Where the Rubber Hits the Road

I now pronounce you, Bert, and you, Ernie – nope, not going to happen - The Globe and Mail

I have published many posts opposing Same-Sex marriage on this blog. It's time to post something that speaks in favor from a Catholic perspective. Comments? Same-sex marriage Maryland: A Catholic's case for gay marriage - baltimoresun.com

Wrong Ruling on Same-sex Marriage by Bishop Fred Henry (Calgary) Regrettably both the Calgary Herald editorial and the Saskatchewan Appeal Court got it wrong re marriage commissioners. Religious belief is intertwined with our nation’s history, the spirit of the founding fathers and mothers of our nation, our national anthem, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  which begins “Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.” Immediately, the Charter proceeds to list our fundamental freedoms. The first one is the freedom of conscience and religion. The second is freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression. Only after, not before,  asserting our fundamental freedoms, does the Charter begin to spell out rights - first democratic rights, then mobility rights, followed by legal rights, then equality rights , etc. Freedom of conscience and of religion. is a primary and inalienable right of the human p...

  This is exactly what the Canadian Bishops said would happen once we opened the door to same sex marriages. First, it will be those who are exclusively civil officers of marriage that will be forced to perform same-sex ceremonies. Soon the courts will be asked to force the Churches to do the same. We are headed to a European style of marriage ceremony. I predict that soon clergy will soon begin to renounce their civil license to marry and couples will then go through two ceremonies: one civil for the State and (if desired) a religious ceremony to solemnize the union. Maybe this is a good thing? What do you think? Opting out of marrying same-sex couples unconstitutional: Sask. court | Posted | National Post

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

The American Catholic website posts a brilliant analysis on how it is that Christians and secularists use the term "marriage" to mean different things. The traditional interpretation of a life long union oriented towards creativity is now been redefined to mean a "contractual form of couplehood". The arguments presented are powerful and insightful and will enlighten anyone who is engaged in the current debates over the enshrinement of the new secular definition into law. The article is posted in the Referred Articles box, or you can copy and paste the link below. http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/11/06/you-keep-using-that-word-i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means/