Gay “Marriage” Voted Down…Again

13 comments

Gay “marriage” was voted down again this week in Maine. Activist judges keep trying to push it on people and the people keep rejecting it. In fact, every single state with legalized gay “marriage” has done so by way of the court imposing it. And in every single state where the issue has been voted on (I believe it’s like 31 states now or something) traditional marriage has won out.

This is not about discriminating against people. This is not about denying anybody any civil rights. This is not because we don’t like gay people – we love them. Here’s a good statement from Bishop Malone (Diocese of Portland) that sums up the sentiment from the Catholic point of view:

“These past few months have served as a teaching opportunity to explain to parishioners and the wider community about how and why the Church views and values marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It has also been an opportunity for listening, and I trust that those who voted for such a radical change did so out of concern for our gay brothers and sisters. Respect and acceptance of all people regardless of sexual orientation is not a point of controversy — indeed, it is a teaching of the Church. While the Catholic Church will continue its commitment to work for the basic human rights to which all people are entitled, it remains devoted to preserving and strengthening the precious gift of marriage.”

It’s about recognizing the uniqueness and importance of a true marriage. Certainly even a child can understand that a marriage between a man and a woman that reflects the most fundamental physical complement in nature and procreates the human race so that we can continue to exist is a very different thing than simply a partnership or commitment between two people of the same sex. The list of differences goes on and on (without even having to mention the most important differences that exist spiritually and sacramentally). So shouldn’t they be referred to by different terms – different words? One is called a Marriage and the other should be called entirely something else. At the very least, this is just good semantic sense. It’s what makes language useful – you know, having different words for different things.

13 comments Add comment

Bryan November 5, 2009 at 12:17 pm

It’s a good thing we didn’t bring interracial marriage to a vote in the south. I’m sure that would have been shot down by the all wonderful majority as well, but does that make it right? How is this not a civil rights issue?

So what you’re saying is that any relationship that doesn’t result in procreation is not marriage? People that are incapable of having children are also incapable of having a proper marriage? On the opposite end of the spectrum, people that have a one night stand and accidentally procreate have a more valid relationship than people that love each other?

Marriage is about love and commitment. Not procreation or the type of genitals you have.

enness July 13, 2011 at 9:59 pm

Here we go as usual…not sure what is so difficult about the difference between an incidental problem and an inherent problem. When couple is unable to have children (which typically they only discover after the fact, in the course of honest effort), that’s an accident. When they have no intention of letting a kid slip into their plans, that’s by design. When two are trying to imitate the reproductive act who were never made to have children with one another in the first place, that is also by design. Suggesting that a one-night-stand would fit anywhere in any definition of marriage really makes me question your seriousness.

Take a good look at your equipment, Bryan. With very, very few exceptions it should be abundantly clear what it was and wasn’t designed to do. Marriage happens in the body as well as in every other aspect. No complementarity, no becoming one flesh, no marriage. Sorry for my bluntness.

Matthew Warner November 5, 2009 at 12:52 pm

Bryan, thanks for your thoughts!

I never suggested truth was determined by a majority vote. That’s certainly not the case.

And no, that’s not what I’m saying at all. But before we get to that, let’s start with your definition of marriage. Where do you get that from? Who says it is just about love and commitment regardless of gender or openness to life? Can you back that up?

Bryan November 5, 2009 at 1:16 pm

I get my definition of marriage through basic observation of the world around me. I think it’s safe to assume that you think the definition of marriage comes from the bible, and that’s fine. But how do Atheists get married if that’s the only definition? If people don’t have kids, they are still legally married. If people for some reason didn’t have sex, they would still be legally married.

Marriage is a legal, secular, contract between two people. I agree that this is not your biblical definition of marriage, but it is the current societal, legal standard of marriage. So why should the current standard, which includes Atheists, includes people who are childless, and includes people of different faiths, not include people with the “wrong” type of genitalia.

p.s. Merriam Webster defines marriage as a union between a man and woman OR a union between those of the same sex. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

Evan November 5, 2009 at 2:14 pm

“Marriage is a legal, secular, contract between two people. I agree that this is not your biblical definition of marriage, but it is the current societal, legal standard of marriage.”

Since when is this the case ? Civil unions are not marriage. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. This whole article is about the debate over what society considers as a marriage so no, Bryan, your meaningless, secular definition is not the “current standard” except in societies that have been forcefully derpived of all cultural, traditional and spiritual ideas of community. Only a tiny number of US states agree with your secular definition of “marriage”, but most don’t, and this is the point of link posted by Matthew here.

Bryan November 6, 2009 at 11:08 am

Sorry, but two people can get married without stepping foot in a church. How is this not a legal secular contract? In Indiana, the very conservative state I live in. You have to get a marriage license, which is done through a government office. Then you have the option of getting married by a government official (judge, clerk, etc). If that’s not secular I don’t know what is… And guess what it’s called…”Marriage” *gasp*.

Matthew Warner November 5, 2009 at 2:53 pm

Bryan,

Being open to life and having children are two different things. If you’d like to get into more of the specifics of why the traditional Church believes that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman and what constitutes a valid marriage please check out the posts linked to from this blog post above. Many of your assumptions are incorrect and questions have already been addressed and answered.

My definition of marriage is based on more than just the Bible or solely on teachings of the Catholic Church, but on the Natural Law.

There is no question that marriage has always and everywhere from the beginning of recorded history been exclusively between a man and a woman….even in cultures where homosexuality was widely accepted. That’s because they had the astuteness to still recognize the huge difference between the two very different unions.

These efforts are not about “rights” at the root. They are about trying to change everyone else’s definition of marriage. California is the perfect example. Same-sex unions have every single right that a marriage has. Yet they still protest.

All that said, it sounds like what you’re saying is that the definition of marriage is whatever you happen to think it is (based on your relative, subjective observations of the world). In that case, you should respect that the majority of Americans disagree with your definition based upon their own personal definitions. Is your own opinion supposed to trump the opinions of the majority? By what reasoning? That is the breakdown with your relativism. And it’s what’s ironic when you then insist that it shouldn’t be determined by a majority vote.

I see now. So our country’s definition of marriage shouldn’t be determined by a majority vote, it should be determined by what Bryan observes in the world around him. That’s a much better standard.

I, on the other hand, and traditional Christians (and many others) are not asking for majority rule to be used, much less our own personal opinions. We’re basing our definition on an objective natural law. We’re basing it on the objective, observable, verifiable differences between these two very different types of unions (therefore they should be called different things). We’re basing it on the definition mankind has used for thousands of years.

As Evan noted….THIS is the current standard. It’s a bit strange that you would suggest otherwise. What you’re asking is that the current standard be changed. But you can’t give a good substantial reason as to WHY it should be changed other than an entirely relative and subjective one that this is your “basic observation” of the world around you.

Bryan November 6, 2009 at 11:18 am

I was merely trying to say, based on my observation, that marriage is secular. That’s not what the argument is about, marriage is secular, period. People of other faiths can be married, and people that have no religion can be married. Sorry, that’s a secular practice.

I followed that by what a secular marriage should be. If it’s secular (it is) it MUST provide equal rights.

14th amendment Section 1:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Preventing marriage between two citizens is directly abridging the privileges of a segment of the population. Marriage is a state law, therefore it’s a violation. This is our current “natural law”. Follow it or don’t.

Matthew Warner November 6, 2009 at 3:07 pm

Bryan, no offense, but that’s a very silly argument.

First, I think you have a misunderstanding of what Natural Law is.

Second, every citizen DOES have equal right to marry. A marriage (by it’s definition) is the union between a man and a woman. Every adult citizen has the same exact right under our laws to marry somebody (form this union with a member of the opposite sex). I’m not sure why that’s so hard to understand.

What you’re supporting is some kind of recognition of a commitment between two people of the same gender. That’s not Marriage. That’s something entirely different. If you’d like to advocate for that, go right ahead and make your case. But don’t get all upset when people don’t want to go against all logic and sense and call it something it’s not. It’s not Marriage. It’s something different. So call it something different. Very simple.

Carlos November 6, 2009 at 10:03 pm

Unfortunately the US people has let the USgov’t determine if a marriage lawful. This should not be US gov’t law. Marriage is between man and woman under God’s eyes. Hence the Catholics church’s annulment system. The gov’t has no right to determine such. It was bad policy for the people of the US to let the gov’t determine such and we are suffering for it now. Marriage and civil unions should be the treated the same under the IRS code but not called the same. Because they are not the same. Which under CA state law they are under tax law the same. So no ones rights are trampled on…. No?….the opponents of marriage( traditional God’s law) want to redifine marriage and trample on God or natural law.

What they want to do is redefine natural with gov’t law. Once you redefine any part of natural law , such as the beggining of life or he life can be ended or what is marriage you can control anything or anyone and create a slave State. This is the future of the US. Slaves to the gov’t. With a populace that is tired. Which ties to your other post of the tired America we live.

Carlos November 6, 2009 at 10:08 pm

Sorry for the broken stream of conciousness and errors in my last post. I’m typing from my iPhone on a passionate subject matter.

MWD November 6, 2012 at 8:06 am

Perhaps the law should scrap the term “mariage” altogether for both heterosexual and homosexual couples and use the word “union” to describe all. Leave the word “mariage” out of the public sphere altogether so that in public life all are equal.

Matthew Warner November 6, 2012 at 9:25 am

MWD – I can see why it’s tempting to want to do that. But the truth is that in the public sphere (as well as the private) all “unions” are not actually equal (and lots of studies back this up). And we have a moral obligation for our public sphere to reflect that truth for the sake of the common good (and individuals). The whole reason the State should recognize Marriage (in the traditional sense between a man and woman) in the first place is because it is a common good and the mechanism by which the entirety of our Nation and humankind perpetuates itself. And the nuclear, traditional family is the best way to nurture and continue that process in a healthy way. That is why the State has a duty to encourage it and recognize it.

It’s not because some people, regardless of gender, like to group together into couples. If that were the case, there would be no need for the State to recognize “unions” either. What makes traditional marriage worthy of being recognized and encouraged by the State is the fact that the family (one that is ordered/open toward procreating children) is the most fundamental cell of all of society. To reduce Marriage (or it’s public recognition/encouragement) to a “union between two people” is to miss the original point.

Previous post:

Next post: