did he at least say the church regards the states reasons for doing so to be incorrect or invalid?
He says the state may have various reasons for doing this, such as for health coverage. In essence, he says that he’d have to look at a specific example before evaluating it.
The point is that he didn’t say anything along the lines of support.
He’s really in an impossible situation here. If he doesn’t condemn all situations other than male / female marriage, then you have a case, like right here, where people are going to say he’s pro homosexual. If he does condemn, then somebody is going to drag a case where a guy has his 80 year old mother on his insurance and claim that he hates widows.
Arthur McGowan pointed this out the other day and he is 100% spot on. This is like in the 60s, when all the spin was that Paul VI was going to OK the pill and was going to approve allowing already ordained priests to marry.
Here is a professional translation:
Many nations have regulated civil unions. Is it a path that the Church can understand? But up to what point?
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Secular states want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of cohabitation, pushed by the demand to regulate economic aspects between persons, such as ensuring health care. It is about pacts of cohabitating of various natures, of which I wouldn’t know how to list the different ways. One needs to see the different cases and evaluate them in their variety.