I would argue that if the Church doesn't wish to marry gay people in its marriage ceremony then the Church should have the right to refuse to allow this. If gay marriage is a civil ceremony and therefore legal then a religious view is irrelevant and so is the approval of a priesthood that basically doesn't approve. The gay couple can be married in a civil ceremony as increasing numbers of heterosexual people are today. I think the secular argument for interference in religious matters is simply an opportunity on the part of the former to further reduce the significance of the latter, understandably, as they are rivals. But in terms of a just way of dealing with this, one should allow civil ceremonies and make gay marriages legal and leave the religious matters and ceremonies to the Church. There are sometimes breakaway sects who agree to rewrite some church canons and marry gay people in the eyes of God. That, too, would be their affair as independent bodies of the religion as such. It does flout the authority of the main branch to be the ultimate theocratic opinion but this will happen and the mainstream churches of all denominations will find this occurring as more people begin to create systems that reflect the needs of their evolving world views.
Ultimately, it depends on the individuals concerned. Are they more interested in being married in a Church than they are in just being married per se? God and religion are a personal matter and so they can always dedicate themselves to one another in the eyes of any God they choose privately. The idea that this has to be forced on society as a whole and made law so that to transgress it is a crime is fascist. It also entrenches the issue instead of solving it. People don't realise that they are often being asked to exchange one kind of authorial control for another and that actual freedom is not part of the deal. Even though it is said to be the objective. Invariably the objective is control by another power.
If the state was neutral about marriage (and for the common good of society, I do not believe it should be) and confined itself to an enabling role, it would not only have to recognise the rights of gays to marry, but also permit Muslims to have four wives at any one time and more crucially, it would also have to uphold the Catholic Church's views on marriage and not allow divorce for those who marry in a Catholic Church.But in terms of a just way of dealing with this, one should allow civil ceremonies and make gay marriages legal and leave the religious matters and ceremonies to the Church.
As it has no intention of doing the latter, one must conclude that the true motives of the gay lobby are not to uphold marriage but to bring into ridicule in order to destroy the institution of marriage.
Marriage isn't an institution it is merely a contract betgween two people who claim they will stay together till one of them dies. People can do this without God or the State but need protection for any children born to both partners or adopted by them and for various other shared material interests in the alliance. Marriage has a great deal of mythology attached to it. It is in effect a decision on the part of two entities to do certain things in their mutual interest and in the interests of their children or dependents. How this is dressed up culturally makes a difference to how people react emotionally to it but in essence it is a declaration under law to become a special sort of unit and to gain privileges or protection thereby for specific reasons and purposes. Because marriage was institutionalised divorce became demonised. The future of secular humanity will no doubt witness far less stigmatised situations and therefore more just unions and dissolutions. Religious attitudes will by their very nature always remain rather bigoted on issues claimed to pertain to "God". Animals don't have these problems because they have no institutions. Humans have institutionalised themselves and used deity as the progenitor of all this unhappiness and injustice in order to effect control over individuals and groups.
Last edited by goldberry; 15-03-2012 at 06:06 AM.
If people followed Catholic teaching there would be far less unhappiness and injustice in the world. There are loads of statistics/surveys showing that divorce has huge negative consequences not just for the children but for the divorcing couple as well. And I keep saying the government policies are far from being neutral but are deliberately anti-Christian.Humans have institutionalised themselves and used deity as the progenitor of all this unhappiness and injustice in order to effect control over individuals and groups.
Most divorces are initiated by women but they only do so because they know the government will give them the children, give them a free meal ticket for life - either at the husbands or the taxpayers expenses. If a woman wanting a divorce knew that she would not be able to take the children, that she would have to fend for herself, then 90% of divorces would never happen.
Heres another example of the anti-Christianity of the government. The British Airlines woman who got sacked for wearing a cross to work, the government is actively opposing her case in the European Court of Human Rights. If it was neutral it would accept whatever verdict the law courts reached without trying to influence the outcome.