No standing: what marriage radicals really think of “the people”
This article was first published at Mercatornet.com September 16, 2011.
Last week’s hearing in the California Supreme Court on whether the proponents of Prop 8 have standing to defend the measure in court seemed to go well for the defenders of natural marriage. But another issue lies beneath the surface of the court arguments. The issue is what kind of people are the marriage redefiners: Ted Olsen, Rob Reiner, and the American Foundation for Equal Rights?
Is their bid to deny Prop 8 proponents legal standing just the next step in the unfolding of the civil rights movement, as they seem to perceive themselves? I think the evidence from the courtroom shows beyond doubt that we are dealing with something else entirely. These people are bent on obtaining a particular outcome, no matter what the cost to the rest of the legal system. Advocates of minimum government, especially libertarians, should be more than wary about hanging around this type of person: they should avoid them absolutely, and call them out wherever possible.
Proposition 8 is the ballot initiative defining marriage as the union of one man and one women in the California Constitution. In 2008, California voters approved Prop 8, with 51 per cent of the vote, approximately the margin of victory that elected Obama. Since then, celebrity lawyers Ted Olsen and David Boies have brought a suit in the federal courts to argue that Proposition 8 violates the US Constitution.
Please note the high stakes here. If the courts decide that the US Constitution requires the redefinition of marriage that will be the end of the line for debate on the subject in the US. We will have genderless marriage throughout the US, overturning the constitutions of the majority of states.
So, the point at issue in last week’s hearing before the California Supreme Court was whether the proponents of Prop 8 (that is, the group of people who put Prop 8 on the ballot and who are legally responsible for it) have standing to defend the measure in court.
Before I went to San Francisco to cover the Prop 8 trial, I hoped that the marriage redefiners would try to distinguish their case. That is, would they try to come up with some argument that distinguishes the proponents of Prop 8 from proponents of other potential ballot initiatives? If they make no attempt to do that, we might conclude that they don’t care whether they destroy the initiative process. They just want what they want, and they don’t care about collateral damage.
I am sorry, but not surprised, to report that attorney Ted Olsen made no serious effort to create a legal argument that would apply to Prop 8 and not to other ballot measures. As I sat in the jam-packed courtroom, I sensed that the justices were appalled by his cavalier attitude toward the voters. One by one, the justices poked holes in Olsen’s theory.
Justice Carol Corrigan observed that Olsen’s theory would give the Attorney General the right to “pocket veto” any voter initiative. Justice Joyce Kennard noted that to agree with Olsen is to nullify the power of the people. Justice Kathryn Werdegar noted that “we” (meaning the Supreme Court of California) have always given ballot proponents standing in court.
In addition, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye noted that this case was the first case in history in which the proponents were the sole defenders of a measure. In past cases, the proponents have stood “shoulder to shoulder” with the Attorney General. She asked what would happen to the state’s interest in a law, if the Attorney General refused to defend it. “Does the state’s interest evaporate?”
Even the newest member of the California Supreme Court, the notoriously liberal advocate of marriage redefinition, Justice Goodwin Liu, balked at the breathtaking claims advanced by Ted Olsen. “Doesn’t it blinker reality,” he asked, to assert that ballot proponents are no different from any other citizen who voted for Prop 8?
But the ultimate challenge to Olsen’s theory came from Justice Ming Chin: “Would you really have us hearing only one side of this case today?” In effect, Olsen’s answer was, yes, he would have the court hearing only one side of the case: his own side.
Loading ...
If I had spearheaded a campaign to amend your state’s constitution to ban the practice of your religion (while leaving the practice of my religion unaffected) and it was ruled as in violation of the U.S. Constitution, would you say I’d have standing to defend it on appeal?
@Ken Apples and oranges. We are talking about the sanctioning of a sexual behavior, which has nothing to do with religion.
We’re aren’t talking about sanctioning sexual behavior but marriage rights. On what basis should straight people have the right to marry, but gay people shouldn’t have that right?
Jennifer: There is an obvious difference with Prop 8. A fundamental right was extended to a minority group of people with an immutable trait (if you don’t believe that, explain to me when and how you chose to be heterosexual), then taken away by a 50% plus one vote. The last time this happened in the US was prior to the 19th amendment when in some states women had the right to vote, there was an election, and the next day they did not have that right.
Further, do a little legal homework. Federal Courts have much narrower standards for legal standing to appeal than the CA courts. The 9th circuit got an advisory opinion on this from CA, but will probably not follow it in any case. See the SCOTUS decision the Arizonans For Official English case (1997).
If SCOTUS broadens legal standing to people who cannot demonstrate provably harm, it would a huge hole for lawsuits against businesses, especially in product liability. A powerful new legal precedent would be created. CA had broader (more liberal?) standards to determine legal standing. Very doubtful this (or any recent) SCOTUS would allow that.
A quote for the unanimous SCOTUS decision in Arizonans for Official English v Arizona. “Federal courts lack competence to rule definitively on the meaning of state legislation, see, e.g., Reetz v. Bozanich, 397 U.S. 82, 86-87, 25 L. Ed. 2d 68, 90 S. Ct. 788 (1970), nor may they adjudicate challenges to state measures absent a showing of actual impact on the challenger, see, e.g., Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103, 110, 22 L. Ed. 2d 113, 89 S. Ct. 956 (1969). The Ninth Circuit, in the case at hand, lost sight of these limitations.”
The 9th circuit did what you advocate here Jennifer and were duly slapped upside the head by all nine SCOTUS justices, including your dear friend Justice Scalia.
@Ken
“If I had spearheaded a campaign to amend your state’s constitution to ban the practice of your religion (while leaving the practice of my religion unaffected)”
That’s exactly what is happening Ken. Atheism is being legally established as the law of the land while people of faith are being told they have no standing to oppose it.
Atheists use the US Constitution and Government the way they accuse Christians of using the Bible and Religion…they cherry pick from it.
@Sean No we are not talking about “marriage rights” because everyone has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Same-sex faux marriage is all about sanctioning homosexual behavior.
@Anne
No Anne, that it not exactly what is happening. No one is amending the Constitution to outlaw the practice of Christianity. Come back down to Earth, Ann.
@Glenn E. Chatfield
The analogy is quite valid. Although, unlike sexual orientation, religion is merely a behavioral choice. It’s telling that you didn’t address the substance of my post though.
@Glenn E. Chatfield
Glenn, here’s how the Iowa Supreme Court took your lame argument and obliterated it:
“It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and
lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry,
it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of
marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex
is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person
of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian
person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a
person of the opposite sex is no right at all.”
@Anne
I read your post again. This is just a ridiculous argument, Anne. You can’t argue that anytime your religion isn’t instituted as the law of the land, it equates to Atheism being instituted as the law of the land. If you want to interpret that the intent of the founding fathers’ in specifically prohibiting state sponsored religion as the equivalent of establishing state sponsored Atheism, then you’re free to believe that.
Glenn, the government has no reason to NOT treat same-sex couples the same as different-sex couples. Call it sanctioning, call it discrimination. In America, we are bound to treat all citizens equally, lacking a rational public purpose to do otherwise. There is no rational public purpose for denying marriage rights to gay couples.
Why sanction straight behavior over gay behavior anyway?
Everyone is perfectly and equally free to marry. There is no orientation test for marriage. Some people just don’t want to marry, but they want something else.
In California same sex couples have every right the state can give except the word marriage. That is hardly discrimination. Why can’t the citizens of a state even define a word?
The SCOTUS cases that are on point support traditional marriage. That said, I would be happy to see the current case reach the SCOTUS again.
The federal court referred the standing issue to the CA Supreme Court. We will know their ruling soon. The tea leaves from the oral arguments are favorable for the Prop 8 forces.
@Ken
My issue is not with the intent of the founding fathers. It’s with the mutilation that’s been done to the Constitution in spite of the intent of the founding fathers.
My children can’t be taught Christianity or even non-denominational prayer in school. But they can be taught that homosexuality, abortion and pre-marital sex (which my Religion opposes) are legitimate behavior choices. That is not religious freedom. And it is most definitely not the intent of the founding fathers (who prayed). If you think Christianity is not being outlawed in favor of atheism, try being Christian.
(Please notice Ken, I established my position without the use of such terms as “rediculous” and “Come back down to earth”. It makes for a more civil discussion when you refrain from derogatory personal attacks.)
@Anne
“That’s exactly what is happening Ken. Atheism is being legally established as the law of the land while people of faith are being told they have no standing to oppose it.”
With all due respect Anne, I am a person of faith who believes strongly, because of my faith, in the equality of every child of God. There are many, many more like me who are persons of faith and who disagree with the right-wing Christianism that would deny equality to others on the basis of their own particular religious beliefs. It is grievous that some of the most extremist religious people are the loudest voices claiming to speak for God and who make all other Christians look like fools to the larger society.
@Ken I did indeed address the “substance” of your post by demonstrating how illogical it was. Religion is NOT a behavior – it is a philosophy, a belief system. And “sexual orientation” isn’t the issue either – sexual BEHAVIOR is. As long as someone doesn’t act on their “orientation” there is no problem (pedophilia is an orientation, necrophilia is an orientation, zoophilia is an orientation). But same-sex faux marriage is not about “orientation” – it is about the actual sexual behavior and demanding state sanctioning for said behavior.
@Ken The Iowa court had to reinterpret what marriage is in order to come to that conclusion.
@Sean Your ridiculous argument has been answered by many on this site over and over again. Marriage has a definition of being only between opposite-sex people. You don’t redefine institutions just to satisfy the proclivities of 2% of the population. There is a rational reason to deny sanctioning of same-sex unions and you have been provided that information at least a hundred times and yet you continue to deny it exists.
@Sean
Why do we sanction adultery?
There is no rational public purpose for that, either.
@Sean
“There is no rational public purpose for denying marriage rights to gay couples.”
It’d be unethical, expensive and unsafe, and there is no right to manufacture people using modified gametes, which would be required for same-sex couples to conceive offspring.
@Heidi
“There are many, many more like me who are persons of faith and who disagree with the right-wing Christianism that would deny equality to others on the basis of their own particular religious beliefs.”
We disagree on the definition of equality. Therefore, if the government implements your definition of equality (in the law, in the schools and in the public square), while abolishing reference to mine, it is in fact you who are imposing your own religious beliefs on others. You’re not as open minded as you think you are.
I don’t think that your hypothetical situation is a good analogy for Proposition 8 in California, but accepting your analogy at face value, yes I think you should have standing to defend the proposition if the state refused to mount a defense.
“Why do we sanction adultery?
There is no rational public purpose for that, either.”
There is very much a rational public purpose in legal adultery: the right to privacy, and freedom from myth-based rules and regulations. Both is enough to not prohibit, that is, make legal, adultery. And pre-marital sex. And divorce. And same-sex marriage.
“Marriage has a definition of being only between opposite-sex people. You don’t redefine institutions just to satisfy the proclivities of 2% of the population.”
Well, um, we legalized mixed-race marriage and there are more gay couples than mixed-race couples I bet. I am unaware of any numerical limitations in constitutional rights, are you? The “definition” of marriage has changed, and will continue to change, as society needs it to.
Sean, so you are FOR adultery, pre-marital sex, divorce, and same-sex marriage? Sounds like that’s what you’re saying.
@Glenn E. Chatfield
Your talking in circles Glenn. You’re claiming that they had to redefine it in order to arrive at the conclusion that it needs to be redefined. It’s nonsense.
@Betsy
Betsy, I don’t see you advocating for constitutional amendments banning adultery, pre-marital sex, divorce. Why is that?
@Anne
You’re missing the point here Anne. Nobody is trying to change the law to deny you’re right to practice your religion, even if they disagree with its
doctrine. But you want to change the law to limit the rights of people of whom your religion tells you to disapprove. The fact is that when the pro-equality side wins and same-sex marriage is legal, your right to worship freely stays 100% intact. When the anti-gay side wins, gay and lesbian couples can’t marry and your right to worship freely still stays 100% intact. The Constitution does not guarantee that the country will be free from anything and everything that may be inconsistent with your belief system. Just because something exists doesn’t mean your not free to believe it’s wrong. And just because you believe something is wrong, doesn’t mean the Constitution prohibits its existence.
I’d be cool with banning all that, exc. for divorce under certain circumstances. Anybody on here good at writing constitutional amendments? When someone starts to, I’ll back them up. How about you?
@Ken
“But you want to change the law to limit the rights of people of whom your religion tells you to disapprove.”
Who told you that that is what I want to do?
And who told you that relgion tells people what to do?
You might not be as free thinking as you think you are.
Those examples aren’t analogous to proposition 8. Those examples would be analogous to proposition 8 only if proposition 8 banned homosexual acts (e.g., sodomy), which it does not do.
I am Catholic, and I think that Anne is too. I know my faith well, and I know that my religion does not teach me “to disapprove” of homosexuals. If you think that it does teach such a thing, please show me where. I’ll even help you: Click on my name next to this comment, and it will take you to a searchable online version of the official Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Freedom of religion goes much further than the right to worship. Thankfully, the right to worship is not currently under attack in the United States, but other parts of freedom of religion are under attack.
Agreed. That’s why most of us do not support laws that would ban homosexual acts. We only advocate that homosexual relationships should not be given special privileges by the state, by calling them marriages (which they cannot be, without changing the meaning of the word marriage).
@Betsy
We wouldn’t be able able to build enough jails to
house all of the heterosexuals who broke those laws if you got your way, Betsy.
@Sean There you go again with “mixed race marriage.” There is only the human race and anyone who says otherwise is a bigot. Yet the color of skin never changed the definition of marriage. The definition of marriage has only “changed” in the minds of homosexualists, not in reality.
@Ken No circles at all. They first redefined what marriage was, then said that homophiles were not being treated equally under their definition of marriage.
“Sean, so you are FOR adultery, pre-marital sex, divorce, and same-sex marriage? Sounds like that’s what you’re saying.”
It doesn’t sound like that at all. I’m against government intrusion into private affairs, and I’m very much against religious beliefs being imposed on unwilling citizens. Thus, some things must be legal, even if some (religious) folks oppose them: pre-marital sex, adultery and divorce, and yes, same-sex marriage.
“There is a rational reason to deny sanctioning of same-sex unions and you have been provided that information at least a hundred times and yet you continue to deny it exists.”
Well what ARE the rational reasons to deny marriage licenses to gay couples? Since this issue seems to be of utmost importance to you, why don’t you repeat them? I’m not looking for religious reasons or personal reasons, neither of which is substantial enough to deny a constitutional right to a group; I’m looking for rational public purpose reasons that would offset withholding a constitutional right to equal treatment and due process.
Your work is cut out for you!
“I’d be cool with banning all that, exc. for divorce under certain circumstances. Anybody on here good at writing constitutional amendments? When someone starts to, I’ll back them up. How about you?”
Betsy, NOM is the logical place to start. They have a structure in place, and though they won’t reveal who funds them, they appear to have millions of dollars in funding (and stunningly high pay scales for employees, for a non-profit!). Since NOM purports to support marriage, they would be the ones to sponsor and advocate for a constitutional amendment outlawing pre-marital sex, adultery and divorce under most circumstances.
I wouldn’t hold my breath though. Although NOM claims to support marriage, NOM is careful to advocate public policy positions that comport with what most Americans believe (or believed at the time NOM was formed). It is unlikely to take a stance that most Americans would laugh at, because doing so would further undermine NOM’s credibility and fund-raising abilities. Most Americans would be appalled to have the government criminalize pre-marital sex among consenting adults, or criminalize adultery or make divorce hard to get. Even Christians, for whom pre-marital sex, adultery and divorce are forbidden, widely practice these activities.
NOM claims to want to support marriage (which sounds warm and fuzzy), but in reality, it is really just opposed to gay people getting married. More power to you, Betsy, if you can get NOM to actually advocate policies that support marriage, rather than just harm gay couples and their children.
@Betsy
Sign me up, too.
Actually Dr. Morse has written “77 Non-Religious Reasons to Support Man Woman Marriage.” Why don’t you just buy yourself a copy?
@Paul H
Read the thread. Betsy brought those issues into the conversation for comparison.
@Glenn E. Chatfield
You just rephrased your circular argument. If we’re talking about the Iowa Supreme Court decision specifically, then you’re claim is wrong. Marriage had already been redefined to include same-sex unions in Maasachusetts and elsewhere around the world.
@Sean
The right to privacy doesn’t extend to sexual intercourse, because that can become public knowledge even if the act was done in the privacy of someone’s home. It literally can create the public, and people that result from sex cannot be kept secret, they must be allowed to join the public. So sex is not something that is protected by privacy rights, it is not a private act.
And technically, privacy only applies to personal privacy, it doesn’t extend to secrets shared with another person or groups of people. As soon as two people are involved, it’s no longer private. It’s not necessarily public at that point, but the right word is “secret” not “private” and the government can compel people to testify about secrets under oath. Privacy only covers situations that are one person, and that includes marriages and doctor-patient and lawyer-patient relationships. Two people in someone’s private home are protected against unreasonable searches of the private home, but not by privacy rights. Privacy rights only protect individuals.
@Sean
“Well what ARE the rational reasons to deny marriage licenses to gay couples? ”
I’ve given them to you. Marriage should continue to approve and affirm the conception of children using the couple’s own genes. Same-sex couples should be prohibited from conceiving children from their own genes. Declaring an equal right to reproduce with either sex will bankrupt the state and divert medical and energy resources away from actual sick people, destroy the basis of equality and democracy and human dignity, and put people at extreme risk of significant harms.
@Anne
Anne, this post alone is proof enough that you need to come down to earth. Your preposterous argument that your children should be taught Christianity in public schools is only one example. I wonder what my Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, non-believing students (and their parents) would have to say about that. Doesn’t your church (if you are a member) teach prayer? I, and all the other teachers in my school, teach the subjects we are trained to teach. None of us is a trained minister as far as I know. And even if one of us was, the very Constitution you ascribe to would lead to a field day in the courts. By the way…any child, teacher or support person is absolutely free to pray during the school day. But if you want it incorporated as part of instructional planning, no public school in the nation is on your side.
@Rich
God help our Country if your post is an example of the reading comprehension level of our teachers.
I never argued that my children should be taught Christianity in public schools. My position is that teaching the “morality” of homosexual behavior is equivalent to teaching a religious moral code. The fact that you don’t acknowledge that it is equivalent doesn’t change the fact that openly opposing specific religious moral teachings or subversively encouraging opposing moral behavior, in the public schools is the equivalent of establishing a state religion.
The Constitution prohibits the state from establishing a religion. It doesn’t prohibit it from acknowledging the existence of God or from non denominational prayer.
@Sean Why should we keep repeating the same things to you day after day, post after post, only for you to deny them? It is a waste of time to have these sorts of discussions.
@Ken What other states or nations do to redefine marriage to force same-sex unions on the rest of us has no bearing on Iowa. Iowa had to separately redefine marriage themselves in order to make the claims they made.
Sean’s definition of marriage is essentially “whatever the couple wants.” We actually have a legal construct for whatever people want. It is called contract law.
Marriage and family law, on the other hand, was designed among other things to provide a framework for an asymmetric relationship, where only one party can bear the risks and burdens of pregnancy and where the parties have different biological clocks even in the absence of pregnancy. Properly formulated, marriage law should be designed to protect women in their asymmetric relationship with men.
Each institution (contract law and marriage law) should be allowed to exist in their own spheres. Conflating the two would reduce or eliminate protections for women that should exist is marriage law.
“The right to privacy doesn’t extend to sexual intercourse”
John, I invite you to find ONE person who agrees with you. I really have no idea where you’re coming from or why you comment here. You seem obsessed with same-sex reproduction, which may or may not have anything to do with same-sex marriage. There are laws against incestuous sexual intercourse, which may or may not be challenged in light of the US Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling. Rules for sexual consent apply to far more than just sexual intercourse. With these extremely limited exceptions, the law has consistently upheld the private nature of intimacy, from use of birth control, to abortion, to specific sex acts.
“Marriage should continue to approve and affirm the conception of children using the couple’s own genes.”
John, I hope you’re enjoying your one-way conversation with yourself.
“My position is that teaching the “morality” of homosexual behavior is equivalent to teaching a religious moral code.”
Well, isn’t teaching the “morality” of heterosexual behavior equivalent, then, to teaching a religious moral code? The problem is that the schools are left fixing the problem straight people created: that being gay is bad, immoral, nasty, whatever. Had straight people not created this situation, schools, parents, government officials and others would not have to be addressing it. When children are bullied because they’re gay, the problem has to be addressed. If certain parents would teach their children to accept diversity, we wouldn’t have these problems. But, amazingly in this day and age, there are even churches that teach that being gay is bad! And not just Westboro Baptist Church, either.
@Glenn E. Chatfield
Forced on you? I wasn’t aware that straight men were being required to marry other men. Where is that happening?
@John Howard
“sex is not something that is protected by privacy rights”
Wrong. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is.
@Sean
“Well, um, we legalized mixed-race marriage and there are more gay couples than mixed-race couples I bet. I am unaware of any numerical limitations in constitutional rights, are you? The “definition” of marriage has changed, and will continue to change, as society needs it to.”
My good friend, a caucasian woman, is married to a black man. She is a woman. He is a man. And they are married to each other. The “definition” of marriage has not changed.
@John Howard
“The right to privacy doesn’t extend to sexual intercourse, because that can become public knowledge even if the act was done in the privacy of someone’s home. It literally can create the public, and people that result from sex cannot be kept secret, they must be allowed to join the public. So sex is not something that is protected by privacy rights, it is not a private act.”
Clearly you are not a constitutional scholar, or else you would know that sexual intercourse in private between consenting adults is absolutely protected by the right of privacy that is inherent in the substantive concept of “liberty” that is contained in the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. If I were you, I would educate myself on substantive due process and the constitutional protection of fundamental rights. The right to have sex in private with another consenting adult is absolutely protected by the right to privacy. Lawrence v. Texas and a whole preceding line of SCOTUS jurisprudence teaches us that there is a realm of personal privacy belonging to each citizen and into which the government may not intrude.
@Anne
“The Constitution prohibits the state from establishing a religion. It doesn’t prohibit it from acknowledging the existence of God or from non denominational prayer.”
The establishment clause of the First Amendment absolutely does prohibit the State from acknowledging the existence of God (whose God?) AND state-run prayer, non-denominational or otherwise. Under the establishment clause, the government must remain neutral with respect to religion. It may neither promote nor denigrate religion. And the promise of religious liberty includes the right to be non-religious. I am a person of faith, but I don’t want my children to be subjected to religious instruction or prayer, non-denominational or otherwise, while they are attending public schools. The minute that the principal, teacher or other staff/faculty member starts leading a prayer in a classroom or school-related event or when he or she starts teaching my child about God (other than in a comparative religion/philosophy type of course) is the minute I sue for the violation of my child’s First Amendment rights.
People of faith should WANT to keep religion out of the government. The day could always come when your own religion is no longer the dominant one and you have to worry about the religious indoctrination of your own children by the State. Imagine if a Muslim teacher wanted to lead the schoolchildren in a prayer to Allah or if a Hindu teacher wanted to lead the class in the chanting of mantras. How would you feel about that?
@Heidi
No, you’re wrong. No Scotus decision has ever said that unmarried sexual intercourse is a right or protected by privacy.
@Anne
“My good friend, a caucasian woman, is married to a black man. She is a woman. He is a man. And they are married to each other. The “definition” of marriage has not changed.”
As long as they are approved and allowed to conceive offspring together using their own genes, then the definition of marriage has not changed. But if they had decided to separate marriage from conception rights, if they had said, as eugenicists like Sanger and Saleeby suggested, that they could marry each other but not be allowed to reproduce together, then that would have changed marriage. That is still what lots of people want to do, on both sides of the gay marriage question.
It does not redefine marriage to allow people to marry someone of the same sex if we approve and allow them to conceive offspring together. It would change what it means to conceive offspring by saying that people can still conceive offspring using genetically modified gametes instead of their own, but marriage continues to mean approval of offspring. And as long as it remains legal to attempt to create a person from genetically engineered gametes and with someone of the same sex, then of course we should allow same-sex couples to marry.
The first thing we have to do is prohibit conception of people by any means other than the union of a man and a woman using their unmodified gametes.
Hi Ken,
I didn’t see a reply from you on this. Do you still contend that the Catholic faith teaches Catholics to disapprove of homosexuals?
If no, then fine. But if yes, then I would appreciate it if you could cite some evidence that you believe supports that claim.
From the first paragraph of the Lawrence v. Texas decision:
“Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.”
And later, when the Court states the issue that was presented by the case:
“We conclude the case should be resolved by determining whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.”
And even later in the decision:
“The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. ‘It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.’ Casey, supra, at 847.”
Time to go back to Constitutional Law 101.
@Heidi
“The establishment clause of the First Amendment absolutely does prohibit the State from acknowledging the existence of God (whose God?) AND state-run prayer, non-denominational or otherwise.”
The establishment clause of the First Amendment absolutely does NOT prohibit the State from acknowledging the existence of God. It prohibits the State from adopting a religion.
The Preamble of the Constitution recognizes the Liberties protected by the document as Blessings. Where do blessings come from Heidi? These are the same people who wrote the Declaration of Independence which recognizes that our inaliable rights are endowed by our Creator. They did not establish an atheistic government. Just one protected from the domination or oppression of a particular religion. It was designed to protect our ability to practice our faith. Because there is a God.
@Heidi
“People of faith should WANT to keep religion out of the government. The day could always come when your own religion is no longer the dominant one and you have to worry about the religious indoctrination of your own children by the State. Imagine if a Muslim teacher wanted to lead the schoolchildren in a prayer to Allah or if a Hindu teacher wanted to lead the class in the chanting of mantras. How would you feel about that?”
I am a devout Catholic. There is no doubt in my mind that God speaks the language of every religion. He desires to communicate with His Creation. His Children. The choice between Islam or Hindu versus atheism is a no brainer. If my choice is to learn another way to speak to God or be forbidden from speaking to Him at all, I’d learn the new language.
Human beings are flawed. There is no perfect form of religion. And there is no perfect implementation of doctrine. But any form of recognition of God is infinitely better than the denial of Him.
When people deny the existence of God, they become their own god. And I haven’t met the person yet that I want to worship.
@Paul H
Don’t be ridiculous, Paul. Are you really trying to suggest that Catholicism doesn’t teach disapproval of gays and lesbians? A bit disingenuous, don’t you think? I was a practicing Catholic for the first 25 years of my life. I’m as informed about the church as you are. The pope has called gays “disordered”. Are you saying that’s not disapproval?
Lawrence was certainly about protecting “private” sexual conduct but it only requires a compelling public purpose to uphold laws against fornication or adultery.
Adultery, for example, harms a vital public institution, marriage.
Once a couple enters marriage they have freely and willingly entered a public institution that obligates them to sexual fidelity. They have, in essence, relinquished the right to have private sex with others viewed as simply a private matter.
Since adultery harms the public institution of marriage the state has at least a rational interest to prevent it from proliferating, and possibly even a compelling interest.
Nor has there ever been a fundamental right to adultery, and its unlikely any court would dare say there is such. One court said, for example,
The Massachusetts Bar Association also has an artilce Is Adultery Still a Crime After Lawrence that explains its still a crime in Massachusetts and why Lawrence might not affect adultery laws.
Hi Ken,
If my point of view is indeed ridiculous, then it should be quite easy for you to cite authoritative Catholic teaching that backs up your claim that Catholicism teaches disapproval of gays and lesbians.
Again, I will give you a link to a searchable version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to get you started; just click on my name next to this comment.
Or you can find just about any papal encyclical from the past few centuries (as well as many other papal documents) on http://www.papalencyclicals.net.
Or for that matter, if you can find a direct, verifiable quote from Pope Benedict or Pope John Paul II (actually from the pope, not from some unnamed Vatican official), I would accept that as well.
“My good friend, a caucasian woman, is married to a black man. She is a woman. He is a man. And they are married to each other. The “definition” of marriage has not changed.”
But the law did: depending on where they were married, they couldn’t have done so prior to as recently as 1967. The definition of marriage, or whatever you want to call it, has changed often throughout the history of the practice of marriage. That marriage has been practiced exclusively by straight people until recently doesn’t necessarily define it. Voting is not defined by whether men alone may vote, or both men and women have the right to vote.
I don’t particularly object to redefining words or concepts in any event, as times change. Marriage remains the legal arrangement between two consenting adults not otherwise prohibited from marrying. That long-held definition hasn’t changed.
I think bman and Heidi are both right: the state has some say in who you can have sex with, but once you’re ok’d to have sex with someone, the state has no more say about what you do in private. Obviously, gay people are allowed to have sex, so it is odd the state would choose to arbitrarily deny the right to marry to gay people. I think that’s what Scalia was saying in his “Lawrence” dissent.
@Sean
“the state has some say in who you can have sex with, but once you’re ok’d to have sex with someone, the state has no more say about what you do in private. Obviously, gay people are allowed to have sex, so it is odd the state would choose to arbitrarily deny the right to marry to gay people. ”
What you mean by “have sex with” is “reproduce with” – that’s what sex means. Yes the word can be used broadly to include just about anything lewd, it is very specific in referring to reproductive acts when it comes to marriage and the state’s interests in saying who you can have sex with.
People are obviously allowed to be lewd and behave as they like in their own homes, as long as no one assaults anyone, but it’s not obvious that people are allowed to reproduce with someone of the same sex. As you say, the state will have some say in that. But currently, people are allowed to reproduce with someone of the same sex.
When vice is permitted as a matter of private liberty, that does not mean it should be promoted as equal to public virtue.
A simple analogy might be cigarette smoking. Public policy opposes cigarette smoking but permits it as a matter of personal liberty. Permitting it does not mean the state must also promote it.
The state has been forced by the Lawrence court to “permit” men having sex with men. That does not mean the state must also “promote” it.
Indeed, the Lawrence Court itself recognized the distinction where it said:
Thus, Lawrence requires “permitting” but does not require “promoting.”
Its quite rational for the state to promote and encourage bride-groom marriage while it merely permits men having sex with men because the court requires it.
@Ken
“Don’t be ridiculous, Paul. Are you really trying to suggest that Catholicism doesn’t teach disapproval of gays and lesbians? A bit disingenuous, don’t you think? I was a practicing Catholic for the first 25 years of my life. I’m as informed about the church as you are.”
I didn’t even begin to grasp the beauty and wisdom of my Catholic faith until I was 25. I’ve read your posts Ken. You don’t know much at all about Catholicism.
Christ’s love was selfless. Everything for the sake of the beloved. Pursuit of fulfillment of homosexual desire is self oriented and that is why it is inconsistent with Christ and His Church. Not because any one person or Church authority figure disapproves of homosexual people.
The Church embodies a sinful humanity just as everything in the world does. What evil tempts humanity to do or say whether or not they associate themselves with a religion does not define truth or doctrine.
Catholic doctrine is a doctrine of Love. If you aren’t convinced of that, try reading some of the writings of the Saints. Humility is the begining of Love. It is us recognizing that we don’t know as much as we think we do, and it is the beginng of the journey to truth and wisdom.
Ken, I haven’t given you much time to respond to my challenge, but let me add a couple of more things to expand on my previous comments above.
First, you had written, “The pope has called gays ‘disordered’. Are you saying that’s not disapproval?”
My reply: I don’t know the exact quote you are referring to. It would be great if you could produce the exact quote, since I suspect that your summary of it is not quite accurate. However, I am confident that the pope did not teach that Catholics should disapprove of gay and lesbian people.
Second, here is the full text of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about homosexuality:
In other words, we disapprove of the acts which some homosexually-oriented persons engage in, and hold those acts to be gravely wrong. We do not, or at least certainly should not, disapprove of homosexually-oriented persons themselves. Instead we should treat them with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. This is what the Catholic Church teaches.
If you still contend that the Catholic Church teaches “disapproval of gays and lesbians,” then please present your evidence.
“Pursuit of fulfillment of homosexual desire is self oriented and that is why it is inconsistent with Christ and His Church.”
That is a line of bull. Love of another human being is not self-oriented. My partner and I are together because we love each other, we sacrifice for each other and for our family members, and we are committed to one another for life. What is self-oriented about that? Christ and His Church has plenty of room for God’s LGBT children exactly as God made us. When will you open your heart to see the full extent of God’s love?
@bman
You might find this story interesting, given your post re: adultery.
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/09/26/3169287/lawsuit-alleges-priests-paternity.html
I have my own serious doubts about a determination by the SCOTUS that the desire of the State to prevent and/or punish adultery trumps the individual’s constitutional right to privacy. It may be worth researching. I just don’t believe that preventing marital discord and/or divorce resulting from adultery is a compelling enough reason for the State to inquire into the sexual relationships or behaviors of consenting adults. And what if a couple had an agreement to live in a so-called “open” marriage and then one of the two decided that he or she no longer liked that plan? Could they BOTH sue for breach of contract? The whole issue just seems like something that the State should keep its nose out of. I do not believe that the issue is whether or not there is a fundamental right to adultery. Rather, post-Lawrence, the question is whether ANY private sex between consenting adults (including adultery) can be punished by the State. I don’t believe that the State may intrude into the private bedroom of consenting adults. Period. But hey, I’m just a lawyer, not a Supreme Court Justice.
Nevertheless, the suit discussed in the link above may be one to follow…
@Paul H
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
I think you just proved Paul’s point. This says nothing against homosexuals, just homosexual acts.
Hi Ken,
Thank you for your reply. Indeed this is a relevant quote to this topic. In fact, this is one of the same paragraphs from the Catechism that I quoted above.
But as I noted and as Betsy also noted, this quote states that the Catholic Church does not approve of certain acts that some homosexually-oriented people engage in (e.g., sodomy). I do not think that it says what you claimed, that the Catholic Church “teach(es) disapproval of gays and lesbians” (i.e., of the persons themselves).
Would you agree with me that the Catholic Church disapproves of certain acts that some homosexually-oriented people engage in, rather than disapproving of the people themselves? Or would you still contend that the Catholic Church disapproves of homosexually-oriented people?
@Heidi
“Love of another human being is not self-oriented.”
Agreed.
“My partner and I are together because we love each other, we sacrifice for each other and for our family members, and we are committed to one another for life. What is self-oriented about that?”
Your commitment to one another is rooted in your “sexual orientation”. The idea that you “couldn’t fall in love” with someone of the opposite sex means that you have placed your physical desire ahead of who you choose to love. We are all free to love whomever we want. Love is a choice. I don’t doubt that you love your partner. But your ultimate desire to enter into a committed relationship with her is based in your physical desire. You can love her whether or not you have sex with her.
Nature is ordered by God. The fact that there are inconsistencies in the order doesn’t change the nature or purpose of the order. And it doesn’t entitle us to disregard it individually or as a society. Your decision to place your physical inclination as the ultimate priority in choosing whom you will love has impact on society. Rather than change your decision about how you will act on your “sexual orientation” you would have society disregard the natural order. That is self oriented.
Many children raised in homosexual homes are ridiculed and bullied according to many proponents of “homosexual families”. I am in no way supporting bullying. But if in fact your children are suffering, the simplest way to relieve their suffering would be to change their environment. That would be selfless love. Instead, the homosexual community looks to society to disregard the natural order to resolve the situation, creating only more confusion. That is self oriented.
I already know that God loves all of His children. He doesn’t love me any more than you for sure. He certainly doesn’t love my children more than yours. (They are all His afterall.) But the full extent of God’s love is fulfilled in order He created. You don’t hurt Him when you oppose His order. You hurt yourself. And your children.
“The idea that you “couldn’t fall in love” with someone of the opposite sex means that you have placed your physical desire ahead of who you choose to love. We are all free to love whomever we want. Love is a choice.”
Anne, is there anything I could say or do that would convince you to love and sexually desire another woman?
@Paul H
I think the “love the sinner hate the sin” mantra is disingenuous. Sexual and affectional attraction toward the same gender and, just as importantly the absence of sexual and affectional attraction toward the opposite gender are the innate characteristics that make one gay or lesbian. Disapproval of a person’s innate characteristics is disapproval of the person.
I think it’s extremely dishonest to try and claim that Catholics, and Christians of other denominations, who often quote bible versus which call for death to homosexuals, do not have religious based disapproval of gays and lesbians. And implicit in your posts is this idea that the only way for gays and lesbians to be worthy of approval and acceptance in your book is to either forgo fulfilling romantic and sexual relationships for their entire lives or hide and deny their true sexual orientation and enter into dishonest marriages with a person of the opposite gender. That notion is both unrealistic and offensive and it shouldn’t be forced onto those who chose not to live their lives according to your particular brand of religion. It certainly shouldn’t be enshrined into the laws that we all collectively live under. The ability for gays and lesbians to enter into honest, fulfilling adult relationships, build families, and lead full lives without interference by people who have religious based, yes, disapproval of them is at the core of the equality movement and really all that LGBT people are seeking.
“We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
John Adams
@Roivas
“Anne, is there anything I could say or do that would convince you to love and sexually desire another woman?”
They are two separate questions:
1 – Half of all the people I love are women.
2 – Four of my children have attended high school so far. They all tell me that it has become quite popular for the students to refer to themselves as “bisexual”. So yes, Roivas, I do think people can and do consider alternative sexual behaviors and activities.
Are you familiar with the book “Women are from Venus, Men are from Mars”? Many times in marriages and in relationships, sexual inclination is imbalanced. It shouldn’t be the driving factor in the relationship.
I’m hardly an advocate, but people masturbate. It doesn’t necessarily make them “gender neutral”. My point is that people are sexually stimulated by many things.
Love works too, if you let it. Selfless love. Where you give yourself to your spouse for their sake, seeking nothing in return but that they know that you have loved them. The fruits of such a love are finer than any sexual climax. Selfless marital love by God’s miraculous design will bring you as close as you will ever come to heaven on earth.
“Is there anything I could say or do that would convince you?”
@Ken
“I think the “love the sinner hate the sin” mantra is disingenuous. Sexual and affectional attraction toward the same gender and, just as importantly the absence of sexual and affectional attraction toward the opposite gender are the innate characteristics that make one gay or lesbian. Disapproval of a person’s innate characteristics is disapproval of the person.”
Ken, you totally ignored everything that was said. There is no “disapproval of a person’s innate characteristics”. We all have innate characteristics. Some are inappropriate. Alchoholics are innately drawn to addictive behaviours. They are not loathed as individuals, but they are encouraged to refrain from their alcoholic inclinations because the effects are harmful.
“I think it’s extremely dishonest to try and claim that Catholics, and Christians of other denominations, who often quote bible versus which call for death to homosexuals, do not have religious based disapproval of gays and lesbians.”
Neither Paul nor I have denied that there are Catholics or other Christians who can and do behave with bias. The point is that it is not the formal teaching of the Church. Bias exists in humanity. Not exlusively within religion, and not at all as a component of Catholic doctrine.
“And implicit in your posts is this idea that the only way for gays and lesbians to be worthy of approval and acceptance in your book …..”
There is nothing implicit in the posts here that gays and lesbians are “unworthy of approval and acceptance”. The point being established is that there is a natural order to families that must be honored and recognized by humanity for the sake of the survival of the species and order in society. It can and should not be dismissed for the sake of homosexual practices. You are free to engage in whatever relationship you choose. Society is not bound to validate your behavior. And it is not necessary that your behavior be validated in order for you to be considered worthy and accepted as a person.
I do not approve of all of the choices my children make. But they are ALWAYS worthy and accepted. It’s not a difficult concept Ken.
The concept and insistence that acceptance of homosexuals as persons necessitates validation of their behavior is what is disingenuous and dishonest.
Wow Anne. Your response is so offensive that I don’t even know where to begin. First, with respect to myself, my partner and my children, we are not harmed. We are happy, healthy and filled with God’s love. As for the ridicule and bullying potentially faced by children raised by same-sex couples, the same argument that you make with respect to the suffering of children is the exact same one that was used against interracial couples–what about the poor children? I suggest that it is not myself or my family that needs to change. Instead, it is the ignorant and hate-filled society that needs to change. My adult daughter occasionally dealt with the ignorance of her fellow students, but instead of causing suffering to her, it deepened her conviction that equality is vital to this nation and its citizens. For the most part though, her friends and their parents have been welcoming and supportive of our family. The same has been true with respect to my niece that I am raising as my own. Her caregivers at her preschool are supportive of our family, as are the other childrens’ parents. Where I live, the majority of people support equality for LGBT people.
As for the claim that I followed my sexual desire to be with my partner, that is partially true to the extent that I was indeed attracted to her when we met. Were you sexually attracted to your husband when you met? If so, based on your reasoning, you must have followed your physical desire to marry him. Nevertheless, I will tell you that, above every other thing, I followed my HEART after much prayer and soul-searching. As for the ability to fall in love with the opposite sex, I will remind you that I am bisexual, and therefore I do have the ability to fall in love with a man. In fact, I was very much in love with my daughter’s father until the end of our relationship, and I still love him as the father of my child and as my friend. But that is not the point. I fell in love with a woman and I know with all of my heart and soul that God placed her in my path for that very purpose.
Finally, the natural order includes gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people. Who are you to argue with God about His creation?
@Betsy
It proves no such thing. See my reply to Paul H. below.
Hi Ken,
Thanks very much for your willingness to engage in a polite conversation with me on this topic.
But these are NOT innate characteristics of what makes a person a PERSON — who is made in the image and likeness of God, and who is always deserving of respect, no matter which sex they are attracted to.
Regarding your last sentence, the Catholic Church does not teach that people choose to have same-sex attraction, or that they should be blamed or disapproved of on the basis of that attraction. Again, we are talking about disapproval of acting out sexually on such an attraction, not about disapproving the person who has the attraction.
I am certainly not calling for the death of homosexuals, and I don’t know any Catholics who are. In my experience, most Catholics who I interact with do not have a negative opinion at all of homosexually-oriented people as PEOPLE. And any Catholics who would be exceptions to my experience would clearly be at odds with the teaching of their church.
(I do not claim to speak for Christians of other denominations, since there is so much variation in belief and practice, but I do think you are unfairly stereotyping them with this statement.)
I do agree that people with same-sex attraction are called to celibacy. However, people with same-sex attraction who fail to live up to this teaching are no worse than the many people (myself included) who fail or have failed to live up to other Catholic teachings on sexual morality. In other words, perfectly following Catholic teachings on sexual morality should not be a prerequisite for acceptance of a person as a PERSON.
For example, I have a close relative who is Catholic and who is cohabiting with his girlfriend, which I believe is gravely sinful. However, that doesn’t mean that I treat him as an outcast, or harangue him about his relationship on a regular basis. I don’t think that that is how I, as a Christian, am called to treat people. And he is still just as special and as deserving of respect as a person as he would be if he were not cohabiting with his girlfriend.
What notion do you think should not be forced on “those who chose not to live their lives according to (my) particular brand of religion”? Regardless, I am pretty sure that I agree with you here.
Depending on what you mean by that, I may agree with you. For example, in a society where it is no longer generally accepted that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, I am OK with not having laws against sodomy and other homosexual acts. (Such laws seem to be somewhat pointless anyway, since there is no apparent way to enforce them.)
Well, that’s just not the way I see it from my side of this issue. Instead, it appears to me that the push for so-called same-sex marriage is actually a push for legally-enforced public approval of same-sex relationships, rather than just an elimination of disapproval. In other words, it seems to me that for pro-SSM activists, mere tolerance of same-sex behavior is not enough. Official societal APPROVAL of same-sex behavior seems to be their goal.
(And again, please keep in mind the distinction between approving or disapproving of actions, versus approving or disapproving of people.)
@Paul H
“Well, that’s just not the way I see it from my side of this issue. Instead, it appears to me that the push for so-called same-sex marriage is actually a push for legally-enforced public approval of same-sex relationships, rather than just an elimination of disapproval. In other words, it seems to me that for pro-SSM activists, mere tolerance of same-sex behavior is not enough. Official societal APPROVAL of same-sex behavior seems to be their goal.”
I cannot speak on behalf of all LGBT people, but I can certainly say that as for my partner and me, we could care less whether people approve of us or not. We just want equal protection under the law for ourselves and for our family. We want to exercise our fundamental right to marry. Frankly, I don’t give a you-know-what if people approve of us or not. If I did, I wouldn’t be in this relationship. Other people’s opinions will not dictate my life, my liberty, or my pursuit of happiness. But I expect my government to treat me with equality and justice under the law, regardless of the moral or religious disapproval of others.
Basic grammar knowledge states that when pronouns are used, they refer back to the most recently used noun or noun phrase. In this case, that would be “homosexual acts.” All I’m saying is, that’s what that paragraph you cited says.
@Betsy
It’s fine if your church wants to define “homosexual acts” and any other acts it chooses as sin and wants to set abstaining from them as a condition of being accepted by the church. What’s not fine is thst church and it’s members attempting to take those rules beyond the boundaries of the and force them upon all of society and enshrine them into the U.S. Constitution. Before you try to come back with “but gays want to force their lifestyle on society”, please remember that what it comes to is that equality advocates aren’t trying to force your church to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, they’re not trying to force straight people to marry someone of the same-sex and, most importantly, they’re not trying to change the law to make your marriage illegal.
Unless every single person in the United States agrees on every single issue, and shade of issue, someone’s moral code will always be “forced” on someone else.
We have to choose a moral code.
We will not agree to your new definition of marriage.
@Heidi
“Frankly, I don’t give a you-know-what if people approve of us or not.”
“We want to exercise our fundamental right to marry.”
Why? What does marriage give you that you can’t get with a contract?
“In fact, I was very much in love with my daughter’s father until the end of our relationship”
Heidi, is marriage different than “the relationship you had with your daughter’s father”? How long should marriages last? Until they end? Until you “fall in love” with someone else?
What exactly is marriage?
“Why? What does marriage give you that you can’t get with a contract?”
Oh, I don’t know, Anne–why did YOU want to get married? We want to get married for the same reason that everyone else does–we love each other and want to celebrate that commitment with friends and family and also enjoy all of the 1000+ benefits that accrue to married people. We want to legally cement our union and to participate in this common human experience called marriage.
Two examples of something legal that we don’t have unless we are married is the right to sue for wrongful death if one of us is killed by the negligence of a third party and the right to sue for loss of consortium if one of us is injured by a third party. Another example is social security benefits. But legal rights and responsibilities are not the only benefit of marriage, now are they? Research shows that married people are healthier, both emotionally and physically. The ability to be married would also afford us those intangible emotional benefits that accompany marriage. You should know that a contract is not the same as marriage. Marriage is both a contract and a status. Marriage not only protects the individuals involved and their children, but it also tells the world that you are a family.
“Heidi, is marriage different than ‘the relationship you had with your daughter’s father’? How long should marriages last? Until they end? Until you ‘fall in love’ with someone else?
What exactly is marriage?”
Yes, marriage is different than the relationship that I had with my daughter’s father, although there are certainly qualities of marriage that existed between us. This site is always pointing out how cohabitation is not of the same quality as marriage. You should know that they are not the same. As for a definition of marriage, in my mind, it is when two unrelated consenting adults in love with each other commit both publicly and privately to one another, hopefully for life. Legal marriage in a civil society provides both rights and responsibilities for the couple and for any children that may be born and/or raised within the marriage relationship. I personally believe that marriages should last for life, but I submit that such a decision belongs to the couple, not to anyone else and certainly not to the State. I also know that life doesn’t always turn out the way that one intends. I expected that my daughter’s father and I would eventually marry. It didn’t work out that way, but we both worked together even after our split to raise our child in an emotionally healthy manner. She is now an amazing, intelligent and compassionate young adult who likes to tell people that she has three moms and one dad!
And just in case there is any confusion, I did not leave my daughter’s father for my current partner, nor did he leave me for someone else. Our relationship did not end because either of us fell in love with someone else. It ended because we were 15 and 17 when we were first together and we both grew into very different people by the time we had matured. Instead of growing together, we grew apart. Our split was amicable and done with the utmost respect for one another. And I am extremely proud that we were still able to raise our daughter together in spite of how young we were. I’ve seen far too many people who divorce or break up and who hate the other parent of their child(ren) and don’t understand how doing so harms their child(ren).
@Heidi
“Why? What does marriage give you that you can’t get with a contract?”
A contract can’t make sex legal and affirm society’s approval for reproducing offspring together. Fornication is fornication even if the couple has signed contracts. Contracts are usually thrown out when the state interest in marriage and the best interests of the child are taken into account. For example, surrogacy and sperm donation contracts are often thrown out.
And Heidi, I notice that you left out that central essential core right of marriage, when you listed some of the 1000+ benefits. Is being approved and allowed to reproduce with another woman something you want or not? Do you really need the same right to reproduce offspring that a married man and woman have? Because those other things you need would be much easier to get, with much more security and permanence and ubiquity, if you stopped insisting on the exact same rights of marriage and accepted Civil Unions defined as “marriage minus conception rights.”
@Heidi
“Two examples of something legal that we don’t have unless we are married is the right to sue for wrongful death if one of us is killed by the negligence of a third party and the right to sue for loss of consortium if one of us is injured by a third party.”
You could pursue that right without redefining marriage.
“Another example is social security benefits.”
You mean so that you can use each other’s work history to collect funding from the next generation which you are sterile to produce? (As in give my children’s money to each other?)
“Research shows that married people are healthier, both emotionally and physically.”
Research shows that married heterosexual couplse are healthier. There is no evidence this or reason to suspect this will apply to homosexual “marriage”.
“Marriage not only protects the individuals involved and their children, but it also tells the world that you are a family.”
You said you didn’t give a “you-know-what” about what the world thought.
“Instead of growing together, we grew apart.”
Are you done growing now?
You’re right that marriage has a purpose Heidi. But the purpose includes the presence of both genders. You can’t pick the peices you want and then insist that society validate what you call marriage. You say you don’t care what society thinks. (I don’t think your post supports your claim.) Either way, I do care what society thinks of marriage. I care that my children recognize and cherish the presence of both genders in marriage and family. I want them to know that children are produced when men and women come together and that is where they are supposed to be raised. Sometimes it can’t happen that way. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t. And you don’t have the right to deny me or my children that belief. Teaching in schools that gender is irrelevant is not equality.
@Anne
“You mean so that you can use each other’s work history to collect funding from the next generation which you are sterile to produce? (As in give my children’s money to each other?”
Wow Anne, you’re disdain for gays is really coming through here. I think you’re forgetting, make that intentionally ignoring, the fact that Social Security benefits are based on what one has earned and paid into the system, not how many offspring one has produced and how much each is paying into the system today. Unless you’re willing to state that you support denying Social Security benefits to anyone, single or married, who has not produced a child, then you can take this lame argument and toss it into the trash heap with all of the other discredited attempts to legitimize opposition to marriage equality.
@Ken
*your
@John Howard
You’re wrong, John. Reproduction is not an “essential core right of marriage”. The legal right to reproduce exists with or without a marriage license. You may think that in a social, moral, ethical or religious context that one has no right to reproduce without a marriage license and that’s fine. But legally, which is what we’re talking about here, civil marriage confers no such right. And I doubt that you’re advocating for some sort of legal prohibition on having babies outside of wedlock or a requirement that people produce once married. So your inconsistency proves that this is simply another attempt to rationalize anti-gay bias.
@Anne
Anne, are you married? If so, why? You could’ve just paid several hundred dollars to an attorney to draw up a contract.
@Ruth
This is the same old nonsense. The fact that something you are personally against exists in the country that you share with 300 million other people does not mean that it’s being “forced” on you. The only way same-sex marriage would be forced on you is if you were required to marry someone of the same gender. You can’t say “we disagree so the only compromise to limit your civil rights while leaving mine completely intact”. The fact is that when same-sex marriage is legalized, not one single law that impacts your life or your marriage is changed. When it’s banned, the law directly impacts millions of Americans and their families.
Americans have the right to practice the Muslim faith. Your neighbor may be Muslim. That doesn’t mean Islam is being “forced” on you. The only way it would is if you were prohibited from practicing Christianity and forced to become a Muslim. It’s not different with marriage equality. And stop hiding behind “religious liberty”. You were never promised a 50 mile radius around your body that would be free from anything and everything that may conflict with your personal moral code.
@Paul H
Paul,
I wanted to address a couple of your points that stood out to me. I’m not sure we’d be able to come to an agreement on “disapproval of the person” vs “disapproval of the behavior”. My point is that I believe it is wrong to disapprove of a person’s behavior when that behavior is nothing more than having love and intimacy with another person, just as you are free to have, simply because that person can only find those things with a person of the same gender, again, because of his or her innate characteristics. But this conversation is getting bogged down in semantics and we’re missing my larger point. Although I think you’re splitting hairs, I’ll rephrase it. So here’s the original comment you objected to: “But you want to change the law to limit the rights of people of whom your religion tells you to disapprove.” So would it be accurate to say that you want to change the law to limit the rights of people in relationships of which your religion tells you to disapprove? You say a close relative who is Catholic is cohabiting with his girlfriend, which you believe is gravely sinful. You say you don’t treat him as an outcast, or harangue him about his relationship because as a Christian, that is not how you are called to treat people. First of all, a living arrangement is completely different from sexual orientation. He may be cohabiting with his girlfriend but he’s also free to marry her at any time. But, if I take your comparison at face value, then I have to ask: Are you supporting an amendment to the Constitution to ban cohabitation? I’d be surprised if the answer is yes. In the case of this relative, you seem to be able to make a distinction between your personal, religious-based views of morality and what the Constitution should prohibit him from doing with his life. Many people blur the lines between behavioral choice and natural sexual orientation. You seem to acknowledge that sexual orientation may not be a choice but you also to think that the only respectable choice a gay person can make is to live a life of celibacy. That’s a pretty big demand to place on someone – to live their entire life single, with no sex, no intimacy, no romantic love. Even in the case of your relative, if he was to live by your moral code, he could still date his girlfriend, correct? Even if they lived separately and abstained from sex, they could still have the love and romance part. And once they married, they could have it all. The point is, that I’m not saying you have to change your moral code or that the Catholic Church needs to change theirs. Now, I think it would be great if they would change their views because I believe their doctrine on homosexuality has done much harm, but I’m not suggesting that they should be required to by law. In fact, I would oppose any effort to do so (not that anyone would actually propose such a law). What I am saying is that your personal moral code should not be enshrined into law at the expense of the liberty of others who don’t subscribe to it. Just as the Catholic Church remains free to oppose meat on Fridays, divorce, remarriage, sex before marriage, cohabitation, contraception and marrying outside the faith without those things being banned in the U.S. Constitution, they don’t need to re-criminalize homosexual acts or amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage in order to retain the freedom to oppose those things. I know that you agree with me on the first point because you wrote “I am OK with not having laws against sodomy and other homosexual acts”. But you’re still stuck on marriage. You see the push for same-sex marriage as a push for “legally-enforced public approval of same-sex relationships, rather than just an elimination of disapproval”. Here’s where I think you’re just way off base. It’s actually neither. It is not approval nor the elimination of disapproval that is at the core of the equality movement. Like I wrote, the goal is to have the ability to to enter into honest, fulfilling adult relationships, build families, and secure them with legal protections. I don’t recall whether you said you were married so I’m going to assume that you are. Think about when you decided to marry your wife, all of the things that led to that decision and what it meant when you tied the knot. Where did “legally-enforced public approval of my relationship” fall on your list? My guess is that it wasn’t even on it. Why is it that people just can’t accept the fact that gays and lesbians aren’t all that different from straight people. They want the same things out of life and their relationships. There’s this bizarre idea that gays are these militant anarchists hell bent on the destruction of society and for them getting married is nothing more than a display of political activism. That’s just prejudice pure and simple – to think that gays and lesbians don’t just want to live out their lives in stable relationships with the person they love, just like straight people. Legally enforced approval implies that marriage equality would require that churches perform ceremonies for same-sex couples and change their official stance on gay relationships. We both know that’s not the case – seven years of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts is evidence of that. And face it, gays and lesbians don’t need marriage to gain societal approval of “same-sex behavior”. Like heterosexuality, most same-sex behavior happens outside of marriage, regardless of the status of it’s public approval. And since anti-sodomy laws were struck down as unconstitutional, gays don’t need marriage in order to engage in sexual relationships. What it comes down to, Paul, is that your relative’s freedom to live with his girlfriend doesn’t force those who oppose cohabitation or pre-marital sex to “approve” of of their relationship. The same can be said for same-sex marriage. And just like divorced straight people who are free to legally marry, gays and lesbians who aren’t seeking approval of their behavior by the Catholic Church should be able to marry the person of their choice just like their heterosexual counterparts.
Ugh! Paragraphs, Ken, paragraphs!
Wrong Ken, reproduction is and always has been the core right of marriage and must remain so. The key point is that all marriages must continue to protect and approve of the couple conceiving offspring together using their own genes. Of course there is no requirement that they reproduce once married, they just must be allowed to reproduce once married, ie, not legally prohibited from conceiving. Couples that are legally prohibited from conceiving children are not now and should never be allowed to marry, such as siblings, mothers and sons, etc. We should prohibit people from conceiving with someone of the same sex, too.
I do in fact advocate for a legal prohibition on intentionally conceiving children outside of marriage, I think that people who facilitate intentional unmarried conception should be fined and jailed, and sperm banks shut down and donor conception ended. I also think fornication laws are good too, if only to officially disapprove of unmarried sex and conception. It doesn’t have to be enforced by the police, but just being on the books gives people a reason to say “no” and to not expect a right to have sex without marriage.
There is no right to have sex outside of marriage. Marriage is (in the words of Justice Kennedy in Lawrence) “about the right to have sexual intercourse.” It can’t be about the right to have sex if there already is a right to have sex.
@John Howard
Wow, your views ate quite extreme. But I still think you’re confusing what rights exist with what rights you BELIEVE SHOULD exist. There is a right to have sex and conceive outside of marriage. Cite chapter and verse of the law if you insist on claiming otherwise. Lawrence v Texas upheld the right of adults to engage in private consensual activity and they didn’t qualify that with “married adults”.
@John Howard
See Lawrence v Texas. You might want to reconsider your position. Since it’s fact that SCOTUS affirmed the right of two adults of the same-sex and you’re saying that there’s no right to sex outside of marriage, the logical conclusion, using your reasoning, tells us SCOTUS’ decision requires same-sex marriage. Right? Just using your logic here.
@Ken
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
This fact exists in the U.S. as part of our moral code, and you feel that it is being forced on you.
Inevitably, except in heaven, some group of people, however small, is always going to feel that a moral code is being forced upon them.
@Ken
We will not agree to your new definition of marriage.
@Ken
You do know how Social Security works, right? And you understand that if we all chose sterile, homosexual relationships that we would be the last generation on earth?
Childless by circumstance is not the same as sterile by choice.
If you are indifferent to the effects to society of the sterilization of marriage, then stop looking to the next generation which you have chosen to dispense with for your “social security” (in all its various forms).
Heterosexual marriage has benefit to “society” that “homosexual marriage” doesn’t.
….and that’s why it’s more than a contract.
@Anne
Keep telling yourself that. You’re entitled to have what ever superstitions you want and believe whatever you chose about whomever you want. You are not entitled to enshrine those superstitions into law and force them on the rest of society. Period. End of story.
@Anne
Oh Anne, I understand how social security works. Clearly you don’t or you wouldn’t be trying to suggest that it should be tied to a person’s breeding. I’m not going to debate you on your foolish twists of logic – it’s clear they’re rooted in desperation to validate your prejudice.
@Ruth
And I won’t agree to yours. May the most just cause win.
@Ruth
Heaven? Let’s stick to facts and things that actually exist, okay?
@Anne
Anne, you assume I don’t have children. Not that it’s relevant to Social Security – something that I’ve paid into my entire career – but don’t forget that many gays and lesbians are in fact raising the next generation. I know that burns you up but you’re going to have learn to live with it because their numbers are increasing every day
@Ken
Amen
@Ken
Your references to your’s and Heidi’s contributions to Social Security and the fact that you’re “raising children” as opposed to producing them would suggest that you might not actually understand how Social Security works.
It’s not a savings account. It’s funded by the working generation. Between abortion and sterile homosexual relationships, the potential funding generation is shrinking. Kids who have “three moms and one dad” really have a heavy load to be absorbed by their fellow fund contributors.
As for the the idea that gays raising children “burns me up”, I hate to disappoint you and your smiley face, but my reaction is not anger. Unlike most of the “gay marriage” proponents and homosexuals who I see posting here and petitioning for their cause, I and most people of faith are not anxious or angry. If you read the posts from the supporters of DOMA and the natural family, you will find that many, if not most of the comments reveal much more a peaceful resolve than an emotional outrage.
I do experience a deep sense of sorrow in response to the confusion that abounds and envolopes especially the children. But there is an incredible sense of peace that consoles you when you place yourself in communion with the Creator. You just know that this belongs to Him. And that you are safe in His Truth and Love. And that He will ultimately restore order to His Creation.
Peace Ken.
Hi Ken,
Let me see if I can address some of your points without letting this get too long.
But actions have consequences, and something does not become right simply because the alternative is difficult.
Let’s suppose that a man’s wife is very ill, and therefore he cannot have marital intimacy with her. Does that make it OK for him to find that intimacy with another woman? Of course not. Or what about a woman whose husband is deployed overseas in the military for a long period of time? Is it OK for her to find “love and intimacy” with another man until her husband returns? Of course not.
My point is that even for a person with a heterosexual orientation, there can be situations where that person desires sexual or emotional/romantic intimacy, and where there simply is not ANY morally correct way for him or her to achieve that intimacy.
Nevertheless, if a heterosexually-oriented person is put in such a situation and makes a morally wrong choice, it does not mean that I fundamentally disapprove of him or her as a person (though I certainly would disapprove of their actions). And my view is no different for people with a homosexual orientation.
Well, my original point in my first reply to you, and the point that I am really interested in here, is to emphasize that just because Catholics and other pro-family activists disapprove of homosexual activity, it does not mean that we disapprove of homosexual persons. I think we have mostly stayed on that point. And I think it is a VERY important point, because many people on your side of the argument believe that anyone who opposes same-sex “marriage” must harbor hateful or negative feelings toward homosexually-oriented persons, when that is completely untrue. And obviously such a false belief makes it very difficult to find any ground for friendly, respectful discussion of this issue.
However, I am also happy to read your larger point, and to try to respond to at least part of it. But let me save that for a separate comment.
No. I think it would be more accurate to say that I oppose changes in the law to grant privileged status to homosexual relationships as if they were marriages.
Now, in states where such changes in the law have already been made, I would support changes in the law to limit the negative impact on society of these changes, and I would advocate rolling back the changes altogether if possible, but with some provision for those couples who may have come to rely on the benefits of the current law.
I agree. But I was not comparing a living arrangement to a sexual orientation. I was comparing the choice of a heterosexually-oriented man to live with his girlfriend (and all that that implies), with the choice of a homosexually-oriented man to be sexually active with another man.
You are comparing apples and oranges here. Let me put it this way: I would not seek to make cohabitation illegal. However, I would oppose any law that treats non-married, cohabiting, heterosexual couples as if they are completely equivalent to married couples. That would be a good analogy to my stance on same-sex “marriage” laws.
In other words there is a lot of middle ground between these two extremes:
(1) the government banning something (e.g., we will throw unmarried cohabiting couples in jail)
(2) the government promoting something (e.g., we will give special privileges and societal recognition to unmarried cohabiting couples).
Just because I oppose the second approach above, it does not necessarily mean that I support the first approach. Does that make sense?
Indeed. You seem determined to blur that line yourself, despite my efforts to un-blur it.
But Catholic moral teaching in the area of sexuality is difficult for most people, regardless of their sexual orientation, especially in our modern sex-saturated culture (where pornography is often just a few mouse-clicks away, and where we are bombarded in the media with messages and images about sex).
For example, I got married at the age of 29. That means that for something like 15 years, from the time I hit puberty to my wedding night, I knew that I should avoid any sexual activity, and that to do otherwise would be morally wrong. I’m sorry to say that I did not follow this teaching perfectly, but I did give at least some effort to follow it, and so I am VERY well aware that it is a difficult teaching. But we don’t get a free pass to do what is wrong, just because it is difficult to do what is right.
Yes, and a homosexual couple could do this as well, and it would not necessarily be morally wrong. (Though they might be setting themselves up for constant temptation.)
This is getting long, so to be continued….
That sounds great, but it doesn’t really work. For example, someone who thinks it is fine to steal from musical artists by illegally downloading copyrighted music might say, “I know you think that what I am doing is wrong, but you can’t impose your personal moral code on me and enshrine it into law at the expense of my liberty.”
Or what about someone who doesn’t want to follow environmental regulations? He could say that protection of the environment is a moral issue (which in a sense it is), and that environmental regulations are someone else’s moral code being imposed on him, thus restricting his rights.
Basically, anyone who doesn’t like the current law on just about any issue could argue that their liberty is being restricted by the moral code of the people who made the law.
Then please advocate for those legal protections rather than advocating for the redefinition of marriage, because government recognition of marriage is about privileging, regulating, and promoting certain relationships because they are recognized to be beneficial to society.
I agree, and that is why we would have gotten married anyway, even if the government did not have a policy of licensing, regulating, and promoting marriage. And our marriage would not be any less real if we did not have a marriage license from our state government.
No, to me it implies a LOT of other things, such as requiring public school teachers to teach that same-sex “marriages” have the same moral and societal value as (opposite-sex) marriages. Basically any place in which marriage and public policy coincide, approval of same-sex “marriage” would be required or at least expected.
@Anne
Anne, you’re still not getting SS. I know it’s not a savings account but it’s certainly not based on how many new workers have one’s DNA. Benefits are based on how much one made and therefore how much one has paid into the system – clearly you want to ignore that fact because it doesn’t fit your ludicrous gays-don’t-deserve-social-security argument.
“the potential funding generation is shrinking”
That’s laughable. Clearly you haven’t been paying attention. The population continues to increase at unsustainable rates. The U.S. has roughly 50% more people than it had in 1980. Social Security’s future is questionable but it’s not due to lack of population growth and certainly not because of gay people and abortions. There is much written about the future of SS, the roots of its problems and how it might be fixed. I can guarantee you that if you do an exhaustive search of the writings of the most highly regarded experts on the subject, you will not find one word that supports your assertion that eradicating homosexuality or abortion is the answer. Anne, it’s clear from your religious references that your anti-gay sentiments are rooted in religion. Just admit that rather than searching for rational and secular justification. As evidenced here, you’re not going to find it. You’re clearly also one of those people who insists that the only way someone can be as “good” as you is to follow your chosen religion. It’s both arrogant and incorrect. Most people, myself included, appreciate it when folks keep their religious beliefs in their proper place – private. You should also know that there are many paths to peace – many of them are rooted in reality.
And one more thing – you should direct your “sorrow” to the children of unfit heterosexual parents. For several reasons, kids with straight parents are far more likely to be facing adversity than kids with gay parents. Maybe you could pray for them or something.
@Ken
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa051801a.htm
“U.S. Median Age Highest Ever”
I Googled “Average US age of population over time” and this was the second item to come up.
Everything else seemed to say pretty much the same thing: People are living longer and the immigrant population is increasing.
The birth rate is actually increasing, but obviously, not from the homosexual community, which affirms my contention that the burden of support for the deliberately sterile homosexual community lies on the backs of the children of the heterosexual (child producing) community.
Working and paying in is only part of the equation for how the system is designed to work.
“You’re clearly also one of those people who insists that the only way someone can be as “good” as you is to follow your chosen religion.”
I never claimed to be “good”.
“you should direct your “sorrow” to the children of unfit heterosexual parents.Maybe you could pray for them or something.”
Of course I do.
When you make the assumptions that you do about how people of faith feel and think and live, you wind up arguing with your own thoughts and not discussing what is real.
I constantly see it suggested here that people opposed to “gay marriage” and the homosexual lifestyle “get to know” some gay people on a more personal level. Perhaps you should endeavor to understand people of faith better than you appear to.
@Anne
I know many people of faith, Anne, including my own Catholic parents who are approaching their 50th wedding anniversary. They take their faith seriously yet aren’t judgmental homophobes. Imagine that.
@Ken
In other words Ken, your parents don’t judge you the way you have judged me?
My position on homosexuality is not one of condemnation as you consistenly accuse me. I honestly believe that gender has essential importance to society. I do not believe that the homosexual lifestyle which dilutes the essence of gender, can bring people and families to fulfillment. Because I firmly believe this, I do not want children to be led to what I believe is confusion. I have considered this concept and prayed fervrentlly about it, and still this is what I believe. You don’t agree with me and that’s fine. It doesn’t make me judgemental. It means we disagree.
The problem is that our beliefs oppose each other and that as a society we need to come to an agreement about what will be adopted as the social norm. The fact that I am opposed to a society which embraces gender neutrality doesn’t make me a bad person. It doesn’t make me a judgemental homophobe. It makes me someone who believes we should adopt a different social norm than the one you think we should. You don’t have to agree with me. But what you accuse me of isn’t true.
I don’t not like gay people. I do believe that most gay people truly love their partners and the children they are raising just like heterosexual people do. I don’t believe heterosexual people are better than homosexual people. I don’t believe religious people necessarily behave better than non-religious people. I do believe in God. And I do believe that people who acknowledge and consider and pray to God have the best opportunity to truly grow in wisdom and love. I do not believe every person who claims to know God or practice religion actually prays and humbles themselves to know God. I believe we are all weak and that even the most prayerful of people often submit to temptation and sin.
Many of the things you have accused me of have nothing to do with who I am or what I believe. I have no reason to lie about what I believe. But if you choose not to believe what I have said, then we are not actually having a discussion, you are arguing with who you think I am and our exchange is meaningless.