Supreme Court & Same Sex Marriage

[Biblepoe]

You don’t need “medical qualifications” to know that sodomy is disgusting, any more than you need a law degree to know that killing the unborn is also disgusting.

What one finds disgusting is irrelevant, since what one person finds disgusting another may not. If you find gay sex disgusting, don’t have gay sex, but also don’t use your personal disgust as an excuse for not allowing those who do have gay sex to marry their partners.

But you still haven’t answered the point I made earlier. Why should we have a license to commit sodomy, but no license to commit incest?

Incest is demonstrably psychologically harmful to a disproportionate % of people who do it, just like being molested as a child tends to be harmful to a disproportionate % of people who it happens to.

On the other hand, I’m glad you agree that “our nations’ psychologists are currently agreed that homosexuality is not a mental disease.” Since you disagree with them, you must have some evidence that they don’t.

If incest were made legal, wouldn’t we also have to certify it for brothers and sisters who want to marry?

Not necessarily. Just because the state doesn’t prosecute someone for their actions doesn’t mean they have to allow them to marry. Many states have the age-of-consent lower than the legal marriageable age, meaning that it is legal for that person to have sex, but illegal for them to marry.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Biblepoe
**
Not necessarily. Just because the state doesn’t prosecute someone for their actions doesn’t mean they have to allow them to marry.**

Precisely my point. Just because the state doesn’t prosecute people for sodomy, it doesn’t follow that sodomites have to be allowed to marry.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bradski
**
I thought this might have been an interesting and thoughtful thread. I thought at least in this one we won’t have anyone using it to bring up paedophilia or incest. Then I saw who started the post. I’ll call back later, Charlie, to see how long it takes you to get bestiality into the discussion.**

Well, I guess bestiality is also among the perversions you will defend?

 

[Yeoman]

Warning, IANAL.

I suspect that the ruling on Proposition 8 will be a narrow one, only affecting California. The situation there is unique in that there are legally married same sex couples, while other same sex couples cannot now marry. The Supreme Court will probably restore same sex marriage for California only, without setting a general precedent for other states.

I think it will be narrow also, but broader than that. The likely result will require states to recognize the validity of same sex “marriage” for certain things, if created in one state, but invalid in a state where the couple later moves. This was the holding in a the very conservative Wyoming Supreme Court, where homosexual “marriage” is not recognized. The Wyoming Supreme Court overturned a lower court to rule that Wyoming had to recognize a validly created union from another state, even in Wyoming, if the couple later sought to divorce, etc.

I guess that demonstrates the strain these unions create on the law. If a same sex couple acquires property in a state that recognizes their union, and moves to one that doesn’t, how is the property to be handled if they split up in that state, or if one of them dies?

I don’t want to divert this thread to something else, but on a bit of a broader topic, it seems to be the punditry view that even though these unions are not recognized in most states, that some shift in voter views or a demographic shift has occurred so that it’s now the case that recognizing “gay rights” is inevitable. If that’s the case, and there’s some reason to believe that it is, how do we Catholics now handle that? I wonder if we now need to seriously consider what our sort of blase acceptance of conventional divorce, shaking up, etc., has meant and take a personal stand against all of that? I know Catholic lawyers, for example, who do a lot of divorces. Maybe they shouldn’t. And maybe we shouldn’t go to remarriages, etc. when invited? Seems like the battle may have shifted from the ballot box, to the courts, and on to individual cultural action, sort of like abortion did.

 

[Yeoman]

I

In the nineteenth century civil marriage laws were very different to now, for example all the wife’s property automatically belonged to her husband. The two sex roles were very clearly separated in law. Since then the difference between the two sex roles in marriage has been reduced, so that by now, civil marriage is a contract between two equal partners. That makes it less easy to justify, in legal terms, maintaining a bar on same sex marriages.

rossum

That’s actually not universally true of the 19th Century, and it also misunderstands a lot of the purpose behind 19th Century law on this topic. It would be truer of earlier times, however, to some extent.

Early 20th Century and late 19th Century property law and intestacy law was geared towards the idea that most men would die well before their wives, that most couples would have children,and that most people were agricultural in nature. So what it sought to do was to unite the limited resources people had in a single unity (tenancy by the entirety) to protect it so that people could hopefully make a go of it during their lives. Upon the husbands death, the norm in many places was to vest ownership of about half an estate in the children and the other half in the widow, creating a situation in which at least one of the kids could farm on, but in which the kids also had to take into account their widowed mother.

 

[epan]

DOMA needs to go. Either states have the right, or they don’t. An overarching federal law which serves to provide different rights to the same people who are legally married just seems to be unconstitutional, to me. I predict that the court will at least strike down section 3, or the entire act.

Prop 8 will come down to Justice Kennedy. Based on his Colorado decision, one might expect him to decide narrowly for resuming marriage in California. But, his more recent Texas decision might lead one to predict (as Scalia did at the time, in his dissenting opinion), that the logical next step is a broad decision legalizing gay marriage across the entire US.

Kennedy wants to go down in history, and this is his chance. No justice wants to be the author of the next Plessy V Ferguson, when he or she could author the next Brown V Board of Education, instead.

On the other hand, after considering taking up Prop 8 five times, the Court finally decided to take it up, which means that a good deal of discussion has occurred. There would be no reason to take it up, if there was not the feeling opinion that the 9th Circuit ruling might be changed.

I find it doubtful that the existing marriages in CA would be left to stand, while continuing to deny marriage to others in the same class. There seems to be unanimous agreement that nullifying the existing marriages would be unconstitutional. For this reason, I find it improbable that Prop 8 will be upheld.

But, I am no lawyer, and I have been surprised more than once by a court ruling.

 

[Yeoman]

On this general topic, I think one of the most interesting developments of this story is that its pretty well clearly demonstrated that most children are best off being raised by their biological parents, even if those parents don’t get along, and that the most effective means for women and children to avoid poverty is for the woman to be married to the parent of her child. People may scoff, but as a simple sociological point, it’s clearly demonstrated.

This tends to show, I think, that the original civil purpose of marriage, to cause parents to be firmly united in the eyes of the law, was valid and remains so. It would also show that all departures from that fact have negative developments.

I wonder, therefore, if what the best thing to do is to revisit the old law. The old law held it illegal, as it was bad for society, for unmarried couples to live together. Indeed, in many states it was a felony. Risk creating kids by your behavior, well then you better get married. And it was difficult for married couples to get divorced.

That may be regarded as antiquated, but it probably shouldn’t be. If we return to the idea that sex creates children (big shocker there, but many people, and the entire entertainment industry, seem ignorant of that), and that if you create people you are going to be married or else, the whole homosexual marriage thing becomes entirely moot.

I know, of course, it isn’t that simple, but perhaps its an aspect of that which sort of needs to be addressed in people’s view, and in the eyes of the law.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Biblepoe

On the other hand, I’m glad you agree that “our nations’ psychologists are currently agreed that homosexuality is not a mental disease.” Since you disagree with them, you must have some evidence that they don’t.

Given the following facts, why should you find the judgment of psychiatrists on sexual matters to be infallible or even scientific?

psych-crimes.com/dangers.htm

 

[epan]

Sniffing around the Internet, I see that the Washington Post has printed pieces calling for Scalia’s resignation due to his increasing incompetence, and most recently for him to at least recuse himself from these cases, citing his comments at Princeton, and his judicial record as sufficient reason.

 

[Joe_5859]

Sniffing around the Internet, I see that the Washington Post has printed pieces calling for Scalia’s resignation due to his increasing incompetence, and most recently for him to at least recuse himself from these cases, citing his comments at Princeton, and his judicial record as sufficient reason.

To that I say:



People are always calling for people they don’t like to resign. It seems to be a kneejerk response for some. If it actually happens, then I’ll pay attention.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

epan

****Sniffing around the Internet, I see that the Washington Post has printed pieces calling for Scalia’s resignation due to his increasing incompetence, and most recently for him to at least recuse himself from these cases, citing his comments at Princeton, and his judicial record as sufficient reason. ****

I’d hope you rely on something less rabidly liberal than the Washington Post to form your opinions.

 

[epan]

epan

****Sniffing around the Internet, I see that the Washington Post has printed pieces calling for Scalia’s resignation due to his increasing incompetence, and most recently for him to at least recuse himself from these cases, citing his comments at Princeton, and his judicial record as sufficient reason. ****

I’d hope you rely on something less rabidly liberal than the Washington Post to form your opinions.

Not usually, nor would I rely and the slanted conservative. I generally seek a variety of sources. I was surprised to find these op Ed pieces though. How often does a prestigious publication call for the resignation of a US Supreme Court Justice?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

If same sex marriage laws are made legal, when the words “I now pronounce you man and wife,” which man would be the man and which man would be the wife?

Or would the words be changed to, “I now pronounce you man and man”?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

epan

**How often does a prestigious publication call for the resignation of a US Supreme Court Justice? **

About as often as they dare to investigate the scandal at Bengazi?

 

[Biblepoe]

Biblepoe
**
Not necessarily. Just because the state doesn’t prosecute someone for their actions doesn’t mean they have to allow them to marry.**

Precisely my point. Just because the state doesn’t prosecute people for sodomy, it doesn’t follow that sodomites have to be allowed to marry.

But then the next question is whether or not there is some demonstrably good state interest in discriminating against same-sex couples when it comes to civil marriage licenses. For example, does it benefit society to bar these couples, but not infertile heterosexual couples, from getting marriage licenses (just like there is a good reason to prevent a pedophile from marrying a child). That was the central question of the case that is going to the Supreme Court. If the answer is no, which is what the courts have so far decided in this case, then it is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause to bar same-sex couples from civil marriage, yet allow infertile heterosexual couples to marry.

Biblepoe

On the other hand, I’m glad you agree that “our nations’ psychologists are currently agreed that homosexuality is not a mental disease.” Since you disagree with them, you must have some evidence that they don’t.

Given the following facts, why should you find the judgment of psychiatrists on sexual matters to be infallible or even scientific?

psych-crimes.com/dangers.htm

First, the page you link to does not provide a single source for its extraordinary claims such as, “An estimated twenty five percent commit sexual crimes,” and, “Forty three percent were convicted of fraud, theft and embezzlement.” So unless you can produce the actual evidence for these extreme claims, I see no reason to trust the website you lined to.

Even if some of those things are true, it is to be expected that there are certain crime committed more often in certain fields, and that doesn’t necessarily invalidate the field as a whole. For example physicians in general are more likely to abuse heroine, but will that keep you from trusting a physician as the best qualified person to perform surgery on you, or would you rather the hospital receptionist do it?

Second, I find it interesting that you jump from talking about psychologists to psychiatrists. You do recognize that these are two different people, right? Psychiatrists are medical doctors (MD) who specialize in mental disorders, while psychologists have doctorate degrees in psychology (either a PhD or PsyD) and do not have the power to legally prescribe medications in most states (as of recently a few states have given limited prescription privileges to psychologists under certain conditions). Even if you were able to dig up lots of evidence that psychiatry as a whole is an entirely corrupt field, you still have the fact that the overwhelming % of psychologists of every country thinks the same thing as well, that homosexuality is not a mental disease.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Daddy Girl

Sorry to be so indelicate but…don’t Catholics and other Christians include oral sex in their bedroom curriculum?

Not this Catholic!

It’s now: “I now pronounce you married…”

Not really!

captadam.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/captadamceremonies.pdf

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Biblepoe
**
Even if you were able to dig up lots of evidence that psychiatry as a whole is an entirely corrupt field, you still have the fact that the overwhelming % of psychologists of every country thinks the same thing as well, that homosexuality is not a mental disease. /

Practice what you preach! Cite your sources!!!

** For example, does it benefit society to bar these couples, but not infertile heterosexual couples, from getting marriage licenses (just like there is a good reason to prevent a pedophile from marrying a child). **

Infertile couples usually do not know they are infertile when they marry. Homosexual couples know they are! Moreover, infertile heterosexual couples can adopt with good reason, and that is a benefit to society. Homosexual couples who adopt are not benefiting society since the heterosexual children they adopt are not being reared by the proper models for heterosexual love and procreation. They should not be deprived of their right to grow up in a heterosexual environment.

Again no civilization in the history of the world has grown so lunatic in this matters as ours. Do some research and tell me of a civilization that endorsed heterosexual marriage. That shows there is no historic benefit to society ever found by any civilization. The only reason it is called a benefit today is that sodomites want their sexuality to be placed on a legal footing equal to heterosexuality. This is absurd. Sodomy is abnormal and shameful. Even the Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle thought so and didn’t mind stating it for the record. Our civilization, of course, thinks it is superior to every civilization that ever lived.

Not so. In the matter we are discussing, it is disgustingly sick and immoral.**

 

[_Abyssinia]

Sniffing around the Internet, I see that the Washington Post has printed pieces calling for Scalia’s resignation due to his increasing incompetence, and most recently for him to at least recuse himself from these cases, citing his comments at Princeton, and his judicial record as sufficient reason.

Washington post needs to stop pretending it an independent and unbiased

 

[Charlemagne_II]

DaddyGirl

**Charlemagne…if this is not too personal (tho what is, after we’ve already discussed sex…) may I ask…are you male or female? And, are you married? **

Male and married. Should I recuse myself?

In fact, some Catholics on this site have said they take part in “other” kinds of sodomy between husband and wife as well, I think.

This is too vague to answer.

And from what I understand, this sodomy is not against church teaching, right?

The Church, working from Scripture, knows that sodomy is a mortal sin. Saint Paul does not say sodomy is evil for unmarried people but good for married people. Read my signature quote below.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

DaddyGirl

**So…all the Catholics on this site who have said they partake in sodomy and don’t think they are doing anything wrong are in mortal sin? **

Many Catholics do many things they don’t think are wrong. The natural law is the natural law and it does not change depending on what religion you belong to, or if you belong to no religion. When we violate it, we know instinctively we have done so. When we deny that we have sinned, we lie to ourselves. That too is a sin because all lies are sins against truth.