<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: “Have License, Will Marry” – The Incredible Shifting Ground Under Marriage</title>
	<atom:link href="http://catholicexchange.com/2008/06/24/112934/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://catholicexchange.com/2008/06/24/112934/</link>
	<description>Catholic News, Catholic Articles, Catholic Apologetics, Catholic Content, Catholic Information</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:46:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: DonHudzinski</title>
		<link>http://catholicexchange.com/2008/06/24/112934/comment-page-1/#comment-32083</link>
		<dc:creator>DonHudzinski</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newcesite.com/2008/06/24/112934/#comment-32083</guid>
		<description>Bruce Roeder

More reading on the connection between the Garden of Eden and the Cave in Bethlehem is fascinating.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_15081989_redemptoris-custos_en.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bruce Roeder</p>
<p>More reading on the connection between the Garden of Eden and the Cave in Bethlehem is fascinating.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_15081989_redemptoris-custos_en.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_15081989_redemptoris-custos_en.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DonHudzinski</title>
		<link>http://catholicexchange.com/2008/06/24/112934/comment-page-1/#comment-32050</link>
		<dc:creator>DonHudzinski</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:29:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newcesite.com/2008/06/24/112934/#comment-32050</guid>
		<description>US history has brought the issue of polygamy to the courts before, polygamy loss, so there is a legal pressident. It is difficult to reverse.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>US history has brought the issue of polygamy to the courts before, polygamy loss, so there is a legal pressident. It is difficult to reverse.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Catholic Chump</title>
		<link>http://catholicexchange.com/2008/06/24/112934/comment-page-1/#comment-32032</link>
		<dc:creator>Catholic Chump</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:02:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newcesite.com/2008/06/24/112934/#comment-32032</guid>
		<description>DonHudzonski

I agree with you as a catholic, but from a state&#039;s view polygamy should not matter. But if you go further like abortion and death penalty should be illegal because from a clearly ethical point a view not religious. People or children should not die at the hands of society. Society can only punish people and protect the innocent. America is here to help pursue life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Instead we show death, liberty, and   pursuit of happiness, but today we have government in our business or religious factions telling the government what to do. Society is the government not religion. If society wants same sex marriage or polygamy then the society has the right to implement it. Its not for the few to tell the many what to do, but the many to tell the few what they should follow. That is why we live in a democracy (republic). Remember 25% of Americans are catholic non-practicing and practicing can vote not to mention other Christians, why are they not voting? Maybe because as I mentioned separation of church and state we left England because of persecution of many types of religions. We should not do the same if Mormons and there religion want polygamy we should not dedicate our position in the matter. We should follow the teachings of our own faith.  

Catholic Chump
http://www.a–optic.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>DonHudzonski</p>
<p>I agree with you as a catholic, but from a state&#8217;s view polygamy should not matter. But if you go further like abortion and death penalty should be illegal because from a clearly ethical point a view not religious. People or children should not die at the hands of society. Society can only punish people and protect the innocent. America is here to help pursue life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Instead we show death, liberty, and   pursuit of happiness, but today we have government in our business or religious factions telling the government what to do. Society is the government not religion. If society wants same sex marriage or polygamy then the society has the right to implement it. Its not for the few to tell the many what to do, but the many to tell the few what they should follow. That is why we live in a democracy (republic). Remember 25% of Americans are catholic non-practicing and practicing can vote not to mention other Christians, why are they not voting? Maybe because as I mentioned separation of church and state we left England because of persecution of many types of religions. We should not do the same if Mormons and there religion want polygamy we should not dedicate our position in the matter. We should follow the teachings of our own faith.  </p>
<p>Catholic Chump<br />
<a href="http://www.a–optic.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.a–optic.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DonHudzinski</title>
		<link>http://catholicexchange.com/2008/06/24/112934/comment-page-1/#comment-32030</link>
		<dc:creator>DonHudzinski</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:59:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newcesite.com/2008/06/24/112934/#comment-32030</guid>
		<description>Catholic Chump

Civil Unions lead to poligamy. The first couple interviewed upon recieve thier license said they plan on getting other licenses, this is poligamy and thier is no way to stop it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Catholic Chump</p>
<p>Civil Unions lead to poligamy. The first couple interviewed upon recieve thier license said they plan on getting other licenses, this is poligamy and thier is no way to stop it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Catholic Chump</title>
		<link>http://catholicexchange.com/2008/06/24/112934/comment-page-1/#comment-32022</link>
		<dc:creator>Catholic Chump</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 04:38:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newcesite.com/2008/06/24/112934/#comment-32022</guid>
		<description>Civil Union Vs Marriage
 
     Marriage is a sacrament that is defined by the church to be between a man and a women. Our society is correct and incorrect in some aspects of this issue. Strictly observing this from an American the state has not right to force marriage or even define marriage unless to really define a civil union. I do believe that marriage is a holy sacrament that god made between man and woman. Given that I also believe as a U.S. Citizen that civil union should have all the rights that a married couple has in the eyes of the government. I am saying that neither state should dictate church doctrine nor church should dictate state matters. We can also observe the fairness of allowing Civil Unions to have all the rights of marriage while protecting the sanguinity of marriage. It is unfair for the state to reward people that are in a religious institution being either catholic or any other religion while not provide equal treatment that do not follow. In general, I do not agree with same sex marriage, but do agree with same sex civil union. I do not believe the state can define marriage since it is not a religious institution. Thus, protecting the idea of marriage, by separating both civil union and marriage to were the institutions can choose those definitions.



Catholic Chump 
Http://www.a--optic.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Civil Union Vs Marriage</p>
<p>     Marriage is a sacrament that is defined by the church to be between a man and a women. Our society is correct and incorrect in some aspects of this issue. Strictly observing this from an American the state has not right to force marriage or even define marriage unless to really define a civil union. I do believe that marriage is a holy sacrament that god made between man and woman. Given that I also believe as a U.S. Citizen that civil union should have all the rights that a married couple has in the eyes of the government. I am saying that neither state should dictate church doctrine nor church should dictate state matters. We can also observe the fairness of allowing Civil Unions to have all the rights of marriage while protecting the sanguinity of marriage. It is unfair for the state to reward people that are in a religious institution being either catholic or any other religion while not provide equal treatment that do not follow. In general, I do not agree with same sex marriage, but do agree with same sex civil union. I do not believe the state can define marriage since it is not a religious institution. Thus, protecting the idea of marriage, by separating both civil union and marriage to were the institutions can choose those definitions.</p>
<p>Catholic Chump<br />
Http://www.a&#8211;optic.com</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stirling</title>
		<link>http://catholicexchange.com/2008/06/24/112934/comment-page-1/#comment-32018</link>
		<dc:creator>Stirling</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:12:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newcesite.com/2008/06/24/112934/#comment-32018</guid>
		<description>The problem here is semantics.  The &quot;state&quot; can&#039;t really marry anyone.  The state can only issue license for civil unions.  The idea of a &quot;marriage&quot; is inherently religious, and means whatever a couple agrees that it means and is administered by whatever person they feel has the authority to perform it.

I was legally married in the state of Pennsylvania, by a protestant minister.  I was married(convalidated) by the Catholic Church some years later.  When was I married?  In many states men and women obtain &quot;common law&quot; spousal status after two years or cohabitation and filing tax together.  When were they married?

The answer in my mind to eliminate the idea of marriage from the &quot;state&quot;.  Calling civil unions a marriage is really to insult the spiritual sacrament some people choose to make.  We should ask for our spiritual customs to be respected.  I doubt they want the connotations of our meanings anyway.  Perhaps then less Christians and Catholics will be confused about the validity of civil unions to their spiritual alignments.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The problem here is semantics.  The &#8220;state&#8221; can&#8217;t really marry anyone.  The state can only issue license for civil unions.  The idea of a &#8220;marriage&#8221; is inherently religious, and means whatever a couple agrees that it means and is administered by whatever person they feel has the authority to perform it.</p>
<p>I was legally married in the state of Pennsylvania, by a protestant minister.  I was married(convalidated) by the Catholic Church some years later.  When was I married?  In many states men and women obtain &#8220;common law&#8221; spousal status after two years or cohabitation and filing tax together.  When were they married?</p>
<p>The answer in my mind to eliminate the idea of marriage from the &#8220;state&#8221;.  Calling civil unions a marriage is really to insult the spiritual sacrament some people choose to make.  We should ask for our spiritual customs to be respected.  I doubt they want the connotations of our meanings anyway.  Perhaps then less Christians and Catholics will be confused about the validity of civil unions to their spiritual alignments.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: irish_2171</title>
		<link>http://catholicexchange.com/2008/06/24/112934/comment-page-1/#comment-32017</link>
		<dc:creator>irish_2171</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:33:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newcesite.com/2008/06/24/112934/#comment-32017</guid>
		<description>Interesting comments. This will cost me a trip to confession, but...Gavin Newsome is a complete idiot to state that the institution of marriage has been strengthened. That ranks as one of the most narrow minded, self centered comments I have ever heard. All he cares about is saving/promoting his political skin. For his &quot;eternal&quot; well being he would be much better off spending some time with his nose in the Bible learning what the institution of marriage &quot;really&quot; is.  Because I guarantee you it does not include a supposed bond between two men or two women. They can try and fool themselves all they want on earth, but ultimately there will be no fooling the final Judge. It looks like I need to pray for these lost souls to find their way. This is pathetic....what a crying shame.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting comments. This will cost me a trip to confession, but&#8230;Gavin Newsome is a complete idiot to state that the institution of marriage has been strengthened. That ranks as one of the most narrow minded, self centered comments I have ever heard. All he cares about is saving/promoting his political skin. For his &#8220;eternal&#8221; well being he would be much better off spending some time with his nose in the Bible learning what the institution of marriage &#8220;really&#8221; is.  Because I guarantee you it does not include a supposed bond between two men or two women. They can try and fool themselves all they want on earth, but ultimately there will be no fooling the final Judge. It looks like I need to pray for these lost souls to find their way. This is pathetic&#8230;.what a crying shame.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bruce Roeder</title>
		<link>http://catholicexchange.com/2008/06/24/112934/comment-page-1/#comment-32016</link>
		<dc:creator>Bruce Roeder</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:52:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newcesite.com/2008/06/24/112934/#comment-32016</guid>
		<description>Interesting article.  

I agree that the phenomenon of the state gaining a preeminent role in licensing and issuing permits for marriage doesn&#039;t make much sense from the sacramental point of view.  

On the other hand, the Marriage Tribunals of so many dioceses which investigate petitions to grant statements of nullity find that many Catholics have not been entering into marriages sacramentally either.

Like the chicken and the egg -- which came first?

Interesting comments posted as well.

Don&#039;s showing the connection between the Garden of Eden and the Cave in Bethlehem is fascinating.

Hanley18106&#039;s comment that contracepting Catholics have a difficult time articulating a coherent defense of marriage strikes a chord as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting article.  </p>
<p>I agree that the phenomenon of the state gaining a preeminent role in licensing and issuing permits for marriage doesn&#8217;t make much sense from the sacramental point of view.  </p>
<p>On the other hand, the Marriage Tribunals of so many dioceses which investigate petitions to grant statements of nullity find that many Catholics have not been entering into marriages sacramentally either.</p>
<p>Like the chicken and the egg &#8212; which came first?</p>
<p>Interesting comments posted as well.</p>
<p>Don&#8217;s showing the connection between the Garden of Eden and the Cave in Bethlehem is fascinating.</p>
<p>Hanley18106&#8242;s comment that contracepting Catholics have a difficult time articulating a coherent defense of marriage strikes a chord as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hanley18106</title>
		<link>http://catholicexchange.com/2008/06/24/112934/comment-page-1/#comment-32011</link>
		<dc:creator>hanley18106</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:03:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newcesite.com/2008/06/24/112934/#comment-32011</guid>
		<description>While some of the blame for the re-definition of marriage can be pinned on activists and lawyers, I think the more interesting question is why was there no outcry in 1906 to the revised marriage code and why is there basically (despite all the chattering about the marriage issues on sites like this one) no outcry from the general public now about what happened in Massachusetts, California, etc.  How were the people in 1906 affected by the Comstock laws passed in the late 1800&#039;s banning the distribution of information on contraceptives?  How are the people of today affected by the pervasive availability and acceptance of contraceptives?  I find that well meaning Christians (Catholic or otherwise) who use contraceptives cannot give a coherent and persuasive defense of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.  Is their ability or even desire to speak clearly on this issue in any way related to their justifications for using contraceptives?  The activists and lawyers will get away with what we the people let them.  Maybe those who are alarmed by the redefinition of marriage need to ask why the general public is so passive about this issue (and I don&#039;t think it has anything to do with the war in Iraq or the lousy economy).  Honestly examining that question might be a little more enlightening than just trying to blame the redefinition of marriage on lawyers and activists.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While some of the blame for the re-definition of marriage can be pinned on activists and lawyers, I think the more interesting question is why was there no outcry in 1906 to the revised marriage code and why is there basically (despite all the chattering about the marriage issues on sites like this one) no outcry from the general public now about what happened in Massachusetts, California, etc.  How were the people in 1906 affected by the Comstock laws passed in the late 1800&#8242;s banning the distribution of information on contraceptives?  How are the people of today affected by the pervasive availability and acceptance of contraceptives?  I find that well meaning Christians (Catholic or otherwise) who use contraceptives cannot give a coherent and persuasive defense of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.  Is their ability or even desire to speak clearly on this issue in any way related to their justifications for using contraceptives?  The activists and lawyers will get away with what we the people let them.  Maybe those who are alarmed by the redefinition of marriage need to ask why the general public is so passive about this issue (and I don&#8217;t think it has anything to do with the war in Iraq or the lousy economy).  Honestly examining that question might be a little more enlightening than just trying to blame the redefinition of marriage on lawyers and activists.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DonHudzinski</title>
		<link>http://catholicexchange.com/2008/06/24/112934/comment-page-1/#comment-32008</link>
		<dc:creator>DonHudzinski</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:43:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newcesite.com/2008/06/24/112934/#comment-32008</guid>
		<description>Do you not see how the story of Adam and Eve repeats itself in the nativity story? Eve brings Adam fruit and he eats of it and we have a guard, who fell with his wife, and death entered. Mary bring Saint Joseph the fruit of her womb and he guards it and we live again.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Do you not see how the story of Adam and Eve repeats itself in the nativity story? Eve brings Adam fruit and he eats of it and we have a guard, who fell with his wife, and death entered. Mary bring Saint Joseph the fruit of her womb and he guards it and we live again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

