Cupich on Same-Sex Marriage Referendum

Cupich on Same-Sex Marriage Referendum by MSW.  MGB: The Bishop, as pastor, has reason to be afraid.  In the history of the sacrament, its religious celebration often follows the legal norms.  Note the example of polygamy in the time of the patriarchs and now.  I am sure he fears that Catholic families will demand a religious celebration to compliment the civil one - and that many gay priests will comply, albeit quietly.  He might also fear that more gay men will seek the married life as a legitimate alternative to the priesthood, which will hurt his numbers, or that some will leave the priesthood to acknowledge publicly relationships now taking place in secret.

There is no danger of gender mangling of marriage law, and if there is, it is not the Church's concern.  The Church's bigger concern is that in a rethinking of marriage, it will have to rethink its entire sexual morality, especially with regard to homosexuality - which tarnishes its self-image of having a never changing teaching (which is patently untrue, by the way).  As for the fecundity argument, it is getting tired.  My uncle and his wife married when he was 62 and she 52.  There was no danger of fecundity, yet it was a canonically valid marriage.  Canon law demands functionality, not fecundity.

As for the case of Washington State, the ruling of the 9th Circuit would seem to apply here - that it is a denial of equal protection of the law if a state has domestic partnerships to not call such relationships marriage because the social stigma of not doing so violates the rights of homosexuals.  No referendum should be necessary, as the courts have already spoken (and that will be final if the Supreme Court leaves the Proposition 8 decision in place).