I’ve got to admit, this is a pretty novel approach. A lesbian is attempting to make same-sex marriage legal in South Carolina by filing for divorce from her ex.
WYFF4 reports:
Cathy Swicegood, of Mauldin, is seeking a divorce from her female partner of 13 years. But because Swicegood was never legally married, she has no legal protections under South Carolina law.
“It’s just unbelievable that in a country as wonderful as ours, you can be treated this way,” Swicegood told WYFF News 4’s Tim Waller.
But Swicegood’s attorney, John Reckenbeil, believes his client does qualify for protections under South Carolina’s common law statute. According to their lawsuit, Swicegood and her partner “exchanged and wore wedding rings,” “owned property together” and were “in each other’s wills,” which Reckenbeil believes makes them as good as married.
“Common law marriage in South Carolina is two individuals that cohabitate, live together. They hold themselves out to the public in general as spouse and spouse,” Reckenbeil said.
Reckenbeil said not only was Swicegood thrown out of the home she resided in for 13 years, she was kicked off the “supporting domestic partners” company’s group health insurance with no legal remedy. He said that would not have been the case for a divorcing heterosexual couple, whose health coverage would be maintained by law.
“We are seeking the courts to issue an order that says both South Carolina laws that ban same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, not only under the South Carolina constitution, but more importantly under the United States constitution,” he said.
Reckenbeil expects the family court to throw out his client’s “divorce” request, because of the state’s ban on same sex marriage. If that happens, he said he plans to file a lawsuit in federal court, challenging the state’s ban.
March 26, 2014 at 10:07 am
CCC: "1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions.
In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ – "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was.
If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities.
Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in COMPLETE CONTINENCE".
Those divorced and remarried Catholics can return to the Sacraments when they decide to live in "complete continence", living as brother and sister..
Priests, Nuns, homosexuals, and all single persons are expected to live in complete continence, so this is not too much to require.
Mortal sin comes into effect when a validly married person has a sexual relationship with someone other than his or her valid spouse. One can not tell God he is sorry for his sin in Confession with the purposeful intention of committing the same sin over and over.
March 30, 2014 at 7:16 am
My understanding of the word 'react' is that by it's very nature does not include conscious decision making. What you describe is a conscious response. Be it positive or negative it seems like a response to me.
April 5, 2014 at 3:35 am
I don't understand what you are saying, and I think it is because you are not saying it.
There is doctrinal truth, and there is disciplinary praxis, and the Church cannot err on the former unless Jesus is not God, and the Church can screw up, royally, on the latter, and has done so before.
So what you're asking, I think is: Supposing that the Church does, again, screw up royally in a matter of disciplinary praxis, what ought we to do?
I should think the answer is obvious: We should loudly, but with winsome words, beg the Church to restore sound praxis while joyfully living the faith with far holier lives than those of the bishops supporting the bad praxis.
But I don't understand this "in case of schism, break glass" phrasing. Who would schism, in this situation?
The Magisterium consisting of those bishops in Apostolic Succession who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome cannot err in matters of doctrinal truth. If you leave the Church for a schismatic sect over matters of disciplinary praxis, you only wind up in a sect which CAN err in matters of doctrinal truth…and which will eventually screw up matters of praxis, too, though doubtless in a fashion opposite to that which prompted the schism.
Properly, schism is an act which should only be left to the theological liberals; conservatives should never be found doing it: It doesn't make any sense because it fails to conserve the one thing that makes Jesus' Church superior to a schismatic sect containing validly ordained bishops.
Now, in the instance you're hypothesizing — where the Church formally teaches orthodox dogma but permits or even encourages disciplinary praxis which better matches a heretical doctrine — obviously the liberals won't schism because, hey, the Church is finally swinging their way (they think).
But, you see, it actually isn't. Sure, the praxis is. But in Jesus' Church, really HORRIFYINGLY BAD praxis never actually leads to institutional reversals of dogma.
I've no doubt that, if the Lord tarries, then sometime in the next ten thousand years there'll be bishops tolerating "womynpriests" offering a pseudo-Mass and conducting gay "marriage" ceremonies in their diocese. (I wouldn't be overly surprised if it happened in the next ten thousand days.)
BUT, the fly in the ointment, the monkey in the wrench, will be that despite all that bad praxis, the Church will never actually SAY that that's all okay. No, not in ten thousand years; no, not in a million years. God doesn't prevent the Church from violating the Word Of God; but He DOES prevent the Church from **contradicting** the Word of God, ever. The Magisterium, in matters of faith and morals, speaks infallibly, full stop.
And, y'know, the pagans are okay with cowing a man into playing along with pagan deeds for a while…but eventually they always come around to insisting that he make a profession of pagan belief. (Just ask that cat Brendan Eich, who could have saved his job by recanting his earlier opposition to Proposition 8 and making an incense offering to — sorry, I mean, a monetary donation to —