Cardinal George Says Same-Sex Marriage Is 'Against The Common Good', Do You Agree?
Cardinal Francis George releases a strongly worded letter as the State Legislature moves closer to a vote on gay marriage.
Photos
Pdfs
As gay marriage moves closer to a vote in the Illinois General Assembly, Cardinal Francis George has released a letter attacking the notion of same- sex marriage itself and urging Catholics to voice their objections.
A vote could happen in the Senate as soon as today as lawmakers look to pass the legislation during the lame duck session. Illinois would become the 10th state in the country to allow same-sex marriages.
In his letter, George argued that because same-sex marriages cannot be consummated and are not undertaken for the purpose of conceiving children that government, "has no power to create something that nature itself tells us is impossible."
He qualifies his argument by writing that the Catholic church offers support for the gay community through various ministries. George argues that opposition to the potential law is crucial because of societal acceptance same-sex marriage would gain if it is viewed as legal.
"Human dignity and human rights are then reduced to the whims of political majorities," he writes.
Supporters of same-sex marriage have long argued that legalization is a human rights issue and the restriction of marriage rights to heterosexual couples is its own form of discrimination.
The law would force no religious institutions to perform same-sex marriages.
Gay marriage has been gaining support nationally at a comparatively rapid rate in recent years. Recent polls have consistently indicated that over half of Americans support it. That number spikes to 72 percent of Americans between 18 and 29 years of age, according to a CBS News poll.
Kristen Borda
7:05 pm on Thursday, January 3, 2013
If people are happy, let them be happy. Half of traditional marriages end in divorce, so if a man wants to be with a man or a woman with a woman, who are we to say that it's wrong?
G.G.
11:56 pm on Thursday, January 3, 2013
A man can already be with a man and a woman with a woman, it's called civil unions /partnerships. Marriage is a religious institution NOT a state created entity (though they have adopted it) look it up. The issue is that the definition of a marriage is 1 man 1 woman for the puropse of procreation. Anything else is simply a legal agreement which can already be "consumated" through a lawyer / judge.
A.P.
9:45 am on Friday, January 4, 2013
Except marriage is also a different legal construct under the law. Marriages get added benefits that civil unions do not; often times it does not matter whether or not you have children.
What the government should do is replace all definitions and instances of the word marriage in the legal code with civil unions. That way under the law everyone is equal. If one wants to get married under a religion it is then their choice
John Walsh
8:15 am on Friday, January 4, 2013
I don't believe the legislation forces the Catholic Church to perform same sex marriages. If marriage is only a religious institution, what requires one religion to recognize the marriage of another religion? After all, if you are not a Catholic, you do not belong to the one, true religion.
McCloud
9:35 am on Friday, January 4, 2013
Not yet anyway. Certainly these things take time, baby steps. Speaking of baby steps, the new healthcare legislation compells by force of law to provide services that violate their moral convictions. Not much of an outcry from you, but it sounds like you already have issues with the Catholic Church.
Rich Rostron
10:02 am on Friday, January 4, 2013
As stated above, if a same-sex couple wants to be together, they can have a civil union. If they want to legally clarify the contractual stipulations of such a union, that's their prerogative. If, in their minds, they want to think that they're married, that's their prerogative. But, why should we redefine marriage for everyone else to suit their prerogative? It's wrong and it's unnecessary. Gays initially argued that they were unable to share health insurance policies, visit ill 'partners' in hospitals and other similar issues. But, they have since demonstrated that those issues were red herrings. When offered solutions to those 'problems,' it wasn't enough. No, they don't just want to redefine marriage; they want to redefine society in their image.
MT
9:07 pm on Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Cardinal George is 100% correct, but people have a hard time swallowing the truth. Marriage has been defined since the beginning of time by The Creator of everything between a man and woman. Refer to the Bible. It is offensive to the Catholics who hold the sacrament of marriage so close to their hearts to be attacked by many for sticking to the same beliefs that they've held for over 2,000 years. When the rest of the world is wavering the Catholic Church holds strong to their beliefs no matter what government says. It's not being hateful, it's about being truthful. I know many people who are gay, but I do not judge them. It is no one's place to judge. I care for them and love them as I do everyone in my life, but it does not mean that I have to agree with their lifestyle, nor do they have to agree with how I live my life. I will always stand for the truth and people who speak on this topic against Cardinal George are simply uniformed or no little about our faith. I will pray for my brothers and sisters in Christ and expect to be attacked again for The Truth. God bless everyone.
Dan Johnson
5:30 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013
Marriage it is a fundamental right of the individual.
The only eligibility requirement for fundamental rights is being human.
Reasonable restrictions may be made only when a compelling and legitimate governmental interest can withstand judicial scrutiny.
Most can agree with the courts that reasonable restrictions include age, ability to demonstrate informed consent, and not being closely related, or currently married.
Gender is not a restriction, and requriring one of each serves no legitimate governmental interest.
While churches may place any restrictions they choose on their own ceremonies, the government can only restrict fundamental rights when a compelling and legitimate justification can be demonstrated.
Procreation ability has never been a requirement for marriage, and therefore fails as a legitimate qualification. Yet even that irrational excuse for discrimination ignores the fact that gay people can and do reproduce, and are raising children either biologically related or adopted. Denial of equal treatment under the law provides nothing to opposite sex couple families. It only harms same sex couple families needlessly.
Gay couples are seeking to be treated equally under the laws currently in effect, in the remaining states that do not yet recognize their marriages, and by the federal government.
Neither tradition nor gender provides a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of this fundamental right.