Kentucky Clerk, Kim Davis

[blazeingstar]

https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/05/05/bad-ideas-know-no-borders/

truncated

Which an opinion that is great, but isn't anything I've ever heard the Church declare.  This is an opinion no more valid than mine.  And those Priests are in a MUCH better position to affect change and are doing it in the right way.  THEY are the ones that should make the decision, not some county-paid clerk.  Them, I can totally get behind.  They shouldn't have to do the same paperwork used to sinful marriage or one that dosn't even naturally exist. Try again.

 

Thank you Blaze. I didn't know that.

Welcome nunsense.  The more I learned about marriage the more I could not wrap my head around why the Catholic church has gone on for this long signing this long.  Really it seems that when laws were developed Catholics just went along with what the heavily Protestant government indicated as they could not get married otherwise.  All marriages had to be "administered" by a man of God.

As soon as marriage was no longer solely a function of ministers...eg once courthouse marriages became acceptable...Catholics should of stepped out.

Edited September 6, 2015 by blazeingstar

[little2add]

The First Amendment not only allows citizens the freedom to practice any religion of their choice, but also prevents the government officials (Kim Davis) from officially recognizing or favoring any religion.

[Nihil Obstat]

Which an opinion that is great, but isn't anything I've ever heard the Church declare.  This is an opinion no more valid than mine.  And those Priests are in a MUCH better position to affect change and are doing it in the right way.  THEY are the ones that should make the decision, not some county-paid clerk.  Them, I can totally get behind.  They shouldn't have to do the same paperwork used to sinful marriage or one that dosn't even naturally exist. Try again.

"Well that is just, like, your opinion maaaaaan!"

https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/12/04/i-guess-one-in-three-americans-dont-know-a-good-thing-when-they-see-it/ 

I guess one in three Americans don’t know a good thing when they see it

December 4, 2014

The gist of a recent poll is that one in three Americans do not want religious ministers to “sign marriage licenses as representatives of the state” so as to avoid, I guess, a connection between “civil marriage” and “religious marriage”, as if, you know, those are two fundamentally different things. Let me rephrase the poll findings: one in three Americans don’t understand what clergy signing marriage certificates are doing (and aren’t doing!) and so don’t know a good thing when they see it.

The call for ministers to boycott civil wedding certificates proposed under the wrongly-named “Marriage Pledge” (it is actually a Pledge Not to Acknowledge Real Marriages) probably would have gone nowhere except that it found an ally in the journal First Things. Well, that’s their responsibility. Mine is to make sure that as many people as possible see that the Radner-Seitz “Marriage Pledge” rests on a faulty understanding of what makes marriage and, in turn, of what ministers of religion do in certifying that a given marriage took place before them. I am not going to review all of the problems inherent in Radner-Seitz’s proposal, though they are many. Here I address just two points.

In the West (yes, I know Eastern Christianity thinks differently, but that problem is for another day), it has been settled matter among all Christians (though secular elements of the West do not realize that Christian thought has permeated their consciousness, too), it has been, as I say, settled matter in the West that the consent of the parties establishes marriage. If you think that the State made up marriage and confers it on a couple, or if you think that the Church created and bestows marriage on believers, or that God, or Zeus, or the Big Cosmic Other sends this thing called marriage on two people who want it, or if you hold any other theory of marriage whatsoever, besidesthat the consent of the parties makes marriage—then you need to stop reading this blog post and start studying solid treatises on marriage going back to the ancient Romans in some cases, and virtually everything since the 13th century, secular and religious alike.

I’m serious. If you do not really see that the couple’s consent makes marriage then you don’t understand what’s at stake.

Now, for those who do know that the consent of the parties makes marriage, the fundamental supposition of the Radner-Seitz Pledge—namely, that the State has changed the definition of marriage (which itcan’t do and, even by its own count, has not succeeded in doing yet!) and, as a result, ministers who care about real marriage should not confer or cooperate in conferring marriage (as understood by at least some States), that supposition, I say, collapses: The State does notconfer marriage on couples, couples confer marriage on each other! All the State does, and for that matter all the Church does, (and, for that matter, all that God does between baptized persons, but that discussion is more complex and is not immediately relevant to a discussion of Church-State cooperation in the matter of marriage), is to recognize what the couple did, namely, they married. If, therefore, a given couple has entered what natural law knows as marriage (a life-long, sexually exclusive, union of one man and one woman, etc.), it is right and even necessary that the State recognize their consent as initiating a marriage irrespective of whether that marriage was entered into before government officials or—and here we get closer to the concerns of Radner-Seitz—before the officials of a religious body.

But, here’s the key: the role of a state official and a religious minister is, as far as the couple entering marriage are concerned, identical—both are merely public, reliable witnesses of the couple’s action; neither the State nor the Church is the actor or the agent or the instigator behind marriage. The crisis that Radner-Seitz see in ‘civil marriage’ (I’ll use their term for now, though it can be misleading, for I agree with them that there is a crisis in ‘civil marriage’) is that the State also thinks it can witness a ‘marriage’ between two persons of the same sex. That error needs urgent correction, of course. But the mere fact that the State thinks it can witness “same-sex marriages” does not disqualify it from witnessing the marriages of people eligible for marriage! A witness (whether State or Church) is a witness, not an actor or an agent—a role reserved by natural law to the couple in marriage. That the American State accepts, besides it own officers, religious ministers certifying that two people entered marriage before them is a welcome and, these days, rather uncommon accommodation to religious practice (!), but, I say again, whether before a lowly justice-of-the-peace in the town clerk’s office or the Cardinal Archbishop in his cathedral, it’s the couplewho brought about that marriage, and no one else. The witness(es) from city hall or the cathedral, literally, had nothing to do with it!

Which brings me to point two: as it is the couple who brought about their marriage, the minister’s refusal to confirm for the State that they are married is, first, to deprive the State of information it has a right to have (the just regulation of marriage is a civil responsibility), and second, it is at least to importune the couple with the obligation of a second ceremony if they wish to enjoy the benefits and protection that the State accords married couples. More gravely, though, bifurcating the ‘spiritual marriage’ from the ‘secular marriage’ introduces serious problems in determining which wedding ceremony actually united the couple in marriage—and that’s assuming all couples undergoing one ceremony will undergo two. And for what? A minister’s refusal to certify a couple’s marrying before him does not harm the State, it does not send some bold message of defiance, it does not do much of anything, except deprive a truly married couple of the benefits that would have been accorded—and still are accorded to other couples whose ministers decline Radner-Seitz’s proposal—simply upon the minister’s declaration that what really happened really happened.

Scholion on the phrase: “By the power invested in me by the State of [whatever], I now pronounce you husband and wife.” This line is recently being quoted by some as a sort of ‘gotcha’ to prove that religious ministers are acting as state officials in conferring marriage. Hardly.

First, as would have been apparent had this proposal undergone any serious ecumenical discussion prior to appearing in First Things, Catholic wedding rites feature no such language. This phrasing is, therefore, solely a non-Catholic minister problem.

Second, recalling that the couple’s consent makes marriage, the phrase can (if others insist on using it) easily and rightly be understood to mean that “I, a religious minister, am recognized by the State as being able to verify for it that this man and this women entered marriage, and that they have done exactly that before my eyes” etc. The State does not have the power to marry people, so it cannot confer that power on others; the State does have the power to witness to the marriage of people, and it can confer that power on others. Ministers using this language are simply declaring that they have the power to witness and communicate to others that two people married.

At this point, I don’t think that there’s much to be gained by discussing with Radner-Seitz proponents a list of “what if” and “what then” scenarios regarding where marriage seems headed in America (they have their hunches, I have mine, and our lists likely overlap in many places), not until we get settled about who brings about a marriage between two people eligible for it, and what the role of the witness(es) to that wedding really is. If folks aren’t clear on that, well, … + + +

[Peace]

It's a bit troubling, though sadly unsurprising, that among certain factions of phatmass there seems to be  a lot more condemnation and outrage over the actions of this clerk than there is at our leviathon radical-secularist state and the abomination of federal judicial activism that brought about this ugly and absurd situation of a woman sent to federal prison for acting according to sanity.

This is the debate forum. There is not much to debate when it comes to the Supreme Court decision. I would think that most of us would agree that it is wrong and needs to be overturned.

This is a variation of your "abortion is more serious so you cannot discuss any other issues other than abortion" argument all over again - isn't it?

[little2add]

 This woman would have my respect and admiration if she had resigned  based on her religious convictions and given up her huge salary

  I'm sorry but I think it is nothing more than  a publicity stunt 

 

[blazeingstar]

"Well that is just, like, your opinion maaaaaan!"

https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/12/04/i-guess-one-in-three-americans-dont-know-a-good-thing-when-they-see-it/ 

I guess one in three Americans don’t know a good thing when they see it

December 4, 2014

Truncated

Again, can you give me one REAL resource from the Catholic church or an entity that speaks for them in a way that isn't a blog.  This blogger is presenting opinion as fact and then goes so far to make sarcastic remarks at the end to say that if someone doesn't understand it then they are not right in the head.

This is still just an opinion, albeit one by someone who is well versed in rhetoric, but not an official church teaching and not one, I believe, that has a truly firm foundation.  There are many who argue the opposite, and many countries that do so.  The Catholic church should take a stand that unless it is required by law for a minister to sign it, Catholic priests shouldn't be doing the work of civil authorities.

This is the debate forum. There is not much to debate when it comes to the Supreme Court decision. I would think that most of us would agree that it is wrong and needs to be overturned.

This is a variation of your "abortion is more serious so you cannot discuss any other issues other than abortion" argument all over again - isn't it?

Agreed.  We are debating the actions of the clerk and the appropriateness of that.  Obviously we should have a fundamental problem with calling the joining of two persons of the same gender.  However, I am in favor of civil unions.  I believe that 2 people should be able to enter into a contractual agreement to share all benefits (and drawbacks) of the tax breaks, medical care and other things awarded in traditional marriage.  While civil authorities have a vested interest in the nuclear family, that ship sailed long ago.

 

[Peace]

https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/05/05/bad-ideas-know-no-borders/

Bad ideas know no borders

May 5, 2015

I do not know Irish marriage law but my impression is that it operates rather as does marriage law in the United States . . .

Hmm. I don't see any strong reason why the state need be inolved with marriages in the first place. The marriage laws and the benefits/restrictions that are accorded to/imposed upon married couples by the state are a comparatively modern innovation, are they not? My impression is that up until around the 16th century marriage was a more of a private contract between two families - and you did not really have much involvement from the state at all. I suppose it is nice that the state should encourage marriage by giving benefits to couples, but that does not appear to be something that is necessary or that has been very effective - it seems to me that the state of marriage is in a far worse place today than it was before the state started getting involved with it.

My concern is not that clergy would be forced to marry gay people - I do not see that happening either. My concern is that when we allow the state to recognize marriages in a democratic society - the possiblity arises that a union between a man and a woman and a union between two people of the same sex are formally recognized as being equivalent and afforded equal legal status. How does it tmake you feel that if you marry a woman it is legally the same as a marriage between between two men? That two men hold the same certificate exact certificate that you do?

If marriage was purely left in the hands of the Church (that is, if the state did not recognize marriages and afford benefits to couples), as seems to have been for most of history, that result could not have happened.

[Benedictus]

I went to edit, but my post got deleted.  Grrr.

In most countries there is civil marriage and then people can have whatever religious ceremony they want.  Personally, it was seemingly awkward to need a Priest to sign a marriage certificate to confirm what he'd done when according to the Church's view he really hadn't.  

One of the things that the priest in our marriage prep made very clear, and also in our other marriage prep, was that as Catholics he was not the administer of the sacrament but we were.  And (well in the marriage prep) that the completion of that administration didn't happen until the two became one.  So the farce that the Catholic church has continued to perpetuate the myth that by signing marriage certificates is that they actually are even fully administering the sacrament, when they actually in no part are.

There's a certain contingent of Catholics who are petitioning the Vatican to have them stop this.  In many countries one must civilly get married.  They can do whatever after.

 

Yes, such as in France. All marriages have to be officiated and registered by a state official. If a couple want a religious ceremony then they have to arrange to do that seperately. The state doesn't acknowledge or require it. The advantage is that the clergy don't get involved in civil legal matters. The disadvantage is that many couples leave out the religious ceremony because the civil and religious elements aren't completed at the same time. But, I suppose, if they were serious about their faith then they'd do it. It might be a good thing that people who aren't that bothered don't actually perform the sacrament in the first place.

[Benedictus]

I went to edit, but my post got deleted.  Grrr.

In most countries there is civil marriage and then people can have whatever religious ceremony they want.  Personally, it was seemingly awkward to need a Priest to sign a marriage certificate to confirm what he'd done when according to the Church's view he really hadn't.  

One of the things that the priest in our marriage prep made very clear, and also in our other marriage prep, was that as Catholics he was not the administer of the sacrament but we were.  And (well in the marriage prep) that the completion of that administration didn't happen until the two became one.  So the farce that the Catholic church has continued to perpetuate the myth that by signing marriage certificates is that they actually are even fully administering the sacrament, when they actually in no part are.

There's a certain contingent of Catholics who are petitioning the Vatican to have them stop this.  In many countries one must civilly get married.  They can do whatever after.

 

Yes, such as in France. All marriages have to be officiated and registered by a state official. If a couple want a religious ceremony then they have to arrange to do that seperately. The state doesn't acknowledge or require it. The advantage is that the clergy don't get involved in civil legal matters. The disadvantage is that many couples leave out the religious ceremony because the civil and religious elements aren't completed at the same time. But, I suppose, if they were serious about their faith then they'd do it. It might be a good thing that people who aren't that bothered don't actually perform the sacrament in the first place.

[Peace]

Agreed.  We are debating the actions of the clerk and the appropriateness of that.  Obviously we should have a fundamental problem with calling the joining of two persons of the same gender.  However, I am in favor of civil unions.  I believe that 2 people should be able to enter into a contractual agreement to share all benefits (and drawbacks) of the tax breaks, medical care and other things awarded in traditional marriage.  While civil authorities have a vested interest in the nuclear family, that ship sailed long ago.

You are referring to a civil union between two people of the same sex - correct? Sorry. I don't think a Catholic can sign on to that. That would be encouraging people to engage in homosexual activity. It would be giving people an incentive to sin.

Can't roll with that . . .

[blazeingstar]

You are referring to a civil union between two people of the same sex - correct? Sorry. I don't think a Catholic can sign on to that. That would be encouraging people to engage in homosexual activity. It would be giving people an incentive to sin.

Can't roll with that . . .

It would be a civil union for whatever.  For instance, right now let's say that an 68 year old that had never got married (note SSI benefits for this one) had a mentally challenged niece, age 57 that lived with her--her deceased brother's stepchild.  This person is her responsibility but just capable enough that the state, in all it's wisdom, won't let her be a dependent.  However, she clearly is they interviewed many health professionals to that degree, she was declared disabled but not dependant, which worried many because she had the capacity of a 12yo.   With less than a 12 year difference she cannot adopt this person.  They are not legally related. The younger woman is not legally entitled to the retirement funds, health insurance or other benefits that an employeer or SSI can provide.  In the case I heard set forth the older woman became disabled and got some SSI and would soon die from her illness.  The woman wanted to put her "niece" as her beneficiary so she'd be cared for but it was in no way possible...except a homosexual "marriage".  I'm not sure what they did in the end, it was a sad story.  Legally, this woman's niece was a housemate at best.

Then there's the crazy way that health care operates in general.  Health insurance usually is person, person+spouse, person+dependents, person+spouse+dependents (with it doubling for each category).  This law would allow for a single parent with one child to greatly reduce their healthcare costs and ensure that they don't end up needing government funds unnecessarily.

Civil unions for everyone wouldn't be a part of marriage at all.  After gaining a civil union one could marry in the church if they wanted, or marry elsewhere but marriage would not be involved at all.  Civil unions would be strictly a tax and benefits situation with no religious meaning whatsoever.

Edited September 6, 2015 by blazeingstar

[Winchester]

The feds have no authority to have an opinion on marriage or marriage permission slips issued by states.

The 14th amendment was ratified under duress. Claiming that it's valid is like a mugger claiming that since you handed over your wallet, it's rightfully his. Contracts made under threat are not valid.

Incorporation doctrine is a myth, anyway.

No, the Supremes are not the final word. The federal government is a creature of the constitution, not a party to it. It makes no sense to claim that it is the final word in constitutional matters. The states never relinquished their power to evaluate the behavior of the entity to which they delegated powers. So Supremes ruling on the 14th are nice and cute, but they are not the final word, even though most igmos at the state and federal level think this.

This is what we get for letting the government grant or deny permission to enter into marriage. There is nothing remotely Christian about that. Not at all. Not by any stretch of the fevered imagination.

Once again, we see the barbaric solution of throwing a human being in a cage. Truly civilized.

[Peace]

Blaze - thanks for the explanation. That is something that is worth thinking about - whether or not something can be done to assist people in those types of situations.

[little2add]

The feds have no authority to have an opinion on marriage or marriage permission slips issued by states.

The 14th amendment was ratified under duress. Claiming that it's valid is like a mugger claiming that since you handed over your wallet, it's rightfully his. Contracts made under threat are not valid.

Incorporation doctrine is a myth, anyway.

No, the Supremes are not the final word. The federal government is a creature of the constitution, not a party to it. It makes no sense to claim that it is the final word in constitutional matters. The states never relinquished their power to evaluate the behavior of the entity to which they delegated powers. So Supremes ruling on the 14th are nice and cute, but they are not the final word, even though most igmos at the state and federal level think this.

This is what we get for letting the government grant or deny permission to enter into marriage. There is nothing remotely Christian about that. Not at all. Not by any stretch of the fevered imagination.

Once again, we see the barbaric solution of throwing a human being in a cage. Truly civilized.

what about the 1st amendment, is that invalid too?

[blazeingstar]

Blaze - thanks for the explanation. That is something that is worth thinking about - whether or not something can be done to assist people in those types of situations.

This is one of the reasons that I feel that "gay marriage" has really thwarted and disenfranchised many people.  Not solely for religious reasons but they could of done something very powerful to make sure they got benefits, when really all they wanted was to have is the vindication of people who didn't want to see it happen.