Same-sex marriage by judicial fiat

What currently protects Catholic Churches from the implications of civil decisions that allow divorce and remarriage?

The Catholic Church doesn't recognize those second marriages. The Catholic Church doesn't recognize homosexual marriages.

Has the former caused legal problems for the CC?

Why would the latter cause legal problems for the CC?

The lists of problems detailed in the linked article seem to boil down to, "People who don't approve of homosexuality won't be able to discriminate against homosexual couples."

Well, that doesn't seem to me a compelling reason against same-sex marriage.

One difference between gay marriage and those marriages that are entered into after a divorce is that municipalities and states don't generally have legislation that creates a right to be free of discrimination based on "divorced and remarried" status.

But many do have anti-discrimination statutes based on "sexual identity" in matters related related to employment, public services, housing and other matters. Those statutes will likely apply to more activities in the wake of legalized marriage. And such statutes can be changed from a shield into a sword, to attack those organizations, people, charities that want to continue to say that marriage is between a man and a woman only. Several instances have already occurred here, and more in Canada. So far, they've been over rather localized and rather slight matters -- a printshop that declined to print wedding announcements for a gay couple lost a law suit and had to pay damages, a church-associated hall declined to host a gay wedding party, things like that. In Massachusetts, justices of the peace who declined to participate in gay marriages were required to resign. But in the wake of marriage laws, I would think such instances are likely to become more prevalent.

(I just re-read my post, and realized it was unclear if you had not read Stern and other columns about this)

No one thinks, for instance, that the Catholic Church or any other church will have to marry gay people if they don't want to (no one forces the Catholic Church to marry divorced people, even though they have the right to marry). The argument by Stern (and others, including Maggie Gallagher and I think Rod at other times) is that churches and religious people will have to follow anti-discrimination laws in their daily secular business, and cannot claim an exemption from them based on religious belief.

But, as I said above, how do we decide which laws we set aside for religious belief and which we don't? I think there is no prinicipled answer that would be faithful to the Constitution. Whatever the scope of the right to free exercise of religion, it (if we're going to be consistent with the way we treat constitutional rights) is pretty damn near absolute within that scope. Therefore, the only way to avoid ridiculous results (like crazy cult members being allowed to commit murder because their guru tells them to, and that's their religion) is to intelligently define the scope of "free exercise" to only cover actual religious exercises.

Stern cited the example of (among others) a doctor who refused to perform artificial insemination on a lesbian couple for religious reasons. While many people might see the case as trivial, IF we are to have laws saying that businesspeople must serve everyone equally, why should she get a pass on that law.

(you could make an argument that anti-discrimination laws have gone too far, but that has nothing to do with gay marriage or free exercise of religion, which is why these arguments jsut strike me as wrong-headed on the part of Stern, whom I've met and truly admire, and others.)

The problem arose when the state usurped the right to define what a marriage is, which has historically been the church's responsibility. If the state would get out of the marriage business (and what business does it have being in it?) these problems would go away. For those who think this is strictly a matter of civil rights, it is ironic that the first marriage licenses, in the US anyway, were created to enforce miscegenation laws in the south. Return marriage to the church, and if the state needs some way to recognize couples let them issue "civil" certificates to anybody who wants them.

VR,

Are Catholic landlords permitted to refuse an apartment to a heterosexual couple because they are divorced and remarried? I think that this is the kind of thing that gay civil rights legislation has in mind. Can a Catholic refuse artificial insemination to a lesbian for religious reasons? Well, what is a Catholic doctor doing giving anyone artificial insemination! I say that no, a Catholic doctor cannot do that because the Catholic doctor is already doing something against the Catholic faith. If this Catholic doctor were a true Catholic, he wouldn't do artificial inseminations and so there would be no problem.

But I do think the government ought to outlaw discrimination against homosexuals in the public sphere (refusing them service in restaurants, refusing to hire them for secular occupations, etc. and believe me these things do happen.

Joe--

IF private landlords are covered by the applicable non-discrimination statutes, and IF the statutes cover "marital status" (both of those IF's are not always true, and indeed usually aren't for small non-commercial landlords) then the Catholic landlord could not refuse the couple on those grounds. That's my understanding anyway (as a lawyer who does NOT practice in this area of law).

VR,
I think your interpretation is correct.

(responding to Sally at 6:28 pm)

the problem with the old standard is that it was indeterminate--what is a "compelling" state interest?

I guarantee you, any state that passess anti-discrimination laws views them as a compelling state interest.

Also, it forced judges to decide whether or not a law actually impacted religious practice. Do you want black-robed appointed bureaucrats with a toy hammer that they like to bang--do you want them looking at what your religion does and deciding whether or not it is "central" to religious practice?

Scalia hates indeterminacy, which (I suspect) is why he wrote Smith the way he did. In this case, he has a point.

Fortunately we will see if the voting public feels strongly about gay marriage this fall, when the voters of California have the opportunity to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage and overturning a state Supreme Court decision there. Polling is showing that the amendment looks to fail, by a significant if not substantial margin. Perhaps then those folks who cry about "passing laws by judicial fiat" will abandon that argument.

Of course I would love to hear them argue the same way against Brown v. Board of Education or Virginia v. Loving.

Rod, you care to take up the "judicial fiat" argument against either of those legislative decisions?

The U.S. is not, and has not been for some time, a constitutional republic. We are, in fact, a judicial oligarchy, ruled by an unelected elite of judges and lawyers.

It is true that segregation and anti interracial marriage laws were wrong. But it was a violation of the constitution for the courts to make them illegal, and no less than the greatest constitutional lawyer and law professor of the 20th century, Alexander Bickel of Yale, said so.

Once the courts arrogate to themselves the power that the constitution gives to the states and the people, democracy is over, even if they are doing what is right as in Brown or Loving. Because they were "right" on those issues, soon they felt they could decide what was right about abortion law, and now marriage law, but in those cases they are truly and deeply wrong by the same moral law that made segregation wrong.

In a democracy, people contend these issues in public and decide them democratically through argument, discussion, and then election and the making of laws by those they elect. If they lose, they know they can build coalitions and run candidates and try to win the next time in a couple of years. The law represents the peoples will and can change to reflect it.

In an oligarchy, like the U.S. today, decisions by the coterie of judges cannot be changed by democratic action, or only very cumbersome and unlikely action. They are enforced on the people without their consent, and the people understandably feel and know that "law" that is decided this way is illegitimate and non-constitutional. If segregation would have ended by democratic means, as it would have eventually and gradually--you know this is true if you have faith in democracy, faith in popular sovereignty and the people--much of the racial bitterness of the last generations could have been avoided. Because it ended by judicial fiat and not the will of the people, by judicial sovereignty and not popular sovereignty, segregation continued in a de facto if not de jure way, and continues today in that way, with the added poison of reverse discrimination based on race injected into the law by judges.

The U.S. is not a free country or a democratic one in any real sense. It is still better than many countries in that the area of personal freedom is fairly large. But there is less and less civic or public freedom. Certainly, if religious freedom is understood to be only for religious exercises, and can not influence the public role of religious people, then religious freedom, the first freedom, is dead.

At some point there will have to be another revolution, such as Thomas Jefferson called for, for the people to reassert their rights over their unelected rulers.

"Also, when the Supreme Court ruled in Reynolds v. United States that polygamy was not protected by the Constitution, were the rights of the mormons (a true religious minorities) "trampled"?...Anybody wanna bring that back and have lots of Colorado City Arizonas sprouting up all over the West?"

By the wording of the CT Court ruling today, there is absolutely no reason for a family of polygamists not to move to CT and immediately sue for marriage rights. If equal protection is the only ruling principle, then it is every bit as unequal to deny marriage rights to those whose view of marriage is that it should include multiple people as it (supposedly) was to deny it to two men or two women.

In fact, the ideal test cases in CA, CT, or MA would involve a same-sex or bisexual threesome who all want to be considered "married" to each other. It is every bit as arbitrary to restrict marriage to two people as it is to restrict it to one man and one woman; in fact, there's a stronger historical precedent in favor of polygamous marriages than of same-sex marriage, since the latter concept was invented the day before yesterday, historically speaking.

I'm sure the wedding and greeting card industries are thrilled; in such a shaky economy they now have this huge new business opportunity among a group that has high levels of discretionary income, with the prospect of selling gigantic weddings and boxed-set anniversary cards to the polygamists just down the road.

for the record I do not have a problem with the legalization of polygamy. Nor do I oppose the legalization of prostitution. I think the government should stay out of people's bedrooms and I if three people (or seven people) want to get together and have their own private sexual community with parental and property rights and obligations, then I see no reason to deny them that. In fact, one could argue that a bisexual person ought to have the right to marry one person of each sex in order to fulfill his orientation.

"Return marriage to the church, and if the state needs some way to recognize couples let them issue "civil" certificates to anybody who wants them."

Sounds good to me. Those who want the legal benefits of marriage can get their certificate at the courthouse and go on about their lives. Those who want the blessing of their religious organization can go there and get it.

Separation of church and state, just as the founders envisioned it. A perfect solution!

If segregation would have ended by democratic means, as it would have eventually and gradually--you know this is true if you have faith in democracy, faith in popular sovereignty and the people--much of the racial bitterness of the last generations could have been avoided.

Long ago. lancelot, when I was young and very foolish and inexperienced, I argued in just this manner, impelled by an abstract conception of society that had little to do with the daily reality of life under segregation. All I can plead as an excuse is that I'd been raised in a conservative hothouse and didn't know better.

How long do you think would have been a reasonable period to wait for segregation to wither away? One hundred years post-slavery, and a world war in which black citizens served with honor, had not done it. Seriously--if you were black, what would you consider a reasonable period of time to wait while white society made up its mind to admit that you were fully human? How many generations would you humble yourself to raise in subjection, as a sacrifice to the smoother running of white society? One hundred years wasn't enough. Would you have waited two hundred? Three? Give me a ballpark figure.

Perhaps if more white Christians had taken this problem seriously, insisted that it must be fixed before drastic legal measures were necessary, then you could have had justice AND states' rights. But white Christian society didn't care enough to show mercy when they had the choice. So they ended up constrained by a justice that didn't suit them. Too bad. Apparently the Christian right wing hasn't learned much from the experience, either. Keep clinging to your privilege till it's pried out of your hands by forces beyond your control. You'll end up with neither the ascendancy you desire nor the social unity you could have had. What did Jesus say? "Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison."

In fact, the ideal test cases in CA, CT, or MA would involve a same-sex or bisexual threesome who all want to be considered "married" to each other.

But Erin, you say that like it's a bad thing! ; )

This is great, and is as it should be, equal rights for ALL. What difference does it make to heterosexual couples whether homosexual couples marry or not? It has nothing to do with their life, or what they do in their life. Why deny part of the population the legal right to marry, and live in a loving relationship? It's not like heterosexual marriages are always examples of what marriage should be. And as I think someone mentioned in another post, no government is going to force a church to marry a couple if it goes against the churche's belief system (even though I disagree with a church thinking same gender relationsips are "sinful")

If the government left it up to the states to outlaw slavery or give Blacks the right to vote, or to attend any school they wanted, then there would still be slaves in some states, there would still be separate schools in some states, and some states wouldn't allow everyone to vote. If left up to the states, then many would vote to not allow everyone, no matter their genders, to marry. That is what might happen in California, since apparently it is to be voted on soon. Right now most states do not allow same gender marriages, just 3 do. Sad.

You know, RJohnson, God in the Bible never specifically condemns plagiarism, cocaine use, televangelism, vandalism, stomping puppies to death for fun, or voting for Republicans--which by your logic must mean that He wildly approves of all of those things, right?

If segregation would have ended by democratic means, as it would have eventually and gradually--you know this is true if you have faith in democracy, faith in popular sovereignty and the people--much of the racial bitterness of the last generations could have been avoided.

Considering that a large portion of this country actually wants Creationism taught alongside Evolution both as science...

Considering that a large portion of this country actually believes that dinosaurs and humans walked together...

Considering that 10% of the voting population is actually still duped into thinking Obama is a Muslim...

no, I do not have faith in the intelligence nor the reasoning capabilities of the American public to handle my right to equality.

To be frank, same sex marriage sounds kinda silly. But if homosexuals and lesbians want to form "domestic partnerships", have a ceremony, write wills, health care proxies, designate beloveds-knock yourselves out. Who is any of us to judge how 2 consenting adults who harm and involve no one else choose to live their lives? Some of these people might even make great parents, certainly better than Obama's newfound fan Chris Buckley. Live and let live, let The Almighty judge.

But this is another example of a newly-found right is some previously-unknown emanation or penumbra of privacy; at war with the Constitution, it's jurisprudence, common sense and the English language. We have already seen The One establish a right to health care from the thin air. There are going to be a whole bunch more of constitutional rights discovered in emanations and penumbras which were previously unknown over the next 4 years. And beyond, once The One starts appointing judges.

Ironic-the emanations and penumbras of privacy were miraculously discovered by Justices Brennan and Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut.Crazy idea-ask The One what he thinks.

Two left shoes.

I_Like_Dragyn:

It is clear that you are not interested at all in democracy or popular sovereignty. You consider "the people" to be too dumb for your tastes, and you trust your rulers, the oligarch judges, to make decisions that you agree with. That view has a long tradition, going back to Plato and his view of good governance only by an aristocratic and educated elite. But what if those rulers turn against your view of what's right? What recourse do you have then?

Sig:

Yes it was appalling that over 100 years after slavery that there was still segregation. White Christians should have joined with Black Christians, whose pastors provided the chief moral leadership to end it, based on Christian principles.

However, the end of overturning legal segregation, as just as that was, does not justify the means of unelected judges usurping political and democratic methods. If many black leaders are to be believed, it is not just 100 years after the end of slavery, but 50 years after the legal end of segregation and there is still not enough progress toward equality and justice. I would ask you: how long will it take under the present circumstances of segregation against the law by judicial decree, but still not ended and even increased by new racial preferences ratified in the law? Look how quickly democratic institutions, both nationally and in the several states, responded to calls for greater sexual equality when the time was right for that, and the people called for it and elected politicians who supported it. Why couldn't that have happened in racial matters? And whether it would have or not, again, the end does not justify the means in a democracy, if those means usurp democracy. For then democracy is no more and Dragyn's preferred aristocratic elite rule.

Just because the people are sovereign in a democracy does not mean they are right. They are often wrong, but democracy provides a democratic means to right those wrongs. Crusading judges, acting as kings or dictators, may usurp that power in the name of "justice," but then we don't have democracy any more. And if they are wrong, and decreed injustice from their thrones as in so much recent jurisprudence (or really judicial imprudence), what then? They are unelected and unaccountable, except through cumbersome and inappropriate means of discipline, like impeachment.

Again, constitutional governance and true constitutional law does not exist in the U.S. An unelected judicial elite has usurped the sovereignty of the people to decide the most important social and moral issues that face us. We should have no illusions about that and if we favor it, be clear that what we are favoring is not democracy but oligarchy.

LL-

As the dissent in Griswold said, the Coenncticut law banning the sale of conraception was an eminently silly law which a responsible legislature, the duly-elected representatives of the people, should've have addressed by debate and vote. As with all these suppsoed privacy issues like abortion need to have these arguments within the state government. That's not divisive, it was the design. There's nothing in the Constitution about such emanations and penumbras. Further the 4th Amendment specifically delineated privacy rights regarding the security of our homes and persons from unwarranted search and seizures, but did not establxih these newfound rights.It's the height of judicial activist nonsense to keep adding to these imaginary rights. And it would be best if these issues were addressed by debate rather than handed down by fiat. Oligarchy indeed.

I know there's no point in saying this, any more than doing so with "poisoning the well" arguments, but "slippery slope arguments" are fallacious. In order for them to work, you have to argue that no one can distinguish between the two items being compared. People can distinguish between marrying a human being and a dog. They are different species, for one thing.

Erin Manning
October 10, 2008 8:55 PM

You know, RJohnson, God in the Bible never specifically condemns plagiarism, cocaine use, televangelism, vandalism, stomping puppies to death for fun, or voting for Republicans--which by your logic must mean that He wildly approves of all of those things, right?

-------------

Well, to be honest, Erin, I can't show you any place in the Bible where God gave David cocaine, a television, a puppy to stomp, or a ballot.

But I can show you where He gave David a whole bunch of wives.

Draw your conclusions from that.

It is a shame that a court has to provide equal rights rather than Christians learning to love and treat all of God's children equally.

What recourse do you have then?

Bloody revolution, just like the good ole' days.

Erin is absolutely right. Cases such as these should open the door for polygamists to legitimize their practices here in the United States.

Of course, I doubt cases like this would have ever seen the light of day if the traditional definition of marriage was truly respected and practiced in our land. Unfortunately, the "new definition" of marriage which allows for easy divorce and remarriage amounts at best little more than serial monagamy. "Christians" can't sound the alarm to protect "traditional marriage" being between one man and one woman because 50% of "Christians" don't bother to practice it. In other words, if Bob marries Sue, divorces Sue, marries Bobbi, divorces Bobbi, and finally marries JoAnn, is that really "traditional marriage"? No, rather, I say that is hypocrisy. It is bad enough that the courts allow this practice, it is even sadder that certain churches promote it.

Is it easy for me to say this? No. I speak this as a civilly divorced person (my children & I were abandoned) who is Roman Catholic.

A final remark from the Indiana Libertarian Candidate for Governor, Andrew Horning on the Indiana Marriage Ammendment:

"Unfortunately, what SJR 7 really does is formalize the thinking that marriage is between a man, a woman, and Caesar. Christians should define marriage as a Holy covenant between a man, a woman, and God - not as a state contract with all sorts of bennies. But with Social Security, bereavement pay, visitation rights, property rights, work rules, tax rules and more rules, rules rules from the Great Golden Calf of State, we’ve desecrated the Holy covenant, and have put self-acclaimed Christians in the preposterous role of advocating legal disparity in matters of simple justice."

Happy National Coming Out Day, everyone!

Lancelot, I'm not oblivious to the merit of your argument, but unfortunately don't have time to take it further than that. I still disagree with you. However, I do appreciate your use of calm, rational discussion and your eschewal of anything involving small furry animals.

Right now, though, I have to take my son and daughter-in-law to FaerieCon. Does that count as a celebration of the day? ; )

"in fact, there's a stronger historical precedent in favor of polygamous marriages than of same-sex marriage, since the latter concept was invented the day before yesterday, historically speaking."

Quite true. Although, the marriage between two equals of the opposite sex based on romance and love is as a concept invented the day before yesterday, historically speaking too.

What will be the reaction by the religious handwringers when it is conservative Christians, Mormons, and Muslims who bring the first claims for polygamous marriages? What will there religious liberty arguments be then?

I'm afraid that I'm not a spittle-flecked extremist on either side of this debate.

"Return marriage to the church, and if the state needs some way to recognize couples let them issue "civil" certificates to anybody who wants them."
I think that is broadly right. Civil marriage/partnership should also be available to members of nonsexual relationships who wish to avail themselves of the practical advantages.

Broadly speaking, businesses should not be allowed to discrimainate against homosexuals. I think there are certain exceptions, however:

1. Directly church-related businesses (eg. church halls used for parties) should not have to cater for homosexual weddings.

2. Businesses should not be allowed to discriminate against individuals, but they should be allowed to decide what activities are allowed on their premises - "My way or the highway". For example, a hotelier should have to let an obvious or known homosexual stay the night, but should be allowed to refuse to let two men share a bed.

There have been two court cases in the UK over the past couple of years, one giving a pro- and one an anti-gay-rights result. I thought the outcomes should have the opposite way round - but nobody said that justice is perfect.

The first was a case of a B&B owner being successfully sued for not allowing a homosexual couple to share a bed. I thought the owner should have won the case. What made the case particularly odious, to my mind, was that the homosexual couple had scoured the Internet looking for a place that seemed like it would object to them (the advert said something about "Christian principles"), and it was way up in the Free Presbyterian territory of NE Scotland.

The second was a registrar who won the case when she said she did not want to perform same-sex marriages. I thought that was ridiculous - you take a job, you do what you're told. She played the race-card, though, being a black Pentecostalist, and it remains to be seen whether a precedent was established.

rombald, I'm with you, but not on all the details.

1) This should be a no-brainer, except for some disturbing precedents, such as private clubs.

2) There cannot be restraint on commerce. There just cannot. It is neither reasonable nor practical to simply say to (in this case) a gay couple that they can just go sleep somewhere else. Either the law governs for all, or it is a law only for some.

The B&B example is a poor one. There is a clear precedent to refusal of service, but the criteria for refusal are soundly based in other areas of the law ("no shirt, no shoes, no service" is clearly in compliance with health regs, just as one example). It makes no sense to offer a business service, sleeping in a safe place for one or more nights, and then restrict the manner in which a person sleeps. What is the difference between the gay couple and, say, a person who sleeps naked in a B&B owned by someone who believes nudity is a tool of the devil?

But really, I'm surprised that there is such cowardice over this issue. The whining over persecution of the majority, of discrimination against religions, is ridiculous. The rejoinder "if you don't think it's moral, you don't have to do it" is on the right track though it egregiously falls short of the logical statement of the issue: there is a huge difference between prohibition (the current standard) and permission. Churches empowered by government to act as their proxies (issuance of marriage licenses, the "by the power vested in me by the state of..." thing) will simply and only lose that power. No one will prevent them from performing marriages, nor force them to perform marriages for anyone with whom they have an objection. They will, of course, be "forced" to share the same counter at city hall to obtain the civil union licenses.

I have to wonder, too, if the persecution complaints have some darker motivation... something like "we require the law to reinforce our prohibitions. It's not enough to teach our morality, we must have external props to prevent our members from going astray. And it certainly doesn't hurt to force non-believers to be moral according to our standards."

Yeah, I'm putting words in the mouths of others. I don't think I'm so far off in that. I remain open to being proven wrong.

two options:
- all our heterosexual marriages will remain exactly the same as before this ruling
- the world will go down in flames because of the gay marriages

I am taking bets.

Erin,

The beasts of the field are not rational and cannot consent to sexual relationships with human beings. They also do not own property or raise human offspring. So there is no need for civil unions or marriages between man and beast.

rombald, that is irrelevant to my final question: I would ask you to explain why "no gays with partners allowed" is any different from "no coloreds allowed".

It's not whether they can do it. It's what they are doing.

I would not spend my own money in a restaurant that required me to wear a jacket and tie. I'd much rather treat everyone to a good pub meal than overpriced food that I have to be uncomfortably dressed to eat. None of that, however, has anything to do with my sexual orientation.

I'm sorry, but the thing which is completely and utterly missing from any of this is the well being of the average kid. There have been many forms of marriage over the centuries, but the one thing they ALL had in common was ensuring that the mother AND father of the child had both rights and responsibilities with regard to the raising of the child. It is disgusting and vile that we adults have NO qualms about providing, under the law, the right of an adult to WILLFULLY (as opposed to incidentally or accidentally) deprive a child of their right to be cared and provided for by their own mother and father, or if their own mother and father were unable to do so, to provide another male and female to take on that responsibility. (And yes, I would 100% apply this to those who use donor sperm or eggs to conceive.) It is one thing to make some reasonable concession for those who have shown the poor judgement to willfully bring a child into the world without the commitment of the child's mother or father. It is quite another to enshrine this poor judgement as a legal right for adults. And really, we only have heterosexuals who have been behaving with as must disregard for their kids in this regard as possible to thank for all this. Single moms and a string of boyfriends? No problem. A bothersome baby daddy who has his own ideas about parenting? Just take the kid and book - you can collect child support from a distance and you and your kid'll never have to be bothered with him again! Feeling like you've lost yourself in marriage and parenthood? Well, no fault divorce should make it easy enough for you to leave and "rediscover" yourself! Don't worry, the kids will be fine - just so long as the adults in their lives are happily doing what ever they want.

And why worry about the kids anyhow? They'll be just fine. Put naked women on billboards on the highways. Make sure the TV tells them that the only good birthday is one spent at Disney land so they'll grow up to be good consumers with properly out-sized expectations. Put the boys into schools that drug them up so the teachers have an easier time and make sure the girls get their bratz dolls early so they will know exactly how to show lots of flesh for the enjoyment of the boys and how badly to feel about themselves when they don't sprout huge gazongas, lips and hindquarters. And please let's not ever restrain ourselves from cursing loudly out in public or wearing obscene shirts around town just because there might be some kids around - they can do with some coarsening up early in life. And above and beyond anything else, please feel free to put kids into whatever sort of "family" combination works best for the adults. Because we just don't need to worry about the kids. It's like magic - they'll be just flipping wonderful. The first step to make sure the right of adults to never have to restrain themselves or forgo what they want isn't interfered with, then just make sure that there are people who love the little boogers around. It's so simple. Rather than having to give anything up, all kids need is someone to say "I love you" twice a day. It's the magic potion that provides a child with every little bitty thing they could ever need from an adult. Which means the kids will be alright - after all, even the drunkard loves their babies. And as long as someone loves them, they'll be OK. Right?

"It is one thing to make some reasonable concession for those who have shown the poor judgement to willfully bring a child into the world without the commitment of the child's mother or father. It is quite another to enshrine this poor judgement as a legal right for adults."

So you want to outlaw adoption because it's bad for kids? The legal institution of adoption should be ended? Should fertility clinics be shut down? Since most IVF is done for heterosexual couples, you support shutting that down since it's bad for kids?

The problem with the "kids are going to suffer" argument is that it is so selective. No one suggests withholding rights to adoptive parents (and adoption is much less preferable than a kid being raised by his two biological parents in an intact, low-conflict marriage, at least in the U.S.) No one suggests divorced people should never be allowed to remarry or that widows and widowers never be allowed to remarry. No one ever suggests that we need fertility tests to obtain marriage certificates, or that single mothers should be denied the right to marry, even though the children of single mothers whose moms date or marriage are at significant risk from the boyfriend/new husband. In fact, the greatest risk to a child is the introduction of unrelated, heterosexual male into a family unit.

So why single out same-sex couples when the sky is falling on families and 95% of the problems have nothing to do with same-sex parents?

Yet, denying same-sex couples legal rights is a reality. Heck, Rod wants to alter the constitution to enshrine discrimination back into the U.S. Constitution. No one is realistically talking about any of your other strategies.

I'll take "the family is going to hell" handwringers seriously when they are willing to sacrifice the rights of heterosexuals for the cause.

Well, Daniel, I (and I suspect Rod and any number of other hand-wringers) would be more than willing to shove our way to the front of the line to sign up for restricting the supposed "rights" of heterosexuals to behave with blatant disregard towards their kids rights to be raised by mom and dad in a permanent marriage whenever doing so isn't dangerous or physically impossible. I'm an equal opportunity hand-wringer. Heck, if it were just gay people who wanted to be able to deliberately raise kids without mom and dad around, I would just be starting to worry. However, at this point, I've all but given up on our culture. SSM is just one more nail in a nail studded coffin. A society which cannot manage to restrain itself for the well being of their children will fail and deserves to fail. Hell, 50 years ago we built an enormous, complex federal highway system "for the children". Today we can barely bring ourselves to stop people from having sex in the bushes at public parks "for the children". We deserve to be crushed under history's thumb. It's just too bad that so many people suffer along the way.

Heck, the link between being raised by your biological mom and dad in a permanent marriage is so strong that even adopted kids, whose parents are typically better educated and wealthier than most, do not fare quite as well as kids being raised by their biological parents. They still come out better than kids raised by single parents. But it just shows how important the link between kids and their biological parents is - it's something which not even strong love, money and education can beat.

If we gave a crap about our kids, we'd put making sure that we're doing everything possible to humanely ensure that every child is being raised by their biological parents. We would be supporting people like crazy to make sure that if they had kids or wanted kids they got married and stayed married. We'd teach marriage skills in schools and churches would provide every new couple with a mentor and financial support to get started. Instead, we're falling all over ourselves to make sure every adult feels properly free and respected and view the kids as an after thought. It's just wrong.

"When the divorce rate among evangelical Christians is above 50% with high rates of infidelity, then they have no room to talk."

I don't know if it's that high, but anyway Catholics have pretty low divorce rates. So can they talk?

I'm actually not sure I care so long as religious groups don't have to recognize it. So far this has NOT been how things have gone any place SSM was done so I've become a bit more against it. And the judicial thing can't be brushed off as easily as some say.

Look up the facts on interracial marriage and you'll find that in at least seven states it was never illegal. Furthermore that when interracial marriage was illegal it was not merely "not recognized", it was punishable by fines and jail time. Alabama's law, voided by Loving, said that "fornication between white persons and negroes" should be punished by at least 2 years of prison. Even Delaware's relatively mild law (also ended by Loving) stated, "The guilty party or parties to a marriage prohibited by sec. 101 of this title shall be fined $100, and in default of this payment of the fine shall be imprisoned not more than 30 days." The concept of "gay marriage" was largely rejected by the extant gay magazines, like "One", in the 1950s. It is different from interracial marriage in key ways.

"The concept of "gay marriage" was largely rejected by the extant gay magazines, like "One", in the 1950s. It is different from interracial marriage in key ways."

The gay movement in 1950s would have never imagined we'd reach a time where gay people could even expect they would be allowed to marry. These were people who faced police action just for associating with another gay person. These were people for whom the idea of being "out" and protected by the courts and police was a completely foreign concept: they could never imagine marriage.

The comparison with interracial marriage is imperfect, but not completely incongruous.

Bring on the dogs, siblings, and left shoes, and get down to the Marryin' Judge!

Sounds like you'll be the first in that line, Max. ;-)

Me, I'll just add to your excellent points that raising children is a task that must be paramount, and that no offer to contribute should be turned away for what amounts to (forgive a bit of personal POV) arbitrary reasons.

It is proper and valid to gather data about family, and to apply the lessons learned. I will never dispute that. However, to narrowly focus on "tradition" -- especially when there is ample evidence that "anti-tradition" is meaningless in the case of gay couples -- will, in the end, put more children at risk.

What we have, you and I, is disparate views of the available data. You have drawn a conclusion with which I disagree. Dialog is what's important, and our common meeting ground is the welfare of our children.

That's the key, I think. We, as a society, as an at best uneasy mix of cultures, have lost sight of the only sane POV: they are all our children, and the only valid attitude is that we all bear the responsibility for them. Parents are the front line. The rest of us must be ready to step in, appropriately, when any parents fail whatever the reasons for failure might be. I would not, in my personal view, be as ready to cut gays off as I would cut off an arm.

Some good points made, but...

The idea of interracial marriage existed so long as the concept of "race" existed. In the Old Testament Moses wife is, after a fashion, seen as being of a "different race" and this is defended by God. Prohibitions on interracial marriage were never universal and when the Loving decision came down most states had abandoned them.

The concept of homosexual, or more accurately homogender, marriage is pretty much a 19th-20th century invention. In the past two men could "unite", but this was seen as a different kind of union. Likewise two males could marry in some cultures, but both of those males could not be "men." One of them had to be considered "a woman", at least spiritually, or a member of some culturally defined third-sex. The same things I said also work for females. (Yes this means that I'm more willing to accept the marriage of a man to a transvestite male and no I'm not joking)

"Marriage" was created as a heterosexual system and I'm not entirely convinced homosexual relationships are identical to heterosexual ones. This isn't like "separate but equal" with race. Men and women have core chromosome differences and studies seem to indicate homosexual couples relate differently to each other.

To me "civil unions" is preferable because it, albeit imperfectly, recognizes that homosexuality is different than heterosexuality yet deserving of mostly equal rights. I feel it's more within the tradition of homosexuals being "bonded" in the Greco-Roman or whatever tradition. Granted "civil union" is a clunky clinical word. A theory I considered is just calling heterosexual unions "matrimonies" (the word origin involves motherhood, "matri") and homosexual unions "conjugals" (can simply mean "to join"). Then give "conjugals" no more or less rights to adopt than same-sex siblings. I have a feeling that would not be acceptable to anyone though.

And yes I know I'm weird.

Rob asked: "What baffles me is why they would care whether the state calls it marriage or not."

Ask Martin Luther King Jr. whether calling it a "whites only" drinking fountain matters. "Marriage", as the California Supreme Court addressed, is the "Whites Only" drinking fountain. The name matters because of the status it give you in American society.

Before there was anything called Domestic Partnership in California I want with my "lover/euphamistic-Friend" to the Social Security office to apply for disability because I had become profoundly deaf in both ears, a chronic condition. I also had Menier's disease which is a related side effect for many people who loose their hearing (It's vertigo on steroids). Result? Denied. Social Security said since I had someone watching over me, they treat that like a marriage. Mind you, this was under the circumstances of the Defense of Marriage Act in which congress declared the federal government would not recognize *any* relationship between a same-sex couple.

So the government was telling me that - Officially - they wouldn't recognize my relationship by law while at the same time Social Security **recognized** my relationship for the purpose of denying me assistance.

What????????? A new application of Catch-22.

And for the record I am sexually attracted to men, very much so. (I've chosen not to be with a man for religious reasons and that's worked mostly fine by me) Granted I'm attracted to women too, but point being I know what it's like to have strong same-sex attractions.

Is there a beastility and incest movement anywhere in the world? No, I didn't think so, but thanks for playing

Jim, I don't think what Max is saying is dehumanizing. Two left shoes, or two right ones, do not make a pair of shoes. Two men or two women can only make a "marriage" if we throw out the meaning of the word "marriage" entirely.

I do believe strongly in hating the sin but loving the sinner. But part of hating the sin means actually calling what is sin, sin. Homosexual activity is by definition fruitless and sterile, barren, a form of self-indulgence which then becomes enshrined, philosophically speaking, at the center of the relationship, characterizing it in many ways. Sex is designed to be the total gift of self to other, in which both self and other simultaneously take and receive from each other the unitive pleasure and the potentially procreative aspect. No, as many have said, this does not mean that the infertile or the elderly do not have "real" marriages--because it is only the *accident* of age or malfunction of nature that makes them infertile, not the *substance* of who they are as a couple. This is not the same for a homosexual couple who lack both the unitive reality and even the potential to bring forth by means of their own mutual gift a child who is both the biological reality and the living symbol of their love.

It is because of the tremendous power of goodness and beauty mysteriously present in human sexuality that the Church continues to maintain that only within marriage, a marriage of a man and a woman, which must be both exclusive and permanent, can this gift be rightfully employed. Divorce, fornication, homosexual acts, and any other use of sex is sinful not because the Church says so, but because of how God has ordered this tremendous gift, which at its roots is a great and powerful sign of the love of Christ for His bride, the Church.

Now, I've heard all the secular objections to this way of thinking, but I'm telling you the way the Church looks at it, Jim. It is not hating any homosexual to speak this truth. It would be hateful to know this and to fail to speak it, because only if I wanted my homosexual brothers and sisters to suffer the misery of eternal punishment could I be silent about it.

The legalization of same-sex marriage will end up silencing me and people like me, ultimately, though. I'm sure we'll follow Canada's example, and make it illegal to proclaim this truth outside of our church buildings--and maybe not even there, eventually. That is what the same-sex marriage activists want: if they can't get real societal approval, they'll be happy to take a facsimile of it that relies on defining all opposition as "bigotry."

You know, Daniel, I shouldn't have to explain the concept of "truth" to a fellow Catholic.

I keep praying for you, though.

Well Erin, for us non-Catholics, why don't you address Daniel's excellent question? Why is it okay for you to shout "sinner" based on your value structure, but not okay for others to should "bigot" based on theirs?

I should follow up that last ... I have read interpretations of that passage in Matthew that Jesus was deliberately intending to shock his audience not only with the allusion to cutting off an extremity, but specifically the hand that was the "clean" one.

Jesus had a lot to say about the purity laws inherited by the Jews, namely that it is what comes out of a person, namely their deeds, their words, what is in their heart, that makes them unclean, nothing else.

Yo, John H,

Drop the high dudgeon already.

BTW, love is great. Love should be unlimited.

But one shouldn't always mate with that which one loves. Think about it, I'm sure your grandfather loves you, but don't you think sex with him would be wrong (and that you're not a bigot for thinking so)?

I find this a distressing exchange. It hurts to see a religious tradition that I used to love so much, and probably always will, in some ways, being turned into something cruel and harsh. I don't mean to pile onto you personally, Erin, because I know you are speaking as you were taught and your intentions are probably better than your words. But I'm going to take your words to task anyway, because that's what I've been given.

It is the ruthlessness with which so many people enshrine the normative and hold it uniquely up as holy or virtuous, with such reckless disregard for those who cannot fit their little schemes of order.

Yes, that puts the truth in a nutshell, Jim.

Homosexual activity is by definition fruitless and sterile, barren, a form of self-indulgence which then becomes enshrined, philosophically speaking, at the center of the relationship, characterizing it in many ways. Erin, that's one of the worst sentences you've ever written. What baloney. If you want to talk about the truth, you have to use statements that can be objectively verified, and that one just can't be. When I'm looking at the mutual love of gay couples I have known, and I can see with my own eyes that their love IS fruitful and self-giving, then you're like someone trying to tell me that, by definition, the earth is flat. I don't have to accept your crabbed Thomistic paradigm and disprove your definitions on your terms. All I have to do is say "Observation of reality tells me that it is not so."

"It is because of the tremendous power of goodness and beauty mysteriously present in human sexuality that the Church continues to" . . . attempt to turn sexuality against people and use it to guilt trip them into miserable submission to its dominance over their lives. Fixed that for you.

Meh. Now I have to go eat a delicious dinner with the offspring of my radically self-indulgent and sexual love for Mr. Sig, which somehow mysteriously resulted in a thriving family. I have a lot more to say but will have to restrain myself!

Again with the "silencing!" Honestly, Erin, I can't think of a less likely candidate for silencing--unless possibly it were me. They may try, but since burning at the stake has gone out of fashion, they're unlikely to succeed with either of us. ; )

Erin Manning said:

"Homosexual activity is by definition fruitless and sterile, barren, a form of self-indulgence which then becomes enshrined, philosophically speaking, at the center of the relationship, characterizing it in many ways. Sex is designed to be the total gift of self to other..."

You have every right to live your own life by these beliefs and ideas.

You have exactly zero right to force anyone else to live by these beliefs.

None.

Well, Socrates, nobody here has a problem with people like me being forced to live according to the idea that the old definition of marriage wasn't trendy enough, and that a new definition should include a man with a woman and a man with a man and a woman with a woman and two men with five women and three men and four women with an extra half a dozen men and any and all and none of the above.

In fact, why not define marriage to mean "Any person over the age of 18" on the presumption that since children have nothing do do with marriage and sex has nothing to do with marriage and the number of people involved have nothing to do with marriage, then *everybody* should be considered "married" unless they opt-out, which only the party-poopers and bigots will do.

Marriage Rights for the Single! Hell, now equality *Demands* it!!!

Erin, during the period when bride price went out of favor -- and in many places had to be legally changed -- I can well imagine the wealthy and influential saying: "Marriage rights for the peons! Hell, next we'll be forced to let them marry us!"

Forgive me, please and if you can, but your stated attitude smacks of the worst sort of snobbery: privilege that you graciously extend to others only if they become like you.

"Ask Martin Luther King Jr. whether calling it a 'whites only' drinking fountain matters."

To the above, Tom H said: "This is a profoundly stupid statement. Do you think "whites only" fountains was just a title? It was an active system of excluding blacks from certain things."

=================================

You miss the symbolism, don't you. The white-only water fountain was the symbol of Privilege publicly invoked to remind everyone that there was status distinction being enforced either by law or by custom. The word "marriage" serves as the same kind of symbolism of privilege now. What a miraculous transformation for marriage from my youth when no one at the County Line Pentecostal Holiness Church could imagine a day when the word "harm" would be applied to one person's promise to care for another for their entire life. We understood it better back then than we do now that all the addendums and conditions have been inserted. And probably best of all, we knew all the tax-supported benefits that accrued to marriage came from not church or religious order who, today, claims complete ownership of the word "marriage". Long, long has there been an complete absence of any claim that a religion owned the word marriage, and in the very face of the state bestowing the status. No church said, "the state does not own that word" until now that the word has so much economic stability tied to it that it attracts even those who would never hope for it before.

The thing about eternal punishment is that it's a choice--not God's, but ours. And until recently everyone who called himself a Christian seemed to understand that.

Franklin, I'm speaking to Jim this way because in my understanding we share a faith tradition--Jim is a Christian. If Jim is not a Christian and rejects Christianity, then I apologize for the misunderstanding. I wouldn't seek to argue with you from the basis of Christianity, as you are not a Christian.

In C.S. Lewis's "The Great Divorce," the citizens of Hell believe they've made the better choice. They are dismally unhappy, of course, but they insist on believing that that is the only sane way for a person to be; "happiness" must be some sort of trick, foisted upon the world by a God they have chosen to reject. They eventually isolate themselves even from each other because being truly alone in their misery is the only even remotely tolerable way to be, and even then they burn--not with a physical fire, in Lewis's tale, but with the fire of anger and emptiness and darkness that is hate, the eternal hatred for the good which is what they have chosen.

Lewis described some who chose Hell simply because something they felt justified in believing or doing or being was, after all, wrong, and displeasing to God. Given the chance to see Him face to face, to experience at first hand the salvific power of His love, and to repent of their evil choices, they still said, "No." If Heaven didn't validate them in their life choices, then to Hell with it--literally.

Every day, every action we take, is turning us, in Lewis' view, into heavenly or hellish creatures. Striving to be good, learning God's will and then embracing it joyfully, accepting His law even when it is painful for us to do so, sinning and repenting and being forgiven and begging for the grace to sin no more, we grow in holiness until the day when this life ends, and we learn what our choices on earth have meant, to our great joy or our eternal sorrow (and even the souls in Purgatory have the joy of knowing that their present suffering will soon end; the pope's recent words about Purgatory were very intriguing).

That which is evil will never be good. That which destroys the soul simply can't also heal it or feed it. Homosexual acts are gravely evil, and like every use of sex outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage are intrinsically evil. Calling same-sex relationships "marriage" doesn't change that in the least.

And anyone who thinks any of this is just my opinion may consult the writings of the Catholic Church on the subject; this is what the Catholic Church teaches and has always taught.

"There was no gay rights movement in the 50s either. Stonewall was years in the future."

The Mattachine Society and the Daughter of Bilitis--the two earliest gay rights organizations--were founded in the early 1950s. The fact that there was a gay magazine--as you pointed to--illustrates there was a gay rights movement.

No, Daniel, I think pretty much the whole official Catholic Church agrees with me (or, in proper humility, it's definitely the other way around).

Individual Catholic dissenters are no different here than when they dissent on abortion, women priests, and other products of over fertile and ill-grounded imaginations. That is, the dissenters don't speak for the Church; they don't even speak as Catholics.

If I'm ever shown to be speaking in a way that contradicts Church teaching, I apologize and correct my speech (and, if necessary, my understanding). To do any less is to say to Christ, "I'm sorry, but I just don't believe what You said about Your Church. I'll pick and choose what I like, but don't bother me with the rest." Which is hardly the sort of attitude one wishes to cultivate toward one's Savior, you know.

Erin: you seem to be making the argument be about those who say "Jesus, My Savior, said x y x (eg "love one another", eg "the Father accepts all who come to him", eg "man is made unclean by what goes out of him not what goes in", etc.) vs. you who say "but the "Church" says something else". Do you want to get into a discussion where we stack up the many verses of Jesus' direct teaching versus the handful of expository verses about the authority of the disciples?

It's also hard to figure out philosophically what you can mean by punishment isn't God's choice. If you want to use Lewisian metaphors, then focus on the aspect of the metaphor about how they choose to separate from one another--which I find a great metaphor for punishment, but not at all what SSM is all about, is it? As sigaliris was trying to point out, you appear to be saying that God of his own will is promising eternal punishment to those who don't follow the interpretation of how to live human life you have defined. Or rather, what you believe the undefined and insubstantial Church (since it can't be identified with any particular persons, priests, or parishes) says.

I too take what my Savior says very seriously, and I don't think you can find support in His words for what you say about love and reality.

Well, Daniel, the day that gay marriage becomes the law of the land for the entire United States is the day I start looking for some other country to call home, because the whole thing is an excuse to force societal acceptance and approval of an intrinsic evil and to stifle any dissent against it; it will carry the curtailing of the religious freedoms of Americans who don't agree with gay marriage in its wake. We haven't even begun to see what will happen; gay marriage hasn't been legal anyplace long enough for us to imagine it.

The Catholics who first came to this country were seeking religious freedom. When religious freedom becomes impossible in America, I will honor their memory and go elsewhere. It's already beginning, with the loud voices claiming that if Catholic doctors don't want to perform abortions or prescribe abortion pills, or Catholic pharmacists don't want to dispense them, then they should simply be fired and not be permitted to work in these fields. The coerced societal acceptance and approval of gay marriage will be the next step, and soon Catholic parents will be discriminated against if we won't reject our Church's teachings or agree not to teach them to our children. Our nation's anti-discrimination laws will become corporate hiring policy (as they already are) and Catholics who want to work will have to prove to their corporate masters that they don't take their religious beliefs seriously, a charade that will be easier because of the Catholics like you who are so eager to give your approbation to the trendy sins of the day in direct conflict with what our Church actually teaches.

Think that can't happen? You probably thought Catholic Charities in Massachusetts wouldn't be forced to get out of the adoption business, either. How many more Catholic-affiliated charitable organizations or businesses will be forced to shut their doors rather than participate in or "validate" the evil of same-sex marriage in some way? How many secular businesses will try to avoid lawsuits by only hiring people who can prove they approve of same-sex "marriage"? How many avenues of dissent, like homeschooling, will become regulated so that children are "educated" away from their parents' "bigotry" on same-sex marriage?

I know; you, and people like you, want all of this, and are quite willing to impose it on those of us who don't. Funny how liberals are always willing to coerce people in the name of tolerance.

First, the post we're all commenting on here doesn't make any sense whatsoever, so it's easy to see why no one is actually commenting on its substantive content, and instead commenting on gay marriage and religion more generally. And generally. And generally.

BUT -- second -- what about this ending: "I am not hopeful that anything short of a constitutional amendment at the state or federal level carving out a zone of protection for religious dissenters will do any good."

What?

I am wondering whether the following language sounds familiar: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ."

Dude. Get a grip.

"If there is to be space for opponents of same-sex marriage, it will have to be created at the same time as same-sex marriage is recognized, and, probably, as part of a legislative package."
May I be so bold to point out that because your opposition to same-sex marriage is faith based it is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Your rights have been guaranteed for over 200 years. Any rights I may have as a gay man have been recognized for less than 10 years ago.
How would you feel if the roles were reversed? If I said to you the things you are saying to me? I am sorry that my rights are so disturbing to you. I just don't understand why you believe I am a threat to your marriage. But you do and you are free to use your tax exempt status to lobby against me. I on the other hand am forbidden by law to discriminate against you. In most places I can be fired, evicted, excommunicated, threatened, and even murdered for being gay and it's not even considered a hate crime. You, on the other hand, are safe. It is against federal and state laws to discriminate against you in any way for being a Christian (or any other religion).
And if you are the victim of violence for your faith it is a federal crime. And Yes I believe that persecuting you for your faith is certainly a hate crime.
I don't expect you to change your attitude. I expect you will consider yourself put upon and maybe even discriminated against. Please just make sure that you are not guilty of the sins you decry.

"If there is to be space for opponents of same-sex marriage, it will have to be created at the same time as same-sex marriage is recognized, and, probably, as part of a legislative package."
May I be so bold to point out that because your opposition to same-sex marriage is faith based it is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Your rights have been guaranteed for over 200 years. Any rights I may have as a gay man have been recognized for less than 10 years ago.
How would you feel if the roles were reversed? If I said to you the things you are saying to me? I am sorry that my rights are so disturbing to you. I just don't understand why you believe I am a threat to your marriage. But you do and you are free to use your tax exempt status to lobby against me. I on the other hand am forbidden by law to discriminate against you. In most places I can be fired, evicted, excommunicated, threatened, and even murdered for being gay and it's not even considered a hate crime. You, on the other hand, are safe. It is against federal and state laws to discriminate against you in any way for being a Christian (or any other religion).
And if you are the victim of violence for your faith it is a federal crime. And Yes I believe that persecuting you for your faith is certainly a hate crime.
I don't expect you to change your attitude. I expect you will consider yourself put upon and maybe even discriminated against. Please just make sure that you are not guilty of the sins you decry.

If you have to be "forced" to treat gays as human beings deserving of love, happiness, and freedom, then so be it.

Oh, the tyranny!

"Funny how liberals are always willing to coerce people in the name of tolerance."

Funny how conservatives are always willing to hide behind religion to mask their ugly bigotry and intolerance.

Ultimately, Erin, you aren't happy unless you are miserable and can portray yourself as a martyr to your faith. You are the most gleeful when cowering in the corner because you think the sky is falling. Seems like a miserable existance, afraid of your neighbors, your fellow citizens, and the future.

Well, Daniel, the day that gay marriage becomes the law of the land for the entire United States is the day I start looking for some other country to call home

Oo, this is another one of those statements that I'd like to preserve on my Website O' Prophecy to see if they come true after five years or so. How far are you willing to take this, Erin? If marriage equality is the law in all the lower 48, but not in Alaska, will you still leave? Or will you move to Palinland? And if you do decide to leave, where will you go? Not Canada, I imagine. And you can't move to Vatican City, because women aren't allowed there. I know--Iran! Kidding, kidding . . . and I really am, because I'd hate to see you feel compelled to leave your native land. I don't want that to happen to you, and I don't think it will be necessary. I prefer to believe that you are catastrophizing for the sake of effect, and that you'd never really do such a thing.

What if marriage were subjected to a separation of church and state?
What if the term "marriage" referred to a religious option, blessing a union by ordained ministers within a church ceremony, and yet not establishing a legal basis nor federal recognition? What if the term "licensed union" referred to a non-religious option, licensing a union by a government agency, and establishing a legal basis and federal recognition? Couples of any gender could opt for one or both arrangements without the state or the church forcing anything. Churches and denominations could struggle with how to define the term "marriage". Governments could proceed with protections of individuals within licensed unions.

The argument that, if we change the definiton of marriage, then it has to be defined as "anything is permissible", is just nonsense.

Put more generally, the idea that, when we are changing the definition of something, we can only choose either the current definition, or the "anything goes" definition, and no other definition, is pure hooey.

This would essentially make changing anything impossible.

We draw lines. Sometimes, we re-draw them. It happens all the time.

If the voting age is 18, and there's a movement to change it to 17, it's nonsense to argue that we logically cannot stop there - that if we are going to change it, we can only change it so that even newborns can vote.

It's just nonsense.

I think gays should be allowed to marry, I think people and animals should not be allowed to marry. I think that's reasonable.

Sooner rather than later, a consensus along these lines will form, and we'll have gay marriage. It will happen, and you can't stop it, because it's the right thing to do.

Socratese wrote: "Put more generally, the idea that, when we are changing the definition of something, we can only choose either the current definition, or the "anything goes" definition, and no other definition, is pure hooey.

This would essentially make changing anything impossible.

We draw lines. Sometimes, we re-draw them. It happens all the time.

If the voting age is 18, and there's a movement to change it to 17, it's nonsense to argue that we logically cannot stop there - that if we are going to change it, we can only change it so that even newborns can vote.

It's just nonsense.

I think gays should be allowed to marry, I think people and animals should not be allowed to marry. I think that's reasonable."

****

Socratese, the problem with your take is this:

Of course things change, but the problem arising from normalizing homosex, and establishing a "gay marriage" right is not that society is changeing, or re-drawing a line.

The problem is the argument for re-drawing that line: "You have no right to foist upon me a definition I disagree with. Your ethics are rejected entirely. I love my partner and will not allow you to stand in our way."

The same resoning (essentially Kennedy's "Sweet Mystery of Life" clause from the Lawrence decision) can be used by anyone for anything. Just cite love against bigotry. At some point one reaches the tipping point. The gay rights movement is at that tipping point. Animal "lovers" and incest-rights advocates will have to wait. But they do exist, and they will fight, and they have every right to take up the same destructive reasoning gay advocates have.

Gay advocates, by their own reasoning, have no right to condemn those who seek to normalize their sexual relationships with animals or family memebers. Any argument one could give will be thrown out wholesale (just as gay advocates throw out anti-gay marriage arguments).

It is an approach that only allows the oppressed "lover" to define what reasoning is relevant in the discussion. Why do "gay marriage" advocates think they can change those ground rules when the horse-lovers and brother-sister-parents-to-be take up your lead for their own liberation? To do so would simply make them bigots seeking to oppress those who simply love.

Again, it is not the re-drawing of the line here that's the real problem (though I disagree with where you seem to want to re-draw). Rather it is the ersatz reasoning used to decide where the line goes, not to mention the denial of where that "reasoning" leads.

"If you value structure allows you to define homosexuality as a sin and disordered and, thus, deny people legal rights based on that value structure, why can't someone else's value structure determine you are a bigot and be treated as such?" Daniel

My position is different than Erin's. I think you can treat a person as such if you desire. I don't think the law needs to recognize Erin's views or yours. The law needs to recognize the will of the majority and the rights of the minority. For now this means not denying homosexuals their constitutional rights, but I am just not convinced it means we have to create new rights for them.

Considering the union of two-men or two-women a marriage is a new right. It is not something that ever existed in the US before. (Unlike interracial marriage) Two people, regardless of gender, being able to unite as some kind of partnership is more established. If existing partnerships or civil-unions are insufficient than work should be done on strengthening them. It's not clear why it's vital that homosexual relationships be deemed identical to heterosexual ones. The logic would seem to indicate sex can never matter in which case all bathrooms would have to be unisex as would sports teams, etc.

"Jesus had a lot to say about the purity laws inherited by the Jews, namely that it is what comes out of a person, namely their deeds, their words, what is in their heart, that makes them unclean, nothing else." Jim H

Do you mean
"But what comes out of a person, that is what defiles. From within people, from their hearts, come evil thoughts, UNCHASTITY, theft, murder, ADULTERY, greed, malice, deceit, LICENTIOUSNESS, envy, blasphemy, arrogance, folly." Mark 7:20-22 (Capitalized words for emphasis)

He also said

"For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." Matthew 19:5-7

At no point does Jesus say the older sexual rules are abolished or refer to marriage as anything other than a husband and wife. There is to be forgiveness of sexual sins, but not rejection of the concept. Jesus does not specifically address homosexuality, but considering marriage is "man/woman" and extra-marital sex is rejected it takes fancy footwork to go from there to Christianity embracing homosexuality. Many liberal Christians can do that footwork, but not everyone is willing or able to do it.

On a different matter

"reiterated that Universal Salvation was entirely compatible with Catholic teaching and expressed his personal hope for universal salvation. "

Although I have some sympathy with this it is nevertheless completely heretical. This idea is explicitly condemned by both the Bible and Church tradition. What Hell or non-Salvation means I personally think is open to more interpretation than pre-Vatican II thinking suggests, but I'm fairly certain universal salvation is against the Catechism. If Cardinal Murphy O'Connor said this he should be forced to retract or be excommunicated as soon as possible.

As I understand it though there is good reason to hope any individual who dies will go to Heaven. This is not the same thing. It is not asserting universal salvation nor is it saying any particular person is in Heaven. It is simply asserting a hope about any individual dead person one happened to know and avoiding condemnation of any individual.

Erin, I mourn every time I see a thoughtful, rational person proclaim that abandoning her nation is preferable to [fill in the blank], when that thing is short of mortal (physical) danger. Meaning this to be constructive: my parents were faced with precisely that choice. Nearly all of my mother's extended family either could not leave or did not act to leave in time. Two of my father's brothers decided to stay, fight and die. He made that choice as well, and only circumstances saved his life.

I truly sympathize with the feeling. I've had it myself twice: the year my number came up in the draft lottery, and the moment when the Reagan policies clarified into stealing from tomorrow to pay for today.

I personally rejected the feeling both times. The first time I was young enough to think I could macho my way through serving a military that was being abused and mishandled. I was not drafted, so my macho was never put to the test. The second time I had some semblance of maturity to realize that, on balance, there is no country on the planet that surpasses the US, and damn few that match it... and there is not, nor has there ever been, a country that calls upon its citizens to have free will, and then exercise it even when it disagrees with the powers that be. That is why I would stand on US soil and die for it, right alongside those who would consign some of my most beloved friends to the category of evil without recourse.

No single issue is more important than defending a nation and society that requires its citizens to face those issues openly. That is what freedom of speech is all about. That is what the establishment clause is all about. It's not about you being free. It's about all of us being free together with the necessary consequence that none of us can exercise our freedom at the expense of others.

Complain about coercion. In principle, I will agree with you. But please, don't talk about leaving the country if you cannot at least openly acknowledge that where you fear to be, homosexuals are right now, as are pagans, Mormons, Muslims and people of color (a list that continues much longer than it ever should). While I don't mean to be vindictive, there is some wisdom to the notion that US citizens do not appreciate what they have until they perceive it being threatened.

What "Me" wrote above at 1:05 a.m. is exactly, exactly, exactly right. If marriage has nothing to do with creating stability for biological parents so they don't abandon their child-rearing responsibilities to the state, then the state has no compelling interest in marriage whatsoever. The state especially has no compelling interest in forcing the vast majority of those who don't accept homosexual marriages to acquiesce in them or face legal sanctions and punishments.

All gay marriage is about is forcing those Americans whose religious traditions reject homosexual activity as sinful and homosexual inclinations as disordered to put on a mask of smiling approval of sexual deviance and to sacrifice many of our own freedoms in the process. Homosexual activists have decided that the very existence of religious traditions which view their physical encounters as deeply and gravely sinful is intolerable, and they intend to stifle those traditions so that any public expression of such beliefs is restricted and forbidden. Just watch--once gay marriage is approved by SCOTUS as being simply peachy, the next move will be to remove tax-exempt status from churches who don't get with the program, and that will only be the beginning. Since my Church is the biggest target in the crosshairs of the extremist gay activists you'll pardon me for not thinking that the redefinition of marriage complete with the imposition of that definition on an already-decaying culture is going to be a good thing.

Karen: "The legal version of marriage (as opposed to its religious definitions) is that it is a contract.

Last I checked, children, animals and inanimate objects can't enter into contracts. They aren't capable of legal consent."

****

Oh yeah, Karen, I forgot to mention: I'm surprised that a woman would say that something can't be allowed because it's not allowed by law. Think about it, a mere 89 years ago women weren't allowed, by law, to vote. As someone else has noted (in support of "gay marriage", the lines get re-drawn all the time.

All you are saying is that something will not be allowed, should not be allowed, in the future because we don't allow it now. Interesting you don't use this reasoning regarding "gay marriage".

As I said, you missed the point. "The legal version of marriage (as opposed to its religious definitions) is that it is a contract [between one man and one woman]."

So what? That definition is being tossed under the bus (by you and others) as we speak. All I'm saying is that YOUR restrictive definition, your bigotted oppressive definition, will be tossed under the bus too. And it will be tossed under the bus with the same reasoning you use today.

This is all so very simple. Gay consenting adults of otherwise legal status can not be denied a civil marriage license in a society that values freedom and equality as America does.

Churches are another story. No church can ever be made to perform or recognize any union it deems contrary to the institution's doctrine.

People can bicker all day and night, but in the end gay civil marriage will be a reality throughout the country. It must be. If you don't approve, don't marry someone of the same gender.

Oh, come on, Unapologetic. That's hardly the most tangible objection I or anyone else has offered. But here's the thing: our country's anti-discrimination laws in conjunction with a suddenly discovered "right" to gay marriage means that any objection to gay marriage that occurs outside of a church building will be punished with lawsuits, "hate crime" charges, and any other legal tool in the "resistance is futile" kit.

The anonymous person at 3:34 is reusing the old "If you don't like abortion, don't have one!" line--I guess the new catchphrase of the liberal tolerance enforcers will be "If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one!" But just as abortion has societal costs, primarily the breakdown of the nuclear family to the point where it's barely even recognizable and the cheapening of all human life to the extent that a mild statement that human life ought to be protected is taken as crazy religious extremism, so will the enforced approval of gay marriage have its costs. These will be seen in the reshaping of the so-called "family" from a relatively stable social institution that was made up of a partnership of people biologically interconnected to each other who protected each other, shared goals, values, customs and traditions, and transmitted these to future generations, to a temporary coalition of individuals who are only "related" as long as they are useful to each other, who are always in opposition with each other, and who, given the choice, will always elevate their individual desires above what is good for the group--which is ultimately meaningless and worthless to them.

To be fair, no-fault divorce has already been wreaking that kind of social change upon the family. But here's the rub: add gay marriage to the already degenerating family, remove *any* societal support geared to help those who are raising their own biological children and instead, use that support to encourage the "alternative" family of unrelated adults raising someone else's children, and you have pretty much ensured that within a few generations' time the notion that there is anything even remotely good or worth supporting about a man and a woman bringing forth their own biological children and then remaining together to raise them is going to disappear. Not only that, but such families will probably only be found among the deeply religious, and will be viewed as cultural curiosities, throwbacks to a kind of religious bigotry that doesn't elevate adult happiness and self-actualization and children's sexual exploration of themselves and each other over such narrow-minded notions as God, family, morality, and the like.

"But here's the thing: our country's anti-discrimination laws in conjunction with a suddenly discovered "right" to gay marriage means that any objection to gay marriage that occurs outside of a church building will be punished with lawsuits, "hate crime" charges, and any other legal tool in the "resistance is futile" kit."

Despite all evidence to the contrary.

"but sticking it out with gritted teeth and hatred for everything the Church teaches about sexual morality and a few other key areas is something I find terribly puzzling."

Because I love both the Church and the Scriptures. You are one of those Catechism Catholics who can quote Vatican teaching by memory, but appears never to reflect on the Scriptures and understand its teaching beyond what's in the Catechism. Maybe that's why you seem so angry, because you focus on rules instead of the glorious word of the Scriptures.

Your Catholic church is only about abortion and sexual morality, apparently. You never talk about love or grace or concern for the poor or helping others or showing compassion. It's a very angry, vengeful Catholicism. You constantly feel under attack, glaring suspiciously and disdainfully at anyone who disagrees with your memorized Catechism lessons.

It's terribly puzzling why you've become so angry and suspicious and, well, paranoid. I can't imagine living like that and, if that's what it means to be a true Catholic, I don't want to be a part of it. Fortunately, I know the loving, compassionate, grace-filled Catholicism committed to justice and helping the poor and disadvantaged. Your paranoid, rules-driven-but-Scripture-empty Catholicism is unsettling.

Daniel, I don't want to get into a Scripture verse match with you, but the writers of the Holy Bible spent an awful lot of time writing about morality in general and sexual morality in particular, so I don't really think it's optional for a Christian to decide, against Church teaching, that none of that really counts.

And I have to smile, again, at your caricature of me. Want to talk about love, grace, concern for the poor, or showing compassion? Okay, then; but as far as I know, none of that's controversial. Nobody's out there saying Catholics shouldn't have love or shouldn't seek grace or shouldn't be concerned for the poor or shouldn't show compassion. Lots of people, Catholics like yourself included, are saying we can become holy while totally ignoring God's will for us in regard to sexual morality as expressed very clearly by His Church upon earth.

Frankly, I find that to be a terrible lack of compassion, because if one really loves one's homosexual brothers and sisters one will tell them the truth about the terrible danger they are in. I don't want any of them to go to Hell, and especially I don't want to be the one leading them astray by telling them the lie that God doesn't care what they do with or to their bodies. He has said otherwise, through countless centuries, in the Bible and through the Church and today through His shepherd, Pope Benedict XVI, who has spoken about the evil of homosexual activity on more than one occasion. Obviously, you think the pope is wrong, the Church is wrong, and the Bible is wrong about all of that, but on what grounds? If you truly love the Church as you say you do, and if you are truly so filled with holiness and the Holy Spirit that you can see what the pope himself cannot, don't you owe it to Catholics to reveal your source of all this wisdom?

Do you love the Epistles of St. Paul, in your love for Scripture, Daniel? St. Paul clearly loves the people of the church at Corinth, but that doesn't stop him from warning them time and again against the evils of sexual sin, including adultery, fornication, sodomy, and prostitution. Of course, he also warns them against such sins as theft, drunkenness, and greed--but again, no one that I know of has started a "thieves' rights" or "alcoholics' rights" or "greedy people's rights" groups (okay, okay, maybe the last, if you want to consider Wall Street--but lots of Christians, myself included, find our current preoccupation with higher and higher profits as deeply troubling as we do sexual sin, you know).

We tell people it's wrong to steal; when someone suffers from kleptomania we offer psychological help, sympathy, and support.

We tell people it's wrong to abuse alcohol or drugs; we try to help alcoholics and drug abusers give up their destructive habits.

But we tell people who indulge in sexual sins that they're just fine, no sin there, no, nothing for them to worry about; it's just the rest of society that has to get over their patriarchal heterosexual monogamous notions of normalcy.

What part of "love" refuses to help people turn away from evil, Daniel? What part of "love" turns its back on those in grave danger?

And, addendum, none of this has anything to do with whether legal rights should be extended to same-sex couples. People can still believe homosexuality is a grave sin akin to being a heroin addict--who would be able to get married to another heroin addict without Catholics feeling threatened, btw--and yet the rest of compassionate and just society can support legislators and courts that affirm civil liberties and due process for gay citizens.

Daniel's making a lot of sense, Erin, and you just sound unhinged.

Gosh darn it, I did NOT push that button twice! My apologies. Reading my rants one time is plenty. This software is driving me crazy. I can't revert to believing in Hell, but that karmic retribution for bad web design is starting to look awfully tempting. If only I were Pope and people would actually believe me when I consign things to the outer darkness . . . .

I really don't much care whether my state or any state licenses marriage between same-sex couples or not. It is not that important to me, either way. I am generally appalled by the sloppy reasoning that motivates narrowly divided state supreme courts to find an "equal protection" right to such marriages. Starting with Massachusetts, they have all failed to DEFINE THEIR TERMS before beginning deliberations. Instead, they end up with term definition as the final outcome of their opinions. Same-sex couples are not asking for equal access to marriage, they are asking that marriage (currently defined, and not something they are interested in) be REDEFINED. Sadly, none of the attorneys arguing against such law suits have gotten to this fundamental level. They offer fuzzy arguments about "compelling state interest" in promoting heterosexual marriage. There is no such compelling STATE interest.

But here is what is really interesting, when the subject is "legislating from the bench." Not one state, where the supreme court has found an equal protection right to gay marriage, has overturned that decision by constitutional amendment. Many states, where the supreme court has not been inclined to make such a decision, have pre-emptively adopted amendments. So, it appears that the voice of the people, or at least the apathy of the people, is being heard. Where the people are opposed, so are the courts. Where the courts step in, there is no majority of the people willing to say otherwise.

Looks like I replied "twice" too. Sigh. It's a tribute to the greatness of Rod's blog that we're all still out here trying to comment despite the glitches, yes?

Face it. Gay Marriage is the law of the land; some just haven't waken to that fact. Not that the fact will satisfy gays. Our "culture" is too soaked by the greivance mentality. Homosexuality will never be seen as the same. Many (most?) who are so open minded will likely be less so when the abstraction of "love" turns into the reality of normative homosexual PDA. The many will tire of the constant victim status card being played. I mean really, since when has any group given up the card that brings them power?

And of course, this is just a point on the line of cultural flux that leads to cries of "bigot!" toward anyone opposing normalizing any sexual union whatsoever.

The word "definition" is at its root a word that means to limit meaning. We are on the eve (or two days past) of Orwellian Newspeak wherein "definition" means infinite.

Oh, and Erin is right. She's not cramming theology onto anyone, but she's right to discuss the meaning of her's with Daniel who claims (in Orwellian fashion of course) to share her theology, i.e. the Roman Catholic faith.

Erin, I've run into the same problem here many times discussing this issue. I never bring up the theological, but I'm told that my secular comments are wrong because we live in a secular state.

Orwellian.

"I mean really, since when has any group given up the card that brings them power?"

Just ask the people constantly playing the victim card that their relgious liberty is threatened by same-sex marriage. Or those who use the victim card by bringing up beastility and incest when talking about same-sex relationships. There are victms and martyrs everywhere, as this thread points out.

"Orwellian." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
It's not a word to be tossed around lightly, Max. And I agree, neither is marriage. You can disagree all you want with my and others' interest in changing its meaning, but it's silly to call our opinions "Orwellian" simply because we don't agree with you.

It looks as if Max has Repeating Himself Attraction Disorder (RHAD). Not that there's anything wrong with that. We all have a touch of it, thanks to Satan's minions at beliefnet. They have much to answer for. And there's no guarantee that you'll see this at all . . . or that you won't see it six times in a row. I blame myself entirely for my apparently indefatigable determination to defeat them and post a comment. I wouldn't want Rod to bear the responsibility for that. I imagine he's already tearing his hair sufficiently.

Insane Kitten, bring on those crackers! We'll be the toast of Hell! ; )

Erin, your monster list makes me rub my hands together and cackle with glee. At last! Something to get my teeth into! But before I tackle it--if beliefnet will allow that--let me deal separately with this:

Because marriage *is* a religious notion, as it is currently constructed. Even ancient pagan societies ordered their ideas about marriage based on their religions. There has never been a truly atheist/agnostic understanding of marriage; there has never been a workable secular definition that was completely divorced from earlier religious notions.

This statement lacks historical and anthropological perspective to such an extent that I'm not sure where to begin. First, I would request you to recognize the distinction between ideas of the sacred and "religious" dictates, which to you appear to mean rulings handed down by an organized hierarchy with a codified body of doctrines believed to have been granted via divine revelation. Most societies treat certain events and situations as "sacred", but this is not at all the same thing as "a religion." Many societies don't have what you would think of as a religion, yet people still manage to get married. Marriage and religion are both expressions of culture, but one does not create the other. Animals form pair-bonds and relationships, which often endure for life. Humans were getting together for mutual support and to raise young long before formal religion ever existed.

Marriage was contracted by mutual consent and did not require the presence of a priest until after the Council of Trent. Luther and Calvin did not consider it a sacrament. So, heck yes, there have been secular ideas of marriage. Traditional marriage was concerned with transfer of property and practical obligations related to material goods and to the value of the labor of a woman and her potential offspring. Because property is important, these transactions were dignified and legitimated by references to sacred traditions. For most of history, it had nothing to do with mysticism.

If we're going to talk about marriage in terms of history and culture, let's try to do so with as much accuracy as possible. Probably none of us rank as experts, but let's try to do more than bandy unsupported assertions.