Obama Champions Gay Rights

[Brother Adam]

[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=3379"]http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headli...fm?storyid=3379[/url]

Obama celebrates Stonewall anniversary, denounces ‘worn arguments' of gay rights opponents
June 30, 2009

Celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots that marked the birth of the gay rights movement, President Barack Obama hosted an LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender) Pride Month Reception at the White House and told his guests-- including Episcopal Church Bishop Eugene Robinson-- that “there are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors or even family members and loved ones, who still hold fast to worn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; and who would deny you the rights that most Americans take for granted. And I know this is painful and I know it can be heartbreaking.”

After reiterating his opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act, the “don’t ask, don’t tell” military policy, and ‘the discriminatory ban on entry to the United States based on HIV status,” the president paid tribute to the birth of the gay rights movement:

Now, 40 years ago, in the heart of New York City at a place called the Stonewall Inn, a group of citizens, including a few who are here today, as I said, defied an unjust policy and awakened a nascent movement.

It was the middle of the night. The police stormed the bar, which was known for being one of the few spots where it was safe to be gay in New York. Now, raids like this were entirely ordinary. Because it was considered obscene and illegal to be gay, no establishments for gays and lesbians could get licenses to operate. The nature of these businesses, combined with the vulnerability of the gay community itself, meant places like Stonewall, and the patrons inside, were often the victims of corruption and blackmail.

Now, ordinarily, the raid would come and the customers would disperse. But on this night, something was different. There are many accounts of what happened, and much has been lost to history, but what we do know is this: People didn't leave. They stood their ground. And over the course of several nights they declared that they had seen enough injustice in their time. This was an outpouring against not just what they experienced that night, but what they had experienced their whole lives. And as with so many movements, it was also something more: It was at this defining moment that these folks who had been marginalized rose up to challenge not just how the world saw them, but also how they saw themselves.

As we've seen so many times in history, once that spirit takes hold there is little that can stand in its way. (Applause.) And the riots at Stonewall gave way to protests, and protests gave way to a movement, and the movement gave way to a transformation that continues to this day. It continues when a partner fights for her right to sit at the hospital bedside of a woman she loves. It continues when a teenager is called a name for being different and says, "So what if I am?" It continues in your work and in your activism, in your fight to freely live your lives to the fullest.

In one year after the protests, a few hundred gays and lesbians and their supporters gathered at the Stonewall Inn to lead a historic march for equality. But when they reached Central Park, the few hundred that began the march had swelled to 5,000. Something had changed, and it would never change back.

The truth is when these folks protested at Stonewall 40 years ago no one could have imagined that you-- or, for that matter, I-- (laughter)-- would be standing here today. (Applause.) So we are all witnesses to monumental changes in this country. That should give us hope, but we cannot rest. We must continue to do our part to make progress -- step by step, law by law, mind by changing mind. And I want you to know that in this task I will not only be your friend, I will continue to be an ally and a champion and a President who fights with you and for you.

Thanks very much, everybody. God bless you.

Source(s): these links will take you to other sites, in a new window.

[musturde]

shocking.
I have a question...
Why does the Church care if the state recognizes gay marriage?
Technically, it would be nothing more than a contract between two people unless it's done through the Church... right?
And even if legal marriage is not granted to gays, it's not going to stop them from sexual activity. So what is the point of hindering gay marriage? Is the legal seal of marriage really that important if the gays living together are basically already married without the tax benefits?
Are we against the state recognizing a contract between these two people or are we against the tax exemption? Because what the Church recognizes as sinful acts are not going to stop just because the two individuals cannot marry.

Edited June 30, 2009 by musturde

[Resurrexi]

The Church believes that marriage is a divine institution.

Ideally, civil divorce would not exist for consummated sacramental marriages.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Brother Adam' post='1906427' date='Jun 30 2009, 04:54 PM']Thanks very much, everybody. God bless you.

Source(s): these links will take you to other sites, in a new window.[/quote]

I'm sure he will. (sarcasm)

[musturde]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1906489' date='Jun 30 2009, 05:41 PM']The Church believes that marriage is a divine institution.

Ideally, civil divorce would not exist for consummated sacramental marriages.[/quote]

Marriage under the Church is a divine institution.
Marriage under the state is a mere contract.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='musturde' post='1906531' date='Jun 30 2009, 05:05 PM']Marriage under the Church is a divine institution.
Marriage under the state is a mere contract.[/quote]

The natural contract of marriage is a divine institution.

Edited June 30, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Resurrexi]

The following is from the [i]Catechism of the Council of Trent[/i]:

"Twofold Consideration of Marriage

When these matters have been explained, it should be taught that matrimony is to be considered from two points of view, either as a natural union, since it was not invented by man but instituted by nature; or as a Sacrament, the efficacy of which transcends the order of nature.

Marriage As A Natural Contract

As grace perfects nature, and as that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; afterwards that which is spiritual, the order of our matter requires that we first treat of Matrimony as a natural contract, imposing natural duties, and next consider what pertains to it as a Sacrament.

Instituted By God

The faithful, therefore, are to be taught in the first place that marriage was instituted by God. We read in Genesis that God created them male and female, and blessed them, saying: "Increase and multiply"; and also: "It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself.,' And a little further on: But for Adam there was not found a helper like himself. Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam; and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it. And the Lord God built a rib which he took from Adam. into a woman, and brought her to Adam; and Adam said: "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man: wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall be two in one flesh," These words, according to the authority of our Lord Himself, as we read in St. Matthew, prove the divine institution. of Matrimony." ([url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tsacr-m.htm"][i]Roman Catechism[/i] II, 8, 9-10[/url])

Edited June 30, 2009 by Resurrexi

[musturde]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1906536' date='Jun 30 2009, 06:07 PM']The natural contract of marriage is a divine institution.[/quote]

Alright, what if gay marriage is allowed and the name of legal marriage becomes changed to "a contract between two individuals". Would the Church oppose that?

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1906507' date='Jun 30 2009, 04:49 PM']I'm sure he will. (sarcasm)[/quote]
what's that supposed to mean?

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1906536' date='Jun 30 2009, 05:07 PM']The natural contract of marriage is a divine institution.[/quote]
you're not answering musturde's question. i think we all understand that you're saying ideally marriage would only be a divine institution recognized by the church and people would be unable to "dissolve" their marriages legally. rather, dissolving a marriage would requite an annulment. (which is funny when you think about it because then we're back to the logic musturde possesses which says that no matter what the church says, civilly these people will continue to do what they want. with nothing more than divine institution, you'd just have people splitting up and living with other people. not to mention that a whole heck of a lot of people wouldn't be married right now! (don't forget that not everyone is married in a church, especially not the Catholic church!))

speaking solely of the civil institution of marriage (which, when you get right down to it, in the eyes of the law is simply a legal and binding contract between two people), what's the deal? that, i believe, is musturde's question.

[musturde]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1906552' date='Jun 30 2009, 06:22 PM']speaking solely of the civil institution of marriage (which, when you get right down to it, in the eyes of the law is simply a legal and binding contract between two people), what's the deal? that, i believe, is musturde's question.[/quote]
Precisely. Thank you .

[CatherineM]

The problem is that as soon as it is legalized, those who oppose it in any way can be prosecuted in one way or another. Here where gay marriage is legal, the Bishop in Calgary had charges brought against him before the Human Rights Tribunal for writing a pastoral letter on the issue that was printed in the Western Catholic Reporter. The local equivalent of a Justice of the Peace will lose their job if they refuse to perform a gay marriage.

My preference would definitely be to get the church out of the legal side of marriage. Otherwise there will soon be a time when priests will be prosecuted in the same manner for refusing to do a gay marriage.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1906552' date='Jun 30 2009, 06:22 PM'] what's that supposed to mean?
...[/quote]

Isn't it ironic to hear someone so anti-life say "God bless you"?

I find it ironic. I mean.....if we are pushing for gay marriage, yeah.....I'm sure that will really please God and give him good reasons to bless us.

That is what I meant.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1906552' date='Jun 30 2009, 05:22 PM'](don't forget that not everyone is married in a church, especially not the Catholic church!))[/quote]

Persons who have not been baptized or received into the Catholic Church can validly marry in an non-Catholic ceremony.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='musturde' post='1906549' date='Jun 30 2009, 05:18 PM']Alright, what if gay marriage is allowed and the name of legal marriage becomes changed to "a contract between two individuals". Would the Church oppose that?[/quote]

The Church would certainly oppose such a definition since it would be heretical or at least seriously doctrinally erroneous if by that it is meant that marriage can be contracted between two persons of the same sex.

Edited June 30, 2009 by Resurrexi

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1906581' date='Jun 30 2009, 05:36 PM']Persons who have not been baptized or received into the Catholic Church can validly marry in an non-Catholic ceremony.[/quote]
Not everyone [i]has[/i] or [i]would[/i] marry in the Church, regardless of ability. What I meant by that is that there are a lot of heterosexual marriages performed [i]legally[/i] every year in this country (again, contracts drawn between one male and one female which is legal and binding in the eyes of the law) that do not take place in a church, much less "THE" Church.

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1906586' date='Jun 30 2009, 05:39 PM']The Church would certainly oppose such a definition since it would be heretical or at least seriously doctrinally erroneous if by that it is meant that marriage can be contracted between two persons of the same sex.[/quote]
The Church does not recognize a civil marriage as a marriage anyway, if I be correctly informed. The Church, as best I know, does not consider a marriage a marriage until it has been blessed or unless it was performed by a member of the clergy and necessarily included certain words or phrases or what have you.

So in reference to musturde's question, you still are not giving a direct answer. You're talking about subjects which are beside the point.

What you should address is why the Church could not condone a civil marriage (THAT IS, a contract between two persons which is legal and binding and which would grant tax exemptions) outside of a divine institution. Why would it be against Church teaching to not be involved in civil matters?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1906629' date='Jun 30 2009, 06:35 PM']Not everyone [i]has[/i] or [i]would[/i] marry in the Church, regardless of ability. What I meant by that is that there are a lot of heterosexual marriages performed [i]legally[/i] every year in this country (again, contracts drawn between one male and one female which is legal and binding in the eyes of the law) that do not take place in a church, much less "THE" Church.


The Church does not recognize a civil marriage as a marriage anyway, if I be correctly informed. The Church, as best I know, does not consider a marriage a marriage until it has been blessed or unless it was performed by a member of the clergy and necessarily included certain words or phrases or what have you.[/quote]

Two atheists who have never been Catholic can validly marry before a justice of the peace. Two Jews who have never been Catholic can validly marry in a Jewish service. Two Hindus who have never been Catholic can validly marry at a Hindu temple. Two Protestants who have never been Catholic can validly marry before their minister.

Only those who have been baptized or received into the Catholic Church must marry in a Catholic service for validity. Even then, there are some exceptions.

[Socrates]

[quote name='musturde' post='1906482' date='Jun 30 2009, 05:37 PM']shocking.
I have a question...
Why does the Church care if the state recognizes gay marriage?
Technically, it would be nothing more than a contract between two people unless it's done through the Church... right?
And even if legal marriage is not granted to gays, it's not going to stop them from sexual activity. So what is the point of hindering gay marriage? Is the legal seal of marriage really that important if the gays living together are basically already married without the tax benefits?
Are we against the state recognizing a contract between these two people or are we against the tax exemption? Because what the Church recognizes as sinful acts are not going to stop just because the two individuals cannot marry.[/quote]
If you actually want to know why the Church is against "gay marriage" and "gay civil unions," I suggest you read the words of the Church herself.
Here's the 2003 CDF Document written by Cardinal Ratzinger (now His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI)
[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"]CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS[/url]

I've linked to this document repeatedly in past debates on this topic, yet it seems to be for the most part ignored.

I strongly recommend reading the entire thing through, but here are a few highlights:
[quote]From the order of right reason

The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) [b]Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.[/b]

It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour”.(14) Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation's perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.[/quote]
[quote]From the social order

8. [b]Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.[/b][/quote]
[quote]From the legal order

9. [b]Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.[/b][/quote]

[quote][b]CONCLUSION

11. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.[/b][/quote]

As for the Obamation's endorsement of this perversion, it should come as no shock. During the campaign, Obama promised to use the "Bully Pulpit" to support homosexual "rights."

Any Catholics deluded into thinking Obama would be any sort of friend of Christian morality have only themselves to blame.

Edited July 1, 2009 by Socrates

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1906644' date='Jun 30 2009, 06:51 PM']Two atheists who have never been Catholic can validly marry before a justice of the peace. Two Jews who have never been Catholic can validly marry in a Jewish service. Two Hindus who have never been Catholic can validly marry at a Hindu temple. Two Protestants who have never been Catholic can validly marry before their minister.

Only those who have been baptized or received into the Catholic Church must marry in a Catholic service for validity. Even then, there are some exceptions.[/quote]
you're missing my point, smores.


you continued to use the church's stance of a marriage as being solely a divine institution. in the same response, as is the case in your response quoted above, you mention civil unions.

what i read from your posts was that civil unions (which did not take place in a church) are not actually marriages in the perfect view of the Church. as a divine institution, the marriage would not be "valid" in the Church's eyes if it were simply a civil union. that means that those atheists you mention above would "not be married" because they had been married by a justice of the peace and marriage is a divine institution.

in your example, it matters not that it is a man and a woman coming together in front of the justice, but rather it matters that they were before simply a justice. because, according to your reasoning, they did not have their marriage performed in a church, they are not actually to be married. marriage, as you say, is a divine institution, not simply a civil union, a contract between two people considered legal and binding in the eyes of the law.

your responses still do not answer the question.

if two atheists, man and woman, be married by a justice of the peace, would the Church accept that as a marriage? if you say yes, then your previously stated reasons would be null and void as you would have just contradicted yourself. if you say no, then you claim that regardless of gender, the Church does not recognize civil institutions as marriages. if you respond the later, then your argument for preventing civil unions between two persons of the same sex would carry little weight.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1906783' date='Jun 30 2009, 09:53 PM']if two atheists, man and woman, be married by a justice of the peace, would the Church accept that as a marriage? if you say yes, then your previously stated reasons would be null and void as you would have just contradicted yourself. if you say no, then you claim that regardless of gender, the Church does not recognize civil institutions as marriages. if you respond the later, then your argument for preventing civil unions between two persons of the same sex would carry little weight.[/quote]

The Church regards two atheists married before a justice of the peace as validly married. If one of the two converted to Catholicism, they would not have to be remarried in a Catholic ceremony.

Edited July 1, 2009 by Resurrexi

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1906805' date='Jun 30 2009, 10:03 PM']The Church regards two atheists married before a justice of the peace as validly married. If one of the two converted to Catholicism, they would not have to be remarried in a Catholic ceremony.[/quote]
Then your whole thing about marriage being a divine institution doesn't really hold much weight. Musturde's question was about civil unions.

If two atheist women wanted to be married in front of a justice of the peace, why would the Church disapprove? Why can the Church not accept that? That, I again will say I believe, was Musturde's question. If the Church approves of a man and a woman, both atheist, being married civilly (nothing at all to do with the Church), why will she not approve of two women?