US bishops criticize Obama administration's decision on marriage law

[Abyssinia]

The U.S. bishops’ Office of General Counsel said the Obama administration’s decision to no longer support the Defense of Marriage Act in legal challenges ahead “represents an abdication” of its “constitutional obligation to ensure that laws of the United States are faithfully executed.”

“Marriage has been understood for millennia and across cultures as the union of one man and one woman,” the office said in a statement issued Feb. 23 after President Barack Obama instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the federal law passed by Congress and signed into law in 1996 by President Bill Clinton.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1100752.htm

 

[mommyof4]

I’m afraid the Bishop’s statement will fall on deaf ears.

 

[lynx]

Marriage is traditionally a religious act, but that is not the case in the US. The US gov, and the POTUS by extension, seeks to govern in a secular fashion. Therefore, when a government imposes law/regulations on marriage they should be secular in nature. So, why should a secular government follow the traditional religious traditions? The backbone of the US is based around secular law, even if it has parallels to religious dogma. So, if there’s a reason for marriage to be defined as between a man and women then it must be ambiguous to religion for US law to consider it. If this law doesn’t represent every one fairly then it should be removed, hence we see things like DADT being overturned. This marriage law falls in the same vein. There is no good secular reason to impose this arbitrary definition.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

The bishops did not seem to make a legal statement about the law. As to enforcement, Holder said the administration would continue to enforce the law.

The administration is not going to defend one part of the law in court, on ‘equal protection’ grounds. If we’re dealing with a legal subject here we have to deal with the legalities.

You should note that even Boehner has not said that the clause in question is not unconstitutional.

 

[lynx]

Laws, even if they are unjust, will continue to be followed regardless, or for the sake of law. Out of curiosity, what does it matter what Boehner says? Does he have some background in law that I don’t know about? AFAIK he was a plastics and packaging manufacturer.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Laws, even if they are unjust, will continue to be followed regardless, or for the sake of law. Out of curiosity, what does it matter what Boehner says?

He’s a high Republican official and on this issue is not willing to make an inaccurate statement. So those conservatives on this forum should be advised.

 

[lynx]

He’s a high Republican official and on this issue is not willing to make an inaccurate statement. So those conservatives on this forum should be advised.

Boehner is still fallible and biased as product of being a human. I suspect, like many politicians, he will seek to appease his base and push the republican social agenda. If Boehner has some background with respect to marriage law or basic civil law then that’s another story.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

marriage is between a man and a woman. that is not a religious concept, even the pagans, the muslims, the hindus, the buddhists, the chinese, practiced it this way.

Marriage between a man and a woman, just highlight that the main purpose of marriage is procreation, as well as man and woman becoming one flesh.

 

[po18guy]

He’s a high Republican official and on this issue is not willing to make an inaccurate statement. So those conservatives on this forum should be advised.

Excuse me, but no official from any party decides constitutionality. We have a US Supreme court to decide such issues. This is merely another example of our Alinsky-trained president attempting to subvert the democratic process. No surprise.

 

[po18guy]

marriage is between a man and a woman. that is not a religious concept, even the pagans, the muslims, the hindus, the buddhists, the chinese, practiced it this way.

Marriage between a man and a woman, just highlight that the main purpose of marriage is procreation, as well as man and woman becoming one flesh.

Hey, same sex unions existed under at least two different governments in recorded history. Unfortunately, their records seem to have been destroyed in some sort of localized global warming incident. The full report is in Genesis.

 

[lynx]

marriage is between a man and a woman. that is not a religious concept, even the pagans, the muslims, the hindus, the buddhists, the chinese, practiced it this way.

Marriage between a man and a woman, just highlight that the main purpose of marriage is procreation, as well as man and woman becoming one flesh.

You do realize that with the exception of the Chinese you listed all religions right? Regardless, as a secular practice in US law why should the definition be between a man and woman? There is no secular reasoning to bar marriage between two people of consenting age.

 

[lynx]

Excuse me, but no official from any party decides constitutionality. We have a US Supreme court to decide such issues. This is merely another example of our Alinsky-trained president attempting to subvert the democratic process. No surprise.

Wait… what? The POTUS and Boehner are generally at odds with one another…

 

[po18guy]

You do realize that with the exception of the Chinese you listed all religions right? Regardless, as a secular practice in US law why should the definition be between a man and woman? There is no secular reasoning to bar marriage between two people of consenting age.

Homosexual lash-ups (they cannot involve themselves in a “marriage”, as that denotes a mating of complementary parts) are contrary to the natural law as it applies to animals who reproduce sexually. If you respect nature, or creation, such unions violate that respect. There is the benefit of more stable relationships percentage wise, and a stable or increasing population (via the production of progeny in accord with the natural law), who will pay taxes and contribute to the stability and longevity of the nation.

No nation has ever been founded upon, or persisted in a stable condition, allowing such unnatural relationships.

 

[lynx]

Homosexual lash-ups are contrary to the natural law of life and reproduction.

Except that homosexuality occurs in nature. My favorite example are the penguins en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#Penguins So I guess the natural law of life does include homosexuality…

There is the benefit of more stable relationships,

Considering roughly 50% of straight marriages end in divorce why do you think homosexual relationships are unstable?

a stable or slightly increasing population via the production of progeny, in accord with the natural law, who will pay taxes and contribute to the stability and longevity of the nation.

The children they adopt, some of which come from straight parents who can not or will not care for them.

No nation has ever been founded upon, or persisted in a stable condition, allowing such unnatural relationships.

AFAIK western civilization hasn’t crumbled yet, and just about every western nation allows homosexuality.

 

[po18guy]

Except that homosexuality occurs in nature. My favorite example are the penguins en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#Penguins So I guess the natural law of life does include homosexuality…

Red herring! How do they reproduce? They are an aberration.

Considering roughly 50% of straight marriages end in divorce why do you think homosexual relationships are unstable?

“Straight marriages”? You reveal your agenda here, I’m afraid. Check into the average number of male homosexual partners. Dozens. You see stability there?

The children they adopt, some of which come from straight parents who can not or will not care for them.

Since very few traditionally adopt, what then? Mandatory adoptions? Who will produce those children on demand?

AFAIK western civilization hasn’t crumbled yet, and just about every western nation allows homosexuality.

You prove the opposing point! Western nations are gaying and contracepting and aborting themselves out of existence, while the Muslim population is growing rapidly. Go and sell homosexuality to the Muslims! Just try.

Is enthusiastic support of everything homosexual a mandatory belief among atheists? Coulda’ fooled me…

 

[lynx]

Red herring!

No, cat. Lynx to be precise.

How do they reproduce? They are an aberration.

They don’t. Generally homosexuality is not a trait that allows for reproduction, and yet we have gay penguins.

“Straight marriages”? You reveal your agenda here, I’m afraid. Check into the average number of male homosexual partners. Dozens. You see stability there?

There are still gay marriages even in the US. Get over the “straight marriage” terminology. I live predominantly in CA, where being gay isn’t a big issue. Of the gay men and women that I know, only one is in relationship serious enough to qualify as a marriage, and he has ever only had one partner. I really see no difference between the number of partners of homosexuals v heterosexuals. Again, divorce rate of straights is 50%, not too stable if you ask me.

Since very few traditionally adopt, what then? Mandatory adoptions? Who will produce those children on demand?

I think orphanages have more than enough children to be adopted IMO. They could ask and see if a friend will carry a child to term, might be a bit awkward. Why force children though? Does anyone force straight couples to have children?

You prove the opposing point! Western nations are gaying and contracepting and aborting themselves out of existence, while the Muslim population is growing rapidly. Go and sell homosexuality to the Muslims! Just try.

LOL

Is enthusiastic support of everything homosexual a mandatory belief among atheists? Coulda’ fooled me…

It’s really my sense of freedom and patriotism as an American that causes me to advocate for the rights of a minority more so than my atheism. But you know, whatever route you’d like to take to lay a personal attack against me is fine I guess

 

[ConfusedTim]

Except that homosexuality occurs in nature. My favorite example are the penguins en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex…imals#Penguins So I guess the natural law of life does include homosexuality…

Bizarre example! HUMAN men raping women happens, my friends dog tries to have sex with my leg when I visit the house. Clearly the fact that something happens in nature does not make it right or something that should happen!

 

[po18guy]

Except that homosexuality occurs in nature. My favorite example are the penguins en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex…imals#Penguins So I guess the natural law of life does include homosexuality…

And is just as abnormal as it is in humans.

George Orwell was a prophet.

 

[lynx]

Except that homosexuality occurs in nature. My favorite example are the penguins en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex…imals#Penguins So I guess the natural law of life does include homosexuality…

Bizarre example! HUMAN men raping women happens, my friends dog tries to have sex with my leg when I visit the house. Clearly the fact that something happens in nature does not make it right or something that should happen!

No it doesn’t, but it might make it natural. You might want to review the context of my previous conversation.

 

[ConfusedTim]

There are a lot of things that are natural but either undesirable or aberrations. Cancer is natural in that it occurs in nature but clearly it is an undesirable aberration of nature. Just because something can occur does not mean it should.

Just to be clear, i belive that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon and think that people who are gay should be allowed to come to their own conclusions about life.