Statements from California Catholic Church Leaders on Prop 8 overturn

[Suudy]

Let me ask this. Is there someone on here or another resource available where I could discuss this issue with in private with full disclosure so I can explore my alternatives and to also see if I may be overreacting? Thanks!

CA used to have a phone number for questions about the faith. I couldn’t find it, but youmight try the main switchboard:
catholic.com/home/contact_other.asp

You could also drive to another parish where you are unknown and meet with the priest there.

Or perhaps a call to the diocese asking for a point of contact, with a general explanation and a request for discretion.

You could also look up a random parish in another state and ask if the priest is willing to talk via phone.

Or feel free to PM me, though I fear I am woefully inadequate being a layman.

 

[KJK80]

Thank-you. All good suggestions. I’ll work on it.

 

[PatrickSebast]

Well first I would like to say that I am in 100% support of Catholic doctrine in the sense that I always attempt to adhere to it. There are some things which I question and doubt, but I believe even in the areas the church may seem to be wrong submitting to the Church’s authority for the love of Christ and his bride is both beneficial for a person and honoring to God. So I would appreciate if people not start questioning my Catholicism as a result of the statements I am about to make and instead address them directly.

I currently feel that Judge Walker may have made the correct decision in this case. Judge Walkers job is not to legislate, or determine the morality of an issue. He is simply supposed to examine what current law says about an issue presented to him and make rulings based on his ability to interpret that law. Now I know some people in this thread have already contested the legal validity of his decisions, but I don’t feel like any of those arguments showed a firm understanding of what Judge Walker really said in his decision (which was over 100 pages long). Walkers statements did not come down to a simple case of referencing the 14th amendment and Loving v. Virginia and saying that these on their own make a stable case for overturning prop 8. The writing is getting a lot of praise from legal scholars and a number of analysts are suggesting that Walker may have had Anthony Kennedy’s help in writing his decision based on the structure and style. Currently it seems to me like the man committed an honest effort to do the best at his job that he could knowing that the whole country was watching him and he came out with a very solid statement. It is also worth mentioning that the prop 8 lawyers have been noted as not having done a very good job in stating their case.

I feel very hard pressed to condemn Judge Walker for anything in this case, but it seems like a lot of people are jumping all over him and openly criticizing him and his decision without even bothering to understand what he said, or what he was doing. I may be wrong in supporting his legal decision, and I would be more than willing to hear some arguments against that point. Really though the thing that bothers me is that there seems to be a sentiment here that I can not be a good Catholic and feel that this decision had a good legal basis. Civil Marriage has been nothing like Holy Matrimony for centuries now, and I don’t see how me thinking that the judge made the right decision in regards to a civil matter should disqualify me from being a good Catholic or discredit my understanding of Holy Matrimony.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I currently feel that Judge Walker may have made the correct decision in this case. Judge Walkers job is not to legislate, or determine the morality of an issue. He is simply supposed to examine what current law says about an issue presented to him and make rulings based on his ability to interpret that law. Now I know some people in this thread have already contested the legal validity of his decisions, but I don’t feel like any of those arguments showed a firm understanding of what Judge Walker really said in his decision (which was over 100 pages long).

And while you would appreciate people not questioning your fidelity to Catholicism, I would appreciate your not questioning these posters or any posters’ (including my) volume of intelligence. Walker is wrong on the law. One hundred pages or 400 pages do not eloquence make. And if you think that he limited his arguments to “the law,” you are simply incorrect. He made philosophical arguments regarding the immateriality of gender to a child’s upbringing, and the virtual interchangeability of gender, for which he has zero evidence and very little common sense to support such bizarre statements. It is pure subjective and self-serving political conjecture on his part that dismisses gender as an essential factor in marriage. He also made some other outrageous suppositions that have no legal precedent, absolutely crossed the boundaries of his “expertise,” and worse, are inaccurate. In at least three major areas, Walker’s decision – even if it were 1000 pages --is appealable.

The writing is getting a lot of praise from legal scholars

No. The decision – not “the writing” is “getting a lot of praise” from partisans who were always for gay marriage and are now gleeful. As an opposite example, I, who am much more philosophically and practically opposed to gay “marriage” than any other form of opposition, recognize good and bad writing, good and bad arguing, when I see it. Walker got lucky, and then exploited than luck. The pro-8 side (“my” side) did an abysmal job in court. I will not dignify it by calling it “good arguing.” It was lame, to put it mildly. A couple of witnesses? against one of the most powerful political lobbies in that State? I don’t think so. Their issue had abundant merits, abundant arguments, which they failed to articulate. I can think of a few posters on CAF who could have done a better job in the courtroom intelligently warning about a radical social experiment with permanent consequences than the pro-8 lawyers did. Some of those arguments have been published in the secular mainstream press.

 

[sw85]

And while you would appreciate people not questioning your fidelity to Catholicism, I would appreciate your not questioning these posters or any posters’ (including my) volume of intelligence. Walker is wrong on the law. One hundred pages or 400 pages do not eloquence make. And if you think that he limited his arguments to “the law,” you are simply incorrect. He made philosophical arguments regarding the immateriality of gender to a child’s upbringing, and the virtual interchangeability of gender, for which he has zero evidence and very little common sense to support such bizarre statements. It is pure subjective and self-serving political conjecture on his part that dismisses gender as an essential factor in marriage. He also made some other outrageous suppositions that have no legal precedent, absolutely crossed the boundaries of his “expertise,” and worse, are inaccurate. In at least three major areas, Walker’s decision – even if it were 1000 pages --is appealable.

No. The decision – not “the writing” is “getting a lot of praise” from partisans who were always for gay marriage and are now gleeful. As an opposite example, I, who am much more philosophically and practically opposed to gay “marriage” than any other form of opposition, recognize good and bad writing, good and bad arguing, when I see it. Walker got lucky, and then exploited than luck. The pro-8 side (“my” side) did an abysmal job in court. I will not dignify it by calling it “good arguing.” It was lame, to put it mildly. A couple of witnesses? against one of the most powerful political lobbies in that State? I don’t think so. Their issue had abundant merits, abundant arguments, which they failed to articulate. I can think of a few posters on CAF who could have done a better job in the courtroom intelligently warning about a radical social experiment with permanent consequences than the pro-8 lawyers did. Some of those arguments have been published in the secular mainstream press.

In fairness to the pro-8 attorneys, I have read that they did a better job presenting their case than they are receiving credit for, and that broad swaths of their arguments were deliberately ignored or else misrepresented by Walker. Ed Whelan argues as much here.

But whatever the relative merits of the decision, Walker had a duty to recuse himself because of his own homosexuality. If the 9th Circuit does its job, the results of the trial will be voided and another one will be held.

 

[Elizabeth502]

In fairness to the pro-8 attorneys, I have read that they did a better job presenting their case than they are receiving credit for, and that broad swaths of their arguments were deliberately ignored or else misrepresented by Walker. Ed Whelan argues as much here.

But whatever the relative merits of the decision, Walker had a duty to recuse himself because of his own homosexuality. If the 9th Circuit does its job, the results of the trial will be voided and another one will be held.

(1) Walker does appear to have summarily dismissed the core points raised by his opposition. (Yes, “his” opposition – his bias was quite clear, including his attempt to achieve maximum publicity for gay marriage, making a public spectacle out of the trial by televising it, etc.) However, what I read of some of the case presentations were woefully inadequate and invited, in some cases, the caricature that disproportionately resulted.

(2) I do agree that Walker was biased to an extreme, but I’m not convinced that sexual orientation per se should be grounds for requiring a recusal, because the same could have been claimed (by the opposition) of a heterosexual judge. I.m.o., there are so many other areas of blatantly misplaced claim to expertise, when the statements of the judge were clearly merely his personal theories that have not (unlike the tradiitonal definition of marriage) been commonly accepted – such as his views on what the various religious traditions do and do not teach about homosexuality, marriage, etc, and on what premises they did and did not campaign – which reflect his ignorance of these messages, his contempt for those traditions, and his deep prejudices which colored his “legal” [cough] perspective.

On another thread I touched on the overtly unconstitutional principle he introduced that the pro-8 campaign messages should, in themselves, be sufficent reason to nullify the validity of the vote. Not is he, mind you, stating that some pro-8 group stuffed ballot boxes or otherwise engineered a fraudulent election – which would be grounds for nullification. Merely that his personal (mis)understanding of the pro-8 messages are sufficient to render the vote null and void.

That’s just the beginning. I could go on and on.

What a crock. He’s a legal joke to anyone who really knows constitutional legal principles and how decisions should be based.

 

[sw85]

My understanding of the grounds for recusal is anything which allows even the *appearance *of impropriety/bias (in which case Judge Walker’s sexual orientation should be grounds for recusal alone, independent of any bias he exhibited throughout the trial). So I don’t think a heterosexual judge would necessarily be obligated to recuse himself since he would not be in a position to declare himself constitutionally entitled to new benefits previously denied him.

 

[Elizabeth502]

good point, sw.

 

[PatrickSebast]

And while you would appreciate people not questioning your fidelity to Catholicism, I would appreciate your not questioning these posters or any posters’ (including my) volume of intelligence. Walker is wrong on the law. One hundred pages or 400 pages do not eloquence make. And if you think that he limited his arguments to “the law,” you are simply incorrect. He made philosophical arguments regarding the immateriality of gender to a child’s upbringing, and the virtual interchangeability of gender, for which he has zero evidence and very little common sense to support such bizarre statements. It is pure subjective and self-serving political conjecture on his part that dismisses gender as an essential factor in marriage. He also made some other outrageous suppositions that have no legal precedent, absolutely crossed the boundaries of his “expertise,” and worse, are inaccurate. In at least three major areas, Walker’s decision – even if it were 1000 pages --is appealable.

No. The decision – not “the writing” is “getting a lot of praise” from partisans who were always for gay marriage and are now gleeful. As an opposite example, I, who am much more philosophically and practically opposed to gay “marriage” than any other form of opposition, recognize good and bad writing, good and bad arguing, when I see it. Walker got lucky, and then exploited than luck. The pro-8 side (“my” side) did an abysmal job in court. I will not dignify it by calling it “good arguing.” It was lame, to put it mildly. A couple of witnesses? against one of the most powerful political lobbies in that State? I don’t think so. Their issue had abundant merits, abundant arguments, which they failed to articulate. I can think of a few posters on CAF who could have done a better job in the courtroom intelligently warning about a radical social experiment with permanent consequences than the pro-8 lawyers did. Some of those arguments have been published in the secular mainstream press.

I wasn’t at all questioning your volume of intelligence or anybody elses, and while I understand my initial statement may have been abrasive I wanted to say it in hopes of leading the discussion down the legal merits of the issue. I simply said that I am currently on Walkers side legally and have yet to see anyone really directly attacking his points without falling into something that he covered in his decision. I would be completely willing to change my position given a good argument for the pro-8 side, but I just haven’t seen such a thing yet.

I would also like to say that their was evidence provided by the other on immateriality of gender to a child’s upbringing in the form of statistics and studies showing that Children of homosexual couples performed on par with children of heterosexual couples as far as school, activities and social skills went, and while that certainly doesn’t prove much from a spiritual perspective it is does qualify as proof.

Walker’s statement on Gender was also not that their is no difference, besides the obvious physical aspects, between men and women but that men and women are no longer seen as having distinct roles in society or marriage. Since under law marriage is now a union of equals Walker declared that gender roles could not be applied as an essential quality of marriage and thus not used in defense of prop 8.

Feel free to disagree with me though. Discussion is one of my best methods of learning and I would love to hear more from your side. I am more than willing to concede that I could be wrong, and would not at all mind being proven so. At the very least for the time being I still believe that at the very least the assertion that Judge Walker was CLEARLY wrong and did not at all attempt to make a good decision is simply over doing it. To me it seems like he did a decent job (Though I do agree he should have given the case to someone else due to his sexuality).

I certainly was not trying to state that it is not worth appealing or should not be granted the appeal. In fact I honestly believe that it should and will reach the supreme court, in fact there seem to have been several hints from my perspective that the supreme court is already dipping it hands into the matter. It has even been noted that purposely performing poorly in regards to a legal defense is not an entirely uncommon strategy in the case that one side intends to take it to a higher court so accepting that they may not have performed well it is possible that it was done on purpose.

Again I do not wish to be divisive or show a lack of love or respect for you or your side, I simply honestly perceive Walker’s decision to be a legally sound one at the moment. It could be that I am simply not well informed on this matter, or that I simply am not thinking properly or clearly about it, but I am never opposed to hearing and honestly considering the other side of an issue so feel free to explain. I will do my best to understand and respond peacefully, but firmly.

 

[gilliam]

Walker’s statement on Gender was also not that their is no difference, besides the obvious physical aspects, between men and women but that men and women are no longer seen as having distinct roles in society or marriage…

They don’t? That’s news to the Church and that is the point of the OP.

Church teaching is that there are distinct roles between the husband and the wife in marriage. These roles are given to them by God through Natural Law.

Walker is simply wrong when he says there is not and that he or some society can change Natural Law. People have been trying to do that since Cain, and it doesn’t work. It is the Original Sin… that is to say, to be like God and establish what is and what is not Natural Law.

When societies go down this road, it erodes the society. We have seen this over and over again in world history.

 

[rlg94086]

I would also like to say that their was evidence provided by the other on immateriality of gender to a child’s upbringing in the form of statistics and studies showing that Children of homosexual couples performed on par with children of heterosexual couples as far as school, activities and social skills went, and while that certainly doesn’t prove much from a spiritual perspective it is does qualify as proof.

Walker’s statement on Gender was also not that their is no difference, besides the obvious physical aspects, between men and women but that men and women are no longer seen as having distinct roles in society or marriage. Since under law marriage is now a union of equals Walker declared that gender roles could not be applied as an essential quality of marriage and thus not used in defense of prop 8.

Whoa, whoa, whoa…hold up there. There has been a scientific breakthrough, and a homosexual couple produced children? When? Where?

Ignoring the complementary sexual nature of men and women and the role of procreation in defining marriage is quite simply ignorance in an effort to be politically correct. Of course, you can make a logical argument for it, but only if you set aside all common sense.

 

[kenofken]

State-sanctioned religious bigotry is fighting it’s Little Big Horn!

 

[PatrickSebast]

Whoa, whoa, whoa…hold up there. There has been a scientific breakthrough, and a homosexual couple produced children? When? Where?

Ignoring the complementary sexual nature of men and women and the role of procreation in defining marriage is quite simply ignorance in an effort to be politically correct. Of course, you can make a logical argument for it, but only if you set aside all common sense.

Well obviously I meant adopted children of homosexual couples.

And procreation was ignored in legal context because there is no demonstratable legal expectation of procreation, and the elderly and infertile are permitted to marry despite their inabilities. Again I don’t think that the sacrament of Holy Matrimony should at all be influenced by this, and I believe the church is right to keep marriage held to a one man, one woman sacrament. The issue is that the judge found no laws that could be used in support of a procreation defense and the defense didn’t offer anything of the sort either.

 

[rlg94086]

Well obviously I meant adopted children of homosexual couples.

And procreation was ignored in legal context because there is no demonstratable legal expectation of procreation, and the elderly and infertile are permitted to marry despite their inabilities.

I’ve argued this ad nauseum in these threads, but I realize you may not have seen it. The procreative nature of marriage is not dependent on the individual fertility of the marriage participants. Rather, it is the basic nature of men and women.

Pro-homosexual “marriage” enthusiasts hate this, but under the exact same legal reasoning, it should be permissable for a man to marry his mother or sister…or both in a polyamorous arrangement. Since the procreative nature of marriage is removed, there is no legal impediment to such unions.

As I posted, removing the procreative aspect of marriage is setting aside common sense. It is sad that people don’t see it.

 

[PatrickSebast]

They don’t? That’s news to the Church and that is the point of the OP.

Church teaching is that there are distinct roles between the husband and the wife in marriage. These roles are given to them by God through Natural Law.

Walker is simply wrong when he says there is not and that he or some society can change Natural Law. People have been trying to do that since Cain, and it doesn’t work. It is the Original Sin… that is to say, to be like God and establish what is and what is not Natural Law.

When societies go down this road, it erodes the society. We have seen this over and over again in world history.

I agree that the Church teaches that, and I agree with the Church. However I do not think that American society as a whole, or the American legal system teaches that, and that is what Walker was saying.

The reason I am addressing this is the articles in the OP are being extremely critical of Walker when I feel like the man only did his job. Or at the very least could not have possibly ruled in the way the articles wanted him to rule. Cardinal Mahony seems to think that he simply should have recognized marriage as having its origins in God and being unchangeable, but Walker simply isn’t allowed to make rulings like that.

 

[sw85]

Well obviously I meant adopted children of homosexual couples.

And procreation was ignored in legal context because there is no demonstratable legal expectation of procreation, and the elderly and infertile are permitted to marry despite their inabilities. Again I don’t think that the sacrament of Holy Matrimony should at all be influenced by this, and I believe the church is right to keep marriage held to a one man, one woman sacrament. The issue is that the judge found no laws that could be used in support of a procreation defense and the defense didn’t offer anything of the sort either.

There is no demonstrable legal reason to expect that 21 year olds are more capable of responsible alcohol consumption than those who are 20 years and 364 days old, either. But we use an age limit instead of some subjective assessment of maturity because the age limit obviates the need for intrusive government inquiry into a person’s private life. Likewise, we use sex (or intrinsic fertility) as a basis for marriage instead of fertility, which exists in degrees and which can only be evaluated on an arbitrary basis.

 

[Darryl1958]

Nature has decided that gender is advantageous to a species, and has been advantageous since a little bit beyond the emergence of multi-cell organism.

Apparently, Judge Walker, the epitome of all that is good and wise, disagrees with even Nature on this little matter.

If even Nature is no match for his supreme wisdom and intellect, the little matter of the People of California of course are of no consequence either.

Judge Walker is the Constitution of the United States.

 

[gilliam]

I agree that the Church teaches that, and I agree with the Church. However I do not think that American society as a whole, or the American legal system teaches that, and that is what Walker was saying.

Actually what Walker is saying is that somehow the 14th amendment mandates that if the USA recognizes marriage it has to recognize any old combination of genders or mixed-genders you can come up with as marriage. It doesn’t really matter what society thinks. In fact, I don’t see why you couldn’t use his argument to promote pedophilia or any other sexual coupling the human imagination can come up with. However, I don’t see that in the 14th amendment, and I am betting neither does the SCOTUS, and if it does, then the people of the USA will amend the 14th amendment. Because like it or not, we are still a nation whose laws are based upon Natural Law.

 

[KJK80]

OK I figured it out. (Hah)

Ppl keep thinking minority when they should be thinking majority…

If all ppl were Catholic oh well.
If all ppl were black oh well.
If all ppl were Italian oh well.
If all ppl were born without an arm oh well.
If all ppl were homosexual. Ut oh!

 

[sw85]

OK I figured it out. (Hah)

Ppl keep thinking minority when they should be thinking majority…

If all ppl were Catholic oh well.
If all ppl were black oh well.
If all ppl were Italian oh well.
If all ppl were born without an arm oh well.
If all ppl were homosexual. Ut oh!

Uhm. Race, religion, and number of limbs are irrelevant to the purpose of marriage – procreation.

Who you chiefly have sex with is not.