Obama & Same-Sex Marriage

Obama & Same-Sex Marriage by MSW  My response:

Obama does not go far enough, but at least he no longer favors the unconstitutional position that civil unions are enough and that we can be Politically Correct in not calling them marriages. The 9th Circuit has found that denying gays and lesbian relationships the term "marriage" has no rational basis in law and can only come through malice - a view the Supreme Court will likely affirm. The second question is whether states can continue to deny family rights to gay marriages. The answer must be no, because marriage is the basic right of adulthood. Without it, gay citizens are forever infants before the law - legally bound to their families of origin. That cannot stand. It is not simply about hospital visition - it is about being legal next of kin. I don't care about Obama's individual views. As President, he must endeavor to protect the rights of gay citizens, including the right to form families and have those families be respected as marriages. If he won't, than I will.

If civil unions and marriage are legally identical, then not calling gay civil unions marriages is a deliberate insult. It does not matter how Michael Sean Winters views it, but on how gay people view it. It also matters taht to many, the insult is meant to denigrate gay people. That brand of malice cannot be constitutionally protected and MUST be overturned by the courts. It is Obama's bad that he is a gradualist.


I am not for the state imposing the celebration of gay marriage on churches - however I entirely support gay Catholics and their families demanding that these unions be blessed as what they are - marriages.

Canonically, marriages are made by the couple, not the state or the priest. Additionally, it is not required that they be fecund - only functional - to the satisfaction of both parties. That is true in both canon and civil law (and is why family members cannot marry).

Prior to then Cardinal Ratzinger's comments on how homosexuality is disordered, we were moving toward the belief that sexuality was a gift of God and that homosexuality was made, not chosen. Calling it disordered was the only way to deny the inevitability of gay marriage in the Catholic Church, since the natural order is organized around human nature, not divine nature. The divine purpose of morality is human happiness, since God is happy, no matter what. The hierarchy cannot change that, unless their entire power is relativistic (for Catholics only).

In history, the Sacrament of Marriage has traditionally followed the civil law, which is what scares the Church and is why they resist so strongly. They also resist because self-loathing gay men will no longer join the priesthood as a salvation from their sexuality - and will instead find a husband. This means that the Church must allow the married and the openly gay, as well as women, if they want to continue having a priesthood. Additinoally, gay priests will likely be blessing gay unions, legal or otherwise, without letting the bishop know. It is probably happening already, much in the same way they bless unions celebrated outside the church where all the i's are not dotted nor the t's crossed about annulment status.

Marriage also brings with it insurance and financial security. A partner who can't work can get legal protection as a dependent of the one who can, like any dependent spouse - which comes in handy if the one who works dies.

Marriage also brings change in kinship. If the Church recognized changing kinship in gay relationships, rather than going along with (or even encouraging) families to exclude the gay spouse from hospital visitation AND decisionmaking (probably in hopes of deathbed recantation of homosexuality), there would not be a demand for marriage.

You can't be wobbly on this issue. It is either a civil right or a sin - and legally it can't be considered a sin. Morally either, because it isn't.