DOMA decision cited to block Michigan law

[SeannyM]

You have just as many civil rights as any heterosexual person. You are free to marry any opposite-sex partner you wish that isn’t closely-related. That is the same right afforded to heterosexual people. Just because you don’t have lust for those of the opposite sex does not give you the right to start a whole new category of marriage that heterosexuals are currently barred from as well.

A whole new category? Like interracial marriage? We are being denied the right to marry the person we love. Now before you throw the whole pedophile insult, I’m talking about consenting adults, not children who are incapable of consenting.

Tell that to the Catholic adoption agencies that had to shut down over gay ‘marriage’ laws. Tell that to the Catholic schools that are getting in trouble with the state for teaching that homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle.

They voluntarily shut down when they decided that they didn’t want to obey the law. The Supreme Court has already ruled in US v Lee that that religious organizations participating in the public sector must obey all laws pertaining to their industry or service provided.

No, no, no, a billion times no. The definition of marriage is not determined by the state at all; it was determined in the Garden of Eden by God in Genesis, and the COVENANT of marriage has stayed the same since. I don’t care what your church views marriage as; I guarantee you they do not agree with the statement “the definition of marriage…is determined by the state.”

Tell that to an Atheist, or a Muslim. We have those in this country. Are you saying that they should be subject to Christian law? My church recognizes the difference between civil marriage and the sacrament of holy matrimony. My church has been marrying gay people long before the first state allowed it. We don’t need the state to tell us whether the sacrament is valid, because we know that it is. That doesn’t mean that we should settle for unequal treatment under the law. Civil marriage is most certainly defined by the state. How else can you explain the multiple differences in marriage throughout each individual state?

But those sexual positions are not rightly ordered towards procreation, a necessity for marriage. Sex does not NEED to be procreative (infertile couples can get married), but it does need to be ORDERED towards procreation. That means penetrative, vaginal sex must conclude all intercourse. Clearly you and your boyfriend cannot do that.

The ability to procreate is NOT a requirement for marriage. If it were, then post-menopausal women can’t marry, nor can women who’ve had a hysterectomy. Now I know your next answer, so don’t even bother. You are going to say “as long as they are open to the possibility.” Well guess what, if we’re using biology here then my relation is equally open to the possibility of procreating as that of a woman who is status post hysterectomy. That is a biological certainty.

May I also ask how lesbians have organs “appropriately positioned” if you want to go that route? Or are you just throwing them under the bus in your mad dash for hedonistic pleasure?

You may ask a lesbian, I have no idea what happens in their bedroom, and have never been too interested to find out.

The purpose of marriage is, first and foremost, procreation. Yes, it also does create a stable family unit, but its first and foremost mission is procreation. You and your boyfriend cannot and will not ever enter into a Sacramental or valid marriage. Concupiscence is no excuse for violating a God-given Sacrament & covenant.

Again, where is it stated that the purpose of marriage is procreation? Find me one currently standing legislative text, or judicial ruling. You can’t, because that is not it’s purpose. You are just repeating stock talking points, but I’d like you to point to evidence.

And we most certainly can enter into a sacramental marriage. Our church has been doing it for quite some time. Before you respond, I’ll tell you that there is zero chance of you convincing me otherwise. To attempt to do so would be disrespectful, and a complete waste of time. I have no hopes of changing your mind about the validity of my sacramental marriage, and I respect your beliefs enough not to try.

 

[Borealis]

My religion (Old Catholic Church) has allowed gay marriage since 1925. But that doesn’t matter for two reasons. First, and most importantly, religion plays no part in our legislative process, and secondly, we have to address the CURRENT situation, not the past. Currently, there are several religions that allow same sex marriage.

Then your religion, though it claims to be Catholic, is in direct violation and contradiction of what God has commanded since the beginning. And to say that religion plays no part in our legislative process is a denial of reality. Judeo-Christian morality, coupled with Greco-Roman legal codes, is the basis for Western law. Always has been, always will be.

Now, to answer your question about where equal protection is sin the constitution, it’s found in the 14th amendment. Here is the text: “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…”

And what equal protection is being denied to gays? There is no ‘right’ to marry whoever you want, as has been pointed out multiple times, and not just by myself. The 14th Amendment doesn’t give a new right to marry whoever you want. Nice try, though.

 

[Borealis]

Nobody is asking the rest of society to “knuckle under to” any definition of marriage. We are simply asking that we receive equal protection. The constitution exists to protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority. But, if you want to talk about the majority, most people in the US agree that marriage equality should be granted to gay people as well, so your opinion is actually in the minority.

Forcing churches to perform gay marriages (and that will happen as surely as Catholic hospitals will be forced to perform abortions) is, in fact, demanding that the rest of society ‘knuckle under’ to a small group’s definition of marriage. You already have equal protection: you can marry under the same criteria as the rest of us. And as for your claim that this opinion is in the minority, so was abolition. How did that work out?

As for what we teach our children in school, I think it’s important that they should be taught tollerance at least. How would you feel if a public school taught that religion was not acceptable? In a pluralistic society, we must respect each person’s right to hold their own beliefs. If we want children to be successful in a pluralistic society, they should understand that while someone’s way of life may be contrary to their beliefs, they should still be respected. I would think you would want them to learn that in order to be successful in a society where gay marriage is becoming more and more accepted. I garantee you that if one of my Sailors felt the need to degrade me for my orientation, he would suffer from that choice, just as I would if I degraded him for his religion. I think our children should be prepared to take part in a society where it is no longer acceptable to denigrate people for being gay.

No. I will not teach my children to accept gay marriage, nor will I teach them anything that runs contrary to the Catholic Church’s teachings. Society is temporary; Heaven and Hell are eternal. If I want my children to be successful in life’s ultimate goal, then I will teach them that God’s laws supersede society’s. I will teach them that when someone actively opposes God’s will, they are in error and sin and must be taught to follow God’s commands. And they will do so for the best reason of all: they will be concerned for the sanctity of the other person’s soul, not their love life.

 

[Borealis]

You are guessing in all cases, and no one moral code holds sway in the United States…it is, and has been a combination of many philosophies.

Einstein was ‘guessing’ at the theory of relativity; eventually he was proven right. Pope Paul VI was ‘guessing’ when he wrote Humanae Vitae in 1968 that warned of what the consequences would be if contraception was permitted…and he was proven exactly right. The Catholic Church is very wise, even if its members aren’t.

And what other moral code holds sway in American society? Throughout its history, it has been repeatedly made clear that the only moral code behind the system of laws is the Judeo-Christian one.

 

[Monkey1976]

Not to nitpick, but technically it was the beliefs of two men and three women

True, the overall decision was 2 men and 3 women, but the wording in the decision used to overturn the Michigan law is all on Kennedy.

 

[Stephen168]

Now as far as my relationship goes, it is completely equal to a heterosexual relationship. The definition of marriage is not determined by biology, it is determined by the state. And, the male body is quite capable of intercourse with males… there are organs appropriately positioned to allow for pleasure for both partners. If you need an Anatomy lesson, I suggest google, because this is not the appropriate forum to go into more depth.

. Equal does not mean the same. men and women are equal but not the same. A homosexual relationship is not marriage. Marriage, like humanity, precedes the state, so the state does not define it. Marriage is for the creation and raising of children. The creation of children requires the use of the reproductive organs for their designed purpose, which two people of the same sex can not do, therefore they can not create children, and they are not married.

 

[Monkey1976]

No one wants to make you believe that gay marriage is holy, or moral… But we do want equal protection guaranteed by the constitution. As far as the people of Michigan… they don’t have the right to restrict the civil rights of an entire class of people… In the south the majority of people at one time supported segregation… THEY DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT! Nor do the people of Michigan have the right to restrict the rights of gay people. So yes, justice is served when judges overturn the will of the people. The judges are unelected by the way, so that they are free from any outside influence to interpret the constitutionality of the law.

The “class” to which you refer is determined solely by behavior. Are bikers a “class”? Are fans of science fiction a “class”? There are several posters here with same-sex attraction that have freely chosen to enter into heterosexual relationships - are they no longer members of your “class”? If I engage in homosexual activity even once, am I now a member of your “class”? You are claiming special protection for a freely chosen behavior. That you are inclined toward the performance of such acts is irrelevant - you have the free choice to engage in them or not. Alcoholics are inclined to drink, yet many of them have foresworn alcohol. Should the government disband AA and other treatment programs because they are discriminatory and bigoted against alcoholics?

There is absolutely NO infringement upon religious liberty here… I’m sorry. Islam teaches that there should be no freedom of religion and that everyone should be converted to Islam, so how dare the government allow freedom of religion, it teaches Muslim children that their religion is wrong.

This is just as much a violation of religious liberty as if a law was passed mandating meatless Fridays. Catholic adoption agencies were placed into the position of either violating their beliefs or closing their doors. Catholic children are being directly told that their religion is wrong. Were the government to mandate that all children be taught something in direct violation of your faith - say, that to publicly claim the label “Catholic” one must accept the authority of the Pope - would that not be a violation of religious liberty? Regarding your point about Islam, you’re mistaken: Under Sharia law - the global enforcement of which is not seen as a moral requirement by many Muslims in the US - other religions are still permitted to exist. They wouldn’t enjoy the same level of freedom that Muslims would, but their existence is still permitted.

Now as far as my relationship goes, it is completely equal to a heterosexual relationship. The definition of marriage is not determined by biology, it is determined by the state. And, the male body is quite capable of intercourse with males… there are organs appropriately positioned to allow for pleasure for both partners. If you need an Anatomy lesson, I suggest google, because this is not the appropriate forum to go into more depth.

Your relationship is unable to generate new human life. Heterosexual relationships are. That is basic biology. QED. Could you give the definition of “equal” which can be understood to mean “two things which are fundamentally different, but are claimed to be identical in the face of simple logic”? The state has never before “defined” marriage - it has recognized an institution which predates the state, predates the Catholic Church, and predates civilization itself - it was already firmly established as something between male and female when the Code of Hammurabi was written. We can put into law that pi is exactly 3, but that doesn’t change the naturally observed and mathematically necessary value of 3.14159(etc). When the government enacts laws that are violate basic reason, the result is never good - those of African descent are not “3/5 of a person”, those of different races produce children who are functionally identical to any other child, and abortion is still the destruction of a fully human life. This isn’t Catholic doctrine, this is the basic use of observation and reason. Men and women are clearly designed for one another in a way that men and men or women and women are physically incapable of replicating.

The purpose of civil marriage is stability. It provides stability for the couple by allowing certain benefits. It provides stability for the state because family units are more productive to society, even if they don’t raise children… which is not to say that same sex couples do not raise children… they do. Most of the couples I know that have taken advantage of marriage equality either have, or intend to have children.

If “stability” is the purpose of marriage, why is divorce allowed? Why is adultery legal? If “stability” is the goal of homosexual couples, why is there such a high rate - far beyond that of married couples - of infidelity? As to your point about couples adopting children, that is a violation of those children’s natural right to a mother and a father.

 

[Trader]

How about a break for some good news about marriage in our country? I have been looking for a thread where I could insert this, but they keep getting closed, presumably for uncharitable posts.

On Saturday I attended a wedding with something I had never seen before. The couple being married chose as their second reading, Ephesians 5:21-33. In his homily, the presiding priest said that in all his years as a priest he had heard that reading at a wedding only once, and that was a case where the reader opened the lectionary to the wrong page and he watched the bride turn green as it was read.

21
Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22
Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord.
23
For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body.
24
As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything.
25
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her
26
to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word,
27
that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
28
So (also) husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
29
For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church,
30
because we are members of his body.
31
“For this reason a man shall leave (his) father and (his) mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”
32
This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church.
33
In any case, each one of you should love his wife as himself, and the wife should respect her husband.

What kind of 23 year old bride embraces scripture that is reviled and ridiculed by our culture?

The kind who is the founder and first president of Students for Life at her university.

The kind who becomes an unpaid intern at the local Catholic Radio Station, and now works there full time.

The kind who marries a man brave enough to teach seventh and eighth grade science at a Catholic school.

The kind who is married at the parish where her mother is Director of Religious Education and her aunt is a Pastoral Associate.

The kind who rides with her wedding party from the church to the reception, not in a limousine, but in the Catholic high school bus that was driven as a volunteer for over a decade by her father.

The kind who is homeschooled with her five sisters before they all went to a Catholic High School.

The kind with two older sisters who teach in Catholic schools.

The kind who gets to watch her maternal grandparents dance at her wedding after 65 years of marriage.

In short, the kind raised with serious respect for both Church and family.

I invite you all to pray for this newlywed couple, especially because I guarantee they will be praying for you.

I could not be more proud of my niece and her new husband.

 

[SeannyM]

Then your religion, though it claims to be Catholic, is in direct violation and contradiction of what God has commanded since the beginning. And to say that religion plays no part in our legislative process is a denial of reality. Judeo-Christian morality, coupled with Greco-Roman legal codes, is the basis for Western law. Always has been, always will be.

And what equal protection is being denied to gays? There is no ‘right’ to marry whoever you want, as has been pointed out multiple times, and not just by myself. The 14th Amendment doesn’t give a new right to marry whoever you want. Nice try, though.

“The United States is in no way a Christian nation or founded on Christian principles”
-John Adams in the tripoli treaty.

The right to marry is not currently applied equally. At least not in all states. My religion will consider me married, my state will consider me married, the federal government will consider me married, and other states are obligated under the full faith and credit clause to recognize my marriage when I choose to get married. The only reason they don’t is because the Supreme Court has yet to hear the question. I’m confident that they will rule on the side of equallity once they do. But yes, I currently do have the right to marry in the state of California.

 

[SeannyM]

The “class” to which you refer is determined solely by behavior.

The class is not defined solely by behavior. It is defined by an intrinsic, usually pre-determined sexual and romantic attraction to members of the same sex. If I were to use your logic that it is based strictly on behavior, then heterosexuality would also be based on behavior.

This is just as much a violation of religious liberty as if a law was passed mandating meatless Fridays. Catholic adoption agencies were placed into the position of either violating their beliefs or closing their doors. Catholic children are being directly told that their religion is wrong. Were the government to mandate that all children be taught something in direct violation of your faith - say, that to publicly claim the label “Catholic” one must accept the authority of the Pope - would that not be a violation of religious liberty? Regarding your point about Islam, you’re mistaken: Under Sharia law - the global enforcement of which is not seen as a moral requirement by many Muslims in the US - other religions are still permitted to exist. They wouldn’t enjoy the same level of freedom that Muslims would, but their existence is still permitted.

Marriage equality laws to not restrict freedom of religion, they do not restrict the practice of your religion, they do not mandate a specific belief. There is a requirement that religious organizations/persons who participate in the public sector be held to the same requirements as purely secular organizations. Participation as a business or non-profit organization in the public sector is not considered the practice of religion. You are not permitted to use your religion as an exemption from the law if you are doing any activity outside of the religious sector. So, parishes that have employees should not be forced to recognize a marriage against their beliefs, but once you step into the public sector, that exemption goes away. If you don’t believe me, please read the decision in United States v Lee (the one from the '80s not the one involving Robert E. Lee’s estate). The court has already determined that there is no violation of religious liberties when holding these companies/organizations to the law.

Your relationship is unable to generate new human life. Heterosexual relationships are. That is basic biology. QED. Could you give the definition of “equal” which can be understood to mean “two things which are fundamentally different, but are claimed to be identical in the face of simple logic”? The state has never before “defined” marriage - it has recognized an institution which predates the state, predates the Catholic Church, and predates civilization itself - it was already firmly established as something between male and female when the Code of Hammurabi was written. We can put into law that pi is exactly 3, but that doesn’t change the naturally observed and mathematically necessary value of 3.14159(etc). When the government enacts laws that are violate basic reason, the result is never good - those of African descent are not “3/5 of a person”, those of different races produce children who are functionally identical to any other child, and abortion is still the destruction of a fully human life. This isn’t Catholic doctrine, this is the basic use of observation and reason. Men and women are clearly designed for one another in a way that men and men or women and women are physically incapable of replicating.

The States have defined marriage for a long time… They have changed those definitions on numerous occasions. At one point in time polygamy was legal, this has since changed. Many states have changed the age of consent for marriages multiple times. The Supreme court has forced the states to accept a certain class of marriages in the past (interracial marriage bans were made unconstitutional in Loving). So you are incorrect. Pi is a mathmatical certainty, the definition of marriage is not. There is no valid argument for witholding marriage from gays that can withstand the test of rational basis review (lowest level of scruitiny) by the federal court system. The ability to procreate has never been, and is not now a requirement for marriage.

If “stability” is the purpose of marriage, why is divorce allowed? Why is adultery legal? If “stability” is the goal of homosexual couples, why is there such a high rate - far beyond that of married couples - of infidelity? As to your point about couples adopting children, that is a violation of those children’s natural right to a mother and a father.

Stability is the purpose of marriage. Divorce is allowed because despite the best efforts of all involved, that stability is not always maintained. I’m not sure that the rate of infidelity really goes that far beyond that of married couples. I think that this perception might exist because gay people talk admit to it more often. I don’t think it has any bearing on the merits of this argument though. But if you want to go there, perhaps that would decrease if they were offered equal treatment. Now, adoption… that is your opinion and I accept that, but I disagree… nothing either of us says will change that. The fact is, it is legal for gay people to adopt… and that’s not likely to change. There are many children in the fostercare system that would love to be adopted by a loving family, regardless of its structure. There is no evidence to suggest that gay people are any less capable of raising children than straight people. There is evidence however that shows there is harm caused to the children in same sex parent families that are not afforded equal protection and access to programs and legal status as gardians.

 

[SeannyM]

Equal does not mean the same. men and women are equal but not the same.

Agreed. But the protections they are entitled to under the law are the same.

A homosexual relationship is not marriage.

In several states and the District of Columbia it most certainly can be

Marriage, like humanity, precedes the state, so the state does not define it.

Actually, every single state has a definition of marriage, and they are all different. The definitions have changed several times over the short life of our country. The Supreme court has also forced the states to include a particular type of marriage (interracial) even against the will of the majority of their citizens.

Marriage is for the creation and raising of children.

Says who?

The creation of children requires the use of the reproductive organs for their designed purpose, which two people of the same sex can not do, therefore they can not create children, and they are not married.

Then neither are infertile couples married. Same sex relationships are equally as open to procreation as heterosexual couples who are biologically incapable of conceiving.

 

[StudentMI]

Marriage equality laws to not restrict freedom of religion, they do not restrict the practice of your religion, they do not mandate a specific belief. There is a requirement that religious organizations/persons who participate in the public sector be held to the same requirements as purely secular organizations. Participation as a business or non-profit organization in the public sector is not considered the practice of religion. You are not permitted to use your religion as an exemption from the law if you are doing any activity outside of the religious sector. So, parishes that have employees should not be forced to recognize a marriage against their beliefs, but once you step into the public sector, that exemption goes away. If you don’t believe me, please read the decision in United States v Lee (the one from the '80s not the one involving Robert E. Lee’s estate). The court has already determined that there is no violation of religious liberties when holding these companies/organizations to the law.

See, this is something I don’t understand. You may not care what religious beliefs people hold, but to deny that it is a violation of the beliefs of those people is just nonsensical. The only way to justify it is to set up a barrier between private life and public life which religion does not permit of. Religious beliefs play a part in innumerable decisions and actions on the part of the believer. To set up laws which deny the exercise of the believer’s conscience is to, implicitly, hand over authority to the state to determine issues that are fundamental to believers. It therefore cedes power to secular authority. You can’t deny this. You may say the state is not legislating morality, but it is. The absence of stable moral beliefs, a hallmark of secularism, is itself a moral belief.

It’s like saying there is no such thing as truth. That statement implies that that statement is true, which is a contradiction.

 

[SeannyM]

See, this is something I don’t understand. You may not care what religious beliefs people hold, but to deny that it is a violation of the beliefs of those people is just nonsensical. The only way to justify it is to set up a barrier between private life and public life which religion does not permit of. Religious beliefs play a part in innumerable decisions and actions on the part of the believer. To set up laws which deny the exercise of the believer’s conscience is to, implicitly, hand over authority to the state to determine issues that are fundamental to believers. It therefore cedes power to secular authority. You can’t deny this. You may say the state is not legislating morality, but it is. The absence of stable moral beliefs, a hallmark of secularism, is itself a moral belief.

It’s like saying there is no such thing as truth. That statement implies that that statement is true, which is a contradiction.

What I’m saying is that all constitutional rights have limits. You can’t yell “fire” in a movie theater, or stone your wife for cheating on you just because that’s how your faith interprets the bible. It’s the same here… you can’t use your religion as an excuse for violating someone else’s rights. There has been a compromise made in cases involving laws that are against someone’s religions. We err on the side of religious freedom in the realm of religion (meaning parishes and dioceses). But when those entities branch outside the umbrella of religious practice and into the secular community we treat those organizations just like all of the other businesses.

 

[StudentMI]

What I’m saying is that all constitutional rights have limits. You can’t yell “fire” in a movie theater, or stone your wife for cheating on you just because that’s how your faith interprets the bible. It’s the same here… you can’t use your religion as an excuse for violating someone else’s rights. There has been a compromise made in cases involving laws that are against someone’s religions. We err on the side of religious freedom in the realm of religion (meaning parishes and dioceses). But when those entities branch outside the umbrella of religious practice and into the secular community we treat those organizations just like all of the other businesses.

And in doing so legislate against their moral beliefs. Again, secular morality trumps religious morality with the help of the state. This is what I meant about a barrier: the barrier is false. There can only be one winner in such a struggle, and the winner is secular morality.

 

[Stephen168]

Agreed. But the protections they are entitled to under the law are the same.

We do not treat married people the same as single people, but we treat all married people the same. People of the same sex cannot make a marriage, but they are each able to marry. Marry someone of the opposite sex.

In several states and the District of Columbia it most certainly can be
Actually, every single state has a definition of marriage, and they are all different. The definitions have changed several times over the short life of our country. The Supreme court has also forced the states to include a particular type of marriage (interracial) even against the will of the majority of their citizens.

Marriage cannot be defined by the state it is not a civil right. It is a human right. Humans married before there was a state. My state issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples but they are not married; they will never have children, so they will never raise them.

Says who?

Reason and biology. Calling a same-sex union marriage is irrational.

Then neither are infertile couples married. Same sex relationships are equally as open to procreation as heterosexual couples who are biologically incapable of conceiving.

By design homosexual couples are sterile; sodomy is sterile. By design heterosexual couples create children which they then raise.

Stability is the purpose of marriage.

Only in that it provides children the access to their parents that is their right. Sodomy does not produce children. Society has no interest in the stability of a relationship of two adults.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Then neither are infertile couples married. Same sex relationships are equally as open to procreation as heterosexual couples who are biologically incapable of conceiving.

Cut down your post to make room for this article

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155

…

Any act of organic bodily union can seal a marriage, whether or not it causes conception. The nature of the spouses’ action now cannot depend on what happens hours later independently of their control – whether a sperm cell in fact penetrates an ovum. And because the union in question is an organic bodily union, it cannot depend for its reality on psychological factors. It does not matter, then, if spouses do not intend to have children or believe that they cannot. Whatever their thoughts or goals, whether a couple achieves bodily union depends on facts about what is happening between their bodies.

It is clear that the bodies of an infertile couple can unite organically through coitus. Consider digestion, the individual body’s process of nourishment. Different parts of that process – salivation, chewing, swallowing, stomach action, intestinal absorption of nutrients – are each in their own way oriented to the broader goal of nourishing the organism. But our salivation, chewing, swallowing, and stomach action remain oriented to that goal (and remain digestive acts) even if on some occasion our intestines do not or cannot finally absorb nutrients, and even if we know so before we eat.

Similarly, the behavioral parts of the process of reproduction do not lose their dynamism toward reproduction if non‐behavioral factors in the process – for example, low sperm count or ovarian problems – prevent conception from occurring, even if the spouses expect this beforehand. As we have argued, bodies coordinating toward a single biological function for which each alone is not sufficient are rightly said to form an organic union.

Thus, infertility is no impediment to bodily union and therefore (as our law has always recognized) no impediment to marriage. This is because in truth marriage is not a mere means, even to the great good of procreation. It is an end in itself, worthwhile for its own sake. So it can exist apart from children, and the state can recognize it in such cases without distorting the moral truth about marriage.

Of course, a true friendship of two men or two women is also valuable in itself. But lacking the capacity for organic bodily union, it cannot be valuable specifically as a marriage: it cannot be the comprehensive union on which aptness for procreation and distinctively marital norms depend. That is why only a man and a woman can form a marriage – a union whose norms and obligations are decisively shaped by its essential dynamism toward children. For that dynamism comes not from the actual or expected presence of children, which some same‐sex partners and even cohabiting brothers could have, and some opposite‐sex couples lack, but from the way that marriage is sealed or consummated: in coitus, which is organic bodily union.

1. Still in the Public Interest

Someone might grant the principled point that infertility is not an impediment to marriage, and still wonder what public benefit a marriage that cannot produce children would have. Why, in other words, should we legally recognize an infertile marriage?

Practically speaking, many couples believed to be infertile end up having children, who would be served by their parents’ healthy marriage; and in any case, the effort to determine fertility would require unjust invasions of privacy. This is a concern presumably shared by revisionists, who would not, for example, require interviews for ascertaining partners’ level of affection before granting them a marriage license.

More generally, even an obviously infertile couple – no less than childless newlyweds or parents of grown children – can live out the features and norms of real marriage and thereby contribute to a healthy marriage culture. They can set a good example for others and help to teach the next generation what marriage is and is not. And as we have argued and will argue, everyone benefits from a healthy marriage culture.

What is more, any marriage law at all communicates some message about what marriage is as a moral reality. The state has an obligation to get that message right, for the sake of people who might enter the institution, for their children, and for the community as a whole. To recognize only fertile marriages is to suggest that marriage is merely a means to procreation and childrearing – and not what it truly is, namely, a good in itself. It may also violate the principle of equality to which revisionists appeal, because infertile and fertile couples alike can form unions of the same basic kind: real marriages. In the absence of strong reasons for it, this kind of differential treatment would be unfair.

Finally, although a legal scheme that honored the conjugal conception of marriage, as our law has long done, would not restrict the incidents of marriage to spouses who happen to have children, its success would tend to limit children to families led by legally married spouses. After all, the more effectively the law teaches the truth about marriage, the more likely people are to enter into marriage and abide by its norms. And the more people form marriages and respect marital norms, the more likely it is that children will be reared by their wedded biological parents. Death and tragedy make the gap impossible to close completely, but a healthier marriage culture would make it shrink. Thus, enshrining the moral truth of marriage in law is crucial for securing the great social benefits served by real marriage.

 

[carpenter383]

SeannyM:

I’ve never heard of the “old catholic” religion, I’m curious if you’re church is ok with gay “marriage” then is masturbation ok? fornication? pornography? contraception? Abortion?

 

[SeannyM]

SeannyM:

I’ve never heard of the “old catholic” religion, I’m curious if you’re church is ok with gay “marriage” then is masturbation ok? fornication? pornography? contraception? Abortion?

Yes to all except fornication and abortion as far as I know. I’m not sure about pornography, I’ve never bothered to look into it because its not my thing anyway.

 

[SMGS127]

Yes to all except fornication and abortion as far as I know. I’m not sure about pornography, I’ve never bothered to look into it because its not my thing anyway.

Your church is okay with the encouragement and execution of lust?

 

[epan]

Should the country have decided to simply “move on to other battles” following Plessy v. Ferguson? After all, the legal battle was “essentially over”.

For one of the few times in its history, the Supreme Court has directly slandered millions of Americans in claiming that the only reasons to oppose same-sex “marriage” are bigotry and hatred. Had they rules the other way, would those advocating for same-sex “marriage” have chosen to “move on to other battles”?

The Court has slandered nobody. I would suggest that you read the decision, rather than slander the Court.