Skip to comments.British Parliament Redefines Marriage
Posted on 02/06/2013 2:15:52 PM PST by NYer
Today the UK Parliament took the first legal steps to sanction same sex marriage. The implications of their re-definition of marriage are very ominous indeed, and the ignorant arrogance of their lawmakers is breath taking.
Think about it for a moment. Nowhere, not in any time or any place, not in any culture or civilization from the most primitive jungle dwelling tribe to the most sophisticated society has marriage between two people of the same gender ever been contemplated. Some societies have accepted homosexuality or been lenient toward such practices, but no one has ever suggested that marriage could ever be between two men or between two women.
The idea that British lawmakers can take it upon themselves to change such a fundamental understanding of what it means to be human is simply incredible. I realize that they believe they are simply voting on an “equality issue”. This is not so. They have voted on a historic and fundamentally different definition of marriage. They have not voted to open marriage up. They have voted to destroy marriage.
Already “marriage” in our society is practically meaningless. Easy no fault divorce and multiple marriages, weddings that take place most anywhere with people writing their own ‘vows’ with their own ‘ministers’. The whole thing is a charade–a grotesque and hideous mockery of marriage, and the result will be that marriage will be meaningless. Weddings will be nothing but a sentimental display of self indulgence and the marriage itself will be a sham.
Same sex marriage actually destroys marriage, for in re-defining what marriage is, it is no longer marriage. It is something else. Furthermore, the erosion of marriage into meaningless sentimental clap trap or some sort of politically correct statement is not only the fault of the gay militants. It is also the fault of those people who break their marriage vows, divorce and then re-marry. It is also the fault of all those who co-habitate and then turn up at church anyway for their wonderful wedding. It is also the fault of all those family members who are too nice to disapprove. It is especially the fault of those so-called Catholics who condone the cohabitation of their family members, smile kindly on the divorced and re married and run rough shod over marriage in every way imaginable.
What no one has stopped to ask is what exactly is marriage in our society now anyway? It is a lifelong commitment? Clearly not. Is it for pro creation? Clearly not. Is it for better for worse, richer or poorer, to love and to cherish til death do us part? Clearly not. So what on earth is marriage anyway and why on earth do homosexual people want to be married? Only because they demand recognition and some sort of false, government mandated ‘equality.”
It is time now for the Catholic Church to withdraw completely from the civil side of marriage. A man and woman who wish to be married should go to the civil authority to sign necessary papers, then if they want to have a sacramental marriage let them come to the priest.
Most of the Protestant churches have caved on divorce and re-marriage long ago. They will also cave on homosexual marriage. Within a very short time now, the Catholic Church will be the only place to receive a truly Christian wedding.
When the time comes to stand up for marriage as God intended, what I dread is not so much the attacks from those outside the church, but the attacks from those within. Already there are numerous voices among the Catholic clergy who are quietly in favor of homosexual “marriage”–and they will turn their ruthless guns of kindness on all who stand firm.
I can hear them now with their weasly words and their sickly self righteous smiles of artificial kindness, “We really must offer a warm welcome to all of God’s children and grant them the love and acceptance of the sacrament…”
It makes me want to puke.
God help us, ping!
They can only pretend to redefine it, its all pretend
Not what the Bible says.
“Within a very short time now, the Catholic Church will be the only place to receive a truly Christian wedding.”
Good article, but this statement just isn’t correct. The Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental), as well as conservative Protestant churches will not likely ever bow to the gay agenda and have “sacramental gay weddings” in church. I understand the author’s concern and it’s well-founded, however I think the conservative Christians need to come together on this point and fight a common evil.
The Church stands between humanity and immorality. To destroy the Church will allow evil to have more power over our our perspectives of what is good and what is evil. Evil is good and good is evil is the targeted goal.
Homosexuals want to destroy the Church or bend it to their will. They will do this through the courts by filing lawsuit after lawsuit against Churches that ‘discriminate’.
In England the Anglican Church will be forced by law to recognize homosexuals and homosexual marriage in the same manner as heterosexuals.
So now if a member of the Royal family wants a homosexual marriage I will just laugh myself silly!
More like all gland all the time
they were England when they were an Empire,
but then they became meek and became england.
Now they are appeasers of goathumpers and queers and have become undone,
they are now UNgland...
The problem began when we whored out the practice of marriage to the government, by allowing ‘marriage’ to be applied to those who were wed at government offices. Allowing people to get ‘married’ outside of a religious ceremony is ludicrous when you think about it. Marriage is a religious institution. It is a ritual. It’s not about ‘sign form B and now you get a tax break’. That’s a ‘union of financial interest’, or some other kind of bond. It’s not a marriage. By accepting the government’s right to ‘marry’ people, we have opened up the door to this, because now the government has the ability to ‘marry’ whoever it likes.
If it gets to the point where to government cracks down on churches that do not marry homosexuals, then it will be time to take up arms, because the freedom of religion will have been grossly violated. I agree that this is the direction the UK is heading in. A sad day for the Western way of life for sure. If I was one of these church leaders, I’d shut down and move to the US, join the fight here.
Why do you say that?
Aren’t we on the same path on which sodomy is equated with marriage?
We’re not far from the day when cohabitation between a human and his/her pet will be considered a legal “union” for tax and healthcare purposes.
Get with the program, man.
“It is time now for the Catholic Church to withdraw completely from the civil side of marriage.”
That’s probably what is going to eventually end up happening. But it isn’t going to stop the state from punishing those faiths that are never going to buy into it.
Freegards, thanks for all the threads on FR
Many states in the USA adopted a ‘Domestic Partnership’ or ‘Civil Union’ licensing option. Homosexuals were not allowed a marriage license but could have a civil union license. Employers were later required by law to extend the same benefits afforded married couples to homosexual partners.
Homosexuals challenged in court the law that banned them from obtaining a marriage license or certificate. They lost in court because it was proven they were not harmed as the civil union procedure and laws pertaining to civil unions afforded them equal benefits.
So homosexuals with civil union certificates had all the protections and benefits of couples with marriage certificates. The only difference was ‘civil union’ versus ‘marriage’.
Why then do they persist in having the word ‘marriage’ applied to them?
Answer: they want to control/destroy the Church and its teachings against homosexuality. Marriage is indeed a religious ritual, and they want that ritual under their control.
Read about the Boy Scouts of America. The same war is going on there. The parents of the scouts are winning so far with strong arguments about leaving young boys in the care of homosexual molesters. Case histories show many sordid sexual cases of young boys abused by homosexual scout leaders.
The Catholic Church has also been riddled by Homosexual molester priests and other official clergy, no doubt by the difficulty in attracting hetersexual men to a life of celibacy as a Catholic priest. The Orthodox Church may have a better model in allowing their priests to marry but disallowing the same to their monks and bishops.
Homosexuals seek out organizations that are gender specific, they infiltrate these organzations and attain positions of authority. They also seek influence in large corporations and then drive a political agenda for so called ‘gay rights’.
This would be a major retreat for the Church. As Catholics we believe it to be our obligation to inform the civil society in matters of public good. It is not enough to limit our opposition to practicing Catholics, just like we don't limit our opposition to abortion to just Catholics. Fully secular homosexual quasi-marriage is still a horrible idea that must be opposed on all levels.
Besides, it is not as easy as it sounds. The Church holds all apparent marriages to be valid till proven otherwise. For example, if a Jew marries a Muslim, and then both convert to Catholicism, their priest might recommend that they celebrate a sacramental marriage, but it will not be like they were not married before. If for some reason they do not repeat their vows in the Church, and instead at some point seek annulment, the Church will presume them a Jew and a Muslim to be validly married before God. In fact, it would be harder for them to obtain an annulment precisely because, as a Jew and a Muslim at the time their marriage was initiated, they were free to follow their own ceremony, and so nothing damaging to their marriage can be found in how it was solemnized.
That is a fanciful example to make a point. More commonly, two indifferent to religion people marry and divorce and then one of them or both become Catholic, and all of a sudden that frivolous marriage back in the day becomes a marriage not before justice of the peace but before God, and they need an annulment. That annulment will not be granted simply because it was secular, the Church must find a defect in the inception of it according to their religious affiliation, or lack of it, at the time.
So fast forward to the brave new world of secumarriage (whatever that thing is) unrelated to the Church marriage. If secumarriage is of the same sex, it is clearly not a marriage, end of story. But what of a man and a woman, both free to marry (not married before, neither a monk, a priest or a nun, etc.) intending to marry for life, in fidelity, desiring children, and getting secumarried? What is their marital status before God? Today, it is that they are married unless proven otherwise. Tomorrow -- we don't know. But we must know what the guiding principles will be. If one of them or both become Catholic, this is not an academic question.
I wonder how many of these countries (including USA) have a new definition of the Sacrament of "Holy Orders" somewhere in their playbook, waiting to be floated then dictatorially implemented...
Most errors usually come about by stressing one part of the Christian message to extremes, and failing to balance it against other commands. There are some Christians who are so keen to carry ou the clear and godly command to accept everyone and reject no-one that they are prepared to cave in on any belief in order to prove how inclusive they are. But the problem with that is that the world does not think better of us for giving way like that. It generates contempt, not respect. As the saying goes, if you don't stand for something, you'll stand for anything. And where does that lead to? Ultimately a faith without any works. And that is a faith that is dead.
I'm not a Catholic and I have problems with some aspects of Catholic theology, but I have to give them credit. They have stuck to their guns much better than the big protestant denominations, in spite of immense amounts of pressure and condemnation from 'progressive' experts and commentators.
The mechanics of marriage are really quite simple and actually pretty much universal the world over. As a civil ceremony, it can be whatever the State decides it should be. As a God ordained sacrament it has much more clearly defined parameters. In the past, marriage the civil ceremony was conducted in Churches in combination with marriage the religious ceremony, as the conditions for marriage were pretty much the same, and the bits the State insisted on (eg signing books for government records) were not a problem for the church. Now, if governments the world over, pressured by the gay lobby, decide to change the very definition of what marriage is, there is going to be a falling out. They can define marriage however they like, in the same way that they can call a dog a cat, but likewise, it is not truly what real marriage is, in the same way that the dog is never going say "miaow".
God or state — is not my issue. Of course marriage can only be marriage before God. I am simply pointing out that the Catholic Church presumes validity of all apparent marriages, and only decides which marriage is actually invalid if that particular marriage is challenged by one or both spouses.
This presumption cannot hold any more. At the very least, it does not hold for same sex “marriages”. It also does not hold for marriages after a divorce, even though that is rarely spoken about. Like the author suggests, maybe it is time to stop recognizing state marriages altogether. The Church will then have to ask parishioners to solemnize their putative marriage in the Church if they want to receive the sacraments, or separate.
Of course its all our issue, as we are both Christians and citizens. Other than that, I thought that was what I was stating. There is no problem if the State definition of marriage is pretty much the same as Christian understanding, but that is rapidly becoming less and less true. I dont think its a a question of not recognising State marriages any more so much as standing up for what we recognise marriage to be. And if individuals don’t like our definition, they can get “married” elsewhere.
the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. And then that wicked one shall be revealed (2 Thessalonians 2:7-8)
It is not an issue in the sense that I don't sit there and wonder what marriage is or should be, -- I know what it is and it will remain what it is, regardless.