Obama- urges court, Gay Marriage ban

  • Thread starter Thread starter GaryTaylor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Most homosexulas are fertile, but choose not to have children. How do they differ from heterosexuals who are fertile but choose not to have children. In particular, what legal reasons are there to distinguish between the two in civil law.

rossum
Well, heterosexuals can have marital sex, homosexuals can’t. But that seems to have become irrelevant. Anatomy and biology have become irrelevant. Men and women are now interchangeable. Everybody knows that’s false, but everyone pretends it doesn’t matter.
 
What happens in a marriage, and how well they observe the teachings of the church is between the husband and wife and the church and God.
This is not about religious marriage, but civil marriage. If you look at the top right of my posts you will see that I am Buddhist. I have a very different attitude to the Abrahamic God.
This does not affect whether a man can in fact marry another man, or a sheep, or his mother, or an aqueduct.
I am not clear how a sheep may give legal consent. Though I have seen a nice aqueduct in Segovia:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Each soul that, as a result of this “ceremony”, goes to the next life having kept that vow and dies impenitently is a grave matter indeed. These are casualties, in a sense they are lost souls.
This is not an effective argument for many non-Christians. In particular Buddhists reject the notion of a soul; to believe in a soul is an error which tends to lead to suffering.

rossum
 
False. Didn’t you see:
  • Marriage (California June 2008 - November 2008) = two adults.
I could have cited other states or countries as well. If you are going to make a point, then you really need to read what the other side is saying.

rossum
Apart from that obviously. Last 15 years has been the push for redefining marriage, and civil unions seem to have been the catalyst for a global push to redefine marriage. I bet there were people that warned this would happen when civil union legalisation was first being promoted and that civil unions would create the slippery slope to redefining marriage

Justice Scalia said in the court proceedings regarding Prop 8, that gay marriage
is newer than cellphones or the internet
 
I think one of the most troubling aspects about this is that even Catholics support SSM in large numbers. If you can’t even get the faithful onboard with Church teachings…you’re on a sinking ship! The following is from a Gallup Poll done in 2008. The number next to each reflects the percentage of Catholics that think it’s morally acceptable. The number next to the first number is regular churchgoing Catholics (defined as those who attend church weekly or almost every week)

Quote:
Abortion 40% 24%
Sex between unmarried man and woman 67% 53%
Divorce 71% 63%
Stem Cell Research 63% 53%
Having Babies outside of marriage 61% 48%
Homosexual relations 54% 44%

Those numbers are appalling! And I heard Fr. Wade Menezes cite a similar poll, so I have no reason to doubt it. I don’t have an answer for it. Until this trend is reversed, this kind of junk is going to be the norm I’m afraid. I admit that I sound pessimistic, and there’s probably some truth to that. But boy when I see a poll like that…it’s awfully deflating! But there’s one quote that always keeps coming back to me and keeps me grounded…"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."

Peace, Mark
Yes, the numbers are indeed appalling. Just looking at the second numbers (regular churchgoing Catholics), a fourth of them think that abortion is okay, 63% think that fornication is all right, almost half see no problem with out of wedlock births, and 44% see no problem with homosexual relations.

In other words, about half of regular Mass attending Catholics have bought into the sexual libertinism of the existing society and approve of things which are detrimental to society. Maybe they should read Mary Eberstadt’s book “Adam and Eve After the Pill,” which lays out the devastating effects of buying into the sexual revolution. The culture is on its way into the dustbin of history. Only a miracle could save it now.
 
news.msn.com/politics/obama-urges-court-to-overturn-gay-marriage-ban

And California Dreaming is becoming a reality? 🤷

"Obama, a former constitutional law professor, raised expectations that he would back a broad brief during his inauguration address on Jan. 21. He said the nation’s journey “is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law.”

“For if we are truly created equal, than surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well,” Obama said."
Q: Was Barack Obama really a constitutional law professor?

A: His formal title was “senior lecturer,” but the University of Chicago Law School says he “served as a professor” and was “regarded as” a professor.

FULL QUESTION

When I was in law school, I addressed all of my course instructors as “professors,” regardless of their rank or formal position in the school academic hierarchy (tenured professor, assistant professor, adjunct professor, lecturer, etc.). Was Obama exaggerating or factually wrong in referring to himself as a “constitutional law professor” at the University of Chicago Law School even though his official title was lecturer?

FULL ANSWER

Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor,” most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, “I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.” A spokesman for the Republican National Committee immediately took exception to Obama’s remarks, pointing out that Obama’s title at the University of Chicago was “senior lecturer” and not “professor.”

Recently, Hillary Clinton’s campaign has picked up on this charge. In a March 27 conference call with reporters, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer claimed:

Singer (March 27): Sen. Obama has often referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor” out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between a professor who has tenure and an instructor that does not, you’ll find that there is … you’ll get quite an emotional response.

The campaign also sent out an e-mail quoting an Aug. 8, 2004, column in the Chicago Sun-Times that criticized Obama for calling himself a professor when, in fact, the University of Chicago faculty page listed him as “a senior lecturer (now on leave)." The Sun-Times said, “In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter.” The Clinton campaign added that the difference between senior lecturers and professors is that “professors have tenure while lecturers do not.”

We agree that details matter, and also that the formal title of “professor” is not lightly given by academic institutions. However, on this matter the University of Chicago Law School itself is not standing on formality, and is siding with Obama.

Due to numerous press inquiries on the matter, the school released a carefully worded statement saying that for his 12 years there he was considered to be “a professor.”

UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as “Senior Lecturer.” From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

Contrary to what the Clinton campaign claimed, not all professors have tenure. For instance, academics with the title of “assistant professor” typically work for between five and seven years before being reviewed for tenure.

Furthermore, Obama was not merely an “instructor” as Phil Singer stated. As a “senior lecturer,” Obama was in good company: The six other faculty members with the title include the associate dean of the law school and Judge Richard Posner, who is widely considered to be one of the nation’s top legal theorists.

-Joe Miller

Update March 28: As originally written this item stated flatly that the law school “confirms that Obama was a professor.” We have rewritten the item in parts to more accurately reflect the nuance in the law school’s news release.

Sources
Farrington, Brendan. “Obama: Bush Not Respecting Constitution.” The San Francisco Chronicle, 30 March 2007. 27 March 2008.
 
Final update: #scotus 80% likely to strike down #doma. J Kennedy suggests it violates states’ rights; 4 other Justices see as gay rights.
twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/316943769708658688

Comments?

People seem to be seeing that DOMA is going to be overturned and there will probably be a narrow ruling on Prop 8 so that gay marriage is legalised is CA but not in any other state
 
twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/316943769708658688

Comments?

People seem to be seeing that DOMA is going to be overturned and there will probably be a narrow ruling on Prop 8 so that gay marriage is legalised is CA but not in any other state
My question is how can the more conservative Justices in their right mind uphold DOMA AND Federal drug laws, but rail against Obamacare?

Another question is, why does the Federal Government defer to States when it comes to the definition of a felony?
  • I defraud a drug test in Florida, and I am convicted of a misdemeanor. I can still own a gun under Federal law.
  • I defraud the SAME type of test in many other States, and I am convicted of a Felony. I now cannot posses or own a gun under Federal law.
Essentially the Federal Government says to the States “Hey you define felonies your own way, but let us set our own definition of Marriage”. None of that makes sense with respect to Federalism, at least to me.
 
Kudos to Abyssinia for the gazillions of links she provides! 👍 I read someone post earlier about how long into the night you were posting!..Tireless comes to mind! 🙂

Peace, Mark
 
Most homosexulas are fertile, but choose not to have children. How do they differ from heterosexuals who are fertile but choose not to have children. In particular, what legal reasons are there to distinguish between the two in civil law.

rossum
None. If the state has no law against homosexual sex, they can have sex without violating any law. But it is presumptuous of the state to commandeer a term that is not, or should not, be a part of its bailiwick to apply such term in a different meaning than it has been widely used for hundreds of years, and which a large number of its citizens find offensive in the context the state wants to use it. We all know the common meaning of marriage. The state, if it is so corrupt, may decide to permit legal gay unions, but even that is ridiculous on the face of it. Why would people require a license to practice perverted sex, unless there is a law prohibiting it. This then leads to the argument, but in order to gain certain privileges afford by society for married individuals of course. But this has already been shown to be bogus in the fact that heterosexual marriage is a benefit to society, providing the very building block of society, whereas gay unions have no such benefit to commend themselves. The state wisely gives tax and other benefits to married couples as a help and encouragement to keep up the good work of helping to build society. Gay unions do not help build society, and it can be argued they are actually a serious detriment to society in that they promote perverted and unhealthy behavior among the citizenry. There is no question that the state should not allow gay marriage, or even gay civil unions for that matter. That does not mean as a legal principle, it will decide against gay marriage. That is because legal principles are often mindless and bend to the passion of the moment, such as when slavery was the law of the land. The law should recognize that homosexual unions are bad for society and bad for morals, and in the case of adoption, are bad for the children they adopt robbing them of good moral role models and a father and a mother as God and nature intended.
 
My question is how can the more conservative Justices in their right mind uphold DOMA AND Federal drug laws, but rail against Obamacare?

Another question is, why does the Federal Government defer to States when it comes to the definition of a felony?
  • I defraud a drug test in Florida, and I am convicted of a misdemeanor. I can still own a gun under Federal law.
  • I defraud the SAME type of test in many other States, and I am convicted of a Felony. I now cannot posses or own a gun under Federal law.
Essentially the Federal Government says to the States “Hey you define felonies your own way, but let us set our own definition of Marriage”. None of that makes sense with respect to Federalism, at least to me.
Haven’t you noticed? The SCOTUS, at least most of its members, goes with the wind. It is just as important to campaign for an issue before the SCOTUS as it is to campaign for the elected official you want in Congress or the Presidency. The justices more often than not already have their minds made up, then backfill their decision with “reasons” for it. They often go through the facade of airing all the prevalent views on both sides, sometimes even appearing to lean to the less popular side, but in the end, they wind up where they were in the first place. Some may even go against their own core principles because a certain view looks so “winning”, of which we may have had a recent case, but judge for yourself. Whatever they do, except for the most principled, they want to be on the side of history, giving short shrift to truth. Society is defining its own morality as it almost always has and until it reaps the whirlwind, it will not be stopped. Too bad that many justices have such a short term view of history; they might actually be swayed by truth more often, than the particular watchword of the day. That’s my opinion. I am only cynical when it comes to powerful people making important decisions that impact all of us. Power does corrupt. But I do think that another power is at work in the world that even the most powerful among us cannot defeat if it choose to intervene. To this power I place all my hope for the future of our country. She commands legions.
 
Eastman: DOMA Does Not Violate Due Process
Dr. John Eastman, NOM’s Chairman, is inside the Supreme Court again today for the oral arguments in the Defense of Marriage Act cases.
Today he explains in US News & World Report why DOMA isn’t mandated by the Due Process clause:
Those seeking to redefine marriage into a genderless institution must be pessimistic about their chances before the Supreme Court, because they are doing everything they can to prevent the Court from deciding whether the traditional definition marriage, as expressed in the Defense of Marriage Act, is unconstitutional. The Department of Justice refused to defend the statute, despite the fact that it was overwhelmingly passed by bipartisan majorities in Congress and signed into law by President Clinton just a decade and a half ago. It now seeks to prevent the House of Representatives from defending the statute, so that the Court would not even have jurisdiction to hear the case.
But existing precedent is pretty clear—the Department can’t deprive the Supreme Court of jurisdiction merely by refusing to do its duty and defend an Act of Congress; in such circumstances, Congress itself can intervene to defend a statute it passed.
 
Kudos to Abyssinia for the gazillions of links she provides! 👍 I read someone post earlier about how long into the night you were posting!..Tireless comes to mind! 🙂

Peace, Mark
That was probably me. 😃 Kudos to Abyssinia really! She is of great service to this forum! An asset!

Today I spent quite a while thinking about how she manages to process all this information: structuring, keeping track of the sites, threads and updating them accordingly just at the right time etc. We are talking of hundreds of links here. (I can’t even keep track of the few bookmarks I have. :)) It seems almost impossible for a human to do what she does, but somehow, she can. Amazing.
 
That was probably me. 😃 Kudos to Abyssinia really! She is of great service to this forum! An asset!

Today I spent quite a while thinking about how she manages to process all this information: structuring, keeping track of the sites, threads and updating them accordingly just at the right time etc. We are talking of hundreds of links here. (I can’t even keep track of the few bookmarks I have. :)) It seems almost impossible for a human to do what she does, but somehow, she can. Amazing.
Completely agree! 🙂

Peace, Mark
 
Which is my point. There are religious reasons to differentiate, but no legal reasons to do so. Hence the law should not differentiate, just as the law does not differentiate between married couples with children and married couples without children.

rossum
 
That was probably me. 😃 Kudos to Abyssinia really! She is of great service to this forum! An asset!

Today I spent quite a while thinking about how she manages to process all this information: structuring, keeping track of the sites, threads and updating them accordingly just at the right time etc. We are talking of hundreds of links here. (I can’t even keep track of the few bookmarks I have. :)) It seems almost impossible for a human to do what she does, but somehow, she can. Amazing.
Thank you so much
 
Which is my point. There are religious reasons to differentiate, but no legal reasons to do so. Hence the law should not differentiate, just as the law does not differentiate between married couples with children and married couples without children.

rossum
Oh, there are legal reasons as well. I just don’t expect the justices to be more swayed by what they should do as opposed to what they want to do, if that makes any sense. In the law there are reasons and there are reasons. Reasons abound ad infinitum! Case precedents are not an iron hand, they invite interpretation, common sense, moral consideration, reason, cultural differences, consideration of consequences… in short, the justices can decide however they want with ample materials to support their decisions one way or the other. It is not a question of whether justice will be served or the law will be upheld, but what the justices decide they want to do. Is their own internal moral compass properly working? Are they impervious to outside forces? The mere fact that case after case is reversed only to be again reversed is proof enough that the legal system is not a system cast in stone leaving no wiggle room this way or that. The big question is, “Will the justices decide what is right for the country?” I am not at all confident that they will, on this, or on any other case before them. But that is the system we have to work with. In the end, in a free country, the people are more important than the judiciary system, the Congress and the President, because in the end, they are the only ones who can make it right. If things go south in this country, it won’t be the justices and the elected officials that we will have to blame-- oh, they’ll have their part-- it will be our corporate fault for letting things get so far out of hand. The courts don’t define the country, we do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top