Cardinal Mahoney: Judge Walker got it Wrong
I am pleasantly surprised by this statement from Cardinal Mahoney of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Cardinal Mahoney is not usually known for making strong statements on what are usually considered “social conservative” issues. “Social justice” issues, yes. But life and marriage– not as much. So listen to this:
Today it was announced that U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker has ruled that Proposition 8 which was enacted by the People of California is unconstitutional. His decision fails to deal with the basic, underlying issue–rather he focused solely upon individual testimony on how Prop 8 affected them personally. Wrong focus.
There is only one issue before each of us Californians: Is Marriage of Divine or of Human Origin?
Judge Walker pays no attention to this fundamental issue, and relies solely upon how Prop 8 made certain members of society “feel” about themselves.
Those of us who supported Prop 8 and worked for its passage did so for one reason: We truly believe that Marriage was instituted by God for the specific purpose of carrying out God’s plan for the world and human society. Period.
Every single religious faith community in our known history has held this belief since recorded history began. Every indigenous group discovered down through history also understood this belief about marriage, and carried out cultural and religious practices to sustain that belief. Marriage is of divine origin, and that belief is embedded deeply into the heart and spirit of human beings–also described as the natural law for the human family.
Judge Walker assumes that the institution of marriage is of human and civil origin, and therefore, that “marriage” can mean anything any person wishes to ascribe to the institution. Wrong.
The union of a man and of a woman in a life-long loving and caring relationship is of divine origin. No human nor civil power can decree or declare otherwise.It is too bad that Judge Walker chose to listen to anguished voices about their perception of marriage rather than plumb the depths of the origin of this divinely inspired institution.
For many of us, we will continue to believe that God is the origin of marriage, and we will follow God’s constant revelation to that effect.
We in the Roman Catholic Community are totally “pro-marriage” and “pro-family” precisely in the understanding God gave when the first human beings received the breath of God’s spirit.
Interesting reference to natural law, and to the universality of marriage as a union of a man and a woman. Similar in spirit to the previous post from a philosopher, though no doubt, there are many important differences. But both Cardinal Mahoney and Professor Feser object to the idea that Marriage is Whatever We Say It Is. They both affirm the basic idea is that Marriage is Something.
I am sure that I can speak for all of us at the Ruth Institute, from across the faith traditions, in saluting Cardinal Mahoney for his clarity on this issue.
Loading ...
Um, I’m surprised that you misspelled Cardinal Mahony’s name throughout your piece. There is no “e” in Mahony.
“There is only one issue before each of us Californians: Is Marriage of Divine or of Human Origin?”
WRONG. That question is irrelevant in a country ruled by civil law. If you want to live in a theocracy, be my guest. But that is not America, where all citizens, regardless of religious belief, are entitled to the equal protection of the civil (read: NOT religious) laws.
Oh, one more thing. You are absolutely entitled to believe that marriage is God-given and that such “revelation” entails discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Thus, if you don’t believe it’s okay for you to marry someone of the same sex, you can choose not to do so. What you can’t do is impose your religious belief on everyone else who does not share that belief, and you can’t enshrine that belief in the civil laws of this country. Sorry, but religious beliefs are entirely irrelevant to this legal and civil question.
This is not so much a religious as a foundational question. There is, at the foundations, no reason for SSM.
If we allow it, we do so for the same reasons that we pretend anything with children who are having a tantrum, and with as little consideration for their good.
The laws of a pluralistic society may indeed be expressed in secular language, however, that does not mean that secularism is the sole font of wisdom when it comes to the common good, societal order, and justice.
The feelings of the plaintiffs are irrelevant to the constitutional question of law. So, as the Cardinal said, Walker serving the judicial role erred by over-indulging the wrong focus.
By the way, Heidi, a Catholic Bishop may invoke God and the natural law and much else that you find objectionable. However, at least he can distinguish between marriage and nonmarriage whereas you have continually failed to distinguish between SSM and nonmarriage.
You wish to enshrine in the law, and in constitutional jurisprudence, your version of the primacy of identity politics. Your gaycentric focus is not the focus of marriage nor of the Constitution nor even of the underlying basis for the special place of marriage and equality in civilization.
You are at liberty to live and love your nonmarital aspirations. You are not empowered to impose on all of society your personal beliefs, much less your dependancy on governmental favoritism for your identity group.
When it comes to SSMers the focus is not on justice but rather “just us”.
“You are at liberty to live and love your nonmarital aspirations. You are not empowered to impose on all of society your personal beliefs, much less your dependancy on governmental favoritism for your identity group.”
Well, we are. We’re going to keep suing, it’s not going away, and we’re going to win the war. Poll after poll after poll suggest more and more people are in favor of SSM, with overwhelming majorities of young people (ie future ‘deciders’) being on the good side of history. We are entitled to equal rights, and we’re not asking for your tolerance, your respect, or your opinions. We don’t care. I’m sure the civil rights act pissed off a majority of bigots, too.