Are Gay And In Love Be Happy!!