By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
With all constituencies reporting, the Irish citizenry approved a constitutional amendment recognizing gay marriage: Yes 1,201,607; No 734,300.
The Constitution of Ireland permits amendment only by popular vote. A vote of the people for such amendments can provide more legitimacy and acceptance by the public and judging by the margin gay marriage will probably gain acceptance more readily. Nevertheless it does not necessarily engender full acceptance of such partnerships as over seven hundred thousand voters chose otherwise. Some institutions in Irish society will struggle to come to terms with the new direction Ireland is pursuing.
Change has been underway with the Irish government’s approach to the issue. Ireland decriminalized homosexuality twenty two years ago and later in 2010 the state voted to permit same sex civil unions to have same legal status as heterosexual couples. Yet there existed considerable debate as to whether a full marriage would be permitted. In 2013 a constitutional convention formed to explore the possibility of amending the Irish Constitution to allow the right to marriage regardless of gender of either party. In 2014 a referendum was drafted to be posed to the people. Voting occurred yesterday.
Probably the most visible unresolved question will be that of the Catholic Church which is not legally bound presently to perform gay marriages by its clergy or within its facilities. The vast majority of Irish are of the Catholic religion which might put more tradition minded church leaders against a younger demographic which sided with the Yes camp in greater proportions. The higher age demographic was more likely to belong to the No camp.
The issue has the potential to cause a schism within the church because doctrine disallows such marriages and the church’s hierarchy answers to the Vatican which ultimately could set policy contrary to that of Catholic Church in Ireland. The issue of gay marriage has caused fragmentation of protestant churches in the United States.
It is likely that in the afterglow of the passage of the referendum Ireland will experience strong debate while it tries to understand and embrace this change. Time will be ultimately the deciding factor. The younger generation embraces gay marriage. Eventually it will not be a significant matter for controversy but like most controversies first generation likely will be the one to struggle the most.
By Darren Smith
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
The Greek Orthodox Church(es) are both schismatical and heretical. They are separated from the obedience due to the authority of Christ in His true Church. They acknowledge no infallible head. They do retain valid orders and the Mass- things which protestantism lost, but have fallen into grave errors concerning the Holy Trinity, the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, and various other points of Christian doctrine. In fact, the bogus Orthodox Church(es) now allow THREE marriage and divorces…Orthodoxy and it’s followers are as far outside the Catholic Church as our separated protestant brothers and sisters…
Well Stanton, it’s no match for the wrath of God. So go ahead and cling to your idol and I continue to follow Jesus Christ. My Lamb is far more powerful than your lion. 🙂
the Catholic Church is like a “roaring lion”…once loosed from it’s cage, it can very ably defend itself…
David,
What you have described are the complexities of civil society that must be addressed as one leaves the state of nature to exist within the community. I believe in marriage as the union of a man and woman. However, that does not mean I need to be married to have a successful, lifelong committed relationship with the woman.
I have a natural right to seek to have this union recognized by the Church and the Church has the authority to define the terms where they will recognize it. I have a legislated right to have this union legally recognized by the state and the state has a duty to offer this equally to all citizens. The State cannot compel the Church to violate its faith and the Church cannot force the State to accept Church doctrine.
In my opinion, the SC should define and make civil unions legal in all 50 states. Period. This would allow my union or anyone else’s to be recognized across state lines. This would be an equal protection of the law. They should leave the institution of marriage as defined locally by the Church.
And before anyone wants to skewer me, I readily admit I don’t know if civil unions are already recognized in all 50 states.
Who cares what you believe dave?…the orthodox church(es) are a fragmented band of churches, based on nationalities, nothing more…in fact, you would be hard pressed to find any evangelical work that their priests actually do,…why?…if they have the truth, wouldn’t it stand to reason they would share it with the world?…they have nary a single missionary in New Guinea, Greenland, Oceania, nor southeat asia…the Catholic Church, which means UNIVERSAL in Greek, is truly universal in scope, as it unites all peoples for all times, regardless of ethnic background…I asked a greek orthodox priest this very question, he flew off the handle and became enraged…and yes, I am aware that the eastern orthodox have valid orders…though heretic…St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome…the Papacy has an unbroken chain…the bogus orthodox church(es) have existed since 1064, and they allow 3 marriage and divorces…they are a false church(es), steeped in heresy…they reject the last 13 Catholic councils…they are not Universal, and have existed for only a thousand years…dave would have us believe that Peter was never in Rome, rather he was roaming about in the British isles!…dave your bitterness is based on your pride, as you refuse to acquiesce, and acknowledge the Catholic Church, because you are a jw/mormon, or some such flavorof heresy…next
have a nice day guys, i’m going to my in-laws to inhale some tamales and coffee, that wifey has made…yum…dave, read the book, ” Fr. Smith Instructs jackson”…just leave your ego and anti-Catholic sentiment at the door…
Stanton,
Is your judgmental and condescending behavior consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ or is that merely a reflection of your idol, the Catholic Church?
father matt fox was also excommunicated years ago for fomenting heresy…these men, like the priest in brazil are a grave scandal to the collar and the church and their ordination…the brazilian cleric has been excommunicated…remember dave, he can be reconciled, if he recants his heresy…if he does this he will be welcomed back to Holy Mother Church
they decided to excommunicate him dave…rightly so…they didn’t have a religious ceremony celebrating the event…senor, do you just not listen?…or just tired of being beaten down?
the Catholic Church has Apostolic succession, because our Bishops and Pope can trace this succession of shepherds back to the Apostles in Jerusalem…protestantism is false and man-made, created by satan, in the 16th century…actually, protestantism is the most cunning and sly of the devil’s many heresies…it appeals to man’s ego and vanity…protestantism is a hodge-podge of false man-made churches, one more ridiculous than the last…often started by charismatic leaders, with an ax to grind with whatever former church they attended…joe smith and charles taze russell are the most absurd examples of this type of activity…
The Great Stanton wrote: “the Catholic Church has Apostolic succession, because our Bishops and Pope can trace this succession of shepherds back to the Apostles in Jerusalem.”
I don’t believe you. The Orthodox claim the same thing. They actually continue the Church of Jerusalem, the Church of Antioch, etc.
Following is an Orthodox Christian perspective:
“Canon VI of the First Ecumenical Council, Nicea I in 325, only granted the Bishop of Rome authority over Churches in the West and affirmed the independence of the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch. In time, the Churches of Constantinople and Jerusalem joined the list of independent or autocephalous Churches. Thus, instead of a centralized Church built on the person of the Pope, the canons of the Ecumenical Councils treat the Church as a federation of autocephalous or independent local Churches. The First Ecumenical Council also mandated that bishops should be elected locally, not appointed by the Bishop of Rome, as in modern Roman Catholic practice, at least in America. As described by the canons, the bishop of each province governed the affairs of his province, led by the chief bishop, or Metropolitan, of the capital of the province. However, the Metropolitans did not have unlimited authority like the modern Pope, but were required to submit to the authority of a council of all the bishops of the province. The canons further stipulated that the council of bishops, now called a Holy Synod, must meet at least twice a year. The Third Ecumenical Council, the Council of Ephesus, established the principle that when a local Church reaches maturity, it should receive its independence and the right to govern its own affairs, by recognizing the independence of the Church of Cyprus in 431.
Eventually, the regional Metropolitans became Patriarchs, who presided over the Churches of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. As outlined by the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, the Bishop of Rome held a primacy of honor as the first among equals, but had no actual authority outside of his own Patriarchate. Significantly, the Council of Chalcedon, the Fourth Ecumenical Council in 451, granted Constantinople equal status with Rome, because of its status as the new capital of the Empire.
Despite modern Roman Catholic teaching that Ecumenical Councils have no authority over the Pope, the Ecumenical Councils assumed authority over all bishops, including the Bishop of Rome. The Councils also knew nothing of papal infallibility. The Sixth Ecumenical Council, the Third Coun – cil of Constantinople in 680, went so far as to declare Pope Honorius guilty of false teaching. Thus, modern Roman Catholic doctrine, which gives all power to the Bishop of Rome, cannot be reconciled with the canons of the Ecumenical Councils. Com menting on the Vatican document, Bishop Hilarion of Vienna, the representative of the Patriarchate of Moscow to the European Union said:
The Orthodox Church does not recognize the Bishop of Rome as the “pontifex maximus” of the Universal Church. In case of restoration of the Eucharistic communion, the Orthodox Church will recognize the Bishop of Rome as the first among equals (primus inter pares) in the family of primates of the local Churches. The primacy of the Bishop of Rome is, for the Orthodox, that of honour, not of jurisdiction.”
…
“The Orthodox also believe that apostolic succession and the sacraments are essential marks of the Church. This is why the Orthodox will agree that those ecclesial communities which do not enjoy apostolic succession and have not preserved the genuine understanding of the Eucharist and other sacraments cannot be called “churches” in the proper sense.
However, Apostolic Succession is not merely an historical pedigree, but also requires Apostolic Faith. This is because Apostolic Succession is not the private possession of a bishop, but is the attribute of a local Church. A bishop who goes in schism or is cast out of office due to heresy does not take his Apostolic Succession with him as a private possession. To be authentic, a bishop must teach Apostolic Faith and must be in communion with the other bishops of the Church. St. Cyprian of Carthage taught that any bishop who breaks away from the unity of the Church loses his claim to Apostolic Office. He wrote, “Whoever is separated from the Church is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; … He who does not hold this unity does not hold God’s law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.”
Although it may be offensive to Catholics and Protestants, the Orthodox position is intellectually honest. If an Orthodox Christian believed that either the Roman Catholic Church or a Protestant group were a more authentic Church than the Orthodox Church, it would be hypocritical to remain within the Orthodox Church and not become a part of whatever group he or she believes is a more authentic Church.”
http://www.antiochian.org/node/17076
jw’s and mormons attend “false churches”, which are really cult’s…
“In other words, it is a self-evident truth than a man has the natural right to bond with a female and produce children and a family to carry on his family name and legacy.”
David,
Marriage is not necessary to further the species. You do not need it to exist in the state of nature and to procreate, so it would not be a natural right. It is a legislated right that DOES NOT trump one’s natural right to not recognize it. Show me someone that believes a judge (or anyone) should be forced to violate his conscience and I’ll show you someone that is not interested in the natural rights of others. The State has an obligation then to provide a legal remedy that supports the rule of law without violating the natural rights of it’s citizens.
Olly wrote: “Marriage is not necessary to further the species. You do not need it to exist in the state of nature and to procreate, so it would not be a natural right.”
The experiment of what man would look like alone in a state of nature is only a starting point for understanding natural rights. Moving beyond that, we look at utility. What good is produced by a certain policy or certain action.
While it is true that one does not require marriage to reproduce, not doing it through marriage leads to many difficulties. Imagine the state of man if the State decided to forbid marriage. What would be the result? There would be many disordered family arrangements, with women having children fathered by many different men. There would be a great increase in venereal diseases and earlier deaths. Men would probably tend toward greater promiscuity because evolutionary theory predicts that it would be to his reproductive advantage to mate with a many young women as possible. As a man ages, it would be to his advantage to mate with women much younger than him because they are more virile. Such leads to women often left alone to care for the children because a man cannot invest so much time with all these women. That ultimately violates the reasoning and conscience of man that he has brought a burden on a woman by impregnating her with his children and then leaving her to father other children with other women. Ultimately, the social structures all break down. The idea of brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, etc. have very little meaning to the children or society. So considering all of this, and perhaps also considering a revelation that man was not designed to operate this way, one might come to discern both the institution of marriage and a natural law that a man-woman bond by the institution of marriage leads to greater happiness. Therefore, we conclude that a man has the inalienable right to reproduce through the institution of marriage because that leads to his greatest good and happiness. No government should ever have the right to forbid marriage as the vehicle of reproduction to any individual. Such would be unconscionable.
Olly wrote: “Marriage is not necessary to further the species. You do not need it to exist in the state of nature and to procreate, so it would not be a natural right.”
You seem to have a very narrow view of what a natural right is. Locke identified natural rights as including life, liberty and property. Jefferson wrote into our Declaration of Independence that our Rights included life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under these headings, there is room to identify a lot of natural rights. I see the “state of nature” argument to be a simple thought experiment to get to the basics of identifying what a natural right is. Mostly it identifies liberties and a basic right to life. You seem to be using it as a tool to limit natural rights to only those necessary for existence.
Take speech, for example. One does not need speech in order to exist in the state of nature. Using your logic expressed above, speech would not be a natural right because you do not need it to exist in the state of nature. However, I would argue against that, saying that speech is a natural right because in the state of nature you have the LIBERTY to speak as you will. Natural law theory, however, would limit speech in certain situations where it might infringe upon the peace and security of others.
In the same manner, the institution of marriage between a man and a woman has so many good benefits for the orderly union of two people that naturally produces children and a family, and it identifies so many duties and obligations of the partners to each other, that to prohibit a person from marriage would be to deny him a fundamental, unalienable natural right. A person has the liberty to pursue an institution for reproduction that would be best for him and society at large. It is notably that in Jewish philosophy, a person who does not marry and have children would be violating one of their most basic ancient laws.
not having formal ceremonies for apostates, has nothing to do with apostolic succession dave…protestants have no apostolic succession, and they never have, or will…your jw buddies are heretics and the church they attend was founded by charles taze russell, another quack charlatan…much like joe smith and the loony mormon’s
dave…we are no longer living in the middle ages…earth to dave…
The Great Stanton, if you don’t read portuguese, use google translate to read this page.
Church decides to excommunicate priest who defends homosexuals in Sao Paulo.
http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/cotidiano/2013/04/1270637-igreja-decide-excomungar-padre-que-defende-homossexuais-em-sp.shtml
again dave…earth to dave…this does not constitute excommunication in the Catholic Church…and yes, you would be right and well advised to follow the teaching and admonition of so great and holy a saint as Thomas Aquinas…I doubt he would have very much in common with your loony, jw theology that you spout though…LOL!
the diseased fruits of sodomy are aids, vd, and spiritual death…a sleigh ride to hades…if the act goes unrepentant…
trooper pork…ooooh, you sound so clever…
Dave you should recognize a moby when you see one. Or it his your first time on the internet?
dave you need to review what constitutes excommunication in the Catholic Church…you sound kinda stupid dave…trying to sound clever, when you ain’t got the facts… makes you look pretty “ate up”
David,
I believe Stanton is not interested in Christianity as much as he is in the Catholic Church. His communications here smack of a cult mentality and there is absolutely no reasoning with that. Good luck!