Obama- urges court, Gay Marriage ban

[_Abyssinia]

The Marriage Debate: What’s at Stake

 

[fix]

Oh, I see - I misread your post.

But why *exactly *is there a difference between heterosexual non-reproducing couples and homosexual non-reproducing couples? I understand that certain parts go in certain parts, but if your whole argument is based on functionality, who determines what is “functional” and what is not, and by what standards?

Common sense, right reason, biology, thousands of years of understanding, the moral law to name a few. There is no comparison between homosexual acts and a heterosexual couple.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Photos of March for Marriage currently underway in Washington D C:

twitter.com/ManhattanDec/status/316538148672921600/photo/1

twitter.com/HumanLifeIntnl/status/316540219585343491/photo/1

twitter.com/JetSetterRyan/status/316540335708839938/photo/1

twitter.com/NOMupdate/status/316541823222951936/photo/1

More photos and check back regularly for more at this link:

nomblog.com/34125

 

[rossum]

Rossum I think that’s a bit too much imagery there, could you be less descriptive next time please.

My apologies. My point remains, that currently a legal heterosexual marriage may happen when there in no possibility of consummation. If the law is changed to make consummation a requirement then a number of existing heterosexual marriages will have to be cancelled. For example, Professor Hawking is severely disabled and is married. It is possible that his marriage might have to be voided. (I don’t actually know, but he is a useful example.)

And the difference is that when they marry with an inability to consummate, they are not trying to use their organs in a manner that they are not designed to be used for, (a way of putting it without being as descriptive)

I reject the use of “designed” there. Unfortunately I cannot take the discussion further as it gets us into the area of evolution and intelligent design which is currently embargoed. Your argument rests on an assumption which is, to say the least, scientifically controversial.

And it really comes down to the fact that as Christians, marriage is the union of a man and a women

But we are not discussing Christian marriage, we are discussing civil marriage. The two are different things. The USSC is not being asked to decide Christian doctrine, it is being asked to decide US law.

Further I would remind you that there are groups of Christians who accept same sex marriage. Not Catholics of course, but denominations like the MCC, Quakers, Unitarians and others.

rossum

 

[JimG]

Failure of the penis to develop, paralysis causing erectile dysfunction, a severe shrapnel wound in the wrong place. There are a number of possible causes of an inability to consummate. I am not aware of many places that would prevent a severely wounded war veteran marrying.

rossum

I can’t speak for every legal jurisdiction as to whether or not permanent and incurable impotence constitutes an impediment to marriage. It does constitute an impediment for Catholics to marry in the Church, because the ability to have marital relations is an essential element of marriage, (even, I might add, if a marriage is deliberately never consummated for some valid reason.)

So, since the capacity for marital relations is an essential element of marriage, there can be no marriage if marital relations are from the beginning impossible.

Not every case of impotence is incurable, of course. Only permanent and incurable impotence existing before marriage is an impediment to marriage.

 

[JimG]

Common sense, right reason, biology, thousands of years of understanding, the moral law to name a few. There is no comparison between homosexual acts and a heterosexual couple.

Thanks for adding this. There is simply no comparison between the marriage of a man and woman and same sex ‘marriage.’ The term doesn’t even apply.

I keep coming back to the question: what are men and women for? In light of the current debate, one gets the impression that having two sexes is just a freak accident of evolution. But naturally, it isn’t. Civilization depends on it, as it depends on the two sexes to form families.

 

[rossum]

I can’t speak for every legal jurisdiction as to whether or not permanent and incurable impotence constitutes an impediment to marriage. It does constitute an impediment for Catholics to marry in the Church, because the ability to have marital relations is an essential element of marriage, (even, I might add, if a marriage is deliberately never consummated for some valid reason.)

The Supreme Court is not deciding about Catholic marriage, it is deciding about civil marriage in the US. What applies to one does not always apply to the other, such as the rules on divorce.

Even for Catholic marriage, the marriage between Mary and Joseph lacked what you call an “essential” element. You may want to reconsider your position on the subject. Surely that is at least one valid marriage which lacks your “essential” element. IIRC there are a few other saints who had celibate marriages, also lacking your “essential” element.

So, since the capacity for marital relations is an essential element of marriage, there can be no marriage if marital relations are from the beginning impossible.

It is not an essential element of civil marriage. Again you are confusing civil marriage with Catholic marriage. The two are not the same.

rossum

 

[JimG]

The Supreme Court is not deciding about Catholic marriage, it is deciding about civil marriage in the US. What applies to one does not always apply to the other, such as the rules on divorce.

Even for Catholic marriage, the marriage between Mary and Joseph lacked what you call an “essential” element. You may want to reconsider your position on the subject. Surely that is at least one valid marriage which lacks your “essential” element. IIRC there are a few other saints who had celibate marriages, also lacking your “essential” element.

It is not an essential element of civil marriage. Again you are confusing civil marriage with Catholic marriage. The two are not the same.

rossum

It is not my position, it is the position of the Catholic Church, and has been for 2,000 years. It has also been the usually informal and unstated position of most civilized societies since the beginning of history.

The marriage of Mary and Joseph did not lack this essential element. There is no reason to believe that either of them suffered from a condition of permanent and antecedent impotence. The essential element is that marital relations must be possible, not that they must be engaged in.

Most marriages, though, are not between vowed virgins, although that fact alone would not render them void. Most marriages are consummated, and an essential element of the contract of marriage is the mutual giving of one’s body to the other in the marital embrace. One cannot promise to give was is not possible to give.

And yes, Catholic marriage is different than civil marriage. Most likely impotence is not an prior impediment to civil marriage, though it may be a reason for nullification. The fact remains that for the state to recognize ‘marriages’ in which no marital relations are possible from the outset seems a contradiction in terms. It will certainly undermine the institution.

 

[JamesCaruso]

i did, but in my experience. people who were raised in a homosexual household did not automatically assume they were gay. they went through the time when they thought they were straight

Perhaps, but not having straight parents, they had one less reinforcement of the straight life. I am not saying one cannot be born with predisposition to the gay lifestyle; I am saying for the straight child, it becomes easier to fall prey to the homosexual lifestyle, and for the gay child, it does not present an opposing view to how to live one’s life.

The influence of parents is extremely strong; of this, I am sure we both agree. If there is such a thing as predisposition, it is even more critical that the parental modeling be correct. But even straight children, born with no predisposition toward the gay lifestyle, can come under the influence of gay persons, especially during those formative years when they become sexually aware.

I think poor heterosexual parents can also drive a child in the direction of the gay lifestyle, perhaps by their poor modeling or perhaps by their neglect of the child, which makes them more susceptible to older gay persons who may serve as parent substitutes in terms of providing missing affection.

 

[fix]

Thanks for adding this. There is simply no comparison between the marriage of a man and woman and same sex ‘marriage.’ The term doesn’t even apply.

I keep coming back to the question: what are men and women for? In light of the current debate, one gets the impression that having two sexes is just a freak accident of evolution. But naturally, it isn’t. Civilization depends on it, as it depends on the two sexes to form families.

Yes, and as a matter of justice unequal issues need to be treated unequally.

Simply comparing some relationship to an authentic marriage and them drawing conclusions is absurd.

 

[JamesCaruso]

But we are not discussing Christian marriage, we are discussing civil marriage. The two are different things. The USSC is not being asked to decide Christian doctrine, it is being asked to decide US law.

Further I would remind you that there are groups of Christians who accept same sex marriage. Not Catholics of course, but denominations like the MCC, Quakers, Unitarians and others.

rossum

In a sense, we are talking about Christian marriage here, if only by the audacity of civil authorities to use the same word, marriage, to describe the union of two people of the same sex. One, at its best, is a most sacred sacrament, open to life, the other, at its best, can never be anything more than an unholy union, and always precludes the opportunity for the procreation of life.

 

[JimG]

Yes, and as a matter of justice unequal issues need to be treated unequally.

Simply comparing some relationship to an authentic marriage and them drawing conclusions is absurd.

Yes, unequal issues need to be treated unequqlly. There is no comparison between marriage between man and woman and unions of same sex couples. So why should they be treated as though they are the same thing?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Lengthy (dare I say, heated) back-and-forth between Justice Scalia and Ted Olson over “WHEN gay marriage allegedly became unconstitutional”

twitter.com/ShannonBream/status/316587393404780544

Serious q’s from MULTIPLE Justices about whether case is properly before the Court - may not actually get to merits #Prop8 #SCOTUS

twitter.com/ShannonBream/status/316586493630099456

Justice Alito q’s whether it’s time for SCOTUS to rule on this issue - says same sex marriage concept is newer than cellphones and internet

twitter.com/ShannonBream/status/316586208245469184

Justice Sotomayor asked where state could draw line if marriage viewed as fundamental right - multiple partners? Incest? #SCOTUS #Prop8

twitter.com/ShannonBream/status/316586002967851008

Chief Justice Roberts asked if this is simply about the LABEL - noting that California already provides benefits to same sex couples #SCOTUS

twitter.com/ShannonBream/status/316585700713701377

Chief Justice Roberts asked whether it counts as “exclusion” when original institution of marriage was by nature man/woman #SCOTUS

twitter.com/ShannonBream/status/316585500427288577

Justice Scalia said there is disagreement about the impact of same sex households on children #SCOTUS

twitter.com/ShannonBream/status/316585328058183681

Justice Kennedy asked about potential for harm to 40K kids being raised by same sex couples in California #SCOTUS

twitter.com/ShannonBream/status/316585173695225857

Justice Kagan asked how “cause and effect” works - how same sex marriage would hurt “opposite sex” married couples #SCOTUS

twitter.com/ShannonBream/status/316585057890492417

Justice Sotomayor asked in what way state could use sexual orientation as a basis for discrimination - outside of the marriage issue #SCOTUS

twitter.com/ShannonBream/status/316584912851435520

 

[_Abyssinia]

NBC news: ‘Quite obvious’ court not ready to impose same-sex marriage on country

Report: supreme court likely to dismiss Proposition 9 gay marriage entirely (a big win for same-sex couples)

Scotus blog is making bold predictions:

Scotus blog: ‘Key vote very uncomfortable striking down prop 8’

Lyle’s take on #prop8 argument: Kennedy in control. goo.gl/4sfsJ.

twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/316580277658992640

Here is my more extended analysis of what #scotus will do in #prop8: goo.gl/LBgnY .

twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/316580277658992640

Arguments done. #scotus won’t uphold or strike down #prop8 bc Kennedy thinks it is too soon to rule on #ssm. #prop8 will stay invalidated.

twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/316573432642936833

There are not 5 votes to strike down #prop8 and recognize equal right to #ssm at this time

twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/316568407581532161

Breaking: key vote Kennedy VERY uncomfortable striking down #prop8. Suggests dismissing case. Would leave in place 9th Cir pro-#ssm ruling.

twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/316567361262059520

Breaking: 1st update- #prop8 unlikely to be upheld; either struck down or #scotus won’t decide case. More in 30 mins.

twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/316560034295324672

The Proposition 8 oral argument

Much will be written about the Proposition 8 oral argument. The bottom line, in my opinion, is that the Court probably will not have the five votes necessary to get to any result at all, and almost certainly will not have five votes to decide the merits of whether Proposition 8 is constitutional.

Several Justices seriously doubt whether the petitioners defending Proposition 8 have “standing” to appeal the district court ruling invalidating the measure. These likely include not only more liberal members but also the Chief Justice. If standing is lacking, the Court would vacate the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

The Justices seem divided on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 on ideological lines, four to four – i.e., all the members other than Justice Kennedy. For the more liberal members of the Court, there was no clarity on how broadly they would rule.

But Justice Kennedy seemed very unlikely to provide either side with the fifth vote needed to prevail. He was deeply concerned with the wisdom of acting now when in his view the social science of the effects of same-sex marriage is uncertain because it is so new. He also noted the doubts about the petitioners’ standing. So his suggestion was that the case should be dismissed.

If those features of the oral argument hold up – and I think they will – then the Court’s ruling will take one of two forms. First, a majority (the Chief Justice plus the liberal members of the Court) could decide that the petitioners lack standing. That would vacate the Ninth Circuit’s decision but leave in place the district court decision invalidating Proposition 8. Another case with different petitioners (perhaps a government official who did not want to administer a same-sex marriage) could come to the Supreme Court within two to three years, if the Justices were willing to hear it.

Second, the Court may dismiss the case because of an inability to reach a majority. Justice Kennedy takes that view, and Justice Sotomayor indicated that she might join him. Others on the left may agree. That ruling would leave in place the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

(The puzzle will be what judgment the Court will enter if there are, for example, three votes to dismiss as improvidently granted, two to find no standing, three to reverse, and one to affirm.)

The upshot of either scenario is a modest step forward for gay rights advocates, but not a dramatic one. The Court would stay its hand for some time for society to develop its views further. But combined with a potentially significant ruling in the DOMA case being argued tomorrow, the Term will likely nonetheless end up as very significant to gay rights.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Supreme court transcript:

blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/03/26/law-blog-doc-dump-transcript-of-proposition-8-arguments

Audio:

supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=12-144

 

[_Abyssinia]

Rebuttals to arguments for same-sex marriage

Court could avoid ruling on gay marriage ban

I have heard a few people think that that could happen

Analysis of today’s court proceedings:

blog.heritage.org/2013/03/26/today-at-the-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-and-californias-proposition-8

Justices Hint at Fears of Acting Too Quickly on Gay Marriage

 

[_Abyssinia]

National Organisation for Marriage (NOM) rally on the national mall

c-spanvideo.org/program/311757-1

Estimated 15000 marched

Photos

Gay Tea Party Founder: If We Redefine Marriage, ‘We’re Going to Redefine Children’

 

[JimG]

I was rather intrigued by Justice Scalia’s question as to ‘when did prohibiting same sex marriage become unconstitutional?’

In other words, was same sex marriage not a constitutional right 13 years ago but it’s constitutional now? What caused it to appear in the constitution and wnen? I don’t believe it did. If the Court is going to make it a constitutional right, it will have to be manufactured ex nihilo.

 

[seakelp]

I was rather intrigued by Justice Scalia’s question as to ‘when did prohibiting same sex marriage become unconstitutional?’

In other words, was same sex marriage not a constitutional right 13 years ago but it’s constitutional now? What caused it to appear in the constitution and wnen? I don’t believe it did. If the Court is going to make it a constitutional right, it will have to be manufactured ex nihilo.

You could, as Olsen correctly rejoined, ask the same questions about Loving or Brown.

 

[Dawnia]

You could, as Olsen correctly rejoined, ask the same questions about Loving or Brown.

You apparently didn’t listen to Scalia…he stated when Loving & Brown became unconstitution…after the 14th amendement was placed in the constitution.