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

[rlg94086]

Legally, marriage is a contract. Each party has obligations, and derives benefits. The women’s rights movement was predicted at the time to open the door to things like same gender marriage, and unisex public restrooms. I went to the restroom at a very fancy restaurant recently, and it was indeed one facility for both genders to use simultaneously. Gender roles in marriage no longer exist legally.

It’s really a legal argument, based on precedent. There is nothing radical going on here. It seems incongruous to the Church because it has not kept up with the changes in society. So something which is really just a logical progression in the law, appears to be something radical, and by definition out of sorts.

You also see this in age based studies. The majority of young adults are in favor of non discrimination in marriage based on gender. The percentages decline in intervals with each decade, until you get into the retired age groups where 80% favor discrimination based on gender.

So when you speak of the definition of marriage, you are probably referring to a religious definition, and not a legal one. The Church opposes non-procreative sexual activity, even to go so far as to label masturbation as a grave sin. Therefore, it is logical that it would view the definition of marriage only comprise sex which is procreative in nature. However, legally, non-procreative sex is not illegal. So, such a “definition” does not apply. At least, this is what the courts are saying.

The reason that DADT and DOMA have been struck down on US Constitutional grounds, is that you cannot have unequal protection between classes of people who have legally entered the same contract. So, in states where there is no longer discrimination based on gender in the contract of marriage, then you can’t have the Federal Government telling military personnel that their spouses are not eligible for benefits, and so on…

Sure. I buy that. It is a logical progression further and further away from God. It’s sad to me when Catholics join in that progression.

 

[Digitonomy]

The most recent state sodomy laws overturned that I am aware of were the Texas law, which was overturned by the current US Supreme Court

“Current” is debatable, since Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Stephens, Justice O’Connor, and Justice Souter are no longer members of the court.

 

[rlg94086]

Hi Rig,

Thanks for your warm welcome!

It seems that this goes back to the old debate about civil unions vs. marriages. *Unfortunately, the term “marriage” considered by the courts yesterday wasn’t the historical religious definition but more to do with civil unions which has become the mainstream definition. *As part of that mainstream definition, marriage is about the couple and not the potential for procreation. *Obviously gay couples aren’t fighting for rights to use a religious term. *They have the need to be recognized with the same legal rights as married straight couples. *With the secular definition of marriage now in place it is up to the churches to convince secular society that gays should not be getting married. (or else come up with a new word for that sacrament).

I support the right of churches to chose for themselves whom they will marry in religious ceremonies, even if those typically double as a civil union. What* I don’t understand** is why churches are fighting the rights of homosexuals in secular society to engage in civil unions (now called “marriages”). *There are significant adverse consequences when same sex couples don’t have the same rights as married couples and no good reason not to grant them those rights. *Furthermore, I can’t understand for the life of me why the church is so against gay couples adopting children but will support adoption by straight couples or single parents regardless of how sinful they are. *The foster system needs them to adopt, especially when we are also fighting to end abortion.

Also, why do we as a Catholic community effectively push gays away from our churches (then are surprised when they lash out at us)? *Why is that the one sin we treat as so appalling that we can’t give them a peaceful place to worship God? *Meanwhile straight Catholics find peace even if they are far from perfect. *I know a few gay former Catholics who didn’t chose to be gay and know they can’t chose to come back to Catholicism. *This isn’t how the universal church should act.

Thanks

I can see there is a lot you don’t understand. For the life of you, I hope you gain that understanding.

The Church shouldn’t change her teaching on homosexuality, or any other sin, because such teaching “pushes” those engaged in such sin from the Church. We are indeed all sinners, but there is a difference between a sinner who rejects Church teaching on their sin and a sinner who understands and accepts such teaching and struggles to overcome their sin.

I pray that those with same sex desires will yearn for the chastity that we are all called to. In the same manner, I pray for adulterers, pedophiles, those addicted to pornography/masturbation, those who use artificial birth control, have sex outside of marriage, etc. to yearn for chastity.

 

[Geist]

The way the justices should rule is that it is up to the states to define “marriage” and/or civil unions. No homosexuals are denied the “right” to marry: they just can’t marry someone of the same sex in most states. That’s due to the definition of what a marriage is.

The way the will rule is unknown. They found a “right” to kill one’s own unborn child in the Constitution, so I would imagine they could also find/create a nonexistent “right” for people of the same sex to have their disordered relationship blessed by the secular government.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the Church consider all “civil ceremony” marriages (justice of the peace or magistrate) invalid anyway even for heterosexuals?

I remember this from the Catechism if I recall it right, on the Sacrament of Marriage (very beautiful reasoning in there btw, especially on how the two become one why doesn’t the Church show its romantic side more?)

Isn’t the realm of civil marriage for homosexuals thus out of the realm of importance to the church?

Also, the states will not be able to decide this as the Federal law (Constitution in this case if the 14th is used to justify gay civil unions) always supersedes state law; that’s why some states couldn’t ignore the Civil Rights Act even if they wanted to.

Federalism unfortunately won centuries ago, what do you expect?

 

[rlg94086]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the Church consider all “civil ceremony” marriages (justice of the peace or magistrate) invalid anyway even for heterosexuals?

Isn’t the realm of civil marriage for homosexuals thus out of the realm of importance to the church?

The Church recognizes that “civil unions” of homosexual couples is an evil that is detrimental to society. While it is true that “civil ceremony” marriages are not recognized as a valid marriage, there is a difference between the union of a man and woman (unitive and procreative) than the union between a man and a man, regardless of state vs religious.

The Church guides us. As Catholics, we are to lend our voices and opinions to the public square, therefore the “realm of civil marriage for homosexuals” is in our “realm of importance.”

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

There are considerable societal changes since Loving. When Loving was decided, marriage was between men & women for the purpose of raising a family and homosexual activity was still punishable under the law.

Procreation and child rearing have never been requirements of secular marriage in this country.

Trying to claim that Loving defines same-sex marriage as a civil right is ludicrous.

Civil rights are universally applicable until the State provides a compelling and demonstrable interest in their restriction and the judiciary reviews that restriction. The decision in Loving v. Virginia defined marriage as a civil right and therefore it cannot be restricted without any sort of due process in the form of strict scrutiny.

 

[rlg94086]

Procreation and child rearing have never been requirements of secular marriage in this country.

As usual, you completely overlook the intrinsic connection between marriage and procreation by boiling it down to “requirements of secular marriage.” The good of procreation is a basic reason marriage exists, regardless of the ability or desire of the couple to conceive. It isn’t even a possibility in a same sex “marriage,” which is why such a union is so contrary to the societal good of marriage.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

As usual, you completely overlook the intrinsic connection between marriage and procreation…

There is no intrinsic connection between marriage and procreation. The act of procreation is not now nor has it ever been limited to the confines of marriage.

It isn’t even a possibility in a same sex “marriage,” which is why such a union is so contrary to the societal good of marriage.

Its not a possibility in MANY heterosexual “marriages” either. Such a standard has never been applied to the secular institution of marriage.

 

[rlg94086]

There is no intrinsic connection between marriage and procreation. The act of procreation is not now nor has it ever been limited to the confines of marriage.

Its not a possibility in MANY heterosexual “marriages” either. Such a standard has never been applied to the secular institution of marriage.

You just completely misstated and/or misunderstood what I posted. Par for the course…

 

[Holly3278]

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.

 

[Dawnia]

That last paragraph seems to be a fair point, but i will address that at the end of this post.

However, your first paragraph is troubling. That is the entire point of the judiciary! The judiciary is there to help enforce laws and strike down unjust laws. Majority opinion does not imply morality! I’m sorry to use the same canard, but look at the interracial marriage laws in the south prior to 1964. I can provide the text for them,if you would like. Many of these were voted on–to outlaw interracial marriage! Where would we be if the courts did not step in and stop that bigotry?

I do feel your last paragraph has a number of fair statement. However, the judges carefully deconstructed the arguments proponents proposed–I mentioned the four of them in a post earlier. The rationale behind this process was simple. If the proponents reasons for enacting this law were invalid or eminently unreasonable, the only reasonable explanation left is animus. THIS is the most reasonable part to disagree on–as the dissenting judge did. He concluded that the four reasons the proponents presented were mostly illogical, unreasonable, or not based in sound science–yet people could have legitimately believed in them–and thus, it was not ONLY animus that was the driving force behind prop 8. Hence, it was not illegal. I am not sure I explained that well, please let me know if that doesnt make sense.

“A law should stand or fall on it’s merits, not on the assumed reason the law was put in place by the voters.”

I mostly agree. Except, if the only reason for passing the law was “moral disapproval” of a suspect class(which is illegal). I was surprised that this decision was so narrow–I thought they would decide on the merits of the 14th amendment mostly.

Best,

Matt

I finally got through the whole opinion. Judges need to be less long winded.

The point of the judiciary to ensure that laws follow the Constitutions, not to create “fairness” if someone doesn’t like a particular law. The ultimate authority is vested in the people. The people of California took issue with their marriage statute being changed and took the appropriate action to “fix” it. What is scary is that under this ruling anything deemed as a “right”, once in place, can never be removed. I expect to see PETA petitioning for animals to have the rights to marriage soon…after they are freed from slavery of course.

If after SCOTUS ruled in Loving, Congress would have amended the US Constitution to include a ban on interracial marriage, SCOTUS would have been bound to uphold that ban. Congress also could amend any of Bill of Rights as well, but I think they would have a revolt on their hands if they did so I don’t expect that to happen any time soon.

I don’t disagree that some of the reasonings for Prop 8 were a little far fetched, but I don’t agree that marriage is as simply defined as the ruling opinion states either. But the dissenting opinion was written far better than the ruling opinion. There was actual thought put into the opinion. Not that I agreed with everything, but it was way better.

SCOTUS has ruled in previous cases that homosexuals are not a suspect or even quasi-suspect class.

 

[Befink]

Hi Rig,

I agree there’s a lot I don’t understand. *That is a lot of my frustration. *I’m not getting good answers to good questions.

I’m not suggesting our church needs to cave on its religious teachings which are 1) sex should be procreative, 2) marriage is between a man and a woman. *Typically we are asked to take their teachings on faith but we are allowed to ask difficult questions. *When we explore enough we find both religious and secular reasons behind the teachings. *In this case, they have religious answers (Bible, tradition) but struggle with secular ones.

My difficult questions:

How do I teach my gay friends in loving monogamous “marriages” that they have to give those up when I do not (priests and apologists have even dodged that one)?
Why are we against marriage from a legal point of view (which marriage now is)? *“Man and woman” fits the religious definition but not the secular one it is now.
Why are we against gays adopting children? *There’s nothing in our doctrine that’s violated there.
Why do we treat gays the way we do? *How do we expect them to follow our religious teachings when their very identity is treated as one of the most horrible sins a person can commit? *Most of them struggle for years, often considering suicide before coming to accept themselves as gay. *We are supposed to be a church of love, tolerance, peace, and no judgment.

I’ve been asking and praying on these forever now. *All I get back are weak arguments that only make me support gay rights even more. *No wonder the church is losing these battles in secular society.

 

[rlg94086]

**Procreation and child rearing **have never been requirements of secular marriage in this country.

Civil rights are universally applicable until the State provides a compelling and demonstrable interest in their restriction and the judiciary reviews that restriction. The decision in Loving v. Virginia defined marriage as a civil right and therefore it cannot be restricted without any sort of due process in the form of strict scrutiny.

From that decision:

“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.”

Now, how pray tell can marriage be “fundamental to our very existence and survival” if it has nothing to do with procreation and child rearing? Procreation and child rearing are the fundamental good of marriage for society, which is why it is ridiculous to tie Loving v Virginia to the supposed “right” of a man to marry a man. Such a union is not “fundamental to our very existence and survival.”

Loving v Virginia was in regards to race, not gender roles in a marriage. That marriage was between a man and woman was a given, as evidenced by the phrasing I quoted above.

 

[rlg94086]

How do I teach my gay friends in loving monogamous “marriages” that they have to give those up when I do not (priests and apologists have even dodged that one)?

Very simply, though it won’t be simply accepted. Their relationship is gravely disordered, whereas the relationship of a man and woman is properly ordered.

Why are we against marriage from a legal point of view (which marriage now is)? *“Man and woman” fits the religious definition but not the secular one it is now.

The secular one isn’t set at “two adults.” that is very much being debated throughout the country. We are against redefining marriage and allowing same-sex civil unions because they are a disordering of the natural relationship of man and woman and not a positive good for society.

Why are we against gays adopting children? *There’s nothing in our doctrine that’s violated there.

Because the family (father, mother and children) is the basic building block of society, and children are best served by having an adoptive home that fits that basic building block.

Why do we treat gays the way we do? *How do we expect them to follow our religious teachings when their very identity is treated as one of the most horrible sins a person can commit? *Most of them struggle for years, often considering suicide before coming to accept themselves as gay. *We are supposed to be a church of love, tolerance, peace, and no judgment.

Your understanding of tolerance is not correct. If I can find it, I will edit this post to include a good piece by Archbishop Chaput on that. We are a church of love and should love those who struggle with SSA, but you are asking us to accept and/or tolerate their choice to live in a state of sin. We can no more do that than accept/tolerate a married man who chooses to cheat on his wife and shows up to worship accompanied by his adulterous partner or a couple who openly lives in sin.

I’ve been asking and praying on these forever now. *All I get back are weak arguments that only make me support gay rights even more. *No wonder the church is losing these battles in secular society.

Then, I would encourage you to read more and pray more. Harden not your heart. Not all teachings are easy to understand or accept. I’ve been where you are, and I will keep you in my prayers.

[EDIT] And, here is the piece by Chaput:

“Here’s an example. We need to remember that tolerance is not a Christian virtue. Charity, justice, mercy, prudence, honesty – these are Christian virtues. And obviously, in a diverse community, tolerance is an important working principle. But it’s never an end itself. In fact, tolerating grave evil within a society is itself a form of serious evil. Likewise, democratic pluralism does not mean that Catholics should be quiet in public about serious moral issues because of some misguided sense of good manners. A healthy democracy requires vigorous moral debate to survive. Real pluralism demands that people of strong beliefs will advance their convictions in the public square – peacefully, legally and respectfully, but energetically and without embarrassment. Anything less is bad citizenship and a form of theft from the public conversation.”

More here at zenit.org/article-25192?l=english

The book referenced, Render Unto Caeser, is an excellent one. I highly recommend you give it a read.

 

[PRmerger]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the Church consider all “civil ceremony” marriages (justice of the peace or magistrate) invalid anyway even for heterosexuals?

Only if you’re Catholic.

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

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Now, how pray tell can marriage be “fundamental to our very existence and survival” if it has nothing to do with procreation and child rearing?

The answer to that question is simple. Marriage is not fundamental to our existence or survival. The human race is perfectly capable of procreating and raising children outside of the social construct of marriage and it does. Furthermore, procreation and child rearing have never been a consideration in the issuing of marriage licenses.

 

[Politica]

Do Catholic judges have to recuse themselves because an issue may be related to a Church teaching? Not that I’m aware of, so I fail to see why this judge should have recused himself.

If a judge feels a conflict he is bound to recuse himself. He/she knows his conscience. One would be hard put to ask a USSC judge, Scalia for example, to recuse himself. Scalia on the other hand would know his conscience and some USSC judges have elected to recuse themselves from hearing certain cases.

However, at the lower levels of the system, lawyers sometimes ask a judge to recuse themselves by examining their conscience.

In this case a homosexual judge in a relationship, ruling on a case of gay marriage, might have his judgment clouded. More than likely, as the judge could benefit from his own ruling.

If it makes it to the USSC court, Scalia, for example, will have no conflict of interest since we know Scalia is NOT gay. But, if then Scalia felt that he could not fairly judge the Constitutionality of the question, Scalia could then recuse himself if he felt, as a Catholic, he could not fairly interpret the Constitution in this matter.

However a Scalia or any USSC justice (well, I have my doubts on one) certainly knows the Constitution better than anyone and I think he would not recuse himself because he would feel he could separate the issue of the Constitution from the Church, and focus on the law as it was written.

Remember, Scalia may be Catholic, but he’s a strict constructionist and does not like to “find” things in the Constitution that are not already there.

 

[rlg94086]

The answer to that question is simple. Marriage is not fundamental to our existence or survival. The human race is perfectly capable of procreating and raising children outside of the social construct of marriage and it does. Furthermore, procreation and child rearing have never been a consideration in the issuing of marriage licenses.

So much for your use of Loving v Virginia, then. Their pronouncement of marriage being a civil right was predicated on it being fundamental to our existence and survival.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

So much for your use of Loving v Virginia, then. Their pronouncement of marriage being a civil right was predicated on it being fundamental to our existence and survival.

If we apply your interpretation of Loving V. Virginia then infertile heterosexuals and heterosexuals simply unwilling to procreate and/or raise children must also be banned from marriage.

 

[rlg94086]

Shall we apply that to infertile heterosexuals?

Only if you are not very bright.