Visitors line up outside U.S. Supreme Court in Washington Oct. 6, 2014, to get a seat inside to watch oral arguments on the first day of the new term. (CNS/Jonathan Ernst, Reuters)
Posted on 02/19/2015 3:47:49 PM PST by NYer
The likelihood that the Supreme Court next June will announce its discovery of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage raises an obvious question for the Catholic Church: What do we do now?
Two steps come to mind. First, press for strong legal protections for individuals and institutions conscientiously unable to cooperate with a legal regime that requires sweeping concessions to the LGBT agenda. Second, give serious thought to the possibility that the Church should quit serving as the government’s agent in legitimating marriages.
That firm decisions at the top levels of the Church are urgently needed couldn’t be more obvious. Consider a Washington Post editorial trashing Alabama authorities for resisting a Supreme Court order on behalf of gay marriage in that state. The court told Alabama to get cracking even though the court itself remains months away from a constitutional ruling.
“The [gay rights] movement is on the verge of a historic victory,” the February 11 editorial declared. “But that doesn’t mean activists and allies have succeeded in transforming the culture that for so long denied gay men and lesbians equal treatment.”
Transforming culture? Of course. The Post editorial noted some steps to take.
“Marriage equality is just one of many goals. State legislatures and federal lawmakers need to be convinced to enhance civil rights protections for gay men and lesbians—prohibiting employment discrimination, for example, or discrimination in business transactions. In places like Alabama, that will take a lot more effort.”
One form it’s already taken can be seen not in conservative Alabama but libertarian Oregon. There the Christian owners of a bakery were found guilty of violating anti-discrimination law by declining—in 2013, before the state even recognized same-sex marriage—to supply a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. Bakery owners Aaron and Melissa Klein cited religious convictions as their reason.
According to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, the Kleins face fines as high as $150,000. The actual amount will be decided in March. A hundred and fifty thousand for a wedding cake? Is this the Post’s “a lot more effort”? Iron-clad legal protection against state coercion to fall in line with gay marriage is desperately needed for individuals like the Kleins and institutions like the Catholic Church.
It won’t be easy. The Catholic News Agency (CNA) reports that the Ford and Arcus Foundations have given several million dollars to the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups to devise ways of blocking the religious freedom argument for not cooperating with same-sex marriage. If religious groups want First Amendment protections, they’ll have to fight.
Urgently needed, too, is consideration of whether the Church should stop registering marriages for the state. Increasingly, it becomes hard to see how the Church can continue as government’s collaborator in this matter once the Supreme Court makes it final that what the government means by marriage is opposed to what the Church means.
Confusion about the meaning of marriage is already widespread. It’s the underlying issue in the crisis of marriage that last fall’s Synod of Bishops on marriage should have confronted and didn’t. But the synod’s omission is no reason for the Church to persist in a relationship with government that deepens the confusion.
A two-step procedure—come by the courthouse for a civil ceremony that satisfies the state, then come to church for a sacramental marriage—may sound cumbersome, but it’s an opportunity for catechesis on what marriage means. As secular America heads down the same-sex path, the Church now must go another, better way.
Jurors already have that right ... :-) ...
And I don’t understand this desperate clinging to the state.
People living in frontier states often got married by traveling preachers and went for years without getting marriage licenses if they got them at all.
If I get married I will forego the license hand have an attorney draw up a contract to lay out ownership of property and division of wealth etc.
I don’t see from the Bible that any church is needed or any clergyman is needed.
Of course I know it’s been a long-standing practice, but if we’re in the process of analyzing “What to do?” ... in these present circumstances, then let’s get down to basics. Marriage in the Biblical sense requires no church and no clergyman (other than it’s been a “human practice” for a long time.
And then, pertaining to the “state” ... the only reason why you want to have it legally registered with the state, is if you want the legal protections of the state in “recognizing” that you’re married. If you don’t care about that state recognition (and in legal matters and in court) ... then you really don’t need ANYONE involved in your marriage - no church, no clergyman and no state.
You can do it TOTALLY ON YOUR OWN.
I understand why people want the legal recognition by the state. It does have real-life legal consequences. If someone FULLY KNOWS and understands all the legal consequences of “no legal state recognition of marriage” — and they are perfectly “okay” with all those consequences, then ... sure ... don’t bother with a legal state marriage.
As to whether you have a “church wedding” or not ... that has absolutely NO LEGAL CONSEQUENCES of any kind, if you decide to bypass legal state recognition. A person might as well SKIP a church wedding too!
The church is the most important part to me.
Oh ... something just struck me with this ...
You said, “If I get married I will forego the license hand have an attorney draw up a contract to lay out ownership of property and division of wealth etc.”
What you said there is exactly what Muslims want to do with their wives. They don’t view these things the same way we have traditionally done it “by law” in this country, for people who are legally married.
BASICALLY what Muslims want, is for the state to STAY OUT OF THEIR MARRIAGES, so that they can have a “religious marriage” ... AND THEN ... they set up a “contract” that conforms to their own Sharia Law ... for property, finances, kids, etc.
The Muslims would agree with you 100% in that regard, as that’s exactly what they want!
I can understand that church is important to people ... but I can’t see that the church has any authority in marriage. There’s absolutely nothing in the Bible that speaks to that.
The only thing we have is a bunch of “tradition” ... but tradition is not inerrant and authoritative like the Bible is.
BUT, as I said, if people “like tradition” and want pretty pictures ... sure that’s okay, but it’s not required by God or His Word.
I don’t care what muslims want.
Do you care that government wants in your marriage? Liberals want the same.
Great analysis! Love it....
It doesn’t have to be - but I think that Congress is perfectly happy to let the Supreme Court decide - either way. It lets them avoid going on record for controversial issues, and they can speak to groups about the Supreme Court decision based on what they want that group to hear - not based on a vote they cast. Most politicians are all about themselves and their re-election, not about any set of principles.
I mention that about Muslims, because there are a lot of people who are against Muslims setting up “their own law” within the USA, and applying Sharia Law. A lot of people want Sharia Law totally and completely banned.
As far as government “being in your marriage”’... I would be concerned about “informed consent” by people who choose to NOT have a legally-recognized state marriage (in other words, the same thing we’ve have for as long as I’ve been alive).
As long as the people fully understand every legal ramification ... and they accept them all ... then it’s their decision. That’s perfectly fine.
S T, you can go to a lawyer and designate anyone to be your executor, power of attorney, next of kin, blah, blah, blah....
To be married, you must go through a ritual in public that signifies such...
By letting people get “married” by someone other than clergy, the door was opened to a civil interpretation....which led to the abomination we have today...
It isn’t “marriage” regardless of what is the present day, popular definition...
It just isn’t.....
The current strategy is consistently losing.
Trying to equate my suggestion with islam won’t fix the current failing strategy.
To be consistent, the liberal judges must also require Jewish/black/Muslim bakers to create a special cake for a KKK celebration.
But mass civil disobedience to this requirement of basically saluting the flag of Sodom is what should happen, but will not except by true Christians and a few others of strong principals and morals.
Sure, you can forego a legal state recognized marriage, and then get a lawyer and draw up a detailed contract that specified how a couple of people want to live together, but even then ... there are things that no contract you draw up can secure for you, that a legal state marriage can.
There are going to be holes in whatever you draw up.
I wasn’t equating it with Islam. What I was saying is that Muslims wanted to use this strategy to implement Sharia Law in their families and bypass US law.
If the Roman Catholic Church were to take that step, then it would be hard to argue against it as the most principled church of Jesus Christ. It's strong positions on life, family, marriage, Christian schools and education of its young, training, outreach to the poor and downcast, are stellar.
I would like to see it smack down wayward clerics in its dioceses and universities, and I'd prefer a more central role for the Bible, but there is no other denomination that approaches the Catholic Church's consistency on the issues at the end of the first paragraph.
I have some serious doctrinal disagreements on Mariology particularly that separate me, but how I wish other churches would model the excellence of the Catholic Church in the areas mentioned.
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.