Federal judge overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage

[MarcoPolo]

( “It is an institution, in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.” - See Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190,211 (1888) )

It’s interesting to read through the entire Maynard vs. Hill case from 1888, which regularly calls marriage a basic pillar of society and refers to “husband” and “wife.” It also interestingly insists that the state’s recognition of marriage is civilly recognized and “distinguished from a religious sacrament.” In other words, in the 19th century, the state had enough mental awareness that the recognition of husband-wife marriage is foundational to society without having to adopt a religious doctrine. And yet opponents of marriage today cry that religious views cannot be imposed on the state when they never were to begin with.

 

[SeannyM]

It’s interesting to read through the entire Maynard vs. Hill case from 1888, which regularly calls marriage a basic pillar of society and refers to “husband” and “wife.” It also interestingly insists that the state’s recognition of marriage is civilly recognized and “distinguished from a religious sacrament.” In other words, in the 19th century, the state had enough mental awareness that the recognition of husband-wife marriage is foundational to society without having to adopt a religious doctrine. And yet opponents of marriage today cry that religious views cannot be imposed on the state when they never were to begin with.

It’s also interesting that the only case law supportive of the rights view is from such a very long time ago.

 

[JimG]

If sexual complementarity is not of the essence of marriage, then nothing is. If courts insist on going down this nonsensical road, they will not create marriage “equality,” they will simply destroy it. No doubt same sex marriage advocates will be fine with that.

 

[SeannyM]

If sexual complementarity is not of the essence of marriage, then nothing is. If courts insist on going down this nonsensical road, they will not create marriage “equality,” they will simply destroy it. No doubt same sex marriage advocates will be fine with that.

Yup… The state has no business legislating marriage, but if they’re going to be then they should apply it equally. That is the point of this ruling. I would prefer to see the word “marriage” stricken from all civil laws. There should be civil unions for everyone, and leave marriage to the religious institutions.

 

[JamesTheJust]

It’s also interesting that the only case law supportive of the rights view is from such a very long time ago.

I wasn’t aware that truth changed over time. Good to know.

 

[SeannyM]

I wasn’t aware that truth changed over time. Good to know.

No, it doesn’t. But culture does. What’s right for a community changes over time. And, so does the information available to make a decision. Also, the court at that time wasn’t ruling on gay marriage. They were using the words for spouses that were used at that time, not intentionally ruling that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

 

[Farsight001]

I always thought that because of the Mormon stance on marriage and their efforts in the past (They alone got Prop 8 in California off the ground and funded), that Utah would be the last state, or one of the last to even consider it. Oh, well.

But this wasn’t Utah. This was one judge deciding that he/she should have absolute power on the issue.

 

[Dawnia]

No, it doesn’t. But culture does. What’s right for a community changes over time. And, so does the information available to make a decision. Also, the court at that time wasn’t ruling on gay marriage. They were using the words for spouses that were used at that time, not intentionally ruling that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

Wrong. They wouldn’t have even entertained such an absurd idea as two people of the same sex being “married”. Homosexual activity was still illegal at that time. They most definitely were declaring marriage being between a man and a woman.

 

[JamesTheJust]

No, it doesn’t. But culture does. What’s right for a community changes over time. And, so does the information available to make a decision. Also, the court at that time wasn’t ruling on gay marriage. They were using the words for spouses that were used at that time, not intentionally ruling that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

As MarcoPolo said, the Court calls the marriage of a husband and wife a basic pillar of society. Does that change?

Your second point is irrelevant. There were certainly homosexuals back in 1888, and the Court would have to be comprised of people living under a rock to not know this. Yet it is still heterosexual marriage which is the basic pillar of society.

 

[SeannyM]

As MarcoPolo said, the Court calls the marriage of a husband and wife a basic pillar of society. Does that change?

Yes, apparently it does. The court also use to consider slaves to be equivalent to 3/5 of a person. That changed too. The law has to be able to change, and as our understanding changes, other things are likely to change too.

 

[JamesTheJust]

Yes, apparently it does. The court also use to consider slaves to be equivalent to 3/5 of a person. That changed too. The law has to be able to change, and as our understanding changes, other things are likely to change too.

Actually, the 3/5 Compromise was written into law by the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, which produced the Constitution. But that’s beside the point. Laws may change, but “basic pillars of society” don’t; this is something I said in my post, but you seem to have ignored.

 

[esieffe]

As a practicing Catholic, I have absolutely no problem with gay and lesbian couples getting married civilly.

Well be careful, I have been called gay and liberal and all sorts of stuff, just for suggesting that people be kind to one another. I have never contradicted doctrine.

 

[JimG]

Yup… The state has no business legislating marriage, but if they’re going to be then they should apply it equally. That is the point of this ruling. I would prefer to see the word “marriage” stricken from all civil laws. There should be civil unions for everyone, and leave marriage to the religious institutions.

I think that most same sex marriage advocates do not want that. They would object to having an institution that could not be called marriage. If religious institutions could offer marriages but civil law could only offer civil unions, there still would be claims of discrimination.

Still, it amounts to the same thing. Whether the word stays or goes, man + woman does not equal man + man, and to call them by the same name is simply an untruth. Once same sex unions are generally accepted, marriage means nothing and will decline, as will family stability and societal stability.

 

[JamesTheJust]

Well be careful, I have been called gay and liberal and all sorts of stuff, just for suggesting that people be kind to one another. I have never contradicted doctrine.

Being nice to one another does not contradict doctrine; in fact, the Church teaches that we should always do this.

However, supporting civil recognition of homosexual “marriage” does violate doctrine, as shown here:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

 

[Elostirion]

What if it were referred to as some sort of contractual arrangement? It seems that most, if not all, of the benefits could be created as private, individual (sort of), contracts with the Government.

 

[JimG]

Being nice to one another does not contradict doctrine; in fact, the Church teaches that we should always do this.

However, supporting civil recognition of homosexual “marriage” does violate doctrine, as shown here:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

That is a definitive link for Catholics–or anyone–to consider when thinking about this issue. It’s probably something that needs to be posted in every parish newsletter periodically just to counter all the fuzzy thinking on the subject.

“No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.”

 

[JimG]

What if it were referred to as some sort of contractual arrangement? It seems that most, if not all, of the benefits could be created as private, individual (sort of), contracts with the Government.

Why should the government favor a contractual arrangement which is of no benefit to the government and detrimental to society?

 

[MarcoPolo]

It’s also interesting that the only case law supportive of the rights view

That is not correct. There are a number of court verdicts, including federal courts, which upheld marriage between husband and wife, including in the last few years. If you do a search for something like “court upholds traditional marriage” you will see modern results.

 

[MarcoPolo]

But at the same time, you cannot expect those who are not of your religious beliefs to only follow your religious beliefs…

This is largely a straw man. As has been pointed out in federal courts historically and otherwise, the stable male-female marriage was recognized because it was recognized as a foundation of society and specifically not because it was recognized as a religious matter. This is not a religious issue. By denying the male-female marriage as the unique foundation, the familial pillar of culture, the culture will further corrode, and the results we have seen detrimental children from divorce to absent parents, from crime to their own dysfunctional relationships, etc… will persist. Instead of trying to support more stable marriages in society, the state has decided to compound the problem. All signs point to the current malleable-marriage movement to be a negative effect on future generations.

 

[MarcoPolo]

One man and one woman will still be able to get married, that definition is being upheld.

That is a good thing, but not the issue. It is denying the uniqueness of male-female marriages that will cause further problems. The idea of “marriage equality” is a false dogma perpetuated by supporters of same-sex unions.