Kmiec proposes end of legally recognized marriage

News Resources Tools Columns Documents ACI Group

Contenidos del sub-menu

Comments: 42

Professors Douglas Kmiec and Robert George

Washington D.C., May 28, 2009 / 04:41 am (CNA).- Doug Kmiec, a prominent Catholic who backed Barack Obama’s presidential bid, has endorsed replacing marriage with a neutral “civil license,” a proposal law professor Robert P. George called a “terrible idea” that would make the government neglect a vital social institution.

Speaking to CNSNews.com, Pepperdine University law professor Doug Kmiec said that although his solution to disputes over the definition of marriage might be “awkward,” it would “untie the state from this problem” by creating a new terminology that would apply to everyone, homosexual or not. “Call it a ‘civil license’,” he said.

“The net effect of that, would be to turn over--quite appropriately, it seems to me, the concept of marriage to churches and a church understanding,” he said.

Kmiec said that a motive for California’s Proposition 8, which restored the definition of marriage to being between a man and a woman, was religious believers’ “genuine concern” that the California ruling imposing homosexual “marriage” was not addressing religious freedom issues.

Saying he was among those believers who had such concern, Kmiec noted the possibility that churches which don’t acknowledge same-sex “marriage” could be subject to penalty, lose public benefits, or be subject to lawsuits “based on some theory of discrimination.”

Kmiec argued “civil licenses” would address the question. He proposed the state withdraw from “the marriage business” and do licensing “under a different name” to satisfy government interests for purposes of taxation and property.

Under his proposal, “the question of who can and cannot be married would be entirely determined in your voluntarily chosen faith community,” he added, saying that the proposal would reaffirm the significance of marriage “as a religious concept,” which has a much fuller understanding than is found in civil marriage.

Responding to Kmiec’s proposal, Princeton University professor Robert George said it was a “terrible” idea and a “very, very bad one.”

George told CNSNews.com that marriage is not like baptisms and bar mitzvahs but has “profound” social and public significance.

“It’s a pre-political institution,” he said. “It exists even apart from religion, even apart from polities. It’s the coming together of a husband and wife, creating the institution of family in which children are nurtured.”

“The family is the original and best Department of Health, Education and Welfare,” he continued, saying that governments, economies and legal systems all rely on the family to produce “basically honest, decent law abiding people of goodwill – citizens – who can take their rightful place in society.”

“Family is built on marriage, and government--the state--has a profound interest in the integrity and well-being of marriage, and to write it off as if it were a purely a religiously significant action and not an institution and action that has a profound public significance, would be a terrible mistake,” George told CNSNews.com.

“I don’t know where Professor Kmiec is getting his idea, but it’s a very, very bad one.”

Comments: 42

Subscriber comments:

Published by: Pete
USA 06/01/2009 02:27 PM EST

"What you know about Jesus? Did you think He would be here taking part of this Inquisition? Not my Jesus!"

Who in their right mind says 'my Jesus'? Wow, right there these liberal "catholics" show that they are just as judgemental as they claim real catholics are! It's that same relativistic mentality that allows people to legitimize every evil under the sun.
My Jesus! You people make up all sorts of false concepts of Jesus! This is why we have 40,000+ christian denominations. If people learned to die to themselves and follow Christ, everyone would be catholic. and not these pretend liberal "catholics", but ones who hold true to THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Published by: Pete
USA 06/01/2009 02:17 PM EST

I find it interesting to hear people say that opposing sinful natures is anti-christian.

If you support sin, such as homosexual activities- you are not a christian, you are a Satanist. Get your labels correct.

You cannot be Catholic and support active homosexuality and other perverted lifestyles or abortion- you excommunicate yourself by supporting acts of mortal sin.

CHECK YOUR CATECHISM.

Published by: Pete
USA 06/01/2009 02:13 PM EST

I love it how these people all say "YOU need to change" by growing in prayer or whatever. Claiming that others need to change or be more "holy" is the surest sign that pride rules the heart. One can never get to God with the mentality that only others need to get closer to Him.

Published by: Bethany
Orange County, CA, USA 05/31/2009 08:38 PM EST

(2 of 2)

This option is not giving in; this is truly protecting marriage. This is what needs to be done, for homosexual relationships are already out there and we can’t change that (except through prayer, sacrifice, loving, not judging and YOU growing in holiness and in a deeper and more profound relationship with Christ). But we can protect marriage as a sacramental union within the Church.

Published by: Bethany
Orange County, CA, USA 05/31/2009 08:37 PM EST

(1 of 2)

Marriage is between a man & a woman; a sacramental union brought about by God. So I have no problem at all with the state being in charge of "civil unions" and "marriage" being left to the business of the Church.

I totally agree with Kmiec. This is simply what needs to happen. Homosexual relationships are already out there folks; they're already in their civil unions. They're looking to receive equal terminology as straight marriages, and – and this is important - they're not going to stop until they do so. So fine, let's have the same terminology as far as the government is concerned. Have the government acknowledge “civil unions” and keep "marriage" safe in the churches.

Kmiec brought up a huge point! Didn't you all see it! He's trying to save the Church from being majorly persecuted. As I said, eventually the gay activists are going to get their way. If we don't use “civil unions” and they succeed in redefining the word “marriage,” “Kmiec noted the possibility that churches which don’t acknowledge same-sex ‘marriage’ could be subject to penalty, lose public benefits, or be subject to lawsuits “based on some theory of discrimination. Kmiec argued ‘civil licenses’ would address the question. He proposed the state withdraw from ‘the marriage business’ and do licensing ‘under a different name’ to satisfy government interests for purposes of taxation and property” (from above article).

Published by: ela
nederlands 05/30/2009 03:12 PM EST

Kmiec has officially JUMPED THE SHARK!

Published by: Niles
San Francisco, CA 05/30/2009 12:34 AM EST

Finally, a voice of reason & clarity in this debate! God Bless
Professor Kmiec for proposing
a rational solution that should
satisfy all, including arch-homophobes. What the good
Prof has suggested, is "nothing
new under the sun" as most
European nations have "civil
unions", then if the
couple wishes, they can
go to their local church,
synogogue of mosque to
get "married". I only wish
that folks who spew forth such anti-Christian, hateful,
homophobic diatribes could meet my legally married
lesbian neighbors & their
2 wonderful Catholic school
educated children; one woman is a physician/medical school
professor, the other an attorney/law firm partner - I'm
certain they pay their share of
taxes, yet they are denied having their pre-prop 8
legal wedding recognized at the Federal Level; at least it's
still recognized in Calif & 5
other states.
+Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us.

Published by: frjimt
pocono pines, pa 05/28/2009 10:04 PM EST

Hmm....a civil license and then a church ceremony. Where did I hear this before?

Oh, yeah, it was communism. A system dying, just like our own.

Keep up the good work Comrade Kmiec

Published by: Dan
Santa Fe/NM/US 05/28/2009 08:44 PM EST

I hate to agree with Doug but Blaine articulates the concerns very well---The Church may need to make major concessions moving forward in the US at least.

Published by: David Charkowsky
Mesa, AZ, USA 05/28/2009 07:32 PM EST

The state exists for the good of human persons, not the other way around.

The state can't serve the good of human persons if it does not recognize the human person, and the state's idea of the human person is utterly broken if it doesn't take into account the single most important human relationship.

Published by: geronimo
earth 05/28/2009 07:06 PM EST

The pagan government has no business being in the marriage business at all. Governments had nothing to do with marriage until the mid-to-late 19th century. There were no government-issued marriage licenses and no civil marriage requirements. This is the way it should still be, particularly when you are governed by a pagan regime. The sooner we take off the rose-colored glasses the better we will all be. Rather than trying to preserve the civil marriage institution, we should be abolishing the civil marriage institution. If we don't, it is just a matter of time before you have nationwide homosexual civil marriage, polygamy civil marriage, animal civil marriage, etc. Let the nation self-destruct, the sooner the better.

Published by: Grace M. Alvarez
Twain Harte, CA, USA 05/28/2009 07:00 PM EST

In a rebuttal to Prof Kmiec, Prof. Robert George of Princeton stated the following:
"Marriage is more than merely a religious institution. It has profound social significance, public significance; it’s a pre-political institution. It exists even apart from religion, even apart from polities. It’s the coming together of a husband and wife, creating the institution of family in which children are nurtured.”
Therein lies the crux of the argument. From earliest societies the recognition of family units was: father, mother, children. Continuation of the "tribe" was crucial to the unions of men and women. We humans have a need (longing) to know our ancestry. That begins with mother, father. We cannot (yet) guage the effect on children, artificially conceived, raised by single gender parents. Nurturing is not always enough. As any single parent will attest, a boy wants to know what his father was like and also girls without a mother to emulate. A nation's pain is tomorrow's shame.

Published by: Merry
Virginia 05/28/2009 05:08 PM EST

Kmiec has taken leave of his senses...lost his moral bearings ...unrecognizeable from the man he once was - drunk on BHO koolaid.

Published by: Bill Sr.
Jacksonville, FL 05/28/2009 04:08 PM EST

"I don’t know where Professor Kmiec is getting his idea, but it’s a very, very bad one".

I do, its part of the Liberal Progressives game plan.
Look at it this way. Intellectuals, like Kmiec Katholics, don’t think religion today in America can exist without the support of the state. They fear the state more than God and believe religious faith is a less powerful possession than certified state citizenship.
Our society, it seems to them, was a gathering of political pilgrims who came here to set up a religious culture with a common government. We began being quite similar in our basic beliefs but over these many years when the religious culture became too difficult to define for the masses the government is required to step in and set the rules for the CITIZENS.
Of course, there are a few of us who realize this is a “negative” picture of what America is all about. We were a religious people before we had a government. We are proud to be part of the American dream and relish that “citizenship” and have made great sacrifices to maintain its tradition but we own a greater allegiance and cherish our faith and its traditions above the political society those “intellectuals” wish to enthrone for themselves. We value “souls” above “polls”.
We simply are not ready to amend our heritage or deny our time honored status as religious refugees. You might liken us to U. S. Marines who will stand united with a soldiery devotion to duty, the few, the proud, hoping to keep our honor clea

Published by: Robert Lockwood
Lafayette, CA 05/28/2009 03:20 PM EST

I always thought that in order to be a "prominent Catholic" it was necessary to be Catholic. The professor is neither.

Published by: Brenda
Austin, Tx, USA 05/28/2009 03:18 PM EST

David Larsen has it right. Do people these days even know right from wrong? Unequivocally NO! Of if they do, they turn a blind eye to it. They don't even properly know Scripture, much less right from wrong. American society is driveling down to chaos. What is needed is education, and the best way to educate is to be active on these forums. Each one of us is an ambassador, a teacher of sorts, insofar as we know anything about our faith. It's really our responsibility to educate ourselves too! makes a huge difference when you are discussing issues. Clearly homosexual marriage is a ploy to invade the churches and alter the teachings of Christ. For one thing, why marry if you are engaged in abnormal sex, or a form of sex outlawed by the church? It's a rebellious act that attempts to force the ego onto religion, rather than accept the action of God upon the ego. It turns faith upside down. It says that it isn't God who makes the rules, but man who makes up God. If we allow this line of reasoning to continue, it will end by outlawing religion altogether, especially Catholicism, tracing its roots back to Jesus Christ DIRECTLY. It will end in a complete repudiation of Christ. Don't you see that? To legitimize homosexuality, you must first dismantle Christianity. If you're going to dismantle the family in order to legitimize homosexuality and promiscuity, then why have religion at all? OH! The answer? To save your soul, your country from destruction, etc...?

Published by: Gary Glenn
Midland, MI 05/28/2009 02:55 PM EST

If marriage is relegated to the cultural "backwater" of being only a religious rite, the intolerant enforcers of "separation of church and state" will make govt acknowledgement of marriage in the public square or in schools as unwelcome as all other religious rites are today. It would then be "unconstitutional" for govt. to acknowledge marriage, they'd say. It'd violate the First Amendment to allow a city park to be used for a wedding, etc., etc.

Published by: Gary Glenn
Midland, MI 05/28/2009 02:53 PM EST

Kmiec was, before he endorsed Obama, chairman of the Romney for President Advisory Committee on the Constitution and the Courts.

His call to deconstruct legal recognition and thus formal social endorsement and support for one-man, one-woman marriage should come as no surprise, given his support for first a Republican and then a Democratic presidential candidate whose vocal support for the homosexual agenda has at various times during their political careers been identical.

Romney -- under no court order to do so, but solely at his own initiative via executive order -- implemented the actual practice of so-called homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts, ordering a revision of the state's marriage licenses to remove reference to a "husband" and "wife" and then ordering magistrates to either issue them to homosexual couples or resign. Obama promises, by repealing the federal Defense of Marriage Act, to expand nationwide what Romney started in Massachusetts.

It's no surprise that a lawyer who endorsed Obama would propose abolishing legal recognition of marriage as a unique social ideal between a man and a woman. It should open some eyes that the very same man was chosen by Mitt Romney to be his chief advisor on issues regarding the judiciary, which reasonably could have led to a similar position in the Romney administration.

Published by: Rolando Rodriguez, SFO
Port Orord, OR 05/28/2009 02:48 PM EST

As I understand it,the state recognizes marriage as a civil contract that two individuals make if they meet certain requirements. Either or both individual(s) can end the contract with or without contest whenever they wish. The church teaches that the sacrament of marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman blessed by God and witnessed by God's family. If validly made, the marriage vows are to be kept until death. We need clarification about the difference between civil contracts and sacramental covenants.

Published by: Lynn
Carbondale, IL 05/28/2009 02:40 PM EST

Kmiec is not a "prominent" Catholic, but rather a misguided soul who could use an authentic encounter with the Risen Lord....& that goes for all those who have joined the alternative progressive "Catholic" groups who do not realize that their Liberalism is heresy.
Conform to Christ.

Published by: taad
Louisville/USA 05/28/2009 02:38 PM EST

Wake up people, they don't care about marriage. All they want is for people think what they are doing is okay and moral. They will continue to press their agenda until they get the church to say it's okay, which can never happen. No legal trick is going to make this go away. Besides, the state has a duty to protect marriage for the good of society. This is more of the death rattle we are hearing of the US. Society is breaking apart.

Published by: Arnold
Phoenix, Arizona 05/28/2009 02:30 PM EST

I am a catholic and I am appalled at the tone and demeanor of your replies.
You all sound like you know it all; therefore, you have the right to judge and condemn other people’s beliefs.
"…feather Catholics…make us all look bad as they create a false Jesus?"
Who is your spiritual adviser?
What you know about Jesus? Did you think He would be here taking part of this Inquisition? Not my Jesus!
"Our intense need to understand will always be a powerful stumbling block to our attempts to reach God in simple love and must always be overcome. For if you do not overcome this need to understand, it will undermine your quest. It will replace the darkness which you have pierced to reach God with clear images of something which, however good, however beautiful, however Godlike, is not God." The Cloud of Unknowing

Published by: Jim
PA 05/28/2009 02:12 PM EST

Blaine is absolutely right. There is a state interest in marriage, but it long ago stopped behaving as if it did. The state's interest has always been about regulating fertility: sex means children, and children present unavoidable legal problems (someone has to raise them, teach them, pay for their care, love them, etc).

The state has no such similar interest in gay marriage. Of course, this ends up being a weak argument because marriage is no longer taken seriously as a form of licensure. People have sex with whomever they want and children born out of wedlock are utterly commonplace.

So while there is sense to the notion that heterosexual marriage presents a unique and compelling state interest, the institution has become a joke. All that is left is a quasi state religious institution, which is something to be avoided at all costs.

Do away with civil marriage. Make civil unions for everybody--not just gay and straight, but any two people regardless of whether the happen to be having sex with each other.

The rest can be handled by the churches.

Published by: geml
Virginia 05/28/2009 01:58 PM EST

One of the earliest divisions of marriage as a civil contract vs a religious sacrament occurred here in the US, under the Puritans. They understood that in Europe the church could keep them from marrying the person of their choice (in their case, for religious reasons.) Thus, when they settled in the US, they removed the sacrament element of marriage and created a civil marriage in its place.

This is not to say that individuals did not consider marriage to be a sacrament, but even in that uber-religious world, marriage was not institutionalized as a sacrament.

Interestingly, many of the most religious founding fathers that we recognize, such as John Adams, were the descendents of both this culture and value system. Perhaps some of our fears of what will happen to both marriage and religion are overblown, when compared to similiar moments in history.

Published by: David LeBlanc
Houston, TX USA 05/28/2009 01:50 PM EST

Civil society has trivialized marriage, so maybe Professor Kmiec is correct. Easy to get into, easy to get out of, that is marriage in America right now. Let's let everyone get in into the marriage game. Doesn't really mean much these days anyway.

Homosexual, heterosexual, what's the difference? Labels.

Right.

For myself, I stood up in a Catholic Church and before God, a priest, friends and family made a vow to stay together until death. It's a vow I firmly intend to keep. I am happily in a different sex marriage, sort of the way God intended it to be.

Do you ever get the feeling there is some sort of divine retribution coming?

Published by: Joanna Ionescu
ON, Canada 05/28/2009 01:30 PM EST

I often thought that in fact, the most appropriate thing to do in order to address the issue of homosexual unions would be not to change the meaning of "marriage" which is what it is, but to find a new name for this particular kind of union. How about "garriage"? Since these unions are unprecedented, let them have a new, unique name which can be defined without bitter fights and disputes. Let the homosexual people free to make their own history. Let them build enough statistics in time, so that future studies will be able to clearly show that garriages can be stable and fulfilling, as much as marriages. So, it is not a question of abandoning the meaning of marriage within the democratic state but rather finding a new name for a new kind of relationship. It seems to me not only obvious, but also common sensical: different meanings require different terminology. Where would the conflict be if such new word would be applied? Who would be able to interfere with homosexual people in order to interfere with their legitimate liberty to define garriages however they please?

Published by: Anastacia
Fair Oaks, CA 05/28/2009 01:13 PM EST

This man needs many prayers. He is so confused and talks so much garbage.

Published by: freddie
mohnton, pa, usa 05/28/2009 12:11 PM EST

I think Kmiec is right. In this way we can give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and to God what is God's.

Published by: Michael Austen
Pembroke, ON, Canada 05/28/2009 11:49 AM EST

The remaining shards of Dr. Kmiec's reputation have now been annihilated for failing to pass a simple litmus test: understanding the foundational role traditional marriage plays in civil society. The more society distances itself from true marriage, the more it will self-destruct. Have we not learned anything yet from the last half century?

Published by: Marie
Dallas, TX, USA 05/28/2009 11:38 AM EST

I think it is a very good idea. Only under an "established" church,
like the Church of England was before the Revolution did it make sense. As the local city, County and state governments took over many duties that were previously handled by the parish church from settling fence boundary disputes to recording births of new citizens,
so should the local governments take over the civil licensing of partnerships and leave the sacramental marriage to the churches.

Published by: sharon bourassa
sunrise, florida usa 05/28/2009 11:29 AM EST

Rate: Good

I am so sick and tired of our liberal catholics who are involved in politics coming out with anti-judeo and christian beliefs that arose from our founding fathers. To me, these "feather catholics" do not really belong to the roman catholic faith loyal to rome. They make us all look bad as they create a false Jesus.

Published by: Blaine
Auburn, WA 05/28/2009 11:26 AM EST

Robert George's idea that the State has an interest in protecting traditional marriages is obviously correct but its application assumes that the State is acting as if it has an interest in protecting itself. I would argue that the United States no longer is. Our unsustainable debt, diminishing military and reduced leadership role in international affairs are examples of how our government has been acting against the interest of preservation. Allowing nuclear weapons in North Korea and Iran may be another example. (How long before they give them to Venezuela?) Handcuffing ourselves on energy policy is another. If the State isn't acting to preserve itself in these ways, then its hard to win the argument on this basis. The legalization, support and easy availability of abortion in almost any form is also a difficult precedent for George's argument to deal with.

Few people would have expected the government to own car companies, banks or insurance companies as recently as a year ago. The fact that it does and the way the arrangements have been handled are signs of a shift in philosophy. The Church can no longer afford to be aligned with the State in an institution as fundamental to our values as marriage. The State no longer supports traditional values and will force concessions from the Church in protecting interest groups that the Church opposes. As far as the State is concerned, marriage is a contractual issue. For the Church, it is a Covenant. It's time to separate the two.

Published by: Blaine
Auburn, WA 05/28/2009 11:23 AM EST

I think Doug Kmiec has this right. The Church doesn't seem to understand the threat it is facing from the State on the marriage issue. Washington just passed an "everything but marriage" act that gives the legal rights of marriage to "state registered domestic partnerships" which are limited to same sex couples and couples where one of the partners is over the age of 62. The idea is discriminatory on its face and is clearly an assault on marriage. It redefines husband, wife, spouse, next of kin, and immediate family, in various ways. Once states have established the right to gay marriage, other arrangements will sue for the same right and it should be hard to find grounds on which to deny them.

The next step will be an attack on churches that won't perform gay marriages or marriages between people in other arrangements. Certainly, there are churches that will perform gay marriages now but doesn't a gay Catholic have a right to be married by their priest? The 9th circuit appeals court will undoubtedly say so. Churches that refuse to comply will lose tax-exempt status, at the least. Individual clergy might face tougher sanctions. Elements of the left have been trying to do this to the church for a very long time. They are now very close to having the apparatus in place to do it. By separating "civil licenses" or "state registered domestic partnerships" from marriages, churches may be able to get protections that allow them to perform only the ceremonies they choose.

Published by: Maria Trujillo
Plantation/FL/USA 05/28/2009 11:20 AM EST

Wonder what The Author of the institution thinks of this little gem. Perhaps Archbishop Mahony would request an apology for this "slight" to Our Lord?

Published by: Sue
FL/U.S.A 05/28/2009 10:36 AM EST

This same Professor Douglas Kmiec has just today hailed the nomination, by President/Professor Obama, of Liberation Theologian Professor Miguel Diaz for U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See. And, by the way, both Kmiec and Diaz are members of Pro-Obama "Catholic" Groups. It just goes to show that wolves in professor's suits, oh I mean sheep's clothing, run in packs.

Published by: R. Brown
Lexington, MD 05/28/2009 09:56 AM EST

It isn't hard to see where Prof. Kmiec is coming from. California, like many other states is a "no fault" divorce state. What "no fault" divorce is, is the ability to destroy a family and children, without the moral and societal guilt that should fall on the courts, judges, lawyers, and irresponsible adults who file such foolishness. It is this irresponsible behavior that has brought forth so called, "gay marriage."
It has put the emphasis on the adults, their sexual pleasure and total destroyed and trashed the "Implied Contract" between father, mother, child and family. Abortion or the "right of privacy" of the mother supersedes the Implied Contract between the mother and unborn child. Prof Kmiec is saying that the state now has no Implied Contract with the family or the well being of the family, but religious institutions do. But it is realized that religious institutions will be teaching morals and ethics that are at odds with the morals and ethics of the state. Therefore, the religious institutions will have change or be eliminated, which once again removes any champion or protector of the family.
Well, here is a fact, 100% of those that want same sex "marriage" have a male and female for a parent. This is biological fact. As such, carrying 50% DNA from both parties, allows them 50% of their time with both parents. Gay marriage cannot and does not allow for this biological fact and thus fails the true test of marriage. It also fails the Implied Contract between father, mo

Published by: Katharine Kernan
Utica/NY/USA 05/28/2009 09:34 AM EST

Practically every culture from the beginning of time has its creation story. As part of these the joining of a man and a woman in a sacred union is part of the story of the human race.
To deny this smacks of convenience.

Published by: snowkey
Missoula, MT 05/28/2009 09:29 AM EST

I happen to agree with Prof. Kmiec. We would be going to a European system by doing that. My nephew was married in a Catholic church in Italy and was told that he had to have a civil ceremony in the States to make it binding. A religious sanction would raise the marriage to a different level, more of a sacramental marriage.

Published by: Stefanie
Moultrie, GA, USA 05/28/2009 08:35 AM EST

The "civil license" would be the completion of a The Great Society of Johnson. Believe or not the govt. has been encouraging the destruction of marriage through welfare for families by actually telling the participants to "separate" from their spouses to get more money. Having been on welfare and knowing many families who also have been on aid, I have experienced this first hand.

Published by: Marcello
Detroit, Michigan, USA 05/28/2009 08:32 AM EST

Professor Kmiec is right. Marriage is a sacred institution. It should remain between man, woman, and God. The government has no business being involved.

Published by: dAVID LARSEN
scituate Mass. USA 05/28/2009 06:57 AM EST

The homosexual marriage issue is masking the issue of what was basic moral teaching.
The questions are:
1 Is homosexual sex appropriate behavior?
2 Is pornographic depictions of all kinds appropriate?
3 Are unnatural sexual activities between partners illegal?
4 Is living together unmarried wrong?
5 Is raising children outside marriage wrong?
6 Do people these days even know what is right or wrong?
7 Is religion teaching a correctness in the learning human relations?
8 Is the Catholic church "judge-mental"? And Unreasonable in teaching morals?
These are just a few of the issues masked by the "marriage issue".
The question is: Is there a license to be licentious?

Published by: Leander Dosch
Huntsville, Utah, USA 05/28/2009 06:12 AM EST

Professor George is absolutely right in calling marriage pre-political. The very basis and worth of any society is its people, and they are generated best in stable unions of man and woman.

ADD A COMMENT (Your e-mail will NOT be published):


NAME:
CITY/STATE/COUNTRY:
EMAIL:
COMMENT:

PLEASE ENTER THE SECURITY CODE DISPLAYED ABOVE:
Chars:

* Thanks for your comments. The number of messages that can be online is limited. Length should not exceed 1500 characters. CNA reserves the right to edit messages for content and tone. Comments and opinions expressed by users do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of CNA. CNA will not publish comments with abusive language, insults or links to other pages.

ADVERTISING
CNA does not necessarily endorse these advertisers. Please proceed with discretion. If you feel that a website announced has inappropriate or offensive content, please send it by e-mail to catholicna@catholicna.com