Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Are civil unions a threat to marriage?
Civil unions have become popular in Europe, and now they're making headway in the U.S. Designed to provide a non-marriage alternative to same-sex couples, they're being embraced by opposite-sex couples who reject marriage. A recent study based on Cook County's civil union law raises some concerns, as John Culhane reports:
Many of the other straight civil union pioneers have also said no to marriage—for themselves and as an institution. The evidence is in a report that the Cook County Clerk’s Office recently issued on the nation’s first opposite-sex couples who civilly united. It found dissatisfaction with the institution of marriage because of concerns with its historical assignment of roles, its connection to religion, and its unfairness to gay and lesbian couples. My own interviews with some of these same couples, who have rejected marriage and plunged into the shallower, murkier pool of the civil union, reflect a cohort prepared to take the wrecking ball to marriage itself.
The numbers in the study are quite limited, and for all we know, those who choose civil unions may never have chosen marriage anyway. But many defenders of traditional marriage have viewed civil unions as a way to grant legal legitimacy to same-sex unions while maintaining the integrity of marriage. In the end, will civil unions end up undercutting marriage?
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2012/01/are-civil-unions-a-threat-to-marriage.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
Is this an instance of the Law of Unintended Consequences? By putting so much traditional meaning into marriage, might "traditional marriage" become too old-fashioned for contemporary different-sex couples? In order to "save" marriage from same-sex couples, might traditionalists destroy marriage entirely? Now there's a thought ...
Of course, it's just too early to tell, but maybe this is another reason to legalize same-sex marriage; to make traditional marriage fashionable again.
sean s.
Posted by: sean m. samis | Jan 4, 2012 12:57:57 PM
Yes, it will. It is just a wedge that will lead to the destruction of the concept of marriage and attacks on those who defend it.
Posted by: Fr. J | Jan 4, 2012 2:06:03 PM
The concept of marriage would/will change, but not be destroyed. Attacks on anyone who has any opinion about marriage are an ongoing thing even now; that's not likely to change much.
sean s.
Posted by: sean m. samis | Jan 4, 2012 2:46:18 PM
Civil union laws usually provide all the same benefits of marriage. So, yes, they do undermine marriage, at least civil marriage.
The purpose of civil marriage is to provide benefits and privileges in the law do to society's interest in uniting one man and one woman with each other and any children born from their union. If the privileges and benefits of marriage are no longer unique - that is, limited to that type of union, then marriage is undermined.
Posted by: ctd | Jan 4, 2012 2:56:08 PM
It seems like your question could be rephrased as: "does giving more options to people who are not satisfied with marriage but want to join in some sort of union make it less likely for people to get married?"
The answer to that is pretty clearly yes, but it's not at all obvious why anyone should care. Unless you're suggesting that the best way to save marriage is to force people into it.
Posted by: Andrew MacKie-Mason | Jan 4, 2012 3:02:33 PM
Andrew, I assume that the question you rephrase is mine, and object to it only as a rephrasing. Perhaps contemporary different-sex couples will reject marriage because of its "traditional" aspects (my point) or because civil unions offer a simpler, more satisfactory arrangement (your point?).
I would not propose forcing anyone into anything. I am not sure marriage needs to be "saved". I am sure it does not need to be saved from same-sex marriage.
sean s.
Posted by: sean m. samis | Jan 4, 2012 3:09:59 PM
To change the "concept of marriage" is to destroy it. If we were to decide that birds and snakes would both be called "birds" (because the word "snake" has an unpleasant connotation), then the word "bird" would no longer be useful. We would not know what it means. If those with power decide decide we must call various different arrangements "marriage", the word can mean anything, and therefore ceases to signify anything.
Posted by: Amelia | Jan 4, 2012 3:10:38 PM
Well, if people who would otherwise marry choose to enter a civil union instead, then in that sense, civil unions seem already to be undercutting marriage (in France, for example). But the important question would seem to be whether and how much civil unions undercut the *concept* of marriage.
Something that has been available since the dawn of civilization, and which a great many people are taking advantage of now, is "not getting married." While people fret about what same-sex-marriage or civil unions will do to marriage, 41% of the children in the United States are born out of wedlock (70% among blacks). This is the result not of same-sex marriage or civil unions, but simply of "not getting married."
There seems to be a great deal more concern in some quarters about whether a relatively small number of children might be adopted by same-sex couples than about the fact that the number of children born to unmarried couples (if they are lucky enough to have the biological father stick around) is enormous.
Posted by: David Nickol | Jan 4, 2012 3:28:47 PM
Amelia;
to change the "concept of marriage" will not change my marriage (23 years) nor yours (if you are married) nor anyone else's marriage. So the concept will be different, but no "traditional" marriage will be different. I really don't care what happens to the traditional concept so long as people are still able to marry, which they will. And some who cannot now marry will, which harms neither me, nor you, nor others.
I'm good with that. No harm, no foul.
sean s.
Posted by: sean m. samis | Jan 4, 2012 3:29:07 PM
But the facts don't support sean s's argument. Perhaps your marriage is fine, but the fact remains that the institution of marriage is in trouble and it is so precisely because the law began to diminish and redefine marriage by treating it as a mere contract. While the implementation of no-fault divorce may not have directly impacted marriage that existed at the time, the implementation has impacted our concept of marriage today and with social consequences. Further redefining and diminishing marriage in the law - in this case rendering it irrelevant by raising giving other relationships the same legal status - would also eventually produce negative consequences for society.
Posted by: ctd | Jan 4, 2012 4:20:30 PM
One question is whether civil unions will end up supporting a thinner set of commitments than marriage, in significant part because civl unions don't import the same normative structure from our culture that marriage does. Obviously, the normative structure surrounding marriage has changed a lot over the past decades, but there is still a "there" there, I think. To the extent that civil unions facilitate less stability in the relationship between two parents -- and yes, as Kim Kardashian et al. remind us, marriage itself has limited stability-conferring power -- then I think that society does have an interest in the civil unions vs. marriage question. I agree with scholars such as Mitt Regan and Don Browning who have emphasized that our marriage debates cannot be adequately engaged as a matter of private ordering; there is a public function, quite apart from one's views on SSM, and I think that the move toward civil unions directly implicates that public function. Empirically, though, I can't predict whether the public function will be compromised by the move.
Posted by: rob vischer | Jan 4, 2012 4:35:05 PM
ctd;
It is very clear that in our society marriage is in decline. This may be due to legal changes, but the idea of marriages as essentially a contract is not new; and it originated at a time when a contract, like a marriage just could not be broken except under the most compelling need. The idea that marriage is a contract is not to blame.
I suspect that an important factor in all this is the growing appreciation or valuing of individual rights and a declining sense of individual obligation to others. Now it is accepted that contracts can and routinely are broken. Modern contracts normally envision how to respond to their failure. Marriage cannot avoid being caught up in this social change; as manifested in no-fault divorces. I believe it is the growing disenchantment with personal obligation, and the love of personal freedom that lies at the heart of this.
Of course there are the other factors that can cause a marriage to fail, the old stand-bys of money problem, child-raising problems, home-work balance, etc.
For me the important factor in this is that none of these factors have anything to do with same-sex marriage. It is rare for a marriage to fail because of the formation of another marriage.
I appreciate your concern that same-sex marriage might be just another change harming marriage, but that is a simplistic response. After all, if stable marriages are to become the norm again, SOMETHING HAS TO CHANGE. Obviously then, change is not always bad; in fact we need something to change. So the trick is to figure out what to change and what to leave alone. That trick requires identifying some causal link between the change and the effect.
I can see the causal connection between the rise of individualism and the decline of marriage, or between it and the rise of divorce, but no one has shown even a theoretical causal link between same-sex marriage and any decline of marriage. Without that, resisting same-sex marriage just because it’s a change plays into the mind-set of contemporary society which in general has embraced change. It makes “traditional marriage” seem out-of-date and revanchist, and to the problem that started this thread. If there’s a good reason, a causal-link that makes same-sex marriage socially damaging, that has not been shown, and absent that the opposition seems irrational. Please notice that I wrote “seems”.
sean s.
Posted by: sean m. samis | Jan 4, 2012 5:43:42 PM
Rob;
I cannot find much in your comment to disagree with, the mere offering of civil unions in lieu of marriage may be a bad thing for marriage. However, legally recognized same-sex marriage – as actual marriages – does not pose the same problem. It would recognize the same normative structure that different-sex marriages do.
sean s.
Posted by: sean m. samis | Jan 4, 2012 5:47:39 PM
Already the Catholic Church is being forced out of adoption services because it holds to traditional marriage. That is going to escalate. They won't use the term "persecution" anymore. Instead they will come up with a euphemism, much like "civil union."
Posted by: Fr. J | Jan 4, 2012 5:50:28 PM
Recently figures were released that 200 million Christians around the world are suffering persecution or live in countries where they are subject to persecution. Taking note of Fr. J's comments, I am now revising that figure to 200,000,001.
Posted by: David Nickol | Jan 4, 2012 6:05:01 PM
"They won't use the term 'persecution' anymore. Instead they will come up with a euphemism, much like 'civil union.'"
Oh noes! Now we're losing traditional persecution, too! O tempora! O mores!
Posted by: brennan | Jan 4, 2012 6:12:24 PM
Since this blog is dedicated to the development of Catholic legal theory, the answer to your question, "are civil unions a threat to Marriage" is yes. That which undermines God's intention for Marriage and the family is a threat to Marriage and thus the family.
Posted by: Nancy D. | Jan 4, 2012 11:21:14 PM
Fr. J;
Adoption agencies have a responsibility to place the children they serve in good homes as quickly as possible. These agencies do not have the right to delay good placements in order to further a religious agenda.
If adoption agencies are able to place children in homes they find ideal, that's great! But there are not enough of these homes for all these children. If Catholic adoption agencies put their religious agenda ahead of the interests of the child, then they should not be "in that business" in the first place.
I anticipate that there will be objections that households headed-up by same-sex couples are not "good homes". However, the available evidence does not show that. Instead -- all other things being equal -- the evidence indicates that they are just as good as "traditional households".
In its religious activities, the Catholic Church must place it's religious beliefs first. But if the Church chooses to provide a service to the needy, especially when many they serve are not Catholics, it must place the needs of those they serve first, otherwise they betray them. Where both interests can be fully accommodated, that is good. If providing these services creates any conflict, the interests of the needy must come first. First you feed, then you preach.
sean s.
Posted by: sean m. samis | Jan 5, 2012 8:51:37 AM
Nancy D.
You may be right about civil unions. However, same-sex marriage does not undermine marriage, so it is not a threat to marriage nor the family.
sean s.
Posted by: sean m. samis | Jan 5, 2012 8:56:09 AM
Sean, it is a self-evident Truth that two men or two women cannot live in relationship as husband and wife. The inability to live in relationship as husband and wife is, in fact, a threat to Marriage and thus the family.
Posted by: Nancy D. | Jan 5, 2012 10:13:25 AM
I saw the piece, and thought that it demonstrated little other than the writer's distaste for defense of marriage arguments, and his ability to find a handful of like-minded people among heterosexual couples who opted for civil unions.
Posted by: JohnMcG | Jan 5, 2012 10:42:04 AM
Sean, so basically then it is okay to discriminate against religious groups that don't accept gay "marriage." You prove my point. There is no accommodation and we are pushed into the ghetto. You would happily push our beliefs into the background when they are what motivates us to serve in the first place. The intolerance of the "tolerant" is becoming more and more of a problem. Instead of word persecution, the loss of which some of you bemoan, we can use the term reeducation or sensitivity training. There are precedents being set daily.
Posted by: Fr. J | Jan 5, 2012 11:55:22 AM
Nancy D.
The exact nature of the relationship between two people in a marriage has no effect on other couples’ marriages. Since a same-sex marriage does not harm nor impact a different-sex marriage then it poses no threat to marriage nor the family.
sean s.
Posted by: sean m. samis | Jan 5, 2012 12:36:24 PM
Fr. J,
You misconstrue what I wrote. Why would religious groups be entitled to better treatment than others?
Catholic adoption agencies can be accommodated, but they cannot claim a right to be accommodated if they are unwilling to accommodate same-sex couples. More importantly, why should Catholic adoption agencies be afforded accommodation at the expense of the children they are supposed to serve?
Your beliefs should not be pushed into any ghetto, but neither should the beliefs of same-sex couples. Why do you deserve better treatment than they?
sean s.
Posted by: sean m. samis | Jan 5, 2012 12:38:51 PM
Sean,
Should Catholic Hospitals provide adequate healthcare to their patients, because many people suffer from lack of adequate care, or should they provide the best possible medical care and spiritual healing as well? Should the day care run by the daughters of charity just provide adequate child care (a place to stay, food and diapers), because many children in povery don't even have access to that, or should it strive to provide quality early childhood education and teach Catholic values to the children? How do you separate mission from service without making the service meaningless? Trying to provide the best home to a child may discriminate against those that don't have the best home, and in the eyes of the Church, that includes same-sex couples.
Posted by: MikeD | Jan 5, 2012 12:51:29 PM
MikeD.
The choices you offer me are false.
Catholic hospitals should offer the best medical care, and offer spiritual healing to those who want it. Likewise, Catholic daycares should offer the best early childhood education, and offer to teach Catholic values to those who want it for their children.
How do I separate service from mission without making the service meaningless? What a strange question. Is the best medical care meaningful only if spiritual healing is imposed? Is the best early childhood education meaningless unless teaching religion is imposed? I think not. Service to the need is meaningful in and of itself. Offer the spiritual healing; offer the religious education, but if they are not wanted, then the service offered is still meaningful.
If Catholic adoption agencies discriminate against homes headed by same-sex couples, that is NO different from them discriminating against homes headed up by non-Catholics; or non-Christians, or particular racial groups. If Catholic adoption agencies can find enough homes fitting their stricter criteria in which to place all the children in their care, then that is fine. But we both know there just are not enough of those homes. To leave children languishing “in the system” because of the agency’s religious agenda is tantamount to child neglect.
sean s.
Posted by: sean m. samis | Jan 5, 2012 3:23:49 PM
I think it is probably a mistake to think of civil unions or no-fault divorce as things *apart from* marriage that *affect* marriage. Wikipedia says: "No-fault divorce in the United States originated in the state of California effective January 1, 1970. At that time, lawyers and judges objected to the legal fictions used to bypass statutory requirements for obtaining a divorce, which had become more commonplace since the mid-20th century." No-fault divorce was not an act of God. It arose out of the conditions of marriage and divorce at the time. And, of course, as probably everyone knows, it was signed into law by the divorced and remarried Governor Ronald Reagan. When it comes to civil unions and same-sec marriage, I have heard any number of people (and these were people who were *not* happy at the idea of same-sex marriage) say that these things were the inevitable consequence of what marriage had already become.
Posted by: David Nickol | Jan 5, 2012 6:55:51 PM
To intentionally deny a child the Love of both a father and mother is a form of discrimination against every Good father and mother who desires their children learn to develop healthy and Holy relationships that are grounded in authentic Love and thus do not demean the inherent Dignity of the human person.
The fact that there are those who do not respect Marriage, does not change the inherent nature of a Good Marriage.
Posted by: Nancy D. | Jan 6, 2012 8:40:19 AM
Nancy D.
I agree that “To intentionally deny a child the Love of both a father and mother” would be an evil act, but that’s not what we’ve been discussing. If there are enough different-sex couples to adopt all the needy children, that would be great. But there are not. Leaving children “in the system” when there are good same-sex couples willing to adopt is demeaning to them.
I also agree that “The fact that there are those who do not respect Marriage, does not change the inherent nature of a Good Marriage.” Indeed. But a same-sex marriage can also be a Good Marriage. To disrespect any marriage because you don’t approve of the couple demeans the inherent Dignity of the human person.
sean s.
Posted by: sean m. samis | Jan 6, 2012 10:30:13 AM
Nancy,
You say, "To intentionally deny a child the Love of both a father and mother is a form of discrimination . . . "
Could you address yourself to the *fact* that Illinois Catholic Charities, and as far as I know, every branch of Catholic Charities across the country, places children with single parents?
Here is something from the New York Catholic Charities web site:
**********
New Adoption Opportunities from Catholic Guardian Society and Home Bureau
Catholic Guardian Society and Home Bureau (CGSHB), part of the Catholic Charities federation of agencies, recently launched new programs providing expanded opportunities for prospective adoptive parents.
The Congo
A program that began in August 2010 facilitates the adoption of children from three orphanages in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Kathleen Dooley, director of maternity services for CGSHB, said that the agency has already matched their first referral with a SINGLE PARENT, and that the agency is currently looking for SINGLE INDIVIDUALS and couples who are interested in adopting children from the Congo as additional referrals come in. . . . [ALL CAPS added - DN]
http://www.catholiccharitiesny.org/news-and-events/news/index.cfm?i=17798&m=9&y=2010
**********
Posted by: David Nickol | Jan 6, 2012 10:33:34 AM
Some Catholic Charities provide adoption to single parents. Some do not at all - married only. Some practice a strong preference for married couples, but will make exceptions for single parents if there are extenuating circumstances, such as the person seeking adoption is a relative or has special experience with the child or special skills for a special needs child.
Regarding the David Nickol's post about no-fault divorce. Yes, same-sex marriage is arguably the inevitable consequence of no-fault divorce and earlier changes to civil marriage, but why put the nail in the coffin?
There is also too much acceptance of the law necessarily following the culture here. From a standpoint of Catholic legal theory, we are supposed to create a legal environment that can change culture for the better, not merely follow it. Or, in this case, throw in the towel.
Posted by: ctd | Jan 6, 2012 5:02:09 PM
ctd,
Same-sex marriage is arguably not an “inevitable consequence of no-fault divorce and earlier changes to civil marriage”; more likely it is a consequence of the appreciation for human diversity. Since same-sex marriage is not a threat to “traditional” marriage, legal recognition of same-sex marriage is not another nail in the coffin of traditional marriage.
The rationale behind legalizing same-sex marriage is much, MUCH more than merely “following the culture”; it comes from the recognition that sexual orientation is not uniform, that homosexual conduct is not harmful to those who engage in it, even less so does it harm those who do not, and that forbidding same-sex marriage is inconsistent with the legal and moral importance of individual liberty. Catholic legal theory can and must respond to the needs and conditions of pluralistic cultures; if it cannot then it would become the enemy of religious liberty; which I am sure it is not.
sean s.
Posted by: sean m. samis | Jan 6, 2012 5:52:25 PM
Sean, there is no such thing as a "same-sex" marriage since two people of the same sex cannot be married to each other because they cannot exist in relationship as husband and wife.
No State or person should condone the engaging in or affirmation of demeaning sexual acts, or demeaning sexual relationships that do not respect the inherent Dignity of the human person. All couples who present themselves to be joined together as husband and wife should do so in Good faith, for certainly no State or person would want to condone the joining of a husband and wife in Marriage if it is not the intention of that couple to respect the inherent nature of Marriage to begin with.
Posted by: Nancy D. | Jan 6, 2012 5:55:10 PM
Sean, we have accommodated Catholic social service agencies for a very long time. It is only recently that this has stopped. The same argument is going to be used to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. The motive behind all of this is to force the Catholic Church into the ghetto and to deprive it of any ability to function. It would be no problem in your view for homosexuals to start up an adoption agency and adopt out children to other homosexuals, although that is very bad for the children who have a right to a normal family if at all possible. Yet no toleration is granted to Catholics. The growing intolerance is becoming quite evident. All of this sophistry aside we both know exactly what is going on here.
Posted by: Fr. J | Jan 6, 2012 6:53:09 PM
Sean, my rephrasing was aimed at the original post. And it seems basically right: Prof. Vischer seems willing to "defend" marriage by having the state remove other options. That seems like an odd position to me, but so be it.
Anyways, I sometimes enjoy MoJ comment threads for how many new things I learn: for instance, I didn't realize before today that the inability to discriminate in public accommodations was the equivalent to being in a "ghetto." Fascinating stuff.
Perhaps someone can clear something up for me: what gives the state the authority to decide that discrimination based on race is unacceptable, but doesn't give the state the authority to decide that discrimination based on gender is unacceptable? Or would those arguing the Roman position here actually support the right of a massive and influential (and subsidized) religious adoption service to adopt only to white couples? Or only to Arab couples?
Posted by: Andrew MacKie-Mason | Jan 6, 2012 7:05:47 PM
Nancy D.
Your belief that there can be no such thing as same-sex marriage is OK as a personal belief, just as it is OK for others to believe that same-sex marriages are valid. Given those two facts and fact that a same-sex marriage is harmless to others Even If It Might Be Imaginary, then there is no legitimate basis for the state to impose your beliefs on others.
And let me be clear: legal recognition of same-sex marriage Will Not impose anything on you, or on others who don’t believe in same-sex marriage. You will not have to change your behavior or beliefs. All you will have to do is treat same-sex couples fairly, which is already our duty.
sean s.
Posted by: sean m. samis | Jan 7, 2012 11:10:46 AM
Fr. J,
I repeat the point you ignored: Catholic adoption agencies cannot claim a right to be accommodated if they are unwilling to accommodate same-sex couples. More importantly, Catholic adoption agencies don’t deserve to be accommodated at the expense of the children they are supposed to serve.
Driving the Catholic Church into “a ghetto” is not worse than driving homosexuals into a ghetto. Interfering with the Catholic Church is not worse than interfering with the lives of gays and lesbians.
sean s.
Posted by: sean m. samis | Jan 7, 2012 11:11:45 AM
Andrew,
Thanks for your clarification.
I will leave it to others to respond to your closing questions.
sean s.
Posted by: sean m. samis | Jan 7, 2012 11:12:03 AM
Sean, in other words Catholics must be forced to violate their faith and conscience and the children are pawns to the homosexual agenda. Thank your for confirming what we already know, that homosexuals have every intention of persecuting anyone (especially Catholics) who disagree with their lifestyle.
Posted by: Fr. J | Jan 7, 2012 1:34:25 PM
Andrew, unlike someone's race or ancestry, or the fact that one is male or female, heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality... is not a state of being, it refers to sexual attraction or the desire to engage in a sexual relationship. No State or person should condone the engaging in or affirmation of any act, including any sexual act, that demeans the inherent Dignity of the human person.
Posted by: Nancy D. | Jan 7, 2012 2:36:47 PM
Nancy, that's not really an answer. The question was about what principles of religious freedom dictate exemptions in the one case but not in the other. As far as I can tell, your statements have no bearing on that.
Or are you saying that it's perfectly within the state's authority to decide this matter and force it on religious groups, and the state just made the wrong decision? (A good way of elucidating the answer to that is considering this hypothetical: suppose that the federal government banned all adoption agencies receiving funding from adopting children to same-sex couples. Suppose that a religious adoption agency felt a moral duty to provide equal-opportunity adoptions. Would the state be required to grant them an exemption from the law? Why or why not?)
Posted by: Andrew MacKie-Mason | Jan 8, 2012 2:51:06 AM
Fr. J;
Catholics have a right to follow their faith and consciences; but they do not have a right to harm others in the process of doing so. Persecution OF Catholics is no worse than persecution BY Catholics. I oppose BOTH. Do you?
sean s.
Posted by: sean m. samis | Jan 8, 2012 9:51:34 AM
Nancy D.
Having a particular “sexual attraction or the desire to engage in a sexual relationship” is as much a state of being as skin color.
As you say, “No State or person should condone the engaging in or affirmation of any act, including any sexual act, that demeans the inherent Dignity of the human person.” No State or person should condone discrimination against homosexuals, that discrimination demeans the inherent Dignity of the human person.
sean s.
Posted by: sean m. samis | Jan 8, 2012 9:52:20 AM
Sean, it is not unjust to discriminate against appropriate and inappropriate sexual behavior. The question is, how exactly does the engaging in demeaning sexual acts respect the inherent Dignity of the human person? How can a State, which condones acts that demean the inherent Dignity of the human person make the claim that they are protecting the UNalienable, inherent Rights of all persons, simultaneously?
To clarify my statement on sexual attraction v one's immutable state of being created male or female, and one's immutable ancestry, sexual behavior is changeable.
Posted by: Nancy D. | Jan 8, 2012 10:23:04 AM
Nancy D.;
Deciding what sexual behavior is “appropriate” or not is a personal opinion. You may base your opinion on what you think the Bible says, but that is just another personal opinion. Others have different opinions. You are entitled to live according to your own opinions without interference from the State; and others have the Same Right.
Likewise, if someone engages in sexual acts that YOU find demeaning, that does not harm you, so leave them alone. What IS demeaning to the inherent Dignity of the human person is for you to stick your nose into the private lives of others.
The unalienable, inherent Rights of all persons include the right to make personal choices about how to conduct one’s own live, and the unalienable, inherent Right of all persons to be Left Alone by others. Neither you, nor I, nor the State have the right to interfere in the personal decisions others make about their lives unless you or I or the State can show a significant harm arising from those choices. Just doing something you don't approve of is not a "significant harm".
Sexual behavior is changeable. So is religious belief, or religious behavior. Clearly then, “changeable” does not mean “subject to State interference.” More importantly: sexual ORIENTATION is no more changeable than race or gender is.
sean s.
Posted by: sean m. samis | Jan 8, 2012 12:11:47 PM
Sean, on what basis do you make the claim that sexual behavior, or orientation is not changeable?
Posted by: Nancy D. | Jan 8, 2012 3:11:10 PM
Engaging in any form of demeaning behavior is physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually harmful.
Posted by: Nancy D. | Jan 8, 2012 3:38:11 PM
Sean, yet homosexuals reserve the right to harm us even when we are just running a simple adoption agency, as we have for years. As for as they are concerned the fact that we exist and don't agree with their lifestyle is a violation of their rights. You support persecution of Catholics by denying us the right to practice our faith.
Posted by: Fr. J | Jan 8, 2012 5:23:35 PM
Nancy D.;
I did not write that “sexual behavior, or orientation is not changeable”. To be exact, I wrote that “sexual behavior is changeable”; and that “sexual ORIENTATION is no more changeable than race or gender is.” I stand by those.
Engaging in homosexual conduct (if that is consistent with one’s sexual orientation) is not a “form of demeaning behavior”.
sean s.
Posted by: sean m. samis | Jan 8, 2012 5:27:41 PM
Nancy, is it accurate to say that your political theory begins and ends with a Roman conception of justice, and thus isn't really democratic at all? That is, is it accurate to say that, under your theories, a government that disagrees with your faith-based policy preferences can never be democratically legitimate?
Posted by: Andrew MacKie-Mason | Jan 8, 2012 5:43:35 PM
Actually, Andrew, my political belief is based on The Truth of Love Who Is the author of our UNalienable Rights to begin with and the fact that If you deny The Truth of Love, then everything that is not of God becomes permissible and we will no longer be one nation, under God, with Liberty and Justice for all.
Posted by: Nancy D. | Jan 8, 2012 6:47:24 PM
Thank you for clarifying. The fact that your political philosophy is so at odds with American political history and culture does a lot to explain why your arguments often seem so disconnected from (and at times seemingly irrelevant to) mainstream political debates.
Posted by: Andrew MacKie-Mason | Jan 8, 2012 9:21:17 PM
Andrew, no doubt, there have been times in the history of this great Nation that we have compromised God's Truth and failed to recognize that all persons, regardless of race or ancestry, have been endowed with certain unalienable Rights. Only God knows where we would be today, if we had not compromised His Truth to begin with.
I suppose for those who have taken God out of the equation, when one speaks of our inherent Right to Life, to Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness in relationship to God's intention for endowing us with these unalienable Rights to begin with, it may appear as if such an argument is disconnected.
Posted by: Nancy D. | Jan 8, 2012 10:16:55 PM
Nancy D.
You wrote that “there have been times in the history of this great Nation that we have compromised God's Truth and failed to recognize that all persons, regardless of race or ancestry, have been endowed with certain unalienable Rights.” I agree completely.
“All persons” includes gays and lesbians, and one to the “unalienable Rights” we all have been endowed with is the right to be treated fairly, to Religious Liberty, and to the equal protection of the laws. This is why opposition to same-sex marriage is wrong. Opposition to same-sex marriage is one of those occasions when we “compromise God's Truth” that every person has the right to be left alone.
The Truth is that neither your beliefs about God’s Truth, nor mine, nor anyone’s are perfect or authoritative; so in Truth we all have a right to understand our relationship with God and each other according to our own understanding. So long as we do not harm others, we are accorded the unalienable right to define our own relationships.
sean s.
Posted by: sean m. samis | Jan 9, 2012 1:12:41 PM
Sean, sexual attraction refers to a sexual inclination towards another person, not personhood. To define oneself or someone else as "gay,lesbian, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc.", sexually objectifies the human person and is thus demeaning.
Equal protection of the Law would require that The State not condone the engaging in or affirmation of any act, including any sexual act that demeans the inherent Dignity of the human person.
Posted by: Nancy D. | Jan 9, 2012 6:43:24 PM
Has anybody else noticed how similar Nancy and Sean's posts are? Both make unsubstantiated claims and are equally as smug while doing so.
Nancy: Engaging in homosexual conduct is demeaning. Because the Church says so. And Church is right because I say so. Life would be so much better if we lived not in the United States, but the Papal States.
Sean: No, homosexual conduct isn't demeaning. And you're a bigot who shouldn't get any public funds. Because I say so. And you should listen to me because I'm an enlightened sophisticate and a prophet of progress. The future is eventually going to completely mirror my vision for what it should be. Resistance is futile, you troglodyte.
Me: Total hypocrite for writing this post. I admittedly slam you for something I'm doing right this very moment. But as they say, "Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue." Also, this will be my first and last post in this thread, so that should count for something.
Posted by: Nathan | Jan 10, 2012 12:46:09 AM
Nancy D.
You are entitled to your opinions, but others are entitled to ignore them. No one is obligated to submit to them, and it would violate the unalienable Rights of others to insist that they conform their lives to your opinions.
Equal protection of the law requires the State to allow individuals to decide for themselves what acts might demean them, the State’s interest is only in preventing reasonably certain harms.
sean s.
Posted by: sean m. samis | Jan 10, 2012 8:51:16 AM
Nathan,
Thanks for your entertaining post! Really.
sean s.
Posted by: sean m. samis | Jan 10, 2012 8:51:36 AM
What is virtue if The Truth of Love is merely a matter of opinion?
Posted by: Nancy D. | Jan 10, 2012 10:23:04 AM
Nancy D.
The Truth of Love may be known to God, but we mere mortals cannot be sure that we know it. Because of our unavoidable Sin, we are obligated to humbly allow others to understand it as best they can, and accept that they may be right and we may be wrong. We just don’t know.
It is Sinful to assume your opinion about the Truth of Love is Perfect; we all have sin in us, and knowing that, we all have an obligation to leave others to decide for themselves what the Truth of Love is.
When I refer to opinions, I am not referring to “God’s opinion” but to yours and mine, and everyone else’s. You may be right, Nancy. But you may be wrong. My sense is that you are wrong, and I know others disagree with you too. You should live your life according to what you believe, for you may be right. You must allow others the same, for you may be wrong.
sean s.
Posted by: sean m. samis | Jan 10, 2012 10:43:16 AM
Let me clarify the second paragraph:
It is Sinful FOR ANYONE TO assume THEIR opinion about the Truth of Love is Perfect; YOU, ME, ANYONE. We all have sin in us, and knowing that, we all have an obligation to leave others to decide for themselves what the Truth of Love is.
sean s.
Posted by: sean m. samis | Jan 10, 2012 11:11:34 AM
What is sin, if The Truth of Love is merely a matter of opinion?
Posted by: Nancy D. | Jan 10, 2012 11:36:33 AM
The Holy Father said in reference this:
"Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself. The family unit is fundamental for the educational process and for the development both of individuals and states.
'Hence there is a need for policies which promote the family and aid social cohesion and dialogue.'"
Posted by: Fr. J | Jan 10, 2012 12:27:19 PM
Nancy D.
I thought I was clear, but apparently not. So let me try again: The Truth of Love is not an opinion. However, only God could know the Truth of Love; we humans can only have imperfect beliefs or opinions regarding what that Truth might be.
What is sin? If you are unsure, “Do unto others ...” is a good start to finding out. “Love thy neighbors ...” also.
sean s.
Posted by: sean m. samis | Jan 10, 2012 12:41:56 PM
Fr. J;
I agree with what you post from the Pope. I only comment that same-sex marriage does not undermine the family, does not threaten human dignity, and therefore does not threaten the future of humanity itself. It does not threaten social cohesion.
sean s.
Posted by: sean m. samis | Jan 10, 2012 12:43:11 PM
Sean, since this is a Catholic blog, I assumed that you knew that The Truth of Love is our Savior, Jesus Christ, Who Has revealed Himself to His Church in the trinitarian relationship of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and The Teaching of The Magisterium. The same Christ, who according to witnesses stated: "If you knew me, you would know my Father."
That which undermines The Truth of Love, undermines Marriage and The Family. Since it is true that our Founding Fathers recognized that God with the capital G is the author of our unalienable Rights, and it is true that God has declared that Marriage is between a husband and wife, it cannot be true that there is an inherent Right for a father and daughter, mother and son, two children, two men, two women, one man and two women, one woman and two men, to be married, since Marriage, by it's very nature, is restricted to those who can live in relationship as husband and wife.
I suppose you may continue to call that which is true, a lie, so I simply will end by wishing you Peace in Christ.
Posted by: Nancy D. | Jan 10, 2012 3:14:05 PM
Nancy D.
We live in a nation of many beliefs, and many beliefs about Jesus and of God. You believe what you write (I assume) but even Catholic beliefs do not require Catholics to forget that they live among Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others who claim no particular religious affiliation. Although this is a Catholic blog, it is a blog operating in the real, pluralistic world. There is no value is formulating a Catholic legal theory that is blind to reality.
If we have an unalienable right to Religious Liberty, and to Equal Protection (as we seem to agree we do), then those unalienable rights apply in all persons. Therefore gays and lesbians do have a God-Given Right to their beliefs and to form their lives according to their beliefs just as we all do. It is certainly true that same-sex marriage does not undermine The Truth of Love, or Jesus, or marriage or the family.
You are not expected nor required to approve of anyone’s choices, but if you interfere with their exercise of their beliefs, it would be hypocritical for you to complain if others interfered with your exercise of your Catholic beliefs.
Take care.
sean s.
Posted by: sean m. samis | Jan 10, 2012 5:21:34 PM
"Sean, since this is a Catholic blog, I assumed that you knew that..."
I wasn't aware that only Catholics were welcome here.
Posted by: Andrew MacKie-Mason | Jan 10, 2012 8:48:59 PM
-----------------------------------------J.M.J---------------------------------------
Father J.,
Thank you for Pope Benedict's words of wisdom. I think it important to note that there is not a single religion that recognizes the monotheistic ( capital G) God that approves of homosexual sexual acts or has a theology that condones the engaging in or affirmation of homosexual sexual acts.
Posted by: Nancy D. | Jan 10, 2012 9:12:48 PM
Sean, you don't agree with the Pope or the Church. That is sort of the problem.
Posted by: Fr. J | Jan 12, 2012 12:50:45 PM
Fr. J.
The problem is that some want the Church to impose its beliefs on others. Even if those others are wrong, unless their error harms third parties, they have the right to live according to their own beliefs. Otherwise is hypocrisy.
sean s.
Posted by: sean m. samis | Jan 13, 2012 9:39:50 AM
Sean, you want to impose YOUR beliefs on others. That's why you oppose the Church having an adoption agency that adopts children to normal families. We have the right to live according to OUR beliefs, until you eventually drive us underground. This is why I fight tooth and nail against those like yourself and will not compromise one iota.
Posted by: Fr. J | Jan 14, 2012 1:36:24 PM
Many commenters are failing to observe the most plain bigotry inherent in homosexual "marriage" - that each partner is discriminating *against the opposite sex". No room at the lunch counter for a man in a lesbian marriage. And we're not talking about "matrimony" if we've got two male gays plighting their troth. Women need not apply.
The inalienable right of a child to a mother *and* a father implies a mandate for equal opportunity in marriage - that children are begotten by a male with a female is written into natural law with our plainly polar bodies.
And -that- is why homosexual marriage is marriage bigotry, and traditional marriage is marriage equality.
Vive la difference.
Posted by: Sue | Jan 22, 2012 11:27:54 AM
I honestly can't tell if Sue is serious or trolling.
Posted by: Andrew MacKie-Mason | Jan 22, 2012 1:06:11 PM
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
