[NYer]

Is this the age of the CINO? Where are the true Catholic voices?

Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[PGR88]

Can’t the Church officially excommunicate Kmiec, so at least when he makes such ridiculous statememts, others have an easy retort to the MSM that he is not a Catholic?

[Big_Monkey]

Well, at least someone finally admits what the end game is to all of this homosexual marriage nonsense. Their has been a very effective, if covert war against marriage since the 1960's.

Feminist see marriage as some type of shackle of oppression or bondage against women. Liberals don't want any government favorability to the institution of marriage and the so-called gay-marriage debate is just a Trojan horse to destroy the marital union altogether.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Reynolds v. United States (1878)

"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? [98 U.S. 145, 167] To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."

[the invisib1e hand]

If you let em carry on for a while, eventually they make their madness evident.

[the invisib1e hand]

Loud and Proud.

[Ransomed]

Like most things it is involved with, we will never get the gubberment out of the marriage business, much to the detriment of the institution of marriage.

But this guy is really a weasel.

Freegards, thanks for all the pings

[Sloth]

Robert P. George called a “terrible idea” that would make the government neglect a vital social institution.

The government should be neglecting all social institutions. Protect us from murderers and terrorists and leave everything else alone. There's no need for even these 'civil licenses' -- people can choose to form whatever sort of private contracts they want.

[Psycho_Bunny]

I’m sorry but if you supported Obama, you aren’t a Catholic.

[wbarmy]

Actually, they look like a very nice couple. How long have they been together? (Sarcasm)

Marriage will still be valid to the believers long after the government gets rid of it. Once the financial benefits disappear, so will the homosexuals “need” to be married. But for those who look at the oath as to “God”, it won't matter one bit what the rest of them think, we will still be married and God will still bless our union.

[B-Chan]

Separation of church and state, folks. You wanted it. Now sit back and enjoy the results.

[Oldpuppymax]

By all means! Let’s do away with all of our societal norms in order to mollify a minuscule percentage of the population...after all, aberrations should have the right to rule the normal folks, shouldn’t they? That is, as long as they donate sufficient amounts to the democrat party.

[Clemenza]

Get government out of the marriage business and “family” business entirely and I am a happy man.

[markomalley]

On the surface, this seems like a really bad idea.

But, consider this: when a priest (or minister or rabbi or imam) signs a marriage license (a license issued by the State), is the minister not acting as an agent of the State as well as an agent of the Religious Body for whom he is a cleric?

What concerns me is that, as long as a minister is authorized (or required) to sign the marriage license, he becomes somewhat under the jurisdiction of the State and subject to the State's laws. (For example, I believe that it would be illegal for a minister to sign a marriage license if he or she was aware of a plural marriage, even if such a marriage was perfectly acceptable within the religious tradition that ordained the minister)

For example, in Maryland State Law (Family Law, Title 2, §2-406),

	(a)  Authorized officials.-

		(1) In this subsection, "judge" means:

		(i) a judge of the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

		(ii) a judge approved under Article IV, § 3A of the Maryland Constitution and § 1-302 of the Courts Article for recall and assignment to the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

		(iii) a judge of a United States District Court or a United States Court of Appeals; or

		(iv) a judge of a state court if the judge is active or retired but eligible for recall.

		(2) A marriage ceremony may be performed in this State by:

		(i) any official of a religious order or body authorized by the rules and customs of that order or body to perform a marriage ceremony;

		(ii) any clerk;

		(iii) any deputy clerk designated by the county administrative judge of the circuit court for the county; or

		(iv) a judge.

		(b)  Period during which ceremony may be performed.- Within 6 months after a license becomes effective, any authorized official may perform the marriage ceremony of the individuals named in the license.

		(c)  Performance by unauthorized individual prohibited; penalty.-

		(1) An individual may not perform a marriage ceremony unless the individual is authorized to perform a marriage ceremony under subsection (a) of this section.

		(2) An individual who violates this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine of $500.

		(d)  Performance between individuals within prohibited degrees prohibited; penalty.-

		(1) An individual may not knowingly perform a marriage ceremony between individuals who are prohibited from marrying under § 2-202 of this title.

		(2) An individual who violates the provisions of this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine of $500.

		(e)  Performance without license prohibited; penalty.-

		(1) An individual may not perform a marriage ceremony without a license that is effective under this subtitle.

		(2) An individual who violates the provisions of this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $500.

What happens if the courts decide that it would be illegal to not allow gay marriage (violation of the 14th Amendment or some such)?

It could be interpreted that a church official authorized in §2-406(a)(2)(i) is required to perform such a ceremony. (He is, after all, defined as an agent of the state, by virtue of his authorization to sign the license)

Think I'm crazy for saying that? Have you actually read the SCOTUS decision in Roe v Wade? The logic applied above is clear and plain compared to the convoluted logic applied in that famous decision. Think Maryland has got screwed up laws? (Well, it does, but that's not the point) Check your own state's laws up.

The sole advantage to what Kmiec proposes is that it takes marriage completely out of the legal picture and no longer mixes up Church and State, like I showed exists today. If "marriage" (vice a "domestic contract") is solely the purview of the Church and is not the State's business, then the protections of the First Amendment would clearly apply. Else, the State (through the courts) could assert primacy and demand compliance.

Think that this somehow dilutes the solemnity of marriage? Well, I would submit that they're not all that solemn today: with no-fault divorce, prenuptial agreements, and so on, we have a divorce rate of over 50% in this country. So obviously society doesn't hold marriage in very high esteem nowadays anyway.

Mind you, I would prefer that marriage was still a sanctified bond. I believe that it is only valid when it is entered into and kept per the precepts of Scripture...but since I am in the minority in American society (anybody divorced and remarried for any other reason than authorized by our Lord -- Matt 5:31-32 -- should check themselves before saying that they believe in the Holiness and Sanctification of the marriage bond)

[fwdude]

Here come the liberaltarians out of the woodwork; drooling over the prospect.

[jwalsh07]

“I don’t know where Professor Kmiec is getting his idea, but it’s a very, very bad one.”

From Obama, where else?

Obama is taking heat from the left so his favorite apostate is sent out to cut marriage in half.

[Darren McCarty]

I actually agree to an extent with Kmiec on this one although I understand where George is coming from. Kmiec still has gone off the deep end with his support for Obama.

I'd like to see government out of marriage. I don't like the fact that I have to get a marriage license even in this country. The only place I should have to go to get married is to my Catholic Parish.

[TruthConquers]

“Now the Spirit speaks expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a how iron;

Forbidding to marry,....” 1 Timothy 4:1-3

[GSWarrior]

IMO, the less the government is involved in our lives, the better off we all are.