www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Same sex marriage

In the news this week Missouri has passed an amendment to their state constitution banning same sex marriage. Just a few hours ago a Washington State judge has ruled the Defense of Marriage Act in that state unconstitutional.

Would appreciate your thoughts on these news stories.

Roger

I read about the law in Missouri. In my usual smart aleck mode, I told one of my liberal friends that the only reason he supports it, is because he thought they said " some sex marriage." I think Church teaching is clear on this issue, and that marriage between members of the same sex would be sin. However, as a political issue, I want the states to decide, not the federal government. I am sure a few states would allow it, but most would not. I am against federalizing anything else and taking powers from the states.

Thank you byzanTN. I know this is not a politcal forum, but would that not force other states to accept same sex marriages of couples who moved in?

The legalities of all this are still undecided. There really is no precedent of law to appeal to, since it is such a new issue. The federal government could pass a law respecting the laws of individual states, which would mean that a same sex marriage in one state might not be legal in another. The laws on all this are really murky right now and the issue is far from being settled.

A similar legal conundrum arose years ago with regard to divorce: under what circumstances might one state decline to recognize a divorce granted by another state? Residents of New York State, where divorce was only available in cases of adultery, would often go somewhere like Alabama, where the residency requirement was not too onerous, obtain the divorce, and return to New York. It turned out that, while it was just legal to do this, the would-be divorcees should not purchase round-trip tickets, because that was evidence of the lack of intent to reside in Alabama - so getting such a divorce required a pair of one-way tickets, thus making the airlines more money.
Incognitus

One thing a priest recently pointed out to me was the fact that John the Baptist died in order to defend the sacredness of natural marriage (not even sacramental marriage). "No man born of woman is greater than him" - so I figure if he thought it was so important to defend marriage, perhaps Christ's followers should as well.

For me, a Latin Catholic, it comes down to the purposes of marriage as we have been tuaght them.

One of the primary purposes of marriage is the procreation and education of children (with God's help). Another is mutual sanctification: we help each other and carry each other's burdens with God's grace.

I simply cannot find either purpose in an attempted union between two people of the same sex. The two purposes above have as their underlying assumption that the complimentary nature of two people of the opposite are needed.

To be "fair," I don't find an attempted union between two persons without God a marriage either. Look at the recent debacle with the overnight "marriage" between a young movie star and her friend for a couple hours. Or look at the spectacle of people who marry someone just to get them a legal reason to stay in the United States.

In Christ,

BOB

Theophan wrote: "One of the primary purposes of marriage is the procreation and education of children (with God's help). Another is mutual sanctification: we help each other and carry each other's burdens with God's grace.

I simply cannot find either purpose in an attempted union between two people of the same sex. The two purposes above have as their underlying assumption that the complimentary nature of two people of the opposite are needed."

Leaving the procreation aside, is "mutual santification" an exclusive purpose of marriage only??? What about mutual sanctification between friends? Between parent/child? Between other family members beside immediate family? Why does it apply to "marriage" and why must it have the "underlying assumption that the complimentary nature of two people of the opposite (sex) are needed?"

Confused.

An excellent and often overlooked point!

```````````````````````````````````````````

Bob,

I agree with Berean - An excellent and often overlooked point!

Mary Jo

John K:

Mutual sanctification is not an "exclusive" for marriage. And it is possible for two people to contribute to their mutual sanctification. In this latter category can be the relationship of parent to child, spiritual father to spiritual son or daughter, etc.

However, there can be no mutual sanctification--remember that this involves working with God in His Plan and within His Commandments--between two persons who are involved in a sinful relationship. That seems to be an oxymoron: sanctification coming out of sin. Sin is "separation (from God) is natural/normal": the ultimate lie.

Two persons living together and sharing expenses can contribute to the sanctification of each other. However, that seems to sidestep what is intended here. Homosexual persons who are sexually active want the Church and the State to recognize their relationships on the same basis as marriage. I, for one, refuse to damage the language by applying the word "marriage" to what their relationship is, regardless of the legal status conferred. God defines marriage through His Son and through the power of the keys given to the Church. As Jesus made it clear when he told His hearers about the subject of divorce--the intent in the beginning was that one man and one woman would leave father and mother and cling to each other (for life).

That is also why Christians have always married in the Church so that the sacred portion of marriage that Jesus revealed was important and needed to be remembered would be impressed on the spouses.

In Christ,

BOB
____________________

byanTN:

You wrote

"The federal government could pass a law respecting the laws of individual states"

We already have that in the United States Constitution. There it states that each state must give full faith and credit to the laws of the other states. Therein lies the danger. The requirements to recognize each other's divorce laws have really leveled a lot of the differences there. It seems possible that the same could happen by people traveling to Massachusetts or California and returning home to sue for recognition.

In Christ,

BOB

I think that another point must be made here.

We are seeing the State pull away from its historical roots in Christianity and Judaism. In that movement, we are seeing the idea that truth will be what the majority (or some single judge somewhere) wants it to be at a given moment.

The Church cannot change her teaching because it is not her own. So we find ourselves under assault and, perhaps in the future, under persecution again.

The danger for the Church will be when the State comes to individual priests and ministers and tells them that they cannot discriminate if they want their state-granted right to officiate weddings to remain intact. In other words, when you refuse to officiate at a "wedding" between two same-sex persons, you become ineligible to officiate between two opposite-sex persons. Then we may have to go the route of Christians in Russia during the Soviet period: go the legal authority and have a legal marriage; then go to church for the Christian marriage.

In Christ,

BOB

Bob, what I meant is that the federal government could pass a law leaving the matter of recognizing same sex marriages up to individual states. This would not be subject to judicial review.

The whole concept of civil marriage seems to be a part of the problem. Marriage was, in previous times, not a civil affair, but a sacrament of the Church. Our government sees it as a civil function with the authority for it coming from the state, not God.

You might also be aware of this, but some time back the religion page in the Knoxville newspaper mentioned a church in Russia where a same sex marriage was performed. The Bishop defrocked the priest, and had the church bulldozed and burned since it had been desecrated. Now there's one member of the hierarchy whose position on this is not open to debate.

Here's something recent on the Vatican website--July 31, 2004--that addresses this point and the whole of male/female relationships.

Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the collaboration of men and women in the Church and in the world (under statements by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger), and also

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
(under doctrinal documents)

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/d

BOB

Of course, John Paul's "Theology of the Body" will "explain it all" about human sexuality. About what are the roles of male and female, etc.

It all ties into the deepest recesses of our human being, about who we are and why we are here.

Once anyone reads "Theology of the Body", one will fully understand the Catholic Church's strong positions in various issues (marriage, male priesthood, contraceptives, abortion, homosexuality, etc.). It's ALL THERE for us to read and learn more about ourselves as well as our relationship with G-d and His Holy Church.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine
(who's life is changing because of "Theology of the Body")