Gay marriages by Catholic priests?

Interesting point. But one thing to keep in mind is the price that goes with that decision. For example:

[LIST]
*]If the State has a law against cohabitation, a civil license might be required for the spouses to live in the same residence (not many States have that any more, but I think it still exists in some places)
*]The wife/husband would not be able to get insurance as the result of being a family member of an employed husband/wife
*]Children would be considered illegitimate by the State (bringing up the issue of custodial parent, child support, etc.)
*]Military spouses would not be able to get military IDs and would not be able to join their spouses if they are posted overseas
[/LIST]

Leaving aside tax issues, life would get very complicated. Some families might intentionally choose that, but I would think long and hard before advocating that an Ordinary direct such a thing within his territory.

Well, if we’re talking the developed, Western world (e.g. US, Canada, W. Europe), 1) there are no laws against cohabitation, 2) most all insurance covers “domestic partners”, 3) illegitimacy has no legal impact.

The military issue is a real one, but if our country keeps headed down the road the US is on, I don’t see why anyone would want to volunteer for the military.

God Bless

Mississippi:
SEC. 97-29-1. Adultery and fornication; unlawful cohabitation.

If any man and woman shall unlawfully cohabit, whether in adultery or fornication, they shall be fined in any sum not more than five hundred dollars each, and imprisoned in the county jail not more than six months; and it shall not be necessary, to constitute the offense, that the parties shall dwell together publicly as husband and wife, but it may be proved by circumstances which show habitual sexual intercourse.
Florida:
798.02 Lewd and lascivious behavior.—If any man and woman, not being married to each other, lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together, or if any man or woman, married or unmarried, engages in open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, they shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
History.—s. 6, ch. 1637, 1868; RS 2596; GS 3519; RGS 5407; CGL 7550; s. 773, ch. 71-136.
Michigan:

750.335 Lewd and lascivious cohabitation and gross lewdness.

Sec. 335.

Any man or woman, not being married to each other, who lewdly and lasciviously associates and cohabits together, and any man or woman, married or unmarried, who is guilty of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or a fine of not more than $1,000.00. No prosecution shall be commenced under this section after 1 year from the time of committing the offense.

History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- CL 1948, 750.335 ;-- Am. 1952, Act 73, Eff. Sept. 18, 1952 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 672, Eff. Mar. 31, 2003
Former Law: See sections 6 and 7 of Ch. 158 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, §§ 5861 and 5862; CL 1871, §§ 7696 and 7697; How., §§ 9282 and 9283; CL 1897, §§ 11693 and 11694; CL 1915, §§ 15467 and 15468; and CL 1929, §§ 16822 and 16823.

  1. most all insurance covers “domestic partners”,

WSJ (2011): Gay Couples Losing Perks

The legalization of gay marriage in New York means some couples may have to walk down the aisle for the most practical of reasons: to hold onto their partners’ health insurance and other benefits.

At least two major employers—Raytheon Co. and International Business Machines Corp.—say New York employees in same-sex relationships now will have to get married if they want to qualify for the benefits.
Domestic Partner benefits were introduced as a sop to homosexuals prior to homosexual “marriage” legalization. This article above is from two years ago. There are any number of companies that are now requiring homosexual couples to be married where it is legal to do so in order to extend benefits.

  1. illegitimacy has no legal impact.

You might want to check on that with the father of a child born to a single woman before making that assertion. While it is true that there is no legal stigma to the child, there is a huge impact to parenting that child. The custodial parent (usually the mother) must grant permission for the non-custodial parent (usually the father) to pick up a child in school or daycare, to receive medical information on the child, for police interaction, and so on and so forth.

The military issue is a real one, but if our country keeps headed down the road the US is on, I don’t see why anyone would want to volunteer for the military.

God Bless

God Bless you too.

C’mon with those laws. They’ve been a complete dead letter for 50 years. When was the last person prosecuted for adultery or cohabitation?

I don’t know why custody would be an issue for a married couple who intend to live together?

On benefits, there may be some difficulties and inconveniences, but inconveniences do not justify cooperating will evil.

I know that if the State of NY required me to get married in a Civil ceremony, I wouldn’t do it. If it means my wife has to get her own health insurance, so be it.

God Bless

I think we can feel pretty confident that the US will never force churches to perform gay marriages against their will. Why? Because we have the long standing example from the various other civil rights movements. The US does not force churches to marry persons of different races if they don’t choose to (and some don’t), the don’t force churches to marry persons of different faiths if they don’t choose to (and many don’t) and they don’t force churches to marry the divorced if they don’t choose to (and some don’t). All of those are protected categories with much more public support and legal protections than gay people, and the state has never even suggested that churches should be forced to perform those marriages. So we can feel pretty confident that it won’t happen with gay marriage in the US.

Does it matter? The law is on the books. If a bishop decides to order the faithful in his diocese to not get a State marriage license, do you not think that a prosecutor could take advantage of a “dead letter” to facilitate forcing the bishop to recant his position?

I don’t know why custody would be an issue for a married couple who intend to live together?

In the eyes of the State, they wouldn’t be married. Remember, you were the one who advocated the bishops order the faithful to not participate…

On benefits, there may be some difficulties and inconveniences, but inconveniences do not justify cooperating will evil.

I know that if the State of NY required me to get married in a Civil ceremony, I wouldn’t do it. If it means my wife has to get her own health insurance, so be it.

God Bless

I’m not saying that the inconvenience is not worth it, but go back to my original statement to you:

Some families might intentionally choose that, but I would think long and hard before advocating that an Ordinary direct such a thing within his territory.

The prosecutor couldn’t prosecute cohabiting Catholic couples with out pissing off a huge percentage of the secularists who form the base of the leftist support. Can you really imagine an aggressively secularist, left-wing gov’t trying to criminalize non-marital sex? It’s absurd.

And if the mother doesn’t separate from the father, or try to get him denied custody, the state has no role. If two unmarried people have a baby today, the state doesn’t get involved unless someone goes to court, or there is an abuse complaint.

God Bless

  1. It’s called selective prosecution and/or selective enforcement. It happens all the time now, what makes you think that prosecutors / bureaucrats would all of a sudden become even handed in this case (NB: not that I’m worried about Mississippi prosecuting Catholics because of a rejection of homosexual marriage: it’s just an illustration of a point)

  2. Again, it’s called selective enforcement. Don’t think it happens now?

  3. As far as the secular / progressives…they are the ones who support the idea of “the ends justifying the means” – they’ll support anything, no matter how immoral or unethical, that advances their cause.

Examples:

  • the IRS…with tax exempt status.
  • the DOD accepting, without question, the SPLC definitions of “hate groups” for their EEO training and policies.

But the leftist/secularists need to maintain some patina of intellectual consistency. The real hard-core may be out-and-out evil, and OK with explicit persecution of the faithful, but most of their supporters would not be.

Most of those who support “gay marriage”, or other immoral positions, do so out of a wishy-washy, feel-good sentimentality. They are complicit with evil, but not actually evil.
If the gov’t outright targeted religious people in such a way, this support would vanish.

That’s why all these “reforms” are cloaked so as to look harmless. There is not support for outright persecution, only support for soft coercion.

God Bless

Gay marriage does not exist, in the same way that female priests do not exist.

It is how God perceives it, not how we perceive it.

We may love Mickey Mouse, but that does not make him real or make us pass laws allowing him to have a driver’s license or social security number.

Disney characters are fake, gay marriage is fake…

I think forcing priests to marry same sex individuals is just one piece of the whole puzzle picture. That is why I believe one day it will happen.

For instance, out west, we already have 3 states who have passed a law for doctors to assist in suicides. Now I do see that once an idea is accepted, it starts to grow. And I believe one day we will see Mr GOV step in and say it is everyone’s right, and then force catholic doctors to assist or face prosecution.

Back decades ago when I first heard of a book being published that said about the beginning our the 21st century, same sex marriages would arrive. I thought that was impossible like Buck Rodgers speculation and couldh’t happen. Yet look at where we are at today.

So forcing priests in my opinion is coming, if for no other reason than to shut up the church and make it conform to everyone else so that there is harmony and not dissention.
We are facing the dictum of whatever is politically correct, the country is going to get over any consideration of anyone’s rights who disagree, the constitution not withstanding.

I hope I’m so wrong. We have so much to pray for, where do we begin?

I believe IMO that if gay marriage was to become legal in our lifetimes, it would either be do to a liberal Supreme Court saying it is unconstitutional to deny gays marriage or if our country becomes radically secular fast. If it does become legal, gays will file lawsuits against churches for discrimination for not giving them a ceremony and will be forced to under that. Don’t think it is impossible as people are losing lawsuits because they were accused of discrimination for not providing services to gay weddings due to their beliefs.

I think.your concern is valid but in the long term. Where I see concern is in the fact that the United Supreme.Court during.the.past 40 years has been slowly restricting more and more.religious liberty. It has been very slow but if you compare how freedom of religion was interpreted in the 50 s and how it is now, it is scary. If the supreme.Court continues for the next 40 years producing jurisprudence following the same line of adopting secularism as the state s religion and keeps cutting even more religious freedom on the same path as it has been done, then there is a possibility that in 50 years the Catholic church would have to step out of being involved in civilarriages at all.

I can tell you.where we can begin: by stopping the attitude of just crossing our arms and do nothing while these things happens to us. The reason why gay activists and anti lifers have won so many battles is because they know they don’t hold the truth, they know they have to overcome the truth and they know they have to be smarter and come up with a smart plan to convince people to get on their site. Unfortunately, many Catholics and the church because they know they hold the truth they just don’t do any effort to push that truth into.society, they just back down and say well that the truth they will see it someday.

I am going to give you a great example, recently the state where I live passed a law that spublic schools were forbidden to use the words mother or father in.official forms so both my SIL receive forms from.the school asking for information under the names guardian one, guardian two, guardian three and guardian four. They were.quite upset especially sin there are probably only ten kids in the entire school that come from.gay couples,.so I told them: place a big X on the pages that say guardians three or four,.scratch.where it says guardians one and two and instead write in big letters mother and father. Both of my sister’s in law who are very practicing Catholics couldn’t understand why they should do that…but the law passed already! Well the way gays got this law to pass was scratching in all the forms that said mother and father those two words and writing in big guardian one and two. That is how we can start, not keeping our mouths shut when these things happening. Start being proactive about it and start expressing your disagreement to society with these things.

I think.crossbro also hit the nail on how to start, when someone talks to you and says gay marriage answer exactly what he said up here.

What you said about the forms worked for them, but I’m not so sure it would work for us.
And if it worked, it might work against us by saying that if you did that again we will press charges against you for advancing bigotry.

I am quite concerned that we are now living in Babylon and the church is being attacked by you know who… Mammon … which is idol worship. And Mammon is not going to stand by and let any other god oppose him.

Look some day to see in the headlines that some congressman has it in his head to tax churches. We aren’t facing a major war, just little skirmishes which we are losing, just like our founding fathers fought against the Brits and won.

But I do like what you said about doing something. It is unfortunate that we can’t get our own catholics to colaberate at the voting polls. And I’m not so sure that letters to politicians are that effective any more. Demonstrations are sometimes effective if there are enough of them to cause a disturbance in a non=violent way.

May God our Father give you grace and peace.

The 1st amendment guarantees religious freedom,so no, the government cannot force churches (or synagogues or temples or mosques) to marry gay “couples”.

Who owns the 1st amendment? It can be interpreted or misinterpreted at will, or changed.

See my post #25. There as been no “interpretation” of the 1st Amendment to force churches to allow mixed race marriage, mixed faith marriages, remarriage of divorced people, etc., etc. Given that history, why would the country suddenly abandon the 1st Amendment for this particular issue?

Is true that nothing has been said 're: gay marriage and the first amendment specifically. However, what has been said is that states can pass laws that create an indirect effect on religion an churches, and then as an indirect effect those religions would be bound by that law. And Fred is right in that the interpretation of the constitution is up to the justice’s opinion and there is thousands of cases specifically in between 1970 and now giving an interpretation of the content of the first amendment.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.