US bishops criticize Obama administration's decision on marriage law

[Timothy17]

Marriage is traditionally a religious act, but that is not the case in the US.

This is false. Marriage is still predominantly a religious act, based on religious custom, even and especially in the United States. Certainly by any definition of traditionally, even more so.

The US gov, and the POTUS by extension, seeks to govern in a secular fashion.

As you are extending on a falsehood this theory is reduced to a thesis. You need evidence to support a theory.

Therefore, when a government imposes law/regulations on marriage they should be secular in nature.

However, marriage is not “secular in nature.” This does not follow.

So, why should a secular government follow the traditional religious traditions?

They should follow the law.

The backbone of the US is based around secular law, even if it has parallels to religious dogma.

Or rather the law is often based on Christian dogma, beliefs, and culture.

So, if there’s a reason for marriage to be defined as between a man and women

It’s not an “if” there is a reason. There is no reason to define it other than what it is.

then it must be ambiguous to religion for US law to consider it.

The exact opposite argument could be easily stated based on what you have provided so far.

If this law doesn’t represent every one fairly then it should be removed,

This is illogical again. Laws against murder don’t represent murderers fairly, for example.

hence we see things like DADT being overturned.

Owing to irrational, illogical and unsubstantiated theories you mean ?

This marriage law falls in the same vein. There is no good secular reason to impose this arbitrary definition.

Nature, at minimum, imposes the reason. Tradition imposes the reason. The well-being and continuity of the State and soceity imposes yet another, powerful reason. It’s the “secular” desire to overturn it that is devoid of any reasoning.

Pax Christi,
Tim

 

[Sherry_G]

Training a cat is almost impossible.

Returning to the OP, I am happy to see the Bishops being highly visible and maintaining a presence in our society.

 

[1holycatholic]

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.

It should not be a surprise that religion permeates human history. Acknowledging the existence of God is normative throughout human history.

In any case, even atheist states have only recognized marriage as between one man and one woman. That’s an acknowledgement of the Lex Naturalis which is independent of religion.

Your description provides no reason to limit “marriage” to two people.

 

[Brendan]

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

When a male lion takes over a pride, he either drives off, or kills, the existing male cubs.

Such actions, are by definition, natural.

Does that mean that a human doing such things should be legal?

Would you advocate the legalization of a man killing any existing boys when he becomes mom’s new boyfriend?

 

[lynx]

When a male lion takes over a pride, he either drives off, or kills, the existing male cubs.

Such actions, are by definition, natural.

Does that mean that a human doing such things should be legal?

Would you advocate the legalization of a man killing any existing boys when he becomes mom’s new boyfriend?

You’re reading too much into what i’m not saying. The previous poster stated that homosexuality is unnatural. I was merely correcting him.

 

[lynx]

It should not be a surprise that religion permeates human history. Acknowledging the existence of God is normative throughout human history.

In any case, even atheist states have only recognized marriage as between one man and one woman. That’s an acknowledgement of the Lex Naturalis which is independent of religion.

Your description provides no reason to limit “marriage” to two people.

There is no set ruling on atheism. If a state is atheist, it doesn’t mean all other atheists follow suit. So, if one atheist state wants to define marriage traditionally that doesn’t affect how I will view marriage. And, you’re right, there is no limiting number of occupants in my definition. I really don’t care though, as long as all people are represented equally under the law, which I feel homosexuals are not.

 

[lynx]

This is false. Marriage is still predominantly a religious act, based on religious custom, even and especially in the United States. Certainly by any definition of traditionally, even more so.

When your ritual has become integrated by US law, the act ceases to be spiritual, with respect to how US law views it.

As you are extending on a falsehood this theory is reduced to a thesis. You need evidence to support a theory.

Secular marriage law exists in the US, it’s a fact. We have a secular government with secular laws about marriage, hence this discussion.

However, marriage is not “secular in nature.” This does not follow.

When a secular government seeks to impose law/regulation on a government practice it should seek to be secular, so as best to represent the whole of society, not just the religious.

They should follow the law.

Not all law is moral or just. Perhaps you would feel different if we were talking about abortion rights.

Or rather the law is often based on Christian dogma, beliefs, and culture.

Law is based around societal necessity. There can be parallels to Christian dogma but it is not necessary. With the exception of a few charged laws such as marriage definition and abortion, few laws are fueled by religious dogma, more so by greed.

It’s not an “if” there is a reason. There is no reason to define it other than what it is.

Homosexuals as people are not adequately represented or covered in this law, hence the discussion. Looking at the issue from a non-religious standpoint, there is no reason to not update the law if it provides better equality to this group of people.

The exact opposite argument could be easily stated based on what you have provided so far.

Then make it.

This is illogical again. Laws against murder don’t represent murderers fairly, for example.

I’ll agree with that. I feel as though many laws need to be re-evaluated for fairness, equality, and intent of justice.

Owing to irrational, illogical and unsubstantiated theories you mean ?

Bitter much?

Nature, at minimum, imposes the reason.

Why? Who cares what happens in nature?

Tradition imposes the reason.

I don’t feel that doing something for the sake of doing something is a worthwhile endeavor unless that tradition still holds applicable meaning.

The well-being and continuity of the State and soceity imposes yet another, powerful reason. It’s the “secular” desire to overturn it that is devoid of any reasoning.

So not to rock the boat eh? The price of freedom and equality that the US likes to tout comes at times at a price of feeling uncomfortable and making sacrifices. Secular reasoning is the only way to best represent all peoples under the law.

 

[1holycatholic]

There is no set ruling on atheism. If a state is atheist, it doesn’t mean all other atheists follow suit. So, if one atheist state wants to define marriage traditionally that doesn’t affect how I will view marriage. And, you’re right, there is no limiting number of occupants in my definition. I really don’t care though, as long as all people are represented equally under the law, which I feel homosexuals are not.

Homosexual behavior is contrary to the Lex Naturalis. The state can’t change that reality through positive law any more than the state can revoke the law of gravity. Your “feelings” on the matter are irrelevant since the Lex Naturalis isn’t predicated on emotion.

 

[JimG]

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.

This is so obvious that it has been recognized throughout history. But there’s something about the current era which requires being blind to the obvious.

There is also the fact that I as a man, am unable to bear children. This is an obvious inequality under the equal protection clause. Perhaps some ambitious law firm would wish to sue the Creator for disregarding equal rights in so blatant a manner. It would have to be on a contingency basis, of course.

 

[lynx]

Homosexual behavior is contrary to the Lex Naturalis. The state can’t change that reality through positive law any more than the state can revoke the law of gravity. Your “feelings” on the matter are irrelevant since the Lex Naturalis isn’t predicated on emotion.

Why does US law care about Lex Naturalis? It doesn’t. Law revolves around societal need, regardless of supporting or refuting texts. Even the US constitution can be amended to fit the times if necessary. Example, DADT. This law falls into the same vein, not all people are represented equally under the law, homosexuals to be exact.

 

[lynx]

This is so obvious that it has been recognized throughout history. But there’s something about the current era which requires being blind to the obvious.

There is also the fact that I as a man, am unable to bear children. This is an obvious inequality under the equal protection clause. Perhaps some ambitious law firm would wish to sue the Creator for disregarding equal rights in so blatant a manner. It would have to be on a contingency basis, of course.

I must have missed the laws where pregnancy became a government regulated practice. Oh it’s not… But, if you’d like to perform some type of new age gender swap and become pregnant I won’t try and stop you, and I would hope the government wouldn’t either.

 

[1holycatholic]

Why does US law care about Lex Naturalis? It doesn’t. Law revolves around societal need, regardless of supporting or refuting texts. Even the US constitution can be amended to fit the times if necessary. Example, DADT. This law falls into the same vein, not all people are represented equally under the law, homosexuals to be exact.

Why have a Constitution at all if it is so meaningless that you can twist it into whatever the zeitgeist proclaims? Your theory is simply not the case. Even the Declaration of Independence asserts the source of our rights isn’t legislative fiat, but the reality of the Lex Naturalis.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Excuse me, but no official from any party decides constitutionality. We have a US Supreme court to decide such issues.

OK, let’s let the Supreme Court decide. Congress can defend that legislation. A lawyer cannot ethically argue a position which has no legal basis. With the changes in the laws in some states, the constitutionality of some sections of DOMA is certainly in question.

This has nothing to do with Alinsky or anyone else.

 

[lynx]

Why have a Constitution at all if it is so meaningless that you can twist it into whatever the zeitgeist proclaims? Your theory is simply not the case. Even the Declaration of Independence asserts the source of our rights isn’t legislative fiat, but the reality of the Lex Naturalis.

The point of the DoI was not to establish law, but to let others recognize their freedom from the British. The constitution was specifically drafted as law to protect the freedoms discussed in the DoI as well as address societal concerns or not (slavery). The basis for the constitution comes from many things, perhaps even the Lex Naturalis, but it is not the be all end all of US law. The constitution, and our governing laws, are structured around being able to evolve when the times dictate the necessity. This flexibility is far from meaningless.

 

[steve711]

I personally am glad to see the Bishops finally take a stand!

Now as for the natural law, they were conceived or developed around the natural world that early humans lived. I hear this argument all the time about homosexuality occurring in animals. This is partially true, however, survival of the fittest usually means that most of these aberrations die out without passing on their genetics. Therefore, even though many aberrations or mutations occur in nature, most never succeed.

Humans on the other hand were taught by Jesus to love one another, even if that individual is totally different than the rest of us (homosexual). That being said, if we live by the natural law these individuals would not pass along their genetics and in some cases would be cast from their family group and possibly even killed.

Now to say homosexuality is a normal part of the human race and therefore this behavior should be treated fairly under the marriage laws of states and countries, is just a way for homosexuals to try to legitimize their abnormal behavior in man made laws. The fact is, they can live together, work where they want, and live their lives in this country pretty much any where they want, and yet their behavior will never be considered normal by most heterosexual people, and that is just the facts.

I personally, as a heterosexual have nothing against them and some are my friends and colleagues, but I cannot condone their sexual behavior and will never see it as the norm, despite all their arguments to the contrary and their attempts to changed the laws to legitimize such behavior.

Go with Gods grace!!!

 

[1holycatholic]

Now as for the natural law, they were conceived or developed around the natural world that early humans lived. I hear this argument all the time about homosexuality occurring in animals. This is partially true, however, survival of the fittest usually means that most of these aberrations die out without passing on their genetics. Therefore, even though many aberrations or mutations occur in nature, most never succeed.

Natural law has to do with the nature of the thing, not the thing found in nature.

 

[lynx]

Now as for the natural law, they were conceived or developed around the natural world that early humans lived. I hear this argument all the time about homosexuality occurring in animals. This is partially true, however, survival of the fittest usually means that most of these aberrations die out without passing on their genetics. Therefore, even though many aberrations or mutations occur in nature, most never succeed.

True. This doesn’t mean that it is moral to oppress or otherwise deny the rights granted to others who do not have a common heterosexual trait.

Humans on the other hand were taught by Jesus to love one another, even if that individual is totally different than the rest of us (homosexual). That being said, if we live by the natural law these individuals would not pass along their genetics and in some cases would be cast from their family group and possibly even killed.

This makes little sense to me. Jesus teaches love, but y’know the gays might be cast out of their homes and killed. Not very Christian-like.

Now to say homosexuality is a normal part of the human race and therefore this behavior should be treated fairly under the marriage laws of states and countries, is just a way for homosexuals to try to legitimize their abnormal behavior in man made laws.

It sure is. I think it’s doing a good job too considering the rights of gays in western civilization is increasing rather than decreasing.

The fact is, they can live together, work where they want, and live their lives in this country pretty much any where they want, and yet their behavior will never be considered normal by most heterosexual people, and that is just the facts.

I don’t think it’s that big a fact, look at DADT. Overwhelming majority accepted the behavior and overturned the law with bipartisan support. What does this say?

I personally, as a heterosexual have nothing against them and some are my friends and colleagues, but I cannot condone their sexual behavior and will never see it as the norm, despite all their arguments to the contrary and their attempts to changed the laws to legitimize such behavior.

Well that’s ok. You have every right not to accept anything, as long as you tolerate it.

 

[steve711]

Natural law has to do with the nature of the thing, not the thing found in nature.

In English this term is frequently employed as equivalent to the laws of nature, meaning the order which governs the activities of the material universe. Obviously, the natural law does not always agree with the true law which is God’s laws, but many natural laws were developed from the natural world.

Go with Gods Grace!!!

 

[Not_Sure_1]

the constitution does not need to evolve with the times.

If the times change, then you ammend the Constitution, not change the meaning of it.

 

[steve711]

Well that’s ok. You have every right not to accept anything, as long as you tolerate it.

As stated above I do tolerate it, however, you must remember we do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic. And when the silent majority of this country vote to amend a state constitution to prevent “same sex unions” as having the same rights as heterosexual unions, such as adoption, sooner or later a truly bipartisan court will uphold what the majority voted for. Granted, in some states where you have a homosexual judiciary that hears the case (California for example) the law will be held as unconstitutional. But that does not mean we will not keep trying.

Again, gaining legal legitimization does not mean it is right, just look at abortion.

Go with Gods grace!!!