USCCB Decries Refusal to Support Defense of Marriage Act

[1holycatholic]

USCCB Decries Refusal to Support Defense of Marriage Act
WASHINGTON (February 23, 2011) — The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issues the following from its Office of General Counsel:

“Marriage has been understood for millennia and across cultures as the union of one man and one woman. Today, the President has instructed the Department of Justice to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law reiterating that definition of marriage, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Democratic President just fifteen years ago. The principal basis for today’s decision is that the President considers the law a form of impermissible sexual orientation discrimination.

“This decision represents an abdication of the responsibility of the Executive Branch to carry out its constitutional obligation to ensure that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed. It is also a grave affront to the millions of Americans who both reject unjust discrimination and affirm the unique and inestimable value of marriage as between one man and one woman. Support for actual marriage is not bigotry, but instead an eminently reasonable, common judgment affirming the foundational institution of civil society. Any suggestion by the government that such a judgment represents “discrimination” is a serious threat to the religious liberty of marriage supporters nationwide.”
…

 

[PAboy57]

Let’s hope this is a 1 term president.

 

[AcolyteLector]

USCCB Decries Refusal to Support Defense of Marriage Act
WASHINGTON (February 23, 2011) — The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issues the following from its Office of General Counsel:

“Marriage has been understood for millennia and across cultures as the union of one man and one woman. Today, the President has instructed the Department of Justice to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law reiterating that definition of marriage, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Democratic President just fifteen years ago. The principal basis for today’s decision is that the President considers the law a form of impermissible sexual orientation discrimination.

“This decision represents an abdication of the responsibility of the Executive Branch to carry out its constitutional obligation to ensure that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed. It is also a grave affront to the millions of Americans who both reject unjust discrimination and affirm the unique and inestimable value of marriage as between one man and one woman. Support for actual marriage is not bigotry, but instead an eminently reasonable, common judgment affirming the foundational institution of civil society. Any suggestion by the government that such a judgment represents “discrimination” is a serious threat to the religious liberty of marriage supporters nationwide.”
…

The first black president will ironically be known as the first president to openly endorse and champion homosexual interests.

 

[chrysostim83]

The first black president will ironically be known as the first president to openly endorse and champion homosexual interests.

Kind of reminds me of this story: wthrockmorton.com/2010/09/24/was-ronald-reagan-anti-gay/

 

[Cojuanco]

The first black president will ironically be known as the first president to openly endorse and champion homosexual interests.

Liberal President is a sellout to the commentariat. Film at eleven.

 

[AcolyteLector]

Kind of reminds me of this story: wthrockmorton.com/2010/09/24/was-ronald-reagan-anti-gay/

Eh, its bad all around, in terms of politicians beholden to homosexual interests.

My biggest problem is that they want marriage, a sacrament.

Its pretty clear that America has ‘gone the way of the flesh’, in terms of its ability to stand up against this tide–therefore, why not make the laws as humane as possible?

I say:
(1)Let them have their tax breaks (the infamous ‘economic benefits’, their advocates are always whining about; as though the world is inundated with stable, but impoverished gay couples),
(1.1)so long as they have the discipline to raise children.
(2)However, let’s draw the line at marriage.
***If they have their tax breaks, hospital visitation rights, and some sort of ‘recognized union’ or whatever, this would be a non-issue and completely beyond the purview of the Church.

Tying up tax breaks, hospital visitation, &c. into the idea of marriage only conflates our disagreement with the homosexual lobbyists, and makes us look like cruel, inhuman bastards to the world. Once we’ve reduced the issue to a seemingly semantic distinction, we will be better positioned to say: “You have everything you want, if you life is still bad maybe it has more to do with you and your lifestyle choices, rather than institutionalized repression.”

 

[DawnInTexas]

Good fruit does not come from a Bad Tree.
Much bad fruit has been produced.

It will be cut down and thrown into the Fire. (God’s Promise).

Many of the people in our Country wanted “Hope and Change.” They were duped. They rushed in and supported this-without it being defined just WHAT Hope and Change was.

God is allowing us to wallow in the filth we’ve craved for ourselves-before He rescues us from what we have made.

His children need to learn a lesson.
His Church still holds the fullness of the Truth, as always.

God Bless you.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn

 

[patrick_omalley]

Really? Obama is a problem?

Do you really think that any intelligent person cares about what the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops says about these matters after the way bishops move pedophile priests from parish to parish?

Take care of that matter first, and bring Cardinal Law, and other criminals to justice, and maybe someone will listen to the USCCB’s opinion on anything else.

 

[TMC]

Its been a week since the DOJ announced it would not defend the constitutionality of section 3 of DOMA, and the House has yet to step up to take over the defense (which it has the right to do in this situation). Speaker Boehner says he is thinking about it and will probably decide this week. Its not clear to me why it would take two weeks to make that decision, given all the yapping he and others in his party have done about the administration’s decision not to defend the law. So, will the USCCB issue a similar statement if (when?), Boehner quietly declines to defend DOMA?

 

[1holycatholic]

Really? Obama is a problem?

Do you really think that any intelligent person cares about what the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops says about these matters after the way bishops move pedophile priests from parish to parish?

Take care of that matter first, and bring Cardinal Law, and other criminals to justice, and maybe someone will listen to the USCCB’s opinion on anything else.

What crime of Cardinal Law do you know that the Attorney General of Massachusetts doesn’t know?

 

[John21652]

Really? Obama is a problem?

Do you really think that any intelligent person cares about what the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops says about these matters after the way bishops move pedophile priests from parish to parish?

Take care of that matter first, and bring Cardinal Law, and other criminals to justice, and maybe someone will listen to the USCCB’s opinion on anything else.

Any thinking person would be, and should be, absolutely terrified of this bit -

This decision represents an abdication of the responsibility of the Executive Branch to carry out its constitutional obligation to ensure that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed

The failure of the executive arm of government to support an existing law on the direction of a President, or anyone else, effectively means that anyone in power can pick and choose what laws will and wont be supported.

That is nothing short of subversion.

This development has the distinct possibilty of developing into a slippery slope decline in the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law is absolutely vital for the proper functioning of a democratic society. The Rule of Law should not be at the whim of someone who weilds executive power. If it is, it is no longer the Rule of Law, but rule by executive decree. What’s the next logical step from that scenario, I ask?

As for the particular Law that is not to be supported by the Rule of Law, in this case, firstly, it is a moral issue. As a Catholic, you should support the Bishops. As a citizen of a Democratic Republic, you should be asking if the executive arm of government has the right to dictate moral values. Moral values, by definition, are the basis of discriminating behaviour. They represent social norms that have been either legislated on behalf of the people, or they represent common social norms which have traditionally regulated human behaviour. If morality, or community norms, can be struck down by executive decree because they are deemed to be discriminatory, then all morality is at stake. Social cohesion itself is at stake and the only way to maintain social cohesion when moral edicts are withdrawn is through even more regulatory legislation, proscribing how you should, or should not behave.

 

[rossum]

Any thinking person would be, and should be, absolutely terrified of this bit -

This decision represents an abdication of the responsibility of the Executive Branch to carry out its constitutional obligation to ensure that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed

I disagree. The law is still being enforced. All that has been decided is that the DoJ will not defend against a constitiutional challenge to the law currently going through the appeals process. Until that appeal is decided, presumably by SCOTUS, the law will continue to be enforced.

Attorney General Holder’s letter lays out the legal arguments against the constitutionality of Section 3 of DoMA in great detail.

rossum

 

[John21652]

I disagree. The law is still being enforced. All that has been decided is that the DoJ will not defend against a constitiutional challenge to the law currently going through the appeals process. Until that appeal is decided, presumably by SCOTUS, the law will continue to be enforced.

Attorney General Holder’s letter lays out the legal arguments against the constitutionality of Section 3 of DoMA in great detail.

rossum

I understand that. However, in the AG’s letters is this -

The record contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval
of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships -precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against…Private biases may be outside the reach
of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly,give them effect.

In other words, common social norms cannot/will not be supported. Note how morality is described as “private biases”. That is moral relativity writ large.

And the AG’s letters contains this -

Moreover, theDepartment has declined to defend a statute "in cases in which it is manifest that the President has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional,

And that suggests to me that the Rule of Law is subject to executive decree, or at the very least, executive interpretation. .

 

[rossum]

I understand that. However, in the AG’s letters is this -

The record contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships -precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against…Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly,give them effect.

When the US Constitution was written a black man counted as a fraction of a white man and a Native American did not count for anything at all. At the time that was the “common social norm”. Since then the social norms have changed. Discrimination against homosexuals is becoming less and less acceptable.

What civil, as opposed to religious, justification can you provide for not allowing marriages validly contracted in one state to be recognised in another state? The Government cannot allow purely religious reasoning to be incorporated into Federal law; that is in the Constitution. There has to be a valid non-religious reason for the law in order for it to be constitutional. This court case is testing whether or not such a valid non-religious reason exists. The Attorney General is saying that he cannot find such a reason and so he is unable to defend DoMA in the court case.

rossum

 

[1holycatholic]

When the US Constitution was written a black man counted as a fraction of a white man and a Native American did not count for anything at all. At the time that was the “common social norm”. Since then the social norms have changed. Discrimination against homosexuals is becoming less and less acceptable.

What discrimination? Homosexual “marriage” is not possible except as a matter of legal fiction.

 

[rossum]

What discrimination? Homosexual “marriage” is not possible except as a matter of legal fiction.

Homosexual marriage is far from a fiction in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire. It is also legal in many countries in Europe. What is, and what is not, legal fiction will be decided by SCOTUS.

rossum

 

[1holycatholic]

Homosexual marriage is far from a fiction in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire. It is also legal in many countries in Europe. What is, and what is not, legal fiction will be decided by SCOTUS.

rossum

SCOTUS could repeal the law of gravity, that doesn’t change reality. Homosexual “marriage” is impossible and doesn’t exist anywhere.

 

[John21652]

When the US Constitution was written a black man counted as a fraction of a white man and a Native American did not count for anything at all. At the time that was the “common social norm”. Since then the social norms have changed. Discrimination against homosexuals is becoming less and less acceptable.

What civil, as opposed to religious, justification can you provide for not allowing marriages validly contracted in one state to be recognised in another state? The Government cannot allow purely religious reasoning to be incorporated into Federal law; that is in the Constitution. There has to be a valid non-religious reason for the law in order for it to be constitutional. This court case is testing whether or not such a valid non-religious reason exists. The Attorney General is saying that he cannot find such a reason and so he is unable to defend DoMA in the court case.

rossum

In fact, the Attorney General is acting on the directions of Obama. He writes that he is acting on those instructions. If Obama truly respected the Law of the land, he would instruct his AG to defend a legislated statute tooth and claw. I say again, the executive arm of government is primarily charged to uphold the law of the land. Until such time as Congress changes, alters, or repeals a piece of legislation, it must be defended. Obama has taken it upon himself to do otherwise.

In my original post I posed the question “What is the next logical step from that scenario?” Let me make it obvious to you. A Chief Executive only needs to appoint an AG whose views coincide with his and the non support of legislation is a fait acompli. In other words, the legislative chambers can be bypassed.

Next point, you state that there needs to be a valid non-religious reason for a law to be constitutional. In other words, any moral argument is invalid if it is something which religious people hold. Christains, Jews, Muslims and anyone else of a religious persuasion can’t mount their moral beliefs as an argument in Law. That is discrimanatory. The rights of the non-religious have been placed above those of the religious in society.

Let’s bypass that argument for a while, because it will take reams of pages to get through. Suppose I mount a Utilitarian argument in favour of the Defense of Marriage Act. Would that be acceptable to Obama, do you think? I happen to think that a Utilitarian argument would support the Defense of Marriage Act wonderfully. However, maybe Obama and his AG consider Utilitarianism to be a religion?!!

 

[rossum]

SCOTUS could repeal the law of gravity, that doesn’t change reality. Homosexual “marriage” is impossible and doesn’t exist anywhere.

I cannot because nowhere has Congress passed the Law of Gravity. SCOTUS can only rule on legislation passed by Congress, or the individual states.

Civil homosexual marriage does exist in many places.

rossum

 

[rossum]

In fact, the Attorney General is acting on the directions of Obama. He writes that he is acting on those instructions. If Obama truly respected the Law of the land, he would instruct his AG to defend a legislated statute tooth and claw.

I disagree. President Obama took an oath to defend the Constitution. If this law is unconstitutional then it is correct for the President to stop defending it. The AG’s letter says that the case has been examined and that parts of DoMA appear to be unconstitutional under the First Amendment of the Constitution the President is sworn to defend.

The law is still being enforced, and will be at least until SCOTUS makes the final decision.

rossum