O
onetimeposter
Guest
Name of the Justice who said this please. Also, the name of the Prof, so that this can be verified as accurate.
Thanks.
- Status
Thanks.
W
Walden
Guest
The name of the case is Goodridge v. Department of Public Health
(798 N.E.2d 941)
We were told that we could read the case if we wanted to. In class, he told us the whole story about what transpired before, during, and after. It was really very interesting. Honestly, I can’t remember who the Justice was. He told the story to the class back last October or so. The conversation between the two took place over dinner. I don’t really like putting people’s names out there on the web, but if you’re really interested, all you need is google and the info that appears on my post. Ironically, as I write this, the school site is not responding. This is quite distressing because I also need to check my email!
The prof. is a really cool guy. Had a great time in class. Being from Alabama, I didn’t realize just how pervasive the “anti-religious” bias is in the Northeast. (at least that was the impression I was left with)
Hope that helps…
(798 N.E.2d 941)
We were told that we could read the case if we wanted to. In class, he told us the whole story about what transpired before, during, and after. It was really very interesting. Honestly, I can’t remember who the Justice was. He told the story to the class back last October or so. The conversation between the two took place over dinner. I don’t really like putting people’s names out there on the web, but if you’re really interested, all you need is google and the info that appears on my post. Ironically, as I write this, the school site is not responding. This is quite distressing because I also need to check my email!
The prof. is a really cool guy. Had a great time in class. Being from Alabama, I didn’t realize just how pervasive the “anti-religious” bias is in the Northeast. (at least that was the impression I was left with)
Hope that helps…
C
Charlie_Zeaiter
Guest
No, but what I am suggesting is that the state should protect the marriage as it is, because the marriage of a man and woman is the foundation of a family, and civilised societies are built on families - this has been the case all throughout history.
I just don’t understand why homosexuals want the state to recognise their relationships. What’s the point?
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
In the ancient cultures in which homosexuality was institutionalized (as in Athens, Thebes, or Sparta), marriage was chiefly an economic concern. Homosexual relationships, as long as they were conducted according to the prevailing social norms, were about status, enculturation, social betterment. Sometimes romance. Two men marrying in those times would have been a ridiculous proposition–marriage and homosexual relationships served two very different social functions, were recognized by the state in different ways, and were not easily confused.
In our day, however, our culture has wrapped up all those social functions in marriage, but has then proceeded to drain marriage of its practical social usefulness. What a paradox! It’s all about romance–a commitment of two people to each other–and as a result, the purposes it serves as far as the state is concerned are limited. It’s actually surprising that the state is in the marriage business at all anymore–except to encourage consumption, spending, economic growth. And a homosexual relationship can do that just as well as a heterosexual relationship–often better, when it comes to household disposable income.
Now, one may opine about the family being the cornerstone of society, but if you have in mind a single definition of what the word “family” is or means (such as: mommy+daddy+baby), then I’m afraid you must be thinking about a very different society than the one in which you currently live (if where you live is somewhere in the West). Since the industrial revolution (and particularly now in this age of alienation, of the deification of the individual and the growth of the influence of capital), the basic unit of society is not the family but the worker–isolated, individual, alone, easily marketed to. Society these days is more easily broken down into economic units, and while traditional families are useful in terms of creating a malleable and/or adaptable workforce, other household situations / alternative family models do just fine, if not just as well. Ultimately, though, the “traditional family” itself, while a fine idea, is just another part of a general hearkening back to an idealized and largely imaginary past.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
If marriage had less to do with romance and more to do with fulfilling a social obligation (as it once did), then you would have a valid point. As it is, though, with marriage being recently (as in the last couple hundred years) redefined as the act of making a romance somehow “official”, it should come as little surprise that homosexual couples want their relationships made “official” too–and in today’s culture which largely sees marriage as the making official of a relationship, there’s no logical reason for the state not to let homosexuals “marry” too. I would wager that if marriage had remained unchanged from the days when romance had little or nothing to do with it, when it represented a socio-economic contract, a joining of families and not just two individuals, then this question never would have arisen–the social function of marriage would have trumped any “right” an individual may think they had to marrying someone for romantic reasons. As it is, however, this right is perceived to exist–and that’s part of the problem to begin with.
In the ancient cultures in which homosexuality was institutionalized (as in Athens, Thebes, or Sparta), marriage was chiefly an economic concern. Homosexual relationships, as long as they were conducted according to the prevailing social norms, were about status, enculturation, social betterment. Sometimes romance. Two men marrying in those times would have been a ridiculous proposition–marriage and homosexual relationships served two very different social functions, were recognized by the state in different ways, and were not easily confused.
In our day, however, our culture has wrapped up all those social functions in marriage, but has then proceeded to drain marriage of its practical social usefulness. What a paradox! It’s all about romance–a commitment of two people to each other–and as a result, the purposes it serves as far as the state is concerned are limited. It’s actually surprising that the state is in the marriage business at all anymore–except to encourage consumption, spending, economic growth. And a homosexual relationship can do that just as well as a heterosexual relationship–often better, when it comes to household disposable income.
Now, one may opine about the family being the cornerstone of society, but if you have in mind a single definition of what the word “family” is or means (such as: mommy+daddy+baby), then I’m afraid you must be thinking about a very different society than the one in which you currently live (if where you live is somewhere in the West). Since the industrial revolution (and particularly now in this age of alienation, of the deification of the individual and the growth of the influence of capital), the basic unit of society is not the family but the worker–isolated, individual, alone, easily marketed to. Society these days is more easily broken down into economic units, and while traditional families are useful in terms of creating a malleable and/or adaptable workforce, other household situations / alternative family models do just fine, if not just as well. Ultimately, though, the “traditional family” itself, while a fine idea, is just another part of a general hearkening back to an idealized and largely imaginary past.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
C
Charlie_Zeaiter
Guest
What a terrible post - you have completely belittled what it is to be a family.
A family is not just a “fine idea”. A family is where love grows and is nourished. A family is where you turn to when times get rough. A family is where you can share your joy without fear of the other people becoming jealous. A family is where your heart is. Children grow up better when a family is in good shape. A family is your inspiration and motivation to work harder and smarter. A family is where the young look after the elderly, and the elderly look after the young.
And a family begins with the Mother and Father.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
I think it’s more fruitful to talk of a “sense of family” rather than attempt to define a singular configuration of people that can provide that sense. And this “sense of family,” even as you understand it in your main paragraph, should be the ideal, not any particular configuration, as if family or love is just a simple math problem that can be solved by plugging in the right figures. Reality may be more easily dealt with if family-as-formula were the case (hence the appeal of the “traditional family”), but it’s just not the case.
And this is my point: the family these days does not necessarily begin with Mother and Father. Sometimes, Mother and Father are not particularly good parents and fail to create this sense of family we’re talking about. Sometimes family must be sought elsewhere. Sometimes homosexual couples start families. Sometimes infertile couples start families. Sometimes a family is just a Mother or a Father and his/her child.
Now I understand that in terms of child-rearing, a mother and a father and a child/children affords the greatest opportunity of benefit to all involved. Great! Opportunity, however, does not guarantee result. And the two should not be confused–otherwise you run the risk already mentioned of understanding moral value as the result of some metaphysical math problem. And here we enter the realm of “works righteousness,” believe it or not–if we can just do the math properly, if we can just do it right, then we can gain or win the grace. Neither the world nor grace work this way, as I’m sure you know.
In other words, we would be better off articulating the ideal “sense of family” (as you do in your post) while recognizing the reality that there are various ways by which people can strive for and approach the ideal. In doing so, one may begin to understand why a homosexual couple would wish to be “married” by the state and why there is no logically compelling reason from a secular point of view that the state should not “marry” them in the same way it “marries” heterosexuals.
Marriage as a sacrament, however, is a different ball of wax and should rightly be defined by the church–but the church should have no say in what relationships the state does or does not recognize.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
Charles, I wasn’t aware I was belittling family. If you look closely, you’ll see I was challenging the idea of a “traditional family.” The distinction is important. The “traditional family” is not traditional. It is an ideal generally unattached from history or experience which has erroneously colored the much broader concept of family such that some families that really are families and that would meet your definition of what a family is or does (as mentioned in your post) would never be recognized as such by those who confuse family with “traditional family”.
I think it’s more fruitful to talk of a “sense of family” rather than attempt to define a singular configuration of people that can provide that sense. And this “sense of family,” even as you understand it in your main paragraph, should be the ideal, not any particular configuration, as if family or love is just a simple math problem that can be solved by plugging in the right figures. Reality may be more easily dealt with if family-as-formula were the case (hence the appeal of the “traditional family”), but it’s just not the case.
And this is my point: the family these days does not necessarily begin with Mother and Father. Sometimes, Mother and Father are not particularly good parents and fail to create this sense of family we’re talking about. Sometimes family must be sought elsewhere. Sometimes homosexual couples start families. Sometimes infertile couples start families. Sometimes a family is just a Mother or a Father and his/her child.
Now I understand that in terms of child-rearing, a mother and a father and a child/children affords the greatest opportunity of benefit to all involved. Great! Opportunity, however, does not guarantee result. And the two should not be confused–otherwise you run the risk already mentioned of understanding moral value as the result of some metaphysical math problem. And here we enter the realm of “works righteousness,” believe it or not–if we can just do the math properly, if we can just do it right, then we can gain or win the grace. Neither the world nor grace work this way, as I’m sure you know.
In other words, we would be better off articulating the ideal “sense of family” (as you do in your post) while recognizing the reality that there are various ways by which people can strive for and approach the ideal. In doing so, one may begin to understand why a homosexual couple would wish to be “married” by the state and why there is no logically compelling reason from a secular point of view that the state should not “marry” them in the same way it “marries” heterosexuals.
Marriage as a sacrament, however, is a different ball of wax and should rightly be defined by the church–but the church should have no say in what relationships the state does or does not recognize.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
Preach it.
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
There are no new “discrimination laws.” The Unruh Civil Rights Act has been around in Califonria for years. For those who don’t know the Unruh Civil Rights act prohibits discrminination in public accommodations and services.
CHURCHES ARE, ALWAYS HAVE BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE EXEMPT!
Stop with this non sequitir that because someone got sued because they didn’t want to photograph a gay “wedding” that churches are next. Churches aren’t obligated to do anything under the law, except not commit crimes.
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
I thought California was having fires because it’s the fire season and the weather is hot and dry. Silly me.
F
Fitswimmer
Guest
yeah, and Katrina hit New Orleans because they had a gay pride parade…
Can we please leave this sort of thinking to Pat Robertson?
M
Mea_Culpa
Guest
How long do you think God is going to be forgiving of abortion, gay marriage, priest sex abuse, worship of money, etc. etc.
Psalm 50 says:
Our God comes, he does not keep silence,
before him is a devouring fire,
round about him a mighty tempest.
He calls to the heavens above
and to the earth, that he may judge his people.
Keep on mocking God and we’ll see what happens.
F
Fitswimmer
Guest
If I’m personally mocking God-then I’ll receive my judgement-just as everyone else will-along with those who passed judgement upon me without having any facts.
I have a VERY difficult time believing that God would need to kill innocents in a city because of a gay pride parade. This isn’t Old Testament times.
C
Charlie_Zeaiter
Guest
If the state recognised a homosexual couple to be valid for marriage, would the Catholic Church be up for a discrimination law suit if she refused to marry a homosexual couple?
Would an adoption agency be allowed to refuse a homosexual couple the adoption of a child?
And on a humourous note, if a homosexual couple had a troubled child, would one husband be allowed to turn to the other and say “you’re a bad father figure”, without being a hypocrite?
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
I don’t believe it would. The church can deny its sacraments to anyone–that’s not a state law issue, it’s a religious/theological one. The state has no right to determine ecclesiastical policy, doctrine, or practice. The individual has the freedom to practice whatever religion they want, but in doing so, he or she subscribes to the various doctrines, dogmas and disciplines of his or her faith. If they do not wish to subscribe to any of the above in a particular circumstance, they can leave their church, temple, or whatever, find another, start their own, or attempt to change things from within by witnessing to a different set of doctrines, dogmas or disciplines. But they do not have recourse to the state for redress in such a situation. That’s my opinion, at any rate.
I would imagine it would depend on the relationship between the adoption agency and the state. In general, though, if the state had anything to do with it, I doubt that an agency could deny a homosexual couple adoption just for being homosexual.
Hmmm.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
G
goodknight439
Guest
I do not agree with you, I agree with God. Same sex marriage is against God’s law, yes. We also must remember the people who are homosexual are still children of God and we must not loose sight of it. “Marriage” is between one man and one woman. Nothing else can be true Marriage despite what states call it.
G
goodknight439
Guest
Societal benefits like tax breaks, family health care coverage, insurance beneficiary rights etc. All things of this world.I just don’t understand why homosexuals want the state to recognize their relationships. What’s the point?
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
We have just witnessed the theological depth of Snoopy.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
E
Eric_Olsen
Guest
E
Eric_Olsen
Guest
What about the benefits to the society as a whole?
M
Maxply
Guest
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Homosexual activism on this particular issue may end up causing more harm to the homosexual cause than good: certainly large majorities are opposed to it, and these efforts to foist and force sodomite marriage are repellent to many individuals.
Homosexual activism on this particular issue may end up causing more harm to the homosexual cause than good: certainly large majorities are opposed to it, and these efforts to foist and force sodomite marriage are repellent to many individuals.
- Status