How about some conversation about a controversial issue?
I am pro marriage, pro family, pro life, etc, etc....
But
Really, what does the amendment really have to do with me?
What does it matter if there are other kind of marriages?
I think marriage, my marriage, to be more specific, is
between us and God.
It's not really between us and the State, is it?
Isn't the whole reason for gay couples to be recognized
so they can receive benefits?
I must be missing something.
I think why not?
It is the sin that is wrong, not the marriage.
How does all this protect or hurt in either case, yes or no?
I'm such a one issue voter I guess.
Pro life.
I vote pro life.
Period.
(let's try to be respectful in the comments please? Thank you)
David and I have had this discussion too. We're voting Yes on the marriage amendment and even have a sign in our yard: after all, even Dorothy Day once said, "I am a faithful daughter of the church." However, I do think that the State shouldn't even be in the business of marriage. I think that churches should be allowed to marry (or allowed NOT to marry) whomever they want, and then the state should be in charge of civil unions.
ReplyDeleteBut the Church has a habit of being right, even when I think differently: so despite what I think, I'm happy to follow her lead.
You are right Laura. I guess I didn't really look at it from that perspective, rather from the perspective of keeping state out, as in separate. I don't know enough about the amendment, like, is the amendment written by the Church? if so, then, yes...
DeleteI think also because we homeschool it is very important for us to want to keep the state out. We live in Indiana where are very few homeschooling laws. But I have been to the homeschool conference in Minnesota so I know that you have much more state meddling. I am all for keeping states out of our personal lives but they constantly are making laws that offend our faith. So, when we can add one that supports our faith, sign me up.
DeleteTowers--Yes, I like that--adding something to support our faith. Minnesota is a very liberal state...not sure why, there are a ton of "Catholics" here...(so called anyway)
DeleteI think that by not defining marriage and allowing same sex couples to marry is saying that their sin is not a sin since their marriage is valid so too are their acts within that marriage.
ReplyDeleteIf we never defined when life begins then people who had or performed abortions could argue that they never took a life.
There was an article about a Bishop urging supporters of same sex marriages not to receive communion. Most people commented how the Church is so out of touch. But if we don't stand with our Church against sin there won't be one. It is easy to hid our light under a bushel. But the flame will die. Plus Jesus calls us to be the light to the world and the salt of the earth.
Voting pro-life is always my first priority when voting. And then I look at the other issues and what the Catholic church teaches. If an issue is supported by Church teaching I use that as guidance in voting. And if it is not supported I using that as guidance as well.
I could go on and on, but shouldn't you just start with what your bishops have to say?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.archspm.org/reference/position-statements-detail.php?intResourceID=3287
Or some more information from your state here:
http://marriagematters.mncc.org/
I haven't given it much thought, just know that I'll be voting yes, because it's what I think I should do.
ReplyDeleteWhat gets me upset though, is this one commercial about it with a so-called "Catholic" family who will be voting No because of a Gay couple who moved into their neighborhood and now they have no issues with gay marriage, or something to that effect. It bothers me that someone who is "Catholic" is fine with the gay family, because as Catholics, we ought to believe that to live a gay lifestyle is wrong. Being gay isn't wrong, but then they should be celibate just as non-married straight couples should be. I mean I guess for all I know that gay couple is being celibate too, but it's the principle of this Catholic couple going against what the Church is teaching about this subject. I just get bothered when Catholics try to "fix" an issue that they see in the Church.
Voting YES!
ReplyDeleteGay marriage is so wrong but everyone knows that.
What if I own a photography business and a gay couple came to me to take pictures of their wedding and I said no. They could sue the ba-jeebies out of all my money because of their so called "rights".
No child should have to be raised in that kind of relationship...kids need a mama and a dada.
Crossing my fingers that our state will make the right choice but Minnesota is so da*n liberal.
I'm not sure what it is in Minnesota, but it hasn't hit Texas yet. I am pro life, all the way, no questions.
ReplyDeleteGreat question, Jamie! It's a topic that deserves attention. Four years ago when Prop 8 was on the ballot in CA, a lot of churches, including mine, were under attack for their defense of traditional marriage. Here is a link to a press release from my church, that was very helpful for me in understanding better the need for such laws. I'll warn you, it's LONG, but worth it! :)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage
God defined marriage. It is not for the state to redefine it. There are so many excellent articles by people who are so much more eloquent and smarter than I, like Kimberlee refers to.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.catholic.com/documents/gay-marriage
a video from Bishop Nienstedt http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr7Z2T77myI
the ProLife news anchor Kalley Yanta http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxG0NaFtSps&feature=related
One Man, One Woman http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=X605sQs35Pg&feature=relmfu
Catholic FAQ #6: Why marriage between one man & one woman? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2MRjDinYp4&feature=related
I'd totally vote YES! (We live in Cali.) I don't think the state should have any business deciding anything about marriage, PERIOD! Marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN and the CHURCH. Not Adam and Steve and the State of California, Minn. etc. Call me old fashion, but that's how I was raised, and that's how my children are being raised. (My children don't even know homosexuality exists.)
ReplyDeleteJamie Jo- Here is how I see it-- Homosexuality is sinful and perverse. In our culture it is being pushed on us as a valid and normal option, but we know from our Catholic faith and from the scriptures that it is anything but normal, or natural for that matter. Anytime we lower the standards for what is right and what is wrong we add to the general moral decline of our country. Also, it is like the "boiling frog" mentality- if we accept homosexuality as normal, and abortion as a "choice", and we let the government decide what is right and wrong then we lose a little more of the Truth that Jesus taught and the Church works tirelessly to uphold. If I were in Minnesota, I would be running out to the polls to vote a resounding YES!
ReplyDeleteI am back, just wanted to add another link to check out:
ReplyDeletehttp://catholicmoxie.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/more-than-traditional-its-true-a-call-to-change-the-way-we-speak-of-marriage/
I would *almost* rather see civil marriage abolished than to have it desecrated in this manner. Heterosexual couples don't even want to get married these days - so why do GLBTs? I really don't think the issue for them is marriage as much as it is tax breaks, acceptance, and stretching the definition to include all sorts of other perverse unions (just watch a little cable TV every now and then - it's eye opening). Legally, "love" has nothing to do with civil marriage, but true committed conjugal love has everything to do with Sacramental marriage. We should really be thinking about why they want to take civil marriage and deface it instead of getting rid of it - what are the real motives?
ReplyDeleteIt's about protecting marriage as between a man and a woman. Protecting it and sanctifying it and saying this is the only way you can be married. A man and a man could marry and a woman and a woman could marry but if we protect that, what are we sanctifying? A union which can not be the continuation of the human race. The human race would die out. Some would say that heterosexuals would never die out but who can really say that if we sanctify other unions? And then what other unions must be sanctified? Is there an end if there is not just one definition?
ReplyDeleteAlso, Jamie, if the state says other unions must be recognized then freedom of religion is again denied and churches would have to sanctify all unions.
And remember, it was making abortion legal that justifies it for so many women.
ReplyDeleteI am back, again ;-) to say that in states where same sex marriage is legal, the Church had to get out of serving as adoption service providers because they are forced to "give" children to same sex "married" couples. They won't do that so they have to get out of it entirely.
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of dynamics to this issue aren't there?
Yes Barbara--so many dynamics, I'll have to come back tomorrow and try to answer everyone! (I'm out of time tonite)
DeleteInteresting fact about the adoption topic, I was just thinking while I was cooking supper, what the effects of the states where same sex marriages were legal...you answered it. That's a pretty big one, lots of kids not getting adopted that could be.
Jamie, You answered your own question at the end of your post. You said, "I vote pro-life."
ReplyDeleteYou'd have to vote YES if you truly are pro-life. Same sex "marriages" are a union which can not promote the continuation of the human race. Therefore, it is NOT pro-life.
Make sure to check out the above linked sites, they present the issue very well.
My personal belief is that marriage is one man and one woman and is ordained of God to be that. I think that there are severe consequences to our society that we cannot even see now that will come about because we change the definition of marriage. I have a younger sister who is gay and I love her dearly. She has the right to live her life in the way she sees fit, but I will still always vote no on same-sex marriage. To me it is a sad commentary on our society that this is becomming "the new normal." We must always think about what dire consequences these drastic changes in basic societal structures, namely family, will have for our children and grandchildren. I will always vote with what I believe God has ordained....one man, one woman marriage and pro-life!
ReplyDeleteWe should not separate civil unions from religious unions. While the ceremony is different, the meaning is the same.
ReplyDeleteThere are 2 Sacraments of service, right? marriage being one of them as a service of community. It's huge in the church. we know that Cannon Law is largely about marriage....It's the only sacrament which requires at least 5 witnesses....life begins with marriage.
The church teaches that sex is for marriage. Marriage is for children. Therefore, sex is for children. (regardless of age, infertility, etc. we are talking about God's original plan for us.) when we, as a society use sex otherwise, we create degenerative, social problems.
Family is the mirror image of the Holy Trinity. And the church is very interested in marriage! We have to remember that there IS such a thing as absolute moral truth. We have to remember that marriage is a covenant.
In order to fully live our faith right now, we have an obligation to protect God's plan for marriage. We can read throughout the bible and view within our own lives the resulting regret when we do not follow God's plan for marriage.
The church didn't make up truth. Nor does she decide what truth is. The church simply always has and always will, rather, teach the truth.
Media affects the way we think.
Laws affect the way we behave.
Like it or not, we are the state and we better stop trying to separate the two.
Free will allows for disorder, but it is only when we follow God's order that we are fully defending HIS TRUTH.
(up rocking a stuffy-nose little baby...thankful for your intriguing conversation going on here to wake me up and keep me going....looking at my little guy here and knowing that marriage between one man and one woman is what is best for all children, not just mine....and thinking about how Jesus said, "Let the children come to me...." )
Everyone else has said it so much better than I. A true Catholic, faithful to the Magisterium , must vote yes. Without question.
ReplyDeletePlease read...This was publish in the Star Tribune.
DeleteDear conservative-leaning friend
Let me clear up for you what a 'yes' vote will and won't accomplish.
I wonder if we might have a quick discussion about the upcoming marriage amendment. I know you're confused by the things you hear at church and from some of your friends, and I'm here to help. Just you and me. Face to face. Man to man ... um, in a hetero sort of way, of course.
You see, I've heard all the arguments for defining marriage as between one man and one woman -- the sanctity of the institution, the slippery slope (brothers marrying sisters!) and so on -- but I'd like to offer a quick reality check on what a "yes" vote will actually do and what it will not do.
After all, my conservative pal, you're a straight-laced, straight-talking fellow, who likes to keep his facts ... well, you know.
Here, for your reading pleasure, is what a yes vote and passage of the amendment will not do:
• It will not stop people from being gay. Nope. There is no such thing as antifairy dust. That guy in the coffee shop will not suddenly begin gawking at miniskirts and buying clashing furniture. There has been homosexuality among humans since Adam and Steve walked the Earth eons ago, and if you think it's a choice, then you have not been paying attention. Consider this: Mychal Judge, the Catholic priest who died at the foot of the World Trade Center while helping New York firefighters, was both gay and celibate. Repeat after me: There is no lifestyle. You're either gay or you're not. Period.
• Voting yes will not stop gay couples from bearing or adopting children and raising them together. There are families near you doing just that right now, and, aside from some creative naming challenges for each parent, they're normal families with normal joys and normal struggles. There is precisely zero chance of changing this.
• Voting yes will not improve your own marriage. If you and your spouse's happiness depends on who else is married to whom, you don't need to be in the voting booth. You need to be in counseling.
• Finally -- get a load of this -- voting yes will not stop gay couples from getting married. Wait, what?? How can that be? Well, I hate to be the one to tell you, but gay couples have been walking down the aisle, saying "I will," wearing rings, cutting cake and going on honeymoons for years -- right here in Minnesota. Many pastors and priests will marry a gay couple -- after decent premarital counseling, of course. Jane can still refer to her "wife" and Steve can still gripe about his "husband" and, unless we want to set up a Nazi-like state, where we control how people speak in public, that isn't going to change, either.
Well, gosh, if a yes vote won't stop any of those things, what will it actually accomplish? From a practical standpoint, absolutely nothing: Gay marriage is already illegal in Minnesota -- meaning that the state doesn't recognize a family when it sees one.
So, why have we spent all the time and money to place the question on the ballot this November? Well, the stated reason is to protect marriage from the scary, deviant gays who will surely do something terrible to the institution by, well, honoring it.
The real reason it's on the ballot is to create an issue that will excite and encourage social conservatives to come to the voting booths this November and vote against Democrats. This is right out of the Karl Rove and ALEC playbook: make 'em scared, make 'em mad, make 'em vote.
So, let's summarize: If you vote yes on the marriage amendment, gays will still be here. They will still have relationships. They will still have ceremonies, pledging to love and honor one another, and will still adopt, bear and raise children together -- as a family. That horse, you should have noticed by now, has already left the barn, jumped the gate, run down the road -- and is looking fabulous.
Part 2
DeleteHere, then, is what a yes vote will do: It will make sure that these families can never share health insurance. Or have guaranteed hospital visitation rights. Or allow their estates to automatically go to one another in case of death. Or buy a family fishing license. Or a joint college savings account. The list goes on.
Same-sex couples are denied more than 515 state rights that pertain to married couples and 1,100 federal ones; a yes vote will make that denial a permanent part of the Minnesota Constitution. That's it. So, we can talk about defending marriage and values until the cows come home. The only thing this amendment will do is make a very long list of legal and financial benefits forever unattainable for these families.
Do you really care if a gay couple gets to file their taxes together or buys a family fishing license? Because when it really comes down to it, that's all they want. Whether we call them married, coupled, partnered or unioned is beside the point. They're going to use whatever term they feel like using, and nobody can do squat about it.
So, not only should you vote no on the amendment, you should begin to consider the family-friendly thing: giving same-sex couples the 515-plus rights that they deserve. It's the right thing to do. It's the practical thing to do. It's not hard to imagine them being married, raising children and having families. Because they already are.
ROBERT SAXTON
***Arley...how sad that your children don't know that homosexuality exists.
A child should be raised by a mama and a dada...My two gay friends adopted a baby from a single mom who hand picked them out of several (mama and dada)applicants. Their baby girl is so lucky. She has two people who love her and is going to have a great life full of wonderful experiences. They are both teachers and have wonderful supportive families. They have been together for 13 years and are an amazing team. They are truly blessed!!
Dear Anonymous - thank you for explaining the real motives and some of the 500 - 1000 rights the Vote No movement desires. Not that it changes my belief in any way, but because I have wondered what more they want, if they are living the way they want to live anyway. I would like to know, however, if a gay couple is "married" in California, but live in Minnesota, what rights do they not have here? And why would they not move to California?
DeleteAnd if this issue is more about the practical and financial aspects of life - why drag the words "love" and "marriage" into use? To me, desecrating these words are offensive. Defenders of marriage do not see homosexual relationships as real love or real marriage.
And if there are so many "rights" that married couples do not have, why are so many heterosexual couples avoiding marriage? Are these rights not important to them too? At least they respect the term "marriage".
I agree with Colleen (below) - I do not believe in legalizing sin and am grieved by the number of sins that are legalized in America. I believe what the Church teaches - that homosexuals are called to chastity.
Just as I would never encourage an alcoholic to dink, a gambling addict to gamble, an angry person to murder, a pedophile to molest a child, a spending addict to go to the mall, etc., I would never condone a homosexual friend to enter a sexual relationship. I admire those who have the courage to say "no" and live a fulfilling but celibate life. It must be a terribly difficult sacrifice, but I believe this is the cross they are called to carry.
We all have concupiscence (tendency to sin) but it is never okay to give in to these sins, make a lifestyle out of them, then try to make this the new normal in America, legalize it, and expect everyone to accept it.
Real love requires making sacrifices for the greater good of another and real freedom gives citizens the rights to do what they ought to do, rather than give in to anything they want to do, especially if it is physically or spiritually harmful.
Clarification: everyone, not just homosexuals are called to chastity. Single, married, gay, straight - all are called to avoid fornication, adultery, masturbation, pornography, etc.
DeleteTo Anonymous- We don't see sheltering our children from homosexuality as "sad". What would be sad is explaining to a 9 year old child, who is already confused about life, that it's ok to marry/shack up with someone of the same sex. That would scar him for life.
DeleteArly--my kiddos don't know either, they don't know any person's sexual preferences. They don't need to know.
DeleteThey're kids.
Gosh keep them innocent as long as we can.
THIS COMMENT FROM COLLEEN:
ReplyDeleteHi Jamie,
I have to comment via email because I can't comment on your blog at work.
If marriage is a sacrament designed by God to be between a man and a woman to image Christ and His church, then how could we ever vote against that? If we say "Hey, it's okay for a man to marry a man because they want shared medical insurance" then where is the line? Can it be okay for a man to marry two people? Can a woman marry a preteen boy? Can a man marry his goat? If marriage is redefined once then it will constantly be redefined.
My state (Massachusetts) has made it legal for two gay men or two lesbian women to marry and it's changing so much here. Now when a heterosexual couple goes to fill out a marriage license, it doesn't say Bride and Groom, it says "Party A" and "Party B". In public schools, kids are taught that homosexuality is a normal, natural choice, and teachers are always careful to say "Mom and Dad" to their students because it might be hurtful to someone with homosexual parents. Now that homosexual marriage is legalized, people think that makes it right, and are demanding to get their kids into private Catholic schools and get married in Catholic churches. Then we Catholics look like the haters and bigots because we know their lifestyle is sinful.
Yes, you LOVE the person but HATE the sin, and legalizing their marriage would be supporting the sin. (Do you think people would get married and then not have sex?) Supporting a group that helps to keep homosexuals celibate would be supporting the people, not the sin.
This seems so black and white to me, and I will pray for you to make an informed decision!
HUGS from MA!!
MY RESPONSE TO COLLEEN VIA EMAIL:
DeleteHi Colleen!
I have to say I knew that people would have a lot to say about the subject. I was looking for certain answers and I got them, partly through yours, the results of it. I, of course believe in all the Church teaches and follow it.
I would never vote "no" but to be honest, was more on the lines of not checking this particular box. My other answer I'm looking for is Did the Church write this amendment? I need to go read some of the links people commented on.
I'm sure my answers are in there. I know the why's marriage between man and woman, but seem to get stuck on the why does it matter for the state? When a couple gets an annulment through the Church, first a civil divorce must be done, but in the eyes of the church, the couple is still married, the civil part is for the state, for the legal stuff. Your answer and Barbara's answer has helped with the Why not? question, because of what follows. Those things clearly show a society breaking down even more than it already is.
I want to answer each of you individually, but am lacking the time...might need to do one comment or post.
ReplyDeleteI thank you all for keeping it respective to eachother.
Thank you all for you links, I will read them, I'm sure the answers I'm looking are in there.
(specific questions in my head)
I meant to say "respectful".
DeleteJamie, I know I am coming to the pool late, but I think in this instance not voting counts as a no vote.
ReplyDeleteAs a part of the Basilica parish we all received a DVD about this, it was quite informative. I wonder if you could track one down?
Hmmmmm....Snarky--thanks I'll try.....although, I've gotten my answers in all the comments.
DeleteIf you would like non-religious reasons for defining marriage as one man-one woman, check out What Is Marriage? by Sherif Girgis, Princeton University Department of Philosophy, Robert George, Princeton University - Department of Politics, & Ryan T. Anderson
ReplyDelete, University of Notre Dame Department of Political Science, published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy : http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155. There is natural law reasoning for why the State should and ought to define marriage as one man-one woman.
Also, in general, the government has a duty to govern marriage. Gay "marriage" opens the doors for other lawsuits to break apart traditional marriage fully. If it is legal for a man and a man to marry or a woman and a woman, what makes it wrong for three people to want a "marriage"? They are in love. Why do you want to discriminate against them? If a sister wants to "marry" her brother, why can't they? What would be the reasoning for not allowing them, if marriage is just for ratifying sexual and romantic relationships?
ReplyDeleteVery interesting, not a--never even thought about those unions....thanks for putting that into my head (haha)!!
DeleteYour first comment was very interesting too though, thanks!
Hello,
ReplyDeleteI am that "sister" that everyone keeps referring to when they say voting for gay marriage opens the doors for all sorts of unholy unions.....Yes, I am absolutely pining to marry my younger brother. We've discussed it in a roundabout sort of way-I mean, it's not exactly dinner table conversation but when we get the chance to talk in private, oh my goodness do we have plans!
You see, after being in this wide world for over a couple of decades, my dearest brother and I have come to the conclusion that we're actually made for each other. We've tried dating other people, but there's just nothing like going to the movies and holding hands with someone who really knows you, y'know?
Our parents are in for quite the surprise but I'm sure they'll come around sooner or later. We'll probably move in together down the street.I imagine it will be weird at first with the neighbors and all, but soon enough people will say, "oh yes, we've been expecting unions like yours since we opened the doors to this sort of possibility." And then we'll just move forward and have dinner parties and bocce ball tournaments and football viewing socials and oktoberfest feasts.
And you should know, there are a lot of us brother/sister couples out there...just waiting for the moment when we can publicly declare our love. I hear it all the time when my best girlfriends are talking on the phone with their siblings, "love you" they say and then quickly hang up in case someone were to hear such words!
Sincerely,
the large brethren of sisters/brothers in your very neighborhood chomping at the bit to get married in droves
OK, it's getting a little nasty for me, thanks to people who hide under "anonymous".
ReplyDeleteThanks to all who gave me the answers I was looking for and the friendly conversation. Even Anonymous was nice at first. It was good to hear both sides. (even anonymously)
How do you find me anyway? Do you know me and are just hiding your identity from me?
Guess I'll never know. Why do you read conservative, Catholic, homeschooling mama's blogs? (unless you know me?)
I'm going to need to close the comments on this one though, before it gets too nasty. thank you.