Whatever you think of Prop 8, I don't see how you can disagree with the decision of the California Supreme Court to uphold it. For a court to have nullified a constitutional amendment ratified by a popular vote, and to have done so on a legal technicality, would have been a terrible thing for the democratic process, and the system's legitimacy. Note well that the same court that ruled same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marriage ruled 6 to 1 that they no longer do -- which, of course, they don't, the constitution having been amended by Prop 8. I'm surprised by how many people don't realize that the amendment process is how our system provides a check-and-balance to the courts.
In our system, either the people have the right to amend their own constitution, or they don't. If we do not, then we live under judicial tyranny, full stop. The right to amend the constitution doesn't mean we will always do so wisely. But it's dangerous to believe that fundamental right should be taken away from a sovereign people because you don't like the decision the people have made.
Keep in mind that today's decision was not about the ultimate justice of same-sex marriage. It was about how California's constitution works. The justices have made clear that they believed under the previous California constitution, there was an inherent right to same-sex marriage. The voters of California changed the constitution when they voted Prop 8. Perhaps they made a mistake. But it was a constitutionally permissible mistake, the High Court now says. Note too that the plaintiffs were arguing for Prop 8 to be overturned on a legal technicality. There is simply no basis in constitutional law for having a constitutional amendment overturned because it conflicts with a previous understanding of the constitution by the court.
Now the pro-SSM folks will work hard to get a pro-SSM amendment on a future California ballot. And if the people pass that one, overturning Prop 8, fine. I think they're wrong, but the people will have spoken, and done so in the most serious possible way: via a constitutional amendment. That's how it works in our system. You've got a better one in mind?
UPDATE: For those who think Supreme Courts always defend the rights of minorities over the mob's rule, remember SCOTUS's Dred Scott ruling, which upheld the right to slavery and denied that Africans could ever be US citizens. That ruling was overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments. You might not like the ruling of the California court, but it was correct (as even Andrew Sullivan recognizes) from a constitutional viewpoint. Tyranny is a lot less messy than our form of democracy. But it's still tyranny.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"It wasn’t that I was trying to be facetious. I mean, she started with a description of an orthodox wedding in which the priest introduced the proceedings by saying “We don’t care if they love each other.”
Without any context to work from, it seems to me that this was an unfortunate thing for the priest to say. (I do not know if Susan is Eastern Orthodox or whether she meant orthodox in the sense of being traditional. I am not Eastern Orthodox.) In Ephesians chapter 5: 25-30 we read:
"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it: That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any; such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church: Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." Of course the Church should care whether a couple wishing to be married love one another, because it is that love which becomes life-giving when they are joined together as husband and wife.
The Catholic Church also teaches that the greatest act of love we can have for another human being is to bring him to Christ through His Church and help him on his path toward salvation. This is also one of the purposes of marriage. And as shown above, the marriage of individuals is compared to the love of Christ for His Church, which is greater than any love we might know on earth. So I do not understand how any Catholic could disregard love in marriage.
"I’m still wondering...IS it OK for post-menopausal women to have sex? And if it is, wouldn’t that contradict your explanation here that even if a couple were to, say, try to use the rhythm method as a form of birth control, they would have to get the OK from their priest first? (since this is engaging with the sex act with the direct intention of NOT conceiving?)"
Of course it is okay for post-menopausal women to have sex. I am surprised this has been seen as some sort of contradiction. It is not contradictory at all. A woman who is no longer fertile due to the natural process of menopause is not engaging in sex with the direct intention of not conceiving. Quite simply, through no fault of her own, she is unable to. This does not negate the fact that she once was. It is a natural, biological issue, not a behavioral one.
However, this also does not equate to the situation between a homosexual couple, because there is no natural period during which time two people of the same sex may be able to produce children together. Nor can it be compared to the heterosexual couple who, for whatever reason, are unable to produce children together. For one, there is a general presumption that one or both homosexual partners are, under normal circumstances, able to reproduce. If this is the case, engaging in homosexual sex deliberately prohibits the creation of children. Even if, like the infertile heterosexual couple, one or both partners are infertile, it is still not a situation which is considered to be normal. Infertility is the minority condition, and every homosexual couple is not necessarily infertile, but unable to produce children because they are biologically incompatible with one another. There is still theoretically the possibility that the infertile heterosexual couple may one day conceive. A homosexual union cannot and will never produce biological offspring, and of course they know this from the beginning. In most instances, a heterosexual couple probably does not even know they will have difficulty bearing children until they try. And even after years of failing to have a child, there still remains the hope and intention to do so. Even if you wish to bring into the discussion people who deliberately become sterilized by vasectomy or tubal ligation, once again we have only the example of people who are perverting the natural workings of the human body and is thus not natural or normal.
The question has been asked whether, along the same lines, such heterosexual couples as those who contracept or get sterilized should be allowed to marry either. The Catholic Church is not hypocritical on this point. If impediments are known prior to the marriage between a couple that indicate an intention to reject the Church's teaching on marriage, they will not (or should not) be allowed to marry. That is not to say that there may not sometimes be imprudent judgements that allow such marriages as the result of poor catechesis, faulty advice, etc., on the part of the couple and/or the advising priest, but those situations are representative of human error and not hypocrisy in Church teaching.
Hi Natty, thanks for clarifying that. I understand a good deal about Catholic marriage philosophy now! And as I posted earlier, with a clearer context (i.e. your and Susan's post, and a brief look at Thomism) I see how the constant, directed and disciplined will toward reproduction underpins the Catholic paradigm of existence.
Of course, this is not everyone's paradigm! As intricately reasoned as the aforementioned may be, it simply doesn't apply to all Americans. We are not a country of Catholics exclusively--we are not even a country of Christians exclusively. So I still don't understand how Catholic marriage law should reasonably have any bearing on US civil marriage.
As for Sofia's point above, I am definitely with her on the fact that childbearing can put women at a disadvantage in this society (heck, I pay about three times more a month for insurance than my husband just because I COULD POSSIBLY get pregnant--that's a not-insignificant chunk of change I'm being penalized for the simple fact of being capable of reproduction!) and that it is important to ensure that the men who impregnate women are held just as responsible (financially, if not physically or emotionally) as the women themselves are.
I guess where Sofia lost me is here:
"This is what marriage law must provide, and gay marriage laws and no-fault divorce laws provide no legal protection whatsoever for the heterosexual family enterprise (marriage). In a word, gay marriage law is BAD marriage law. It leaves kids and women totally exposed to rampant spousal abandonment and economic ruin."
Not quite sure how the first sentence leads to the second two. SSM is about providing legal protection for same sex couples, but that doesn't mean that when a state legalizes SSM, all heterosexual contracts are somehow abandoned. And I'm REALLY not sure on what basis she can conclude that it would leave women exposed to spousal abandonment, unless she simply has zero faith in the morals and emotional maturity of men at large.
(And still...how exactly would Sofia's logic hypothetically play out in a man's mind? "Now that gays can get married...we're all going to get divorced!!"--as though divorce and abandonment never happens now!!--or are folks like Sofia more worried about this: "Now that gays can get married, we're all going to divorce our wives and get married to other men!"?? Something just doesn't compute here.)
"I freely confess that I was making assertions about right and wrong and what it is or isn't moral to do."
Hmmm, this certainly contradicts what you typed earlier:
"absolutely no one here is making assertions about right and wrong and what it is and isn't moral to do".
We'll just chalk that inconsistency down to the same faults in 'logic' you make so frequently here. Call it 'selective' 'reasoning' and Bob's your uncle.
All, please don't reply to "Husband." Unless he can prove otherwise, he's a commenter Rod banned a long, long time ago.
(And he should know that Susan isn't me, let alone Sofia. I don't use any other name here but my own.)
That's pretty sad when a blogista has to request comboxers not to discuss things with a commenter with whom the blogista disagrees.
Speaks pretty poorly of the arguments brought forward by the blogista.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.