AmericanPapist Comments
Unbelievable. Once again activist judge legislate from the bench. Now do we see why electing McCain is a must? We can't allow this abomination to undo the Supreme Court!
hmmm the basis for which the jurist made the decision is sound, it's based solely on the authority of the state of California Constitution and within the concept of Judicial Reiview. Remember this is the state that determined that it was unconsitutional to disallow different raced people to marry, and this is part of the reason they ruled in this manor. See here. As such I think it offensive to say the courts ruling is a judicial fiat inspite of the electorate of California, it is a mere clarification of the law and the courts acting within their prescribed authority to rule against any legislation that is against their state's constitution.
A hop, skip, and ring from legalizing polygamist marriage...
Is this really judicial activism? I refer you to Andrew Sullivan's blog. He notes that the legislators have attempted to legalize Gay Marriage, that the Governor is in favour of this Ruling, that all three branches of Government are speaking in one accord on this matter. But that's just pooh poohing in the face anti-marriage equality folks. The more substantive issue is the fact that California had set up a separate but equal system in the statutes. They allowed a Domestic Partner sytem that had all the same benefits of marriage just didn't name it so, and that this is the basis for this judicial opinion. To Quote Mr. Sullivan:
"It has argued that if the state has conceded that domestic partners should have, under state law, all the benefits and responsibilities of married couples, the designation of a separate and distinct category must be suspect, under strict scrutiny, to the inference that the designation is based on a desire to deny gay couples equal dignity and recognition. This is the same point I've made in the past; isn't constructing a separate and distinct category an example of pure animus? You have conceded the substance, but cannot concede the name. Since no heterosexual couple's rights would be affected in any way, what exactly is the rationale for maintaining the distinction? Except bias?"
Is this really judicial activism? I refer you to Andrew Sullivan's blog.
You pretty much lost me at the second sentence.
The term judicial activism is a poor one. The simple question is did the Supreme Court of California overstep its judicial boundries by finding a right in the California Constitution where none existed? Not being as familiar with the CA Constitution as I am with the federal one, I am not entirely sure. Based on my (admittedly) select readings of the opinion, it seems that they have.
If the citizens of California (or of any other state) didn't learn to beat the same-sex "marriage" lobby to the punch after the Massachusetts fiasco, then you can kiss away any chance at reversing this judicial decision.
The other side is playing dirty. Here in Massachusetts they thwarted a massive plea for reconsideration which was signed by unprecedented thousands...how? The State House simply ignored it. By the time we made our voices heard, lawmakers had gotten used to the new reality, and they couldn't care less what we voters thought.
And we, the "moral majority", just shut up about it.
Watch how similarly things go down in California!
I think that the government should get out of the marriage business entirely. Let the churches decide who gets married within their walls and let civil marriages be reduced to domestic partnerships. The way it is now, people want the state to bless their marriages, and the church to honor their divorces. It's a mess and the line needs to be drawn.
This is just so unbelievably stupid, as stupid as homosexual relations in the first place. Giving homosexual unions state sanction does infringe on the rights of heterosexual couples by equating heterosexual, natural relations with homosexual, unnatural relations, because homosexual relations are a perversion of sexuality, while heterosexual relations open to the procreation of children are a fulfillment of sexuality.
In other words the decision equates sexual fulfillment in the context of a vow before God to remain faithful together for life and to be receptive to children with sexual suicide and a childish, perverse pretence. The decision is therefore in effect a debasement of marriage, just as calling homosexual relations sex is a debasement of sex. Homosexual "sex" cannot possibly be anything like sexual relations between a man and a woman as given and intended by God. There is simply no equality between the two acts, nor the between two kinds of relationships in which they take place, unless the alimentary canal of a man is the same as the uterus of a woman.
Not only is it sexual suicide for the individuals who give themselves over to perverse sexual relations, it is sexual suicide for a society, because homosexual relationships are sterile. There are no progeny, no citizens, no taxpayers, no soldiers, no farmers, no workers- no future. It is not, therefore, merely "bias" to say that the two should not be made legally and artificially equal. It is simply truth and justice. They are as different as black and white, Heaven and Hell.
The children and the young people of any society have the right not to be confused by the state creating an equivalence between the two radically opposed types of relationship. The court has just inflicted a monstrous injustice upon them and all the young people of the entire country, for that matter.
It is a very large step toward the homosexualization of the entire culture, for one cannot accept queer as normal without becoming queer by that very fact. In short, it is a cultural, legal, social disaster recounding to the eternal shame of the judges who issued this miserable decision.
To quote the Beatles, "It won't be long, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah..."
This is not judicial activism. All they are doing is strictly interpreting the California constitution as it now stands--there is nothing about marriage per se except that all have a right to it.
why are we so concerned with boiling down the nature of human relationships, specifically the relationships between the sexes as totally about the act of sex itself? How can one argue that heterosexual marriages are solely for the pro creative act when couples get married despite being infertile and enjoy each other in a sexual way with full knowledge that there actions aren't open to the pro creative act - is this therefore unnatural? Are they sinful? -- No, there not.
Marriage from the point of the sate, and not religion, therefore is about more than just making babies and propagating the species. If it's not just about this, then what is it about? Is it not also about propagating the culture as well?
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const...onst/
.article_1
What Jake said. I don't see any prohibition in this portion of the constitution regarding rights that would make this a case of judicial activism.
I also don't see this being the end of civilization.
First, a lighter note.
Then, the more serious considerations (see the comments box).
Americans are realizing that there's nothing to fear from Gay marriage. It doesn't suppress the birth rate, it doesn't bring the traditional institution of marriage to ruins, it means more money in the governments tax coffers, it means more kids being brought up in stable households and off the streets or out of the broken adoption system. Marriage may be a system that is older than government, but its also a system that has changed and developed - just like every other human institution. The marriage of today is certainly not the marriage of 250+ years ago when women and children were nothing more than property. Heck even only with the advent of the 13th and 14th amendment of the constitution did we not consider half the population of this country, male and female, young and old, parent and child as property and didn't relate any sort of union between those slaves as even equitable with their own marriages.
People talk about this being an open door to such things as Polygamy... Historically Mankind has already done that, it served it's purpose for historic man and some fringe groups still practice it, but it has a specific purpose - to try and out populate your opponents or contemporaries to propagate not only your genes but also your individual notion of culture/religion. So to say that this will open that door is well... bogus.
Procreation is not the only end of marriage, but the Church has long taught that it is one of the two main ends of marriage.
If it were not for procreation, would we even have marriage? Would it exist at all as anything we might recognize?
Is marriage a simple contractual relationship between two or more individuals, or is it a social institution? Is it both? If it is a social institution, we must recognize that its premise is that it has social costs and benefits - namely, ensuring the best social environment for the procreation and raising of the next generation of our community.
But California's decision has made the final step toward reducing marriage to a simple contractual relationship. And in a society where the perceived benefits of such a relationship can increasingly be had outside of it, it's likely also one more step toward consigning it to extinction, as is already happening in much of Scandinavia.
Hello Sunny,
After this decision, what legal grounds do you have to deny relief to polygamist claimants? What legal ground is there to limit marriage to just two people? Why not three? Or four?
This is certainly undemocratic and judicial activism! This overrules 61% of the people of California who voted in 2000 to uphold marriage. Unlike mixed race marriages, (a very poor analogy, since homosexuals are not able to marry since they are same sex), homosexuality is a perversion. The marital act is not possible between them and what the homosexuals do is self-destructive, unlike the martial act.
I take it that many of the previous thoughts were from those who are not Catholic or are dissenting from the Church teaching.
The answer is a constitutional amendment to the State and Federal Constitution. Michigan has great pro-family leadership who foresaw this and led the successsful fight for a constitutional amendment. The state now cannot even provide benefits exclusively to homosexuals as a result.
I suppose you who support homosexual pretend marriage think it great that censorship of all school books will take place, so that only books with perverted characters and views of marriage are allowed in the school and in libraries!
With this ruling, like that of Massachusetts, reality is being assaulted. The homosexual activists will stop at nothing to create a fantasy culture and reality which will lead to great oppression and violence against those who insist on upholding reality, i.e.TRUTH.
Honestly people, why do we care so much about what the state decides in the realm of marriage anyway? Are we saying that California has desecrated the Catholic sacrament of marriage, or has it simply reinterpreted the civil, secular, understanding of marriage?
I think we need to see the fact that there is a difference. We have enough issues maintaining good, healthy and holy Catholic marriages that trying to mandate that the general public abide by our standards seems like poor judgement.
I understand that we are called to bring Christ to the world, but I think it would be best done by example versus edict.
There is a greater threat to marriage by combining it with the state than if it were separate. As things are going now, if we continue to push for closer unity between the state and our sacrament, we're asking for a day when those sacraments become property of the state. A day when Catholic marriage, not just civil marriage, becomes a right.
The flip side may also someday come, and has come for many denominations, when Christians see civil marriage as being holy. Infusing the Constitution with Christian doctrine does more to create this ambiguity than anything else.
There must be a separation between the Church and the State, lest we fall victim to its whims. After all, Christ founded the Church, and not the Congress.
I disagree with this opinion. However, it does not directly impact my interests. Nonetheless, it is legitimate law in the State of California.
When I disagree with decisions of the Court (whatever court: municipal, State or Federal), I accept the decision. To disparage the judiciary with name calling (e.g. " judicial fiat") demonstrates a limited understanding both of the Latin language and the Judiciary of the United States.
Civil society is one of laws.
This silly decision does not lead to the death of one single person in the State of California. It is not the business of the Court to legislate morality, now is it? If so, whose morality?
Moral hypocrisy if there ever was one. A piece of paper does not a marriage make.
Sunny South, that was a great parody!
If some serious earthquakes hit Cali in the next few days, Rev. Hagee will be TOTALLY vindicated.
This silly decision does not lead to the death of one single person in the State of California.
That is a rather silly argument. Are we to be only concerned with bad decisions that lead to death?
It is not the business of the Court to legislate morality, now is it
But the California Supreme Court just did.
lol LCB. sarcasm on/ Gawd brought this punishmint on us. / sarcasm off
There is nothing in the California Constitution that even contemplates permitting two men or two women to marry by "right." Indeed, contextual and originalist interpretations of the CA Const. clearly show no right to marry at all.
I haven't read the decision yet. Can anyone tell me if the court invoked strict scrutiny?
They did invoke strict scrutiny and also the established case law of Perez V. Sharp which abolished anti-miscegenation laws as the basis for the "right" of marriage.
The imperial judiciary has spoken: the sheeple must obey! We are your betters. I seem to recall that the American Revolution occured, in part, due to the imperial British judiciary's over-reaching. Tom
The children who will grow up disturbed and confused in such households are to be considered. It has far-reaching ramifications for all of society. Having public and private school children being forced to read books about children with two daddies or mommies is already done in Massachusetts! All the old fairy tales and great books of Western literature will be censored since they do not reflect the fantasy world the homosexuals are trying to impose on humanity.
NT, marriage between a man and a woman is a part of natural law which predates the Church and the sacraments. It is thus a natural institution of humanity, not some religious or social construct. We have a Christian culture and this decision is anathema not only to all of human culture, it is anathema to our American culture. A child has a right to have a mother and a father. Now in California, children will be deprived of such natural relationships before the law. Again, it is a form of child abuse, sanctioned by the government in California, that homosexual guardians are qualitatively equivalent to a mother and a father. 40% of homosexuals are pedophiles. So not all are directly abusive, but the lack of a male and female parent leads to emotional and social maladjustments for the children.
By the way we are to live our faith in all walks of life-the voting booth, the Congress, the legislature,etc., as Pope Benedict told us, not just within the church walls and at home.
LvB,
To me then, then question is what is government. Is not a democratic government based on the will of the people? While I believe in Natural Law, I do not believe that it is the responsibility or place for government to enforce it. If this were a monarchy or oligarchy, where the people placed their trust in others to make decisions for them, then Natural Law would make for a wonderful foundation of rule. But our form of government does not have such a foundation. We have the Constitution, which was written to limit the powers of government. In other words, to keep our form of government from ever becoming a monarchy.
As American Catholics I think we have the unfortunate reality of having a faith that is lead by one man, and a government that is lead by everyone. We must leave each to do what they do best or we end up ruining them both.
Is not a democratic government based on the will of the people?
Ours is not a democratic government, but a republican government based not entirely on the will of the people. The people's representatives certainly are a reflection of the voters who vote them into office, but they are not mere puppets who are called to do the people's bidding without reflection.
If this were a monarchy or oligarchy, where the people placed their trust in others to make decisions for them, then Natural Law would make for a wonderful foundation of rule. But our form of government does not have such a foundation.
See note above, but that is indeed the form of government we do have - one where the people elect leaders who must make informed decisions on their behalf. It is a matter of debate as to whether the elected ought to be mirrors of the people or whether they should be somewhat independent moral agents. I believe the latter is more appropriate, and indeed so did many of the Framers of our Constitution.
We have the Constitution, which was written to limit the powers of government.
Actually, it was written to enhance the effectiveness and functioning of the federal government. It grew out of the ineffective Articles of Confederation. It is true that the Constitution simultaneously circumscribed the powers of the federal government and established various checks on its powers, but it was also meant to increas governmental efficiency.
In other words, to keep our form of government from ever becoming a monarchy.
A gross oversimplification, to say the least.
But this exercise in foundational theoricizing aside, we're not getting to the ultimate question: does the Court have the authority to essentially make up a right, regardless of the popular will? No.
Not unbelievable - predictable (Actually, I'm surprised there were 3 dissenters)
A huge mistake by "our side" in California and elsewhere was to allow for "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships". As was written elsewhere this is like giving the other team 99 yards and relying on your goal-line defense at the one. If these relationships are deserving of the same rights as real marriages, there doesn't seem to be much sense not to go whole hog and allow same-sex pseudo-marriages.
BTW, to you m-r-n- who think this isn't judicial activism. Are you going to sincerely state that California intended for men to "marry" men and women to "marry" women when the Constitution was drafted a century and a half ago?
Donald, this opinion does affect you, even though you don't live in CA. Lawful marriages must be recognized by the other 49 states, so a homosexual "married" couple from CA who moves to your state will still be lawfully married in your home state, and then your legislature will have to deal with this problem in your courts.
The majority decision is judicial activism of the worst kind, as pointed out in the dissents. You can usually tell when a court is trying to carve out a new "right" for which it has no legal basis by the length of the opinion. This one is hundreds of pages long.
As a lawyer in CA, I'm relieved that the forces opposed to this court opinion saw it coming. Over 1.1 million signatures are being submitted to the Secretary of State next week to qualify a state constitutional amendment for the November ballot that will define marriage as between only one man and one woman. Since this passed by over 61% in 2008, and since it only has to pass by one vote to amend the constitution, I think it will pass in November and this absurb piece of judicial activism will be sent to the dustheap of history -- God willing.
Phil, the California judges would probably rule that such a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional because they, from Olympus say so. If that occurs it's time to have the military go to their chambers and frog-march them out for a summary execution. Why not, after all, the military would be enforcing the will of the people. The judges are enforcing the will of the elite, cocktail circuit to which they belong. Tom
It seems to me that the judges have pulled a switcheroo on us. They say that their "task in this proceeding is... only to determine whether the difference in the official names of the relationships [domestic partnership vs. marriage] violates the California Constitution."
Is that really the task of the supreme court? My understanding was that the supreme court is able to overturn laws deemed unconstitutional, but not to rewrite them. As far as I can tell, Division 3 of the California Family Code is very specific in that it refers to a contract between a man, a woman, and their community. The supreme court should be able to declare this portion of the law unconstitutional, but can they really go into the text of it and change the meaning of the words like that?
Any lawyers who might be able to help me better understand this?
Same-sex marriage laws in other countries and states do not demand that churches perform a same sex marriage. If the church disagrees, then they are allowed to bar the wedding from happening within. A gay-friendly church can host a gay wedding, but a Catholic church is not forced to if it doesn't want to.
What's the problem here?
Also, whoever said that anti-miscegenation laws are nothing like anti-gay marriage laws:
A person's race is an accident of their birth. They have no power over their race, so why should they be barred from marrying someone they love based on such an arbitrary quality?
A person's sex is an accident of their birth. They have no power over their sex, so why should they be barred from marrying someone they love based on such an arbitrary quality?
You could argue that homosexuality is somehow against "natural law" [even though there is recorded homosexual activity between animals - have you ever watched the guinea pigs at the pet store?] and that normally, people are attracted to those of the opposite sex. But racists could argue that interracial relations are somehow against "natural law" because people are psychologically more attracted to a face similar to their own - white is not like black!
To argue that "this is the way it's always been, same-sex couples are not allowed in society!" is equal to saying that "this is the way it's always been, interracial couples are not allowed in society!" Traditional discrimination is not a justification.
There is marriage as defined by the State, and marriage as defined by the Church. The State is obliged to be impartial [and by extension, secular] and to follow precedent. Civil marriage should not be bound by arbitrary moral qualms; it is subservient to the Constitution and human rights, not to the Bible. Private individuals and their private worship can define religious marriage however they please, but the State must protect these rights and freedoms.
re: polygamy. Many or even most of the polygamous families in America [does polyamoury with children by multiple partners count?] come from bizarre cultish colonies and come with a bundle of awful inbred defects and often sexual abuse. There's little to no evidence that stable homosexual relationships result in inbreeding or more frequent sexual abuse than in heterosexual relationships.
What do we have to fear from gay 'marriages"? Who does it bother? Hetero marriages break up all the time and so on.
The assault on marriage is demonic at the core just to begin with. The perverse acts of sodomy are as well. Yes, our society is to tolerate it and legislate it and force it even but no civil law can ever make it something that is in accord with the natural law for it is and always will be unnatural.
And in the gay pride parades (pride being the first of the deadly sins) one sees obscenity and nudity and more--natural you say?
There will be no contentment with the law allowing for 'marriage' (which it can NEVER ever be no matter what words by which it is called). To speak against this perversity will be considered hate and will bear a cost. This is not ever going to be a 'live and let live' situation-never.
This is an evil and an abomination. We are almost totally devoid of a supernatural outlook anymore to see this. Who is caring for souls here? The gifts of the Holy Spirit are not being given to the worldly and those who live for lust and sex.
Our society is post-Christian. Tolerance is the word of the day and so toleration of evils are present.
When the nazis came to power, folks looked the other way. It will pass; we must be tolerant. It does not affect me. Well, one could say that the gay agenda will not cause a war--perhaps not but it will cause persecution for if the Catholic Church continues to proclaim the truth, those who adhere to the teachings will be persecuted.
Remember St. Thomas More died to defend the papacy and the dignity of marriage. The dignity of marriage!
Make no mistake--the will of the people will not matter in this issue. The will of a liberal minority will rule. Our children will be indoctrinated in perversion and they are already indoctrinated into sexual practices at an early age. Parents who seek to rescue the minds of their children from indoctrination by homeschooling will find homeschooling to be outlawed.
The 'laws' will not protect families just like it is now failing to protect marriage.
We are falling for the specious arguments and our society -which already kills its own unborn-will continue to slide.
Lord have mercy!
Same-sex "marriage" is an impossibility. Marriage, by definition, can only occur between a man and a woman. Those who pretend otherwise, and insist that the state carry on a charade, are cultural imperialists, trying to force their beliefs and values on others.
How long will it be before the "State" forces us to do same sex marriages? How long will it be before the "State" forces the Church to ordain women? How long will it be before the "State" enforces marshall law? We're already seeing examples of it right now. Our nation will become the Socialist Democratic Republic of America before we know it! Speak out! Make your voice known. No one else can do it for you, you have to do it yourself.
They've turned on the Catholic Church! What happens when they turn on the Jewish people? God forbid such a thing would happen.
"Same-sex "marriage" is an impossibility. Marriage, by definition, can only occur between a man and a woman. Those who pretend otherwise, and insist that the state carry on a charade, are cultural imperialists, trying to force their beliefs and values on others."
How ironic that the same can be said of those opposed to same-sex marriage. Nobody is forcing straight people to marry someone of the same sex. Nobody is forcing churches to perform ceremonies against their will. Where are you getting this idea that the state is a "cultural imperialist" forcing gay marriage on you? If anything, anti-gay marriage referenda try to force gay people to follow your beliefs and values.
I never said that the state is a cultural imperialist; I said that you and others who are trying to force their views on the rest of us are the cultural imperialists.
BimBam, you're mistaken on many points. I'll try and address some of them one by one:
A person's race is an accident of their birth. They have no power over their race, so why should they be barred from marrying someone they love based on such an arbitrary quality?
A person's sex is an accident of their birth. They have no power over their sex, so why should they be barred from marrying someone they love based on such an arbitrary quality?
A person's species is an accident of their birth, so why should they be barred from marrying someone they love based on such an arbitrary quality? Why can't I marry a goat or a pig or a sheep, if my inclinations run in that direction?
The fact that you're using this line of reasoning to defend same-sex marriage shows that you have a poor understanding of what marriage is. Marriage is based firmly on biology. Human beings by our very nature, are oriented towards sexual reproduction and family life. Biology and human nature do not require that both partners be members of the same arbitrary "race", but they must both be members of the same species, and they must be of opposite genders. That is why homosexual unions can not truly be considered marriage any more than can interspecies unions. So-called "interracial" unions can most definitely be considered marriages, and have been in most societies throughout history. American anti-miscegenation laws were an exception, and an unnatural and wicked one.
You could argue that homosexuality is somehow against "natural law" [even though there is recorded homosexual activity between animals - have you ever watched the guinea pigs at the pet store?] and that normally, people are attracted to those of the opposite sex.
Just because animals do it too doesn't make it natural or healthy. Animals can develop cancer just as humans can, but that is not proof that cancer is natural and healthy, whether it occurs in animals or in humans. In both cases, the conditions described are unhealthy and disordered.
But racists could argue that interracial relations are somehow against "natural law" because people are psychologically more attracted to a face similar to their own - white is not like black!
I disagree. Most people are psychologically attracted to those with whom they share values. Raise a white child in a black family, and odds are he or she will probably choose a black partner when he or she grows up. Still, I must argue from natural law: marriage, being based on procreation, can be restricted in the same way. Procreation requires that two partners share a species and be of different genders. It cares not a whit for skin color, and neither should marriage.
To argue that "this is the way it's always been, same-sex couples are not allowed in society!" is equal to saying that "this is the way it's always been, interracial couples are not allowed in society!" Traditional discrimination is not a
To argue that "this is the way it's always been, same-sex couples are not allowed in society!" is equal to saying that "this is the way it's always been, interracial couples are not allowed in society!"
No, it's not equal. Partly because, historically, interethnic marriages have not been forbidden by most societies. Same-sex marriages were not just forbidden by most previous societies- they were more or less unthinkable. It's kind of pointless to have society recognize the beginnings of a family when the two individuals involved cannot possibly conceive children.
There is marriage as defined by the State, and marriage as defined by the Church. The State is obliged to be impartial [and by extension, secular] and to follow precedent.
The State is not required to be impartial; it is required to be partial to the wishes of the public, at least in a democratic society.
Civil marriage should not be bound by arbitrary moral qualms; it is subservient to the Constitution and human rights, not to the Bible.
Ah, but these moral qualms are not arbitrary. They are based on the natural law, and on simple biology. You don't have to be Christian to find the idea of same-sex marriage ridiculous.
Private individuals and their private worship can define religious marriage however they please, but the State must protect these rights and freedoms.
The State must protect the interests of its citizens. This sometimes means being selective about how it contracts with its citizens. Civil marriage is a contract the state makes with a man and a woman, granting certain privileges and imposing certain duties on them. Marriage is not a right; it's a contract, and the state already (for the public good) refuses to enter into it with certain couples: for instance, people who are already married, and siblings. The State can be said to be discharging its duty faithfully when it imposes these restrictions, and I believe this extends to restricting same-sex marriage as well.
re: polygamy. Many or even most of the polygamous families in America [does polyamoury with children by multiple partners count?] come from bizarre cultish colonies and come with a bundle of awful inbred defects and often sexual abuse. There's little to no evidence that stable homosexual relationships result in inbreeding or more frequent sexual abuse than in heterosexual relationships.
Interesting. So you think that if a certain type of relationship is statistically correlated with unhealthy environments, then the State is entitled to deny marriage to someone in that type of relationship?
Here are a few sets of statistics for you:
-Gay partnerships have a higher incidence of disease and infidelity than straight relationships.
-Deaf couples give birth to deaf children at a higher rate than hearing couples.
-Poor couples raise children in less healthy environments than rich couples.
If you are not prepared to deny m
If you are not prepared to deny marriage to gay, Deaf, and poor couples, then why are you willing to deny it to polyamorous groups?
[i]A person's species is an accident of their birth, so why should they be barred from marrying someone they love based on such an arbitrary quality? Why can't I marry a goat or a pig or a sheep, if my inclinations run in that direction?[/i]Animals cannot consent, whereas interracial and same-sex couples can.
Marriage is a social element of human mating. Marriage does not exist in a society-less prehistoric vacuum; it functions as a form of social contract and interpersonal duty. Marriage does stem from biology, from the human tendency to choose life-long mates, but historically humans have had multiple mates and same-sex mates. Same-sex marriage has even existed in past societies. Just because monogamous heterosexual marriage derives from biological drives does not mean it is the only form of life-long mating.
[i]I disagree. Most people are psychologically attracted to those with whom they share values. Raise a white child in a black family, and odds are he or she will probably choose a black partner when he or she grows up.[/i]
Intellectually they may be attracted to similar-thinking people, but we all know that people do not only get turned on by their intellectual equals. Written deep into human psychology and sexuality is an attraction to symmetrical and familiar mates.
The State in this case is not a pure democracy, but a republic. The state is not obliged to follow the will of the majority willy-nilly, that would result in mob rule. The state has an obligation to the people, yes, but it also has a duty to protect the rights of the minority from the power of the majority.
here here bim bam!!
"Same sex marriage has even existed in past societies."
Evidence?
I have a proposition to everyone here who wants to make a constitutional amendment to the definition of marriage. If we are so intent on making state sanctioned marriages in line with natural law and the Christian understanding of good will, then, in order to make such an amendment truly valid in the eyes of the Church, it must therefor prohibit divorce.
If my history serves, divorce was once illegal in the US. If the battle over protecting the 'sanctity of marriage' even in a civil sense is to have any credibility whatsoever, it will need to include this half of the equation in my opinion.
Otherwise I think it would be best if we simply reserve the title of Marriage to the Churches and let the title of Unions be with the States. That way the confusion is over, the debate is over, and free will can prevail. Otherwise I think we are paving the way for a day when our priests will be required by law to sacramentally marry homosexuals because of the ambiguity of the half-Christian half-secular institution.
NT- I think your solution would be a good compromise. It would eliminate most potential complaints. Polygamous groups and pedophiles would still be left out, but I don't think the bulk of the voting public would mind that.
BimBam- Do you seriously think there's some sort of biological component in humans that makes us attracted to others of the same ethnic group? I'd like to see you try and show one shred of evidence to support this idea, as it seems frankly ridiculous to me.
Also, every state, even an absolute monarchy, has an obligation to all of its citizens. Yes, that means that the state is obligated to protect members of minority groups from wrong by the majority. However, the state is also obligated to protect the majority from the minority. The one obligation does not trump the other.
Additionally, the state is obligated to consider the public good when entering into contracts, including the issuance of marriage licenses. I think even you would agree with this, since you seem opposed to the idea of issuing marriage licenses to polygamists, even though I can't think of a single argument in favor of same-sex marriage that does not also apply to multi-partner marriage.
To my mind, same-sex couples are not an appropriate situation for the issuance of a marriage license, for reasons of natural law, which I've explained above.
However, in a democratic society (as America is, more or less) the public good is not decided by one individual; it's decided by the public. In theory, at least, everyone in this country has a say in how this all shakes down. Looking at it realistically, I suspect America will have same-sex marriages within a couple of years. I don't think this is a good thing, but neither is it the worst thing that's happened in the last fifty years.
Marriage is a social element of human mating. Marriage does not exist in a society-less prehistoric vacuum; it functions as a form of social contract and interpersonal duty. Marriage does stem from biology, from the human tendency to choose life-long mates, but historically humans have had multiple mates and same-sex mates. Same-sex marriage has even existed in past societies. Just because monogamous heterosexual marriage derives from biological drives does not mean it is the only form of life-long mating.
Wow, let me see if I understand your logic:
A) Marriage is a social contract based on the human desire to mate for life.
B) This has nothing to do with mating in the sense of conceiving and giving birth to children- instead, it has everything to do with sexual desire.
C) Society is obligated to enter into this contract with any two people who express the desire to have a lifelong sexual relationship together.
Am I understanding you correctly?
Since I don't speak Mandarin or Cantonese, it's easier to link wiki pages on this than to google for Chinese websites [haw, as if].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Hom...uality_in_China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Hom...uality_in_Japan
There's also the classical Greek pederasty [not just pedophilia, but mostly adolescent boys]. Emperor Nero apparently married two men [I learned something today!] There were also "two-spirited" people in traditional North American aboriginal societies [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-spirit]
I don't know a lot about African tradition, but I'm sure that they have something similar to Two-Spirit or the Arabic Xanith. There's your evidence, bill.
"BimBam- Do you seriously think there's some sort of biological component in humans that makes us attracted to others of the same ethnic group? I'd like to see you try and show one shred of evidence to support this idea, as it seems frankly ridiculous to me." I'm not suggesting in-built racism. It's part of familiarity. Odds are that the familiarity mechanism isn't meant to encourage incest, but to discriminate against mating with non-human things [animals, trees, rocks painted like God]. It's not that people are less attracted to other races than their own, but that they are more familiar with and attracted to the people they live near [traditionally their own race].
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
rele...50901074837.htm
re: humans
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
rele...31028060317.htm
this applies to other critters as well.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/
...al_thinking.pdf
A paper on social psychology.
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=ca...clnk&cd=6&
gl=ca
A paper on human sexuality and mating.
The state is of course obligated to protect the majority from the minority, but in this case the only offense the minority commits against the majority is hurting its feelings. Denying the benefits of a state-recognized marriage/union to same-sex couples violates their rights and denies their equality.
I do agree with the general good of the populace, and until a polygamist can make a strong case for polygamy [i.e. a safe, stable, healthy [non-inbred] life for the kids and parents] that demonstrates me wrong, I will continue to think that polygamy is dangerous. The scientific method has to be open-minded; if someone can prove you wrong, you need to retool your theory with this new data in mind. That said, more than 2 parents is not necessarily going to damage the child;
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto...omom-
court.html
Children with step-parents are not always emotionally damaged [they may be if there's a messy divorce during a formative period of their life] and there's little evidence that having more than 2 parent figures in one's life is unhealthy.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto...omom-
court.html
For reasons of biological and psychological drive [natural law] I argue that humans have in the past and will continue in the future to be sexually attracted to same-sex mates and develop healthy, stable social structures.
A) Marriage is a social contract based on the human desire to mate for life.
-Yes; people in societies develop marriage rituals and practices in order to enforce lasting, stable relationships, usually for the conscious, social reason of continuing the family line [if there was no marriage, adultery would be harder to abolish, and getting rid of adultery is the easiest way to ensure your mate bears your children and not someone else's].
B) This has nothing to do with mating in the sense of conceiving and giving birth to children- instead, it has everything to do with sexual desire.
-It has much to do with procreation, but does not solely exist for that purpose. Different cultures have come up with different rituals for same-sex unions and marriages - modern child-less couples can tell you that the social responsibilities and duties of marriage enforce a strong bond and encourage a stable home life. Marriage is a social addendum to attraction and mating.
C) Society is obligated to enter into this contract with any two people who express the desire to have a lifelong sexual relationship together.
-Liberal, democratic, rights-bearing societies are, as they guarantee equal rights and maximum possible freedom to all persons.
All that said, the most important thing to note is that I think it's wrong for the state to force Catholics or any other dissenting churches from performing same-sex marriages. The whole point of my argument is that Christians et al should not be allowed to enforce their morals on homosexual people just because, and homosexual people should not be allowed to enforce their morals on Christians just because.
It's time for Californians to vote out legislators who aren't impeaching those runaway judges on their state's highest court legislating bench. Or for voters to mobilize a petition to recall those errant justices -- no make that "clowns in funny black robes", or for voters to simply turn out those clowns the next time they show up on the ballot for a retention vote just as California's voters turned out Jerry Brown's appointee Rose Bird and her fellow clowns a generation ago.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
