Richard Malone, the Bishop of Portland, Maine, has written a letter to Maine Catholics in response to a Portland news conference where leaders in several other Christian faiths professed support for same-sex marriage. The bishop defended marriage, saying opposition to its redefinition derives not only from faith but also from reason and a concern for the good of society.
According to Bishop Malone’s letter, which was sent over the past weekend, the Christian ministers’ news conference had urged the people of Maine to embrace same-sex marriage “in the name of equal civil rights.”
“To claim that marriage is a civil right open to all forms of relationships is a misnomer,” he explained.
How can someone claiming to be a Christain Minister urge anyone to embrace same sex marriage? Homosexual relations are an abomination. God says so, check it out. His Word can easily be found in the Holy Bible. Anyone denying His Word has turned from Christianity, and you can not turn away and still be Christian.
Well at least one christian bishop in my home state has it right. Wish I could say the same for our TEO bishop.
The good bishop limits marriage to one man and one woman. He is right. Now if only he had said, “one man, one wife, for life.” When we “defend” marriage, we should be defending it against divorce first, then homosexuality.
Clarity of this sort is like a cool drink of water on a hot day and its coolness clears of the mind of all the nonsense spouted by those who would bend and twist reason in support of ersatz “marriages.”
It seems to me that if marriage is not one thing (and one thing only), it is anything and it is nothing.
A re-definition of marriage follows quite nicely from Enlightenment rationalism and utilitarianism (which, of course, forms the basis of our constitutional governance).
Perhaps this is a call for the Christian churches to take more seriously what makes Christian marriage distinctive from ‘state’ marriage.
#5 : Exactly! They don’t want what you have, they don’t want you to have it! The abnormal cannot abide the normal. “Equality” is another way of saying “Misery loves company”. And they will have that company whatever the cost to their enemies. No prisoners here. You either approve (not accept) or you’re evil.
He should have made it clear that marriage is not a civil right because the First Amendment forbids the state to interfere in it.
Civil partnerships are different precisely because they are civil. But I still can’t figure out what makes it a “right” at all. It can’t be a human right that all people have because all people don’t have it. Men are forbidden to marry their sisters, after all, and if marriage were a right, such a marriage would have to be acceptable as a matter of law.
Well, little by little Maine is getting bluer than California, and refusing to sanction ssm in Maine will be harder to do than in Cal. I get the feeling that Cal.’s vote shows the sign of significant demographic changes, and Cal’s status as the land of the nuts and the fruits may give way to Maine’s claiming the title. I love living here, but the state is getting fruitier and fruitier every year. Larry
#8 Larry Morse says:
Supreme Court, Loving v. Virginia. The opinion says, in part:
Marriage, like receiving communion, is a privilege, not a right.
“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
An attribute not shared by homosexual unions, it should be pointed out.
My proposed solution to some of the problems presented by the above comments:
1. All legislation wherein the word “marriage” is found is amended as follows. The word “marriage” is replaced with the words “civil union.”
2. All persons wishing to be joined in civil union within this state shall appear before a magistrate or justice of the peace or such other person as may be authorized by law to witness a civil union and upon satisfying the witnessing official of their legal capacity to join in civil union, shall be so joined by the aforementioned official.
3. Persons “married” in another jurisdiction will be recognized as joined in civil union under the laws of this state provided their union does not expressly violate the laws regulating “civil union” in this state.
4. The term “marriage” is henceforth to be understood to be a religious term and therefor outside the purview of the legislature, and the courts.
5. This Bill will take effect 60 days from the date signed by the Governor.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
#12 A. O.,
If only it were that easy. There must be a catch, somewhere.
12 I commend your proposal as it helps to clarify the distinction between the civil rights of couples to form a relationship from the religious freedom of establishing rites for blessing relationships in keeping with the doctrine and practice of various religious denominations. A bill very similar to was introduced during the last session of the Maryland General Assembly in both houses.
Were such a bill in place, a couple could go to the Court House for the civil union and then do the marriage rite in church. The State’s role is to officiate at the civil union, an ordained clergy person or other officer of a religious group is the officiant for a religious marriage rite. The State should have no role in determining who gets married in a religous rite and in turn religious officials have no role in judging who enters a civil union.
AO # 12, your comments make much sense. That dooms it.
The pathological amoung us want church blessed marriages.
Re 15
Old Soldier,
And under the law I propose they would be able to have church blessed marriages if the church is willing to bless it. Otherwise either live with it or find another church that fits your views. But the state will not get involved in that fight. And the churches should stay out of the civil union question.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
#15 The BCP already distinguishes Civil Marriage from the religious Marriage, with the Blessing of a Civil Marriage found on p. 433. The only difference in practice is that performing the Order of Marriage found on p. 435 does not confer civil rights; you need to go to the Court House for that.
Re 17
Faithful and Committed
That’s pretty much my object. Those wanting civil recognition for their relationship need to go to the courthouse. What happens in the church afterwards would be of no concern to the government. This levels the field by requiring EVERYONE to have a civil union and abolishing marriage as a legally recognized state. It gets the government out of the church and the church out of the government.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
According to Bishop Malone, “…To redefine marriage to include same-sex couples is to strip marriage of an essential component, namely the ability and obligation to procreate. To strip marriage of this essential component is to render marriage meaningless and open it up to endless revision and redefinition.â€
Does Bishop Malone observe that infertile couples or those beyond the age of beng able to reproduce should be banned from marriage? By his definition, it seems they also fail to measure up on his “essential component” of ability and obligation to reproduce.
Re 19
F&C;That is the traditional Roman Catholic teaching. Canon law treats inability to reproduce as an impediment to marriage.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
Ad Orientem,
Trick question: would civil union allow for the possibility of adoption?
Re 21
Yes. Otherwise we are back to square one.
Then what happens to the Arkansas ban, just based, on unmarried adoptions? And if civil unions are allowed to adopt, being unmarried partners of opposite or same-sex, once again we have sacrificed the well-being of children to our own selfish desires.
Ad Orientum- There is no Canon law that treats the inability to reproduce as inpediment to marriage. In fact Canon 1084.3 statest that “without prejudice to the provisions of canon 1098 [which deals with decitfully entering into marriage], sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage. See http://www.catholicdoors.com/misc/marriage/canonlaw.htm. The Catholic Church requires couples who marry in the Church to be open to fertility but there is no requirement to be successful. See CCC 1652-1654.
#12. It is refreshing to see someone else making such a recommendation. This is the only sensible solution to the present problem. Civil partnership and marriage need to be separated, and each should fall under the authority that has the power to recognize it.
#9. Your citation is clear and useful. And yet, how can it be a civil right if it is a sacrament? If it is spiritual? The Supreme’s statement needs to be reviewed because both rulings are now very old and need to reflect a new understanding of marriage and civil partnerships – a conflict which the court then did not have to face.
Do you not think this necessary? Larry
Re 24
Already Gone,
I stand corrected. I misread canon 1084
[i] Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.[/i]
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian