An interesting and cogent defense of the rights of individuals to 'marriage'... whatever that word means. I am still troubled by one element of this interpretation by the US Federal Court: what does 'marriage' now mean? If it is simply a registration of a legal domestic relationship - something that every citizen possesses according to this ruling, does the state still possess the capacity to determine what a 'marriage' is? Is it necessarily limited to a relationship between two individuals, or can other configurations be accepted? Will there need to be a separate set of laws that will govern sexual relationships within 'marriage' to ensure the genetic health of any progeny that would spring from the marital act? Would this not be a gross intrusion of the state into the 'bedrooms of the nation', unraveling legal definitions that we have benefited from since the 1960's? Fr. Tim Editorial - Marriage Is a Constitutional Right - NYTimes.com
Reflections from the pastoral ministry of an Evangelical Catholic Priest.