Prop. 8: Gay-marriage ban unconstitutional, court rules

[Befink]

Rig, disrespectful comments veiled in nicety is certainly not Christian behavior. After 19,000 posts I expected better. Learn the most important commandment then maybe you can show me the way to peace instead of showing me how not to become.

There are no anti-Catholics here, myself or otherwise.

I didn’t forget bi-sexuals. I clearly said they won’t cause a significant political movement.

 

[Digitonomy]

From my post #66 on page 1…

As to whether the Supreme Court will choose to hear the case, I’m not as certain. Given the narrow scope of this ruling, and consequently the lack of conflicting rulings from other circuit courts, I don’t think it’s quite as good a national issue - unless the justices want to pry it open to include issues the ruling didn’t decide, as sometimes happens…The four conservative justices may choose not to do so because they’re not sure how Kennedy will vote on a case where his ruling from years ago was cited so heavily. On the other hand, one or more of the liberal justices may gamble for exactly that reason.

These points seem to be echoed by this LA Times article:

Based on Kennedy’s past opinions, Karlan is confident that if the Supreme Court takes up the issue of California’s same-sex marriage ban, “it means Prop. 8is going down to defeat,” she said. “There is no way he will take it to reinstate” the ban.

Not all court observers share her prediction, but the uncertainty about how Kennedy might vote may, by itself, be enough to deter the high court from hearing an appeal of the decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Four justices must vote for the court to consider a case, but a majority is needed to issue a ruling.

When an appeal reaches the high court, the four most conservative justices will face a tough choice: Vote to have the court hear the case and run the risk that Kennedy would side with the more liberal justices to go beyond the 9th Circuit decision and establish a nationwide right to same-sex marriage. Or turn the case aside, leaving same-sex marriage intact in California but setting no national precedent…

Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Irvine Law School, believes Kennedy will play the crucial role and write a broader opinion that undercuts other state laws banning same-sex marriage. “This is a court that wants to have the last word on major legal issues,” he said.
Source

The article also gives some good biographical background on Kennedy and his worldview as it relates to conservative issues in general, and this issue in particular.

 

[DeoSalvatoreMeo]

Well, I look forward to the day when one consenting adult can marry another consenting adult, regardless of “bits”. Obviously I don’t support marriage between humans and buildings, or adults and children, or humans and non-human animals, and I suspect anyone in their right mind would say the same.

What about 5, 10, 15 humans? If we follow your argument, who are we to place restrictions on the number of people that someone falls in love with, as long as they are all consenting? How about one man marries another man. That man that he marries is also married to three other men. So, man one has one “spouse” and his spouse has four “spouses”? How weird is that? This fits within your parameters of consent and being in love. It’s a free-for-all. Wheee! What fun.

 

[Lokabrenna]

What about 5, 10, 15 humans? If we follow your argument, who are we to place restrictions on the number of people that someone falls in love with, as long as they are all consenting? How about one man marries another man. That man that he marries is also married to three other men. So, man one has one “spouse” and his spouse has four “spouses”? How weird is that? This fits within your parameters of consent and being in love. It’s a free-for-all. Wheee! What fun.

Some polyamorous families are indeed structured that way. The key word there is “consent”. Now, I’m a one woman kind of girl, so I’d expect my partner to be just as exclusive, and that’s okay. The legality of such unions notwithstanding (and there would have to be more than a few changes to the current laws on the subject) other than the “ick” factor, people with different family structures do no harm to me by simply existing. (Again, consent is key.)

 

[couponfit]

Does anyone care to speculate what may happen if this does get to the Supreme Court this year? I’m not as educated as I should be on how this all works unfortunately.

Honestly the rulings seem to be following predictability. The supreme court, including Roberts, is likely to vote this as unconstitutional if they even hear it as it takes 4 judges to want to rehear a case. Assuming Kennedy does not want to rehear it, then this case will stand at appellate level.

We should get a ruling sometime early next year or a denial to hear the case by the end of this year.

 

[Geist]

This really sickens me. The voters chose to ban “gay marriage” in California and that ban should stand. I don’t understand why such activist judges are always trying to change the laws. If a majority of people voted to ban “gay marriage” then “gay marriage” should remain banned.

Had the voters went the other way, would you still feel this way?

 

[Geist]

Only if you’re Catholic.

Non-Catholics, however, are not bound by Catholic requirements.

So then doesn’t that only reaffirm civil unions regardless of the genders involved is none of the Church’s business?

Because it seems equally unfair to force Catholic requirements on non-Catholics.

I’m having a very hard time understanding why this is an important issue to the Church. No state that has allowed civil unions has seen any detrimental effect to heterosexual marriages.

So far no one has demonstrated why secular civil unions are a threat to anything. These couples have been living together for years in some cases, why does a piece of paper from a state clerk equal Armageddon?

I cannot in good conscience condone state-sanctioned discrimination.

I must admit I find the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church screaming bloody murder over being forced to pay for contraceptives, yet butting its nose into this issue that is clearly none of its business to be mildly worrying.

 

[rlg94086]

So then doesn’t that only reaffirm civil unions regardless of the genders involved is none of the Church’s business?

Because it seems equally unfair to force Catholic requirements on non-Catholics.

I’m having a very hard time understanding why this is an important issue to the Church. No state that has allowed civil unions has seen any detrimental effect to heterosexual marriages.

So far no one has demonstrated why secular civil unions are a threat to anything. These couples have been living together for years in some cases, why does a piece of paper from a state clerk equal Armageddon?

I cannot in good conscience condone state-sanctioned discrimination.

I must admit I find the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church screaming bloody murder over being forced to pay for contraceptives, yet butting its nose into this issue that is clearly none of its business to be mildly worrying.

It’s not discrimination, and we are a pluralistic society. That doesn’t mean “anything goes.” It means that, as Catholics, we are to vote/support legislation from our Catholic perspective. Others, can vote/support legislation from their perspective. We are not forcing our viewpoint on others any more or less than those who support gay unions are forcing their viewpoint on others.

As far as “hypocrisy,” there is none. Whether the government should recognize and/or condone same sex marriage has nothing to do with freedom of religion. As of today, right now, any church in any state can perform a marriage ceremony with two people of the same sex. There is complete freedom of religion from that perspective. However, in states where same sex marriage is not recognized, the marriage will not be recognized as a legal contract.

 

[hazmat]

yeah, no ones forcing. its just your viewpoint entails denying marriage for homosexual couples, whereas the gay marriage advocates viewpoint doesnt entail denying marriage for either heterosexual or homosexual couples… no forcing there. lol

 

[rlg94086]

yeah, no ones forcing. its just your viewpoint entails denying marriage for homosexual couples, whereas the gay marriage advocates viewpoint doesnt entail denying marriage for either heterosexual or homosexual couples… no forcing there. lol

They’re forcing society to accept same sex unions as equivalent to marriage, even though there is no value to the state to sanction such unions. Marriage has a real value and is a basic civil right because it is “fundamental to our existence and survival.”

 

[new_User1357246]

They’re forcing society to accept same sex unions as equivalent to marriage, even though there is no value to the state to sanction such unions. Marriage has a real value and is a basic civil right because it is “fundamental to our existence and survival.”

This might be true if divorce wasn’t so prevalent today. When a marriage can practically be dissolved with the snap of the fingers it loses a lot of its value, and I don’t see people fighting that.

 

[karaleigh]

Have you read this…

Washington State Senate approves homosexual marriage bill
Catholic Online (NEWS CONSORTIUM)
2/3/2012
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)
Homosexual and lesbian couples could be able to be wed as early as June
Senators in Washington State have voted 28-21 to legalize homosexual marriage. Four Republicans crossed party lines and voted with majority Democrats for the measure, with three Democrats voted against it.

 

[PRmerger]

So then doesn’t that only reaffirm civil unions regardless of the genders involved is none of the Church’s business?

Well, only if you believe that abortion, as it’s a medical procedure, is also “none of the Church’s business” as well.

Now, of course, Catholics understand that all of morality is the purview of the Church.

 

[rlg94086]

This might be true if divorce wasn’t so prevalent today. When a marriage can practically be dissolved with the snap of the fingers it loses a lot of its value, and I don’t see people fighting that.

In other words, you don’t believe marriage has value?

 

[Geist]

They’re forcing society to accept same sex unions as equivalent to marriage, even though there is no value to the state to sanction such unions. Marriage has a real value and is a basic civil right because it is “fundamental to our existence and survival.”

There is value to the couple in legal benefits, especially joint tax returns. Again, a purely secular effect.

Again, some of the couples have been together longer than I’ve been alive, and a marriage license from the courthouse threatens the rest of us…how?

As it stands now if this came to a ballot in my state my conscience would force me to vote yes to recognizing civil unions, and I have a few reasons for it impelling my conscience (i.e. state sanctioned discrimination is wrong), has the Church provided a definitive argument against the issue of same-sex civil unions (not marriage)? If so I would like to see it.

I am not rigid in my ways, my thinking on abortion has changed much more to that of the Church as it was able to be presented in a logical and orderly fashion and there is a clear moral impetus behind it…with this…I really just don’t see it falling under the moral umbrella of the church…as wide as that may be, in a separation of church and state nation like ours.

 

[Befink]

What’s really interesting is your comment about conscience. I feel the same way that I can’t go along with the Church’s teaching in this case because it’s not right in my heart. Luckily that is very rare.

Everything that is right about the church comes down to love as is true always in the world. The teachings are designed to help us love God as well as our neighbors and ourselves. Usually the church can do an excellent job explaining why the teachings are what they are, not just in religious terms but in secular terms.

In this case, they just can’t show why being against marriage equality is the right path to love. I don’t feel closer to Jesus by denying other human beings the same rights I have in marriage. Luckily the church effectively welcomes all worshipers (except gays themselves) regardless of where they are in their spirituality. On CAF there are many who will spend way too much of their lives trying to convince everyone that their ways are the only ways. They don’t represent the majority of Catholics who in fact support gay marriage.

It will be interesting to watch marriage equality unfold in our society. Eventually the Church will probably have to revisit their view on it as they’ve done throughout history on issues.

Cheers

 

[PRmerger]

There is value to the couple in legal benefits, especially joint tax returns. Again, a purely secular effect.

Actually, the comment was that there is no value to the state to sanction homosexual unions.

Whether it benefits homosexual couples is not the purview of the state, whose aim is to protect families.

From Catholic Apologist Mark Shea:

The one element I could buy is that there is a case for simply disentangling the state from the question of marriage altogether. Just as we don’t have the state adjudicating a valid baptism, so (it is argued) we don’t need to have the state adjudicate what a marriage is. I’m not saying I do buy this argument, only that I can respect it. It is not prima facie preposterous.

(That said, I am extremely skeptical that the state really has no interest in protecting and preserving the foundation stone of the entire civil order, the family. Not all marriage is sacramental and the state emphatically has an interest in guarding the family from harm if the state itself wishes to survive. So, in a sane society–as distinct from ours–I think it self-evident that the state has an obligation to preserve and protect marriage and the family that springs from it. Indeed, as I have argued before, one very useful way of understanding Catholic social teaching (including teaching concerning the role of the State) is that it is ordered toward the good of the family: first, the natural family, and supremely the spiritual family. So though there may be a certain sort of prima facie libertarian appeal to the notion of getting the State out of the business of “regulating marriage” as it is called, I think that ultimately there has to be a place for the state to protect the family.)

The trouble, of course, is that we are living in a radically diseased society that is exhibiting pathologies never before seen in its implacable hostility to the Christian (or even natural) conception of the family. At present, these pathologies are manifesting themselves in the vast societal campaign to pretend that same sex unions are the same thing as “marriage”. The entire campaign is ordered, from beginning to end, not to attain new “civil rights”, but to force people who know perfectly well that gay “marriage” is a pretense to shut up, knuckle under, and accord such a pretense the same dignity as real marriage. This will never happen among those who actually know what marriage is, which is why this campaign can only result in persecution against those who will not bend the knee to the lie.

Nonetheless, a lie it remains and even those who advocate gay “marriage” know it to be so. And they will continue to know it even after all their aims are achieved in the civil sphere. Which is why they will have to either go after the Church for refusing to acknowledge gay “marriage” or else do as the TIME piece suggests and attempt the opposite of legitimating gay “marriage”–namely, nullifying real marriage. What cannot be allowed to stand, however, is the clear recognition that there is such a thing as real marriage (whether natural or sacramental) and that gay “marriage” is not and never will be real marriage. So some sort of force, probably brutal, will need to be applied to scream down this obvious fact.

 

[hazmat]

They’re forcing society to accept same sex unions as equivalent to marriage, even though there is no value to the state to sanction such unions. Marriage has a real value and is a basic civil right because it is “fundamental to our existence and survival.”

you dont have to accept them as equivalent. im sure some dont regard interracial marriages as the equivalent to same race marriages. thats their opinion, and theyre entitled to it.

 

[rlg94086]

Actually, the comment was that there is no value to the state to sanction homosexual unions.

Whether it benefits homosexual couples is not the purview of the state, whose aim is to protect families.

From Catholic Apologist Mark Shea:

The one element I could buy is that there is a case for simply disentangling the state from the question of marriage altogether. Just as we don’t have the state adjudicating a valid baptism, so (it is argued) we don’t need to have the state adjudicate what a marriage is. I’m not saying I do buy this argument, only that I can respect it. It is not prima facie preposterous.

(That said, I am extremely skeptical that the state really has no interest in protecting and preserving the foundation stone of the entire civil order, the family. Not all marriage is sacramental and the state emphatically has an interest in guarding the family from harm if the state itself wishes to survive. So, in a sane society–as distinct from ours–I think it self-evident that the state has an obligation to preserve and protect marriage and the family that springs from it. Indeed, as I have argued before, one very useful way of understanding Catholic social teaching (including teaching concerning the role of the State) is that it is ordered toward the good of the family: first, the natural family, and supremely the spiritual family. So though there may be a certain sort of prima facie libertarian appeal to the notion of getting the State out of the business of “regulating marriage” as it is called, I think that ultimately there has to be a place for the state to protect the family.)

The trouble, of course, is that we are living in a radically diseased society that is exhibiting pathologies never before seen in its implacable hostility to the Christian (or even natural) conception of the family. At present, these pathologies are manifesting themselves in the vast societal campaign to pretend that same sex unions are the same thing as “marriage”. The entire campaign is ordered, from beginning to end, not to attain new “civil rights”, but to force people who know perfectly well that gay “marriage” is a pretense to shut up, knuckle under, and accord such a pretense the same dignity as real marriage. This will never happen among those who actually know what marriage is, which is why this campaign can only result in persecution against those who will not bend the knee to the lie.

Nonetheless, a lie it remains and even those who advocate gay “marriage” know it to be so. And they will continue to know it even after all their aims are achieved in the civil sphere. Which is why they will have to either go after the Church for refusing to acknowledge gay “marriage” or else do as the TIME piece suggests and attempt the opposite of legitimating gay “marriage”–namely, nullifying real marriage. What cannot be allowed to stand, however, is the clear recognition that there is such a thing as real marriage (whether natural or sacramental) and that gay “marriage” is not and never will be real marriage. So some sort of force, probably brutal, will need to be applied to scream down this obvious fact.

Thank you.

 

[rlg94086]

you dont have to accept them as equivalent. im sure some dont regard interracial marriages as the equivalent to same race marriages. thats their opinion, and theyre entitled to it.

Apples and oranges. We are all created equal…male and female, we were created. Race has nothing to do with it.