The Bishops don't have a dog in this fight.

(No matter what they might say to the contrary)

The Bishops are correct in what they say. If the marriages are recognized by the state, they arent recognized by God or the church and they dont have to be recognized by anyone else. I dont believe most Maryland voters want same sex marriage here. In the end, it wont matter what anyone else says but God.

MrRational - Regardless of what you may think considering they are the heads of the three archdiocese representing all Maryland's Catholic voters I wouldn't be too dismissive of them or the power they have.

The bishops who passed around known child molesters from one unsuspecting parish to another are going to talk to us about marriage?

Who cares what the Catholic Church has to say? This is an issue of civil marriage. Also, polls clearly show the majority of the citizens of Maryland support marriage equality. Congratulations Maryland!!

BTM2,

I don't dispute the Bishop's influence. They are, after all, consummate politicians. And the pulpit is a very convincing platform from which to publish misinformation.

I do, though, strenuously dispute the Bishops' authority over a civil matter. The Church has no right to seek to bar my access to the civil Court. I have absolutely no desire for sacramental approval (the Bishops' only legitimate purview) of my marriage.

And I certainly dispute their moral authority. Putting aside the Church's appalling record regarding the abuse of children in its care, the notion of (nominally) celibate men dictating the terms of a relationship between two adults is both ludicrous and infuriating.

Clay,

I really don't care what "most Maryland voters" think of same-sex marriage.

I imagine, had those same voters been asked to vote on school desegregation in 1954 or mixed-race marriage in 1967, those issues might have been resolved in ways different than how independent courts found at the time.

Oh, and while we're voting, how 'bout you let me vote on *your* marriage....

BankStreet - I think Clay has it backwards. From what I have read the majority favor at least civil unions. Clay needs to accept the fact that it isn't the government’s job to legislate Christian moral code. As long as religions are free aren’t forced to acknowledge anything which in their view violates God’s law there is no reason for denying anyone the benefits or responsibilities of marriage.

Ravensfan,

Thanks for that. Especially for reminding all of us that marriage comes with responsibilities, as well as benefits. It is not something to be taken lightly (as some same-sex couples have already found)

I heard an interesting "take" on the issue yesterday. Much of the uproar in the religious community centers on the use of the word, "marriage," but, like it or not, that is the word the Court uses (and I, for one, will not settle for anything less -- because anything "less" is just that). Anyway this person I heard made the point that it isn't the word "marriage" to which the church has legitimate claim, but rather "holy matrimony." No Court issues that license (and I aspire to no such license).

Your take?

Some interesting resources here, by the way...

http://www.musingson.com/

BankStreet - I have heard both terms used. It would be a way to differentiate civil from religious. Another thing to consider is there are situations where the Catholic Church doesn't recognize heterosexual marriages. If one of the couple is divorced the church doesn't recognize the marriage as valid. Also I believe any marriages outside of the church aren't considered valid as well. I think this is a case where the church is going to have to apply the same concept and simply not recognize them as valid under church law.

I heard a proposal a while back that suggested that the civil government get out of marriage all together. That all unions recognized be civil ones and if people want to marry within a religion that is done in addition to the actual civil union. You get a license for the civil union and religions do whatever they feel is needed. I’m not sure that really does much for either side.

For me the issue is simply the rules of my faith shouldn’t be forced on anyone. Religion and to a larger extent faith has to be something one chooses to do and not legislated to do to mean anything.

You cant be Catholic and be pro abortion, as the bumper sticker says, nor can you be Catholic and be pro same sex marriage. You may call yourself Catholic, but it doesnt mean that you are.

Clay - Last time I checked Catholic Church Cannon Law was based on the Bible and not bumper stickers. You also don't seem to comprehend the difference between saying the civil law and spiritual law. Nowhere in the Bible are Christians called upon to force our faith and beliefs on others. Clay you are breaking one of Christs teachings by judging me. Christians are defined by their words and deeds. Might I suggest you consider that before posting something you may regret.