FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: No license, No gay marriage problem!
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
(03-27-2013, 01:46 PM)quo warranto Wrote: [ -> ]Why does the law have to recognize my marriage? As long as the church sees me as validly married, I am happy. Our government is so corrupt, I don't want them having anything to do with the sacraments. They can go ahead and give their tax breaks to every Tom, Dick and Harry whether they are "married" to each other or not. If this is happening though, maybe we should be severing our definition of marriage from theirs.

There are tons of laws that involve the rights of spouses, not just tax laws.  Things like making medical decisions, status of immigrants, etc.  Yes, you could rewrite every single one of those laws without the concept of marriage, but you would have to invent something exactly like marriage to replace it with in most cases anyway.  Marriage is so fundamental to human society that we can't easily erase it.
To be fair about the marriage license, it does date to the Middle Ages. However, that would be one being issued by a Catholic nation, not a secular one, so the idea behind it is different.
(03-27-2013, 01:58 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]One problem is when Mr. or Mrs. Wonderful Catholic Person decides to flake on you. If you're Mrs. Catholic, have devoted your entire adult life raising your children, and then get dumped because he's nuts or disappointed or fell for some thang with longer legs or whatever it is that mesmerizes him, you're in deep kimchi. And before anyone says, "that wouldn't happen to me!" or "I'm talking about a Catholic marriage!", know that it happens even to "us" -- to men and women who marry with the most serious traddy Catholic ideas of marriage in mind, and who are marrying someone they believe to the depths of their soul thinks likewise. People flake on other people. Sad but true. And when they do, legal protections would be nice.
What legal protections are you talking about? Is this what marriage has come down to with us? tax breaks and heath coverage? Now the ability to sue for child support. I guess we get what we pay for. The gov. benefits are just to good. We better not complain then when they decide to redefine our sacrament.
(03-27-2013, 12:39 PM)quo warranto Wrote: [ -> ]I really think I have the solution to this whole gay marriage thing. Please tell me where I'm wrong. We need to completely purge the government from the sacrament of marriage. As we stand now, the government has the ability to pervert marriage. If everyone who believes in the sanctity of marriage ceased going to the town clerk (asking permission) and applying for the marriage license, That would be a start. And the wonderful thing about this is, the church could do this in a heartbeat. Just marry couples without the gov. marriage license.

The church needs to take back the sacrament and marry couples without the states involvement. Think about it. Why do we have to ask the governments permission to marry? As soon as the state loses the control that they currently have, the problem will disappear. The churches and only the churches should be allowed to marry the couples they see as fit for the sacrament. No more marriage license no more gay marriage problem. The more I think about it the more sense it makes.

I have been thinking the same thing for a long time. The direction our country (and world) is going in guarantees we will have same-sex couples being granted civil “marriages” sooner or later in every state. Whether that is by order of the Supreme Court, other federal courts, state courts, state legislatures, or referenda, it is coming one way or the other.

The only viable way to fight this in the public forum from now on, I believe, is to fight to get marriage removed altogether from secular law. 
(03-27-2013, 12:55 PM)Papist Wrote: [ -> ]The problem with this is that the function of the government is to promote the common good. This includes promoting the instution of traditional marriage, whether it is sacramental or natural. When the goverment fails to do this, it fails in its purpose.

I agree with you on this. However, I do not think that takes into account our present situation. The government of the United States at all levels federal, state and local, to one extent or another, fails in its purpose every day. Our governmental system is run amuck, probably as a chastisement for the many sins of our country and of ourselves.

The sad fact is the government has determined to not promote traditional marriage and we have no hope of changing that short of a true miracle. It does not promote the common good in this or much else that it does. We do not need to fear that by silencing the government on the issue of marriage we would cause the government to fail in its purpose; it has already done so. It would just prevent the government from so easily harming the concept of marriage in the future.
(03-27-2013, 03:00 PM)cath4ever Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-27-2013, 12:55 PM)Papist Wrote: [ -> ]The problem with this is that the function of the government is to promote the common good. This includes promoting the instution of traditional marriage, whether it is sacramental or natural. When the goverment fails to do this, it fails in its purpose.

I agree with you on this. However, I do not think that takes into account our present situation. The government of the United States at all levels federal, state and local, to one extent or another, fails in its purpose every day. Our governmental system is run amuck, probably as a chastisement for the many sins of our country and of ourselves.

The sad fact is the government has determined to not promote traditional marriage and we have no hope of changing that short of a true miracle. It does not promote the common good in this or much else that it does. We do not need to fear that by silencing the government on the issue of marriage we would cause the government to fail in its purpose; it has already done so. It would just prevent the government from so easily harming the concept of marriage in the future.

Precisely. Would we prefer they drop it entirely or let the homos have a complete victory? I prefer the former, even if it's not exactly what I want and what we really need. Licensing is still a pointless practice IMHO, I mean, how many people who hold a driver's license are a total joke behind the wheel? Why should I have to ask permission from government for anything for that matter? Most of what has been delegated to the American government today is not truly in their power anyway. The law hasn't changed, how it is enforced and how we are defrauded into believing a bunch of tyrannical nonsense on paper somehow overrides our God-given and Constitutionally protected rights is all that has changed.
(03-27-2013, 01:21 PM)seanipie Wrote: [ -> ]Marriage Licensing is unnecessary though, it began as a racist practiice anyway.

??? ??? ???The United States inherited the English Common Law. In England, the normal practice was the publication of the Banns in the parish church or churches of the parties getting married. A license allowed the marriage to take place without publication of the Banns.

And another thought. Performing a marriage without a license is a crime in most jurisdictions. How many Priests (or clergy of any sect) are going to be willing to violate the law?
(03-27-2013, 01:46 PM)quo warranto Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-27-2013, 01:33 PM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-27-2013, 01:23 PM)quo warranto Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-27-2013, 01:17 PM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]The point is that marriage is a societal reality and removing that acknowledgement from our laws would come with its own set of problems.

Besides, the erasure of marriage from our laws would be just as much a victory for the gay marriage crowd as getting gay marriage legally recognized.  Either way, it puts their unions on equal legal footing with actual marriages.

The laws can recognize marriage without governing it because that is Gods territory. The gov. has no place in deciding who should be getting married. Marriage for Catholics is a sacrament not a secular function. There for we should not be getting state issued licenses for our marriages.

If there are laws that recognize marriage, there has to be a legal definition of marriage and we are back to the same problem.  Also, marriage is not only sacramental.  There are natural, non-sacramental marriages that have to be taken into account.
Why does the law have to recognize my marriage? As long as the church sees me as validly married, I am happy. Our government is so corrupt, I don't want them having anything to do with the sacraments. They can go ahead and give their tax breaks to every Tom, Dick and Harry whether they are "married" to each other or not. If this is happening though, maybe we should be severing our definition of marriage from theirs.

I agree. Why does the state need to recognize a marriage? The state is supposed to simply be a proxy for "the people." The people that I come into direct contact with are the only people who really need to know that I'm married, and they know it because I tell them or they see the ring on my finger. Their recognition, and God's (via the Church), is the only recognition of my marriage that matters. In practical terms, why do the millions of other people in this country with whom I have no contact and never will need to recognize my marriage?

The tax and legal aspects can all be handled with contracts. Besides, the natural and divine laws have already defined marriage, and they are the only laws capable of upholding it. No need to embrace legal positivism and let the state define marriage one way or another.

Besides, as has been pointed out on this forum on numerous occasions, state licensing of marriages only began during the Reformation, because the state took the place of the Church in recording marriages.
Ha this is funny.

I've been saying this for a long time. The funny part is that I used to say it all the time at CAF and people would protest and moderators would delete my posts and "deduct points" whatever the hell that means. "It's insensitive to assert the superiority of Catholic marriages." ...What? This is a Catholic site right?
(03-27-2013, 05:18 PM)US_Soldier Wrote: [ -> ]This is a Catholic site right?

Well, CAF isn't as they prove on an almost daily basis. :)
Pages: 1 2 3 4