Posted on 10/01/2012 12:37:45 AM PDT by UnapologeticConservative
In public policy terms, the Catholic critique of gay marriage reflects the Catholic idea of the just state. Rightly understood, marriage is one of those social institutions that exist “prior” to the state: prior in terms of time (marriage existed before the state), and prior in terms of the deep truths embedded in the human condition. A just state thus recognizes the givenness of marriage and seeks to protect and nurture this basic social institution.
By contrast, a state that asserts the authority to redefine marriage has stepped beyond the boundaries of its competence. And if that boundary-crossing is set in constitutional or legal concrete, it opens up a Pandora’s box of undesirable results. For if the state can decree that two men or two women can make a marriage, why not one man and two women? Two women and two men? These are not paranoid fantasies; the case for polyandry and polygamy is now being mounted in prestigious law journals.
And if the state can define marriage by diktat, why not other basic human relationships, like the parent-child relationship, the doctor-patient relationship, the lawyer-client relationship, or the priest-penitent relationship? There is no principled reason why not. Thus gay marriage is another expression of that soft totalitarianism that Benedict XVI aptly calls the “dictatorship of relativism.”
Conscientious voters will keep this—and the Democratic Party platform’s endorsement of gay marriage—in mind on Nov. 6.
(Excerpt) Read more at firstthings.com ...
How does this election have anything to do with marriage? Maybe one party is explicitly supporting gay marriage, but the other party certainly is not indicating it is against it. A Romney administration may support some kind of gay marriage law as a signature piece of legislation that will ensure reelection. If they did that, we would all have to still support them 110%, because the alternative is even worse. (as many Freepers have told me) Romney would be stupid not to, right? (Since conservatives are obligated to support him, since any potential Democrat is too horrible to think about)
(Since conservatives are obligated to support him, since any potential Democrat is too horrible to think about)
That’s the paradigm that conservatives have to get over if they are going to be relevent.
“Maybe one party is explicitly supporting gay marriage, but the other party certainly is not indicating it is against it.”
As long as Repubs don’t enshrine it as one of the planks of their party platform, they are not “for” it. The Dems, by embracing abortion and “gay marriage, have proved to any Christian that beyond a shadow of a doubt they work for the Devil.
I’m not a fan of gay marriage, but it sure seems to be as if the Catholic church is in favor of all kinds of state activities that I consider to be well beyond the state’s competence and rightful role.
Traditional marriage (permanent, legal sanctions for default, reciprocal obligations) was made illegal in all 50 states by 1973.
That horse left the barn a long time ago.
If the Left gets their way heterosexual marriage will be outlawed or severely regulated.
Romney loves the homosexual community and their agenda because he is an admitted Progressive just like Obama. Where’s the rule that says Conservatives have to support a Leftist when he has an R after his name?
Good question. Marriage is crucial to this election for many reasons and has played a major role in state and local elections already.
There’s a reason I believe Leftists are continually attacking the conservative National Organization for Marriage and the conservative Family Research Council.
If by "Catholic Church" you means USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops), for decades they've had Christian welfare-socialists directing their public policy advocacy. One "good" thing Obama has done is that he's burned them badly, not just with Obamacare, but with a number of other aggressive moves to establish state regulatory control/monopoly of every form of human services. Of course, this was inevitable where govt $$ is involved, but a lot of the USCCB didn't catch on to that ---- until recently.
So now the USCCB's kingpin public policy advisor, John Carr, has retired, and he's been replaced by Jonathan Reyes: a Christendom College guy, a Chaput protege and -- well, not quite a Paul Ryan maybe --- but a conservative.
Unlike the Carr crew, he doesn't have a "Preferential Option for Big Government." And his crew is taking over from Carr's crew starting last week.
This is worth keeping an eye on, a sign of hope.
And it's all got to be reversed.
If anybody doesn't think so, think where the rising percentage of out-of-wedlock births is taking us. (Now 50% of births to women under 30.)
"Marriage Redefined," "Marriage Lite" and "Marriage Lost" is not how you sustain a viable society. Restore real marriage, or we perish.
“...a state that asserts the authority to redefine marriage has stepped beyond the boundaries of its competence.”
The problem with the state’s involvement, at least in the modern era, is that the definition it uses to recognize the institution is simply whatever judges, pols or the majority thinks it is at any one time. And that’s it, and that’s all it will ever be. It was always a danger.
Freegards
Interesting, thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.