Obama- urges court, Gay Marriage ban

[EmperorNapoleon]

That argument can be changed to accommodate any people. As was written previously, states prohibts all the above from being able to marry and there have been no successful court challenges to change this prohibition so ‘equality’ is not an argument that has persuaded the court before

Actually it cannot be changed to accommodate any situation. The State is required to provide a Constitutional reason for discriminating in the application of civil rights and, just to nip the matter in the bud, marriage is a civil right as defined by the Supreme Court. If such a reason exists to prohibit gay marriage then they will have the opportunity to present it for the Supreme Court’s consideration as they have, for example, in the case of polygamy. If not, then the Supreme Court will strike such prohibitions down in whatever scope they see fit.

From my understanding of the President’s brief; his argument is limited to the States which provide the same benefits, rights, and privileges to homosexual couples as heterosexual couples but do not allow them to marry. In essence, he is asserting (correctly) that these States have created a separate but equal status and that such institutionalized discrimination is unconstitutional. I suspect that the Supreme Court will try to limit its decision to either California or the limited number of States referenced in the President’s brief.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Actually it cannot be changed to accommodate any situation. The State is required to provide a Constitutional reason for discriminating in the application of civil rights and, just to nip the matter in the bud, marriage is a civil right as defined by the Supreme Court. If such a reason exists to prohibit gay marriage then they will have the opportunity to present it for the Supreme Court’s consideration as they have, for example, in the case of polygamy. If not, then the Supreme Court will strike such prohibitions down in whatever scope they see fit.

From my understanding of the President’s brief; his argument is limited to the States which provide the same benefits, rights, and privileges to homosexual couples as heterosexual couples but do not allow them to marry. In essence, he is asserting (correctly) that these States have created a separate but equal status and that such institutionalized discrimination is unconstitutional. I suspect that the Supreme Court will try to limit its decision to either California or the limited number of States referenced in the President’s brief.

If you are referring to Loving v Virginia, what the supreme court decision clarified was that any man could marry any woman bringing male and female together, solving the intrinsic quality of sexual embodiment between them

Jimmy Akin:

While it may be true that this case established a civil right to marriage, that only raises the question: What is marriage?

The historic understanding—and the understanding at the time of Loving v. Virginia—is that marriage is the permanent union of a man and a woman oriented to the good of the partners and the procreation and education of offspring.

That kind of union is fundamentally different than other forms of union.

Two men or two women cannot have the same kind of union between them that a man and a woman can.

To claim that a man can marry another man (or a woman another woman) is just playing games with words, as would be claiming that a man can marry an animal or a vegetable or an inanimate object.

The word marriage in law is not infinitely plastic, and thus advocates of homosexual “marriage” cannot simply shove their desired meaning into the existing civil right to marriage any more than one could shove the right to marry an animal, a vegetable, or an inanimate object into it.

There thus is no civil right to homosexual civil marriage—except where the law has been warped to provide one.

But there’s something else going on here . . .

catholic.com/blog/jimmy-akin/civil-marriage-is-a-civil-right

 

[Seeker1961]

Equal protection, respect and dignity for delphinic zoological marriages…NOW!!!

Any other sexual behaviors we should make a protected class, while we’re at it? BDSM? Foot fetishes?

This is s great example of why the argument for gay marriage is winning people over. The absolute absurdity of the comments of people on the anti-gay marriage side.

FTR-I have no dog in the hunt. I’m Catholic. I have no partner and I am never going to marry anyone or have a relationship with anyone. I just have no interest in living where “my god says so” or “my holy book says so” can be binding law on all citizens.

 

[CMatt25]

Since every person ever born is subject to God’s laws, it is not a Catholic issue per se. Discussing legalities is fine, but if that is your defense when you gace God, you are in for a world of hurt. The attitudes of Catholics who are wishy washy on this and a number of other serious issues, many posting on this site, are offensive to God, sadly.

Speaking universally, marriage is not a right, it is a gift. Non one should have the expectation of a gift having to be given to then, else, it ceases becoming a gift.

Except in the United States of America, while you and other Catholics have every right to disagree with them, there are many other born persons of faith whose faith communities or denominations hold to a different theology than do Catholics and who have arrived at a different interpretation of God’s law and what is offensive to Him.

The United Church of Christ in its endorsement of SS marriage comes readily to my mind. In Episcopal dioceses, their priests can now perform blessings of SS unions subject to approval of their respective bishops. Where I reside, Episcopal priests have been given approval to do so by the Episcopal bishop.

Seeker1961 appears to me to have it right as to what the issue is: Civil law. The issue is not that Catholics are forced to accept SS civil marriage sacramentally. Just as if 2 heterosexual Catholics marry outside of the Catholic Church, neither does She accept their marriage sacramentally. But nevertheless they are married under civil law.

I also believe President Barack Obama, who was a teacher of constitutional law before becoming POTUS, as he has admittedly evolved on the issue, has gotten this one right with regard to what civil law should be.

 

[CMatt25]

This is s great example of why the argument for gay marriage is winning people over. The absolute absurdity of the comments of people on the anti-gay marriage side.

FTR-I have no dog in the hunt. I’m Catholic. I have no partner and I am never going to marry anyone or have a relationship with anyone. I just have no interest in living where “my god says so” or “my holy book says so” can be binding law on all citizens.

I agree such comments by people on the anti SS marriage side don’t help their cause. And amen to any one particular faith’s beliefs not being binding on all of a country’s citizens. I have no interest in living in such a place on earth either. This is a nation of many plural beliefs as well as non belief. One of the great things about America is our diversity and that we live in a place on earth where our diversity can be celebrated while we still live together in one nation.

Making SS marriage legal under civil law does not mean Catholics or others have to accept it as part of their beliefs, nor that they have to celebrate SS union ceremonies. If a gay couple were to approach a Catholic priest to marry them, he would not. No different than now. OTOH if a UCC pastor wants to do so, he or she could perform such ceremonies.

All that would need to be acknowledged is it would be legal under civil law. You wouldn’t have to agree with it There are laws I do not agree with.

 

[Monkey1976]

Here’s the question that I have yet to see answered in the many threads regarding same-sex “marriage”:

Can those advocating for same-sex “marriage” provide single example of a civilization anywhere in the world from the dawn of history to AD2000 that accepted same-sex “marriage” as equal to marriage? If same-sex “marriage” is such a wonderful thing with so many benefits, it follows that it would have been adopted by someone at some point in history. Just show us one example behind which the banners of same-sex “marriage” supporters could rally.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

If you are referring to Loving v Virginia, what the supreme court decision clarified was that any man could marry any woman bringing male and female together, solving the intrinsic quality of sexual embodiment between them

Well, there is what the Supreme Court said and there is commentary. What the Supreme Court said is that marriage is a “basic civil right.” To say that this does not include homosexual couples is just commentary and not really supported by anything but personal belief. The Supreme Court has never weighed in on that issue as no Constiutional reason for limiting that “basic civil right” has ever been presented to them. It is always understood that civil rights are universally applicable unless the Supreme Court says otherwise.

 

[Monkey1976]

Well, there is what the Supreme Court said and there is commentary. What the Supreme Court said is that marriage is a “basic civil right.” To say that this does not include homosexual couples is just commentary and not really supported by anything but personal belief. The Supreme Court has never weighed in on that issue as no Constiutional reason for limiting that “basic civil right” has ever been presented to them. It is always understood that civil rights are universally applicable unless the Supreme Court says otherwise.

Is is a basic civil right - everyone, regardless of sex, race, creed, or any other protected classification, has the equal right to marry a member of the opposite sex.

 

[Mark121359]

Once same-sex marriage fully becomes the law of the land, you can be absolutely certain that The Catholic Church will be persecuted to the max! One only need to do a google search and find these gems already happening in our northern neighbor;

The Catholic bishop of Calgary, Fred Henry, was threatened with litigation and charged with a human-rights violation after he wrote a letter to local churches outlining standard Catholic teaching on marriage. The Bishop is forced to spend thousands of dollars defending himself and has his reputation pummelled in the media

In British Columbia, a small town Knights of Columbus chapter rented out its building for a wedding party. When the hall managers learned that it was a lesbian couple, they apologized, explained that they could not proceed with the arrangement, and agreed to find an alternate venue and pay for new invitations to be printed. The couple wasn’t satisfied, and the hall management was prosecuted. The human-rights commission ruled that the Knights of Columbus should not have turned the couple down, and imposed a small fine on them.

Two Canadian provinces are considering laws which likely will prevent educators, even in private denominational schools, from teaching that they disapprove of same-sex marriage. A senior government minister in Ontario announced that if the Catholic church did not approve of homosexuality or gay marriage, it "would have to change its teaching."

There is also a campaign to remove tax-free status from religious institutions that refuse to consecrate same-sex marriages. When asked about how this would undermine charitable efforts on behalf of the poor and homeless undertaken by numerous Christian chuches, one of the leaders of Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere replied "We’ll only take away charitable status from the buildings where the priests live and where the people pray."

Ontario’s Catholic schools can’t opt out of a revamped sex ed curriculum even if it goes against their religious beliefs to teach kids about masturbation and homosexuality, Premier Dalton McGuinty said

An official transcript sent to LifeSiteNews by the Ontario government confirms that Dalton McGuinty’s Education Minister told media on Wednesday that Catholic schools should not be teaching that abortion is wrong because it is a violation of the government’s newly-enacted anti-bullying bill.

In comments largely ignored or buried by Canada’s mainstream media, Minister Laurel Broten told a press conference at Queen’s Park that Catholic teaching on abortion is “misogyny.”

Premier Dalton McGuinty’s office has forwarded queries about Broten’s remarks to her office.

“We do not allow and we’re very clear with the passage of Bill 13 that Catholic teachings cannot be taught in our schools that violates human rights and which brings a lack of acceptance to participation in schools,” she said when asked if it’s okay for the schools to encourage pro-life rallies.

• See more at: lifesitenews.com/news/ontario-gvmt-confirms-catholic-schools-cant-teach-misogynistic-pro-life-bel/#sthash.tfnGeegY.dpuf

I just hope and pray that this nonsense isn’t headed our way!
Holy Mary Mother of God Pray for us!

 

[BroomWagon]

Thanks Mark: I have heard it opined that making Same Sex so-called Marriage could be extremely unpopular.

I heard Kagan and Sotomayor are at odds with Scalia, doesn’t sound like there is a good relationship, pray for our country if we get more Left wingers in there. I mean, we should be able to trust Sotomayor but who knows.

 

[CMatt25]

Here’s the question that I have yet to see answered in the many threads regarding same-sex “marriage”:

Can those advocating for same-sex “marriage” provide single example of a civilization anywhere in the world from the dawn of history to AD2000 that accepted same-sex “marriage” as equal to marriage? If same-sex “marriage” is such a wonderful thing with so many benefits, it follows that it would have been adopted by someone at some point in history. Just show us one example behind which the banners of same-sex “marriage” supporters could rally.

To me it’s immaterial. One could point to examples of slavery. But fortunately and I thank God civilization evolved on that issue. And just as we can point to a time in history with regard to slavery and civil rights, since SS civil marriage is being adopted at this point in places, perhaps a future generation will point to this time in history in the 21st century as the rallying point for when civilization recognized granting and furthering civil rights to another group of persons as well.

 

[InJesusItrust]

This is s great example of why the argument for gay marriage is winning people over. The absolute absurdity of the comments of people on the anti-gay marriage side.

FTR-I have no dog in the hunt. I’m Catholic. I have no partner and I am never going to marry anyone or have a relationship with anyone. I just have no interest in living where “my god says so” or “my holy book says so” can be binding law on all citizens.

If you believe in the Christian God, why are you putting Caesar above him? A Christian would want laws influenced by the gospel. How can you say that you are not standing against the very God you claim to worship? What would Jesus say about this stance?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Is is a basic civil right - everyone, regardless of sex, race, creed, or any other protected classification, has the equal right to marry a member of the opposite sex.

That was the supreme court said, not that there was a civil right to marry somebody of the opposite sex

 

[Personanongrata]

I will be glad when this “argument” is settled. DOMA will be overturned. Gay people in all states will be able to get married and receive the same “married” benefits. Maybe then, we can move on to issues that are more important.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Well, there is what the Supreme Court said and there is commentary. What the Supreme Court said is that marriage is a “basic civil right.” To say that this does not include homosexual couples is just commentary and not really supported by anything but personal belief. The Supreme Court has never weighed in on that issue as no Constiutional reason for limiting that “basic civil right” has ever been presented to them. It is always understood that civil rights are universally applicable unless the Supreme Court says otherwise.

ADF Senior Vice President and attorney Jordan Lorence

alliancealert.org/2010/03/01/about-jordan-lorence

Stanford Law School Debates Whether The Constitution’s Protection for Interracial Marriages Compels Legalizing Same Sex Marriage

---

Last week I participated in a discussion sponsored by the Federalist Society at Stanford Law School in California on redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, and its collision with the First Amendment rights of those who define marriage as one man and one woman only. We had a great discussion … but] what I did not expect at Stanford was a debate on the relevancy of the 1967 Supreme Court decision striking down Virginia’s law banning interracial marriage, Loving v. Virginia.

Many who support redefining marriage to include same-sex couples are convinced that this case greatly supports their position. It does not. I have found that many people have not read the decision, or do not understand what the Supreme Court ruled in that case. The decision doesn’t help them. So it is a dreadfully flawed argument and a non sequitur to argue as many do that ”just as a ban on interracial marriage was unconstitutional, so a ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.”

I have earlier discussed the deficiencies in analogizing a law defining marriage as one man and one woman as the law struck down in Loving v. Virginia. Because so many find the argument persuasive, let me state here what I said to the law students at Stanford:

The Virginia law only banned white people from having an interracial marriage. An African American man could marry a woman of Asian descent under the Virginia law struck down by the Supreme Court. That interracial marriage was OK because it did not include any white people. The obviously uneven application of the law based on race is why the Supreme Court struck it down. These despicable laws did not say, “whites can only marry whites, blacks can only marry blacks, Asians can only marry Asians,” etc., but many wrongly assume that is what those laws said.

Race is different than sex. It would have been unconstitutional too if the miscegenation law said, “whites can only marry whites, and blacks can only marry blacks, ” etc. But that’s not what the Virginia law struck down by the Supreme Court said. That hypothetical does not provide any precedent for striking down a regular marriage law. Even if the law did say that, it’s not important, because race is different from sex. Only one man and one woman can produce a child, and the parents can be of any race. Two men together or two women together will never produce a child. So having an opposite sex couple is essential for producing children. What is critical is having one man and one woman. The parents’ race is irrelevant in their ability to reproduce. It is rational, in fact, it is wise for a society to urge men and women to get married in order to produce and raise their children, because they represent the next generation of their society.

Race has never been a universally-accepted element in the states’ definition of marriage. States generally have agreed that people seeking marriage must meet several criteria. For example, the two people seeking marriage must be a man and a woman, they cannot be married to anyone else, they both must possess the mental capacity to consent to marriage, they cannot be near relatives (like brother and sister) and they both must be above a certain age. Race has not been a universally-accepted part of the definition of marriage. For example, not all states banned white people from having an interracial marriage. Some states, like Virginia, allowed whites to marry nonwhites for many decades before imposing a ban on whites marrying nonwhites. The existence of miscegenation laws is a sordid historical fact. The court decisions striking down those laws offer no principle of law that compels legalizing same-sex marriage.

Some states did not ban interracial marriages consistently. Virginia was faced with the dilemma that one of its founders, John Rolfe, married a nonwhite woman, the famed Pocahantas. Virginia resolved this dilemma by making Pocahantas an honorary white person, and exempted marriages (in some circumstances) where a white person married a Native American.

I hope I convinced at least some of the law students at Stanford to stop embracing the false parallel between Loving v. Virginia and the efforts to legalize same-sex marriage.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Maybe then, we can move on to issues that are more important.

You mean like Abortion, Economy, Manufacturing, Jobs, forced Insurance the lower income can’t afford, trampling Religious freedom, the Constitution, Government spending, Welfare. Right, that’s not what our misguided leader has or had any inclination or intention to deal with. When, when WILL they address THE REAL issues. We have been waiting 5-years

You mean like last night and today? That real issue “neglected” because he’s to busy with popularity and re-writing Constitutional Law because that’s what he is and what he does.

And maybe we ought to take a good look at the foolish popularity contest Obama runs daily on the news, that has everything to do with what? Ego, popularity and more un-needed Government spending, so you can see Obama daily on TV. But again today right. How’s he doing with the important issues?

Amazing, you can count on seeing Obama, to continue the brainwashing daily, but he will not do a thing with the real issues. So no its not hurry up and get this over with so the next nonsense can be addressed, and you can take it to the bank, that’s what it will be. Nothing else indicates otherwise.

If all this wasn’t a reality then “maybe” we already could be focusing on more important issues. Those same issue we have waited 5-Years for this failure of a President to address.

Here’s your real issue…
news.msn.com/politics/gridlock-no-budging-at-the-budget-cuts-deadline

 

[GaryTaylor]

To me it’s immaterial. One could point to examples of slavery. But fortunately and I thank God civilization evolved on that issue. And just as we can point to a time in history with regard to slavery and civil rights, since SS civil marriage is being adopted at this point in places, perhaps a future generation will point to this time in history in the 21st century as the rallying point for when civilization recognized granting and furthering civil rights to another group of persons as well.

Apparently everything is immaterial to you but what Obama says. We get your a Obama promoter. No secret here. You both must attend the same Christian community:shrug:

The future generation? The future generation will be completely lost at this rate. Take a good hard look at single parents and dysfunctional families, and our failing enonomy, education and heath care. By all means lets promote SS and Abortion, that’s a help. How exactly? Explain this to us.

Slavery has zip to do with this. How about we legalize union with Animals under the misguided definition of equal rights.

What others are doing elsewhere also mean “zip” they are cutting of limbs and stoning people in the middle east. We The People are talking AMERICA. That’s what we need to focus on. You know… that One Nation under GOD? That one, with LIFE first, then liberty and then the pursuit of happiness! That Country?

Thank God? For Same Sex marriage? That’s your vision of God and Obama’s. Not every “Christian” shares that vision…Sorry your so quick to judge them and “their” Christianity under Gods name, which I see with you is a constant “Catholic” chant. Which no-one mentioned here but you. Perhaps you ought to relate about that.

Your vision also includes “Abortion” and rampant at that? How does that work with God, equal rights, and We The People, that are daily being murdered?

Its not even a proven fact that gay isn’t anything other than a “behavior issue” though orientation, no such data exists. Very much the contrary. What makes this behavior issue any different than those misguided souls with guns. Behavior is behavior and Obama continues to ignore it.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Except in the United States of America, while you and other Catholics have every right to disagree with them, there are many other born persons of faith whose faith communities or denominations hold to a different theology than do Catholics and who have arrived at a different interpretation of God’s law and what is offensive to Him…

Its an American issue the fact Catholics disagree with SS is an American Right, right? The fact SS never existed “ever” ought to bear witness to the founding fathers of this country and their Christianity. How about them?

The United Church of Christ in its endorsement of SS marriage comes readily to my mind. In Episcopal dioceses, their priests can now perform blessings of SS unions subject to approval of their respective bishops. Where I reside, Episcopal priests have been given approval to do so by the Episcopal bishop…

And we pray for them in the Church Christ established and gave the world “the Bible”. Sorry others have misunderstood its content. Its called the most Holy Catholic Church in history and reality and that is “de-facto”.

Seeker1961 appears to me to have it right as to what the issue is: Civil law. The issue is not that Catholics are forced to accept SS civil marriage sacramentally. Just as if 2 heterosexual Catholics marry outside of the Catholic Church, neither does She accept their marriage sacramentally. But nevertheless they are married under civil law…

Your confused on this issue being a “Catholic issue” but again. Its a “We the People” issue. This just happens to be a Catholic forum.

I also believe President Barack Obama, who was a teacher of constitutional law before becoming POTUS, as he has admittedly evolved on the issue, has gotten this one right with regard to what civil law should be.

To you he has everything right, self evident in your posts. And he most certainly is a Constitutional lawyer and Professor. And that is why we must carefully watch that those laws are not manipulated by his misguided intentions under the guise of whats best for We The People.

 

[fix]

I will be glad when this “argument” is settled. DOMA will be overturned. Gay people in all states will be able to get married and receive the same “married” benefits. Maybe then, we can move on to issues that are more important.

The family is the basic unit of civilization. Once that is destroyed not much else matters. Children have rights.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The family is the basic unit of civilization. Once that is destroyed not much else matters. Children have rights.

Amen, perhaps we ought to get our priorities in order, and SS is not one.