Gay Marriage and the End of Christian Civilization

[rossum]

He really should have recused himself from the case because his emotional attachment to the case was entirely too high.

There are very specific reasons laid down in law as to when a judge should recuse himself from a case. The defence in this case would have been well aware of those reasons and they did not put forward a motion to recuse because those reasons do not apply in this case. Should Thurgood Marshall have recused himself from all those Civil Rights cases he judged?

rossum

 

[Los_Angeles]

…
This is demonstrably false. The case addressed this. There was no evidence presented that should that children in gay households are harmed, any more than children on hetero households suffer problems the same way …

ALL Homosexual “marriages” cannot produce children.

They must either adopt, or use artificial insemination, which at some point, needs to rely on a man/woman married couple to produce a child or a man to donate sperm.

This will not be good for children to live in a illogical household.

Just imagine our future American history books being re-written to include a legalized logical fallacy of homosexual “marriage” that relies on heterosexual couples or sperm donors for children being ok.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[irishpatrick]

There are very specific reasons laid down in law as to when a judge should recuse himself from a case. The defence in this case would have been well aware of those reasons and they did not put forward a motion to recuse because those reasons do not apply in this case. Should Thurgood Marshall have recused himself from all those Civil Rights cases he judged?

rossum

If he had clarity of mind, he would have recused himself independent of the rules. He clearly was a biased judge, his ruling is filled with personal opinions, agenda driven comments and precious little substance. He wanted gay marriage, so he found a way to rule that way. Immoral imo.

 

[larkin31]

ALL Homosexual “marriages” cannot produce children.

They must either adopt, or use artificial insemination, which at some point, needs to rely on a man/woman married couple to produce a child or a man to donate sperm.

This will not be good for children to live in a illogical household.

Just imagine our future American history books being re-written to include a legalized logical fallacy of homosexual “marriage” that relies on heterosexual couples or sperm donors for children being ok.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

Are all infertile couples “illogical,” or ONLY the gay ones?

Many people marry who cannot produce children, and society lets them marry. Many children are adopted into households by both single parents and by infertile couples and by gay persons and gay couples.

You have explained no “reason” here. In a court of law, you must use both reason and evidence. And you must have more than, “Marriage can’t be between the same gender because my God says so.” Nor can it be simply because “Gays can’t reproduce” because of course they can, in the same way that infertile hetero couples can. They can even already adopt the same way.

 

[larkin31]

There are very specific reasons laid down in law as to when a judge should recuse himself from a case. The defence in this case would have been well aware of those reasons and they did not put forward a motion to recuse because those reasons do not apply in this case. Should Thurgood Marshall have recused himself from all those Civil Rights cases he judged?

rossum

exactly

this is an incredibly weak objection (and prejudiced, really) to this judge’s fitness to hear this case

What, women can preside over cases of domestic abuse against women, or men can preside over domestic abuse cases against men, but gays can’t preside over cases involving gays? What, gays are less able to be objective than heteros? What, a hetero judge in this case would have been MORE objective merely because he or she was hetero? What hogwash.

 

[irishpatrick]

exactly

this is an incredibly weak objection (and prejudiced, really) to this judge’s fitness to hear this case

.

You are saying that nowhere in your mind do you think it is even possible that the judge had a conflict of interest in this case? Really?

Baseball players and managers (think Pete Rose here) cannot bet on baseball games because their desire to win the bet might lead them to rig a game. Similar things are in place with the stock market and companies/corporations…that is all done to help prevent corruption. Yet, a judge is immune to such things? Now that is hogwash.

 

[kenofken]

The only judges who would be considered sufficiently “objective” in conservative eyes to handle a gay marriage case are those who decided at the start of their judicial careers, for ideological and religious reasons, that they would NEVER interpret the law to allow such a thing. Anytime judges come down with a decision the right doesn’t like, they’re “judicial activists” undermining the American experiment in democracy. Conversely, whenever they find in favor of government intrusion into people’s lives or knock down church/state separation, they’re geniuses, regardless of the quality of their legal reasoning.

 

[rlg94086]

The only judges who would be considered sufficiently “objective” in conservative eyes to handle a gay marriage case are those who decided at the start of their judicial careers, for ideological and religious reasons, that they would NEVER interpret the law to allow such a thing. Anytime judges come down with a decision the right doesn’t like, they’re “judicial activists” undermining the American experiment in democracy. Conversely, whenever they find in favor of government intrusion into people’s lives or knock down church/state separation, they’re geniuses, regardless of the quality of their legal reasoning.

So, you don’t think it’s judicial activism for a gay judge to strike down the will of the people regarding “gay marriage?”. Seems like obvious activism to me.

 

[kenofken]

So, you don’t think it’s judicial activism for a gay judge to strike down the will of the people regarding “gay marriage?”. Seems like obvious activism to me.

A critically important job of the judiciary is to strike down the will of the people AND the government from time to time when those wills and actions run counter to the Constitution. It is the only branch of government which is not directly answerable to the people via popular vote, and for damn good reason. It is the only branch which can focus on consitutional questions without having to pander to interest groups or political donors. Any reasonable read of Supreme Court and most other federal court decisions in the last quarter century will reveal very little judicial activism. Most modern judges throw many, many questions back on the legislatures whenever possible.

Is it possible this particular judge’s decision is biased or improper? Of course. That’s the magic of the appeals process and the Supreme Court. His legal reasoning in the case will either hold up to scrutiny by other jurists with a variety of biases, or it will not. My point is that it’s fruitless and disingenuous to pretend that Prop 8 folks just don’t think this judge is qualified. We all know there is NO possible pro-gay judicial action ,and indeed no legislative action, which would ever be accepted as legitimate by most opponents of gay marriage.

 

[DawnInTexas]

So, you don’t think it’s judicial activism for a gay judge to strike down the will of the people regarding “gay marriage?”. Seems like obvious activism to me.

Kinda like the Rabbit running the Lettuce Market…

God Bless.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn

 

[rlg94086]

A critically important job of the judiciary is to strike down the will of the people AND the government from time to time when those wills and actions run counter to the Constitution. It is the only branch of government which is not directly answerable to the people via popular vote, and for damn good reason. It is the only branch which can focus on consitutional questions without having to pander to interest groups or political donors. Any reasonable read of Supreme Court and most other federal court decisions in the last quarter century will reveal very little judicial activism. Most modern judges throw many, many questions back on the legislatures whenever possible.

Is it possible this particular judge’s decision is biased or improper? Of course. That’s the magic of the appeals process and the Supreme Court. His legal reasoning in the case will either hold up to scrutiny by other jurists with a variety of biases, or it will not. My point is that it’s fruitless and disingenuous to pretend that Prop 8 folks just don’t think this judge is qualified. We all know there is NO possible pro-gay judicial action ,and indeed no legislative action, which would ever be accepted as legitimate by most opponents of gay marriage.

I guess that is fair, since there is NO rational justification for society to recognize “gay marriage.”

 

[larkin31]

So, you don’t think it’s judicial activism for a gay judge to strike down the will of the people regarding “gay marriage?”. Seems like obvious activism to me.

That’s because you assume that others share your level of prejudice one way or the other.

 

[larkin31]

I guess that is fair, since there is NO rational justification for society to recognize “gay marriage.”

How would you know? You have not read the ruling.

 

[kenofken]

There’s no rational justification for society to recognize religious practice either, but thankfully the Bill of Rights does.

I would also submit that the current contempt for judicial review among conservative Christians will ultimately backfire on them. Because some rulings happen to thwart your agendas, you’ve decided that the judiciary is, by and large, an institution to be discredited whenever possible. The idea, apparently, is that they should defer in all cases to majority public rule. You should hope for your own sake you don’t succeed in this quest.

Unrestrained majority rule can be an ugly thing, especially when you’re not in the majority, and no one is forever. The demographic writing is on the wall. Christians are a solid, but steadily declining minority in this country. Current projections show they will be a distinct minority by the middle to end of this century. It’s not at all inconcevable that public will someday will call for Christian home-schooled kids to taken from their parents, or to pass laws denying Catholics, or Christians in general, professional licesure, or, (imagine the irony), to strip legal recongition from religious marriages. When that day comes, I’m thinking Christians will be wishing for a little “judicial activism.”

 

[CathFaith1]

It’s not at all inconcevable that public will someday will call for Christian home-schooled kids to taken from their parents, or to pass laws denying Catholics, or Christians in general, professional licesure, or, (imagine the irony), to strip legal recongition from religious marriages. When that day comes, I’m thinking Christians will be wishing for a little “judicial activism.”

That’s why the Second Amendment is a God-send.

 

[Los_Angeles]

Are all infertile couples “illogical,” or ONLY the gay ones?

Out of ALL heterosexual couples, SOME cannot reproduce. (Without a donor)

Out of ALL homosexual couples ALL cannot reproduce. (Without a donor)

Many people marry who cannot produce children, and society lets them marry. Many children are adopted into households by both single parents and by infertile couples and by gay persons and gay couples.

You are correct, some heterosexual couples become infertile due to age, and some heterosexual couples cannot have children from the beginning of the marriage due to medical reasons.

However, some heterosexual couples cannot reproduce from the beginning of the marriage due to medical reasons which is not a choice.

On the contrary, homosexual couples have chosen a partnership that cannot reproduce. (without a donor)

You have explained no “reason” here. In a court of law, you must use both reason and evidence.

This is not a court of law. (but thank you for the advice)

And you must have more than, “Marriage can’t be between the same gender because my God says so.”

I never said what you just quoted.

Nor can it be simply because “Gays can’t reproduce” because of course they can, in the same way that infertile hetero couples can. They can even already adopt the same way.

Please refer to argument above.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[irishpatrick]

The only judges who would be considered sufficiently “objective” in conservative eyes to handle a gay marriage case are those who decided at the start of their judicial careers, for ideological and religious reasons, that they would NEVER interpret the law to allow such a thing. Anytime judges come down with a decision the right doesn’t like, they’re “judicial activists” undermining the American experiment in democracy. Conversely, whenever they find in favor of government intrusion into people’s lives or knock down church/state separation, they’re geniuses, regardless of the quality of their legal reasoning.

No. When judges go against thousands of years of precedent regarding marriage, that is when the right barks and they should.

The judge in this case basically is saying that every thinker in the history of the west were immoral idiots and that he is a moral giant. The judge places himself above Moses, Jesus (God), Mohammed, Buddha, Lincoln, etc…every deep thinker supported legal marriage as being a union of one man and one woman. Yet Judge Walker’s brilliance and moral compass eclipses them all–including the Son of God.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Most Catholics reject(ed) the idea that not voting for Sarah Palin is sinful.
While Authoritarianism is that Black and White, the Church is more complex, despite some of its people.

:hypno::hypno:

 

[larkin31]

Out of ALL heterosexual couples, SOME cannot reproduce. (Without a donor)

Out of ALL homosexual couples ALL cannot reproduce. (Without a donor)

This is only true if you mean “through intercourse between themselves,” and this issue is irrelevant in law. Reproductive ability has never been a basis for the issuing of marriage licenses in this country. This is pointed out in the Cali court case.

You are correct, some heterosexual couples become infertile due to age, and some heterosexual couples cannot have children from the beginning of the marriage due to medical reasons.

However, some heterosexual couples cannot reproduce from the beginning of the marriage due to medical reasons which is not a choice.

On the contrary, homosexual couples have chosen a partnership that cannot reproduce. (without a donor)

Some heteros “choose” infertile relationships too. But nevertheless, this issue is irrelevant in law for marriage.

This is not a court of law. (but thank you for the advice)

Then let the courts and laws do what they decide. The church can do what it wants. Gay couples want nothing from the church when they petition a court for legal marriage rights.

I never said what you just quoted.

Nope, you didn’t. But it is the basis of all Catholic arguments for it. Even the “Natural Law” argument boils down (in every conversation I have had on the topic and every Catholic scholar or theologian ever quoted to me on it) to this point: homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so, and clearly says so. If you want to say that this is NOT the basis of Catholic opposition, then please be the first here to do so. Blaze a trail!

 

[Los_Angeles]

This is only true if you mean “through intercourse between themselves,” and this issue is irrelevant in law. Reproductive ability has never been a basis for the issuing of marriage licenses in this country. This is pointed out in the Cali court case.

Yes in this sinful world, ideally and/or practically speaking Catholics would like children to be born to Catholic parents through normal marital relations, just as I am sure that most Jewish, Hindu, Muslim parents would like the same. I do not know if reproduction is relevant or irrelvant in law because I am not a lawyer, but I will take your word for it becuase it sounds reasonable.

Some heteros “choose” infertile relationships too. But nevertheless, this issue is irrelevant in law for marriage.

Yes, but the point is heterosexuals that chose infertile relstionships (unless they chose surgery to circumvent it) did not choose infertility, they chose an infertile partner, just as they could have chose a fertile partner of the opposite sex.

Then let the courts and laws do what they decide. The church can do what it wants. Gay couples want nothing from the church when they petition a court for legal marriage rights.

I have not much choice (except by my votes and protests) but to let the courts do what they decide, but I am probably going to both pray and keep my fingers crossed.

Gay couples actually do want something from the Church, they want to borrow the term “marriage” used for thousands of years and create some new class of marriage all their own.

Nope, you didn’t. But it is the basis of all Catholic arguments for it. Even the “Natural Law” argument boils down (in every conversation I have had on the topic and every Catholic scholar or theologian ever quoted to me on it) to this point: homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so, and clearly says so. If you want to say that this is NOT the basis of Catholic opposition, then please be the first here to do so. Blaze a trail!

I am trying to blaze a trail but your arguments are causing me to think harder along the way.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.