Gay ‘Married’ Ex-Prit Serv on Canon Law Tribunal for Delaware Dce

Contents:

• COULD CANON LAW BE CHANGED TO PERM GAY MARRIAGE?
• THE GAY RIGHTS CANON AND THE RIGHT TO NONMARRIAGE
• GAY MARRIAGE
• GAY ‘MARRIED’ EX-PRIT SERV ON CANON LAW TRIBUNAL FOR DELAWARE DCE

COULD CANON LAW BE CHANGED TO PERM GAY MARRIAGE?

The Vatin's msage ced Francis' own words om 2016, when he wrote, "there are absolutely no grounds for nsirg homosexual unns to be any way siar or even remotely analogo to God's plan for marriage and fay. Pope Francis has been viewed wh ut optimism by LGBTQ groups bee of remarks like his statement, wily published 2020, that homosexuals are "part of the fay" and that same-sex and other nontradnal upl need a "civil unn law. A: It’s difficult to image that durg the s of preparatory work leadg to the promulgatn of the current Co of Canon Law 1983, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1992, any of the theologians and nonists workg on the projects ever dreamed that the qutn of homosexual “marriage” would even e up.

THE GAY RIGHTS CANON AND THE RIGHT TO NONMARRIAGE

Bee this ed to be a non-issue, there is no direct mentn whatsoever eher the or the techism of what the Church says about homosexuals gettg married. It’s actually fairly easy to answer Miroslav’s qutn, by examg Catholic teachg on the sacrament of marriage and then applyg to the homosexual scenar he mentns.

Siarly, the Church nnot “refe marriage” such a way that would now clu homosexuals livg together and engagg unnatural sexual activy—bee dog so would stroy the very ncept of what marriage is all about, a ncept which was given to by God. But this unfortunately leads to the next issue that Miroslav mentned: uld the ernment of a natn wh laws permtg gay marriage ever force prits to nduct Catholic weddgs for homosexuals? Policians who are hostile to Catholic teachg uld perhaps try to argue that by refg to marry homosexuals, the Church is engagg discrimatn (ever a fashnable buzz-word).

GAY MARRIAGE

It’s impossible to predict the future, of urse, but if prits were told by civil thori that they had to celebrate homosexual weddg-ceremoni, ’s hard to image that the Catholic Church would willgly acquice!

Some who support LGBT equaly, however, argue that the victori me at a great st: the gay rights non, is said, entrench the supremacy of marriage and the maral fay.

GAY ‘MARRIED’ EX-PRIT SERV ON CANON LAW TRIBUNAL FOR DELAWARE DCE

Keywords: due procs, equal protectn, Fourteenth Amendment, equaly, marriage, gay marriage, nonmarriage, sexual orientatn, discrimatn, nonmaral. Early Years: Same-Sex Marriage Bans In 1970, jt one year after the historic Stonewall Rts that galvanized the gay rights movement, law stunt Richard Baker and librarian Jam McConnell applied for a marriage license Gerald Nelson rejected their applitn bee they were a same-sex uple, and a trial urt upheld his cisn. ” This lg effectively blocked feral urts om lg on same-sex marriage for s, leavg the cisn solely the hands of stat, which alt blow after blow to those hopg to see gay marriage beg 1973, for stance, Maryland beme the first state to create a law that explicly f marriage as a unn between a man and woman, a belief held by many nservative relig groups.

Though the gay rights movement saw some advancements the 1970s and 1980s—such as Harvey Milk beg the first openly gay man elected to public office the untry 1977—the fight for gay marriage ma ltle headway for many years. In 1989, the San Francis Board of Supervisors passed an ordance that allowed homosexual upl and unmarried heterosexual upl to register for domtic partnerships, which granted hospal visatn rights and other years later, the District of Columbia siarly passed a new law that allowed same-sex upl to register as domtic partners. C., 1993, the hight urt Hawaii led that a ban on same-sex marriage may vlate that state nstutn’s Equal Protectn Clse—the first time a state urt has ever ched toward makg gay marriage Hawaii Supreme Court sent the se—brought by a gay male uple and two lbian upl who were nied marriage licens 1990—back for further review to the lower First Circu Court, which 1991 origally dismissed the the state tried to prove that there was “pellg state tert” jtifyg the ban, the se would be tied up ligatn for the next three Defense of Marriage Act Opponents of gay marriage, however, did not s on their hnch.