Posted on 07/13/2015 7:29:51 PM PDT by markomalley
There have been a lot of suggestions going around that in the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision legalizing same sex marriage nationally, the Catholic Church in the US should announce that priests will no longer perform civil marriages.In order to be treated as married under the law in the United States, you need to file a witnessed marriage license in your state. The way it worked for us in California was: you go down to your city hall or other government building to pick the license up. The city clerk fills it out but then leaves the final signatures blank. You take the form with you and give it to the priest who is performing your marriage. After the ceremony, the priest signs the form, asserting that he has performed a marriage ceremony for you. It’s then signed by husband, wife, and two witnesses and filed with the state. At that point, the man and woman are considered married in the eyes of the law. Obviously, it’s not just priests that can process a marriage license for the state. Any kind of religious minister (Christian or non) can, as can “non denominational” ministers of their own religion. You can also have a strictly civil ceremony performed by a city official.
The theory among some Catholic circles seems to be that since the priest is performing a civil marriage by signing the marriage license, and since same sex couples can now get civilly married, if priests continue to sign marriage licenses they will set themselves up to be forced to perform same sex marriages.Being penalized for not performing same sex marriages is not the first thing that Catholic organizations need to worry about in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling. The first step will be an uptick in suits against Catholic organizations demanding equal treatment of civilly married same sex couples. We’ve already seen this go down with Catholic-run adoption organizations being shut down in places like Massachusetts and Illinois for not placing children with same sex couples. That will increase. A lot. Expect Catholic organizations to be forced pretty quickly to provide spousal benefits to same sex partners, and expect a lot of Catholic charities that get government funds to help with their work to lose their funding in retaliation for not recognizing same sex marriage.
But I do think that there will come a point, though perhaps not for ten years or so, when penalties start to be imposed on churches that do not endorse same sex marriage. And I don’t think that refusing to sign civil marriage certificates will help one bit.
Here’s how I think it will go down: The test case will come at St. Wishy-Washy parish, in a state which has a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation. There’s that nice, older, same sex couple that everyone basically knows about, but no one ever says anything rude about — except that nasty rules-obsessed fellow who objects when Father amends the creed to make it more gender inclusive. Pat is a Eucharistic minister. Sam leads the choir at the 5:30 mass and leads the inquiry sessions at RCIA. They’re always there to help out in every big parish activity and everyone likes them. One day, they file paperwork for marriage prep and ask to reserve the church for their wedding and the hall for the reception. Maybe that new secretary accidentally books it and takes a deposit check before realizing. Maybe it’s just believable at first that Fr. Trendy would celebrate the ceremony on his own authority. But of course, it’s not worth the poor man’s retirement to have the bishop find out about this one. He tell them he can’t do it and he returns Pat and Sam’s check to them.
That’s when the lawsuit gets filed. Nothing against Fr. Trendy, of course. They know that he probably would agree with them if he was free to speak his mind. But Christ’s message of love will be held captive by the institutional hierarchy until they’re attacked the only place they understand: their wallets.
The argument: The church is a public accommodation providing marriage services to its members. There are few members of the parish more active than Pat and Sam. Neither has been married before. The only thing preventing St. Wishy Washy from performing the same service for Pat and Sam which it provides for any other couple that shows up wanting the same ceremony and the same reception in the hall is homophobic prejudice. Their lawyer cites scholarly books claiming that same sex marriages were celebrated in the early church, and brings up the cases of Catholic priests who celebrated weddings for same sex couples more recently. Sure, some of these letter were punished by bigoted bishops, but others were not. It is clearly the case that the Catholics can celebrate same sex marriages, they just choose not to because of bigotry.
The court professes itself unable to say what the nature of a sacrament is, and whether or not what the Church says it does when it marries a couple occurs when the same words are said over a same sex couple, but it is clear to the court that the parish is in the business of providing a certain ceremony to couples in the parish who get married, and that they are only refusing to do this for Pat and Sam because of prejudice. The court thus sides with Pat and Sam and imposes heavy financial damages.
A wave of copy-cat cases follow, and the church is slowly bled of resources. Some cases win, some lose, but in all too many cases the parishes have made clear that they have no real issue with people living in same sex relationships, and thus arguments that their stand is based on conviction fall flat. It is clear that the “we don’t marry same sex couples” rule is being imposed based on nothing but dusty bigotry.
There’s a group out there which is very, very determined to win cultural and moral legitimacy for homosexual relationships, and to punish those who do not share those beliefs. Currently that group is at the cultural helm. In time, it will crumble and lose its ascendancy simply because it is not compatible with the realities of human nature. However, until that happens, the marriage equality group will not be satisfied by seeing Catholic priests stop signing civil marriage licenses, while continuing to celebrate religious marriage ceremonies only for opposite sex couples. They’re not stupid, and it’s recognition they want, not getting priests to stop signing a form for straight couples. Nor would “separating” civil and religious marriage be coherent from a Catholic point of view. Indeed, a non-Catholic couple who get married in front of a city clerk are (absent obstacles such as already being married to someone else or being of the same sex) viewed by the Church as being married, since the Church does not recognize there as being two levels of marriage. So the idea of “getting out of the civil marriage business” fails to protect us from the looming threat, while at the same time abandoning our Catholic principles as to the nature of marriage. There is no reason to do it.
The author brings up a good point that it may well be "Pat and Sam" bringing this down on the Church rather than a couple of people off the street. And it is likely to be in some squishy parish where it starts rather than a solidly orthodox one. Frankly, the Archdiocese of Washington, led by Donna Wuerl, is as likely a place as any other one.
Unlike the author, though, I'm not certain that such a case could not be won on appeal..provided that there is no involvement with the civil process. I don't think the country is that far gone...yet. There would have to be some case law building up to that point that doesn't yet exist.
What the author doesn't say is that, with a few notable exceptions, the current crop of bishops is far too spineless for the tough road ahead. They need to be sufficiently countercultural to speak clearly on human morality and to direct their pastors to do the same. Not happening in most cases these days. They need to have enough steel in their spine to actually aggressively enforce the rules that are in existence out there in regard to sodomites. For colleges operating in their dioceses, they need to enforce Ex Corde Ecclesiae. For charities operating in their dioceses, they need to aggressively enforce Intima Ecclesiae Natura. For dealing with the staff and laity, they need to very closely adhere to Homosexualitatis problema (and the interpretive note published in 1992).
But I don't see any of that happening in the vast, vast majority of places. As long as our shepherds are more concerned with being "nice" rather than the ultimate niceness of the salvation of souls, the scenario painted by the author is far too likely.
I’ve been thinking of Lot. There was a point where Lot had to make a choice to follow God and leave sodom and gomorrah to their fate.
Reveal the true nature of the homonazis and show it to the world. Catch them molesting young children on cameras, seducing them online, and infiltrate their groups and show them to be more hate filled bigots than the people they point their fingers out.
Reveal the true nature of the homonazis and show it to the world. Catch them molesting young children on cameras, seducing them online, and infiltrate their groups and show them to be more hate filled bigots than the people they point their fingers at.
Do you recall reading bits of history, including in the Bible and wondering, “Why didn’t they fight back?”
As long as you separated civil from religious marriage, and those seeking religious marriage would have to marry twice, it would have to be tested in court but I am pretty sure that the First Amendment will cover this situation.
You’d have to stick very close to the Canon text for sermons on controversial topics, because I could see churches being sued for editorializing too much. It shouldn’t be, but I could see it.
Not sure about renting the facilities but forcing a priest to perform a purely religious ceremony is a bridge too far.
Yep. And there may come a time we have to leave the American culture, if not the physical land.
I'm thinking that bridge is as not far as it seems.
Seems to me that these people have been fed raw meat and they've got the taste of blood and aren't quitting until they get the whole cow, so to speak. Seriously, I think each little victory simply makes them madder and more demanding. We haven't seen ugly the likes of which is still to come.
Just about any parish in the Seattle Archdiocese could be ground-zero. Remember that when the homosexual “gay-marriage” law was on the ballot a couple of years ago, a number of priests in the Archdiocese declined to read to their congregations the Archbishop’s letter of guidance. The Seattle Archdiocese has many Democrats, but few Catholics.
ping
Apparently what got the cake bakers was a personal injury suit claiming insomnia, indigestion, and all sorts of other symptoms of severe stress. I think the First Amendment will shield a Church where it won’t shield a business, nevertheless a thing worth doing sooner rather than later would be tort reform and capping this sort of award.
Roosevelt's confiscation of gold comes to mind...
I think there is a real goal of destroying religious institutions with many of these people. Seriously, I believe they feel that as long as the church remains they consider it a threat. They don’t just want acceptance and be left alone, they want coerced endorsement. All must bow or be destroyed.
Melodramatic? A little, but accurate, IMO. And I am not religious.
As soon as they say that a court opinion “legalized” something nationally, they’ve basically surrendered.
Courts don’t make laws. And laws or court opinions that violate the laws of nature and nature’s God or the Constitution are completely null and void.
This is strikingly similar to what I've posted on other threads on this topic, although I have a slightly different twist.
The Catholic (and other Christian/Protestant) Churches need to "get out of the marriage business.
For all intents and purposes, the "state" recognizes marriage civilly for two reasons:
1. Taxation. Marriage Licenses are a TAX on marriage. The concept of having a Marriage License issued by the State dates back to the late 1700's (IIRC..) when the King of England wanted to enrich his treasuries, thus the marriage tax (or what we call a marriage license) was created. All couples entering into marriage in merry old England paid a tax to the King for the "privilege" of having their marriage recotnized.
2. A Marriage License is the entry point to a contract between the couple marrying, and the State. The contract with the state defines what happens in the event the marriage dissolves. (Who gets the kids if any, what alimony/spousal support will be paid, if any, and division of marital assets.) I know this because I know divorce attorney's who've stated the purpose of a marriage license using the same/similar language as I've used above.
Now, the Church and Christians have the biggest role in getting the Church "out of the marriage business" while reinforcing the definition of the word MARRIAGE as an institution created by Almighty God, and not to be corrupted by politicians and the rogue US Supreme Court.
Simply stated: Christians should REFUSE to obtain Marriage Licenses across all 50 states. Period. The MARRIAGE Ceremony itself is still performed by the Church with the exception that the CIVIL part of the process is eliminated entirely.
The Priest/Pastor/Religious Leader still signs a piece of paper registering the Marriage with the Church, providing a copy to the newly married couple.
Going forward, the newly married couple goes about their business opening joint bank accounts, establishing credit, etc.. as a marriage certificate to do these activities IS NOT REQUIRED.
Further, come State and Federal tax time, the married couple can file as joint/married as proof of the marriage beyond "their word on paper" is not required. Those states with Income Taxes (such as Illinois) do not require proof of marriage or marriage license. Similarly, the Federal Government does not require proof of marriage and nowhere on Federal Income Tax Forms is there a statement requiring such. Filing Jointly = Married in the eyes of the IRS.
So now what does all this mean?
First, the individual States are denied Marriage License Fee's from Heterosexual couples.
Second, Heterosexual couples who've had a RELIGIOUS Ceremony are exercising their First Amendment God-Given right to freedom of religion, which the Federal and State governments HAVE TO RECOGNIZE, thanks to the US Supreme Court's recent ruling.
Third, and this is important: Heterosexual couples who wish to dissolve their marriage can do so without interference from the State, since they did not enter into a marriage contract with the state by paying for a Marriage License. The individual States will have ZERO legal authority to interfere with the marriage dissolution because the "contract" doesn't exist.
Finally, Churches across the country will be exercising their RELIGIOUS LIBERTIES denying homosexual couples their services.
It won't be easy, and coordinating Christian Churches across the country would require work --- but it can be done.
I'd suggest that the Catholic Church do this first as there's a "chain of command" within the Church leadership structure and it's much easier to coordinate such changes through the Catholic Church's centralized command organization.
Once the Catholic Church does it, I'm betting the rest will follow.
THIS is how we re-claim the rightful definition of the word "MARRIAGE" and deny the gaystapo from destroying the Church in America.
Just my .02. I've published this idea before on a number of different threads and forums. Most seem to catch-on to the simple premise of denying the State a "revenue stream" via Marriage Licenses.
It's important that we as Christians (whatever denomination one calls themselves...) get to work and re-claim that which God has made and blessed.
Very sad how the US Supreme Court messed with marriage and messed with the foundation of our healthy country. Now we see unhealthy people “at the helm” temporarily. The author makes very good points but does not look at how Canada has been dealing with the problem for ten years.
A person who disagrees that marriage is between a husband and wife alone is “opposed to the doctrine of the Church” (Canon 750 § 2). Thus, the Catholics on the Supreme Court who approved of Obergefelle decision are hurting their relationship to the Lord and risk the loss of God.
Those of us who support the traditional view of marriage (which is the majority of Americans) will need to stick together and rebuild the legal system. just as pro-lifers are slowly rebuilding the legal system.
Except that Lot had to be dragged out of Sodom. He really didn't follow until he was literally forced out by the angels who struck everyone else blind so they could do it.
The only thing Lot did do right was to not look back.
I believe the attack comes from another angle... the homosexualists will be in a church organization - perhaps a Christian school or any Christian organization that offers medical benefits. One person will be working at the organization and then decide to “marry” their same sex partner. THEY will then provide a MARRIAGE CERT to the organization. They will say - I want my medical benefit for my “spouse.” HONOR my STATE SPONSORED certificate OR WE WILL SUE...
I disagree, there’s no good reason not to get a state marriage license. Just because gay couples are married in the sight of the law does not mean that heterosexual couples can’t be, that would be silly. The state can require back up documentation at any time it feels the need, including marriage licenses. That it doesn’t currently is no indicator of future behavior.
The state does in fact have a clear interest in marriage, and in fact the state based argument against gay marriage vs civil unions is far more likely to result in a rollback than the religious argument.
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.