CA Supreme Court Rejects Ban Against Gay Marriage
I am beginning to think that the State needs to get out of the marriage business and let the Churches decide what marriage is about. Our country is going in that direction anyway.
I am beginning to think that the State needs to get out of the marriage business and let the Churches decide what marriage is about. Our country is going in that direction anyway.
This entry was posted on May 15, 2008 at 3:54 pm and is filed under Homosexuality, Marriage, Radical Catholic Mom. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Second Vatican Council, Apostolicam actuositatem 14
May 15, 2008 at 3:57 pm
You may be interested in the Witherspoon institute:
http://www.princetonprinciples.org/
May 15, 2008 at 4:16 pm
I’m with you, RCM. Just take it entirely out of the hands of the state. Just the ensuing silence between GLAAD and Movement Conservatives would be worth it.
May 15, 2008 at 4:35 pm
The state has a strong incentive to support the traditional two-parent family, and it’s too bad religious arguments tend to crowd this out. Clio makes one:
http://aliasclio.blogspot.com/2008/03/clio-still-earth-bound.html
I am concerned about same-sex marriage because I believe that the purpose of marriage is to tie biological fathers to their biological children. Same-sex marriage confuses and confounds that primary purpose of marriage because it insists that biology is of no significance to marriage, and moreover that biological parenthood is also not important to the formation of families. It is one thing to say that gay people can be good parents, which I believe. It is another thing to say that biological parenthood doesn’t really matter.
The sexual revolution and no-fault divorce, with the accompanying decline of traditional courtship, is at root of a lot of social problems. When a majority of our total birth population is born out of wedlock, this will be undeniable. It is close to undeniable now.
May 15, 2008 at 4:45 pm
The situation in Austria may be a good model - church weddings have no legal consequence. In order to have a legally recognized marriage, one has to go to city hall. Traditionally, people first go to city hall, then to church.
As is probably painfully well-known by know (judging from the hate mail), I do not support constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. I do think it proper for the government to extend marriage to same-sex couples, given the general non-discrimination approach of the state. I also think the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy needs to go.
May 15, 2008 at 4:55 pm
The situation in Austria may be a good model - church weddings have no legal consequence. In order to have a legally recognized marriage, one has to go to city hall. Traditionally, people first go to city hall, then to church.
That’s how people get married in the u.s. too.
May 15, 2008 at 5:09 pm
“That’s how people get married in the u.s. too.”
Michael — but what if a couple got married before a civil authority, and never got married in the Catholic Church, would the Church recognize the marriage as valid?
May 15, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Michael - you get the license from the government in the US. In Austria, a civil servant actually performs the wedding, takes wedding vows, pronounces you man and wife, etc. In the USA, for Catholics, a priest does that. In Austria, the priest does not act ‘by the power invested’ in him. Then, people get married in church (again), be it on the same day or some other time.
One thing that’s like in Austria is that one can get married in church after a civil wedding has already taken place, and that that second, church, wedding has no legal effect.
May 15, 2008 at 5:11 pm
“I do think it proper for the government to extend marriage to same-sex couples, given the general non-discrimination approach of the state”
Gay marriage is not an issue of civil rights. See the “secular case against gay marriage”: http://www-tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html
May 15, 2008 at 5:11 pm
In short, an Austrian Catholic always gets married ‘twice’, once by the civil servant at city hall, and a second time, in church, by the priest.
May 15, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Gerald A.
It’s the same in Venezuela and in most of Latin America. You basically have two big parties: civil and ecclesiastical marriage.
May 15, 2008 at 5:32 pm
I’m sympathetic with the “get the state out of it” line of thinking as well. I wonder, though, what effect this would have on the marriage rate generally (might increase or decrease, I don’t really know). I also think that people who love liberty and distrust the power of the state need to recognize the massive state intervention into people’s personal lives and dependance on the state that comes from divorce and out of wedlock births.
May 15, 2008 at 5:43 pm
I guess one could argue that divorce is necessary because of marriage’s legal consequences ? Since one is legally tied to one’s spouse, a mechanism to sever those ties is necessary. How else would an abused wife get rid of her no-good husband ?
May 15, 2008 at 7:20 pm
I, for one, wholeheartedly endorse the separation of marriage and state. I’m not sure how novel the business of governments granting marriage licenses is, but it’s certainly of recent vintage.
As for Augustinus’ arguments here against the FMA, I’m inclined to agree. If one agrees it to be in the state’s interests to be the legitimizer of marriage, then the laws against discrimination come into play. If you grant these licenses, you can’t use cultural or moral arguments to withhold them. The Constitution’s a positivist document, whether one accepts it or not, which is precisely why the state needs to divorce itself from the religious sphere, allowing religious groups to shape their own views of family free from interference. (Such a divorce may have prevented the unfortunate conflicts involving Catholic adoption agencies and distribution of contraceptives by Catholic health care groups).
May 15, 2008 at 7:23 pm
It is something but Pope Benedict was proclaiming agaisnt this the other day
THis reaction of the state to get out the marriage business is sort of a strange response. Anyway sticking out heads in the sand will not help
How we govern ourselves is part of our culture as is our laws. When something is givne legal sanction is often viewed as moral. THese are the realities. Personally I think we should be fighting this tooth and nail. THe whole purpose of this is to get this to apply to all 50 states throught the full faith and credit clause. In fact if you look at the dissent it is apparent
May 15, 2008 at 7:23 pm
“I am concerned about same-sex marriage because I believe that the purpose of marriage is to tie biological fathers to their biological children. Same-sex marriage confuses and confounds that primary purpose of marriage because it insists that biology is of no significance to marriage, and moreover that biological parenthood is also not important to the formation of families. It is one thing to say that gay people can be good parents, which I believe. It is another thing to say that biological parenthood doesn’t really matter.
The sexual revolution and no-fault divorce, with the accompanying decline of traditional courtship, is at root of a lot of social problems. When a majority of our total birth population is born out of wedlock, this will be undeniable. It is close to undeniable now.”
Jonathan, I agree 100% with your concerns, and I also agree that it is in our best interests as a country to support traditional marriage. But as we can see, we are past that. As you mention, our society is already unraveling, especially when you look at the huge gap between those who are educated and married and those who are uneducated not married and with children.
May 15, 2008 at 7:26 pm
“I’m not sure how novel the business of governments granting marriage licenses is, but it’s certainly of recent vintage”
What ? Good grief
:The Constitution’s a positivist document, whether one accepts it or not, which is precisely why the state needs to divorce itself from the religious sphere, allowing religious groups to shape their own views of family free from interference. (Such a divorce may have prevented the unfortunate conflicts involving Catholic adoption agencies and distribution of contraceptives by Catholic health care groups).”
can we live the real world for a second. I know this viewpoint of going to the cateocombs is all the rage among the internet Catholic class but we are meant to live in the world and change it.
THe fact that people here are noting marriage as just a “religious thing” instead as the foundation of the domestic Church and Society shows me how far we have come.
May 15, 2008 at 7:26 pm
“I guess one could argue that divorce is necessary because of marriage’s legal consequences ? Since one is legally tied to one’s spouse, a mechanism to sever those ties is necessary.”
I don’t disagree. But I would also say that divorce (and out of wedlock births) has negative social consequences. So while I would agree that divorce should be a legal option at least in some circumstances, I think we should do what we can to ensure that it happens as little as possible.
May 15, 2008 at 7:29 pm
I just wrote a lil something on family
http://closedcafeteria.blogspot.com/2008/05/on-family.html
May 15, 2008 at 7:30 pm
“as we can see, we are past that. As you mention, our society is already unraveling, especially when you look at the huge gap between those who are educated and married and those who are uneducated not married and with children.”
I am not ready to thow in the towel yet. I am wondering since we often hang on every word the Vatican says around here why we are not doing it here.
May 15, 2008 at 7:31 pm
“If one agrees it to be in the state’s interests to be the legitimizer of marriage, then the laws against discrimination come into play. If you grant these licenses, you can’t use cultural or moral arguments to withhold them.”
Why not? If you think there is something in the law that mandates state recognition of same sex marriages, then this lawyer is here to tell you you are sadly mistaken.
May 15, 2008 at 8:39 pm
It also strikes me, thanks to Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Greenwald today, that the key issue isn’t even a federal one: it’s a matter of “the California State Constitution’s guarantee of the ‘right to marry’ and its guarantee of ‘equal protection’ under the law ” (Greenwald).
From the decision:
[O]ur task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership, but instead only to determine whether the difference in official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution.
So the court has thoroughly repudiated an attempt to set up “separate but equal” institutions like “civil unions” carved out as alternatives.
I’d like to respond jh’s insistence, referring to the dissenting opinion, that this decision is an insidious attempt to nationalize same-sex marriage and force it on other states: no. There’s nothing whatsoever California can do to overturn the numerous state constitutional bans already in place, and the Defense of Marriage Act prevents forcible recognition through the “full faith and credit” clause.
Also, the decision leaves open options very similar to the laws in Austria and Venezuela discussed above: that the state of CA could establish a separate legal category of “civil union,” apply it to hetero- and homosexual couples and leave any definition of marriage to religious groups.
Blackadder, “the right to marry” and “equal protection under the law” are at the heart of this decision. I happen to think that the CA SC isn’t mistaken in this case.
Greenwald’s post today combs carefully through the details of the decision and the context supporting it: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/15/california/index.html
May 15, 2008 at 8:41 pm
This sounds like a great idea — until you actually think about the details.
I, for one, am rather glad that the U.S. government recognizes my marriage. Otherwise, I would have had a pretty long shot at getting an immigration visa for my stay-at-home wife/mother of my children. If I were to die early, would my wife have to spend a lot of time going through probate before she could have access to any of my property? Would I not be able to claim her as a dependent on my tax return? Would she have any legal recourse if, God forbid, I abandoned her? Marriage is, often for good reason, recognized in many ways throughout our legal system. To suddenly strip marriage of its civil character would have a myriad of unintended consequences.
May 15, 2008 at 8:47 pm
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/15/breaking-california-supreme-court-legalizes-gay-marriage/
This, too, is an excellent and extremely thorough analysis from a conservative blog.
May 15, 2008 at 8:54 pm
“There’s nothing whatsoever California can do to overturn the numerous state constitutional bans already in place, and the Defense of Marriage Act prevents forcible recognition through the “full faith and credit” clause. ”
Doma has not yuet been reviewed by the Suprem Court. UNtil then and untll we see what that opinion and vote looks like needless to say we are at risk. Also it does not help that Obama wishes to repeal DOMA and I am sure that will play a role in his Judicial choices
In the end this was a horrible jusicial fiat. I chould be celebratng because this sort of stuff gets McCain a ton of votes. But regardless of the short term consequences this threatens the integrity of the courts
May 15, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Dustin,
THe problem with the HOt air analysis and some of it I agree with. Is that now it appears that Calif has put Gays into a suspect class. There appears to be here a application of strict scrunity. TO be honest the fact that the people of California thought that the 2000 year tradition and practice of Marriage is not a compeeling reason is not found to be a compelling reason is beyond me
May 16, 2008 at 1:09 am
The State looked after marriage for the first 1500 years of the Church’s existence. My professor of moral theology used to say taht the Church should get out of the legal aspect of marriage.
May 16, 2008 at 1:33 am
This “get the state out of the marriage business” sounds like a piteously naive reaction to me.
There must be a significant power rush for those supporting the mainstreaming of this faddish radicalism, considering decisions like the California one are used to sue governments and businesses into compliance, to push church-run adoption programs out of business, to rewrite education curricula, and to enact all sorts of other mischief.
The danger is not much from the inactivist set of the “GLBT” crowd. Rather, the problems come from the progressives who use the GLBTs as mascots to attack political and cultural opponents and to aggrandize their own positions.
May 16, 2008 at 2:07 am
Just another example o how “the state” screws up everything it touches. Sounds like we should entrust them with other important aspects of our lives as Catholics… Hmm.. What else can we have them destroy? education, “healthcare”, the economy, abortion, the list goes on and on.
May 16, 2008 at 6:33 am
On what planet do you exist, Tim? Do you really think that recognizing equal treatment before the secular law is screwing things up? The state has nothing to say about religious definitions of marriage, and unless we live in a theocracy, it cannot.
May 16, 2008 at 8:28 am
Does anyone here believe that sodomy (or adultery, or onanism) is a sin?
Does anyone herein see an inconsistency when a majority of the people voted on this ‘issue’ and yesterday 4 judges told them to go to hell?
I had to get a license and buy insurance to drive a car. Do I have a constitutional right to drive a car?
About 30 years ago, I had to get a blood test and a license to get married. Is marriage a constitutional right? I dunno. I’d ask Kmiec, but he’s insane or in the thrall of the demon.
I guess I’m about the stupidest person on the planet because I affirm that two men or two women cannot be married. Whatever they do in their home is their business. But, do not tell me that whatever they do and whatever they think their ‘relationship’ is is equivalent to my wife’s and my fecund, sacramental marriage.
But, I doubt this will harm marriage in this cesspool called a society. Marriage and the nucular, husband/wife/children family are already dead.
And, this perverted, sterile ‘right’ (additional to abortion and artificial birth control) tends to further remove the sex act from procreation. Naturally, many youths prefer recreation to procreation. That doesn’t make it right.
But, it’s all okay! One may believe anything one wants. One may believe that a man can be married to a man. One may even believe that one is a Catholic.
May 16, 2008 at 8:57 am
As much as I love the USA, only here would gay marriage be such a controversial matter. One’d think that the apocalypse is upon us, courtesy of fabulously dressed men. If I remember correctly, gay marriage will become legal in Austria in short order, via consensus of the two big parties. I live 45 minutes east of San Francisco. As of now, the earth has not opened to devour us.
May 16, 2008 at 9:44 am
Hello Gerald,
No doubt. But if so, so much the worse for Western Europe, which in any case is not exactly presenting a robust cultural or demographic model for us to follow.
The difficulty with the “get the State out of the marriage business,” or similar policies to completely cleave sectarian understandings from the public, is that marriage is a social institution with social consequences - chief of which is the procreation and rearing of children. The state has long had a role in marriage because by recognizing it and granting it extensive legal rights and privileges, it has recognized that it plays an essential social role. Decisions like this one will radically transform that, and the notion that it won’t affect us individually, or the Church is, I think, extraordinarily naive.
This battle isn’t just about hospital visitation rights. It’s about full moral affirmation of same-sex sexual relationships. And therefore it will not stop with mere civil same-sex marriage.
On the other hand - we may well have to recognize that for the time being, we’ve lost the battle. And hunker down and hope for a change of weather.
May 16, 2008 at 9:57 am
All the State can offer is civil union, for homosexual and heterosexual couples. Only the Church offers marriage. The debate we should be having is not whether homosexuals can be married by the State, but whether the State can consider what it does as “marriage.”
May 16, 2008 at 10:05 am
On what planet do you exist, Tim? Do you really think that recognizing equal treatment before the secular law is screwing things up? The state has nothing to say about religious definitions of marriage, and unless we live in a theocracy, it cannot.
The whole problem of the state and marriage is that the state coopted marriage for its own ends. For the longest time, marriage was the vehicle that produced and maintained new additions to the state, thus is made sense to give certain “advantages” to married people/families.
Please tell me, what is it about gay “marriage” that deserves the same respect from the “state”, and then as a Catholic, why you think it’s OK?
May 16, 2008 at 10:09 am
I think that the state has a certain responsibility for the common good. Marriage, as defined as a union of one man and one woman, is definitely a component of the common good as it is ordered to the raising of children in a stable, loving home. The effects of stable homes on children and their well being into adulthood is now well documented. This opposite effect we can see from the experiment of no-fault divorce, etc. over the past 40 years. Society is realing from this experimentation. Gay marriage only furthers this experimentation. The State has a duty to defend real marriages.
May 16, 2008 at 10:28 am
I am, quite frankly, surprised at the confusion in some of these posts regarding the nature of civil marriage. Marriage is a civil institution, separate and distinct from its religious nature.
While this fact may support further separation between the two, it does not mean that the Church should stay out of defining what is a civil marriage (or, if you prefer, what the state provides as the benefits of a civil union) or that something other than one man and one woman is acceptable as a civil marriage.
Marriage, by its nature, is an institution derived from the complimentarity of the sexes that exists when one man and one woman commit themselves, before the community, to each other and the possibility of children. Because the institution is rooted in the community and serves as the basis of the family, it is an essential component of the common good. The State has legitimate, indeed compelling, interests in ensuring a stable legal and societal framework for the creation of healthy families, providing a suitable environment for the development of children and in promoting social investment in the community.
Since civil marriage is an essential component of the common good and the primary institution for the preservation of healthy communities, the Church has a legitimate interest in advocating for a true definition of civil marriage.
Concerning the separation issue, in the U.S. civil and religious marriages are separate, but both can be recognized by the same act. The state authorizes clergy to “solemnize” marriages, making them official as civil marriages. Whether that should be changed is something being debated. There is no “Catholic” answer to that question, but an argument could be made that since the state has an interest in encouraging authentic marriage, it would want to make becoming civilly married relatively easy. Requiring religious couples to go through two ceremonies would be considered unduly burdensome.
May 16, 2008 at 10:45 am
It is not true that it is only in the US that same-sex marriage could be such an issue. France - that favourite model of Euro-sophistication to many Americans - has decided to ban it, on the grounds that it is not in the best interests of children. It does allow civil unions, but clearly distinguishes between them and marriage.
May 16, 2008 at 10:48 am
“Clearly distinguishes” - so much so that the mayor of the town of Begles [link here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3752603.stm was forbidden in 2004 to conduct a civil marriage ceremony uniting two men by the public prosecutor of Bordeaux.
May 16, 2008 at 11:12 am
It again should be remembered that the Catholci Church is very opposed to these things. As we saw in Itlay last year, in Spain, and in the Holy Fathers remarks to Bishops of Hungry last week
May 16, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Civil unions are a matter for the state; marriage is a matter for religious institutions. That the two have been conflated does not mean they need to remain so.
Please tell me, what is it about gay “marriage” that deserves the same respect from the “state….”
What, pray, does “deserve” have to do with anything? If you would have the state, a secular institution, sanction civil unions or domestic partnerships for heterosexual couples, equity before that secular law requires that the same sanction apply to homosexual couples. If you don’t want to call it “marriage,” fine. I certainly don’t have a problem with having a dual system, whereby couples are legally joined by the state, and then the various religious institutions either approve or disapprove. I’ll take that over a Catholic state (or Baptist or Mormon or Orthodox) any day.
May 16, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Mike - The problem is that there is no “equity” between gay relationships and natural man and woman marriages.
Sure, people can love each other and be good “partners” but that does not make that arrangement equal to marriage, and shouldn’t be in the eyes of the state either.
May 16, 2008 at 6:05 pm
The Holy Father spoke out on this today!!!!
http://uk.reuters.com/article/UKNews1/idUKL1627550020080516
I am interested in the full text but from the wires:
“The union of love, based on matrimony between a man and a woman, which makes up the family, represents a good for all society that can not be substituted by, confused with, or compared to other types of unions,” he said.
The pope also spoke of the inalienable rights of the traditional family, “founded on matrimony between a man and a woman, to be the natural cradle of human life”.
May 16, 2008 at 6:27 pm
If you would have the state, a secular institution, sanction civil unions or domestic partnerships for heterosexual couples, equity before that secular law requires that the same sanction apply to homosexual couples
Mike– TT touched upon this, but let me expand. Your statement would be true only if you assume the two types of relationships are equitable. They are not since one is based on the complimentarity of the sexes. A factor that cannot be replicated in other relationships. (As to why the state has a legitimate interest in preserving the uniqueness of complimentarity, see my comments above.)
They can never be equitable any more than I can legally be both a minor and of majority age, or simultaneously single and married.
The weakness of your argument is demonstrated by the fact that you argue for equity between “domestic partnerships for heterosexual couples” and such partnerships for homosexual couples. The issue here, however, is not “domestic partnerships for heterosexual couples.” It is civil marriage. Not all partnerships among heterosexual couples receive the benefits of civil marriage for good reason.
Essentially, this is what the same-sex marriage debate is about. Contrary to the views of many, the fundamental problem the Church has with same-sex “marriage” is not that it legitimizes homosexual relations. Rather, the fundamental problem is that to obtain legal recognition of same-sex unions, society must dilute or diminish the meaning of civil marriage, reducing it to merely “domestic partnerships for heterosexual couples.” When that occurs, the common good is threatened.
May 16, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Your statement would be true only if you assume the two types of relationships are equitable. They are not since one is based on the complimentarity of the sexes.
and
Essentially, this is what the same-sex marriage debate is about. Contrary to the views of many, the fundamental problem the Church has with same-sex “marriage” is not that it legitimizes homosexual relations. Rather, the fundamental problem is that to obtain legal recognition of same-sex unions, society must dilute or diminish the meaning of civil marriage, reducing it to merely “domestic partnerships for heterosexual couples.” When that occurs, the common good is threatened.
This is an exceptionally clear and concise statement, for which I sincerely complement you. However, it begs the question. What you have written is only true if we take as given in civil law that marriage requires a religious understanding of “complementarity.” The civil law, in this case, rejects such an understanding.
May 16, 2008 at 7:13 pm
That should, of course, be “compliment.” Oy.
May 16, 2008 at 9:50 pm
If by this case, you mean this CA supreme court opinion, you might be right. I think, however, that other cases upholding limitations on marriage support the complimentarity understanding.
May 16, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Mike:
I just reread your post. You mistakenly label the complementarity as “religious.” It is not religious, as in the sense of rooted in a specific religious revelation. Rather, it is rooted in the natural law, knowable by use of reason without revelation.
May 17, 2008 at 10:45 am
Rather, the fundamental problem is that to obtain legal recognition of same-sex unions, society must dilute or diminish the meaning of civil marriage, reducing it to merely “domestic partnerships for heterosexual couples.” When that occurs, the common good is threatened.
American Protestant society did that a long, long time ago, by institutionalizing serial monogamy as the template for heterosexual marriage, through promiscuous use of divorce. All the homosexuals are asking for is equality with essentially pagan heterosexuals for opportunity for “happiness” (as the culture defines “happiness”). For Catholics to cavil at that is cruel and unjust.
May 17, 2008 at 2:06 pm
From the perspective of watching what developed over 15+ years here in Massachusetts, I would like to offer some historical background on why the marriage issue got to this particular pass:
Marriage was not in the gunsights of all but the most anarchic radicals a generation ago. And those folks - the folks who affirmatively want to destroy marriage as a binding legal commitment et cet - are still around, and are still really a fringe element.
In the gay communities (plural is probably more accurate), AIDS transformed this issue in the 1980s, much over the protestations of radicals in the gay communities. The experience of having hospital visitations denied (sometimes viciously) and wills revoked by (sadly, often Catholic) judges and the like made a sizable number of folks see how being treated with elemental decency was subject to the arbitrary and capricious whims of power holders. Thus, the movement for domestic partnership benefits was born. It didn’t get radicalized into a movement for marriage until leaders of legislative houses under the clear direction of the local cardinal archbishop stonewalled home rule and similar legislation. Thus, they helped to reap a consequence: they made it a no-lose proposition for activists to pursue litigation. It didn’t help that the local Church made far more noise about marriage than, let’s say, embryonic stem cell research and other issues. All of this contributed to an increasing sense of unfairness on the part of average people. So much so that same sex marriage has simply ceased to be an active issue here.
I would suggest that, if one wishes to pursue opposition to same sex marriage with a greater likelihood of success, two things are necessary: (1) to be sure to really treat same sex couples and families as real, living people (rather than as concepts or as ideas - it’s very very easy to fall into that trap) who have many supportive relatives and friends, and, therefore (2) to actively pursue (regardless of the success or failure of opposition efforts on same sex marraige) very tangible solutions to their legitimate needs.
The rising younger generation, regardless of religious affiliation, has a very open mindset on this issue that will be difficult to shift with the kind of tactics that have thus far tended to dominate opposition to same-sex marriage. This is not 2000. Nor even 2004. Things have already shifted a lot, and the zeitgeist on this has tremendous momentum. You have to change with the momentum.
May 17, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Dear Digbydolben and Teutonic Tim:
1) Please be respectful of each other and the forum we give to you to address the issue. Don’t make personal nasty attacks on each other or on the Vox Nova Forum which gives you this opportunity or I will ban you from every one of my posts.
2)Charlotte, I want neither your links nor your spam.
May 17, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Radicalcatholicmom:
I don’t know if you noticed, but I NEVER start it with him. He baits me constantly.
May 17, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Digbydolben: I notice.
May 18, 2008 at 12:00 am
RCM - Didn’t mean any disrespect to you or your post.
Digby - I’ve never been nasty to you - I thought your post went over the line, and responded accordingly. Sometimes I have a really hard time figuring out where you’re coming from because we think so differently.
May 18, 2008 at 8:36 am
Oh look at all these bigots using all the same “arguments” that bigots made against inter-racial marriages.
Wake up. The world didn’t begin in the 1950’s. Gay people have always been here and before Christians invented homophobia, there were gay marriages and homosexuality and bisexuality were considered normal. The Romans preferred bisexuality while the Greek believed that homosexual love was superior. The Roman emperors Hadrian, Trajan, Elagabalus, etc. all had male lovers and even married them.
So I suggest you people get an education and mind your damn business. If a man wants to marry another man it’s none of your DAMN business.
May 18, 2008 at 10:37 am
John Smith - How does what you’re saying apply to a Catholic perspective? In reality, it is my damn business because the “advantages” of being married are all built around the construct of natural marriage, that is marriage between 1 man and 1 woman. Conferring those “advantages” upon those who can’t fulfill the natural role, costs everyone else.
May 18, 2008 at 10:45 am
John Smith,
Opposition to inter-racial marriage was based on concerns about maintaining racial purity separation and avoiding the creation of “mulattos.” For this reason inter-racial marriage was not simply not recognized by the state; it was a crime, and marrying someone from another race even in a purely private ceremony could have got you thrown in jail (the same cannot be said of people who enter into same sex marriages). People who oppose same sex marriage generally don’t do so because they think it will result in hermaphrodites, so the claim that the arguments are parallel is more than a little off base.
It’s true that homosexuality has been viewed more or less favorably by different cultures at least in some circumstances. The idea of gay marriage, however, is something very new (even the idea of a homosexuality as something you are rather than something you do is only about 150 years old).
May 18, 2008 at 7:12 pm
(Even the idea of a homosexuality as something you are rather than something you do is only about 150 years old.)
And it is also WRONG–a modern “superstition”–and will be seen to be such (and a rather limiting and reductive one), 150 years from now. Human sexuality is far too fluid and complicated to be yoked to this crude model of polarity. The shocking thing that our puritanical, science and statistic-obsessed scholarship is REFUSING to report is that. above and beyond bisexuality (which, in its true form, IS quite rare), most homosexuals are not such consistently throughout a lifetime, and a great many heterosexuals have a great many homosexual experiences.
In certain parts of the world, where I’ve lived, it is a well-known fact that most males have their first and some of their tenderest sexual experiences with members of their same sex. And never would they consider themselves to be “gay,” as we define “gay.”
In certain of these cultures, the strongest and most heartfelt affection that people will feel in their entire lives is NOT for their spouses–their marriages with whom have often been arranged–but for their friends, parents or children. You would probably be amazed to learn, too, that this is just as true among the caste-Christians of South Asia as it is among Hindus or Muslims.
We make a big mistake thinking that people do or even want to live their lives–including their affectional and sexual lives–like we do here in the post-modern, post-industrial West.
May 18, 2008 at 10:46 pm
GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT NEW, It is fully documented to have occurred in Pre-Christian times. For example, the Roman emperors Elaglabalus and Nero both married men openly in Rome amid public rejoicing and celebration. This is fully documented by the eyewitness account of Herodian. Other Roman historians such as The Historia Augusta, Dio Cassius, Tacitus, etc. also document the same thing. Novels from antiquity openly state that men married eachother and their were debates as to which kind of love was better, some preferring gay love to straight. For a well known example see the Greek novel known as “Leucippe and Clitophon”
Get a DAMN education and learn some HISTORY.
May 18, 2008 at 10:49 pm
The Roman Emperor Hadrian openly lived with his lover Antinous. Statues of Antinous are among the most common surviving from the Roman Empire of a recognizable person. After their death, Hadrian and Antinuous were both deified and Hadrian was fondly remembered for centuries by the Romans as one of their greatest emperors. The same thing goes for Trajan who was gay and was deemed by the Romans to have been their best and greatest emperor until the end of the Empire.
Try reading sometime and get the FACTS
May 18, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Helen (or John, or whatever your name really is),
Homosexuality is not new, and there have been societies that have approved of certain types of homosexual relationships, at least in certain circumstances. Gay marriage, on the other hand, is something new. You cite the examples of Nero and Elaglabalus having “marriage ceremonies” with men, but these were widely regarded as practical jokes and had no effect in Roman law (in a similar vein, Elaglabalus also “married” a couple of statues and Nero made a horse a Senator).
May 19, 2008 at 3:18 am
Ok Helen: If you want to continue participating, calm down, and stop insulting anyone who disagrees with you. The only reason I haven’t deleted your comments is because you at least try and make an argument. Please make one without insulting people. Thank you!
And Teutonic Tim: Thank you for a good apology. Part of the problem with the comboxes is that we cannot read tone. Alas.
June 5, 2008 at 3:12 pm
[...] that being said, I know much discussion has sparked in the comboxes at this blog with regard to same-sex marriages. I’m on the camp that we should not just sit there and do [...]