This is absolutely hilarious that they think this will work. Not only would we have to drink the Kool-Aid to accept this, the Kool-Aid would have to be spiked with lots and lots of grain alcohol. The California legislature just passed a bill that supposedly protects clergy and churches that refuse to perform same sex marriages from losing their tax exempt status.
This is a sham, a p.r. ploy designed to cut off debate. Passing a new law protecting churches is all well and good but wasn’t there a federal law stating that marriage was between a man an a woman? Wasn’t there a statewide referendum declaring marriage between a man and a woman? Those laws were simply overturned by judges who are the real law of the land. This “law” should be an offense to environmentalists because all the paper used for that bill was completely wasted because a judge will simply overturn it.
This “law” is simply a way to shut up those upholding traditional marriage. When proponents of traditional marriage (can you believe marriage needs an adjective now?) say that gay marriage leads to the recognition of polyamorous marriages, they’re scoffed at. They’re scoffed at because proponents of gay marriage have no other answer than to scoff and mock. But the gay marriage ruling isn’t really a ruling about gay marriage. It’s a legal redactor. It really erases the definition of marriage and says that anyone and everyone can have their own definition of marriage. Or to look at it the other way it makes marriage meaningless. Anarchi-marriage.
The judge says it’s about the rights of the individual to decide what marriage is. But if it’s a right how can a priest or clergy deny an individual their rights? So this law passed by the California legislature will be law until it’s not. It will have served its purpose which is to cut off argument that churches will be punished for not performing gay marriages…until it’s time to punish churches that don’t perform gay marriage.
Don’t drink the Kool-Aid on this one. It tastes kind of funny and it’s got a really bad after taste.
August 27, 2010 at 5:28 pm
You're exactly right on this one Matt, because especially with California's record, the only thing that is sure thing is that anti-Catholicism will be codified more and more.
Archbishop Chaput is correct that these "legislative efforts" are really just the first steps in overt legal anti-Catholicism in the US.
-XF22B
August 27, 2010 at 6:05 pm
I don't think it says that "anyone and everyone can have their own definition of marriage". Only gay activists who follow the party line get that freedom. I'll bet that when Muslims and fundamentalist Mormons try to get polygamy legalized, or marriage with 12-year-olds, it won't fly.
August 27, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Anonymous 1:05 pm:
Don't be so sure on that. Polyamory seems to be on the way to being legalized in Canada, and there is de facto recognition of polygamy in Europe, due to Muslim men claiming welfare benefits for all of their wives…
August 27, 2010 at 10:19 pm
Truly worthless. In New Jersey a few years ago the Methodist Church was successfully sued by two lesbians who were told they couldn't be married on the church's property. The activist judicial mindset is nationwide.
Get ready for the full blown persecutions, we won't be fed to animals (PETA would object) but the powers that be will start by raking us over the financial coals.
August 29, 2010 at 1:52 am
I'm glad to hear that we've become sources of indigestion for lions Subvet. Either way, I'm hoping for martyrdom, as its the only way I'm probably going to get in:)
August 29, 2010 at 4:26 am
Maybe the churches could simply NOT sign the marriage license. Marriage is a Sacrament – it is a holy rite – and that is distinctly different from the marriage acknowledged by the State. Change wedding dates to Friday, have the parties stop at the county clerks office between pictures and do the "civil marriage" and then they can stop at their church for the celestial marriage. Voila – No basis for gay people to sue because the church is not involved in that "civil" marriage business. Suing for refusing to offer the sacrament would certainly be unconstitutional for the government to force the church to perform a sacrament as opposed to a civil marriage. What then – would the Govt force churches to give Communion to non-believers ?
August 30, 2010 at 5:20 am
What a great idea. Admission ticket for a wedding in a Catholic Church is a Civil marriage license. It'd also reinforce the Sacrament as distinct from and transcendent to a State recognized marriage. It would also provide priests with the opportunity to emphasize the timing of the honeymoon.
August 30, 2010 at 9:39 am
In South Africa Gay Civil Unions are a de jure right given by the state, and there is the accompanying Freedom of religion and Expression right, to choose not to partake in the ceremony!
August 30, 2010 at 9:50 am
Where I agree and disagree:
http://quote.sacns.scripturelink.net/2010/08/is-law-protecting-priests-from-having.html
August 30, 2010 at 9:52 am
Anonymous- Actually, really a great idea. I think there are many countries where religious ceremonies do not necessarily convey the legal civil marriage.
If the Church stopped participating in the civil part, then it could maintain its right to decide who can and cant receive the sacrament.
I read once that gay marriage is not about marriage, its really about divorce…so hopefully forcing churches to marry homosexuals is not on the agenda.