Consider that California was the flashpoint for marriage of a different sort in 1948. Then the issue wasn't two men or two women wanting the state's blessing for their matrimony, but couples from different races seeking to be married. According to Reverend Scotty McLennan of Stanford University, author of Finding Your Religion, it was the Catholic Church that stepped forward to successfully challenge California's anti-miscegenation law on behalf of a black-white couple in Los Angeles. At the time, 40 states had such laws in force. It wasn't until 1967 that the Supreme Court struck down remaining restrictions on interracial marriage then being enforced by some twenty states. So, after the California ruling upholding Proposition 8 and as more states pass laws in support of same sex marriage, how much longer before the law of the land applies to all its citizens, gay and straight alike?
Watch the full program at FORA.tv.
Follow Blaise Zerega on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BeeZee
THIS current church is despicable and hateful and goes against everything Jesus Christ preached.
My priests are not despicable, nor are they hateful. They are dear, kind men, who have devoted their lives to helping others. They don't think homosexuality is a sin. They DO stand behind their beliefs about sex outside of marriage (gay or straight). I know they're behind on this, but I love them anyway. I had a long talk with one of them and he admitted that from a secular point of view, prop 8 wasn't fair at all.
I'm Catholic, and I support equal rights for everybody.
While we're waiting for the U.S. to drag itself out of the 19th century on this issue, let's also demand that our ridiculous tax exemptions for religious groups -- most of which espouse hateful and ignorant ideas about gays and just about everything else -- be repealed promptly. Churches are lucrative businesses and should be treated as such by tax laws and other public policies.
The people who were opposed to interracial marriage 50 years ago believed that their views were perfectly logical. (90% od the US believed that, in fact.) History proved them wrong, and history will prove you wrong, too.
In the case, Perez v. Sharp (Perez was the bride, Sharp was the clerk who refused to issue a marriage licence), Perez and her groom Davis were Catholic, and the Catholic church were willing to marry them.
They argued that California was infringing on religious freedoms and their full religious expressions by not allowing them to wed.
Of course it was the right ruling, but interesting the Catholic church would argue that not allowing the marriage of two adults, from their church, is the state's interferring with religious freedoms. Then when there are some religions that want to perform gay marriages they go nuts, and don't see it as religious freedom. It's sad when prisoners can marry, and in some states even those on "death row". But gay cops, nurses, store owners etc. can not. I guess a serial killer is more worthy of a marriage license than a gay person in our society. No wonder there is gay bashing when society sends messages like that.
I agree that the interests of the Catholic Church are different for gay marriage than inter-racial for the misogynistic (sp?) reasons - i.e., the dominance of men in the majority of our religions. However, I also believe that the direction of dialogue is moving the right way.
Unfortunately for gays and lesbians, continued patience is required for society and the courts to catch up to what so many of us know is the right thing to do. I 'ministered' a same-sex marriage in 2004 and it made me proud to know that those in attendance that day believed in equal protection of our laws. Mssrs. Boise & Olsen will likely be able to accomplish the same before our courts.
God is our the side of gays and lesbians.....whether or not the 'Church' realizes it.
Do you know that for a fact, that the Catholic Church Priest would be allowed just to marry them anyway, regardless of civil law?
I mean, definitely the priest could have, but without civil repercussions?
For example, in most jurisdictions, a religious official authorized to conduct civil matrimony in a religious matrimonial ceremony will find that each and every marriage must also meet civil law. It is all or none. The religious official is allowed to conduct religious marriages in defiance of civil law, up to a point, but is not allowed to conduct both at the same time.
Was California different at the time, or would the Catholic Church Priest have lost his license to conduct civil marriages if he conducted this marriage?