State encroaching on church
Bookworm on Mar 09 2009 at 5:58 pm | Filed under: Religion
As you know, one of my main reasons for supporting Proposition 8, which amended the California constitution to define marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman, was because I believe that move to redefine marriage has the potential to put the State and religion organizations — especially the Catholic church — into a head-on collision.
Liberals, when confronted with this notion, will often argue that, while the Catholic Church objects to abortion, that’s never created a constitutional crisis. What they ignore is the fact that, while the church is not in the business of providing abortions, it is in the business of providing marriages. It also ignores the fact that abortion is a legal right, not a constitutional one, while gay marriage proponents have been framing it in the opposite way: they say gay marriage as a constitutional, rather than a mere legal right.
Keep in mind that, for Catholics, marriage isn’t just a white dress, cake and Mendelssohn’s wedding march. Instead, it’s a sacrament. A basic tenet of the religion is the joining of man and woman before God.
So imagine this scenario: Two men go to the local Catholic parish and demand that it marry them. The priest, sympathetic to their love for each other, nevertheless states that he cannot, at a purely religious level marry them. The men turn around and sue the Church for violating their Constitutional rights. Suddenly, the judicial system is called upon to examine doctrinal issues to determine whether they mesh with Constitutional issues. It’s a scary scenario for anyone who takes seriously the principle that government may not interfere with religious doctrine.
Increasingly, too, that scenario is becoming less far-fetched. In Connecticut, the legislature has before it a bill aimed specifically at the management structure of Roman Catholic parishes. One of the legislators behind the bill admits that this is his goal: to exert state control over Roman Catholic organizations. His excuse is that some parishioners have been complaining that the existing parishes were so badly run that funds got stolen. As the Captain points out, if this is true, it’s a criminal matter, and does not require state interference in church business. It’s that simple.
The legislator’s excuse is also specious because it’s also impossible to imagine that other religions (sadly) don’t also fall victim to this type of embezzlement — yet the bill targets only Roman Catholics. I wonder if this narrow targeting has to do with the fact that the Catholic church, unlike other, more fragmented religions, remains a large, loud-voiced conservative bulwark. Both the bill’s sponsors, incidentally — Rep. Michael Lawlor and Sen. Andrew McDonald — are Democrats.
Related posts:
- This is where the gay marriage battle should be fought
- Tony Blair is converting to Catholicism
- Marriage is not an individual right
Email This Post To A Friend
14 Responses to “State encroaching on church”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Perhaps the time is coming when real Christians, not State-supported christians, will have to go back underground.
This is exactly why Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury baptists were concerned about Government running the Church. They had seen state run Church and wanted none of it. It is interesting that Jefferson who was supposedly “only” a Dieist and not a Christian would be at all concerned with Goverment involvement in organized Christian affairs. Pehaps he saw the Government as the socially destructive force and not the Church as the left seems to believe. Given all of the good social work that the Church does (behind the scenes of the headlining few bad apples) it seems that the Government really does hate competition afterall.
>>the existing parishes were so badly ran that funds got stolen>>
As opposed to the corruption and graft that exists in political circles? Like _that_ doesn’t exist??? You’d think that people who steal are limited to muggers on the streets… Guess these people never heard of “white collar crimes”…if they took over every “business” that was badly managed or had embezzlement, they’d take over 75% of the nation! (ok…figure totally made up, but just the other day, the news reported a local company that had 10 _million_ dollars stolen by their bookkeeper over the years – they were able to recover about 2 million from her bank accounts. They considered her “one of the family” and were devastated by the breach of trust as much as the loss – which forced them into bankruptcy.)
The government has no right to tell the catholic church who they can marry, and they have no right to tell a pro-gay church who they can marry. But if the government chooses to recognize one marriage and not the other (as long as it is between two consenting citizens, non-polygomous, non-incest, doesn’t constitute statuatory rape) it is a violation of separation of church and state and is unconstitutional in my opinion…..however, I do believe in state’s rights to choose, and the people of California made their decision, I will respect their decision now and in the future.
I’m not sure I follow this argument. Isn’t it a violation of the separation of church and state for the government to exclude incestuous and polygamous marriages since they are also proscribed by the major religions?
(If you want to cite Islam as an exception, couldn’t you take the state’s preference for non-polygamous marriage to be an unconstitutional slap at the Religion of Peace?)
I just happen to believe Polygamy and incest are wrong, and should be illegal and stay illegal……if you believe being gay is wrong, or gay marriage is wrong, then that’s Ok, just don’t say it has something to do with constitutionality.
or more specifically, I don’t buy BW’s argument that her MAIN reason for supporting prop 8 has something to do with consitutionality
basically, why doesn’t she own it?, she doesn’t believe gay couples should have the same rights as hetero couples…..don’t try to come up with some backdoor argument that it has something to do with infringing on sep of church and state
basically, why doesn’t she own it?, she doesn’t believe gay couples should have the same rights as hetero couples…..don’t hide behind some backdoor argument that it has something to do with infringing on sep of church and state… WEAK!
Jack, actually homosexuals have exactly the same right as heterosexuals to get married. Since marriage in California is constitutionally defined as being between a man and a woman, they are perfectly free to find a person of the opposite sex to marry.
That fact that they are not sexually attracted to the opposite sex is immaterial. The cannot insist on redefining a fundamental institution to make it something completely different from what it has ever been simply to accommodate their deviation.
JackMayo,
I have heard it said they don’t have the same rights. I am apparantly ignorant here, which rights might those be here in the State of Kaleefrnia?
MacG
My take on this is weak; it’s six of one, half a dozen of the other.
There’s absolutely nothing in the Constitution, one way or the other, concerning marriage. Therefore, to me, this is an issue best left to the people of each State – there’s that 10th Amendment again! However, we have long-standing common law that a marriage in one state must be recognized by other states, which makes this issue in fact quite thorny.
The government has a vested interest in promoting marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage between a man and a woman, as a civic institution, promotes civilization. I and most people believe that is clear and settled. Others may disagree, I suppose, and you’re welcome to. Seems to me it’s been proven that the stability provided to society by one-man-one-woman marriage has been proven for thousands of years. Stability for society, stability for the community, stability for the man and the woman, and most importantly, stability for the children that most of those couples raise. No other form of “marriage” can make that claim.
Two gays can be married in a Church today. The government will not recognize it; but they can. In fact, there are churches out there, I believe, where you can marry your pet. A polygamist marriage can be accomplished religiously, I believe. In the eyes of the law, however, they are just people shacking up in the same house, or only one man and one woman in the grouping can officially be married, and the other one (or two or three) might as well just be kinky hangers-around.
You can make gay marriage a federal issue ONLY if you adopt the view that it is a civil rights issue. That is the only way it can happen. I (and I’m gay) do not subscribe to that.
Liberals believe that any change is a good change so long as no harm is perceived up front. If you don’t see any harm from it, why not go ahead and do it?
Conservatives believe that a change is welcome only if a definite good is perceived up front. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. If you can’t see a definite benefit, then don’t make the change.
Based on all of the above, and my view of myself as a conservative, I’m not in favor of gay marriage. Go and live your life happily.
Replacing God with State…
The state does not control the church and the church does not control the state. The influence is applied from one to the other through the citizen. The citizen is not the all important check currently but it keeps a balance. As with most of the poli…..
>>I just happen to believe Polygamy and incest are wrong, and should be illegal and stay illegal>>
What is your justification for making them illegal??