Another State Legalizes gay Marriage

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The term marriage goes way back. It has traditionally been defined, throughout Western culture, as the union of a man and woman. For the Catholic Church, this is a sacrament wherein the two are bound together under the aegis of the Holy Spirit.

From that perspective, "gay marriage" is not a valid concept.


Kukri's story about his kin being unable to function as next of kin underlines the problems associated with the absence of any clearly defined rights for non-traditional couples.


My preference would be for government to withdraw from marriage entirely, leaving it purely to religion. Government would then, ideally, sanction legal contracts between mutually consenting adults to share those certain privacy rights etc. that constitute the "secular" portion of a marriage contract. Government would sanction ONLY such contracts, and marriage in a church would not have this effect. As is the case now, a civil contract would need to be executed in addition to the ceremony itself.

[Koga No Goshi]

The term marriage goes way back. It has traditionally been defined, throughout Western culture, as the union of a man and woman. For the Catholic Church, this is a sacrament wherein the two are bound together under the aegis of the Holy Spirit.

From that perspective, "gay marriage" is not a valid concept.


Kukri's story about his kin being unable to function as next of kin underlines the problems associated with the absence of any clearly defined rights for non-traditional couples.


My preference would be for government to withdraw from marriage entirely, leaving it purely to religion. Government would then, ideally, sanction legal contracts between mutually consenting adults to share those certain privacy rights etc. that constitute the "secular" portion of a marriage contract. Government would sanction ONLY such contracts, and marriage in a church would not have this effect. As is the case now, a civil contract would need to be executed in addition to the ceremony itself.

I think everyone (who has participated here, at least) would be okay with that compromise. It really is, from a secular standpiont, the way things ought to work anyway.

However, don't you believe that a lot of people in the U.S. would view this as..... "dismantling marriage"? Or even destroying it? I am of course not saying that would be a rational or legally credible argument, but does anyone else think an awful lot of people would be making it to oppose the change?

[ICantSpellDawg]

The term marriage goes way back. It has traditionally been defined, throughout Western culture, as the union of a man and woman. For the Catholic Church, this is a sacrament wherein the two are bound together under the aegis of the Holy Spirit.

From that perspective, "gay marriage" is not a valid concept.


Kukri's story about his kin being unable to function as next of kin underlines the problems associated with the absence of any clearly defined rights for non-traditional couples.


My preference would be for government to withdraw from marriage entirely, leaving it purely to religion. Government would then, ideally, sanction legal contracts between mutually consenting adults to share those certain privacy rights etc. that constitute the "secular" portion of a marriage contract. Government would sanction ONLY such contracts, and marriage in a church would not have this effect. As is the case now, a civil contract would need to be executed in addition to the ceremony itself.

100% with you. This is one of the compromises that I would eagerly accept.