Ship of Fools: Catholicism and Same-Sex Marriage in the U.S.

Thread: Catholicism and Same-Sex Marriage in the U.S. Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030661

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

No, it's not what you think.

Blogger Pam Spaulding makes an interesting catch:

quote:
What does Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn have in common with every single U.S. state governor who has signed marriage equality legislation?

He’s Catholic.

The hierarchy of the Catholic Church is, of course, well known for vociferously opposing any kind of legal recognition for same-sex couples and exhorting the faithful to follow this lead. Given this level of rejection, would it be justifiable to classify the efforts of the Catholic leadership in this area (i.e. influencing American law in an anti-gay direction) to be a failure? If so, would that be a partial failure or a complete failure? Or a recent failure following earlier successes?

Second, does this trend mean that gay rights activists should be working hard to try to get more Catholics elected to governorships? Of course, two of the three* governors who vetoed same-sex marriage bills were Arnold Schwarzenegger and Christ Christie, who are also Roman Catholics, so this isn't a guaranteed path to success. Still, 6-2 for Catholics is better odds than 0-1 for Protestants.

--------------------
*The other governor who vetoed a same-sex marriage bill was Vermont's Jim Douglas, who is a member of the United Church of Christ according to his wiki entry. The Vermont legislature overrode his veto.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Well, the Mormonformer governor of Utah, Jon Huntsman is now in favor gay marriage.

[ 22. February 2013, 04:48: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]

Posted by AmyBo (# 15040) on :

I met a number of Catholics while working on the opposition to the SSM amendment in my state last fall. They argued it was a matter of religious freedom: even if they did not support SSM (although my buddies did), it was legislation based on religious beliefs, and they were concerned that could create precedence for curtailing their own religious freedoms later. At least that's how I understood it.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I'm always amazed at the corkscrew-like thinking that can somehow interpret "I'm not going to let you do that because my religious beliefs are agin' it" as being a blow for religious freedom.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

Spain, Portugal, Canada, Argentina are also countries whose leadership is (or was, in the case of Canada) Catholic and they also were the early adopters of equality legislation.

Many Catholics (and not just politicians) are torn between the (post Vatican II) Catholic value of respecting conscience and emphasizing human dignity, with the bishops' attempt to utilize secular law to enforce Catholic teaching. Even if one embraces current Catholic doctrine that same sex relationships are "intrinsically disordered" and abortion and contraception are grave sins, one can still believe that using the State to enforce those teachings isn't the correct method to win over hearts and change minds.

They would argue that Christ wasn't incarnate as a king (which disappointed many) but as a teacher. Christ didn't use His power to legislate or coerce, but talk, and that they are following in Christ's footsteps. And hysterical rhetoric aside, none of these laws force people to commit what they are believe are sins, just tolerate others' sins.

[ 22. February 2013, 12:14: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm always amazed at the corkscrew-like thinking that can somehow interpret "I'm not going to let you do that because my religious beliefs are agin' it" as being a blow for religious freedom.

Karl, the same-sex marriage amendment up for a vote in Minnesota last November was an amendment to ban same-sex marriage, not to legalize it. There seems a very good argument to be made that adding a ban on same-sex marriage to the state constitution is legislation based on religious beliefs.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm always amazed at the corkscrew-like thinking that can somehow interpret "I'm not going to let you do that because my religious beliefs are agin' it" as being a blow for religious freedom.
Karl, the same-sex marriage amendment up for a vote in Minnesota last November was an amendment to ban same-sex marriage, not to legalize it. There seems a very good argument to be made that adding a ban on same-sex marriage to the state constitution is legislation based on religious beliefs.

Point taken. File my comment under "general" rather than "specific" then.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

The Vatican hierarchy and several conservative Catholics would probably dismiss these leaders as "cafeteria Catholics", people who simply identify Catholicism as a mark of identity and not in actuality, personally devout.

After all, Benedict XVI did say he wanted a smaller and purer church.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

I've noticed some in the hierarchy like to invoke the 1.3 billion Catholics (or 67 million members in the U.S.) when they want to give the appearance that the RCC is big and powerful, but then dismiss most as "cultural" or "cafeteria" and not really.

Benedict's aim for a small pure church is unachieveable. Even in denominations with much more focus and social control (like the Mormons, for example) there is more diversity than the hierarchy tends to like, even amongst the most engaged. There were very vocal Mormon groups that fought against the anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 in California, for example and former Presidential candidate and devout Mormon John Huntsman just called for the passage of same-sex marriage.

The only religious groups that are doctrinally pure for more than generation are smallish sects that isolate members from the outside world and then use the threat of shunning to quell dissenters.

[ 22. February 2013, 15:34: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
There were very vocal Mormon groups that fought against the anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 in California, for example and former Presidential candidate and devout Mormon John Huntsman just called for the passage of same-sex marriage.

Was Mr. Huntsman calling for same-sex marriage to be legalized by the states, or was he calling for it to be performed in a Mormon Temple? These are two very different things - it is in my view consistent to see same-sex relationships as abominations before the Lord, whilst also thinking that policing sin is not the role of the government, so the states should enable same-sex couples to marry.

Two people can agree that behaviour X is immoral, but disagree about whether it is the role of the government to prevent that immorality.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

That has been my point, so we agree. [Axe murder]

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
There were very vocal Mormon groups that fought against the anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 in California, for example and former Presidential candidate and devout Mormon John Huntsman just called for the passage of same-sex marriage.
Was Mr. Huntsman calling for same-sex marriage to be legalized by the states, or was he calling for it to be performed in a Mormon Temple? These are two very different things - it is in my view consistent to see same-sex relationships as abominations before the Lord, whilst also thinking that policing sin is not the role of the government, so the states should enable same-sex couples to marry.

Two people can agree that behaviour X is immoral, but disagree about whether it is the role of the government to prevent that immorality.

But the traditional position is not about preventing homosexuals from doing immoral behavior - they are presumably going to keep on doing it among themselves, regardless of whether we legislate for same-sex marriage or not. Rather, it's about preventing the government from doing immoral behavior, for if homosexual acts are sinful, then state endorsement (as opposed to mere toleration) of it is sinful as well.

[ 22. February 2013, 19:24: Message edited by: Bran Stark ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
But the traditional position is not about preventing homosexuals from doing immoral behavior - they are presumably going to keep on doing it among themselves, regardless of whether we legislate for same-sex marriage or not.

I guess that depends on whether you regard a position adopted only ten years ago in the U.S. as "traditional". With something that recent, the previous position (in this case, criminal penalties for homosexual acts) is usually the one described as "traditional".

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
There were very vocal Mormon groups that fought against the anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 in California, for example and former Presidential candidate and devout Mormon John Huntsman just called for the passage of same-sex marriage.
Was Mr. Huntsman calling for same-sex marriage to be legalized by the states, or was he calling for it to be performed in a Mormon Temple? These are two very different things - it is in my view consistent to see same-sex relationships as abominations before the Lord, whilst also thinking that policing sin is not the role of the government, so the states should enable same-sex couples to marry.

Two people can agree that behaviour X is immoral, but disagree about whether it is the role of the government to prevent that immorality.
But the traditional position is not about preventing homosexuals from doing immoral behavior - they are presumably going to keep on doing it among themselves, regardless of whether we legislate for same-sex marriage or not. Rather, it's about preventing the government from doing immoral behavior, for if homosexual acts are sinful, then state endorsement (as opposed to mere toleration) of it is sinful as well.

Meh...allowing civil marriage isn't exactly state "endorsement." The State, being a secular, impersonal entity, doesn't endorse anything.

When Britney Spears had that 48 hour marriage in Las Vegas, can we really say that the "People of the United States" endorsed her marriage?

The state permits people to smoke and drink alcohol. Can we really say that that means that the State "endorses" smoking and drinking? Granting permission, is just that, granting permission.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
When Britney Spears had that 48 hour marriage in Las Vegas, can we really say that the "People of the United States" endorsed her marriage?

You make it sound like it was some short-term hook-up. Ms. Spears' marriage lasted actually 55 hours.

Actually, since that marriage was dissolved by annulment rather than divorce I suppose it could technically be said to have lasted 0 hours, but the point is that there was a 55 hour window during which the state of Nevada and the U.S. federal government would have considered Ms. Spears and Mr. Alexander to be married. Clearly that's not the kind of solemn commitment we can expect same-sex couples to be able to honor.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Bran Stark:

quote:
Rather, it's about preventing the government from doing immoral behavior...

If you want to prevent the government from behaving immorally, you are presumably also campaigning for legislation against usury? A practice that is condemned far more often in the Bible than homosexuality?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
There were very vocal Mormon groups that fought against the anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 in California, for example and former Presidential candidate and devout Mormon John Huntsman just called for the passage of same-sex marriage.
Was Mr. Huntsman calling for same-sex marriage to be legalized by the states, or was he calling for it to be performed in a Mormon Temple? These are two very different things - it is in my view consistent to see same-sex relationships as abominations before the Lord, whilst also thinking that policing sin is not the role of the government, so the states should enable same-sex couples to marry.

Two people can agree that behaviour X is immoral, but disagree about whether it is the role of the government to prevent that immorality.
But the traditional position is not about preventing homosexuals from doing immoral behavior - they are presumably going to keep on doing it among themselves, regardless of whether we legislate for same-sex marriage or not. Rather, it's about preventing the government from doing immoral behavior, for if homosexual acts are sinful, then state endorsement (as opposed to mere toleration) of it is sinful as well.

On the next desk to me is a person who believes that eating pork is immoral. Just around the corner, there's someone who believes that killing any animal for food is immoral. Would you mind terribly if they did their best to get laws passed that stopped you from eating sausages? After all, the government, at the moment, by not banning steaks is endorsing the immorality of animal slaughter for food. How shocking!

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Well, I am overly-fond of pork scratchings...

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
There were very vocal Mormon groups that fought against the anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 in California, for example and former Presidential candidate and devout Mormon John Huntsman just called for the passage of same-sex marriage.
Was Mr. Huntsman calling for same-sex marriage to be legalized by the states, or was he calling for it to be performed in a Mormon Temple? These are two very different things - it is in my view consistent to see same-sex relationships as abominations before the Lord, whilst also thinking that policing sin is not the role of the government, so the states should enable same-sex couples to marry.

Two people can agree that behaviour X is immoral, but disagree about whether it is the role of the government to prevent that immorality.

Indeed. I seem to remember Father Palsy (Big Ian Paisley) in his role as a Member of Parliament lobbying hard for some Catholic nuns in his constituency to get planning permission to build a convent so that they could practise (according to him) their heresy.

[ 27. February 2013, 15:08: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Rather, it's about preventing the government from doing immoral behavior,

Here's your problem. The government's job is about what is legal. One preconception with those wishing to legislate morality is they assume it will be their morality which will be adopted.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, that's a very 'big state' argument, that the government should not do immoral things. It seems to contradict any idea that the state should get out of my head, and out of my life - ironic really.

Certainly in the UK, the state has shrunk its role considerably in relation to marriage. Thus, the civil marriage service has very few stipulations or requirements, and you can write your own vows, usually.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Well, I would tentatively agree that the government should not do immoral things, but my list of immoral things would include stuff like persecuting the poor and joining in with wars that have nothing to do with us because the Americans say we must. In fact the modern tolerance of same-sex relationships may actually have led to LESS immoral behaviour in government, because it has reduced the number of things that MPs can be blackmailed for...

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

There's also a fairly sizable gulf between "the government should not do immoral things" and "the government should police the morality of private citizens".

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

From a post by blogger Andrew Sullivan.

quote:
But I never stopped making the conservative case for marriage equality for the simple reason I believed in it. I never thought it would happen to me, but I knew it would have protected so many of my friends who didn’t have to just die agonizing deaths from AIDS but did so stigmatized and alone, their spouses treated often like dirt, their loves repudiated, their dignity grotesquely violated. This was, I believed, a matter of core humanity. It became for me the defining cause of my life.

A friend recalled visiting a man dying of AIDS at the time. A former massive bodybuilder, he had shrunk to 90 pounds. “Do I look big?” he asked, with mordant humor. In the next bed, surrounded by curtains, my friend heard someone singing a pop song quietly to himself. My friend joked: “Well not everyone here is depressed!” Then this from his dying, now skeletal friend: “Oh, that’s not him. He died this morning. That’s his partner. That was their song, apparently. The family took the body away, threw that guy out of the apartment he shared with his partner, and barred him from the funeral. He’s stayed there all day, singing their song. I guess it’s the last place he’ll ever see where his partner actually was. His face is pressed against the pillow. The nurses don’t have the heart to tell him to leave.”

You want to know why this became a life-long struggle? You have your answer. And I did this not despite being a Catholic, but because I am a Catholic.

Three short paragraphs illustrating the sizable difference between what being Catholic means to the Church hierarchy versus what it means to the laity.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, that's a very 'big state' argument, that the government should not do immoral things. It seems to contradict any idea that the state should get out of my head, and out of my life - ironic really.

Let me help you with this.
The government should stay out of my business, but it is welcome in yours if I so not approve of what you do.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

In other news (also reported by Andrew Sullivan

Some Bishops oppose Violence Against Women Act

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops committee has decided that it's more important to not accept Lesbians as worthy of protection against violence. After all, it's not any of them or the priests they protect.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0