What is marriage, exactly?
If a couple marries knowing that one or both of them cannot have children, or they choose not to for other reasons, are they not fully married? If they adopt a child and raise that child in a loving, secure environment, is that less a less than ideal situation for a child?
You would think so, reading the statement of the California Catholic Conference on same-sex marriage that endorses Proposition 8, the measure that would ban such marriages. Did the bishops throughout the state who issued this statement fully understand just how many people completely outside the issue of gay marriage they might be offending?
But let's let the bishops speak for themselves: "When men and women consummate their marriage they offer themselves to God as co-creators of a new human being. Any other pairing -- while possibly offering security and companionship to the individuals involved -- is not marriage." So all you childless couples -- sorry, not quite actually married.
Or in another part of the statement: "The ideal for the well being of children is to be born into a traditional marriage and to be raised by both a mother and a father." The statement does go on to laud single parents, though it certainly doesn't include them as ideal. Or adoptive parents.
The bishops conclude by strongly encouraging Catholics to donate to and volunteer for the Prop. 8 campaign. Obviously, the long-standing questions about the tax-exempt status of nonprofit groups that take such sides on political issues goes on.
j.a.m. it use to be common sense that black and white people did not marry.
In the past it was common sense to have slaves, it was common sense that women became property once married.
It seems that it would be common sense that two people that love each would have the same rights as all the other couples that love each other.
It should be common sense that as a civil society we don't tolerate discrimination, apparently not all people have common sense.
Posted by: cr | November 06, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Marriage means husband and wife. It's common sense.
Posted by: j.a.m. | August 14, 2008 at 05:09 AM
Karin Klein doesn't understand the Church's position because she does not want to understand. It's called willful ignorance.
Posted by: j.a.m. | August 14, 2008 at 04:34 AM
I was recently solicited by a Church group to help campaign for Proposition 8 and to ban gay marriages. My answer is below:
You're going to hate me for this long diatribe, but I have to speak my piece regarding Proposition 8 and the campaign to ban homosexual marriages. Although I am not homosexual myself, I don't believe in preventing gays from commiting themselves to each other as heterosesexual couples do when they fall in love.
Many of today's "drive through" heterosexual marriages, performed in County Courthouses or by Elvis impersonators in Las Vegas wedding chapels are perfectly legal, but are they sanctioned by God? Who are we to determine that?? Marriage lost it's holy stature long ago, with over 50% of all marriages ending in divorce. Outrageously decadent public figures such as Pamela Anderson and Tommy Lee can marry in string bikinis on a Mexican beach and post videos of their honeymoon intimacy online, but Elton John and his partner must be prevented from marrying at all because they're both men?
Individual religions and Churches most definitely have the right to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for people they deem unfit to marry for whatever reason. Sanctions can be enforced in sacred Temples or Church altars, but the right to uniformly ban the legality of a union between two consenting adults should not be within the jurisdiction of the State.
How would you feel if, after several children and many years of marriage, a daughter's husband "came out" and admitted he was gay and wanted a divorce? Persecuting homosexuals and preventing gay marriage often drives gays to hide their orientation in an attempt to have the family/children they desire. A strained "marriage" like that has a negative impact on both the spouses and the children, doing irreparable harm when the truth finally comes to light. Wouldn't it be preferable if the pressure to remain "closeted" was removed?
A homosexual is what he/she is. We can't change that by regulating it. If a law was passed enforcing homosexuality as the only legal modality, could you become gay? Well, neither can gays become "straight."
What is wrong with letting gays marry and adopt unwanted children whom they can raise in a loving home? I lived next door to a lesbian couple (in Studio City) who adopted two sons. The women were not blatant in their orientation, and the boys seemed well adjusted and interacted with neighborhood children. Would it be better if those women had married men in order to have children, and carried on affairs with other women on the side?
It is up to God to punish people he considers to be sinners. There are many people of all persuasions who could be legislated out of existence, but it is not in our power to do so. Would we want it to be? Hitler tried to cleanse the world of people he considered vile. What if he had succeeded? Jews have contributed immensely to the success of America and the world. What if Einstein had been eradicated in the ethnic cleansing?
I believe we need to live and let live. Punish the perpetrators of violent acts, acts that involve loss of life, financial security, and/or health. Punish politicians for leading our country into ruin, not for having extramarital affairs. John F. Kennedy would be impeached for his many affairs if he was President today, and African Americans would still be relegated to the back of the bus.
Sexual preference is between the participants, their families, and God. It is not up to strangers and lawmakers to regulate (consensual) sexual morality. I believe that our laws deal much too lightly with sexual predators who destroy the entire future of children and other people they rape, causing many of them to become predators themselves as they grow up. These monstrous criminals are the ones we should be crusading against. Sexual predators? Send them to Siberia to torment each other. Homosexual marriages? Let them be.
Posted by: Kay Gotz | August 13, 2008 at 04:16 PM
Until some people's "god" STOPS influencing and shaping our theocracy's laws, LGBT will not submit to federal taxes. It's that simple, America.
If you want our taxes, give us equal civil rights.
Posted by: John Bisceglia | August 10, 2008 at 08:58 AM
Steve has got it!
Posted by: Shirley Wofford | August 06, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Nonsense like this is why I left the Catholic Church decades ago.
Posted by: Kevin from Portland OR | August 06, 2008 at 09:20 PM
Rebecca falls into the fundamental error of not seeing the difference between "MY religion says that I must [or must not]" and "MY religion says that YOU must [or must not]..."
If your religion forbids same-sex relationships, the eating of pork, the trimming of your hair or working on whatever your particular Sabbath happens to be, well, by all means, observe to your heart's content. But don't expect others to behave similarly just because it's a tenet of YOUR religion.
As to the "sacred and noble institution of marriage" -- I'm sorry, but after "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire" and "Movie Star Seeks Ninth Divorce" and the like, that's a straw dummy you're defending. (See also: John McCain divorces sick wife to marry heiress half his age, after an adulterous affair with her, which is also known as Traditional Family Values.)
But, I'm always willing to compromise, so how about this: Let us separate the religious institution of marriage from the civil one. So, anyone may marry in (or be denied marriage by) the religion of their choice, but by the same token, any two people who want the myriad of legal protections and benefits that now come automatically with marriage, will have to go through a separate civil process to register and be eligible for these benefits. See how simple? Justice for all, and anyone who wishes for an exclusionary definition of 'marriage' may settle happily into the embrace of a religion or sect that agrees with them.
Posted by: Steve Hoffmann | August 06, 2008 at 01:49 PM
Karin Klein has distorted the arguments of the California Catholic Conference in order to better argue her position in opposition to Proposition 8. The CCC statement does not suggest that chidless heterosexual couples are not fully married.
The central point is that traditional marriage fulfills the obvious biological and social roles of producing and raising children. Homosexual unions cannot ever, on their own, fulfill these dual roles. The fact that some heterosexual unions do not produce children does not erase the fundamental difference between these two types of unions.
The "who cares -- it's about companionship -- it's not hurting YOUR marriage" argument is deficient. The problem is not that Bob marrying Jim hurts Jack and Jill's marriage; the problem is more severe. A high percentage of America's social problems -- education, drugs, crime and poverty -- derive from children born out of wedlock. Years ago, when the black out of wedlock birthrate reached 25%, Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan declared that this constituted a serious crisis. Today, the white out of wedlock birthrate is 25% and the black rate is more than 60%.
If we are serious about solving our nation's problems we must adopt policies which strengthen the perception of traditional marriage as a fundamental ingredient of an healthy advancing society. Conversely, policies that diminish the significance of traditional marriage and family structure obstruct progress in eradicating society's ills.
If the grownups cannot formally declare that heterosexual marriage is unique and important, more young heterosexual couples will view that as confirmation of their decision not to commit to formalizing their unions. The result: more babies born out of wedlock, more crime, more drugs, more education problems, more poverty.
Homosexual couples can live together and there are legal solutions to inheritance and hospital visitation issues. But a decision to bestow the status of traditional marriage on same-sex unions will have serious negative social impacts a generation from now that will be very difficult to undo.
Posted by: William R. Snaer, D.D.S. | August 06, 2008 at 11:12 AM
For all those Catholics who are wondering about this, do your research and look for answers. If you attend church, then ask your priest or seek answers from the diocese. Go to the Catholic Answers website and there is a well researched report not only on gay marriage but marriage in general. Plus, just as all people have the right to publicly support whatever issues they like or want, this also extends to Catholic priests as well. They shouldn't be scorned for supporting a proposition, law, etc that goes with church teaching. This article really kind of twists the statement put forth by the Catholic bishops, but it is just an opinion and not a well-formed one at that.
Posted by: Rebecca | August 06, 2008 at 08:50 AM
Hmmm...I'm a Catholic, and a senior citizen, and I just got married. Way too old to have kids. Guess we're living in sin...what fun!
Posted by: Anne W. | August 06, 2008 at 02:53 AM
I try to think of something clever to say about this unconstitutional ban to prevent people from being happy...some greedy people out there who think they are better than everyone else try to stop them. even if the bible said its wrong....who are these people to enforce the teachings of the bible? are they god? do they presume to do gods work on earth? how do they really know that god gets peeved if two people find love in a form that is similar to their own? hasnt history taught us that these people are usually mentally unstable, these people who try to enforce the churchs doctrine on many people who dont even share that faith? what will history say about the right wingers today? will they compare them to the debauchery and perversion of the early popes? im sure they might find a few similarites
Posted by: Michelle | August 05, 2008 at 06:30 PM
It is true that marriage is a sacred institution. However, while originally instituted in Judeo-Christian religions to show reverance to God, I'm quite positive that it is now a way of showing our deepest respect for someone else. That a large number of people are still using a definition that stems from an edited, abridged and altered version of the history of a people only lends credit to those of us who would like to see same-sex marriage happen. Regardless, same sex couples can fulfill the same roles in society as heterosexual couples, albeit in different ways.
Additionally, let's not forget the many civilizations that took for granted that homosexual or homoerotic relationships were the norm. To name a few: the Greeks, the Romans, the Spartans, the Japanese, some Native American tribes. Same-sex relationships have been in history longer than the Bible or Torah. hhmmm, that's a though.
Posted by: Joseph | August 05, 2008 at 06:09 PM
According to the "sacred and noble" institution of marriage women became the property of their husbands and blacks couldn't marry whites.
I like the "modern and sensible" institution of marriage better.
Posted by: Amanda | August 05, 2008 at 04:48 PM
Polygamy is against the law which is marriage between a man and several women or perhaps one woman and several men. Do we need to consider their feelings too? Plus, last time I checked it is against the law in the United States. And, I don't see an uproar in polygamists' rights.
Marriage is a sacred and noble institution. It needs to be protected. If the door is opened for homosexual marriages, then who knows what else will eventually be considered "normal".
Posted by: Rebecca | August 05, 2008 at 03:14 PM
Here's a question for those who oppose marriage equality because they want children to have both a mother and a father: how will denying marriage equality prevent heterosexual couples from having children?
Posted by: Mistereks | August 05, 2008 at 02:37 PM
Right-wing religion doesn't have anything to do with a god, or diety. It's leaders, such as these lunatic catholic bishops, and their faithful flock, are obsessed with the lives of gay people. It's a bit stalkerish also, because gay people are trying to live their lives, in piece, like everybody else, but the right-wing nut jobs feel like they need to intervene in everybodies intimate lives. We need to rise up against them, and tell them to get a life. We can start this by voting "NO" on prop 8! Thank you.
Posted by: Flex | August 05, 2008 at 02:10 PM