Support Gay Marriage? Then Skip Communion Says Detroit Archbishop and Canon Lawyer

[old guy]

The Minnesota State legislature had committee hearings on redefining marriage. A little11 year old girl came forward and asked the politicians that if marriage is not about the joining of a man and a woman then could they tell her which parent she no longer needed, her mother or her father. No one either could answer or would answer but they voted to pass the bill and close the meeting. Maybe some of the readers of this site can provide the little girl with the answer to her question.

I'd ask the little girl which parent coached her to ask the question. Then I'd tell her that's the one she probably didn't need.

[artds]

lol Catholics. What an odd bunch.

[southen]

The Minnesota State legislature had committee hearings on redefining marriage. A little11 year old girl came forward and asked the politicians that if marriage is not about the joining of a man and a woman then could they tell her which parent she no longer needed, her mother or her father. No one either could answer or would answer but they voted to pass the bill and close the meeting. Maybe some of the readers of this site can provide the little girl with the answer to her question.

i wonder what the little girl would say about my cheating father and the subsequent divorce my parents had... how about sterile individuals? are they allowed to wed even though they can't make a child and have to adopt? is their love any different?

here's my answer to your stupid anecdote: heterosexuals [[myself included) lost the right to preach how sacred marriage is when over 50% of them end in divorce. It wasn't that long ago that interracial marriage was banned and frowned upon. any thoughts on that or are only certain types of discrimination allowed?

[downtownguy]

Bishop Gumbleton to gay marriage supporters: Keep communing

He [[Gumbleton) also says that an individual person must choose whether or not to receive communion.

"Their conscience is the ultimate voice they have to follow," Gumbleton explained. "A person coming up to communion has a right to make their own decision about am I in a state of grace?... Am I ready to receive? Well, that's for the person to decide not for the minister or not for any bishop."

Read more: http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/21...#ixzz2QDPn9XKG

[Chinman]

i am sorry folks but look at this legally. when you get married in a church, be it a catholic church by a priest, an imam in a muslim ceremony, a jewish synagoge or a buddhist ritual. you are not legally recognized until the officiating leader submits the proper paperwork to the county of the religious act. only then will the government acknowledge the wedding. so the religious part is a formality, the county government asighns the rights of our government recognition of those rights. reilgion has nothing to do with asiighning those rights. in wayne county, there is a time frame to file the paperwork. others might have the same restrictions. if the paperwork is not filed in time, there is no marriage. that is why you can go down to the county office and get a legal license of marriage. the county gives it to you as a recognition of government approval. this is not a religious contract for rights, it is a legal recognition of rights. your church only approves that that your marriage fits their view of marriage. this is why marriage is a civil right and and not a religious right.
when your religion thinks it has the right to make laws then my country has the right to outlaw your religion.

[Zacha341]

Yep. Religious institutions [[in addition to Catholics) better take heed, some will argue.

They must come "on board" or be prepared to be silenced, as they are tax exempt and thus ultimately beholding to the government [[law).

This financial connection may will to be cut to retain their stand or even public voice during service as we go forth.

Similarly we are going to be keeping our mouths shut as China moves abroad expanding their territory. Our fiscal connection there will require such.

....when your religion thinks it has the right to make laws then my country has the right to outlaw your religion.

[CassTechGrad]

What do you think about this situtation??

"My aunt resides in Maine and has been living in a retirement community with two other women for about 10 years. They decided that the best way for the three of them to be allowed hospital visitation rights, estate planning, and access to favorable tax advantages would be to get married and have a beautiful wedding ceremony. They went to the city clerk’s office but were told that the recent marriage equality law expressly prohibits them from the right of marriage. The clerk said the marriage equality law was written to allow special rights for homosexuals but requires that the government deny these three ladies the right to marry who they want to. The same is true in all the other states with phony marriage equality laws.

Can someone please explain what possible legal argument could be used to prevent these women from being able to engage in matrimony! Unless, of course, that for some reason they have fewer constitutional rights than homosexuals."

[Jimaz]

I found this old clip on that They Always Come Back website: Anita Bryant Pie in the Face.

She unwittingly says

Well, at least it's a fruit pie.

LOL! Get it?

[Onthe405]

What do you think about this situtation??
Can someone please explain what possible legal argument could be used to prevent these women from being able to engage in matrimony! Unless, of course, that for some reason they have fewer constitutional rights than homosexuals."

Ah yes, the old "slippery slope" talking point. First off, although they all mean the same thing, we know you are intentionally using the word "homosexual" instead of "gay" or "same-sex" since it's supposed to be perceived as a graphic & disgusting term by my straight bros & sis. Good try, but that only works with folks who are already homophobes----but keep using it if you think it helps your argument. Disrespectful is your arrogant commentary of homosexual marriage as "phony"--as if you, in contrast. are "authentic" and as a heterosexual, are the exclusive guardian of the emotions we know as human love, compassion, & commitment--assuming those of us born with a different sexual orientation are somehow incapable of experiencing them.


If we're going to argue "slippery slope" -- couldn't the slope slide the other way as well? If the majority of citizens can vote away the rights of homosexuals to marry--who else's rights can they vote away?


Now on to helping you understand your "Maine aunt's" legal dilemma. Matrimonial laws don't apply in that case because the scenario you outlined is a societal & legal red herring. The hypothetical arrangement is between three consenting adults, not two. The initiatives that the majority of ME, WA, & MD citizens approved [[and those currently being debated in the SCOTUS) surround a marriage between two consenting adults desiring a monogamous relationship.


The legal, cultural, and religious definition of marriage has not always been an equal, domestic partnership between two people as is common today. It has--and undoubtedly will--continue to evolve as it has for thousands of years. At one time [[and even today in some cultures), men had several wives and women were required to remain faithful to one man. At one time, a wife or wives were a man's property to be bought, sold, and traded. At one time, it was illegal & immoral to marry someone of a difference race. At one time, women were discouraged from pursuing careers and working outside the home. Will we return to these former arrangements again? Maybe, maybe not. Collectively our laws, religion, and culture will determine that.


As a society, most of us view the ensuing changes to marriage as human progress moving toward justice. Perhaps you or your religious denomination don't share this belief---and you are free to do so.


However, your "Maine aunt's" case makes the automatic leap from homosexual marriage to polygamy, which are two completely different societal issues. Assuming that one leads to the other is like assuming that a "right on red" traffic law will automatically lead to the elimination of traffic signals.

[southen]

What do you think about this situtation??

"My aunt resides in Maine and has been living in a retirement community with two other women for about 10 years. They decided that the best way for the three of them to be allowed hospital visitation rights, estate planning, and access to favorable tax advantages would be to get married and have a beautiful wedding ceremony. They went to the city clerk’s office but were told that the recent marriage equality law expressly prohibits them from the right of marriage. The clerk said the marriage equality law was written to allow special rights for homosexuals but requires that the government deny these three ladies the right to marry who they want to. The same is true in all the other states with phony marriage equality laws.

Can someone please explain what possible legal argument could be used to prevent these women from being able to engage in matrimony! Unless, of course, that for some reason they have fewer constitutional rights than homosexuals."

cute. I await your beastiality example as to why we can't allow them to marry.

feel free to reply to any points I made in my last post. can't imagine why you wouldn't...

[aj3647]

The organization that raped tens of thousands of children and actively covered it up at the highest levels over the past 50 years is not exactly in the best position to be making moral judgements upon others.

Whatever Christ thinks of gay marriage, I'm sure he it's head and shoulders above what he thinks of organized child rape.

[beachboy]

lol Catholics. What an odd bunch.

This is a funny thread. Keep it up

Religion is not logical, being based on faith, which the apostle Paul tells us is the substance of "unseen" things [[i.e., what Willy Wonka called "pure imagination").

Neither the pope of Rome nor Detroit's own Very Most Reverend Viggy have any ability to refuse communion to anyone, nor will they. Their puff'n'stuff is all belly talk.

This all makes as much sense as the Mom who told her children not to put beans in their ears, so they pushed them up their noses, for safekeeping.

[Bham1982]

Can someone please explain what possible legal argument could be used to prevent these women from being able to engage in matrimony! Unless, of course, that for some reason they have fewer constitutional rights than homosexuals."

Why would there be anything preventing these women from getting married? Civil marriage is a contract, and there is no relevance as to whether they are "homosexual" or not.

People can enter a contract for whatever reason. I could marry someone for their medical coverage. There isn't anything illegal about this. It's not like the govt. has a "love-o-meter" that measures whether people are truly infatuated with one another.

[RickBeall]

Kick the Catholic Church to the curb and start the Church of Jesus. Jesus never spoke a word against gays.

Church goers already throw out the Old Testament. Born again Christians say the only way to God is through Jesus. So anything not said by Jesus was just tacked on.

Hence, the Church of Jesus.

[beachboy]

Kick the Catholic Church to the curb and start the Church of Jesus.

We have some of those "down South"... like I said, they put beans in their noses for safekeeping.

[detroitbob]

The Episcopal Church has been a refuge for many displaced RC's...women and GLBT folk are welcome and are many are ordained deacons, priests and bishops. I jumped off the popes ship some 40 years ago, never looked back.

[TheUsualSuspect]

I'm catholic and hold my catholicisim close to my heart. I struggle with condemning homosexuality, as I do not wish to judge [[lest I be judged). But I can't advocate it either. I guess I think man and women were created and intended to be paired up...matched with one another, and that anything else is a deviation. Not necessarily evil, but not as originally intended.

I don't know what Jesus would do, except love them all...and encourage all of us to do the same.

He answered the taxation question so perfectly [[give to God what is God's, etc) that I'd really like to know how he would comment on homosexuality, and what he would try to teach us.

I look forward to those conversations with my maker. I hope to have them some day.

[detroittrader]

I guess I think man and women were created and intended to be paired up...matched with one another, and that anything else is a deviation.

So your saying only put the penis in a vagina?

[Zacha341]

Did he say that?

[TheUsualSuspect]

So your saying only put the penis in a vagina?

See, there is really no winning this argument, so I won't even engage. My 15, 19 and 21 year old kids have very different views than I do on the subject. In a similar way, they have been raised with far less racial prejudices than I was. I'm proud of them for that.

Personally, and I'll readily admit it...I struggle with trying to understand homosexuality. "Love each other" is what we have been made for and is the Master's most powerful commandment. He didn't put boundaries on it, so I'll try not to either.

[southen]

Personally, and I'll readily admit it...I struggle with trying to understand homosexuality. "Love each other" is what we have been made for and is the Master's most powerful commandment. He didn't put boundaries on it, so I'll try not to either.

the genitals are different. thats it. love is love, it isnt any different just because two people have the same genitalia.

[CassTechGrad]

From the Oakland Press editoral page of April 16:

"Archbishop Allen Vigneron was quite right when he instructed Catholics who are in opposition to Church teaching on serious matters to forgo reception of Holy Communion. Holy Communion is so-called because we unite ourselves to one another and to Christ by this sacrament. Anyone who disagrees with the Church on a serious matter is not in communion with the Church. Moreover, as St. Paul instructs the Corinthians, we must receive the sacrament worthily: “A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.”

The current issue in question is same-sex marriage, which violates natural law not just divine law, but this applies to a number of issues. Catholics who defy or question Church teaching are obligated to examine the teachings, seek counsel, pray, and discern—not simply believe or do whatever feels right in the moment. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains, “The faithful therefore have the right to be instructed… and the duty of observing the constitutions and decrees conveyed by the legitimate authority of the Church.” I am eternally grateful for the Catholic Church and its leaders for their instruction and guidance in my life. I am thankful that Archbishop Vigneron loves the people he shepherds so much that he willingly accepts public derision in order to instruct and guide us in the Archdiocese of Detroit.

VALERIE GIGGIE

Clarkston

[jcole]

From the Oakland Press editoral page of April 16:

"Archbishop Allen Vigneron was quite right when he instructed Catholics who are in opposition to Church teaching on serious matters to forgo reception of Holy Communion. Holy Communion is so-called because we unite ourselves to one another and to Christ by this sacrament. Anyone who disagrees with the Church on a serious matter is not in communion with the Church. Moreover, as St. Paul instructs the Corinthians, we must receive the sacrament worthily: “A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.”

The current issue in question is same-sex marriage, which violates natural law not just divine law, but this applies to a number of issues. Catholics who defy or question Church teaching are obligated to examine the teachings, seek counsel, pray, and discern—not simply believe or do whatever feels right in the moment. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains, “The faithful therefore have the right to be instructed… and the duty of observing the constitutions and decrees conveyed by the legitimate authority of the Church.” I am eternally grateful for the Catholic Church and its leaders for their instruction and guidance in my life. I am thankful that Archbishop Vigneron loves the people he shepherds so much that he willingly accepts public derision in order to instruct and guide us in the Archdiocese of Detroit.

VALERIE GIGGIE

Clarkston

I wonder if Valerie uses birth control

[Eber Brock Ward]

From the Oakland Press editoral page of April 16:

"Archbishop Allen Vigneron was quite right when he instructed Catholics who are in opposition to Church teaching on serious matters to forgo reception of Holy Communion. Holy Communion is so-called because we unite ourselves to one another and to Christ by this sacrament. Anyone who disagrees with the Church on a serious matter is not in communion with the Church. Moreover, as St. Paul instructs the Corinthians, we must receive the sacrament worthily: “A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.”

The current issue in question is same-sex marriage, which violates natural law not just divine law, but this applies to a number of issues. Catholics who defy or question Church teaching are obligated to examine the teachings, seek counsel, pray, and discern—not simply believe or do whatever feels right in the moment. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains, “The faithful therefore have the right to be instructed… and the duty of observing the constitutions and decrees conveyed by the legitimate authority of the Church.” I am eternally grateful for the Catholic Church and its leaders for their instruction and guidance in my life. I am thankful that Archbishop Vigneron loves the people he shepherds so much that he willingly accepts public derision in order to instruct and guide us in the Archdiocese of Detroit.

VALERIE GIGGIE

Clarkston

Blind fools like Valerie are the reason JFK faced so much opposition to his presidential bid -- is he loyal to the secular USA or the pope/church in Rome?

God Bless the folks than can separate church from state and shame on those like Valerie that may, in fact, be traitors, if they place edicts from Rome above all else.

[southen]

From the Oakland Press editoral page of April 16:

"Archbishop Allen Vigneron was quite right when he instructed Catholics who are in opposition to Church teaching on serious matters to forgo reception of Holy Communion. Holy Communion is so-called because we unite ourselves to one another and to Christ by this sacrament. Anyone who disagrees with the Church on a serious matter is not in communion with the Church. Moreover, as St. Paul instructs the Corinthians, we must receive the sacrament worthily: “A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.”

The current issue in question is same-sex marriage, which violates natural law not just divine law, but this applies to a number of issues. Catholics who defy or question Church teaching are obligated to examine the teachings, seek counsel, pray, and discern—not simply believe or do whatever feels right in the moment. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains, “The faithful therefore have the right to be instructed… and the duty of observing the constitutions and decrees conveyed by the legitimate authority of the Church.” I am eternally grateful for the Catholic Church and its leaders for their instruction and guidance in my life. I am thankful that Archbishop Vigneron loves the people he shepherds so much that he willingly accepts public derision in order to instruct and guide us in the Archdiocese of Detroit.

VALERIE GIGGIE

Clarkston

instead of engaging in the discussion and defending your position you just post completely random blurbs from others then disappear. it's spineless, but it ties in perfectly with your views. nicely done.