Federal judge overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter SeannyM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
How is this relevant to this thread? US law does not allow the establishment of any religion, and that law applies to Utah.
Click to expand...
That’s incorrect. The federal government cannot establish a religion, but the individual states can.
We are discussing Federal and State law in Utah. Catholic law is not directly relevant. The Catholic position is well known, and is not changed one iota by this ruling.
Click to expand...
If Catholics are subsidizing gay relationships, it is a violation of conscience (First Amendment) and should not be allowed.
It is worth pointing out that the number of marriages celebrated in Utah has increased dramatically in the last few days. **Is that a bad thing? **
Click to expand...
If you even have to ask that, it probably is.
People are getting married, rather than not getting married and just living together.
Click to expand...
Marriage is not some kind of finish line for relationship problems. Homosexual relationships have been shown to display all sorts of issues that a gay “marriage” will not solve.
 
rossum said:
I did. All I found were a few gay couples planning to sue the Church of England in the UK. I could not find any examples of a gay couple actually proceeding to court against the Catholic Church. No doubt you were more successful in your search than I was. A link would help.

rossum
Click to expand...
Now why would they do that if they can marry in a secular wedding?

There really is no end to this nonsense, is there? :rolleyes:
 
rossum said:
A few have. Mostly they have sex with people of the same sex. Is what they have “organic bodily union”? Well, their bodies are organic, so the “organic bodily” part is definitely there. The “union” part is there is there as well, since they are united in having sex, and some of them are legally united in Civil Partnerships.

rossum
Click to expand...
Organic bodily union is using the reproductive organs as nature intended. See a science book if you don’t understand.
 
rossum said:
Then no post-menopausal woman can get married. Nobody who is infertile due to treatment for cancer can get married.

There is no requirement for married couples to have children, either in civil law or in church law. Why are you adding this extra requirement, which invalidates some existing heterosexual marriages? Is a woman with a hysterectomy no longer married? Must a man with an orchidectomy get divorced immediately?

You need to think this one through more carefully.

rossum
Click to expand...
I think other posters have already adequately replied, but let me add my own explanation.

The sentence I referred to is this: “To form a real marriage, a couple needs to establish and live out the kind of union that would be completed by, and apt for, procreation and child-rearing.”

The authors are not referring to fertility. It has nothing to do with fertility, or with menopause. They are referring to the capacity to engage in heterosexual marital relations. That is the act that is apt for procreation. Not every act of sexual intercourse is or can be fertile. But the act itself is apt for procreation, whether conception ever occurs or not.

It is the conjugal act, and it is an act that can only be completed by sexually complementary couples, consisting of a man and a woman.

This is not rocket science. It is basic biology. The capacity to engage in marital relations must be present at the time of a marriage, even if fertility is never present. That is why permanent and antecedent impotence can be a reason for annulment, but not infertility. I don’t need to spell out what the marital act is; it is an act which is only possible between man and woman. And it is usually possible whether or not they are fertile or infertile.

Kyrie Eleison17 summed it up this way:

“Two men can’t have sex with each other. Two women can’t have sex with each other.
Sex is always that act that is oriented to the generation of children. That is what sex is.”

And I will add that “oriented to the generation of children” does not mean fertility. Each and every sex act is not fertile. But the act is always oriented toward the generation of children. That’s why we call the biology of it the reproductive system.
 
 
gracepoole said:

“The Economic Benefits of Gay Marriage”
Click to expand...
That doesn’t look at long term effects. Gay marriage hasn’t been around enough to see long term effects yet. What happens when the newness wears off?

The thing that gays seem to think is so wonderful and great and are working so hard to get is regarded as a meaningless piece of paper by a much greater number of people. The teeny tiny amount of gay marriages will do nothing to offset the negative long term effects caused by baby producing couples no longer seeking to get married.
 
 
I’m sure that most of the state of Utah is not very happy right now about this. In a way, it is poetic justice. What made them think that they should meddle in California politics when the issue came up for a vote there? Some view the interference in that referendum as illegal.

But more importantly, I think that this demonstrates a tide of social change which is more then 100 years in coming to this point. It is folly to think that the momentum can be altered. It’s time to move on. My guess of Pope Francis’ turning his attention to more important matters is, in part, motivated by a recognition of this fact.

You know the old saying… you can spend 90% of your time being 10% productive. Or, you can get smart and focus on the issues which can be influenced, or on those which are important. This issue just doesn’t rise to that level.

WIth the appellate court refusing a stay, this means that people will be legally married in Utah. That is a contract with Constitutional protection, which no future legislation or judicial decisions will overturn. California faced this issue, in that the right to gay marriage as temporarily revoked by referendum, the marriages which had been legally performed could not be altered by the state. The California Supreme Court was unanimous in that opinion.
 
epan said:
I’m sure that most of the state of Utah is not very happy right now about this. In a way, it is poetic justice. What made them think that they should meddle in California politics when the issue came up for a vote there? Some view the interference in that referendum as illegal.

But more importantly, I think that this demonstrates a tide of social change which is more then 100 years in coming to this point. It is folly to think that the momentum can be altered. It’s time to move on. My guess of Pope Francis’ turning his attention to more important matters is, in part, motivated by a recognition of this fact.

You know the old saying… you can spend 90% of your time being 10% productive. Or, you can get smart and focus on the issues which can be influenced, or on those which are important. This issue just doesn’t rise to that level.

WIth the appellate court refusing a stay, this means that people will be legally married in Utah. That is a contract with Constitutional protection, which no future legislation or judicial decisions will overturn. California faced this issue, in that the right to gay marriage as temporarily revoked by referendum, the marriages which had been legally performed could not be altered by the state. The California Supreme Court was unanimous in that opinion.
Click to expand...
Bandwagon fallacy + misinterpretation of Pope Francis.
 
epan said:
I’m sure that most of the state of Utah is not very happy right now about this. In a way, it is poetic justice. What made them think that they should meddle in California politics when the issue came up for a vote there? Some view the interference in that referendum as illegal.

But more importantly, I think that this demonstrates a tide of social change which is more then 100 years in coming to this point. It is folly to think that the momentum can be altered. It’s time to move on. My guess of Pope Francis’ turning his attention to more important matters is, in part, motivated by a recognition of this fact.

You know the old saying… you can spend 90% of your time being 10% productive. Or, you can get smart and focus on the issues which can be influenced, or on those which are important. This issue just doesn’t rise to that level.

WIth the appellate court refusing a stay, this means that people will be legally married in Utah. That is a contract with Constitutional protection, which no future legislation or judicial decisions will overturn. California faced this issue, in that the right to gay marriage as temporarily revoked by referendum, the marriages which had been legally performed could not be altered by the state. The California Supreme Court was unanimous in that opinion.
Click to expand...
The district court refused to stay the decision. The appellate court hasn’t weighed in yet.

EDIT: The appellate court denied two prior requests for technical reasons.
 
Dawnia said:
That doesn’t look at long term effects. Gay marriage hasn’t been around enough to see long term effects yet. What happens when the newness wears off?

The thing that gays seem to think is so wonderful and great and are working so hard to get is regarded as a meaningless piece of paper by a much greater number of people. The teeny tiny amount of gay marriages will do nothing to offset the negative long term effects caused by baby producing couples no longer seeking to get married.
Click to expand...
This was specifically addressed in the decision… and just like the judge pointed out, there is no evidence of that happening. It’s not a rational fear. How many people do you know who won’t get married just because gay people can now? Allowing access to marriage has no effect on the ability of straight couples to marry and produce children, the state was unable to show any connection between gay marriage and the number of child-rearing straight couples. And they couldn’t show a connection between withholding marriage from gay people and preventing them from raising children by adoption, insemination, or surrogacy… So even if you keep them from marrying, there will still be the same occurrence of gay couples raising children. All article 3 of the Utah Constitution serves to do is withhold the responsibilities and benefits of marriage from those couples and their children.
 
Farsight001 said:
Unfortunately, several gay couples (obviously in states where gay marriage is legal) have already sued Catholic churches for the right to get married there. Thus far the cases have been thrown out, but it proves that the desire to not just get married there, but to force us to let them does in fact exist.

And you are right - a black couple does not want to be married in a church operated by the KKK and I can find no case of THEM suing the KKK for the right to do so, which really should tell you where the real difference and real intolerance rests here.
Click to expand...
This is simply not true. These cases do not exist.

If you take the time to read the Judge’s decision in its entirety, you’ll see two things.
  1. It is very difficult to argue against the logic he uses
  2. He specifically noted that churches remain free to marry who they choose
He actually pointed out that this is a victory for religious liberty, because now the churches that wish to marry gay couples are able to freely practice their religion, while previously they were unable to do so.
 
SeannyM said:
This was specifically addressed in the decision… and just like the judge pointed out, there is no evidence of that happening. It’s not a rational fear. How many people do you know who won’t get married just because gay people can now? Allowing access to marriage has no effect on the ability of straight couples to marry and produce children, the state was unable to show any connection between gay marriage and the number of child-rearing straight couples. And they couldn’t show a connection between withholding marriage from gay people and preventing them from raising children by adoption, insemination, or surrogacy… So even if you keep them from marrying, there will still be the same occurrence of gay couples raising children. All article 3 of the Utah Constitution serves to do is withhold the responsibilities and benefits of marriage from those couples and their children.
Click to expand...
What fear? It’s a reality that straight couples aren’t getting married. They don’t see any value in getting married. In some cases, getting married is seen as a bad thing. It’s just a piece of paper after all. It’s been that way for a long time and continues to get worse. There is little incentive for hetero couples to get married. Children born to a hetero couple are by default legally protected regardless of marital status. Inheritance is no longer tied to legitimacy. Shacking up doesn’t have the stigma it once had. And it is easier and less costly for an unmarried couple to separate than to get a divorce.

There is no benefit to the state to give marriage benefits at all if the very ones that they need to have married, child bearing hetero couples, don’t bother.
 
JamesTheJust said:
Pro-SS"M" is not the Catholic position.
Click to expand...
Yes, I’m aware of that…
Dawnia said:
That doesn’t look at long term effects. Gay marriage hasn’t been around enough to see long term effects yet. What happens when the newness wears off?
Click to expand...
You see the increase in tax revenue via the marriage penalty and savings in public assistance programs as short-term? This author proposes that an additional $20-40 million more in taxes per year will be generated through legalized same-sex marriage. Add another $100 million yearly in welfare and medicaid program savings. Chump change?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top