Bush calls for gay marriage ban

[Jaime]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1004441' date='Jun 13 2006, 03:03 AM']
therefore, civil marriage should require permanence and the sale of contraceptives should be illegal and made difficult to obtain.

it is a tremendous jump from "here are the parts of current civil marriage legislation that do not jive with natural law" to "civil marriage is against natural law"
[/quote]

Would it be a tremendous jump to say to someone "A person is not Catholic if they don't believe in the dogma of the Eucharist"? Or would you prefer to say that there were parts of his belief that did not jive with Church teaching? If someone does not recognize what is integral to Catholicism (i.e. Eucharist) then that person is not considered Catholic.

If natural law states that there are criteria that are integral and necessary to the definition of marriage, you cannot define marriage without them. To do so contradicts natural law.

[Franimus]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1004481' date='Jun 13 2006, 08:01 AM']
Would it be a tremendous jump to say to someone "A person is not Catholic if they don't believe in the dogma of the Eucharist"? Or would you prefer to say that there were parts of his belief that did not jive with Church teaching? If someone does not recognize what is integral to Catholicism (i.e. Eucharist) then that person is not considered Catholic.

If natural law states that there are criteria that are integral and necessary to the definition of marriage, you cannot define marriage without them. To do so contradicts natural law.
[/quote]

That does not mean that that person's beliefs completely contradict Catholicism. The Church has been telling us recently to focus on what we have in common with others, and to build up from there. As long as Marriage is allowed in marriage (note capitalization difference), marriage cannot be said to contradict the definition of Marriage. To contra-dict something is to completely go against what is said by something else. marriage does [u]not[/u] completely go against Marriage. marriage still incorporates Marriage, and thus does not contradict it. However, that does not mean that marriage is Marriage. Marriage and marriage are not supposed to be exactly the same thing; civil governments cannot require a sacrament. As I mentioned in my previous post (have you even read it?), we must do all we can to further the Truth, even if it's only a baby step. Talk to a pro-life federation representative, they'll explain to you how they don't push for the immediate outlaw of all abortion; rather, they spend all their energy actively pursuing "smaller" objectives, such as outlawing partial-birth abortion. Rome wasn't built in a day. A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. What other platitudes can I use? The point is, it's stupid to be against this amendment because it doesn't say enough. You go ahead and push for an amendment that expresses the perminance of marriage, but you're not going to get it any time before the amendment we're discussing gets passed.
Please give specific, linear reasons for your statements. I think that I have provided a linear argument several times for what I have said, and all you say is "you're wrong" without offering good reasons why.

[Apotheoun]

The proposed constitutional amendment to protect marriage is not controversial at all, and in fact it has received support from the USCCB for several years now:

[url="http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2004/04-128a.pdf"][u]Letter of Bishop Wilton D. Gregory to the United States Senate[/u][/url]

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1004196' date='Jun 12 2006, 07:17 PM']
Really?

Civil marriage does not require any permanence. It is a contract that can be dissolved. Aquinas makes it clear that permanence, by virtue of natural law, is integral to the definition of marriage
Civil marriage does not require the creation of offspring. Again back to Aquinas
If these two principles are integral to the definition of marriage by virtue of natural law, any definition that excludes these, contradicts natural law.
This is why I'm against civil marriage. This is why I'm against the marriage amendment as it stands.
[/quote]
The marriage amendment says nothing about divorce, etc. one way or the other. All it does is define [i]who[/i] can legally get married (restricting it to one man and one woman).
If you want to work to outlaw divorce, that is fine and good, but it really has nothing to do with this particular proposed amendment.

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1004653' date='Jun 13 2006, 10:25 AM']
The proposed constitutional amendment to protect marriage is not controversial at all, and in fact it has received support from the USCCB for several years now:

[url="http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2004/04-128a.pdf"][u]Letter of Bishop Wilton D. Gregory to the United States Senate[/u][/url]
[/quote]
Thanks for the link, Todd.

So much for the amendment being contrary to the Church . . .

[Jaime]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1004998' date='Jun 13 2006, 05:55 PM']
The marriage amendment says nothing about divorce, etc. one way or the other. All it does is define [i]who[/i] can legally get married (restricting it to one man and one woman).
If you want to work to outlaw divorce, that is fine and good, but it really has nothing to do with this particular proposed amendment.
Thanks for the link, Todd.

So much for the amendment being contrary to the Church . . .
[/quote]

Ok let's just pause for a moment and reflect on this. Not only is Socrates showing support for the USCCB but he universalizes their statement to that of being for the whole Church.

I need to freeze frame this moment.


Of course Socrates has been a long time supporter of the US bishops..

Right?

[quote name='Socrates' post='879525' date='Feb 7 2006, 07:10 PM']
The USCCB has long been notoriously liberal.
[/quote]

But he does believe that when the USCCB speaks, it speaks for Holy Mother Church...


Right?

[quote name='Socrates' post='879525' date='Jul 20 2005, 01:00 PM']

The USCCB's left-leaning political agenda is hardly infallible.
[/quote]




[quote name='Socrates' post='778238' date='Nov 3 2005, 07:33 PM']


As for the USCCB quotes, it should be pointed out that the USCCB is not the same as the universal magisterium of the Catholic Church, and its statements are not infallable. It is well known that the USCCB leans left politically and has ties to the Democratic Party. Lately the American Bishops as a group have hardly been a model of wise and moral leadership (though there are a few excellent bishops).
[/quote]

[quote name='Socrates' post='778238' date='May 17 2005, 11:21 AM']


Personally, I think the USCCB is way, way too far to the left. Remember, the USSCB is not the same as the magisterium of the Catholic Church, and its pronouncements are far from infallible. Unfortunately, the USCCB tends to be overly influenced by the politics of the Left.


[/quote]

Ok then..


Now let's look at the letter shall we?

[quote]Marriage, as properly understood, is more than a lifestyle choice. It is an interpersonalrelationship with public significance. It makes a unique and irreplaceable contribution to thecommon good of society when it fulfills its natural, God-given purposes, namely, to bring children into the world and care for them and to provide a way for a man and a woman to seekeach other's good in a committed, lifetime relationship.[/quote]

Hmmm and what did I say?

[quote]Civil marriage by definition allows for divorce. Civil marriage does not require any type of permanence. Nor does it require anyone to be open to children.

Both are against the definition of marriage according to natural law.[/quote]


So yeah the bishops are for it. And as Socrates has so graciously pointed out, (over and over again) the USCCB is apparently not the Magisterium. So they aren't infallible. So I can disagree with them?

Well in reality, I don't.

I'm pretty sure that if you asked any bishop if permanence and being open to procreation is intrinsic to the definition of marriage according to the Church and natural law, they'd agree with me! Oh wait, they already did!

The marriage amendment only deals with civil marriage. If civil marriage is improperly defined, then so is the amendment.

[homeschoolmom]

Shhh... I'm pausing

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1005029' date='Jun 13 2006, 06:07 PM']
Ok let's just pause for a moment and reflect on this. Not only is Socrates showing support for the USCCB but he universalizes their statement to that of being for the whole Church.

I need to freeze frame this moment.
Of course Socrates has been a long time supporter of the US bishops..

Right?
But he does believe that when the USCCB speaks, it speaks for Holy Mother Church...
Right?
Ok then..
Now let's look at the letter shall we?
Hmmm and what did I say?
[/quote]
Really, this is too funny.

I nowhere claimed the USCCB was infallible in its statements (especially when concerning economic/spending policy issues not directly related to faith and morals). However, this does not mean the USCCB is [i]never[/i] right. The Bishops can and do speak correctly on a number of things, especially when speaking in union with the Pope's teaching. And in this case, the Bishops are correct.
My point was simply that one cannot present the marriage amendment as being intrinsically [b]opposed[/b] to Catholic teaching, and argue that Catholics are bound in conscience to oppose it.

It is you, hot stuff, who have dug yourself in a hole by (as far as I understand) claiming that Catholics are bound to agree with every policy statement of the USCCB, then disagreeing with them on this one!

For those who did not bother to open the PDF document of Bishop Gregory's letter earlier quoted by Apotheoun, here's the first part of it:
[quote]Dear Senator:

I write on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to urge your support for S.J. Res. 30, the Federal Marriage Amendment. As you know, S.J. Res. 30 would amend the United States Constitution to define marriage as consisting only of the union of a man and a woman. The Senate Majority Leader has indicated his intention to bring S.J. Res. 30 before the Senate in mid-July. However, opponents may mount a filibuster that could prevent the Senate from even considering this important measure. [b]The Catholic Bishops of the United States strongly urge you to vote AGAINST any effort that would prevent the Senate from voting on this important measure, as well as to vote FOR the measure once the Senate takes it up.[/b] Our concern for preserving marriage as the union of a man and a woman is not simply a Catholic concern. We share it with believers and non-believers, Christians and non-Christians alike, simply because this understanding is part of the common moral heritage of humanity. It is precisely this moral heritage that must be protected today from a small but vocal minority that would alter the definition of marriage by making same-sex unions the legal equivalent of marriage. A same-sex union is not equivalent to marriage. It is not based on the natural complementarity of male and female; it cannot cooperate with God to create new life; it cannot be a true conjugal union.[/quote]
You read this correctly, folks, the Bishops supported the Marriage Amendment!

Which you yourself concede:
[quote]So yeah the bishops are for it.[/quote]

[quote]So I can disagree with them?

Well in reality, I don't.[/quote]
Oh really, now?

[quote]I'm pretty sure that if you asked any bishop if permanence and being open to procreation is intrinsic to the definition of marriage according to the Church and natural law, they'd agree with me! Oh wait, they already did!

The marriage amendment only deals with civil marriage. If civil marriage is improperly defined, then so is the amendment.[/quote]
But the amendment in question says nothing one way or the other about being open to procreation, so this is beside the point. The amendment, as Bishop Gregory states, would "define marriage as consisting only of the union of a man and a woman."

If this is so contrary to natural law and the Church as you claim, why didn't the Good Bishops oppose it, rather than support it???

But you try to have it both ways, by claiming that the Bishops were right to support the amendment, but at the same time arguing that supporting the amendment is wrong.

It's really amusing how you contradict yourself to try to get out of the little hole you dug for yourself here. May as well give it up!

Edited June 14, 2006 by Socrates

[Jaime]

[quote]It is you, hot stuff, who have dug yourself in a whole by (as far as I understand) claiming that Catholics are bound to agree with every policy statement of the USCCB, then disagreeing with them on this one![/quote]

Yeah I'm in a(w)hole...

and if the (w)hole is as far as you understand,seriously, how deep could it be by those standards?


[quote]If this is so contrary to natural law and the Church as you claim, why didn't the Good Bishops oppose it, rather than supporting it???[/quote]

Ok just to be able to force you to make a statement using the adjective "good" to describe an american bishop (and you capitalize it no less) is worth the effort.

Next round is on me kids! Its celebration time!



[quote]The amendment, as Bishop Gregory states, would "define marriage as consisting only of the union of a man and a woman."[/quote]

Exactly

It would define marriage

And it would define marriage incorrectly.

The good bishop goes on to accurately define marriage. (as I quoted) And it does not match civil marriage, DOMA nor the marriage amendment. Which has supported my opinion. The bishops are likely operating along the same line of thought as Era Might suggests. But if a law contradicts natural law, its a bad law.



Come on Soc, you love the Angelic Doctor of the Church as much as anyone. Right? So what does that mean when Aquinas defines marriage, by natural law no less, to have to include permanence and an openness to procreation?

Any definition without these components is in error. Unless in your sudden shift of love and adoration for the USCCB has soured you on Aquinas.

Any law that contradicts natural law corrupts. Civil marriage, DOMA and the proposed amendment do not currently hold the intrinsic components of marriage and therefore contradict natural law.

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1005074' date='Jun 13 2006, 07:38 PM']
Yeah I'm in a(w)hole...

and if the (w)hole is as far as you understand,seriously, how deep could it be by those standards?
Ok just to be able to force you to make a statement using the adjective "good" to describe an american bishop (and you capitalize it no less) is worth the effort.

Next round is on me kids! Its celebration time!
Exactly

It would define marriage

And it would define marriage incorrectly.

The good bishop goes on to accurately define marriage. (as I quoted) And it does not match civil marriage, DOMA nor the marriage amendment. Which has supported my opinion. The bishops are likely operating along the same line of thought as Era Might suggests. But if a law contradicts natural law, its a bad law.
Come on Soc, you love the Angelic Doctor of the Church as much as anyone. Right? So what does that mean when Aquinas defines marriage, by natural law no less, to have to include permanence and an openness to procreation?

Any definition without these components is in error. Unless in your sudden shift of love and adoration for the USCCB has soured you on Aquinas.

Any law that contradicts natural law corrupts. Civil marriage, DOMA and the proposed amendment do not currently hold the intrinsic components of marriage and therefore contradict natural law.
[/quote]
Basically, you are admitting that you disagree with the Bishops on their endorsement of this amendment. At least it appears you now agree with me that Catholics are not bound to follow every political endorsement of the USCCB as infallible dogma. You might want to remember that the next time you insinuate that one is not being a loyal Catholic because he disagrees with a USCCB statement regarding welfare spending, or opposes Card. Mahoney's views on immigration laws.

However, I still believe the Bishops are right and you are wrong on this one.
All this amendment does is restrict marriage to that between a man and a woman.
It is not intended to be a complete definition of marriage, not even in the strictly legal sense - it does not go into what this union between a man and a woman entails legally.
All it does is say that only one man and one woman may be married to one another. And that is perfectly in accord with natural law. That is why it was endorsed by the Bishops without hesitation or reservation.

All your objections are based on things extraneous to the amendment.
This particular amendment does not in any way [b]deny[/b] the procreative aspects or permanence of marriage - as that is outside its scope.
If the amendment did deny these things, the Bishops would not have so adamently supported it.
If these things are so important to you, maybe you should work to have amendments passed against divorce, etc. They would in no way contradict this amendment!

It seems at this point you are really arguing just to be stubborn - I have seen no reputable Catholic authorities argue against the amendment that way - it is nothing but your own personal opinion, which you are entitled to, but that does not mean it is correct.

This amendment would not harm marriage in any way, but only prevent activist judges from further pushing "gay marriage" on the states as a "constitutional right."

I think all that needs to be said has been said here, and unless something new is brought to this debate, I am finished arguing.

[ironmonk]

To disagree with the bishops opinion's is one thing.

To be disobediant to them is a sin. (Unless they directly go against the Magisterium)

God Bless,
ironmonk

[Jaime]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1006097' date='Jun 15 2006, 07:31 AM']
To disagree with the bishops opinion's is one thing.

To be disobediant to them is a sin. (Unless they directly go against the Magisterium)

God Bless,
ironmonk
[/quote]


Meaning what exactly?

[Aloysius]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1004481' date='Jun 13 2006, 08:01 AM']
Would it be a tremendous jump to say to someone "A person is not Catholic if they don't believe in the dogma of the Eucharist"? Or would you prefer to say that there were parts of his belief that did not jive with Church teaching? If someone does not recognize what is integral to Catholicism (i.e. Eucharist) then that person is not considered Catholic.

If natural law states that there are criteria that are integral and necessary to the definition of marriage, you cannot define marriage without them. To do so contradicts natural law.
[/quote]
if someone is not Catholic but they decide to believe in Mary as the Mother of God, I would support their belief in Mary as the Mother of God; even if they did not believe in other dogmas.

This ammendment is just like that; the state saying they believe in marriage as between one woman and one man. That is in line with natural law. Just because other parts of their understanding of marriage are flawed does not mean we should not support this part which is not flawed.

[track2004]

Must be an election year if Bush is talking about how sacred marriage is. I wonder why he forgets to mention it during the odd years... maybe he's focusing on winning the war or the national debt... probably not though considering.

[qfnol31]

As Catholics we must recognize the two types of marriages, Natural and Sacramental.

Natural Marriage, which is what couples should enter into if they are going into civil marriage, requires four things:

1) Permanence
2) Procreation, or the openess to life
3) Exclusivity
4) Heterosexuality, as implied by the second requirement. Do we all agree thus far?

[quote name='track2004' post='1007087' date='Jun 16 2006, 06:43 PM'] Must be an election year if Bush is talking about how sacred marriage is. I wonder why he forgets to mention it during the odd years... maybe he's focusing on winning the war or the national debt... probably not though considering. [/quote]

Umm, it's actually not going to help him at all this year, nor next year, nor the year after to push for it...


hot stuff, your last analogy cannot work because you set a positive versus a negative definition.

Does this amendment deny any of the four parts of Natural Marriage? I don't think so...

Your person denies the True Presence.

"To be Catholic you must believe in the True Presence," is itself a very different statement than you have above.

"To be a marriage it must be between a man and a woman."

Edited June 19, 2006 by qfnol31

[Jaime]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1008051' date='Jun 19 2006, 01:14 AM']
As Catholics we must recognize the two types of marriages, Natural and Sacramental.

Natural Marriage, which is what couples should enter into if they are going into civil marriage, requires four things:

1) Permanence
2) Procreation, or the openess to life
3) Exclusivity
4) Heterosexuality, as implied by the second requirement. Do we all agree thus far?

[/quote] well everyone but the government. No civil ceremony requires any of these. Making US civil marriages contrary to natural law.

[quote]
Umm, it's actually not going to help him at all this year, nor next year, nor the year after to push for it...[/quote]

It might not, but that is certainly why it was trotted out. It was a huge help to the 2004 elections to have a referendum on the marriage amendment in key states. If it doesn't help, its because they went to the well once too often. As I said before, if Bush had really wanted this amendment to move forward, Specter and others (who supported it it 2004) would have voted for it and Bush would not have been travelling with another key vote.

[quote]
hot stuff, your last analogy cannot work because you set a positive versus a negative definition.

Does this amendment deny any of the four parts of Natural Marriage? I don't think so...

Your person denies the True Presence.

"To be Catholic you must believe in the True Presence," is itself a very different statement than you have above.[/quote]


My analogy works just fine. If one does not hold dogmas as truth, one cannot be considered Catholic. If a civil ceremony does not include permanence and procreation, it contradicts the natural law definiton.



[quote]

"To be a marriage it must be between a man and a woman."
[/quote]

But it doesn't end there Zach. You know that because you started out with it. Marriage has to be defined accurately or the effect is contrary to furthering our society.

The amendment defines marriage
Doma defines marriage
civil ceremony defines marriage

And their definitions are all short of the true definition

Without the intrinsic parts of marriage included, it is contrary to natural law. It is simply in error to say "well close enough"

[qfnol31]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1008440' date='Jun 19 2006, 05:21 PM'] well everyone but the government. No civil ceremony requires any of these. Making US civil marriages contrary to natural law.[/quote]

Last I checked no civil marriage is allowed to contradict two of these (excluding, therefore, permanence and procreation).

You are not allowed to get married if the person you are marrying is of the opposite sex. Doesn't mean people don't try and that some officials allow these people.

It's still against the law.

You are not allowed to practice polygamy in the United States.

The state is not supposed to dictate permanence and procreation, for laws that decided such are (in my opinion on the latter and most assuredly on the former) contrary to the purpose of human law, id est, against the Natural Law. Permanence and procreation are something the couple must decide. If they don't want to have kids, the state cannot force them to have sex. That would not be fair. If they want to end their marriage...well, that's most certainly an evil, but I don't think the state can have any say in if a couple should remain married. It isn't the state that goes against the Natural Law in those two, but the people.

Your problem in this argument is a misunderstanding of the place of Natural Law. We are individually bound by Natural Law and human law is derived from this Natural Law. Yet, human law should not and cannot dictate every part of Natural Law. To do so would be unjust and against the very nature of the two laws. Human law is not meant to dictate the Natural Law to us, but to remind ourselves that it is there and to help us act in accordance with it.

Therefore, a human law which does not go against the Natural Law and does contain part and is something that should be dictated (not all of Natural Law can be dictated by human law) is a just law.

Human law is bound within all of Natural Law, but is not all-inclusive. This law, as I read it, is not a defintion that exludes the possibility of procreation and permanence, but rather asserts that anything other than the union between man and woman is not marriage. Otherwise, the way you're reading that sentence, the government (made up of many married people) thinks that marriage is a union and nothing more. I don't think that's the case. No one's that dumb, I hope.

[quote]My analogy works just fine. If one does not hold dogmas as truth, one cannot be considered Catholic. If a civil ceremony does not include permanence and procreation, it contradicts the natural law definiton.[/quote]

No, that's where you are absolutely wrong. If it doesn't include all of the Natural Law it does not make it a contradiction.

Your problem is a lack of distinction between the natures of Divine Law, Natural Law, and human law. You want to say that because this human law does not contain all of the Natural and Divine Laws it must therefore be an invalid law. Yet this human law does not contradict these two laws. It is therefore, by Catholic standards, just.

In the Catholic Church there are many things we must believe before we can consider ourselves faithful Catholics. We are bound to every part of the Divine Law. Human law (as I know I've said and will say many times in this post) is not bound to include all of the Natural Law.

You also show a misunderstanding about the nature of Dogmas. Dogmas are infallibly defined truths that cannot have any additions to them. The Immaculate Conception is infallibly defined. It is more than infallibly taught. To leave out a part of that definition is to deny much more than just the infallible definion and truth (which it does as well). Remember one of our first discussions about [i]Ex Cathedra[/i] statements? This is why I refused to let the distinction between infallible definitions and truths be thrown out the window. It makes a difference. I'll try an example here. We know infallibly that Our Lord becomes present in the Blessed Sacrament. To define this Sacrament we must include that. However, in the definition of the Sacrament, infallibly taught, we do not know when this transformation occurs or that we must call it Transubstantiation (I, a good Latin, prefer this term, whereas an Eastern Catholic like Todd is not bound to it, as we all are not). To leave these two things out of a definition of the Blessed Sacrament does not make me a heretic in the least. Just so, a human law that leaves out some, while perhaps not the best law, is not therefore invalid because of it.

Perhaps you should go back and read the Catechism on this issue.

I do, on the other hand, think that civil divorces are an evil thing.

[quote name='Catechism']1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a "moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility":21

A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.22[/quote]

[quote]1957 Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.

1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history;10 it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. the rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:

Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface.11

1959 The natural law, the Creator's very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.[/quote]

[quote]1979 The natural law is immutable, permanent throughout history. the rules that express it remain substantially valid. It is a necessary foundation for the erection of moral rules and civil law.[/quote]

Obviously we both agree with this. Human law cannot contradict the Natural Law. However, it is not in the nature of the former law to require everything of the latter. Reading these, there is the implication that while Natural Law is the basis for human law, human law does not contain the entirety of Natural Law, even in such cases as this.

The Angelic Doctor talks more about this throughout the section on Law in the Summa. New Advent has this if you want to read up on it.

[quote]But it doesn't end there Zach. You know that because you started out with it. Marriage has to be defined accurately or the effect is contrary to furthering our society.[/quote]

I think that this is, as I said, not intended to be the end-all definition of marriage, but rather to make marriage solely between a man and a woman.

[quote]The amendment defines marriage
Doma defines marriage
civil ceremony defines marriage

And their definitions are all short of the true definition

Without the intrinsic parts of marriage included, it is contrary to natural law. It is simply in error to say "well close enough"
[/quote]

What do each of these have as their full definition of marriage, if they so give one?

[qfnol31]

[quote]You are not allowed to get married if the person you are marrying is of the opposite sex. Doesn't mean people don't try and that some officials allow these people.[/quote]

Oops, unless.