[ninenot]

It's a nullity, kind of like the union between a polygamist and his second and subsequent wives.

Gay "marriage" is like Female "priests." In the first case, the State does NOT HAVE THE POWER to declare such a "marriage;" in the second, the Church DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER to effect such an "ordination."

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

Ninenot,

True, the State has no power, that doesn't mean they won't seize such power. The Cardinal actually refered to the US today as a Totalitarian State, because the State now deems itself to have the power to define something it has no power to define (Marriage), and no longer is the law the protector of the voiceless, now it is the protector of individual rights, hence the change in legal arguments. I agree, the State has no power on these issues, that doesn't mean the state won't try to seize it.

[only1percent]

Gay "marriage" is like Female "priests." In the first case, the State does NOT HAVE THE POWER to declare such a "marriage;" in the second, the Church DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER to effect such an "ordination."

The state certainly has the power to redefine civil marriage as it pleases. For example, fathers used to be able to prevent the marriage of their daughters to men they deemed unsuitable, and, upon marriage, husbands gained complete legal and financial control over their wives. Divorce required the consent of both parties and was difficult to obtain even then. The change in all those rules, in the aggregate, changed the nature of civil marriage nearly as much (and maybe more) as allowing gays to marry would.

And, just as it does now with polygamous unions, the Church can determine that some civil marriages are not entitled to be recognized as natural marriages (to say nothing of not solemnizing them as spiritual marriage.)