The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionSame-sex marriage issue facing lawmakers, voters in several states
Jan. 30, 2012
WASHINGTON -- The same-sex marriage issue will be facing lawmakers and voters in several states this year.
Democratic-controlled legislatures in Washington state, Maryland and New Jersey are considering legislation that would legalize same-sex marriage, while Maine voters will vote on a same-sex marriage referendum in November.
Voters in North Carolina and Minnesota will consider constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman. In New Hampshire, the Republican-controlled legislature is gearing up to vote on a bill that could reverse that state's same-sex marriage law.
Maryland Gov. Martin J. O'Malley, a Catholic, is sponsoring legislation to legalize same-sex marriage. If it passes Maryland will be the seventh state, plus the District of Columbia, to allow same-sex marriages.
Mary Ellen Russell, executive director of the Maryland Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of the state's bishops, said same-sex marriage is being pushed by a small group of advocates.
"If we dismantle the connection between marriage and mothers and fathers of children, we risk losing sight of the tremendous importance of keeping the nuclear family intact," she told The Catholic Review, newspaper of the Baltimore Archdiocese.
Treating marriage differently from other relationships is not discrimination, Russell added, noting that there are already laws on the books that provide benefits for those in same-sex relationships.
Last July, after a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in Maryland was effectively dead by the close of the legislative session, O'Malley vowed to introduce the bill in the 2012 legislative session.
Two days before the governor's announcement, then-Archbishop Edwin F. O'Brien of Baltimore privately wrote to him asking that he not promote the redefinition of marriage. O'Malley told the archbishop he was "sworn to uphold the law without partiality or prejudice." The archbishop's letter and O'Malley's response were later released to the media.
The archbishop, now cardinal-designate, is currently apostolic administrator of the Baltimore Archdiocese; last August he was appointed pro-grand master of the Equestrian Order (Knights) of the Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem, based in Rome.
He told The Catholic Review he thought it was "arrogant" to dismiss traditional marriage, and that some Maryland delegates view traditional marriage as "old-fashioned."
"Because they have friends who might be gay," he said, "they think it's all right to question this whole thing and to vote for an overturn (of the definition of marriage)."
NCR: February 17-March 1, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- Conscience Roundup
Hear what theologians, commentators, and our editors have to say about the contraception mandate
- Special Section: Religious Life
Work of missioners, past and future; African meetings; and more
- Tribute to a Peacemaker
New York's Pax Christi fetes Daniel Berrigan
Should Maryland lawmakers vote to legalize same-sex marriage, opponents have promised to take the issue to voters through a referendum.
In New Jersey, leaders in the Democratic-controlled legislature have made a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in that state a top priority. However, Gov. Chris Christie has vowed to veto such a bill if it passes, saying he wants the issue to be placed on the ballot.
The state's Catholic bishops said in a Jan. 20 statement that traditional marriage "has its roots in natural law."
"As citizens, we must protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman," they said. "Same sex unions may represent a new and a different type of institution -- but it is not marriage and should not be treated as marriage."
The bishops said the state's Civil Union Act, signed into law in December 2006, "already provides practical rights, benefits and protections for persons who choose to establish nonmarital unions."
At a town hall meeting, Christie said the issue of "whether or not to redefine hundreds of years of societal and religious traditions, should not be decided by 121 people in the statehouse in Trenton. ... The institution of marriage is too serious to be treated like a political football."
On a 4-3 vote, a Washington state Senate committee Jan. 26 passed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage and sent it to the full Senate. Gov. Christine Gregoire, who also is Catholic, has pledged to sign this bill into law.
In a Jan. 23 testimony before a Senate committee, Seattle Archbishop J. Peter Sartain urged lawmakers to oppose the measure.
He said the bill has "elicited strong emotions on both sides" and hoped the voice of Catholic bishops in the state "contributes significantly to the discussion of a matter that has serious long-range implications for our state and society at large."
Archbishop Sartain said bishops oppose the bill "based on the grave challenge this legislation poses to the common good. By attempting to redefine marriage, it ignores the origin, purpose and value of marriage to individuals, families and society."
He noted that "not everyone holds our faith and beliefs, but the universal principles that form the basis for our position are readily discernible by all people. They transcend any particular society, government, or religious community; in fact, they are built into human life itself."
In Colorado, proposals to legalize same-sex civil unions are expected to be put forth in the new legislative session.
The Colorado Catholic Conference, in a statement posted on its website, said that the "major flaw with civil union legislation is that in its language and practical effect it creates an alternative, parallel structure to marriage using explicitly spousal language."
The statement also noted the state's constitution defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. "It does little good to protect marriage in our state constitution, on the one hand, and legally recognize other unions, such as civil unions, that compete with it for equality. Civil unions are essentially marriage under another name and all implications of these types of unions have not been fully discerned or discussed."
"To be clear, in opposing civil unions we have no desire to deny anyone his or her fundamental civil rights," the statement said, adding that "nearly every benefit being sought by" civil union legislation "or any legislation that seeks to redefine marriage ... is already legally available to Coloradans."
Ultimately it's not going to
Ultimately it's not going to matter which states write discrimination against law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples into their constitutions, nor will it matter which states grant marriage equality to those same couples, because it is the FEDERAL government that bestows most of the legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that married couples receive. This is an issue that the Supreme Court of the United States will eventually have to tackle, and I'm confident that they will decide that there is no Constitutional justification for denying Gay couples the same legal benefits that Straight couples have always taken for granted.
The main sticking point is the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was signed, to his eternal shame, by President Bill Clinton. DOMA is transparently unconstitutional, since it establishes differing legal standards for Gay and Straight couples in the United States.
Consider: A Straight couple legally married in Iowa is automatically entitled to 1,138 legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Many of those benefits have to do with tax law, Social Security, inheritance rights, child custody, and so on. But because of DOMA, a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa is still unrecognized by the federal government for those benefits.
Consider, also, the "Full Faith & Credit" clause of the Constitution. Because of this, any Straight couple can fly off to Las Vegas for drunken weekend, get married by an Elvis impersonator, and that marriage is automatically honored in all 50 states, and at all levels of government. But thanks to DOMA, a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa becomes UN-married if they relocate south to Missouri.
The ONLY real difference between a married Gay couple and a married Straight couple is the gender of the two people who have made the commitment. It has nothing to do with procreation, since couples do not need a marriage license to make babies, nor is the ability or even desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license. So there is really no constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that married Straight couples have always taken for granted. This cannot be accomplished in a piecemeal, state-by-state fashion; it is the FEDERAL government which, through its own actions, has made this a federal issue.
The ONLY justification for
The ONLY justification for recognizing a relationship as a marriage is that the partners are of opposite sexes.Unless that requirement is met the relationship does not serve the public interest and can merit no public recognition.
I applaud Chuck Anzuilewicz's
I applaud Chuck Anzuilewicz's comments on same-sex marriage. It's not a threat to anyone, any more than inter-racial marriage was (or is, unless you're a racist).
No legislation can force any group - Catholic or otherwise - to accept gay marriage. They are free to oppose it. But just as members of these groups would oppose outsiders telling THEM how to live, or being barred from a right the majority enjoys, I would urge Catholics not to let any personal opposition from turning into acts that perpetuate discrimination, such as voting against equal marriage rights. You can oppose a concept personally without actively supporting a system that discriminates against others.
Catholics have been the victims of discrimination at various times. It would be shameful for Catholics to forget the sting of this discrimination by participating in directing it toward others.
Discrimination against
Discrimination against wrongdoing is a duty and being same-sex makes same-sex sexual relationships wrong.Interracial marriage breaks down barriers between the races,same-sex "marriage" creates barriers between the sexes by abandoning the obligation to unite them to each other.
Marriage is a civil liberty
Marriage is a civil liberty and not a civil right. This is a common error.
Same sex marriage is now a prohibited marriage in Maryland and nearly all of the States and it territories, except for I believe 5 states including the territory of DC.
This prohibition by the majority of the States, including Maryland,is based upon natural law and principles and not any religious law due to our separation of religion and state precept.
Nevertheless, with respect to marriage, man's law in the US, in nearly all instances, is in harmony with both natural and religion laws and principles that prohibit same sex marriages and recognition that marriage is self-evidently and intrinsically between a man and woman.
It should also be pointed out that Maryland's, all of the States, and the U.S. constitutions are based entirely upon natural law and principles. Noachide law, mosaic law, and christian natural law, however, have and will continue to buttress this basis.
Lastly, marriage is governed by family law and not civil rights law. Hence, the matter of children are self-evidently and intrinsically involved. In this regard, same sex supporters are reminded that Jesus said
"whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." Amen.(Matthew 18:2-6)
"same sex supporters are
"same sex supporters are reminded that Jesus said
"whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." Amen.(Matthew 18:2-6)."
Now, if Jesus had "same sex supporters" in mind, why didn't he say so, rather than allow "Anonymous" to make that determination?
Maybe, he had pedofiles in mind, and/or pedofile priests and pedofile bishops. I can think of many others, but I can say with certainty that he had in mind "whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin", and that could include "Anonymous" and me and so many others.
Your beef is with Our Father
Your beef is with Our Father Almighty and his only begotten son, Jesus, and not me nor the National Catholic Reporter.
Read the Book of Samuel as to what G_d said to the leaders of Israel when the people wanted to sin. This story serves as a model for any righteous gentile who is a politician.
Prayfully urge that you take your concern about what you do that is a sin in His eyes directly with Him in the privacy of prayer.
"Your beef is with Our Father
"Your beef is with Our Father Almighty and his only begotten son, Jesus,...."
This is news to me!
"Prayfully urge that you take your concern about what you do that is a sin in His eyes directly with Him in the privacy of prayer."
Thanks for your advise, which I actually don't need nor asked for.
Benedicite Deus.
Benedicite Deus.
We live in a nation whose
We live in a nation whose laws are determined by men (and since women were "given" the right to vote, women) - not by any church. The Constitution guarantees this and is the basis for our laws, and it guarantees equal protection for all under the law. It unfortunately takes society time to acknowledge "all" means ALL, including women, and former slaves. If the Bible were the basis for our laws, we would be stoning people for adultery (but only women, as the Bible says), blasphemy, not minding their parents, working on Sunday... etc.
The church remains free to disagree with our laws, but we ARE a secular society, and Jesus taught acceptance of ALL.
Good try. What Jesus did
Good try.
What Jesus did say was "You have learnt how it was said. "Eye for eye and tooth for tooth. But I say this to you, offer the wicked ...no resistance."
(Matthew 5:39)
Hence, only for a while, Jesus has given up court advantage to all of us to compassionately provide us with the opportunity to learn;and, from our personal experience and the desire borne from it, pray for His forgiveness and acceptance, which is His acceptance of all who err and repent.
Protection extends to
Protection extends to persons,not actions.Those afflicted by same-sex sexual attraction have a right to be protected FROM it,not protection OF its indefensible gratification!
I am not a religious person and this is not a religious issue.
God made me this way, whether
God made me this way, whether you like it or not. Perhaps it's purpose is to challenge the self-righteous. It is YOU who needs to repent from your bigotry and the need to attack people for who they are. The weakest groups are those who, rather than the strength of their arguments, need to attempt to assert moral superiority over another class of people who God created as they are. The Nazis come to mind.
Your distinction between
Your distinction between "civil rights" and "civil liberties" is of little value here, and you fail to expand on the distinction and how you think it's relevant. You acknowledge that marriage is a civil liberty. Findlaw says that "Civil liberties" concern basic rights and freedoms that are guaranteed -- either explicitly identified in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, or interpreted through the years by courts and lawmakers. They include the right to marry and the right to vote. How those rights (to marry and vote) have obviously changed through the years. Not long ago, women did not have the "right" to vote. People recognized this was unfair, and it's time to recognize an unfairness in marriage law again, and correct it.
As for "natural law" - even if we all agreed on an authority on that (and we don't), it's irrelevant here. Our laws are by and for people in a society that evolves over time (as much you you may not like that term). Evolve with it, or resist as it evolves around you and leaves you behind as it ultimately will.
To you perhaps. However, but
To you perhaps.
However, but not to the millions who have died and suffered in order to perfect their civil rights through the 13th and 14th amendments of our constitution, and related statutes and laws, in their every day lives.
To them, and many of us as well, there is a clear and obvious distinction. Oh, by the way, please don't err by mentioning the Love case, which was decided as an issue involving civil liberty, rather than civil rights, which was the right to privacy.
Granted the difference between civil liberties and civil rights is not commonly known as is the difference, for example,and,perhaps, more to the point, a man and woman and who when in marriage, are husband and wife, and mother and father to their child.
There, you have just had your first lesson relating to natural law. No charge.
Finally, you are correct that laws have changed. Two come to mind right away. Homosexuality was decriminalized to protect the "supposed" right to privacy, a civil liberty and not a civil right; and abortions was also decriminalized to protect the "supposed" right to privacy.
As to value and relevance of natural law, it is up to us and you to decide especially since the decisions regarding homosexuality and abortions were not based upon natural law and principles as was our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights.
There is this contradiction and,hence,a change may be forthcoming.
The thrust of your argument
The thrust of your argument seems to center on a belief that being gay is somehow "unnatural." It may be hard for you to accept that is a natural variation, just as being albino is. I presume you are not gay, so that makes it hard for you to understand that fact because being straight comes naturally to you. You don't have to understand it; your challenge, just as it is for gay people, to accept it. If it were a choice, why would so many gay teenagers commit suicide over their agony of being ostracized and ridiculed if they could simply change their "choice" to avoid the treatment they get by some straight people?
Gay people have existed throughout history. It is the degree of acceptance that has evolved. It is not for us to try to "explain" why gay people exist - to try to explain God's design. This is true of so many things in nature. Has it ever occurred to you, if you want a "reason," that they exist as a test of our ability to love one another as human beings as Jesus commanded? I certainly don't know - but I do know that people are BORN gay, and their challenge is to accept it. Unequal treatment by the majority is evidence of their inability to accept a trait in others even when it has nothing to do with their own situation.
Moving on to man's law, which in our country is Constitutionally guaranteed to apply equally to all. Again, this guarantee has long been there - it has just taken many generations for us to realize it applies to womens' right to vote and blacks' right not to be bound in slavery. You argue about the definition of marriage and what that has traditionally encompassed (or excluded). How about the definition of 'property'? It used to include ownership of other human beings, as it had for centuries, but that fundamental definition changed when society evolved to a point to realize subjecting an entire class of people from the guarantees of the Constitution was wrong. You could argue 'natural law' since Biblical times had always included slaves in an accepted definition of 'property.' Does this mean you think it was wrong or 'unnatural' for the slaves to be freed, which hinged on a change in the concept and definition of 'property'?
Again, our laws must change with improvements in our understanding of human values, which the Bible is sometimes not helpful for accomplishing because it is full of examples of barbaric treatment of whole classes of people, or of hideous punishments of people for transgressions such as breaking the Sabbath (stoning to death) or adultery (where only the woman was stoned to death). We need to progress once again to accept that gay people exist not by their own choice, and that acceptance or self-hatred are their only options. We as a society need to stop hating people for who they are, and stop going out of our way to prevent them from having the same rights the majority takes for granted every day.
First, the 13th and 14th
First, the 13th and 14th amendment were enacted applying the principles of natural law. The decriminalization of homosexuality and abortion were not.
Secondly, homosexuality, until recently, was considered a neurotic disorder for which reasonable accomodation and protection as a disability was afforded for a wide range of purposes.
Treatment, tolerance and gainful employment opportunities were differentially extended to provide an opportunity to overcome rather than further succumb to it.
Thirdly, I know of no christian, in the past three or four generations, that condone in the name of Our Almighty Father, His Only Begotten Son, and the Holy Spirit the mistreatment of any one, period.
This is in keeping with the best Godly example,involving even the most extreme forgivable sin, provided in the banishment of Cain, rather than any other than any other way.
With respect to your argument of being born gay and why I mentioned generations, I refer to the following:
You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. (Exodus 20:4-6)
Finally, the comparison of the blacks civil rights movement and the homosexual and abortion civil liberties movement is completely disingenuous.
Reproof is not hate.
a
You resort to a bible quote
You resort to a bible quote in an effort to prove people are not born gay, and by extension to support bigotry against them? Now you're making me mad, because you have NO idea what you're talking about, and you use the bible to justify believing what you want to believe. You are WRONG - people don't choose to be gay any more than they choose to be blue-eyed. Who would choose it with the kind of ugly treatment and discrimination gay people get from self-righteous bigots who think different equals inferior? And quoting the bible to propogate bigotry is ugly and un-Christian.
PS - if you want the bible to
PS - if you want the bible to be the basis for our laws (in defiance of our Constitution, which forbids it), not only will we be a Christian version of the Taliban, but you better be prepared to be stoned to death the next time you mow your lawn on the Sabbath...
They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. ... And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones.... And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses. (Numbers 15:32-56)
You better also support stoning for adultery (but only for women; men are exempt according to the bible), blasphemy, and even children who are disobedient (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
Addedum by Anonymous Forgive
Addedum by Anonymous
Forgive me my brother, in spirit through our One Father and flesh through Adam and Eve, I forgot to add the following passages in my reply:
His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" "Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. (John 9:2, 9:3)
Amen.
Being and doing are totally
Being and doing are totally distinct.
"Being gay" in this context involves 1)being afflicted by same-sex sexual attraction and 2)wrongly believing that circumstances can exist in which gratification of said attraction can be justified.All it takes to stop "being gay" is to outgrow the latter of those two criteria.Those so obsessed with clinging to it that they actually follow through and engage in same-sex sexual activity can not claim that their deliberate behavior is something for which they bear no responsibility,and policies rightly penalizing that behavior are not something they can claim to be exempt from simply by wishing to defy those policies.It is abandonment,not "acceptance",to treat homosexuals as the helpless slaves of their hormones lacking the intellectual capacity to comprehend the equal obligation of all people to refrain from all same-sex sexual activity.
Your comment that speaks of
Your comment that speaks of homosexuality as an "affliction" that can be willfully "resisted" or "corrected" (or that it even should be) shows staggering ignorance and bigotry. You clearly don't know what you're talking about, and such condescending self-righteousness remarks are deeply offensive to an entire class of people whom you obviously know nothing about. How sad that the Catholic church still condones such ignorance. Then again, it took the church many generations to stop burning people as heretics for saying the earth revolved around the sun, or that the earth is not flat. As long as the Catholic church revels in propagating ignorant attitudes such as this, it will continue to drive more enlightened people away.
Another reason why we need a
Another reason why we need a Constitutional amendment to resolve this question once and for all, declaring that marriage is marriage and accept no substitutes/counterfeits/frauds.
And if the outcome of a
And if the outcome of a constitutional amendment attempt is to continue to let the states decide the issue for themselves (a traditional conservative approach to social issues), will you be happy with that? Or will you back organizations like NOM, the Mormon church, and the Catholic church, who seek to import money and influence with the goal of interfering with the will of states like Washington that want to legalize marriage equality?
And what if the constitutional amendment is to force states (or the nation) to legalize marriage equality? Will you be happy with that or will you keep fighting to substitute your judgment into the private lives of other people?
Public sentiment is growing stronger in favor of marriage equality. You can choose your religion and your beliefs - how is it that equality (as guaranteed by the Constitution) or the private decisions of others is something you feel the need to interfere with?
Post new comment