Governments and Marriage

[KarenNC]

I qualified my remarks by saying a valid marriage in the Church. as for filling out forms, paying fees, all that is ministerial – crossing t’s and dotting i’s – and involves no exercise of discretion on the part of the county official. in other words, if the few requirements are met – and they are trivial – the clerk of the county has **no right to decline **to process the marriage papers of an otherwise valid marriage conducted by clergy.

the paperwork in CA to become a minister for a day takes all of five minutes to fill out. on line. as long as I’ve filled in all the blanks and paid the fees, the clerk of the county I’m applying in can’t refuse me.

Bingo. He can’t refuse you, not because you are religious clergy, but because you have met the legal requirements of the state and those requirements vary, state to state.

Depends on which church you mean, as well. There are many Christian and Jewish clergy who have performed same sex marriages that they and their congregations and their denomination consider religiously valid. The clerk of their county has certainly declined to “process the paperwork” on those or issue a marriage license to the couple. It is the marriage license that makes a marriage legally valid. Not the validity of the religious ceremony.

 

[Jack_Fisher]

Bingo. He can’t refuse you, not because you are religious clergy, but because you have met the legal requirements of the state and those requirements vary, state to state.

Depends on which church you mean, as well. There are many Christian and Jewish clergy who have performed same sex marriages that they and their congregations and their denomination consider religiously valid. The clerk of their county has certainly declined to “process the paperwork” on those or issue a marriage license to the couple. It is the marriage license that makes a marriage legally valid. Not the validity of the religious ceremony.

OK, I defer to your argument. I was assuming that the church marriage was not of an illegal, exotic type not. assuming that fact, all the clerk does IS process the paperwork, with no exercise of discretion.

 

[Jack_Fisher]

I disagree. It is not only a sectarian issue. Even non religious people have a conscience and grasp that a natural moral law exists. It is only very recently some try to assert that marriage is simply a matter of property rights and legal constructs.

why would you think that people intuit natural moral law that is universal down to the nth level? I think we can all agree that injunctions against theft and murder are more or less universal in human society, certainly within the grasp of human reason, but at some level this commonality breaks down under the wide variation of human social interaction. where we both agree that the gay lifestyle is a horrendous and immoral choice, I submit to you, as a matter of historical fact, that gays have been more or less tolerated in many stable societies, risen to prominence in others, and that civil presecution of them is not a clear sign of moral development.

and even assuming, for argument’s sake, that homosexuality is an affront to natural law, the means necessary to purge it from society (as suggested elsewhere in this thread) are simply not worth the price, not if we want to continue to live in a society where give and take at every level is necessary for all to survive.

You mean a vocal minority want to foist their immoral ways on the society?

since I don’t participate in their immoral ways, it hasn’t really been foisted on me. can’t say it bothers me all that much, really.

The procedures involved are not this issue. What is the issue is the desire to change the law so that society will change the way marriage is understood.

I’d probably agree with you. marriage should never be understood except as its been defined over the last few thousand years.

They can do that now. Why the need to form a civil union? I can have an account with my brother if I choose. So what?

please note that I’m limiting these remarks to economic issues and a few related personal rights. to the extent that civil marriage is a set of property and other personal rights and obligations, civil unions (or whatever you want to call them formally) between gays ought to mirror these rights and obligations, and there isn’t this equivalence under the law. I just can’t see any rational or constitutional ground for denying equal treatment at this level. anything else is just petty – when I was in the Navy we had a term for this, which I’m sure will get me banned if I use it here.

if we lived under sharia law, or if this were the massachusetts bay colony, I’d more readily see your point. but its not.

as Catholics we need to adhere to the moral teachings of our Church, reject that lifestyle in our personal lives, and, to the extent possible, persuade and lead others by example. but like it or not, this is a pluralistic society that requires tolerance and protection be afforded to others, even when we disagree with them, so that we ourselves are tolerated and protected.

I’ve got to figure out these internal subquotes.

 

[fix]

why would you think that people intuit natural moral law that is universal down to the nth level?

Probably because marriage is a natural institution that predates the Church.

I think we can all agree that injunctions against theft and murder are more or less universal in human society, certainly within the grasp of human reason, but at some level this commonality breaks down under the wide variation of human social interaction. where we both agree that the gay lifestyle is a horrendous and immoral choice, I submit to you, as a matter of historical fact, that gays have been more or less tolerated in many stable societies, risen to prominence in others, and that civil presecution of them is not a clear sign of moral development.

Toleration of serious vice is no sign of moral rectitude or a sign society is healthy. In fact, it is evidence of decline.

and even assuming, for argument’s sake, that homosexuality is an affront to natural law, the means necessary to purge it from society (as suggested elsewhere in this thread) are simply not worth the price, not if we want to continue to live in a society where give and take at every level is necessary for all to survive.

Rejecting codification of homosexual marriage through law is not purging anyone. It is safegurding society.

since I don’t participate in their immoral ways, it hasn’t really been foisted on me. can’t say it bothers me all that much, really.

One cannot pick up a book or paper, watch a tv show, go to the movies or theater without being bombarded with the gay agenda. The permissiveness and indoctrination is thorough and ever present.

please note that I’m limiting these remarks to economic issues and a few related personal rights. to the extent that civil marriage is a set of property and other personal rights and obligations, civil unions (or whatever you want to call them formally) between gays ought to mirror these rights and obligations, and there isn’t this equivalence under the law. I just can’t see any rational or constitutional ground for denying equal treatment at this level. anything else is just petty – when I was in the Navy we had a term for this, which I’m sure will get me banned if I use it here.

If you view reality and the moral norms as minimalistic and petty then I can understand why you hold this view. However, the very basis of society is what we are discussing. To artificially tamper with reality to pander to a subset it hardly a small matter.

if we lived under sharia law, or if this were the massachusetts bay colony, I’d more readily see your point. but its not.

As we are heading toward hedonism, relativism, and rigidity I fail to see your point. The answer must be moral license so that we all can just get along? That is a recipe for tryanny.

as Catholics we need to adhere to the moral teachings of our Church, reject that lifestyle in our personal lives, and, to the extent possible, persuade and lead others by example. but like it or not, this is a pluralistic society that requires tolerance and protection be afforded to others, even when we disagree with them, so that we ourselves are tolerated and protected.

The problem with this thought is that we need to define those words correctly especially the words tolerance and protection.

You may be interested in reading this:LIBERTAS

 

[Jack_Fisher]

…

You may be interested in reading this:LIBERTAS

I’ve read it. do you view this as a practical blueprint for rewriting American democracy? paragraph 41 states as much.

“23. We must now consider briefly liberty of speech, and liberty of the press. It is hardly necessary to say that there can be no such right as this, if it be not used in moderation, and if it pass beyond the bounds and end of all true liberty.”

does this exceed first amendment permitted restrictions on speech or the law of defamation? are you truly proposing that a government agency determine what is “moderate”?

and I think this makes my point:

“35. And as to tolerance, it is surprising how far removed from the equity and prudence of the Church are those who profess what is called liberalism. For, in allowing that boundless license of which We have spoken, they exceed all limits, and end at last by making no apparent distinction between truth and error, honesty and dishonesty. And because the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, and the unerring teacher of morals, is forced utterly to reprobate and condemn tolerance of such an abandoned and criminal character, they calumniate her as being wanting in patience and gentleness, and thus fail to see that, in so doing, they impute to her as a fault what is in reality a matter for commendation.** But, in spite of all this show of tolerance, it very often happens that, while they profess themselves ready to lavish liberty on all in the greatest profusion, they are utterly intolerant toward the Catholic Church, by refusing to allow her the liberty of being herself free**.” (emphasis added)

you don’t live in a country where the Catholic Church is the subject of utter intolerance, there aren’t going to be any imperial rescripts against the Church. why do you suppose that is?

 

[fix]

I’ve read it. do you view this as a practical blueprint for rewriting American democracy?

I do not know it must be rewritten. How about understanding it through the lens of moral truth rather than through secularism?

paragraph 41 states as much.

“23. We must now consider briefly liberty of speech, and liberty of the press. It is hardly necessary to say that there can be no such right as this, if it be not used in moderation, and if it pass beyond the bounds and end of all true liberty.”

does this exceed first amendment permitted restrictions on speech or the law of defamation? are you truly proposing that a government agency determine what is “moderate”?

Things are determined right now. The point is those in power fail to use right reason and natural law. They use almost exclusively relativism. The teaching in that papal document does not contradict American freedom. It simply defines things more justly than most will today.

and I think this makes my point:

“35. And as to tolerance, it is surprising how far removed from the equity and prudence of the Church are those who profess what is called liberalism. For, in allowing that boundless license of which We have spoken, they exceed all limits, and end at last by making no apparent distinction between truth and error, honesty and dishonesty. And because the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, and the unerring teacher of morals, is forced utterly to reprobate and condemn tolerance of such an abandoned and criminal character, they calumniate her as being wanting in patience and gentleness, and thus fail to see that, in so doing, they impute to her as a fault what is in reality a matter for commendation.** But, in spite of all this show of tolerance, it very often happens that, while they profess themselves ready to lavish liberty on all in the greatest profusion, they are utterly intolerant toward the Catholic Church, by refusing to allow her the liberty of being herself free**.” (emphasis added)

you don’t live in a country where the Catholic Church is the subject of utter intolerance, there aren’t going to be any imperial rescripts against the Church. why do you suppose that is?

Not yet, but we are heading that way. One of the first restrictions may come from so called hate law legislation. Close behind are those who favor civil unions. These issues are not all separate. They chip away and chip away.

 

[Jack_Fisher]

I don’t really disagree with you, Fix, except that I have, perhaps, more faith in the system to correct its excesses.

 

[Other_Eric]

that seems myopic, to say the least, considering that the USSC has, basically, the final say on the matter. also given the fact that you reside in a country that guarantees freedom to practice our Faith (there are many placesl in the world where you could be jailed or banished for this reason alone), the issue of individual rights should be paramount.

I have no idea who AS is, as I don’t follow the arguments of any militants. as a practical matter, I’d rather avoid what purports to be morality based legislation because this only works as long as its my morality that’s being legislated. how on earth you can make a “philosophical” argument divorced from real world consequences is beyond me. you might as well rewrite Utopia. then there wouldn’t be any argument from anyone.

that is an astonishing statement, an indictment of your entire position. with a few word substitutions, e.g., “Jew” or “Communist” or “Gypsy” for “avowed homosexual”, you can summarize the policies of Vichy France, East Germany, the Nazis, Maoist China, Stalinist Russia. you don’t even have to change the phrase “avowed homosexual”, for that matter.

and what if they simply disavow being gay? do you propose an interrogation by the FBI? the Spanish Inquisition? Stasi?

The reason I could care less about what the Supreme Court has to say on much of anything is precisely because they do not have the final say. God does. You accuse me of myopia yet you seem to be mired in the shallow affairs of this passing world without regard for the eternal. The opinions of institutions such as the Supreme Court on any matter must rise and fall on whether they agree with the Natural Law instituted by God.

As for your professed ignorance of the type of arguments used by militant activists, I find amazing the ease with which you nearly replicate their talking points verbatim. Both they and you argue for a system of law completely divorced from morality on what are presumptively pragmatic grounds. In fact, this is the first step down the path to a very dark place where almost any law will be threatened by even the thinnest hedonistic argument. Though your attempt to Godwinize the discussion I will ignore from here on, I pause to ask what ground you will have left to stand on when, in the interests of precedent and pragmatism, the small and the weak become prey to the powerful.

You might start by asking yourself about these individual rights you are idolizing. Where do they come from? What purpose are they meant to serve? For me, the answers to these questions are obvious: human rights come from God and are meant to allow us the freedom to glorify Him. Just because we have a right to free speech does not imply that we are free to lie. Just because we have freedom of religion does not imply that we have a right to heresy. You must learn to distinguish rights from license. Recall first that Moses did not come down from Mount Sinai with the Bill of Rights carved into two stone tablets; he came down with the Law.

 

[Jack_Fisher]

The reason I could care less about what the Supreme Court has to say on much of anything is precisely because they do not have the final say. God does. You accuse me of myopia yet you seem to be mired in the shallow affairs of this passing world without regard for the eternal. The opinions of institutions such as the Supreme Court on any matter must rise and fall on whether they agree with the Natural Law instituted by God.

As for your professed ignorance of the type of arguments used by militant activists, I find amazing the ease with which you nearly replicate their talking points verbatim. Both they and you argue for a system of law completely divorced from morality on what are presumptively pragmatic grounds. In fact, this is the first step down the path to a very dark place where almost any law will be threatened by even the thinnest hedonistic argument. Though your attempt to Godwinize the discussion I will ignore from here on, I pause to ask what ground you will have left to stand on when, in the interests of precedent and pragmatism, the small and the weak become prey to the powerful.

You might start by asking yourself about these individual rights you are idolizing. Where do they come from? What purpose are they meant to serve? For me, the answers to these questions are obvious: human rights come from God and are meant to allow us the freedom to glorify Him. Just because we have a right to free speech does not imply that we are free to lie. Just because we have freedom of religion does not imply that we have a right to heresy. You must learn to distinguish rights from license. Recall first that Moses did not come down from Mount Sinai with the Bill of Rights carved into two stone tablets; he came down with the Law.

if you’re going to call me a liar, don’t do it by half measures. I’m not obsessed with gays so I don’t closely follow the arguments on either side of the civil rights issue. not a word of what I’ve written in these posts would be unfamilar to anyone with a basic college education, a web browser, and a layman’s interest in the field.

I expected you to ignore any argument you didn’t understand, so no apology is necessary.

I pray I don’t live to see your peculiar version of utopia, because no doubt I’m on somewhere on your wish list of undesirables marked for eradication I mean reeducation I mean whatever the euphemism du jour is.

your point of view – including the preposterous demand for a gay llitmus test as a condition for the exercise of basic property rights – is a prime example of why the US must preserve the separation of church and state. if its not, the polity that is the United States will dissolve and whatever arises to replace the chaos will surely have the Christian Church in general and the Cathlic Church in particular in its cross-hairs, if for no other reason than sheer disgust.

in american jurisprudence, a licence is simply permission of a public or private authority to do something. a right can preexist said authority or have an origin independent of the authority, or be created by the authority. the practical difference is the degree of due process needed to curtail the license (less) or right (more), depending on how it vests.

by the way, the first amendment guarantees speech rights that includes the right to lie, exaggerate, caricature, ridicule, shout down and annoy anyone, subject only to a few restrictions and the law of defamation.

like it or not, the first amendment right to religious freedom includes the right to to be an Arian, Donatist, Pelagian, foot washing Baptist, Jew, Moslem, heretic, atheist or gnu age lunatic.

whether you decline to exercise any of these rights to their fullest extent is another question entirely and has nothing at all to do with public law. how you personally choose to exercise your right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion is a matter of your conscience and your relationship to God.

I speak on this matter with passion because I spent more than a few years safeguarding our mutual right to worship as Catholics, and safeguarding the rights of everyone else in this country to worship, believe, say and think and live pretty much without interference from anyone. I thank God every day I live in the United States.

 

[Other_Eric]

if you’re going to call me a liar, don’t do it by half measures. I’m not obsessed with gays so I don’t closely follow the arguments on either side of the civil rights issue. not a word of what I’ve written in these posts would be unfamilar to anyone with a basic college education, a web browser, and a layman’s interest in the field.

I expected you to ignore any argument you didn’t understand, so no apology is necessary.

I pray I don’t live to see your peculiar version of utopia, because no doubt I’m on somewhere on your wish list of undesirables marked for eradication I mean reeducation I mean whatever the euphemism du jour is.

your point of view – including the preposterous demand for a gay llitmus test as a condition for the exercise of basic property rights – is a prime example of why the US must preserve the separation of church and state. if its not, the polity that is the United States will dissolve and whatever arises to replace the chaos will surely have the Christian Church in general and the Cathlic Church in particular in its cross-hairs, if for no other reason than sheer disgust.

in american jurisprudence, a licence is simply permission of a public or private authority to do something. a right can preexist said authority or have an origin independent of the authority, or be created by the authority. the practical difference is the degree of due process needed to curtail the license (less) or right (more), depending on how it vests.

by the way, the first amendment guarantees speech rights that includes the right to lie, exaggerate, caricature, ridicule, shout down and annoy anyone, subject only to a few restrictions and the law of defamation.

like it or not, the first amendment right to religious freedom includes the right to to be an Arian, Donatist, Pelagian, foot washing Baptist, Jew, Moslem, heretic, atheist or gnu age lunatic.

whether you decline to exercise any of these rights to their fullest extent is another question entirely and has nothing at all to do with public law. how you personally choose to exercise your right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion is a matter of your conscience and your relationship to God.

I speak on this matter with passion because I spent more than a few years safeguarding our mutual right to worship as Catholics, and safeguarding the rights of everyone else in this country to worship, believe, say and think and live pretty much without interference from anyone. I thank God every day I live in the United States.

It must be understood that I am in no way suggesting you are a liar. I merely note the similarity of the arguments you make to those made by militant homosexual activists. Moreover, I am not unfamiliar with any of the arguments you are making here. I just believe them all to be nonsense designed to distract from the obvious moral depravity same-sex attractions force us to confront.

You may also wish to reassess your legal analysis of the freedom of speech including the right to “ridicule, shout down and annoy anyone” as the controlling precedent from your own vaunted Supreme Court has held otherwise.(1) It would be helpful, in your zeal to shout me down with a legal argument, if you knew what you were talking about.

I am well aware of what a license is legally, I assure you. Yet again, you persist in misunderstanding my argument. I say again, I am not making a legal argument but a philosophical one. I mean that you confuse a right with license in the sense that you mean to give individuals free range over morality. Since it is not granted to man to choose for himself what is good and what is evil, you cannot possibly construct a just legal system based on the opposite assertion.

You persist in making legal arguments for rights that those with same-sex attractions can simply not be understood to have under any coherent definition of what a right is. Perhaps you do not understand this argument I am making. I am saying that every law, every precedent and every court ruling you will ever lay your hands on draws its reasoning from a bedrock of philosophy concerning morality and the human condition. If one has that foundation wrong or backwards, one might very well construct a system of law on it, but showing that a particular position is legal would be much different than showing it is just. Since I worship God, and not the laws laid down by man, I am concerned principally with what is actually right, not merely with what happens to be legal.

The bottom line is that the law can be just only as far as it codifies the Natural Law enacted by God. When it goes beyond the Natural Law or omits portions of it, it ceases to be just and begins to resemble the polity of Hell.

(1) 315 U.S. 568 (1942).