Washington State makes 7th - gay marriage

[SpeakInSilence]

How conveniently you neglected to notice the other elephant, which is discrimination. It is the same old song and dance. It takes a few generations to get over it. This is borne out by the polls. Opinions on the topic are largely generational.

Here is a link of some valentine’s day pics on flickr’s blog, which everyone might enjoy:

blog.flickr.net/en/2012/02/14/happy-valentines/

This is exactly why I can’t take homosexuals seriously, it’s all about sex. That’s all it is, it’s all about who they want to sleep with, and forcing that on everyone else.

Thank you for making me even more stubborn in my belief.

 

[SpeakInSilence]

It may take some time, and you are correct that it might not happen. I mean, it took more than 600 years just to change the opinion that Jews should be kept in ghettos, etc… The Church may be socially progressive in some areas, but it in woefully inert in others.

Though it has changed it moral teaching on such topics as lending money, grounds for annulment, what to do with heretics, slavery, and so on. So, it’s moral doctrine is clearly not static in all areas.

Read up between the difference in dogma, and doctrine because it seems like you have a whole lot to learn about the Church.

 

[Mudgely]

Read up between the difference in dogma, and doctrine because it seems like you have a whole lot to learn about the Church.

I’m no expert, but the essay I read which pointed that out was written by one of the advisers to Vatican II, and who is a noted theological writer. It was published by the department of religious studies, I think by a Catholic university.

So before you tell me what I need to learn about the Church, you may want to do some research yourself. I can post 700 years of papal statements advising the persecution of Jews, but that would not be on topic here.

One of the apparent challenges here, seems to be that people take at face value what Church officials say, today, and neglect to consider the long history of the Church. Nobody today, can tell you what teachings the Church will or will not change tomorrow.

As for dogma and doctrine, money lending is prohibited in the Bible. We all know that, and the Church once took that literally. Now it does not. There are other examples, but that one is indisputable. So, yes, the Church has historically taken literal moral precepts, and changed it’s teachings about what they mean, radically so.

But back to the topic of this post. Asking for non-discrimination in marriage is not about sex. Gays, straights, even priests it seems, have been known to have sex when they want to. And yes, even a pope has been caught having sex with a male. The law does not prohibit consensual sex between adults in most states. In the ones where “sodomy laws” still exist, they would probably be overturned, if tested.

The gay marriage movement is the logical confluence of social and scientific trends in the area of sexuality. Socially, my estimate is that it is a natural result of the women’s rights movement, which sought to eliminate gender discrimination in marriage. This has succeed, which is precisely why the courts are finding that it is illegal to discriminate based on gender for purposes of marriage. It is not rocket science. Scientifically and medically, homosexuality is no longer considered an illness or abnormality. When these two trends are combined, gay marriage makes perfect sense.

We all understand the religious argument, though there are some scholars who would say that the commonly accepted notions of homosexuality held by the men who wrote the Bible were not what we know sexuality to be today. Further, there are scholars who would also say that the sections of the Bible taken to condemn homosexuality have been mistranslated. So, it is not exactly a slam dunk in religious terms either.

 

[pepipop]

But some of those people aren’t free to marry a consenting adult that they love, which is what we have in Canada now, and yes, religious institutions are still free to refuse to marry whoever doesn’t meet their requirements.

Does that include father and adult daughter and mother and adult son relationships? As, if the morality of homosexual acts is not an important factor,nor the fact that it is against natural and divine laws, then it follows that incest should also be allowed. Both were seen as sin in the bible, but as sins stated in the bible and natural law do not count then sure anything goes.

 

[mlund]

Then I guess you would agree that blacks should not be allowed to marry, as it once was, and that women should be chattel. That was after all a rather significant extension of privilege. There are far more women than gay people in the world.

Somebody owes me $5 on a bet. It never fails - when defeated in rational debate the gay-agenda fanatics resort to irrational emotional appeals, deceit, and Straw Man Arguments.

I guess it’s really too much to ask people who cite miscegenation laws to actually read Loving v. Virginia. It’s the typical intellectually lazy route to just parrot whatever someone posts on Facebook or HufPo.

Miscegenation laws were coupled with laws that said those who were not married in the eyes of the state could be punished for unlawful sexual congress. The Loving decision pointed out this allowed the State to reject the Right of citizens to live in a private marriage according to the natural law and jail or fine them for fornication.

As to the “chattle” non-sequitor the reality that people are not property is a Right that legitimate law must acknowledge, not a Privilege created by the State that comes and goes with the fashion and mores of the times.

How conveniently you neglected to notice the other elephant, which is discrimination.

Yup, never fails.

Do yourself a favor and look up the word “invidious” in a dictionary before you try to bang the rhetorical hammer of “discrimination” again.

It’s little wonder so many black folks take offense at the militant gay-lobby pretending their cause is interchangeable with the plight of Dr. King. After all they suffered for their inalienable rights, it’s just disgusting to see others cheapen it all by arguments for privilege.

• Marty Lund

 

[YoungTradCath]

The Catholic Church should never give in to homosexual marriage, and probably never will. The problem isn’t the Church, it’s the people. They brought this camel into the tent and got what they deserve.

Well, the Church can’t give in to gay marriage. It is literally impossible. However, Catholic people can.

 

[Mudgely]

Here is an interesting article, which states that Mr. Santorum favors taking marriage rights away from state control, because he favors discrimination in marriage. His proposal is to float an amendment to the US Constitution. That makes one wonder what would happen to the now legal marriages. I know that the California Supreme Court ruled that it did not possess the right under the US Constitution to invalidate any gay marriage which was legally performed. Anyway, here is the article:

news.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20120214rick_santorum_meets_with_gay-marriage_foes_in_washington_state/srvc=home&position=recent

 

[Publisher]

We all understand the religious argument, though there are some scholars who would say that the commonly accepted notions of homosexuality held by the men who wrote the Bible were not what we know sexuality to be today. Further, there are scholars who would also say that** the sections of the Bible taken to condemn homosexuality have been mistranslated**. So, it is not exactly a slam dunk in religious terms either.

Not “mistranslated”…but misunderstood in it’s cultural and historical setting. In Lev the prohibitions against same sex relations was to separate Israel from it’s pagan neighbors which practiced ritual same sex rites…and those conquering armies “feminized” their male captives by sexual victimization.

The same is understood in Romans chapter 1…Paul contrasts the pagan religious practices which included same sex temple prostitution. In Corinthians Paul decrys pedastry…a common practice in ancient times.

That the scriptures in no way addresses loving same sex reltaionships is no big surprise since the complexities of human sexuality would not be addressed for better than 19 centuries AFTER these passages were written.

 

[Jerome_Fan]

I’m no expert (!), …As for dogma and doctrine, money lending is prohibited in the Bible. We all know that, and the Church once took that literally. Now it does not. There are other examples, but that one is indisputable. So, yes, the Church has historically taken literal moral precepts, and changed it’s teachings about what they mean, radically so.

Just to say that ‘money lending’ is not prohibited in the bible - usury is! There is a difference - usury is the practice of charging excessive, unreasonably high, and often illegal interest rates on loans. Jews were warned that this was a sin. The practice of lending money while charging a reasonable return was not a sin.

It is so easy to get things wrong and use that error to undermine the entire text of the bible and the teachings of the One True Church - Catholic, of course. God bless.

 

[Jerome_Fan]

We all understand the religious argument, though there are some scholars who would say that the commonly accepted notions of homosexuality held by the men who wrote the Bible were not what we know sexuality to be today. Further, there are scholars who would also say that the sections of the Bible taken to condemn homosexuality have been mistranslated. So, it is not exactly a slam dunk in religious terms either.

Mudgely - sure it is not ‘Fudgely’? You seem to be adept at using half truths and inuendo to fudge Catholic Church teaching on the intrinsic evil of homosexuality. If it makes it easier for you, try to understand that God condemned sex for sex sake and lust is one of the deadly sins. Since a homosexual ‘couple’ cannot have sex for any other reason than lust and it cannot be a creative act, surely even a low intellect can see why God would find it an abomination - which is clearly stated in Leviticus 18 in the Catholic book, called the Bible. Fudge the teachings of Holy Scripture and pay with your eternal soul!

 

[Mudgely]

Finally, for those who don’t understand the legal issues. Here is an excerpt from the Federal Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit (Perry V. Brown). They found no impact on religious freedom, responsible procreation, and so on. The only reason for repealing the right to same sex marriage was discriminatory, and violates the 14th amendment to the US Constitution:

OPINION
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:
Prior to November 4, 2008, the California Constitution guaranteed the right to marry to opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples alike. On that day, the People of California adopted Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. We consider whether that amendment violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that it does.

Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted. Because under California statutory law, same-sex couples had
all the rights of opposite-sex couples, regardless of their marital status, all parties agree that Proposition 8 had one effect only. It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the State, or any other authorized party, an important right—the right to obtain and use the designation of ‘marriage’ to describe their relationships. Nothing more, nothing less. Proposition 8 therefore could not have been enacted to advance California’s interests in child rearing or responsible procreation, for it had no effect on the PERRY v. BROWN 1587 rights of same-sex couples to raise children or on the procreative practices of other couples. Nor did Proposition 8 have any effect on religious freedom or on parents’ rights to control their children’s education; it could not have been enacted to safeguard these liberties. All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation of ‘marriage,’ which symbolizes state legitimization and societal recognition of their committed relationships. Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for “laws of this sort.” Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S.
620, 633 (1996).

 

[mlund]

Webster’s Dictionary would like me to point out that making marriage monogamous and requiring it be between two consenting adults are both “discrimination” and invites you to come visit it at your local library and examine the entry for “invidious” under the “I” section.

• Marty Lund

 

[Jerome_Fan]

Here is an interesting article, which states that Mr. Santorum favors taking marriage rights away from state control, because he favors discrimination in marriage. His proposal is to float an amendment to the US Constitution. That makes one wonder what would happen to the now legal marriages. I know that the California Supreme Court ruled that it did not possess the right under the US Constitution to invalidate any gay marriage which was legally performed. Anyway, here is the article:

news.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20120214rick_santorum_meets_with_gay-marriage_foes_in_washington_state/srvc=home&position=recent

This is a Catholic Answers website. The Catholic dogma on homosexuality being an intrinsic evil will never change - Jesus is the light of the world - the Catholic Church is the only institution to stand up to all the bullies who would force it to accept abortion, euthanasia, contraception and, of course, homosexuality. This it will never do because the Truth is the same today and it was 2,000 years ago - these things are intrinsic evils and those who practise them will go to Hell. The Catholic Church is a caring institution - it cares for souls, which is its mandate from Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God. State legislation cannot make a wrong right!!! Fudge that!

 

[Jerome_Fan]

Finally, for those who don’t understand the legal issues. Here is an excerpt from the Federal Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit (Perry V. Brown). They found no impact on religious freedom, responsible procreation, and so on. The only reason for repealing the right to same sex marriage was discriminatory, and violates the 14th amendment to the US Constitution:

OPINION
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:
Prior to November 4, 2008, the California Constitution guaranteed the right to marry to opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples alike. On that day, the People of California adopted Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. We consider whether that amendment violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that it does.

Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted. Because under California statutory law, same-sex couples had
all the rights of opposite-sex couples, regardless of their marital status, all parties agree that Proposition 8 had one effect only. It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the State, or any other authorized party, an important right—the right to obtain and use the designation of ‘marriage’ to describe their relationships. Nothing more, nothing less. Proposition 8 therefore could not have been enacted to advance California’s interests in child rearing or responsible procreation, for it had no effect on the PERRY v. BROWN 1587 rights of same-sex couples to raise children or on the procreative practices of other couples. Nor did Proposition 8 have any effect on religious freedom or on parents’ rights to control their children’s education; it could not have been enacted to safeguard these liberties. All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation of ‘marriage,’ which symbolizes state legitimization and societal recognition of their committed relationships. Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for “laws of this sort.” Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S.
620, 633 (1996).

Blah, blah, blah! The fact is governments come and go, secular law changes with the wind and entire civilisations are lost in time. God’s Word is for all time, all peoples, now and forever. Read Chapter 1 of St John’s gospel. God bless

 

[exoflare]

Successful trolls are successful.

 

[scipio337]

No reason “why”…you called them into suspect…you need not confirm or substantiate any claim as to the disparity of “rights, priveleges or benefits” between marriage and civil union/dometic partnerships if you choose not to…I have no stake at seeking to convince you of anything…your beliefs are yours to hold…your right to accept or reject anyone’s claims is not an issue with me…you asked me to provide “just one”…I have no need to convince you of anything…

I called them suspect because the CA laws DID provide those protections.

Even the recent 9th Circuit ruling pointed out as such:

Because under California statutory law, same-sex couples had
all the rights of opposite-sex couples, regardless of their marital status, all parties agree that Proposition 8 had one effect only. It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the State, or any other authorized party, an important right—the right to obtain and use the designation of ‘marriage’ to describe their relationships.

Every state that now recognizes same sex “marriage” also previously recognized same sex domestic partnerships, but apparently, that was not enough.

Is it too much to ask to provide some evidence for a claim?

 

[Jerome_Fan]

Not “mistranslated”…but misunderstood in it’s cultural and historical setting. In Lev the prohibitions against same sex relations was to separate Israel from it’s pagan neighbors which practiced ritual same sex rites…and those conquering armies “feminized” their male captives by sexual victimization.

The same is understood in Romans chapter 1…Paul contrasts the pagan religious practices which included same sex temple prostitution. In Corinthians Paul decrys pedastry…a common practice in ancient times.

That the scriptures in no way addresses loving same sex reltaionships is no big surprise since the complexities of human sexuality would not be addressed for better than 19 centuries AFTER these passages were written.

You keep missing the point - is it deliberate or has the Devil dulled your understanding? Sex for sex sake is evil. Homosexual sex is an abomination. Sex for sex sake is called lust - this is one of the deadly sins. Whatever your ‘understanding’ of what they may or may have meant in those times etc etc etc ad nauseum - the very Nature of God has to be understood here. He gave us His teachings about homosexuality in many ways - each of them tell you - if you are seeking Truth, that is - that two same sex creatures engaged in an act that is meant for sharing in God’s own creativity would be a hideous monstrosity and abominable in the Eyes of Our Loving Creator. The Bible is full of stories about what happens to those who sneer at God. My advice, don’t do it!

 

[Mudgely]

This is a Catholic Answers website. The Catholic dogma on homosexuality being an intrinsic evil will never change - Jesus is the light of the world - the Catholic Church is the only institution to stand up to all the bullies who would force it to accept abortion, euthanasia, contraception and, of course, homosexuality. This it will never do because the Truth is the same today and it was 2,000 years ago - these things are intrinsic evils and those who practise them will go to Hell. The Catholic Church is a caring institution - it cares for souls, which is its mandate from Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God. State legislation cannot make a wrong right!!! Fudge that!

The Church has changed its immutable dogma, over the years. No question of that. JP II and Benedict might disagree, but they are a minority among Catholic scholars. There is plenty of accurate historic writing on the topic, if you take the time to look it up.

 

[Mudgely]

Somebody owes me $5 on a bet. It never fails - when defeated in rational debate the gay-agenda fanatics resort to irrational emotional appeals, deceit, and Straw Man Arguments.

I guess it’s really too much to ask people who cite miscegenation laws to actually read Loving v. Virginia. It’s the typical intellectually lazy route to just parrot whatever someone posts on Facebook or HufPo.

Miscegenation laws were coupled with laws that said those who were not married in the eyes of the state could be punished for unlawful sexual congress. The Loving decision pointed out this allowed the State to reject the Right of citizens to live in a private marriage according to the natural law and jail or fine them for fornication.

As to the “chattle” non-sequitor the reality that people are not property is a Right that legitimate law must acknowledge, not a Privilege created by the State that comes and goes with the fashion and mores of the times.

Yup, never fails.

Do yourself a favor and look up the word “invidious” in a dictionary before you try to bang the rhetorical hammer of “discrimination” again.

It’s little wonder so many black folks take offense at the militant gay-lobby pretending their cause is interchangeable with the plight of Dr. King. After all they suffered for their inalienable rights, it’s just disgusting to see others cheapen it all by arguments for privilege.

• Marty Lund

Do yourself a favor and read the opinions. Judge Walker as quite broad and accurate. Every lawyer I know thinks it is a scholarly, expansive, and completely valid ruling. He covers your objections. Judge Reinhardt narrowed the scope, presumably to get the Kennedy swing vote, if it is taken up.

I’ll take the Courts’ opinions over yours. But then, that is exactly why we have courts, right? Women would still be barefoot and pregnant, otherwise. Even when civil rights legislation is enacted, it tends to need to be pushed forward in the courts in order to get compliance.

It will be interesting to see how the US Supreme Court reacts. The ruling is narrow enough. that they may not take it up. If upheld, then it will make impossible for any state to repeal a non-discriminatory marriage law, once it is enacted.

If overturned, it will open the door to broader appeals, which are going to happen anyway. My own opinion is that the US Supreme Court will not be as expansive as Walker was, but you never know.

 

[Jerome_Fan]

The Church has changed its immutable dogma, over the years. No question of that. JP II and Benedict might disagree, but they are a minority among Catholic scholars. There is plenty of accurate historic writing on the topic, if you take the time to look it up.

If you had anything, Fudgely, you would have said so. The Church’s teachings on faith and morals do not change. Unfortunately for you and your ilk, homosexuality will ALWAYS be an intrinsic evil because IT IS!
Humanae Vitae by Pope Paul VI - “Marriage, then, is far from being the effect of chance or the result of the blind evolution of natural forces. It is in reality the wise and provident institution of God the Creator, whose purpose was to effect in man His loving design. As a consequence, husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives.” God bless Pope Benedict XVI.