Statements from California Catholic Church Leaders on Prop 8 overturn

[KJK80]

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

Who you chiefly have sex with is not.

Umm that was my point! I think people are so used to arguing here they find an argument even if there is agreement.

 

[PatrickSebast]

Umm that was my point! I think people are so used to arguing here they find an argument even if there is agreement.

I’ll be honest, I am new here and the first time I read that I thought your were saying something else too. For some reason I just didn’t read clearly to me at first, I think I might have skimmed it because of the use of “ppl” instead of “people” but I can’t really say for sure.

 

[PatrickSebast]

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.

There actually is a scientific basis for the age of 21 being the drinking age. By that age most human brains have reached full maturity and alcohol can have major detrimental effects on the brain during its developmental stages. When the federal government started using its highway funds to manipulate the states into accepting that number they choose it for that reason.

I am not saying this to invalidate your argument since I believe the point still stands despite you being mistaken on the particular example, I simply thought it was something interesting to share.

Anyway this argument for fertility is addressed in Walkers decision, he stated that since their is no legal incentive with in federal or California law for a couple to have children within a marriage, and the defense was not able to demonstrate a perceived societal expectation of couples to produce offspring the argument wasn’t deemed valid.

I do think it is one of the stronger arguments I have heard though and I think the defense should have focused on it more. Still it is hard to defend in a society filled with various forms of birth control, abortions, and couples who marry with no intention of ever having children.

 

[PatrickSebast]

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.

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.

I have not been here long so I have not seen you post much on this RLG, I would gladly read what you said if you point out a thread where you feel it was well discussed though.

On the issue which both of the above statements brought up I have to say that I completely understand and agree with your viewpoint that this argument leads way to polygamous and incestuous marriages. The problem is I think the current structure of US law in combination with how our marriages and society are currently structured already leads to these things and that Judge Walker simply ruled on what he saw. What I would really like to see happen is the government realizing this and doing something about the systems current structure before this thing snowballs. Honestly I would not at all mind to see marriage remove from civil law entirely, after all someone could also easily argue that not getting the tax benefits of married couples because they were celibate was unfair under the fourteenth amendment too and the idea of joint finances and inheritance could easily be accomplished with a simple legal contract. I don’t know that something like that would ever happen though. Still it is nothing to lose hope over either way. If the law is passed the Church has a great opportunity to clearly differentiate its marriage from the rest of US society and then maybe Catholic will pay a little more respect to the sacrament and we could see a possible reduction in the number of divorces in the church.

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.

Judge Walker didn’t say gender wasn’t advantageous to a species. In fact the anti-8 side had to address this point in trial and they produced experts with evidence that allowing gay marriage would not discourage a statistically significant number of heterosexuals from getting married or reproducing. This isn’t being fair to the man at all, in fact I find it somewhat demeaning to man who we don’t really know the heart or soul of. Maybe his decision was wrong, but can you honestly say that you know he didn’t try his best to make a fair decision? It just doesn’t seem proper, as a Catholic, to attack a man so openly rather than simply discuss his actions and their consequences. Even if Judge Walker really did perceive himself as a grand authority in this matter and simply made the decision for his own personal reasons with no regard to others, then I still would rather hold sorrow over his broken and sinful nature and offer prayers for the mans soul. Truly if he is that corrupt then he is more in need of Christ than anyone I personally know. I hope to see Judge Walker in heaven someday, and I think that is something we should all join in hoping for. The man is getting a tremendous amount of hate from various Christian groups at the moment and if he was already at odd with the Church those feelings are only going to get worse as a result.

 

[sw85]

There actually is a scientific basis for the age of 21 being the drinking age. By that age most human brains have reached full maturity and alcohol can have major detrimental effects on the brain during its developmental stages. When the federal government started using its highway funds to manipulate the states into accepting that number they choose it for that reason.

I am not saying this to invalidate your argument since I believe the point still stands despite you being mistaken on the particular example, I simply thought it was something interesting to share.

I am not even mistaken on the particular example.

The difference in the development of my brain when I was 21 years and 0 days old was nonsignificantly different from the development of my brain when I was 20 years and 364 days old. To that extent, the use of an age limit is arbitrary – it is being used as a proxy for brain development because assessing brain development is an inherently intrusive process (and a subjective one anyway).

Likewise, we use sex as a proxy for fertility because fertility is subjective and its assessment is intrusive.

Anyway this argument for fertility is addressed in Walkers decision, he stated that since their is no legal incentive with in federal or California law for a couple to have children within a marriage, and the defense was not able to demonstrate a perceived societal expectation of couples to produce offspring the argument wasn’t deemed valid.

I do think it is one of the stronger arguments I have heard though and I think the defense should have focused on it more. Still it is hard to defend in a society filled with various forms of birth control, abortions, and couples who marry with no intention of ever having children.

There need not be an incentive for married couples to have children. Marriage itself explicitly does nothing to encourage procreation or child-raising; it simply provides a legal framework that supports such decisions, when they are made.

I think the argument you’re making is that Walker should be given credit for writing a decision in good faith (if I’m wrong here, correct me). I don’t think he did make it in good faith (and as I’ve argued before, I think he had a duty to recuse himself and that the results of the trial ought to be voided because of that), but even if he had, that’s simply not enough. A bad judgment is a bad judgment regardless of his personal motivations. And this is an objectively bad judgment.

 

[gilliam]

More on Baker v Nelson:

As Prop 8 proponents argue, Judge Walker’s ruling is contrary to the governing Supreme Court precedent of Baker v. Nelson (1972), which Walker’s ruling doesn’t even mention:
In Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed, “for want of [a] substantial federal question,” an appeal from the Minnesota Supreme Court presenting the same questions at issue here: whether a State’s refusal to authorize same-sex marriage violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The same-sex couple in *Baker *placed primary reliance on Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which had been decided five years earlier. The *Baker *Court’s dismissal was a decision on the merits that is binding on lower courts on the issues presented and necessarily decided, Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977) (per curiam), and its precedential value “extends beyond the facts of the particular case to all similar cases,” Wright v. Lane County Dist. Court, 647 F.2d 940, 941 (9th Cir. 1981). Plaintiffs’ claims are the same as those rejected in Baker, and the district court’s decision thus conflicts with a binding Supreme Court authority.
The point here is not that the Supreme Court must give full precedential weight to Baker v. Nelson. Nor does Prop 8 proponents’ argument rest on any prediction about what the Court will do if and when it revisits the questions that it dismissed in Baker. Rather, the point is that, unless and until the Supreme Court revisits the questions, the lower federal courts are obligated to give *Baker *precedential value.
This is a point on which I would think all nine justices would agree. Any other approach would invite all sorts of mischief by lower-court judges.

To be sure, there will be times when intervening Supreme Court cases make clear that previous rulings no longer stand. But that’s certainly not the case on same-sex marriage, as Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas expressly stated that that case did “not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.” One can argue, as Justice Scalia did in dissent in Lawrence, that the majority’s approach in that case, if extended to marriage, would lead to invention of a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. But it’s a very different matter for a lower-court judge to regard Lawrenceas a license to ignore Baker (which evidently is what Walker did).

nationalreview.com/bench-memos/243268/prop-8-proponents-motion-ninth-circuit-stay-i-baker-v-nelson-i-ed-whelan

I think the point here is that Walker’s decision is bad law

 

[PatrickSebast]

I am not even mistaken on the particular example.
There need not be an incentive for married couples to have children. Marriage itself explicitly does nothing to encourage procreation or child-raising; it simply provides a legal framework that supports such decisions, when they are made.

I think the argument you’re making is that Walker should be given credit for writing a decision in good faith (if I’m wrong here, correct me). I don’t think he did make it in good faith (and as I’ve argued before, I think he had a duty to recuse himself and that the results of the trial ought to be voided because of that), but even if he had, that’s simply not enough. A bad judgment is a bad judgment regardless of his personal motivations. And this is an objectively bad judgment.

I suppose the choosing of a specific year of age for simplicity’s sake rather than a year and some number of months or days does make a better example than I originally saw. I will give you that. I am still going to say that I don’t see much reason for Walker to have considered procreation as part of the legal precedent of marriage because the defendant’s never presented any real evidence for prior legal support of such claims and Walker did not find said support on his own. Proof has to be issued that procreation has been legally or socially viewed as a central aspect of marriage and not a separate entity, no such proof was supplied.

I would also like to mention that I have done some more reading about the outlying issues in this case and I think it is extremely important to note that Judge Walker has never made any public statements about his homosexuality. All reports of him being gay come from second hand sources and no one has been able to actually confirm it up to this point

More on Baker v Nelson:

As Prop 8 proponents argue, Judge Walker’s ruling is contrary to the governing Supreme Court precedent of Baker v. Nelson (1972), which Walker’s ruling doesn’t even mention:
In Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed, “for want of [a] substantial federal question,” an appeal from the Minnesota Supreme Court presenting the same questions at issue here: whether a State’s refusal to authorize same-sex marriage violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The same-sex couple in *Baker *placed primary reliance on Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which had been decided five years earlier. The *Baker *Court’s dismissal was a decision on the merits that is binding on lower courts on the issues presented and necessarily decided, Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977) (per curiam), and its precedential value “extends beyond the facts of the particular case to all similar cases,” Wright v. Lane County Dist. Court, 647 F.2d 940, 941 (9th Cir. 1981). Plaintiffs’ claims are the same as those rejected in Baker, and the district court’s decision thus conflicts with a binding Supreme Court authority.
The point here is not that the Supreme Court must give full precedential weight to Baker v. Nelson. Nor does Prop 8 proponents’ argument rest on any prediction about what the Court will do if and when it revisits the questions that it dismissed in Baker. Rather, the point is that, unless and until the Supreme Court revisits the questions, the lower federal courts are obligated to give *Baker *precedential value.
This is a point on which I would think all nine justices would agree. Any other approach would invite all sorts of mischief by lower-court judges.

To be sure, there will be times when intervening Supreme Court cases make clear that previous rulings no longer stand. But that’s certainly not the case on same-sex marriage, as Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas expressly stated that that case did “not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.” One can argue, as Justice Scalia did in dissent in Lawrence, that the majority’s approach in that case, if extended to marriage, would lead to invention of a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. But it’s a very different matter for a lower-court judge to regard Lawrenceas a license to ignore Baker (which evidently is what Walker did).

nationalreview.com/bench-memos/243268/prop-8-proponents-motion-ninth-circuit-stay-i-baker-v-nelson-i-ed-whelan

I think the point here is that Walker’s decision is bad law

Walker did address the issue in his denial of request for a summary judgement. Since it was only relevant to whether the case should be heard, and not to the outcome of the case there was no need for him to mention it in his final decision, especially since it would have been a mere copy and paste, which is generally viewed as bad law in and of itself. There are four accepted reasons for not adhering to such a precedent and Kennedy showed adherence to those four reasons by summarizing them and giving good reason as to why this situation fit into some of those reasons (The underlying facts clause being the primary).

The document can be seen here, and the issue the article is discussing starts to be addressed on page 75:
scribd.com/doc/23170804/Perry-v-Schwarzenegger-Hearing-on-Summary-Judgment-Transcript-2009-10-14

 

[1voice]

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.

Patrick, We are seeing the deconstruction of human beings…and you are accepting it … simply because a few judges said it is the way it is now.
It is social pressure to reconstruct social norms reinforced by a judge that has already completely bought into the fad.
You are being caught by the same strategy that makes people absolutely need a new car and forces all the kids in high school to wear t shirts and blue jeans.

If you believe, as the judge does, that there is no difference … or need for a difference … between genders… and that it is a well established/valid legal precedent … how do you defend such a position?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Well put, 1voice. I appreciate the clarity.

There are all kinds of holes in Walker’s arguments, Patrick, but one obvious one (his typical superficial reasoning) is that because gender roles have changed, gender is therefore rendered inconsequential in relationships (marriages, parenting, etc.). The guy hasn’t even read enough science to understand how untrue that is. Male brains and female brains are different. And even the most effeminate homosexual male does not have a brain that mirrors that of a female, whether that female is gay or straight. Maleness and femaleness are organic and non-interchangeable. They are not social constructs.

 

[PatrickSebast]

Patrick, We are seeing the deconstruction of human beings…and you are accepting it … simply because a few judges said it is the way it is now.
It is social pressure to reconstruct social norms reinforced by a judge that has already completely bought into the fad.
You are being caught by the same strategy that makes people absolutely need a new car and forces all the kids in high school to wear t shirts and blue jeans.

If you believe, as the judge does, that there is no difference … or need for a difference … between genders… and that it is a well established/valid legal precedent … how do you defend such a position?

I don’t believe there is not difference between genders. I don’t even need a spiritual or biblical argument to make that claim. However I do believe that there is no longer a legal difference between men and women, and that American society tends to be pushing the belief that women are just men with different sex organs. You are mistaking my defense of a legal judgement for a belief in or support of the law. I would also, for example, defend a judge who decided that a pregnant woman who stabbed herself with a coat hanger could not be charged with murder since abortion is legal. I don’t believe abortion SHOULD be legal, but that doesn’t change the fact that it currently is.

Note the comparison above is not perfect and I certainly do not want to compare the idea of women having equal rights to what is essentially legalized murder. There is a lot of value that came from the women’s rights movement and though declaring them as equals to men brings up some questionable issues I do not think I would ever push for a major change in that area. I will always support a change in abortion laws though.

 

[Dale_M]

I think the point here is that Walker’s decision is bad law

Well, according to Martin Edward Whelan III. However, other legal analysts disagree.

I don’t doubt that this case will be appealed, perhaps all the way to the US Supreme Court.

 

[PatrickSebast]

Well put, 1voice. I appreciate the clarity.

There are all kinds of holes in Walker’s arguments, Patrick, but one obvious one (his typical superficial reasoning) is that because gender roles have changed, gender is therefore rendered inconsequential in relationships (marriages, parenting, etc.). The guy hasn’t even read enough science to understand how untrue that is. Male brains and female brains are different. And even the most effeminate homosexual male does not have a brain that mirrors that of a female, whether that female is gay or straight. Maleness and femaleness are organic and non-interchangeable. They are not social constructs.

I completely agree, but saying such a thing is not generally looked down upon in political and social context. If the defendants had presented sufficient scientific evidence that male and female differences are not all social constructs, (obviously some are, such as clothing styles) like many feminists try to claim, then that would have been a strong point on the defenses side. The defense never did so though, and Judge Walker is not permitted to gather evidence for either side as that would constitute impartiality.

 

[1voice]

Well put, 1voice. I appreciate the clarity.

There are all kinds of holes in Walker’s arguments, Patrick, but one obvious one (his typical superficial reasoning) is that because gender roles have changed, gender is therefore rendered inconsequential in relationships (marriages, parenting, etc.). The guy hasn’t even read enough science to understand how untrue that is. Male brains and female brains are different. And even the most effeminate homosexual male does not have a brain that mirrors that of a female, whether that female is gay or straight. Maleness and femaleness are organic and non-interchangeable. They are not social constructs.

Soviet socialism experimented with blurring the lines between genders … the same sort of reasoning that judge Walker adheres to.

 

[PatrickSebast]

Soviet socialism experimented with blurring the lines between genders … the same sort of reasoning that judge Walker adheres to.

That is a loaded statement. Just because soviet socialism did something it doesn’t mean that it was immediately wrong. Even Hitler had a great deal of policies that were beneficial to his people while causing little harm to anyone else. Again I acknowledge that blurring the lines between genders demonstrates ignorance of reality, but trying to discredit something simply because soviets did it is silly. Issues are best left to their individual merits. If their was proof that the particular attempt to blur gender lines contributed to the fall of the Soviet empire then those numbers would be worth discussion, but the Soviet empire was such a mess it is hard to identify the impact of such minor issues when compared to other disastrous economic and social policies.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I simply beg you, Patrick, and anyone on CAF who is reading merely the top layer of Walker’s decision, to view one of the encore presentations of the current EWTN The World Over (this week’s). I cannot improve on Princeton Professor Robert George’s outstanding and highly intellectual, logical, legally-sound statements about this outrageously radical decision. It will change your view, Patrick, on what Walker did and did not say, and what the implications are of Walker’s statements.

 

[PatrickSebast]

I simply beg you, Patrick, and anyone on CAF who is reading merely the top layer of Walker’s decision, to view one of the encore presentations of the current EWTN The World Over (this week’s). I cannot improve on Princeton Professor Robert George’s outstanding and highly intellectual, logical, legally-sound statements about this outrageously radical decision. It will change your view, Patrick, on what Walker did and did not say, and what the implications are of Walker’s statements.

Is this by any chance available online? If not where can I find a schedule for this?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Patrick:

(1) Go to EWTN.com Click on Television, then Program Schedules, then select the correct week with inclusive dates, and you will see when The World Over Live (Encore) can be viewed this weekend. (It might air as a repeat for the next 3 days, or at least 2 of the 3 days.) It will be on the schedule which is in chart format.

(2) If you cannot view or record it that way, you could order it as a CD or DVD from EWTN’s religious catalogue.
The item # for the DVD is WOD 412
The item # for the CD is WOC 412

And I fully agree with him that from a legal point of view, this absolutely implies that polyamorous relationships have no reason not to claim marriage rights, proceeding from any affirmation of same-sex “marriage” in the Supreme Court, God forbid. The legal logic would be absolutely there.
I also agree on his view of Loving v. Virginia.
But one really has to hear the entire eloquent 40 minutes of Professor George’s remarks.

Incidentally, he repeats some of the same statements I happen to have made on CAF regarding Walker’s radical contempt for religion and the Judge’s attempt to enshrine that contempt in this ruling, as well as Walker’s attempt to make his own personal prejudices against religion as a basis for his ruling, which is an astonishing reflection of ego run amok. It is a decision based on sexual liberationist populism, not a decision proceeding from constitutional law, regardless of what pretenses Walker, and his partisan supporters, make to “civil rights.”

This has to be one of the most irresponsible and selfish judicial rulings during my lifetime.

 

[PatrickSebast]

Patrick:

(1) Go to EWTN.com Click on Television, then Program Schedules, then select the correct week with inclusive dates, and you will see when The World Over Live (Encore) can be viewed this weekend. (It might air as a repeat for the next 3 days, or at least 2 of the 3 days.) It will be on the schedule which is in chart format.

(2) If you cannot view or record it that way, you could order it as a CD or DVD from EWTN’s religious catalogue.
The item # for the DVD is WOD 412
The item # for the CD is WOC 412

And I fully agree with him that from a legal point of view, this absolutely implies that polyamorous relationships have no reason not to claim marriage rights, proceeding from any affirmation of “same-sex” marriage in the Supreme Court, God forbid. The legal logic would be absolutely there.
I also agree on his view of Loving v. Virginia.
But one really has to hear the entire eloquent 40 minutes of Professor George’s remarks.

Incidentally, he repeats some of the same statements I happen to have made on CAF regarding Walker’s radical contempt for religion and the Judge’s attempt to enshrine that contempt in this ruling, as well as Walker’s attempt to make his own personal prejudices against religion as a basis for his ruling, which is an astonishing refleciton of ego run amok.

Will do, but I would like to mention that I also already agreed that the ruling makes way for polygamy. Once again, I am merely supporting the legitimacy of the ruling, not the results. My feeling is that current law is the problem and not the ruling itself. We will see if this Prof George can change my mind though.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Again, if you know as much about law as I do, and in that reflective knowledge listen to Professor George, it will be difficult to support any “legitimacy” of the ruling.

 

[PatrickSebast]

Well I may not be able to watch it this weekend, but it seems that EWTN has a youtube channel and they post The World Over Live roughly three days after its original air date so I will probably just wait till then to see it since it is a lot more convenient.