Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Same-Sex Marriage

[Bubba_Switzler]

Those who may not be familiar with the law surrounding tax exemptions may not be aware of the true implications of the solicitor general’s statement yesterday that “it’s going to be an issue” whether religious organizations can maintain their tax exemption if they maintain their opposition to gay marriage. Essentially, the solicitor general is alleging that it’s an open question whether such an organization can even be considered “charitable” any longer. An attack on the tax exemption would drop any pretense of neutrality and explicitly turn the state against the church. In other words, our government would behave less like a product of the American Revolution and more like a product of the French Revolution.

nationalreview.com/article/417670/american-jacobins-sexual-revolutionaries-prepare-battlespace-de-christianized-america

Of course, who would expect bigots to retain their generous tax breaks?

 

[Chipper]

But the rights and privileges conferred by the government do not stem from the sacrament of marriage, and vice-versa.

Just a little reminder: “Rights” do not come from the government, they come from God.

Declaration of Independence:

**“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,…” **

Since the right to “Marriage” comes from God, then God gets to define it - PERIOD.

 

[elsker]

But the rights and privileges conferred by the government do not stem from the sacrament of marriage, and vice-versa.

Civil unions/domestic partnerships are different from marriage — has nothing to do with sacraments or being performed by a priest. Is it morally permissible to not have objections to same-sex civil unions/domestic partnerships that confer some of the rights that married people have?

Civil unions are viewed like contractual agreements by most religions and aren’t disapproved of by a lot of religions but when these civil unions include SS sexual activity the RCC teaches that the sexual behaviour component is disordered due to it’s sterile nature same as masturbation is disordered for both hetero and homo-sexual persons as this is seen as not life giving and a form of self abuse of our sexual faculties gifted to us by God.

So in theory the legal contract of SS civil unions is not in dispute as much as the sexual relationship that accompanies it. For heteros as well this is not a recognized way to marry in the RCC this just amounts to living together without being married for the benefit of disordered hetero sexual activity.

In the case of sex outside of a recognized marriage in the teaching of the RCC it doesn’t matter if it’s two straight people, it is disordered. Extra marital affairs as well. Sex in a valid marriage is the only area where sex between a man and woman is acceptable.

 

[Elizium23]

Since the right to “Marriage” comes from God, then God gets to define it - PERIOD.

I don’t think there is a God-given right to marry. I don’t think the Catholic Church teaches that there is.

Matrimony is a privilege, a vocation, but it is not a right. There are people who are simply unfit for marriage. Those incapable of giving consent, those who are perpetually and incurably impotent, and so forth. Not everyone who can, even should marry.

 

[jediliz]

No one is having gay marriage forced on them. If you don’t want to be involved in a gay marriage, don’t get gay married.

If you don’t like slavery, don’t buy one. If you don’t like abortion, don’t get one.

 

[JimG]

While I often disagree with him, I have great respect for Justice Scalia’s jurisprudence, so frankly, I was a bit a surprised to hear him engage in this rather dubious line of questioning during oral arguments. To be honest, it had me a bit concerned.

It is generally well understood that First Amendment protections extend to clergy in these matters. A priest is not currently compelled by the state to marry any two heterosexual people who make that request. Why would he be compelled to marry a same sex couple?

In other words, if this were a legitimate concern, the problem would exist already. Clergy turn away heterosexual couples all the time, and have every right to do so.

I think that Justice Scalia’s point was this: State legislatures can write waivers to their own laws. They cannot legislate waivers to constitutional rights. So, if the SCOTUS decides to insert same sex marriage into the Constitution as a right, a state could not offer waivers from siuch a right.

Clergy are not forced to perform any marriage, that is true. But currently, clergy are authorized by the state to perform marriages which are not only religiously binding but civilly binding. In doing so, they act as agents of the State. If SS marriage is a constitutional right, it could validly be argued that any agent authorized to perform civil marriages for the state must not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex or sexual orientation in performing marriages.

The State’s only option, if challenged, would be to disallow such clergy from acting on behalf of the state. Thus, a Catholic priest could still perform marriages, but he could not act as an agent of the state, so the parties would be required to be married by a civil magistrate.

A clergy person of a congregation which allowed same sex marriage, however, would have no problem and could still act as an agent of the state.

If gay marriage is made into a ‘constitutional right,’ I fully expect this issue to be raised.

 

[Chipper]

I don’t think there is a God-given right to marry. I don’t think the Catholic Church teaches that there is.

Matrimony is a privilege, a vocation, but it is not a right. There are people who are simply unfit for marriage. Those incapable of giving consent, those who are perpetually and incurably impotent, and so forth. Not everyone who can, even should marry.

Okay quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“The same holds true of the sacramental contract of marriage; in so far, therefore as an offering of the marriage right is contained in the mutual declaration of consent, we have the matter of the sacraments, and, in so far as a mutual acceptance is contained therein, we have the form.”

Also from Blacks Law dictionary: Part of the definition of marriage.
“In old English Law, marriage is used in the sense of “maritagium” or the feudal right enjoyed…”

Again rights come from God therefore God gets to define the meaning of those rights i.e. “Man and woman”.

 

[Suudy]

Is this philosophical line of reasoning strong enough to hold up in court?

Considering the court ignored philosophical truths all the time, it will likely be ignored. And considering the shift in philosophical thinking since the Renaissance, probably not. Since it seems much of academia (and the USSC are academics) has rejected the concepts of natural law, I suspect it will neither be argued by the pro-marriage counsels nor cited by any of the justices.

But regardless of what they say, that is one of the justifications the Church uses to reject the notion of gay “marriage.”

 

[elsker]

I think that Justice Scalia’s point was this: State legislatures can write waivers to their own laws. They cannot legislate waivers to constitutional rights. So, if the SCOTUS decides to insert same sex marriage into the Constitution as a right, a state could not offer waivers from siuch a right.

Clergy are not forced to perform any marriage, that is true. But currently, clergy are authorized by the state to perform marriages which are not only religiously binding but civilly binding. In doing so, they act as agents of the State. If SS marriage is a constitutional right, it could validly be argued that any agent authorized to perform civil marriages for the state must not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex or sexual orientation in performing marriages.

The State’s only option, if challenged, would be to disallow such clergy from acting on behalf of the state. Thus, a Catholic priest could still perform marriages, but he could not act as an agent of the state, so the parties would be required to be married by a civil magistrate.

A clergy person of a congregation which allowed same sex marriage, however, would have no problem and could still act as an agent of the state.

If gay marriage is made into a ‘constitutional right,’ I fully expect this issue to be raised.

I was just discussing this with someone and you bring up a good point. In no other area are clergy agents of the state. If I die and the priest celebrates my funeral he is not required to certify to the Social Security office
that I’m dead. If he baptizes my child he does not have to certify that they were born so that I can get a SS# for them or enroll them in school or anything. Now if the same priest is an OB and delivers my baby then as a doctor he has to acknowledge his role in the delivery but that doesn’t mean that my child is automatically baptized just BECAUSE his doctor is also a priest.

Why can all the above be separate and private but marriage has to be lumped in with civil law and religious law?

If an atheist couple gets married in the courthouse by their deputized atheist friend they will not be required to receive a blessing of their wedding by an ordained clergy? That requirement would be highly offensive and a intrusion on their right to practice religion or not.

 

[Suudy]

Why can all the above be separate and private but marriage has to be lumped in with civil law and religious law?

The best argument I’ve heard is the the state has a vested interest in encouraging the creation of the next generation. And more than that, a stable generation. And the family is the foundational unit for a stable generation. Thus the state has a vested interest in encouraging families, especially families ordered toward the creation of the next generation. The state has cooperated with clergy with regard to marriage to further that interest.

Since gay couples are not ordered toward procreation, the state doesn’t have a vested interest in their relationship. They cannot, by their very nature, create the next generation.

What is happening here, as has been pointed out by others, is the complete detachment of marriage from procreation. It started with artificial contraception, made worse by no fault divorce, and now completely abandoned by gay “marriage.” Thus the foundation in which the state has invested so much has now become worthless. And the final step would be what anyone would do with a worthless investment, walk away. And it may be just as you say, that marriage will be “separate and private.”

 

[elsker]

The best argument I’ve heard is the the state has a vested interest in encouraging the creation of the next generation. And more than that, a stable generation. And the family is the foundational unit for a stable generation. Thus the state has a vested interest in encouraging families, especially families ordered toward the creation of the next generation. The state has cooperated with clergy with regard to marriage to further that interest.

Since gay couples are not ordered toward procreation, the state doesn’t have a vested interest in their relationship. They cannot, by their very nature, create the next generation.

What is happening here, as has been pointed out by others, is the complete detachment of marriage from procreation. It started with artificial contraception, made worse by no fault divorce, and now completely abandoned by gay “marriage.” Thus the foundation in which the state has invested so much has now become worthless. And the final step would be what anyone would do with a worthless investment, walk away. And it may be just as you say, that marriage will be “separate and private.”

I think what went wrong is not right off the bat legislating against the abuse of ART outside of traditional marriage. I dug up some old press on baby Louise Brown and how the scientific community swore up and down that IVF was a last resort for infertile “married couples” and would not be commodified in such a way as to be used to create babies for unmarried couples or single women or couples who chose not to use their own genetic materials. All these promises that society wouldn’t see an abuse of ART have not been kept and were probably just lip service so that countries like the U.S. wouldn’t outright ban it. Louise Brown was born in the U.K. because they didn’t have a ban on ART experiments.

The same promises were made about oral contraceptives-they would only be for hormone regulation and spacing of children by responsible couples. So at every instance these technologies were misused and abused and with that came a detachment of sex from marriage and procreation. There has been such an emphases placed on controlling every single aspect of the human condition and if that means making society less stable, allowing people to objectify each other, using noble scientific discoveries for purposes that work towards the weakening of marriages and tradition family -so be it- as long as everyone gets what they think they’re entitled to because at the end of the day that’s all that matters. What “I” think will make me happy and to heck with who “I” hurt to get it. This isn’t the end-this is only the beginning and the worst is yet to come.

 

[Dawnia]

The government should get out of the marriage business and not instead try to define marriage for all of us. If the government can’t get it right it should just get out of licensing it at all. The government should have no say in what sacraments a person receives.

Honestly, I think that is the direction marriage is headed. People, except homosexuals, are wanting government out of their relationships. To many it’s just a peice of paper anyway.

 

[elsker]

Honestly, I think that is the direction marriage is headed. People, except homosexuals, are wanting government out of their relationships. To many it’s just a peice of paper anyway.

And that’s what’s sad. Divorce lawyers are dancing in the streets. We as supposedly obedient catholics got divorces as much as non catholics. The synod this fall will probably decide to extend communion to re-married catholics with no annulment since no one can be bothered with the annulment process but still want to receive the sacraments; unworthily is now just an opinion.

The argument about being compassionate in this instance is bogus because the truth it that compassion means not opening up an occasion of sin for our re-married brothers and sisters by allowing the reception of sacraments. If this goes down then it will definitely be reducing marriage down to a revolving door of license/divorce decree/license/divorce decree-rinse and repeat.

We needed to promote, protect and defend marriage from the get go. Trying to defend an institution that we catholics have at times defamed and attempt to deform is an empty sentiment. My opinion-the church shouldn’t have done away with excommunication of divorced catholics. We had it once and we blew it and now some other group is taking it up and recreating it into their own image.

 

[Elizium23]

Okay quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"The same holds true of the sacramental contract of marriage; in so far, therefore as an offering of the marriage right is contained in the mutual declaration of consent, we have the matter of the sacraments, and, in so far as a mutual acceptance is contained therein, we have the form."

Also from Blacks Law dictionary: Part of the definition of marriage.
*“In old English Law, marriage is used in the sense of “maritagium” or the feudal right *enjoyed…”

Again rights come from God therefore God gets to define the meaning of those rights i.e. “Man and woman”.

But is that describing a “right” everyone has to marriage or is it speaking about one particular man’s right to marry a particular woman, as in “the right to my hand in marriage”?

 

[Darryl1958]

Honestly, I think that is the direction marriage is headed. People, except homosexuals, are wanting government out of their relationships. To many it’s just a peice of paper anyway.

There can be an argument for a government to have an interest in marriage, for marriage is such a critical institution for society. However, marriage has become so trivialized by government interference, that government is now doing much, much more harm than good with its involvement.

Here, many are turning to the libertarian vision of marriage by default. It is better to have no societal support at all, rather than the kind of support that turns marriage into a farce.

 

[Dawnia]

There can be an argument for a government to have an interest in marriage, for marriage is such a critical institution for society. However, marriage has become so trivialized by government interference, that government is now doing much, much more harm than good with its involvement.

Here, many are turning to the libertarian vision of marriage by default. It is better to have no societal support at all, rather than the kind of support that turns marriage into a farce.

Of course government has an interest in marriage for all sorts of reasons. But, government marriage is no longer the only means by which people can form families. And, you’re right, the government is causing more harm than good.

Even if marriage laws don’t go away, in time there will be so few getting marriage licenses that the laws might as well not exist.

 

[Path_Finder]

Of course government has an interest in marriage for all sorts of reasons. But, government marriage is no longer the only means by which people can form families. And, you’re right, the government is causing more harm than good.

Even if marriage laws don’t go away, in time there will be so few getting marriage licenses that the laws might as well not exist.

I once saw some minister say there wasn’t a valid marriage anyway unless it was in a church.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The synod this fall will probably decide to extend communion to re-married catholics with no annulment

There is evidence that communion will not suddenly be freely granted to the divorced.

we catholics have at times defamed and attempt to deform

Hypocritical, shoddy, or impostor Catholics, sure, but I wouldn’t criticize Peter just because Judas was a fraud. Whose voice rose up at the end of the 19th century when divorce and concubines threatened marriage? The Church. Whose voice rose up in the sexual revolution of the 1960s when contraception, promiscuity, and abortion poisoned the well? The Church. Whose leading voice tries to add reason and sanity to the arena regarding gay “marriage”? The Church. Marriage hasn’t disintegrated because people went around listening to the Church. Marriage has disintegrated because people have gone around rejecting the Church.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Another great scorcher (short!) opinion piece from National Review. These guys have been so inspiring on this topic. (that magazine can get a bit dusty and dry - they have really come alive on this one - urgency I guess)

nationalreview.com/article/417600/constitution-silent-same-sex-marriage-editors

I think it is pretty clear that 8 of the 9 Justices disagree with the notion that it is a violation of the nation’s fundamental principles when it comes to Question II. It was actually the conservative Justices who were the most puzzled by the assertion that refusing to recognize same-sex marriages established in other States is not a violation of Article IV. It was a conservative Justice who posed the question and no satisfactory answer was ever given. The 9th Justice was Thomas who, as usual, never said a word.

 

[gilliam]

I think it is pretty clear that 8 of the 9 Justices disagree with the notion that it is a violation of the nation’s fundamental principles when it comes to Question II. It was actually the conservative Justices who were the most puzzled by the assertion that refusing to recognize same-sex marriages established in other States is not a violation of Article IV. It was a conservative Justice who posed the question and no satisfactory answer was ever given. The 9th Justice was Thomas who, as usual, never said a word.

I don’t think we can read that into what came out of the oral arguments in question II. Some justices really didn’t ask very many questions at all; and of course Justice Thomas never does.

Trying to read Supreme Court tea leaves isn’t an exact science.