Obama- urges court, Gay Marriage ban

[JamesCaruso]

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

No, I had it right, devaluation. Evolution in your sense is the progressive term for degeneration, an evolution to the lowest common, and I do mean common, denominator. Progressives will not be happy until mankind is reduced to herds of animals grazing the earth and nothing more. But man is created in the image of God. He is not just an animal. He will not be turned into a mindless, dumb animal. He will not be deprived of his dignity as a child of God. He will not be torn away from his Creator and made to worship the false gods of self and state. It is Satan himself who leads the movement to define man in terms of an animal. When the law of man is no longer subject to the law of God, then man himself has reached his lowest form of degradation and his “civilization” is ready for the dung heap. Evil may have its day, but God will not allow such an atrocity to stand. There is a crucifixion, but it is always followed by a resurrection, and that, my friend, is why the progressive’s dream of a secular Utopia will never succeed, can never succeed. Do not drink the kool aid.

 

[captainmike]

great piece:

google.com/gwt/n?u=http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/unholy-week-at-the-supreme-court

 

[_Abyssinia]

Second … make it third this motion. Abyssinia won’t see it possibly as she is bounding through cyberspace tracking down links for Catholic Answers. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t pause to thank her.

Just “came” from reading one on this subject that she posted.

Thank you

 

[_Abyssinia]

VIDEO: Heritage’s Ryan Anderson and The Blaze’s S.E. Cupp Debate Marriage

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes, I know when Elizabeth reigned. I had a double major, molecular biology / english lit… My focus in literature was Elizabethan/Jacobian. Thank you so much for telling me twice that Elizabeth was not reigning in 1200. Please tell me when she reigned, and please do it twice. No maybe four times. I just can’t figure it out.

You have absolutely no idea what the structure of the class was, how the paper topic was chosen, what sources were used, how I arrived at my conclusions, how thorough my research was, what feedback or guidance I received, or anything else which you claim to know about the course work for that class. Why do you pretend to?

Your sociological approach is very thorough. Chaucer. Your survey is quite robust… Oh yes, you like to make assumptions. I forgot.

Cultures express themselves best through their literature that met with popular approval then and stands the test of time. And the literature of neither period supports your thesis. I think you know that. It might be remarked in passing that any course in “Elizabethan erotic poetry” is no more likely to reflect the reality of everyday life at the time than does our contemporary pornography.

Yes, yes, yes. I wrote many a “position paper” myself in college. I know what it takes to structure an argument, and I know how easy it is to find resources to support most anything. I also know one can do it successfully if one is sufficiently determined to do it, and especially if one has a receptive audience for it, like a professor who has dedicated a significant part of his academic life to the porn of some era or other. It is, of course, quite popular in academia nowadays to rewrite history to suit modern prejudices.

 

[Ridgerunner]

One of the justices pointed out in the oral arguments that perhaps the rights of the children to see their gay parents married should be considered. You can play this game from any number of angles.

Unfortunately, marriage and procreation are not not “games”. Social experimentation, however, too often is. None of the proponents of homosexual imitation “marriage” has any more idea about the long term ramifications of equating sodomy with marriage than they do about the action of quarks in a black hole. But no matter. Throw over an institution essentially every society has revered and upon which it was based since time immemorial on the assumption that somehow we’re more “enlightened” than every generation that went before.

As this social experiment unfolds, those who promote it will own the result. And they’ll claim to be proud of it no matter what the effects might be.

 

[qui_est_ce]

In the United States and only because same-sex couples didn’t pursue legal recognition until relatively recently. In the past, they were too busy trying not to get murdered or jailed.

Seriously?

From 1958-1962 we had neighbors across the street that everyone referred to as “The Bachelors.” Nobody ever said anything derogatory about them. They were kindly gentlemen who kept to themselves, leading quiet lives.

In 1962 we moved to the suburbs. There were “The Bachelors” who lived two doors down from us. Wow, I thought, what a coincidence, the same last name.

As I grew older, I realized “The Bachelors” was not a surname, but rather a name for two men living together in a special relationship. It did not refer to three men or two men and a woman. Those were known as roommates.

Never, ever did the police come and raid them. Never, ever did anyone deride them or make fun of them. It just was.

 

[seakelp]

Seriously?

From 1958-1962 we had neighbors across the street that everyone referred to as “The Bachelors.” Nobody ever said anything derogatory about them. They were kindly gentlemen who kept to themselves, leading quiet lives.

In 1962 we moved to the suburbs. There were “The Bachelors” who lived two doors down from us. Wow, I thought, what a coincidence, the same last name.

As I grew older, I realized “The Bachelors” was not a surname, but rather a name for two men living together in a special relationship. It did not refer to three men or two men and a woman. Those were known as roommates.

Never, ever did the police come and raid them. Never, ever did anyone deride them or make fun of them. It just was.

To be fair, one anecdote doesn’t prove or disprove much of anything. I think it’s obviously fair to say that homosexuals were discriminated against in the past because of their sexual persuasion, and that further, a mark of that discrimination was suffering disproportionately under the criminal law.

Plus, homosexual sodomy (not just sodomy, but specifically homosexual sodomy) was illegal in Texas until Lawrence in 2003. That’s pretty much prima facie evidence that homosexuals have long been penalized under the law.

 

[stellina]

I believe a session was past in Illinois and it will go the Supreme Court to be validated (most likely it’ll pass). Also there’s an article, floating somewhere on the internet, that more than 75+ “notable” Republicans signed an early stage petition to strike down Prop 8. People, same sex marriage is inevitable in the US. The advocates will gloat, no doubt once each state legalizes it, as they always do.

“is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law.”

They already do. Who do you think went rampaging into black neighborhoods in California, vandalizing churches & burning crosses when Prop. 8 was enacted? Poor, sensitive, peace-loving homosexuals, and yet they have the gall to compare themselves to black Americans who truly suffered bigotry. I’m a white American female & I find it insulting that they equate their situation with women’s suffrage. No homosexual was denied the right to vote, hold property, etc.

Midwest88, I can identify although I was never what you’d call a staunch advocate of gay rights.I did think that they were rather innocuous & wanted nothing more than to live in peace because back when I was much younger & more naive & some of my male friends were popping out of the closet, I only heard their version.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

To be fair, one anecdote doesn’t prove or disprove much of anything. I think it’s obviously fair to say that homosexuals were discriminated against in the past because of their sexual persuasion, and that further, a mark of that discrimination was suffering disproportionately under the criminal law.

Plus, homosexual sodomy (not just sodomy, but specifically homosexual sodomy) was illegal in Texas until Lawrence in 2003. That’s pretty much prima facie evidence that homosexuals have long been penalized under the law.

Homosexuals are not penalized under the law. They are free to marry anyone of the opposite sex who is of age.

 

[seakelp]

Homosexuals are not penalized under the law. They are free to marry anyone of the opposite sex who is of age.

You must have misread my post. They *were *penalized under the Texas law - and were as recently as 2003, not even 10 years ago.

 

[Dawnia]

You must have misread my post. They *were *penalized under the Texas law - and were as recently as 2003, not even 10 years ago.

Only if they broke the sodomy law AND got caught. The status of being gay was not against the law.

 

[qui_est_ce]

To be fair, one anecdote doesn’t prove or disprove much of anything. I think it’s obviously fair to say that homosexuals were discriminated against in the past because of their sexual persuasion, and that further, a mark of that discrimination was suffering disproportionately under the criminal law.

. Just relating community standards regarding homosexuals. They weren’t as persecuted as many claim.

Plus, homosexual sodomy (not just sodomy, but specifically homosexual sodomy) was illegal in Texas until Lawrence in 2003. That’s pretty much prima facie evidence that homosexuals have long been penalized under the law.

And how often were these crimes prosecuted?

Maybe there was a good reason for this law. Look how AIDS works. Look how many homosexuals suffer of anal-sex related diseases.

 

[seakelp]

. Just relating community standards regarding homosexuals. They weren’t as persecuted as many claim.

Fair enough - but again, I think your one anecdote doesn’t provide us with much of a guideline.

And how often were these crimes prosecuted?/

From my understanding, they were not often prosecuted. But the law existed.

I’d believe you if it weren’t for the fact that sodomy can be practiced by heterosexuals as much as by homosexuals - and so the injuries you’re referring to can be suffered by both groups. The fact that the legislature wanted to single out homosexual sex, not just sodomy, is what made the law a problem.

Anyway, my point is simply that your own experiences, while worthwhile & interesting, don’t constitute a data set from which we can draw conclusions.

[/QUOTE]

 

[JimG]

Fair enough - but again, I think your one anecdote doesn’t provide us with much of a guideline.
qui est ce;10553352:

And how often were these crimes prosecuted?/

From my understanding, they were not often prosecuted. But the law existed.

sex, not just sodomy, is what made the law a problem.

Anyway, my point is simply that your own experiences, while worthwhile & interesting, don’t constitute a data set from which we can draw conclusions. The question now is: Is sodomy equivalent to marriage? It never has been. It’s of no benefit to the state. Why recognize it or treat it the same as marriage. Marriage between opposite sex persons (it really seems a redundancy to have to say that) at least provides the state with the possibility that a new generation of citizens will be raised.

 

[qui_est_ce]

From my understanding, they were not often prosecuted. But the law existed.

I’d believe you if it weren’t for the fact that sodomy can be practiced by heterosexuals as much as by homosexuals - and so the injuries you’re referring to can be suffered by both groups. The fact that the legislature wanted to single out homosexual sex, not just sodomy, is what made the law a problem.

True, but male homosexuals tend to be a lot more promiscuous than male/female relationships. STD’s and anal-sex related cancers among the gay community are rampant.

 

[seakelp]

seakelp;10553509:

Fair enough - but again, I think your one anecdote doesn’t provide us with much of a guideline.
qui est ce;10553352:

And how often were these crimes prosecuted?/ The question now is: Is sodomy equivalent to marriage? It never has been. It’s of no benefit to the state. Why recognize it or treat it the same as marriage. Marriage between opposite sex persons (it really seems a redundancy to have to say that) at least provides the state with the possibility that a new generation of citizens will be raised.

I mean, I completely agree that the legal question surrounding gay marriage is different from the legal question surrounding anti-gay laws. For one, a statute that says, “Gays can’t do X,” while still allowing heterosexual couples to engage in the same acts, is obviously unconstitutional. I think you’d have to be pretty extreme to think that the sort of law at issue in Lawrence is alright under the equal protection clause.

But marriage, I agree, is different. It’s traditional definition is heterosexual - laws simply defining it that way at least seem constitutional. There is no substantive due process “right” to marriage (though maybe there is, I don’t know - I don’t think there is, anyway).

 

[seakelp]

True, but male homosexuals tend to be a lot more promiscuous than male/female relationships. STD’s and anal-sex related cancers among the gay community are rampant.

I can’t really speak to that, but it still wouldn’t be a good enough reason, in my opinion, to create a law specifically discriminating against gays.

I admit that t’s an entirely different matter to not extend rights to gays by broadening a certain kind of status to something it has never been. But actually discriminating against homosexuals is wrong.

 

[JamesCaruso]

But actually discriminating against homosexuals is wrong.

As in saying everyone except homosexuals can vote.

And as far as marriage goes, homosexuals can marry anyone of the opposite sex they choose, so it is not discrimination at all-- it is not depriving them of anything that others have a right to do. Of course, one must accept the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. In that context, which happens to be the correct context, there is no discrimination against homosexuals. If the courts allow gay marriage, they trample the sacredness of the sacrament and “invent” a new definition of marriage, one that is not true. You can call black white all you want, but it still does not make black white. If the courts uphold gay marriage, then truly justice IS blind.

 

[rossum]

And as far as marriage goes, homosexuals can marry anyone of the opposite sex they choose, so it is not discrimination at al

This argument has already been tried in earlier cases, and the court has rejected it. If I were you I would not rely on an argument that the court has previously turned down. You will note that none of the lawyers arguing before the Supreme Court used this argument, and they were correct to avoid it.

rossum