The Unintended Consequences of 'Same Sex Marriage'

By Ronald J. Rychlak
5/2/2008
Inside Catholic (www.insidecatholic.com)

WASHINGTON, DC (Inside Catholic) - America's position on homosexual activity has radically changed over the past few decades.

(snip)

Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New Hampshire all have civil unions, which are similar to marriage, but activists in those states are already pointing to deficiencies and pushing for full recognition of gay marriage.

Regardless of what it is called, legal sanctioning of homosexual relationships creates a host of unintended consequences and constitutes a serious threat to religious liberty.

Consider what happened in Massachusetts in 2004: Justices of the peace who refused to preside over same-sex unions due to moral or religious objections were summarily fired. Since same-sex unions were entitled to be treated the same as traditional marriages, this refusal was discrimination and a firing offense.

What about a priest or minister who similarly refuses to preside at such ceremonies? Obviously the state can't fire such people, but it is easy to foresee other sanctions -- such as loss of tax benefits -- being imposed on churches.

After all, if gay marriage truly is no different from traditional marriage, by what justification can the government give preferential treatment to an entity that discriminates?

(snip)

Perhaps the most notorious example of a state forcing its view on a church agency comes from Massachusetts, where Boston Catholic Charities ran an adoption agency that had been placing children with families for over 100 years.

In 2006, Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley announced that the agency would abandon its founding mission rather than submit to a state law requiring it to place children with homosexual couples. (A Vatican document from 2003 described gay adoptions as ''gravely immoral.")

The legal analysis in these cases is really pretty simple:

If homosexual marriages or civil unions are the equivalent of traditional marriages, you can't discriminate. If you do, at the very least you put your government benefits at risk.

This is the same rationale that was used by the Supreme Court in 1983 to uphold stripping Bob Jones University of its tax-exempt status due to its racial policies.

A potentially greater threat is that government agencies will try to change church teachings. It is already happening in other nations.

(snip)

It may seem that legal recognition of civil unions or gay marriages is a trivial matter and one that respects the basic dignity of gay people. The unintended legal consequences that flow from such recognition, however, present a serious threat to religious liberty.

Courts and legislatures need to consider these consequences before committing the nation to a policy with so many potential pitfalls.

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=27817

----------------

Pure, unadulterated fear-mongering from right-wing Christians. I'm awe-struck almost on a daily basis how much power the LGBTQ community allegedly has, yet chooses not to wield it. I guess we're saving our super-powers for a more adventageous global coup.

I'll tell you one thing, it's getting tiresome having to register as x,y, or z every time we move. Not to mention having to spend money each time to do so.

....people who have been divorced and for other reasons?

justifying extreme prejudice. Stupid article.

The Church refuses to recognize the divorce. In the eyes of The Church, the people are still married. This is assuming that they have been married by The Church to begin with. The marriage must be annulled by the Church before another wedding can take place.
If someone is married in a civil ceremony and then divorced, there is no problem as The Church does not officially recognize the civil ceremony as being equal....
The Church is under no legal obligation to perform gay marriage ceremonies even if the state recognizes gay marriages as valid. The Church is under no obligation to perform a heterosexual ceremony if the priest does not feel that the couple should be married...

Oh, yeah, our toasters are so grand that straight people are divorcing left and right, just for some toast. :evilgrin:

...one time Al Franken called up his wife on the air and asked her if THEIR 30 marriage was threatened because of gays marrying. He told her perhaps he should divorce her but still live and have sex with her, and then marry a guy so he could "just be able to hang out with the his guy friends .."

Franny told him, "Uhhh, Al you already do all that!" LOL!

Cat In Seattle

We have gay neighbors and they have the most fabulous house and garden and the place is just beautiful and everytime I am in their house, and especially the renovated kitchen, I come home and say to my husband - I wish I was married to Bill or Scott! How come you don't help me keep this place as clean as they do?

Was interracial marriage even considered a threat to marriage?

their FABULOUS taste and skills in flower arranging and interior decorating.

the "reasoning" behind this one...

As a straight, married person, I sure can't see how someone else's marriage has squat to do with mine!

Oh, that toaster foo is so strong!

You practically shod temptresses and your fancy toast have no power over me! :evilgrin:

In a patriarchal society, a man married a woman, the man is supposed to be the boss. If two people of the same sex marry, who's going to be the boss?

That will show those hatemongering bigots we mean business.

but remember...9/11 and Katrina were just a glimpse into our awesomeness.

How about your adherents fund their religion?

"Just tax the stupid people"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wUosm_BBv9g

until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. --Denis Diderot

:thumbsup:

Many Americans are oblivious to how the hands of religion are wrapped comfortably around the throats of their fellow citizens.

They often occupy prime property in the middle of cities and towns, and enjoy the same police and fire protection that business only a few hundred feet away must pay for.

I worked in Brooklyn Heights for many years and the Jehovah's owned almost 90% of the property and paid no taxes. Prime real estate on the river over-looking Manhattan.

"Justices of the peace who refused to preside over same-sex unions due to moral or religious objections were summarily fired."

Uh yeah. Justices are sort of expected to know and follow the law.

They've got moral objections to their job's duties it's time to move into another field of work.

This is the fucking pharmacist thing all over again.

Fucking religion.

:puke:

over which marriages they will preside over. Some priests refuse to marry Catholics to Protestants unless the Protestant has completed a lot of classes and has signed paperwork promising to bring children up Catholic, a clear violation of freedom of conscience. I'm sure there are ministers who still refuse to perform racially mixed marriages and there are a lot of ministers who won't perform ceremonies for people outside their churches.

This "slippery slope" crapola from the extreme right is beyond tiresome.

Should the JPs have been fired? Oh, you bet your ass. They were performing civil marriages as representatives of a religion neutral state. If their morbid religious scruples interfered with the performance of that job, then the state had a right to fire them.

..no discrimination, and if you do, it's a firing offense or a loss of tax-benefits.

Hello Mr. Rychlak, Bob Jones University, et al. Discriminate all you want in your private church, in your private university, in your private home. Just don't expect a role serving the public while you discriminate against people using tax-payer dollars for support.

It's real simple, even a neanderthal should be able to "get it."

tend to forget that they exist here as well.

... should be removed from their pampered perches.

After all, taxes don't discriminate whether it's from gay, lesbians or heteros when it comes to collecting, and it's still taxpayer money that funds those bigots' salaries.

Should a church refuse, so be it {and who needs them}, but when gay and lesbian people wish to be married, they should be able to at any city hall across the United States.

religion was started as a way to explain the natural world, and evolved over the millenia to become the evil stepchild it now is... thanks to modern science (and the increasing knowledge of the universe and biology) religion no longer has purpose.

across the board. It's unfair to the rest of us who end up footing more than our fair share of the bill. If I wanted to subsidize religion, I'd send my diocese a check.

What a laugh-riot!

GOVERNMENT

I have long thought there should be two entirely separate entities at play here.

GOVERNMENT

The state should issue civil union licenses. This should be available to any two consenting adults who are legally free to be united by such a contract. (i.e. not married to someone else without first obtaining a divorce). The union should allowed to be solemnified by any clerk of court, justice of the peace, notary public or member of the clergy. The state should then certify such a union.

Male Male
Male Female
Female Female

This and this alone determines legal status as far as a couple is concerned.

RELIGION

Religious bodies should sanctify marriages as they see fit and it should be solely a ceremonial ritual meaningful to the religious community but conveying no legal status. Much like baptism or confirmation.

For many people both could be done at once. Other people could choose one or the other option but would be aware of the social or legal consequences of their decision.

I don't want the civil unions to be limited to two people. I'm polyamorous and if I want legal benefits as proffered by civil unions, I want it to be extended to the folks with whom I build my life. I don't want it to be the way it is now, where I live with both of my partners but am recognized by the state for only one and I have to choose which one. That galls me.

...that neither side is likely to ever accept it.

... unless the person marrying you happens to be a man of the cloth.

A legal marriage is not a "marriage under God", it is merely the state's recognition of two peoples' intentions to file their taxes together. If a couple of knuckleheads somehow feel this is in violation of their religious ethics, then they deserve to be fired!

First, they are clearly incapable of performing their duties as was assigned to them. This is grounds for firing in any sensible organization.

Second, they are abusing the public trust by using their position as a pulpit from which to spew their nonsensical superstitious drivel. They make it perfectly clear they have no intention of providing equal protection under the law in showing preferential treatment to some citizens.

I fail to see how this scenario is, in any way, shape, or form, a problem. Fire the stupid pricks and send them packing to the seminary.

End of story.

They should try not being irrational, hate mongering bigots.

As if Catholic churches regularly provide marriage services for Jewish couples.

Clergy never have, and never will have to marry anyone they don't want to. Period. They can refuse to perform a marriage because they don't like your religious practice, or lack thereof, or because you wish to marry someone outside the faith, or because... you name it. Totally within their rights to do so.

A justice of the peace, however, is not a religious official, but a government official, so damned straight they have to marry without discriminating. If they don't like it, they can find a new side-line job.

The amount of bullcrap around about the "dangers" of same-sex marriage astounds me.

(And I know the OP wasn't condoning the stupidity in the post - it just pisses me off to no end, and I fly right off the handle!)

In fact, most of its funding comes from government programs. If they wanted to continue to discriminate, they could have rejected public funding and relied solely on private donations. Though, one of CC's biggest private funders is the United Way who also threatened Catholic Charities with a withdrawal of funding due to their discrimination policies.

There would be no such threat in the case of same-sex marriage unless the Catholic Church is receiving public funds to perform them. Which they are not.

As with Bob Jones University... that case was about the revocation by the IRS of its tax exempt status as a charitable organization due to discrimination. They had a choice. Stop discriminating or stop receiving the tax benefit. They chose to continue to discriminate until the year 2000. Seven years after they'd been stripped of their tax exempt status.

Somewhere down the line, the Catholic Church (and all other bigot religious organizations) may lose their tax exempt status due to their rejection of public policy while feeding at the public trough BUT just like Bob Jones, there would be no threat to the free exercise of their bigoted religion. They simply wouldn't be able to do it on every one else's dime.

NT!

Thanks for pointing out that atrocious reality.

Fire those judges. Take away those tax credits. Shut down those "charity" organizations.

If they are violating the civil rights of same sex couples they must be shut down. End of story.

... regarding social policies.

As for whom they will or will not perform sacred rites for -- the government cannot interfere in that unless it clearly violates an overriding Constitutional or federal law. You know, like the FLDS and their child-brides, or the faith-healers who pray while their children die of some preventable cause.

The Unitarians can continue blessing the unions of gays and lesbians, and the Roman Catholics can continue to refuse to do so. Marriage certificates and marriage registries belong in the County Courthouse anyway.

Next problem?

Hekate

and gone so far as to pass criminal laws that put people in jail for dispensing it, as late as the 1960's.

And once the Supreme Court reverse Roe and Griswold v. Connecticut, they'll be at it again....

... were unintended! :evilgrin:

Gay people are usually SINGLE people, and until recently, they were usually childless..

If you accept the figure of 10% of the population, that's a WHOLE-LOTTA social security money that never gets paid out to surviving spouses & children..and a whole lotta benefits that corporations did not have to pay out in family employee benefits..

if they can get the "faithful" to condemn homosexuality as a SIN, it's easier to get them to vote against any legislation that equalizes their relationships..

Personally, I think everyone should just be able to have a "preferred partner" in life ( for inheritance, ss benefits, insurance partner, etc)

and it should be ANYONE you designate... a relative, a friend, a spouse...anyone..

Marriage (the sacrament) should be recognized and performed in whatever church service one prefers, but as far as the STATE is concerned, you should be able to "partner" with any other person.

"Justices of the peace who refused to preside over same-sex unions due to moral or religious objections were summarily fired. Since same-sex unions were entitled to be treated the same as traditional marriages, this refusal was discrimination and a firing offense.

What about a priest or minister who similarly refuses to preside at such ceremonies? Obviously the state can't fire such people, but it is easy to foresee other sanctions -- such as loss of tax benefits -- being imposed on churches."

...I can't believe this is really being used as a talking point.

maybe it is a good sign, though; if the arguments are this flawed and idiotic, then maybe the opposition is about to crack.

If a rabbi refuses to marry a non-Jewish couple on the grounds that they aren't Jewish, what happens to him? Not a damned thing, that's what. Does that then imply that he's allowed to prevent them from being married by a JP? How assinine can these folks get, anyway?

sees a pile of money, they're going after it, no questions asked!