Thursday, October 22, 2020


Posted by Tim

By now, half the world knows that Pope Francis has come out publicly in support of same-sex unions. 

Pope Francis calls for civil union law for same-sex couples, in shift from Vatican stance

Catholic News Agency

And Francis' arch-nemesis has already fired back:

Archbishop Viganò responds to new film in which Pope endorses homosexual civil unions

Lifesite News


I can't do better that Vigano, so I'll leave the big arguments for the big people. However, I will quibble with the pope on something I (and many lay people) have more authority than the pope to quibble about.

Francis argues that we ought to have "civil unions" so that "homosexuals" - or at least those desiring legal recognition of their union - "are legally covered." 

And this is where we lay people can tell Papa to go pound sand. 

Anyone who has endured a court-ordered break-up of a marriage (which is what a "civil union" is), will know that in this age of no-fault divorce, the last thing you can count on is being "legally covered." 

No-fault divorce statutes have not only castrated the marriage contract, said statutes can functionally force civilly-joined people to surrender their "legal cover" to the state. 

Today, not withstanding a "pre-nup" to the contrary, any married person in a no-fault divorce state, for no reason at all, can simply file a petition for a couple hundred bucks and demand a divorce and half or more of everything accumulated during the marriage. Laws and rules vary by jurisdiction (i.e. states, counties, etc.), but basically that's the gist of it. 


Let's say there is a same-sex couple in a civil union - such as the one Francis says we should have. And let's say Partner 1 is the breadwinner and Partner 2 doesn't produce income. And let's say they've been in a civil union for 10 years. 

And let's say that thanks to Partner 1's high paying job, Partners 1 and 2 have been able to acquire an upscale home, create several investments, stash a lot of money into a retirement account, and acquire some really nice stuff, i.e. cars, furniture, vacation home, etc.

And let's say one day Partner 2 grows tired of Partner 1 and files for divorce. No fault divorce says that Partner 2 gets half of everything Partner 1 worked for.

This is what Papa Francis calls "legal cover." Had they not been in a civil union, neither one of them would have any right to the property of the other. 

Best Interest of the Child

Of course this has nothing to do with the sex of the couples. But at least heterosexual marriage - being that it is naturally ordered towards the bearing and raising of children - has a built-in foil against jumping from partner to partner. And even in a heterosexual marriage gone bad, the presence of children is potentially a moral neutralizer. 

Most states now, including Guam, have legislated a "best interest of the child" standard. And any marital breakup wherein minor children are involved, invokes the "best interest" statutes, including the division of property, which may be divided by the court in the "best interest of the child." 

In fact, the whole "community property" idea, wherein all assets acquired during the marriage belong to the couple, is all about the "best interest of the child," since the law assumes that marriage exists for the bearing and raising of children.

It gets complicated, but despite all the arguments about "love" being the reason for marriage - which is the basis of Francis' argument - civil laws, nationwide, still say that love doesn't matter. In fact, in all of marriage law, the word "love" never appears. And it doesn't appear in divorce law either. What matters is the child, the BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD.

The bedroom

After reading many comments on several postings in social media re Francis' support of same-sex civil unions, the most common put-down of anyone who dared oppose the pope's message was the tired-old argument, i.e. "who are you to tell people what they can do in their bedrooms."

The answer is "Nobody." 

Nobody has the right to tell anyone what they can do in their bedrooms. The issue is that Francis and others do not want to leave it in the bedroom. They want to force it into the courtroom...and into legislative chambers...and into your face.

End Notes

On a private note, I have had long years of experience with this issue. And I have found that the happiest and most secure same-sex couples want nothing to do with civil unions, same-sex marriage, an agenda such as Papa's, or a contract that is not worth the paper it is written on in the age of no-fault divorce. 

Lastly, it doesn't matter what Francis says in a documentary, on an airplane, or even in an apostolic exhortation. Francis is not the Church. He's just the Pope ("Papa")...for now.  

Every morning, I pray the "Morning Offering" which normally ends with these words: "for the intentions of the Holy Father." However, these days, I leave out the words: "the intentions of...


  1. The Catholic Church has changed a lot from what I had learned while I was growing up, and this latest thought of Francis the one sitting on Peter's Chair have me wondering whether this church still believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ as passed down through the Apostles who Sat on the Chaerir of Peter, or we are no longer the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, as established by Our Lord, whose members abide by the Commandments, are WE now just an "OFF-SHOOT" like the E[picopalians, Lutherans, Seven Days Adventist, Baptist or other Sects that call themselves Christian... My Name is Jesus S.N.Cepeda @

    1. Actually, the Church hasn't changed at all. It's always had its Judases.

  2. As to your example above: 50-50, that may be a part of the agreement in a civil union which BOTH PARTNERS have agreed to. Further to the example: Partner 2 may not have had a paycheck per se, but that does not mean that Partner has made no financial contribution to the union in terms of housekeeping, child-rearing, meal preparation, gardening, etc. all of which may be assigned monetary value. And to your Endnotes: in certain jurisdictions, there may be a tax advantage to having a civil union as opposed to no marriage/civil union.