Obama- urges court, Gay Marriage ban

[JamesCaruso]

Divorce is the dissolution of the marriage contract. Divorce voids the marriage contract. It is not the same as just moving out. Prior to that, in history, no such thing existed. The definition of marriage changed from a permanent commitment (until death to us part), to one that can be dissolved by a judge (may no man put asunder).

This is not the first time that people have decided to redefine marriage.

Its definition in the Catholic Church remains the same.

It is not the first time that people have devalued marriage. Polygamy where it is permitted devalues marriage. Calling it a civil contract devalues marriage.

Marriage is a sacrament, and a lifetime commitment. Former devaluations is no premise for further devaluations. It is only a sign of a morally decaying society.

 

[epan]

Can you give me an example of anything in the last 3000 years?

Hopefully we have become more civilized than polygamists. Or is that next?

Yes. When divorce became legal. Prior to that, the definition of marriage was a contract between two people for life, which no earthly power could dissolve. After that, marriage became a contract which could be ended at will by the authority of a judge, or other official.

That is a radical redefinition.

 

[Dawnia]

Divorce is the dissolution of the marriage contract. Divorce voids the marriage contract. It is not the same as just moving out. Prior to that, in history, no such thing existed. The definition of marriage changed from a permanent commitment (until death to us part), to one that can be dissolved by a judge (may no man put asunder).

This is not the first time that people have decided to redefine marriage.

Glad you didn’t stay away long.

Prior to when in history did divorce not exist?

 

[epan]

Its definition in the Catholic Church remains the same.

It is not the first time that people have devalued marriage. Polygamy where it is permitted devalues marriage. Calling it a civil contract devalues marriage.

Marriage is a sacrament, and a lifetime commitment. Former devaluations is no premise for further devaluations. It is only a sign of a morally decaying society.

You make exactly my point. The legal definition of marriage has been gradually changing over the past centuries, until we have arrived where we are. This latest development is indeed a radical change, but not actually any more radical than some which came before. It is one more step in a logical progression, which I have outlined previously.

Former “devaluation” as you call it, evolution might be a more accurate word to use, is exactly the source of the momentum for the current changes.

This OP was about Obama and the courts, and presumably how we got to this point, and where it is going.

I highly recommend listening to the oral arguments for yourself. They are just over an hour for Prop 8, and just over 2 hours for DOMA. It is very interesting to listen to the Justice’s questions, and the cases being made.

If one can infer anything from the oral arguments, it sounds to me like the Justices will return the prop 8 matter to the trial court, based on the lack of standing of Mr. Cooper who is defending the matter. DOMA was a close call for me, but it sounded like there might be a majority to overturn it. There is a standing issue there, but it sounded like the matter will rest on whether homosexuals are a “class” under the law.

A recording of the oral arguments is available for download or streaming at:

DOMA = supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=12-307

Prop 8 = supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=12-144

 

[qui_est_ce]

Yes. When divorce became legal. Prior to that, the definition of marriage was a contract between two people for life, which no earthly power could dissolve. After that, marriage became a contract which could be ended at will by the authority of a judge, or other official.

That is a radical redefinition.

Wasn’t divorce always legal except in certain Catholic European countries?

And wasn’t marriage defined as the union between one men and one woman?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Divorce redefines legal marriage, because without it marriage is a permanent commitment. I would recommend that you watch the video link I posted.

To me, your argument lacks social and historic perspective. If you believe that ignoring the reality of the legal and social history will somehow make your fight to stop gay marriage stronger or more effective, then I think that you are mistaken.

The definition of marriage is not determined by the length of marriage aka divorce

 

[epan]

Wasn’t divorce always legal except in certain Catholic European countries?

And wasn’t marriage defined as the union between one men and one woman?

Have you heard of Henry VIII? The question I was asked was to come up with an example of a radical change in the definition of marriage. I believe that the point at which marriage became a non-permanent commitment radically changed its definition.

You may disagree with that. But I think that change was the first step which led us here. Others who think similarly, would point to the change in the law to “no fault” divorce. I would counter that with the claim that “no fault” divorce was not possible, until “divorce” was possible, first.

 

[epan]

The definition of marriage is not determined by the length of marriage aka divorce

It definitely is. The Catholic Church would claim that marriage is a permanent life long commitment. That is indeed a part of the definition of marriage.

How can you possibly justify your statement that permanence is not part of the definition marriage? That statement is in direct opposition to Catholic doctrine.

In fact, I think you undermine your own argument. I understand you to be saying that the problem with allowing gay marriage is that it is in disagreement with the definition provided by the Catholic Church, which says that procreation is part of the definition of marital relations. Is this not what you claim?

I do not understand how you can proceed from that position to claim that only that part of the Church definition is relevant to the discussion of the definition of marriage. Does not the entire definition apply, or none of it apply?

That is my basis. As a society, we started changing the definition of marriage when divorce became legal. When we allowed no fault divorce, then we eliminated gender roles in marriage LEGALLY. This is a process of redefining marriage one step at a time, which has been going on for a long time now.

OK… I have repeated myself many times here. If you disagree, then fine, we disagree. I am not going to explain it over and over and over… You either understand what I am saying or you don’t.

If you listen to that youtube link from the Catholic Diocese, then you might infer that an archbishop agrees with my assessment too.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Have you heard of Henry VIII? The question I was asked was to come up with an example of a radical change in the definition of marriage. I believe that the point at which marriage became a non-permanent commitment radically changed its definition.

You may disagree with that. But I think that change was the first step which led us here. Others who think similarly, would point to the change in the law to “no fault” divorce. I would counter that with the claim that “no fault” divorce was not possible, until “divorce” was possible, first.

Divorce was not unheard of. Henry VIII wanted the Pope out of England because the Pope wouldn’t grant Henry an annulment so he could remarry. Henry made himself Pope of the Church of England. A divorced and remarried person could not head the Church of England until, what a few years ago? Or is that still the law?

 

[qui_est_ce]

It definitely is. The Catholic Church would claim that marriage is a permanent life long commitment. That is indeed a part of the definition of marriage.

How can you possibly justify your statement that permanence is not part of the definition of marriage? That statement is in direct violation of Catholic doctrine.

For how many years has the “till death do us part” been part of the marriage vows, even while divorce was permissible?

 

[_Abyssinia]

It definitely is. The Catholic Church would claim that marriage is a permanent life long commitment. That is indeed a part of the definition of marriage.

How can you possibly justify your statement that permanence is not part of the definition of marriage? That statement is in direct violation of Catholic doctrine.

I am talking about civil marriage, that is what is being discussed to be changed in the law

 

[epan]

For how many years has the “till death do us part” been part of the marriage vows, even while divorce was permissible?

What is your point? Are you trying to say that the definition of marriage as provided by the Church is only partially relevant to this discussion? You seem to be taking that position. If that is the case, then what gives you the authority to decide which of Church doctrine is true and which is false, or if you prefer which is relevant, and which is not?

 

[epan]

I am talking about civil marriage, that is what is being discussed to be changed in the law

So am I.

So, now you have completely reversed your position. You now say that it is a civil matter, entirely?

Or, do you claim that what the Church says about marriage is relevant?

Do you claim that the definition of marriage has not changed over the past centuries? If you make this claim, then your view of history is so radically different than mine (naive in my opinion) that we are miles apart in understanding the phenomenon in front of us.

Would you claim that all if this just happened a priori in a vacuum, and that no social change, or change in definition and understanding has occurred?

I would like to tranport you to the year 1200 to live as a wife for a while, and then transport you back, and get your opinion.

 

[qui_est_ce]

What is your point? Are you trying to say that the definition of marriage as provided by the Church is only partially relevant to this discussion? You seem to be taking that position. If that is the case, then what gives you the authority to decide which of Church doctrine is true and which is false, or if you prefer which is relevant, and which is not?

I am talking about the definition of marriage in western civilization (and probably most other civilizations).

Divorce has always been around and is therefore not a radical redefinition of marriage. Even if divorce had not always been around, the change of a “union between one man and one woman” to “between two consenting and loving adults” is radical. Once you change that, you can change almost anything and the term “marriage” becomes meaningless.

 

[_Abyssinia]

So am I.

So, now you have completely reversed your position. You now say that it is a civil matter, entirely?

Or, do you claim that what the Church says about marriage is relevant?

Do you claim that the definition of marriage has not changed over the past centuries? If you make this claim, then your view of history is so radically different than mine (naive in my opinion) that we are miles apart in understanding the phenomenon in front of us.

Would you claim that all if this just happened a priori in a vacuum, and that no social change, or change in definition and understanding has occurred?

I would like to tranport you to the year 1200 to live as a wife for a while, and then transport you back, and get your opinion.

Martial norm for societies and cultures for thousands of years has been that marriage has been hetrosexual in nature whether the purpose for marriage for some was romantic, dowry based, or political. This marital norm predates government, it was the norm even in societies where there was wide acceptance of homosexual relationships such as in ancient Greece and ancient Rome

 

[epan]

As long as the word “definition” keeps coming up, please consider this.

There is another definition which is continually changing. You may dismiss the idea, at your own peril. But, the one of the most notable trends in the past several centuries, dating to the founding of our country, accelerating though the 1800’s, reaching jet speeds in the 20th century, and now attaining warp speed on this issue, is the relentless expansion of the DEFINITION of what is a “civil right”

This fact underlies the rational basis (to use the legal term) of the legal proponents of gay marriage. Until you come to terms with this, you cannot understand what is happening, in my opinion.

If you take the time to listen to the oral argument, you may find, that the claim is that (1) gays are a unique class, only differentiated in this matter by sexual orientation; (2) if gays are a unique class, and a civil right is denied, based entirely on class, then there is no rational basis, and the equal protection clause is violated.

The, “it has always been thus and so” argument does not counter the “equal protection” argument. The weakness of the “thus and so” argument is that things change over time. Period. So, if not today, then tomorrow, or the next, nobody will give credence to the “thus and so” argument.

Come up with something better, or realize that you are swimming upstream and the current is getting stronger.

 

[epan]

Martial norm for societies and cultures for thousands of years has been that marriage has been hetrosexual in nature whether the purpose for marriage for some was romantic, dowry based, or political. This marital norm predates government, it was the norm even in societities where homosexual behaviour was a norm for many like ancient Greece and ancient Rome

You appear to be intentionally not responding to my point.

 

[_Abyssinia]

You appear to be intentionally not responding to my point.

You asked about the marriage being changed over the centuries and I responded

 

[Ridgerunner]

I would like to tranport you to the year 1200 to live as a wife for a while, and then transport you back, and get your opinion.

I don’t think any of us would want to go back to 1200, whether man or woman. No penicillin, for one thing.

But I will also say it appears to me there is a lot of mythology going on nowadays about the prior status of women, at least in the West. If you read the literature of the period, the present “Politically correct” view of the terrible status of women in the West, circa 1200, is entirely wrong.

 

[qui_est_ce]

You appear to be intentionally not responding to my point.

I don’t see that at all.