Prop 8 found to be unconstitutional...struck down!

[ThomasToo]

But two days ago, gay marriage wasn’t a constitutionally protected right. It was completely constitutional to have a gender requirement for marriage. Today gender distinctions in marriage are suddently unconstitutional, in ONE federal court. And you cite it as if it were black letter law for a hundred years. Amusing.

Actually the right of people to seek civil marriage marry has been black letter law for over forty years, Loving v. Virginia clearly applies. People have contested this claim but a (very conservative Catholic) professor of mine who now teaches at the JPII Pontifical Institute on the Study of Marriage and Family in Washington, DC (I hope I got that name right)–he is, incidentally, a former lawyer so this is legal as well as academic opinion–that Loving will be the precedent applied when cases of gays seeking civil marriage come before the courts.

I would have said the same thing about Loving when it was decided in a lower federal court; the right of that couple to marry was a fundamental one despite the perceived constitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws. To be frank, many of the people sitting quite near where you do now–ideologically, politically and religiously vis-a-vis the social mean–decried that decision too. I’m not calling you or your racist (or homophobic) but I find it interesting to find almost verbatim parallels between the debates over Perry and over Loving.

 

[irishpatrick]

Aside from the fact that the premise of the question is false (opening the protections of civil marriage to people regardless of their sexual orientation will do no such thing), I would most surely. Fiat justitia ruat caelum.

The premise, as I have explained many times, is not at all false. I believe it will happen.

However, to your reponse:

So, you would rather have same sex marriage, than the Church? Is that right?

 

[ThomasToo]

Actually, that is fairly recent. And it isn’t “literally” thousands. It probably isn’t even fifty.

Marriage used to carry significant legal burdens. Like, for example, being hard to get out of. It wasn’t just a piece of paper that was your ticket to a government handout, as it is, unfortunately, today.

You don’t have the faintest idea what you are talking about, do you?

There are 1,138 federal benefits of marriage without even getting to state ones (Letter from GAO to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, 1.23.2004, gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf). So, yes, I know what I’m talking about.

Of course it can be about the ability to have children. You are engaging in a fallacy. Marriage can be designed to promote propagation, without having propagation be a legal requirement. It really isn’t that hard to comprehend, is it?

How can marriage be designed around procreation without being bound to those who can procreate? It is not hard to comprehend, it’s ludicrous. If the rule you were advocating is that marriage is about forming families (without getting into non-1950s concepts of family the notion of which has expanded radically since then) then that would be one thing. The claim, however, is that it’s about forming families but if you look like the sorts of people who can–and many of whom do–form families then you’re on unsteady (read: no) ground.

 

[Good_News_1]

Actually the right of people to seek civil marriage marry has been black letter law for over forty years, Loving v. Virginia clearly applies.

Do you know what “clearly applies” means? It means you have a case with identical facts.

You can say it “arguably applies” but you have to deal, then with the different facts.

And the question is: is gender a rational basis for the distinction? The question in Loving was: is race a rational basis for the distinction?

And, to deal with that question, you would have to deal HONESTLY with the historical role of procreation in marriage. And, if you pretend that there has been, historically, NO connection between marriage and procreation, then explain the extensive history that connects the true, from prohibiting bastards from inheritance, to blood tests, to the grounds for divorce before no fault (eg, infertility).

Are you seriously going to contend that marriage an procreation are not HISTORICALLY connnected, in legal and social traditions? If you can’t deal with that honestly, you can’t have a discussion.

To be frank, many of the people sitting quite near where you do now–ideologically, politically and religiously vis-a-vis the social mean–decried that decision too.

Like Barack Obama, a liberal, biracial opponent of gay marriage?

 

[ThomasToo]

The premise, as I have explained many times, is not at all false. I believe it will happen.

However, to your reponse:

So, you would rather have same sex marriage, than the Church? Is that right?

That is not my response. My response is that I must seek to do justice (in this case extend the protections of civil marriage to everyone regardless of sexual orientation) regardless of the consequences. That’s what justice means and that’s our duty regarding it however weighty and uncomfortable it may make us.

 

[JimG]

Actually the right of people to seek civil marriage marry has been black letter law for over forty years, Loving v. Virginia clearly applies. People have contested this claim but a (very conservative Catholic) professor of mine who now teaches at the JPII Pontifical Institute on the Study of Marriage and Family in Washington, DC (I hope I got that name right)–he is, incidentally, a former lawyer so this is legal as well as academic opinion–that Loving will be the precedent applied when cases of gays seeking civil marriage come before the courts.

I would have said the same thing about Loving when it was decided in a lower federal court; the right of that couple to marry was a fundamental one despite the perceived constitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws. To be frank, many of the people sitting quite near where you do now–ideologically, politically and religiously vis-a-vis the social mean–decried that decision too. I’m not calling you or your racist (or homophobic) but I find it interesting to find almost verbatim parallels between the debates over Perry and over Loving.

Will Loving v Virginia also apply when equal marriage rights are sought for polygamy and for ephebophiles?

If sexual orientation is a protected class, then it must apply to every sexual orientation.

 

[Good_News_1]

How can marriage be designed around procreation without being bound to those who can procreate?

I don’t know if you’re being deliberately dense or I am just misunderstanding your question.

Are you asking “why isn’t there a law against infertile couples marrying?”

Seriously, you’re asking that?

Maybe because it has been difficult to determine infertility medically until very recently. That would be a sufficient answer, wouldn’t it? Maybe because men in their eighties can father children, and historically, in this society, marriages with women over fifty are relatively rare? Maybe because there is a fundamental difference between creating an institution for a purpose and policing the institution so that it absolutely excludes any activity beyond that purpose?

 

[ThomasToo]

Will Loving v Virginia also apply when equal marriage rights are sought for polygamy and for ephebophiles?

If sexual orientation is a protected class, then it must apply to every sexual orientation.

Yes and no respectively. I see no reason that civil marriage should be denied people who–all adult parties consenting–choose a polygamous life style.

Children are unable to legally consent to contracts of any sort including but not limited to marriage and you know that.

Sexual orientation was not made a protected class (by the way we all have a sexual orientation, ours just happens to be straight [Kinsey scale 0 or 1], GLBT persons would be made a protected class as I understand things if anything) by this ruling. The law failed so much as the rational basis test.

 

[ThomasToo]

I don’t know if you’re being deliberately dense or I am just misunderstanding your question.

Are you asking “why isn’t there a law against infertile couples marrying?”

Seriously, you’re asking that?

Of course I’m not asking that, but it seems that given means to determine virility and fertility they would be important if marriages were about sex^h^h^h birthing children…

We can agree there is far more to marriage, civil or otherwise, than sex and the ability to have children…

 

[Good_News_1]

There are 1,138 federal benefits of marriage without even getting to state ones (Letter from GAO to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, 1.23.2004, gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf). So, yes, I know what I’m talking about.

No, you don’t. You know there’s a report that you THINK supports your view. You haven’t gone over the benefits, one by one.

I have glanced over them. Just because, for example, the social security rules mention marriage x number of times, does not mean there are x number of benefits. There are benefits to spouses, differing benefit levels depending on years of marriage, differing levels of survivor benefts for different lengths of marriage - but there are two benefits, the social security benefit and the death benefit, which are keyed to marriage, not dozens.

 

[Good_News_1]

We can agree there is far more to marriage, civil or otherwise, than sex and the ability to have children…

As long as we agree that, at least historically, that has been a major part of the social value and purpose, civilly or otherwise.

 

[pablo_rafael]

In my opinion a great step towards justice and love has been made with this decision. The church has been in the wrong on gay rights issues (although many, many individual Catholics have not been). No matter what argument one tries to make to condemn same-sex marriage, it still comes down to the wish to deny one group of people a basic right. Gays deserve the same rights and respect as any other group.

The Episcopal Church and the Lutheran Church are way ahead of us on this issue. Love and compassion, fairness and justice are always pleasing to the Lord.

 

[edwest2]

It’s justice to give Americans everywhere, regardless of sexual orientation, their fundamental constitutionally protected right to civil marriage…

Also why does it matter that they’re a minority? What if Catholics were a minority (call it 10% of the population) would that make it licit for an atheist majority to ban the celebration of the Mass? Of course not, your First Amendment right would protect you even from overzealous anti-religious voters. So too here, the populace can’t vote to abridge a citizen’s fundamental constitutionally protected rights.

There is no such constitutional protection. If you have a citation, please produce it.

This is about turning gay sex into an institution. All other sexual orientations are now waiting in line.

Polyamorous.
Bisexuals.
Pedophiles.
Zoophiles (bestiality).
And I can imagine a few others but civility prevents me from posting them here.

Any sexual mix and match combination. Jimmy has two mommies, two ex-daddies, several cousins and numerous nieces and nephews.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

There is no such constitutional protection. If you have a citation, please produce it.

This is about turning gay sex into an institution. All other sexual orientations are now waiting in line.

Polyamorous.
Bisexuals.
Pedophiles.
Zoophiles (bestiality).
And I can imagine a few others but civility prevents me from posting them here.

Any sexual mix and match combination. Jimmy has two mommies, two ex-daddies, several cousins and numerous nieces and nephews.

You are going over the edge with this.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Corki]

How can marriage be designed around procreation without being bound to those who can procreate? It is not hard to comprehend, it’s ludicrous

It’s only ludicrous because you don’t understand what it means for something to be ordered (or disordered). Marriage is ordered around the concept of creating a family and raising children. That doesn’t mean that* each individual *in a given marriage will be fertile or will have children. It means that the STRUCTURE can support the process of having children and raising a family. One man + one woman is a structure that is ordered to creating a family. Two men or two women joined in a simulated marriage can never be ordered to having children or giving them a mother and father.

Yes and no respectively. I see no reason that civil marriage should be denied people who–all adult parties consenting–choose a polygamous life style.

At least someone is finally honest that this will lead to legalized polygamy.

Children are unable to legally consent to contracts of any sort including but not limited to marriage and you know that.

Contract law is not applicable here. It is a simple matter to change the age of consent. Many states currently have ages of consent for marriage that is lower than the age to legally execute contracts.

Sexual orientation was not made a protected class (by the way we all have a sexual orientation, ours just happens to be straight [Kinsey scale 0 or 1], GLBT persons would be made a protected class as I understand things if anything) by this ruling. The law failed so much as the rational basis test

The ruling, as I understand it, only applied to same sex couples, not to bi-sexual or transexual individuals. Adding bi-sexual individuals to the mix would be a fast track to polygamy legalization.

 

[exoflare]

I can’t believe how quickly this got to 1000 posts. And if we cut out all the redundant ones we could probably cut that number by over half.

IBTL

 

[edwest2]

Yes and no respectively. I see no reason that civil marriage should be denied people who–all adult parties consenting–choose a polygamous life style.

Children are unable to legally consent to contracts of any sort including but not limited to marriage and you know that.

Sexual orientation was not made a protected class (by the way we all have a sexual orientation, ours just happens to be straight [Kinsey scale 0 or 1], GLBT persons would be made a protected class as I understand things if anything) by this ruling. The law failed so much as the rational basis test.

Very sad that Kinsey is still being given credit for anything. After his second “study” came out, even people of the period asked if it was a hoax.

Consent is not the issue. Here, on Catholic Answers, natural law and real biology are the primary issues. Anything else is pure invention, or we made it up yesterday. Who needs the voters when you can go to the courts?

“Alternative lifestyles” are not appropriate.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Corki]

In my opinion a great step towards justice and love has been made with this decision. The church has been in the wrong on gay rights issues (although many, many individual Catholics have not been). No matter what argument one tries to make to condemn same-sex marriage, it still comes down to the wish to deny one group of people a basic right. Gays deserve the same rights and respect as any other group.

You do realize, don’t you, that, regardless of what the civil authorities do, Catholics are required to oppose same sex marriages while, at the same time protecting the dignity of individuals who identify as homosexual? It’s not about “trying” to condemn same-sex marriage. It’s about a mandate to condemn it. This decision will not change that.

 

[edwest2]

In my opinion a great step towards justice and love has been made with this decision. The church has been in the wrong on gay rights issues (although many, many individual Catholics have not been). No matter what argument one tries to make to condemn same-sex marriage, it still comes down to the wish to deny one group of people a basic right. Gays deserve the same rights and respect as any other group.

The Episcopal Church and the Lutheran Church are way ahead of us on this issue. Love and compassion, fairness and justice are always pleasing to the Lord.

Please cite any government document that states this is a “basic right.”

Respect for what? Their sexual preference?

God bless,
Ed

 

[JimG]

This is about turning gay sex into an institution. All other sexual orientations are now waiting in line.

Polyamorous.
Bisexuals.
Pedophiles.
Zoophiles (bestiality).
And I can imagine a few others but civility prevents me from posting them here.

Any sexual mix and match combination. Jimmy has two mommies, two ex-daddies, several cousins and numerous nieces and nephews.

God bless,
Ed

Well it seems to me that polygamists will have to be granted equal rights.
Bisexuals must also be granted the right to marry a partner of each sex, (not necessarily limited to one of each.)
Polyandrists will have to be granted equal rights to multiple husbands.
Pedophiles, in the strict sense–i.e., attracted to prepubescent children, will probably not make the cut, but Ehpebophiles who are attracted to adolescents will make a reasonable case for lowering the age of consent when both parties consent to the arrangement. They will further argue that their orientation is as deep seated and inherent to their identity as gays.

There might be a further push for say, two brothers to marry, since they do love each other, in a brotherly way, and should not be denied the tax and other advantages of marriage.