|
Published: May 25, 2008
It leers towards totalitarianism
The effects of the legalization of homosexual “marriage”
Notes from a Cultural Madhouse
By Christopher Zehnder
In the aftermath of the California Supreme Court’s legalizing of homosexual marriage, the claim that the decision jeopardized traditional marriage in our state met with a response that went something like this: “What do you mean heterosexual marriage is in danger? Men can still marry women in California; only, now, we’ve extended the privilege to same-sex couples.”
I have thought, “Such a response is disingenuous. After all, those making it surely understand what we mean when we say the Supreme Court’s decision has undermined marriage.” But, after considering the matter further, I thought again: “Maybe they don’t understand what we mean.” And then I thought, “Of course they don’t understand what we mean!”
But then I considered the matter yet again, and came to this conclusion: “They do understand, but just disagree.”
 And what do these, the proponents of homosexual marriage, disagree with us about? The very nature of marriage. For them, marriage is a social construct – one, indeed, with deep traditional roots, but for all that still susceptible to legal manipulation and social engineering. Secondly (with most of heterosexual society, alas!) they disagree with us that procreation is the primary purpose of sexual intercourse. For our opponents, sex is about pleasure and something they vaguely call “love,” and, since it is about those things, they see no reason why it must be relegated to opposite-sex encounters. Basically, they find nothing disordered and, therefore, nothing disgraceful, nothing bad, in homosexual intercourse. For them, it’s just another variation in human sexuality.
Of course, I have made no revelations here, nor did I intend to. I wanted merely to remind both those who agree with me that homosexual marriage is a moral impossibility and those who don’t what the grounds of our disagreement are and the basis why those who oppose the legal recognition of homosexual marriage think it overthrows traditional marriage.
For, of course, the state is not going to forbid men and women to marry. All who uphold traditional marriage recognize this. Nor, in the near future, at least, will the state force religious bodies to recognize same-sex marriages. Marriage between a man and a woman is as legally secure – not as it has ever been -- but at least as it has been since California began allowing no-fault divorce 40 years ago.
But the legal recognition of same-sex marriages will predictably have social and cultural consequences. It will lead to a devaluation of traditional marriage. How?
Those who think homosexual unions are as natural and good as the union of a man and a woman will doubtless disagree with what I write here. But, I think they will have to admit that, at least, on the assumption that homosexual unions are truly unnatural and, therefore, immoral, equating them with the union of man and woman can only lead to a lessening of the regard society extends (even today) to traditional marriage. Yes, society will conceivably respect traditional marriages in the way it will respect homosexual marriages – as unions founded on (at least short-term) commitment and love. But what if marriage is far more than this? If it is more than this, than it deserves a greater respect. To give it any less respect, to equate it with not only a lesser, but an unnatural union, is to remove from marriage the regard it deserves. It is to lower it in the esteem of society.
How we think about a thing affects how we act toward it. Now, I will not indulge in any prophetic jeremiad. I do not know whether or how recognition of homosexual marriage will affect the rights and privileges accorded traditional marriages. But the legal rights and privileges of marriage are perhaps not the most important consideration. The greater consideration is the effect equating traditional marriage with homosexual unions will have on how people regard marriage. Certainly, such an equation must lead to moral confusion. Laws influence morality, for in our deepest sense we know that laws are supposed to protect morality. Change a law that enshrines certain moral standards and you begin to change the public’s moral sense. For the general run of men, “it is legal” means “it is right.”
The legal recognition of homosexual marriage will further advance the decay of the public’s moral sense in regard to marriage. Granted, this decay was already quite advanced before the Supreme Court’s decision; but we shouldn’t be administering poison to the wound. And this is precisely what the Supreme Court has done. Instead of striving to heal an ailing moral sense, it is working to kill it.
But there is a further consideration. It is ironic that those who praise the Supreme Court’s decision for establishing a right heretofore unknown don’t see how it has destroyed the basis for any claim to rights beyond those the government grants. In limiting the government’s power to exclude one class of couples from its definition of marriage, the Supreme Court has in reality extended the power of the state beyond all bounds. A limited government requires limits, and, ultimately, for government to be truly limited, society has to recognize boundaries beyond which government may never tread. For its citizens to possess rights in a real and secure fashion, the state must acknowledge spheres of human life which lie outside its authority to act.
The state, for instance, may and must recognize what constitutes human personhood, but it does not create or bestow personhood. The state has to acknowledge human persons but it does not grant them the right to be or be called human persons. This is because human personhood preexists the state and is the cause of the state rather than the state being the cause of it. Likewise with marriage, which also preexists the state and is a cause rather than an effect of the state. The state may and must recognize what God, nature, and human tradition have said marriage is; it must acknowledge what an Authority outside itself has determined marriage to be. The state must acquiesce to the fact that, because marriage is a pre-political institution, its character and definition are not subject to governmental manipulation. The state can no more change the definition of marriage or declare what isn’t marriage to be marriage than it can bestow human personhood on beasts and the inanimate creation.
By granting the state the right to change the definition of marriage, the Supreme Court has completed the state’s aggrandizement of power over the family. It has declared that the state has the authority not simply to intervene in the family (solely on the state’s discretion), but that the state may redefine marriage, and therefore, the family; for marriage is the basis of the family. Marriage and the family thus derive their definition and, therefore, their very being from the state. The state has gone from being the guardian and promoter of marriage and the family to being their creator and absolute lord. And what the state can create, it can also destroy.
The California Supreme Court’s legalization of homosexual marriage has indeed been a triumph, but not for marriage. Not even for homosexual “marriage.” It has been a triumph for state totalitarianism – which, like every totalitarianism (as Pope Benedict XVI reminds us), is rooted in relativism. For relativism, recognizing no rules demanding absolute respect, breaks down all barriers to the grasp for power.
Posted Sunday, May 25, 2008 8:44 AM By John L. Sillasen
The legislature has the power to strip the court of most of its jurisdiction. The voters have the power to replace the justices. The executive branch has the authority to arrest for treason or impeach the justices.
|
Posted Sunday, May 25, 2008 11:11 AM By Camille
I agree heartily with Chris' analysis of the devastation to be wrought by the Supreme Court's action on redefining marriage. or, as I understand Judge Carol Corrigan to say in her descent. The homosexual community seeks to put aside the old tradition of marriage and begin a new tradition of marriage. This new tradition being one of defining the state as the third party in the marriage contract and not God.
In today's epistle reading from Deuteronomy Moses warns his people "do not forget the Lord your God..."
|
Posted Sunday, May 25, 2008 11:16 AM By Anne
Chris you are right that we now live under a totalitarian state. Unless Sarah's Law goes through an abortionist in California can still abort an under-age girl in this state, without patental permission. Many young woman have had serious injuries because of such surgeries. Also, many have been sexually abused and then aborted without the parents even knowing about it--some finding out after the fact. Now a doctor at Boston Children's hospital in Massachusetts wants to perform trangender operations on children. I can see what is coming. They will be taking our children and changing their sex without parental permission if we don't fight all this craziness.
|
Posted Sunday, May 25, 2008 11:32 AM By Pat
We have to, with much elan and beholdedness, teach about marriage like marriage has never been taught! We have to start from the ground up. Our children have to see the vast crevasse between traditional Marriage as a Sacrament, taught by Jesus and the Prophets...and bloody insults to which marriage has succumbed. The likes of the Hollwood genre has always been the first to trash marriage....to save face and to feel valid. After the third, through the seventh marriage, why bother. Who are they kidding? Then, living together followed along with many other quasi relationships.
Backed up, as time went by, with the teaching in our schools about "You're OK, I'm OK", relative thinking, tolerence....the worst of all, making it a 'hate crime' to make any judgements about anothers words and actions. So where did we go with this 'marxist' push to wipe out all traditionalist teachings....taken from the Bible? It has given the entire planet creative and accedemic freedom to do just as they please, because it feels good. "Let's all be one so we can get along together in peace." HogWash!
Jesus' teachings are hated around the world. They get in the way of mostly...sexual freedom. As we see, whole religions are based around sexual freedoms. The breakdown of the Sacrament of Marriage has eroded .... so we must pick up the goodness that is still marriage and teach it to the multitudes. .... Which leads to procreation. Which leads to questions of the LIFE given by God as part of Himself in coitus....without contraception of any kind. THAT IS ANOTHER BIGGY... God Help All of Us.
|
Posted Sunday, May 25, 2008 11:51 AM By Anne
A better word for the operation in my last post would be "sex change" operation instead of "transgender operation" as I believe I wrote.
|
Posted Sunday, May 25, 2008 1:28 PM By al
Well articulated.
However, your thought that the state cannot define personhood may even be short of showig the full implications of this trend.
Consider that Spain has already begun to debate granting human "rights" to apes, and the British sanction of research on chimeras that blend human and animal genes.
I suggest that even the sanctity of personhood is at risk in the modern unbridled state.
|
Posted Sunday, May 25, 2008 2:30 PM By Anne
Please forgive me for all my typos in my first e-mail. Al, you are right. Never in the history of the world has it been in such a mess when whole peoples have lost all sense of natural law and morality. The Spanish used to have a saying, "To sin is human, but to brag about it is of the devil". Just look at poor Spain and England now. And many in this country want to follow in their footsteps. Keep praying and working toward the Truth.
|
Posted Sunday, May 25, 2008 2:51 PM By John F. Maguire
Christopher Zehnder's article fails to distinguish between the philosophy of law and the theology of marriage. The theology of marriage recognizes that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children. *Primary* here means fundamental, that is, an end which may never be subordinated as a means to another end, however excellent. The theology of marriage recognizes that the marital act is ordained by nature to procreation. By contrast, the philosophy of law, for its part, recognizes something consequent upon this natural ordination: namely, the statistical ordination of marriage as an institution to the
procreation of children. In these terms, the "ordination" of
"same-sex marriage" to procreation is, as an empirical matter, null rather than statistical. Accordingly, a contradiction in terms is involved in calling same-sex unions marriages. --Such, however, is not Zehnder's approach; rather, he boxes himself into a corner (amazingly) by aligning the entire same-sex camp plus "most of heterosexual society" against himself. Zehnder ends up
in this desperate spot because he overlooks the simple fact that for the purposes of a secular-legal definition of marriage, statistical ordination of marriage to procreation suffices as an essential note in that definition. Instead, Zehnder (he thinks he has to) invokes "procreation [as] the primary purpose of sexual intercourse" when no, all that is needed in the present discussion is recognition of the statistical ordination of marriage-as-marriage to procreation.
|
Posted Sunday, May 25, 2008 4:59 PM By Christopher Zehnder
Mr. Maguire,
Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by a "statistical ordination."
|
Posted Sunday, May 25, 2008 5:33 PM By John F. Maguire
What is the probability of any one conjugal act issuing in the conception of a child? What is the probability of a marriage, even a marriage habitually and honorably open
to the possibility of conception, over n-period of time, receiving the blessing of a child conceived? And a different question, what is the probability of receiving the blessing of the birth of that child? All these questions sound in the domain of statistical ordination. I would say, in reply to Mr. Zehnder's excellent question, which in my opinion goes to the heart of the matter, that this statistical ordination of marriage to procreation takes into account a host of variables
(e.g., rates of physiological sterility, rates of contraceptive use, rates of abortion, etc.), yet none of these variables contradicts the statistical ordination itself (across the universe of marriages) to procreation. By the same token, a same-sex union, for genital reasons, incribes itself in a "null relation" to procreation, thereby contradicting the statistical ordination of marriage-as-marriage to procreation. Judge Baxter in his dissent refers to the universality of the man-woman predicate and by implication the statistical ordination of the genitality proper to them; he does not confuse the issue by inroducing the specific norm that every act of sexual intercourse must be open to procreation, correct though that norm is as a matter of the moral theology of marriage.
|
Posted Sunday, May 25, 2008 6:49 PM By John L. Sillasen
OK, now I too understand "statistical ordination of marriage", and recognize it as a construct for evading God's command to go forth and make babies. There is nothing statistical in God's commune with people. Yes, there are those who would crunch statistical numbers both in speculation and after the fact (and combine them, because one without the other is like a horse without a carriage) +++ But it looks to me from study of God that He did not include madison avenue, nor its precursors, nor its followers ... instead He gave us the likes of Solomon to clue us in on the nature of wisdom, and the likes of the Apostles to clue us in on the supernature of wisdom, namely love in its divine sense, uh, namely Jesus. What, for example, is the statistical probability of the advent of Jesus? I'd say it would be "zero%, with no need of a decimal point ... ie absolute zero"; whereas, even the statistical probability of God is 100%, because all creation points to the existence of the prime mover, uh, namely God. Thus, any statistical credibility used to assuage the divine command to make babies and not kill them is zero %, because Jesus was the only baby Who is God, the fulfillment on God's part of the command which mankind is to emulate. Thus, those who would block the creation of a baby or kill a baby violate the fundamental command of God, which Jesus labeled the Eleventh and Greatest Commandment of the Law.
|
Posted Sunday, May 25, 2008 8:43 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to John Sillasen: The ordination of Christ as the "first-born of all creation" is, certainly in the Scotistic tradition, an absolute ordination, even though we cannot say that: Were there not a Fall nonethless the Son of God would have become man. We cannot say this because, as Thomas Aquinas pointed out, we know only the world in terms of its actuality historicality, not however by way of an undecidable counterfactual. Aquinas also recognized that
historical reality is shot through with a host of statistical manifolds: probability is a reality, not just a "construct" in the head. Every marriage has a certain probability co-efficient regarding its number of conceptions and births. I would suggest that this notion is obviously a statistico-empirical notion, not a dodge to "evade" anything required by the moral law.
|
Posted Sunday, May 25, 2008 9:11 PM By John L. Sillasen
I've seen snakes that look like some of these justices. I think resemblance is due to the justices keeping their arms and shoulders immobilized and their expressions to their faces, necks and spinal columns. Hey, if I learned only one thing is anthropology and history, it's that the pagan world organizes itself on the totem principle. They adopt animals for their gods, and imitate the dynamics of those animals. The snake in the wild is the world's perfect predator. Pagans have goals, they just don't sit around and be harmless. When they are in power, they do nothing but seek their quarry. Take another look at the faces and body language in the photos.
|
Posted Sunday, May 25, 2008 10:10 PM By John F. Maguire
Mr. Sillasen's demonization of the physiognomy of California Supreme Court Justices undercuts his general observation that the culture of pre-literate societies is not infrequently organized totemically. Fortunately, the notion of "actual historicality" has played an important role in the expansion of the horizon of human thinking beyond the confines of totemism. Which returns me to the point at issue here: Yes, in terms of the emergent probability of conceptions and births, any one marriage, even if no children are conceived or born within it, nonetheless belongs to the statistical universe of all marriages. A defect *per accidens*--for example, sterility--does not, we know, invalidate a marriage. By contrast, the fact that the contracting parties to marriage are the same sex constitutes an essential defect. From within this perspective, which Justice Baxter recognized as historicaly universal, California voters were not acting irrationally in concluding that homogenitality is a commitment and practice that falls outside the compass of marriage--marriage, I would add, understood as statistically ordinated to procreation. A null relation to an essential end of marriage, in short, is not a statistical relation to that end.
|
Posted Monday, May 26, 2008 4:01 AM By dmh
The disagreement goes far deeper than that. I for one, and I know many people will agree with me, think that homosexuality is natural and God-blessed just as much as heterosexuality or any type of sexuality. Further, I'll make the case that in all likelihood, gay marriage will only strengthen the bonds of matrimony, and for that matter child raising in society in general.
I am not part of the catholic religion and have no particular interest in diminishing your faith or your internal social order, but from the outside perspective, the anti-gay marriage point of view comes off pure and simple: You are trying to tell other people how to run their lives, under a stack of morally questionable guidelines.
And to this, I have to rabidly speak out and defend from what as religious attacks on our American culture and our American liberties and our American progressive tradition.
I really sometimes think this divide is coming from two different worlds -- in the same way that the line of thinking that "relativism" could ever be equated with "totalitarianism" makes my head spin, I can only see the core church teachings as a lump of fear driven half-moral batch of evils.
What I see coming from the social conservative movement as a whole is Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. How godly are those emotions? If your teachings are so wise, then why can't you prevent so much strife from coming up from groups of people that view things differently?
We have a long way to go to bridge this gap, and I am willing to do it and talk about it, but I'm not sure how much your side is.
-- A California gay marriage proponent
|
Posted Monday, May 26, 2008 5:23 AM By Fred Conwell
Intrinsically, Christians want to avoid sin that offends God. We do not unilaterally harm God but we wreck our love relationship with Him by sinning. Created in His loving image, we fail to live up to expectations. All sinners need to take Jesus as Savior and Lord. He will keep us in His Father's loving will. As Lord, He bases and defines ALL sin as lack of love (Matthew 22:36-40). Such obvious sins as theft, murder and adultery are unloving because each has a victim, someone not receiving love. Please tell me, who is the unloved victim in a homosexual relationship? Neither is a victim, neither is unloved. Where is the hurt? Who could bring suit against the "sinner"? What Gospel writer or Bible prophet claimed homosexuality is sinful? (Jesus didn't!) These are not rhetorical questions; they are unanswered by those who refuse God's grace and live by working the law. How would you like to be the first to answer any one of them? If God didn't want men to have sex with other men, He would have said "Man shall not lie with man PERIOD (Leviticus 18:22, 21:13). God wanted Moses to eradicate rampant idolatry in the Jewish nation. That whole " . . . as with a woman" thing condemns straight men pretending to make it with a woman, such as during idol worship. Paul explains it further when putting down the straight Romans (1:26-28 ) and Corinthians (1 Co 6:9-11) for "leaving their natural relations" (i.e.... as with a woman) and having idolatrous sex with men. Gay men can only imagine what sex " . . . as with a woman" would be. We are attracted to other men by definition and by God. "Homosexual" was coined about 1865, so any subsequent Bible translation using that word is a lie that needs to be emended. It premiered in a1946 English Bible and has been condemning loving Gays ever since. What is the most love one can show another sinner? Offer them an eternity with God through the redemptive cross of Jesus.
|
Posted Monday, May 26, 2008 8:09 AM By John L. Sillasen
I continue to see statistics as descriptive. And its quality of quantification provides better odds. But its scope is limited. In this case, that of Justice Baxter applying it to his view, a descriptive view, it seems fine as a tool of persuassion. But it is only persuassive to those who have some faith in God to begin with ... its utility would be in encouraging that faith. Western civilization, having lost its faith, has reverted to totemism ...a high level of totemism, perhaps higher than that of ancient pre-Christian Rome. When Apocalyptic verses give us descriptive terms like "the Beast", and others emerging, then it looks to me as though "totemism" is valid in analyzing our society. Totemism in itself is not bad, it is simply unfulfilled. That is one of the effects of raising the Cross high in a procession, or placing a Crucifix on the top of the church building., or putting an eagle on a flag, or a bear such as that on the flag of California. But when a sector of society lops off the symbol of God, then the totemism of that sector devolves into "the Beast" and such things. This is why I studied the faces of these justices ... go and study the faces and behaviors of various animals ... and you will see. By looking at their photos, the three dissenting ones are Baxter, Chin and George ... but Chin, now that I recall, favored the opinion but said it was arrived at unlawfully ... his face shows this attitude. I am not a juror, and thus do not have to live by rules of the court, which have all but eliminated the efficacy of juries anyway, even when the "jury" consists of the voters of the state in landslide votes against the wishes of four or five justices, the executive and legislative branches ... why is this "jury" being ignored? My suggestion is that, just as the legal system of ancient Jerusalem had become utterly bankrupt, so today that is what we find. It is nice for one or two justices to toss us a bone to chew on, but that is all they do ...
|
Posted Monday, May 26, 2008 9:26 AM By Mark
Thank you Mr. Zehnder for a reasoned opinion regarding the recent California Supreme Courts decision on gay marriage. It is extremely rare when one can read this type of strong opinion that is not filled with hate filled words & condemnation. Although I find the article to have many valid points, in the end, it is still difficult for us to justify the state sanctioning discrimination. The supreme court is not requiring any religions or churches to marry any particular people, rather, it's opinion relates to the state of California and it's civil laws. Frankly, we should be encouraging and supporting gays to be in committed relationships, just as we should have a stronger stance on heterosexual marriage, which today, has become a convience for some with little respect at all. The truth is, that heterosexual marriage is in trouble because of the disrespectful way so many heterosexuals have carelessly treated marriage and the family. Look at the enormous divorce rate! The absurd "Hollywood" marriages by celebrities that as a society, we should not be idolizing. Look how they trash marriage with full view of the public. Look at marriage and families in the black community! We need to find ways to strengthen marriage without alienating and excluding our sons & daughters. As the Church opposes gay marriage, we within the Church and as Americans, should find a way for gay people to be in committed relationships with the same basic constitutional rights as others and with the same moral rights as others. How, in good concience, can we deny gay's hospital visitation rights...especially to a couple of 20 or 30 years? Shame on us for picking and choosing which parts of the bible to follow. Jesus told us to "love one another, as I have loved you"..."judge not, lest you be judged yourself". There is much in the gospels for us to grab ahold of on this issue, where we can find acceptance of others, allow them equality and still be within the tenets of our faith.
|
Posted Monday, May 26, 2008 9:42 AM By Fr. M.P.
As Pope B16 stated, we are in the dictatorship of relativism. Those in power "define" things, regardless of the reality (truth) of the matter. I would recommend that people revisit George Orwell's book 1984 and ponder the concept of "newspeak" which was the government's way of controlling thinking, by defining things in their way. And of course we all see the 1984 thoughtcrime approach of homosexual advocates. When those in power "define truth" rather than simply perceive truth, than tyranny is in play.
|
Posted Monday, May 26, 2008 10:43 AM By Grisha
Christopher:
I have to disagree with your premise that marriage is a pre political institution. While it pre dates the modern nation state, throughout history the tribe defined marriage to its members.
While our current understanding is that marriage is an agreement between a one man and one woman freely entered into, this wasn't always the case. For much history marriage was essentially a contact,usually for consideration, between men, for the excusive right to the sexual and domestic services of a woman. Moreover in many tribes, including the Jews of the Old Testament period, multiple wives were allowed.
In a democratic, multi confessional society, with a system of civil marriage it is invertible that the state will get involved in defining marriage. The only alternative is to remove the state completely from the marriage business. Israel has done that. Marriage there is entirely controlled by the religious authorities. Couples which are of different faiths, or no faith,regulatory go to Cypress to wed. It seems to work there in what is essentially a Religious, but non-Theocratic country. Of course, the vast majority of Israelis are Jewish (The Orthodox rabbinate controls things), Muslim or Orthodox. In our country considering our understanding of religious freedom as well as the number of faith communities, I don't really see it as a model.
|
Posted Monday, May 26, 2008 11:57 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Grisha,
The family is prior both in point of time and fact to both the tribe and the state. There would be no tribe or state unless there first were families. In fact, the less modern the state, the more it seems founded on the notion of fatherhood, built on the analogy with the family. The character and definition of marriage -- the fount of the family -- therefore, may not come from the state; the state can only seek to understand the character of the this thing called marriage. Natural reason, considering the purpose of family life, can determine this to a certain degree of specificity -- a great enough degree to forbid a priori the notion that a man can marry a man or a woman a woman. Failing that, there are the traditions of humanity. These present variations in marriage, such as polygamy (which, neverthless, witnesses to the procreative purpose of marriage), but never same-sex unions. If there are any, they would clearly be in the realm of aberration. This being the case, it should have been easy for the court to determine what "marriage" means. The fact that they decided as they did witnesses to a radical rejection of natural law reasoning and the complete capitulation to the notion that the state or human society is the sole arbiter of what is true. That the state can manipulate and alter society exactly as it sees fit.
|
Posted Monday, May 26, 2008 1:34 PM By William
dmh: According to the teachings of the Church: ALL sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin. Period. It cannot be rationalized away. This would include "gay marriage" as this is NOT a marriage in the eyes of God, who is THE supreme judge. His rulings outweigh all other judges, and they cannot be overturned or appealed. They can, however, be dis-obeyed, or even mocked; this, at the risk of loss of your immortal soul. Change your views, God will welcome you back.
|
Posted Monday, May 26, 2008 2:07 PM By Anne
Mark, I do not believe that the majority of people, including myself, object to an unmarried person leaving their property and power of attorney for their healthcare to whomever they please. But they already have that right. It is calling "marriage" what cannot never be a true marriage that is the problem here. That would be crossing the line from tolerance of those with homosexual tendencies to outright advocacy of homosexual acts. That we orthodox Catholics, Protestants and Jews, etc. can never do. It is not just Catholics that are against performing homosexual acts, many other religions believe it is wrong, too. And most in the homosexual community KNOW exactly what they are doing, they want to make respectable what can never be made respectable.
|
Posted Monday, May 26, 2008 3:12 PM By John L. Sillaen
Mea culpa on my faulty photo analysis of the seven justices: I just read a review of the decision posted on Catholic Online by Jay Sekulow, a leading attorney in US Supreme Court cases, and introduced by Catholic Deacon Keith Fournier. Justice George wrote the majority opinion which is noted by three other justices to be beyond the pale of judicial authority. Justice Corrigan voted with the dissenting justices. Guess I'll have to improve my study of beastlike appearances of people. I owe Mr. Maguire one for pointing out my shoddy analysis, and motivating me to look into it a bit further.
|
Posted Monday, May 26, 2008 3:23 PM By John L. Sillasen
Grisha, you must have attended a workshop during your absense from this site. It is so simple: God did not command Cain and Abel to go and perform sex on each other or on animals, even thought at that time there was only one female who had ever existed, namely their mother. You do not seem to have any cognizance of one of the most poignant teachings of Jesus on marriage: to wit, He said it was like "this" in the beginning, but God granted a waiver until the time of Jesus. So, Mr. Zehnder is absolutely right on the button. Marriage was ordained from the beginning. Another way of coming to the same conclusion involves one's perception of God ... if you understand that God does not change, nor does He deceive, then you have to realize that man has always been striving towards God, and part of that has been striving towards the true nature of marriage. Marriage has not evolved, but the understanding of uninformed or faithless men and women has been "evolving" due to the world being informed by the Church, which has never changed Her teaching on what marriage is or its purpose or exclusivity or need to be protected and defended by government. To attack marriage is to attack the relationship of God and the faithful -- a motive of the devil, and a look at what powers the gay agenda.
|
Posted Monday, May 26, 2008 5:55 PM By Tom
In 1948, a 4/3 CA Supreme Court (Perez vs. Sharp) ruled that California's ban against interracial marriage was unconstitutional. In 2008, a 4/3 decision ruled that the ban against gay marriage was unconstitutional. In both cases, it wasn't about the majority, but about law, and history knows full well that the majority can often be tragically wrong about what's right – e.g., the American Deep South and its racial laws, backed by pulpit and politics; the Germans in 1940, the Inquisition in Spain and Jerusalem in the 33rd year of our LORD's life.
I am a Christian, and I'm profoundly grateful for the Supreme Court's decision, and though disappointed in the response by some Catholics and Evangelicals, I'm not surprised by their reluctance to forgo a position too long held as definitive of Christian faith and marriage. A reductionist view bottled up in tight dogma and empowered by the need to maintain authority.
Marriage isn't about children, it's about love between two people who cast their future into one another's hands and know that life together is better than life apart.
Marriage between a man and woman is right and good, but so is marriage between any two adults who know the joy and the hope of a "knowing love."
Hats off to the Supreme Court for helping us find our way and giving life a chance for thousands of Californians, as God would have it.
|
Posted Monday, May 26, 2008 7:35 PM By Anne
Tom, many people resent your comparing the two issues. Many of the laws against interracial marriage--as I wrote before on another blog-- were not so much because of race, but because of religious differences between tribes and races. Moses, whom God gave one the law against sodomy to in the Old Testament, was married to a woman who had come from another tribe. He had descended from Shem, and she had descended from Ham, the tribe that later helped settle Egypt and parts of Africa. The Jewish people were discouraged from marrying the Egyptians, etc. because some of their religions accepted certain things that the Israelite God forbade and considered immoral. Some of the pharoahs of Eygpt at that time married their own sisters. At least one king of Egypt was deformed because of such a close marriage. The Old Testament God, besides forbidding sodomy, forbade incest. Moses was allowed to marry outside his tribe because his wife accepted his religion. The United States, whether you like it or not, was founded on Judeo-Christian law. Thus the laws against interracial marriage no longer had a Biblical foundation in this country, once many of the races in this country had a common religion --Jewish, Christian. As I said before most families encourage their children to marry someone with a common heritage, or race, since the more a husband and wife have in common, the less they have to fight about, but there has never been, at least for very long, a total forbiddence of intertribal, interracial marriages. In fact they can be somewhat beneficial. The Amish, who are very good Christians in many ways, are suffering the results of too much tribal intermarriage. Some of their children are showing up with serious deformities and medical problems. All the sexual taboos in the Old Testament are there for a reason--not because God is mean and does not want us to enjoy ourselves, but because they contribute to disease or social problems. We can see this now.
|
Posted Monday, May 26, 2008 8:28 PM By John L. Sillasen
It is an insult to a race to compare its cause with homosexuality. There is nothing wrong with races of people; moreover, races are very good because God made them and whatever God made is very good. God did not make homosexual behavior, which is evil. When these perverts claim to have a just cause, it is nothing more than an act of furthering their unjust and immoral cause ... in the same league as the devil tempting Jesus.
|
Posted Tuesday, May 27, 2008 10:02 AM By M.R.
Adam and Steve?
|
Posted Tuesday, May 27, 2008 10:06 AM By Peter
"But, I think they will have to admit that, at least, on the assumption that homosexual unions are truly unnatural and, therefore, immoral, equating them with the union of man and woman can only lead to a lessening of the regard society extends (even today) to traditional marriage. " Nonsense. The regard society extends to traditional marriage today is at an all time low. It has hit rock bottom; no where to go but up.
|
Posted Tuesday, May 27, 2008 10:52 AM By Anne
I want to make my last post clearer. In the third sentence I should have written, "Moses whom God gave the law against sodomy." I also should have written in the last section, "but because the breakage of the sexual taboos of the Old Testament contributes towards disease and social problems." I hope that corrects any misunderstanding of what I meant if there were any.
|
Posted Wednesday, May 28, 2008 7:32 AM By John Andersen
Peter: Your comments are part of the duplicity of the pro-LGBT propoganda. Just because many in sociaty at large have little regard for marriage, is not in itself a justification for honoring and encouraging a wrong behavior (homosexuality). While many Americans have been duped by the propoganda of the pro-LGBT forces, many others are finally awakening to the deceit.
|
Posted Sunday, June 01, 2008 7:48 AM By Alexandra True
There are two aspects of marriage, the sacred and the legal. I want to remind you that historically, legal marriage has been redefined before, When it was illegal for interracial men and women to marry, the government redefined the laws regarding marriage to uphold civil liberties to allow couples from different races to legally marry. Some people believed that it was "wrong" for the government to do this, because they were condoning black men to marry white women which was morally inconceivable for them. There is really no difference in the Supreme Courts position here. It is a constitutional right being denied same sex couples not to be allowed to marry legally. You can still believe it is wrong, just like the KKK believed it was wrong long ago.
|
Posted Saturday, July 12, 2008 9:37 AM By Anne T.
Alexandra True, we discussed that several times before, and the law against intereracial was overcome because there was no Biblical base for it since Moses and others in the Biblical had intertribal marriages. The Bible does discourage interreligious marriages, which is understandable. It absolutely forbids sodomy, both Old and New Testaments, along with incest, etc.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 11:02 AM By Aaron
Mark:
Thank you thank you for your thoughtful commentary.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:50 PM By Peter
Mark: I agree with Aaron. It is sad that so many "christians" hide behind their faith as a mean to justify prejudice.
|
Posted Friday, August 08, 2008 9:10 PM By MarkF
I lived the "gay" life for over thirty years. Even as recently as two years ago I would have been arguing in favor of "gay marriage." Now I can't. I'm deeply Catholic and so I have my religious beliefs about this. But I can also argue from reason alone.
One, the key matter is if homosexuality is good, bad, or neutral. Societies all over the world and in all times have shunned homosexual activity. Certainly there is a shared wisdom there. Don't look at the "gay" activists to tell you the truth about homosexuality. What "gay" men do in private is far, far worse then you've imagined. Check out the internet. Go to Google and search under "cruising" or "cruising spots" near you. You'll find dozens of places that gay men have sex in public bathrooms, parks, beaches. Go onto any "gay" chat place... check out gay.com's chat. I used to live on that place, I know all too much about it. You'll find child molesters, bestiality, rape and sado-masochistic scenes of abuse, prostitution, drugs. Most of all you'll find guys with serious sexual addictions, guys who need to have sex with a stranger in order to sleep, guys who are so in need of something quick that they won't even ask the person for his name, married guys getting it on with their wives and kids in the next room. Go to any gay bar and take a look around. A survey done by a gay sex company found that 40% of gay men take some sort of "club drug" once a month. Look at the ads in any gay newspaper... it's all ads for sex parties, pornography, male prostitutes, and of course, drug and alcohol counseling, therapy for depression and suicidal feelings.
I've lived all of it. I kept thinking that the right guy was around the corner, that I'm just in the wrong place, that the place with the normal healthy guys was just around the corner. But it wasn't. And then I looked at myself and saw that I wasn't the normal, healthy guy that anyone else would want.
My question to straight America is, is this something
|
© California Catholic Daily 2008. All Rights Reserved.
|