Obama Asks Court to Overturn Defense of Marriage Act

President Obama weighed in with the Supreme Court today.

He filed an amicus brief asking the court to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996 denies federal recognition of gay marriages and gives each state the right to refuse recognition of same-sex marriage licenses issued by other states. The act does not prohibit states from allowing gay marriages, neither does it obligate states to recognize the gay marriages from other states.

If the court overturns this act, it would make a muddle of marriage laws within and among the states.

Let me try to explain:

Right now, Oklahoma does not have a law allowing same-sex marriage. In fact, Oklahoma has an amendment to the state constitution which defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

If our neighboring state of Texas passes a law redefining marriage as between someone other than a man and a woman, the Federal Defense of Marriage Act would protect Oklahoma’s current law. Oklahoma would not be obliged to honor Texas’ law.

If this act is overturned by the Supreme Court, the question of what Oklahoma must do in this situation would be up in the air. Unless, of course, the Court follows writes its own statutes (calling them Constitutional interpretations) to enforce its own decision. This is what the Court did with Roe v Wade and subsequent rulings on abortion.

The other effect of overturning DOMA would be that it would allow the federal government to put itself in the marriage regulation business. From what I have seen of this president, you’d better get hold of yourself if this happens, because it’s going to be sweeping, heavy-handed and against the religious freedom of practicing Christians and Christian churches.

A FoxNews article discussing Obama’s brief to the Supreme Court on Doma says in part:

The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to strike down the federal law defining marriage as a union between only a man and a woman.
The request regarding the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act was made Friday in a brief by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli that argues the law is unconstitutional because it violates “the fundamental guarantee of equal protection.”
The high court is set to hear two cases next month on the issue: the constitutional challenge on Proposition 8, the 2008 California that allowed same-sex marriages in the state that two years later was overturned, and United States v. Windsor, which challenges DOMA.
Edith Windsor, a California resident, was married to her female partner in Canada in 2007 but was required to pay roughly $360,000 in federal estate taxes because the marriage is not recognized under DOMA.
The law “denies to tens of thousands of same-sex couples who are legally married under state law an array of important federal benefits that are available to legally married opposite-sex couples,” Verrilli’s brief in part states.
House Republicans also purportedly filed a brief Friday, arguing for the right to defend DOMA.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/23/obama-considers-weighing-in-on-gay-marriage-case/#ixzz2Lk7tlaUf

If you wish to read the President’s brief to the Supreme Court against DOMA, go here.

  • Bill S

    Of all the things that Christians are against, it is about gay marriage that they are the least justified to impose their wills against others. If anything in this world that is the sole business of the ones directly involved and no one else, this is it. Death with dignity would be next and then abortion. They are all private matters.

    I know. I’m like a broken record.

    • http://fpb.livejournal.com/ Fabio P.Barbieri

      Emphasis on “broken”. And the proper establishment of the family is the most important single issue in the public square, since that is the thing that can most damage the commonwealth if it goes wrong, and the hardest to put right. There is nothing private about it. When a person marries, they invite every person they can think of to the party: they want to make sure that their act is as public as possible, because it changes their position, rights and obligations with regard to every citizen in the commonwealth. The notion of marriage being a private business is in fact a lot more indefensible than that of abortion being a private business, which, God knows, is indefensible enough.

      • Ashley

        Great argument. Let me sum up: “Marriage equality should be illegal because people invite others to their weddings.”.

        Regarding the OP, Rebecca Hamilton wrote: “The other effect of overturning DOMA would be that it would allow the federal government to put itself in the marriage regulation business.”. This is exactly, 100%, completely backwards. DOMA put the federal government in the marriage regulation business! IT IS A LAW THAT REGULATES WHICH MARRIAGES WILL BE RECOGNIZED. Striking down DOMA will take the federals OUT of the marriage regulation business. States rights FTW!

        • Rebecca Hamilton

          … and you seriously believe that will be the result if DOMA is overturned?

          “Striking down DOMA will take the federals OUT of the marriage regulation business. States rights FTW!”

        • http://coalitionforclarity.blogspot.com/ Robert King

          No, the “inviting people to the wedding” was one aspect of the conclusion of the argument, it was not a reason or premise of the argument.

          The argument is that heterosexual intercourse has public and civic ramifications for the whole community because it naturally and regularly results in children. Therefore, society (often including the government) has traditionally set expectations and regulations around heterosexual intercourse, usually called “marriage.” Because children are the future of the community, society (often including government) has usually added benefits, ranging from honors and celebrations to tax breaks and legal protections, to encourage people to establish stable sexual relationships in which children are produced and raised to their best advantage.

          Non-heterosexual intercourse, including same-sex intercourse, does not have the same public and civic ramifications. It does not naturally or regularly result in children being born. Therefore, it really can be considered a private affair, and not subject to public or legal regulation. In other words, it makes sense for same-sex couples to keep the government out of their bedrooms in a way that it doesn’t for opposite-sex couples.

          This is (as I understand it) the main secular argument against same-sex marriage. The acts (and therefore the relationships) are different, with different implications for the public sphere. Therefore, the public should not pretend they are the same kind of relationship, and should not treat them the same way under law. If same-sex marriage is normalized across the U.S., in the long run it will remove protections both for children (which admittedly are mostly gone already, thanks to no-fault divorce,) and for same-sex couples.

    • Theodore Seeber

      More like an anti-life broken record. Why do you hate children so much?

  • Bill S

    “When a person marries, they invite every person they can think of to the party: they want to make sure that their act is as public as possible, because it changes their position, rights and obligations with regard to every citizen in the commonwealth.”

    That’s not true for everyone. Some just do it before a justice. But even if they do, why should that matter? There are just no sensible arguments against it. They all speculate dire consequences that are unlikely to say the least.

    • Oregon Catholic

      If marriage isn’t the business of the public then why is the state in the business of marriage? It is precisely because the state has an interest in promoting marriage and family that we have marriage law at all.

      • Bill S

        See the comment by Ashley above. All the state does is record marriages and divorces to know who is who in terms of relations, dependents, beneficiaries, etc. The state doesn’t “promote” anything.

        • Oregon Catholic

          No. See Robert King’s excellent explanation above of why the state is involved in marriage. We have become so clueless about the purpose of marriage – due to shacking up and no-fault divorce and single parenting by choice, etc – that we have forgotten why. The state has always been interested in the institution that protects and fosters and creates the next generation.

  • http://fpb.livejournal.com/ Fabio P.Barbieri

    Are you out of your mind, or do you just not want to listen? Marriage changes a man and a woman’s position with respect to the whole community. It sequesters their sexuality and their fertility; anyone who has sex with a married person is doing something wrong. it gives their children a name. It places them in different relationshisps with other families – you now have a father and a father in law, a sister and a sister in law – you have doubled the number of your family obligations. It places a link on your property and a limit on your right to give your inheritance away. It affects your children. If this is “private”, then the meaning of the word “private” is so wide as not to exist; by your definition, there is nothing whatever that cannot be defined as private. As for the people who have short hidden marriages before JPs or registrars, that is because they are trying to hide their marriage. That is, they want MAKE it private in the sense of secret. If you hide something, the one thing you are doing is depriving it of its public nature. That is, THE VERY FACT THAT THESE PEOPLE HIDE THEIR MARRIAGE PROVES THAT MARRIAGE HAS A PUBLIC NATURE, WHOSE EFFECTS THEY ARE TRYING TO ESCAPE.

    • http://nebraskaenergyobserver.wordpress.com neenergyobserver

      Uh, the British have just found out that when they legalized gay marriage they no longer had a leg to stand on to use adultery as a reason for divorce, so you might want to be careful in that assertion, it could be in the language of the bill but, I wouldn’t bet on it. It was an unintended consequence for them. Ooops!

    • pagansister

      Fabio, just what are you trying to say? :-) I think we all understand that marriage causes changes.

  • Darren

    First Loving v. Virginia, now this. Isn’t it about time to stop activist judges from overruling popular sovereignty!?!

    • SteveP

      Perhaps you might re-read the case to which you refer: the court was ruling on the constitutionality of Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act and found that a man and a woman have the right to found a family. The challenge to DOMA is about taxes: family is completely tangential to “SSM” proponents simply because two persons of the same sex cannot found a family.

      • pagansister

        SteveP. if a SS couple adopts children or in the case of 2 women, and one has a child thru sperm donation, then they have a family. Same gender couples can indeed have families. I happen to know of one case where the women have 2 boys—one gave birth to them. They are a legal family.

        • Rebecca Hamilton

          When a man and a woman come together, children are a naturally-occuring consequence of their union, by its nature. When two men or two women engage in sexual activity, it is a sterile thing, by it’s nature.

          A single person can adopt children. That does not make him or her “married” to anyone.

          This line of reasoning is popular, but it is also non sequitur.

          • pagansister

            I understand that, Rebecca, but is someone (the Church) going to tell those children of same gender couples that their “family” isn’t “real”?

            • Theodore Seeber

              I will. In fact, given recent discoveries in early childhood development on the importance of fathers AND mothers in raising autistic children, and the very real psychological differences that the genders bring to the table in parenting, I am to the point that I consider both single parenthood and single-gender parenthood to be a form of child abuse.

              • pagansister

                Theodore, then tell all those heterosexual couples that divorce to just stay together—for the children, even if they can’t stand to be in the same house together! Heterosexual marriages are not always better than singe parents or singer-gender parents.

              • abb3w

                A bit late for me to notice, but this sounds interesting. I don’t suppose you have a journal citation you can point me to, or at least the name of a lead researcher? I’m not turning up anything in particular on this in Google Scholar.

                • Rebecca Hamilton

                  I had it when I put this up. I’m too busy to dig it out right now. Remind me again and I’ll look it up.

            • http://coalitionforclarity.blogspot.com/ Robert King

              I won’t say it isn’t a “real” family. But I will say it’s not the same kind of family as a married couple with their natural children.

              My sister is my family; but she’s not the same kind of family as my wife. In terms of genetic relation, my sister has a stronger claim to “family”; but in terms of generating life (both literally and metaphorically) my wife has a stronger claim to the term. They’re both close, as close as you can get; but it’s a difference of kind, not of degree.

        • SteveP

          The first you mentioned involved three or four persons: those who are adopting and those who conceived the child. The second you mention involved three persons albeit the male was used anonymously. A “same-sex couple” cannot found a family. Loving v. Virginia found that a man and a woman have the right to marry – the right to found a family, the right to “mix.”

          • pagansister

            StseveP: As I wrote to Rebecca above—tell the children involved that they are not a family because they have same gender parents that love them. IMO, they are a family. Parents are the ones who love you and take care of you. Not all parents are the ones who either donated the sperm or birthed the child. Thus I disagree with you on how a family is founded—-

            • SteveP

              This sub-thread started with a reference to Loving v. Virginia which Rebecca rightly points out is a non-starter when considering a challenge to DOMA.
              .
              You highlight the “SSM” proponent’s position very well: the legal definition of both marriage and family ought to be based on subjective emotional bonds rather than discernable biological bonds. I find the position to be unworkable and would have suggested going the “government should get out of the marriage business” route. However the Executive Office has signaled otherwise.
              .
              Finally, as noted elsewhere, one of the briefs highlighted taxation as the burden rather than delving into kinship ties. I’d expect to see arguments on how marriage would solve the taxation burden, if true, rather than, say, an S-corporation. That is, what is the difference between Edith Windsor and her partner with, say, the partnership between Paul Allen and Bill Gates?

              • Bill S

                “what is the difference between Edith Windsor and her partner with, say, the partnership between Paul Allen and Bill Gates?’

                Is that a serious question? It is kind of amusing that gay marriage is inevidible and everyone is coming up with every argument they can against it. Of all of the dire predictions, the only one that I think will be the one that everyone points at and says “I told you so” will be the one that it will be just as illegal to discriminate based on a person’s sexual preference as it is to do so based on race, color, creed, etc. That is really going to stick in the craw of some people and they will try to use religious freedom as an argument for why they should be able to discriminate. For that fear, they are willing to try to deny gays their legal rights.

                • Theodore Seeber

                  It is precisely because gay marriage is NOT inevitable that we have the discussion at all.

                • SteveP

                  The question, which you cannot answer, is why a “long term, committed relationship” ought to be privileged via tax benefits. Surely Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard were committed to each other’s ideas and wellbeing for the long term. Is that not a marriage according to your own definition?

                  • Bill S

                    Yes, I guess if they are both single, Hewlett could marry Packard if they were so inclined to do so and if gay marriage is legal. I think it would be an abuse of the freedom that would be granted to gays but it would be legal.

  • Kenneth

    This is a very interesting disconnect within modern conservatism. We have a movement which claims that federal government has no proper authority to do almost anything beyond national defense. They don’t trust that it has the sense or goodwill to regulate anything. For 30 years, they have tried to starve it financially and cast it as a jackboot occupational regime anytime it does anything which brushes up against practice of religion in any way. Yet for all that, they trust it implicitly to micromanage the disposition of this one issue for all 50 states. They don’t want to trust the will of the electorate in the states, because they may well make the “wrong” decision for themselves. Its’ true that DOMA doesn’t bar states from legalizing SSM directly, but it aims to do so by creation of a sort of “poison pill” clause in federal law. It literally tells people that no matter what they enact at the state level, gay couples will not be real citizens outside of their own states, or at the federal level, which consumes a huge portion of their earnings each year. No court is going to accept that reasoning, and none of the 8 federal courts which examined the issue have done so.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Kenneth, I disagree with your assertion that repealing DOMA is somehow a way of stopping federal interference in marriage laws. I think that if DOMA is repealed, it will probably result in flat-out federalizing of marriage, which is hardly a conservative goal.

      FWIW, I always considered myself a liberal, still do in economic matters. But I see myself more of a New Deal, Harry Truman kind of liberal. Liberalism today has no relation to anything that liberal democracies produced before the early 1970s. I’ve read that one of the goals of the Communist Party in America was to destroy democratic liberalism, which, with its willingness to reform laissez faire capitalism to make economic success achievable to almost everyone, was a real problem for Communist ambitions of world dominance. They didn’t succeed in much else, but I think they did a good job of this.

      What we call liberalism today has resemblance to the liberalism which gave us 60 years of the greatest prosperity in the history of the world. It seems to me to be more of a kind of knee jerk nihilism than anything else.

      I stubbornly cling to the moniker of liberal for myself, but today’s liberals have forced me to modify my own understanding of what that mean to me when I say it. In truth, I am a Christian and a Catholic; a follower of Jesus. One some issues, that makes me a liberal, on others, a conservative. But it is, if you look at it carefully, a consistent and affirmative viewpoint.

      To return to DOMA, I believe that DOMA with its state’s rights emphasis is strongly conservative. Overturning DOMA is, on the other hand, a clear charge in the direction of federalized marriage laws and all that means.

      • Bill S

        “What we call liberalism today has resemblance to the liberalism which gave us 60 years of the greatest prosperity in the history of the world. It seems to me to be more of a kind of knee jerk nihilism than anything else.”

        nihilism – Noun: The rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless. Extreme skepticism, according to which nothing in the world has a real existence.

        I think it is extreme, but I can see where conservative Christians could look at today’s liberalism as a kind of knee jerk nihilism. The rejection of all religious principles? Mostly yes. The rejection of all moral principles? It might seem so, but not really. Liberals have moral principles. They just tend to be more utilitarian than dogmatic.

        Belief that life is meaningless? In a sense, yes, it is meaningless but we give it our own meaning and purpose. We don’t believe in a will of God that is dictated by mostly men in positions of religious authority and on ancient scripture.

        Extreme skepticism? Perhaps. In which nothing in the world has real existence. Well, not in the physical world but definitely in the spiritual world. The whole idea of heaven and hell has been developed in order to control people and convince them that they will be rewarded or punished depending on whether they follow or reject “God’s will” as defined by the authorities.

  • abb3w

    First, Ms. Hamilton appears to misunderstand the administration’s brief in the Windsor case. From what I can make out, the Amicus filing is not asking the entirety of DOMA to be struck down; instead, it is asking that Section 3 be struck. Section 3 is concerned with Federal co-recognition of State marriages; recognition between states is in Section 2. It seems very unlikely Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Scalia, or Thomas would concur with a sweeping ruling to also strike down Section 2, when the issue is not brought before the court in the Windsor case. Striking down Section 3 will merely alter Federal recognition.

    Second, this problem already exists in some degree, in the case of marriages between first cousins. EG: New Mexico apparently allows cousin marriages, but Oklahoma apparently has a law banning them. I’m not sure how “public policy exception” versus “full faith and credit” in such instances is handled at present, but it seems that cousin marriages are handled somehow. Therefore, I see no reason to expect that “gay marriage” would provide much legal novelty.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      This is one of the more interesting misunderstandings of amicus curiae briefs that I’ve read in a while. They are not instructions to the court. They are simply briefs filed by interested parties entering what the filer hopes the court will consider to be pertinent arguments. As such, their power is often more political than legal. When the president of the United States steps over the boundaries of the divisions of powers to file a brief in support of a particular position in a case that is before the Supreme Court, specifically asking that a law passed by the Congress of the United States and signed by a previous president be overturned, that is heavy politics, indeed, especially when the president in question has directly appointed justices who are sitting on the Court and who will rule in the matter.

      Since the brief is not an instruction but more of an exhortation, its effect is not limited to its verbiage. In short, it doesn’t matter which section of the law the brief addresses. It’s intent will be rightfully taken as the supreme executive position in American government weighing in directly on a statutory matter that was passed by the Congress and asking that it be overturned by the Court.

      I have myself filed similar briefs in support (rather than against) a statute which I had voted on previously and which was before the Oklahoma State Supreme Court. While I addressed specific areas of law in the brief, my intention, and I believe it was taken as such, was to support the whole statute. I believe that my position as a sitting legislator was pertinent to that brief, as President Obama’s position as a sitting president is to this brief.

      If, say, former President Jimmy Carter had filed this brief, the impact and the discussion would be different, although as a former president his opinion would certainly be weighty.

      Thank you for the link to the brief. I will add it to the post.

      • abb3w

        You still seem to be missing a couple details.

        I’m quite aware that amicus curiae briefs are not instructions to the court; it’s a filing with the court of an argument or of information that someone other than a direct party to the case, for the court to consider. My remarks are entirely consistent with that.

        Also, while it’s clearly done with President Obama’s support and approval, he’s not the official who filed the brief. It’s filed by Donald Verrilli, the current Solicitor General of the United States. This makes for less political significance in one sense (it’s not a brief from the President himself, but from the administration), and more serious significance in another (the role of Solicitor General is sometimes described as “the Constitution’s lawyer, not the President’s”).

        Furthermore, no party to the case nor any of the amici curiae filings (as far as I can tell) are addressing Section 2. Only Section 3 is addressed by any of the parties — and, incidentally, by the lower courts ruling. While occasionally justices will issue a sweeping decision beyond the scope of what was originally raised by the parties (such as in the Kennedy-authored majority ruling in Citizens United v FEC), it’s fairly rare. While Justices Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomoyor, and Brennan might well be inclined to such a sweeping ruling, I see little prospect for a fifth. Even if Justice Kennedy was inclined to rule broadly here (which seems unlikely), it seems likely Chief Justice Roberts will persuade him to the more incremental ruling that the CJ reportedly favors. In so far as the administration’s brief can be considered as political message, the omission of mention Section 2 can be viewed as endorsing the narrow approach.

        • Rebecca Hamilton

          This is nonsense. The brief might as well have been signed, “Sincerely yours, Barry” and everyone knows it.

          “Also, while it’s clearly done with President Obama’s support and approval, he’s not the official who filed the brief. It’s filed by Donald Verrilli, the current Solicitor General of the United States. This makes for less political significance in one sense (it’s not a brief from the President himself, but from the administration), and more serious significance in another (the role of Solicitor General is sometimes described as “the Constitution’s lawyer, not the President’s”).”

          As to whether or not the Court will go beyond the scope of the lower court’s ruling, they can do whatever they want. I repeat for clarity: They can do whatever they want. A sweeping ruling would be bad for the country, which is in the process of working this out on a state by state basis.

  • Bill S

    ” If this is “private”, then the meaning of the word “private” is so wide as not to exist; by your definition, there is nothing whatever that cannot be defined as private.”

    I mean private as in nobody else’s business. I can’t understand your rant about marriage and how you can say that gays are not entitled to it. And who cares if any couple, gay or straight, have a private marriage instead of a public ceremony?

    Who are you to judge people and tell them what they can and can’t do? I hope DOMA is overturned and people like you have no say in other people’s lives.

    • http://fpb.livejournal.com/ Fabio P.Barbieri

      Try and follow the rules of argument. I was not, at that time, arguing against “gay marriage” at all; I was arguing against your ridiculous notion that marriage is “private”. And the notion that marriage is nobody else’s business is equally ridiculous. If it was, the state would not have set up registries of marriage along with birth and death. Marriage is a public and legal act that changes the status of two citizens directly and of a much larger number indirectly. There is nothing private about it.

      • Bill S

        That’s just ridiculous. People can be as public or private as they want on any issue they so choose. What about couples that elope or go to Las Vegas and get married? Are you saying that they are not married. Who are you to decide?

        • http://coalitionforclarity.blogspot.com/ Robert King

          If “private” means “nobody else’s business,” does that include the government in “nobody else”?

          If marriage is private, and is nobody’s business, and “nobody” includes the government, then why does the government license and regulate and adjudicate it?

          This is why “marriage is private” is nonsense.

          If, on the other hand, marriage has public and civic ramifications – if it changes the married individuals’ legal and social relationship to each other and to the rest of society – then it is acceptable, maybe even necessary, for law to reflect, regulate, and even restrict who may enter such a relationship and how that relationship will be recognized. It doesn’t matter how elaborately or quietly they celebrate the wedding, the relationship is a public matter as much as any other legal matter is.

  • SteveP

    Rebecca: This is not surprising; it is probably fulfillment of a “campaign promise” – not that I’m accusing President Obama of any illegal activity.

    The amusing thing is the estate tax – that amount of Federal tax implies that Edith Winsdor is in the 1% or at least approaching it . . . I thought the fiscal crisis’ solution is more tax on those to have more.

  • Pingback: Justices asked to void marriage law provision – The Associated Press | Android Tablets

  • Bill S

    “two persons of the same sex cannot found a family.”

    Says who? As we speak, there are plenty of families with same sex parents. Catholic Charities of Boston was successfully placing children with same sex couples until the Archbishop put a stop to it. Other agencies continue to place children with same sex couples.

    The prejudices that Catholics have against gays cause them to form all kinds of unfounded assumptions. The Church is basically against any sexual activities that are not intended for procreation purposes.

    • SteveP

      Here there are two rams pastured by themselves. I’d be glad to sell you a future on spring lamb as well as insurance on the contract.

    • http://fpb.livejournal.com/ Fabio P.Barbieri

      Your last two sentences contradict each other. The first says: the Church has an unreasoning prejudice against homosexual sex. (Wrong.) The second says: the Church has an unreasoning prejudice against ALL sex not intended for procreation. Now, if the Church has a prejudice against ALL sex not intended for procreation, then it does not have a prejudice only against homosexual sex. In fact, the church does condemn sex outside marriage and/or deliberately excluding the possibility of procreation. It has a technical term for it: Fornication. It is the “world” that makes a big deal of the difference between homosexual and heterosexual sex as such, independently of marriage and of procreative purpose; originally, because the propagandists of “healthy” unrestrained sexual desire used “perverted” homosexual desire as a bugaboo to contrast their supposedly wholesome notion of free love between men and women. That has never been the game of the Catholic Church, but it was, not so long ago, the game of the media and of Hollywood. It created, by exclusion, a “homosexual” community full of resentment for being treated as the sole “perverts” in the community, and inevitably led to their revolt. This is nothing to do with the Church, to which all fornication, within and without marriage, with any partners or none, is equally wrong.

      • pagansister

        Basically, Fabio, the Church says that sex in marriage is “for making babies”. All contraception is wrong except NFP, (which is unreliable, but when used is to do just what is not considered right—prevent conception) . Since same gender couples can’t do that, then it is “wrong’. Right? Your last sentence is actually very scary—-”———-to which all fornication, within and without marriage,with any partners or none, is equally wrong.” Wow!

        • Sus

          A lot of Fabio’s sentences scare me to death.

          • pagansister

            :-)

      • Bill S

        “This is nothing to do with the Church, to which all fornication, within and without marriage, with any partners or none, is equally wrong.”

        Yeah. I think the problem lies with the Church, and not the people who it condemns to hell for enjoying sexual acts that don’t lead to procreation.

        • SteveP

          Citation needed from CCC or Sacramentary. Remember: arguing against what you think the Church professes is arguing with yourself.

          • Bill S

            “In fact, the church does condemn sex outside marriage and/or deliberately excluding the possibility of procreation. It has a technical term for it: Fornication.”

            I don’t think I am arguing with myself. I know the Church’s stand on fornication.

            • SteveP

              If you know the Church’s stand then you can provide a citation for “. . . the people who [the Church] condemns to hell for enjoying sexual acts that don’t lead to procreation.”

              • Bill S

                Steve P,

                Practically no one lives their life according to the Catechism. I’m not going to try to find a citation that will validate people enjoying sex that is not intended for procreation. I know that the Church’s stand is just the opposite. The only joy the Church recognizes comes from the Holy Spirit and that certainly wouldn’t involve a satisfying sex life.

                • SteveP

                  The easiest exit from your own hell is to talk to your parish priest about adult education. Using your phone you can easily find the number of the parish office that you may call and make an appointment. Do it right now.

  • http://jessicahof.wordpress.com/ Jessica Hoff

    For those of you saying this is a private matter, here in the UK we have Elton John’s partner, a man, registering as the ‘mother’ of their child. As a woman, I feel it effects me when men register as mothers. This stuff effects us all.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Thank you for saying this Jessica. A lot of this is insulting — and degrading — to women.

    • pagansister

      Why does it bother you? You aren’t any part of Elton & John’s family, right?

    • Sus

      Honesty, this is probably a quick fix because the computer program they use needs to updated to match what’s happening in 2013. No conspiracy to undermine women.

      If two women have a kid and they put one name in the man box, does that diminish men?

      • pagansister

        Excellent analysis of the situation, Sus. My answer to your last sentence is—no. Not sure what others might say.

  • Bill S

    “As a woman, I feel it effects me when men register as mothers. This stuff effects us all.”

    Whoa! Wait a minute. Is this the way gay marriage affects others? For this it should be illegal?

    • http://fpb.livejournal.com/ Fabio P.Barbieri

      Among other things.

  • Sus

    This post has some interesting ideas.

    Fabio, no worries, the gays are/will throw wonderful wedding receptions.

    I thought most states have no fault divorces now even if cheating is involved. We can’t blame gay marriage for that.

    • Oregon Catholic

      You touched on the reason why I think gay marriage harms society. It’s because it further undermines what heterosexuals have already done to harm marriage and family. We don’t need to diminish marriage even further. What we need to be doing as a society and as individuals is reaffirming a committment to life long marriage and the raising of children in intact families with their biological parents (not mommy and ‘mommy’). Popular, politically correct gender studies aside, children need both male and female role-modeling to grow up well adjusted. I don’t think anyone can deny how easy divorce has hurt children.

      We need to reject the all too common current model of marriage which is only staying together as long as it makes us ‘happy’ then moving on if/when it doesn’t anymore. That model has only been around since the 60s. Before that, divorce was something shameful and seen as a character and moral failure by most people. We have such short memories…

      • Sus

        I agree with most of your comment.

      • Bill S

        “You touched on the reason why I think gay marriage harms society. It’s because it further undermines what heterosexuals have already done to harm marriage and family. We don’t need to diminish marriage even further.”

        That is a poor argument by us heterosexuals to deny marriage to homosexuals who, for all we know, might do a better job of it than us. At least they won’t be bearing maladjusted children who grow up to be menaces to society.

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    So much for his 2008 promise to support a man and a woman as the basis of marriage. What a liar he has become. Add this to the promise of not intruding on gun rights. Add this to the claim the sequestration was not his idea. What a bald faced LIAR! I’ve said it a number of times, there is no reason for a Catholic to vote for Liberals and this proves it. None. Add this shoving of gay marriage down our throats to the lies he told to Cardinal Dolan, add this to restricted religious freedoms, add this to forcing Catholics and the Church to violate their moral conscience, add this to being the most pro-abort president in the history of the country, add this to running his 2012 re-election on a mandate of free contraceptivs. You have to have a hole in your head to be a Catholic and support this administration. Actually there are a lot of Catholics with holes in their heads given he actually got a majority of the Catholic vote.

    If you want to read why gay marriage is a disaster for society, read Dale Ahlquist’s excellent essay on Chesterton’s position on the subject: “G. K. Chesterton: It’s Not Gay, and It’s Not Marriage.”
    http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/g-k-chesterton-its-not-gay-and-its-not-marriage

    • pagansister

      Since I’m not Catholic, Manny, I won’t worry about additional holes in my head. Don’t worry, Manny, the world and the USA will not go down the tubes because of same gender marriages. Your life will not change at all—not one bit. You will still be able to live whatever lifestyle you currently do, and your day to day life will not change. Honestly. Most importantly—you will not have to marry someone of the same gender—nor will the Catholic church or any other religious institution have to perform those weddings. You will be fine.

      • pagansister

        One more thing—-a point you brought up—-many Catholics obviously didn’t find fault with President Obama and helped re-elect him. Says something, huh? There are a lot of intelligent people in this country.

        • Rebecca Hamilton

          Pagansister, I think the commentary (not yours, but that of professional commenters) on the “Catholic vote” for President Obama is either deliberately misleading or the commenters are just plain stupid. A large part of the “Catholic vote” is Hispanic. Hispanics voted for President Obama in overwhelming numbers. I think the reason for this is that Republicans have scape-goated and attacked Hispanics to win elections all over the country. I know that here in Oklahoma, they made race hatred their number one reason to vote for them in a whole series of elections. So, of course, Hispanics did not vote Republican. I doubt that this had anything to do with them rejecting the Catholic Church. I would guess that they saw it more as a matter of survival. Pundits ignore this rather studiously when they talk about Catholics voting for President Obama, even though, if you do the math, it clearly accounts for his majority (and then some) of the Catholic vote.

          • pagansister

            Rebecca, I tend to agree with you on the professional commentators and their claims. I do think that many Hispanics are Catholic, and due to the Republicans tactics in the past election, they totally lost the Hispanic votes and those voters probably weren’t rejecting the Church, but doing the only thing they could do–not vote Republican. Also, the Republican choice of presidential candidate most certainly didn’t help. Maybe they learned something, but time will tell. In 2013 (election 2012) it is sad to think that race is being used to discredit someone no matter what job they are doing or want to do.

          • Bill S

            “I think the commentary (not yours, but that of professional commenters) on the “Catholic vote” for President Obama is either deliberately misleading or the commenters are just plain stupid. A large part of the “Catholic vote” is Hispanic.”

            Another large part of the Catholic vote were liberal Catholics and there are plenty of them. When people say that there are more than a billion Catholics in the world, they do subtract the ones who don’t actually practice the faith. I would guess that there are more Catholics in this country who could care less what the Pope and bishops have to say and who voted for Obama than those devoted to the Church. It is either a sad commentary or cause for hope, depending on how you look at it.

          • abb3w

            It’s very likely you’re correct about Hispanic Catholics being driven away from the GOP over immigration issues; they tend to be less supportive of legalizing gay marriage than the national median (GSS data, 2010, variables MARHOMO, RELIG, and HISPANIC). Contrariwise, Hispanic Catholics tend slightly more supportive than overall Protestants; and among non-Hispanic white Catholics, support for gay marriage is much higher — a majority “agree/strongly agree” as of 2010, and with the trend from previous years suggesting that’s likely now higher.

            This support is mostly from to the large number of people who self-identify as Catholic but also as not very religious. Since more tend to be “Liberal Catholics” (as opposed to Moderate or Traditional), it’s reasonable to suspect the LCs tend more supporting — though it’s not clear whether Liberal Catholic versus Not Very Religious is more direct as causation.

      • Oregon Catholic

        “the USA will not go down the tubes because of same gender marriages. Your life will not change at all—not one bit. You will still be able to live whatever lifestyle you currently do, and your day to day life will not change. Honestly.”

        Actually pagansister, there is a couple in Portland, OR who found out ssm very much changed their life. It is the couple who owned a bakery and refused to make a wedding cake for a ssm – which btw isn’t even legal in OR so I guess the lesbians involved were just having a pretend wedding. The bakery owners now have to defend themselves against discrimination for refusing to bake a cake for a kind of ‘marriage’ that doesn’t even exist in this state and prove why the lesbian’s right not to have to go to another bakery for their cake shouldn’t trump ths baker’s constitutional right to freedom of religion and conscience. And it’s all because some politically correct lawmakers wrote a bad law, pandering to the gay lobby no doubt, that allows one right to trample another. There is no question it will be thrown out but it may cost the baker’s their livelihood and all their money before it’s over.
        So, you’re wrong. SSM can and does affect other people’s lives.

      • Oregon Catholic

        “the USA will not go down the tubes because of same gender marriages. Your life will not change at all—not one bit. You will still be able to live whatever lifestyle you currently do, and your day to day life will not change. Honestly.”

        Actually pagansister, there is a couple in Portland, OR who found out ssm very much changed their life. It is the couple who owned a bakery and refused to make a wedding cake for a ssm – which btw isn’t even legal in OR so I guess the lesbians involved were just having a pretend wedding. The bakery owners now have to defend themselves against discrimination for refusing to bake a cake for a kind of ‘marriage’ that doesn’t even exist in this state and prove why the lesbian’s right not to have to go to another bakery for their cake shouldn’t trump the baker’s constitutional right to freedom of religion and conscience. And it’s all because some politically correct lawmakers wrote a bad law, pandering to the gay lobby no doubt, that allows one right to trample another. There is no question it will be thrown out but it may cost the baker’s their livelihood and all their money before it’s over.
        So, you’re wrong. SSM can and does affect other people’s lives.

        • pagansister

          As sad as it is, the bakery made a decision to not do the cake—a business decision that may cost them their business. Will they find it worth the refusal? I agree the law suit is frivolous but there are folks who will sue if their coffee is too hot! Would the owner of the bakery have been accused of discrimination if they refused to bake a cake for an Asian person or a Black person etc? In all honesty, though I admire them for sticking by their beliefs, it was a cotton pickin’ cake! I still contend that SSM won’t substantially hurt the average person. (but then I don’t own a business, and if I did, I’d bake the cake.)

          • Bill S

            “I admire them for sticking by their beliefs”

            I don’t. I think they should have shown some common decency and not turned away their patronage because of their own prejudices. In a sense, it is like refusing to serve a minority, as you have said. The customer is always right. I drove cab in Boston. I was propositioned by gay men. Did I stop the cab and throw them out or did I just decline their advances politely and take them to their destinations?

            • Oregon Catholic

              You don’t admire them for sticking by their beliefs? So you’re basically saying that people should just act the way you want them to regardless of what they think, and morals and conscience be damned? Let’s damn religious freedom – the very thing this country was founded on – while you’re at it. What I really think is that you are like so many other ‘tolerant’ relativists I’ve met or dialoged with who hypocritically only see one side of any issue, and only respect one point of view – theirs. It is the antithesis of the tolerance for diversity you so love to pat yourself on the back for. Your brand of intolerance is just as black as anyone else’s.

              • Bill S

                “So you’re basically saying that people should just act the way you want them to regardless of what they think, and morals and conscience be damned? Let’s damn religious freedom – the very thing this country was founded on – while you’re at it.”

                Aren’t we just talking about a wedding cake where, instead of putting a bride and a groom on the top, you put a bride and a bride? Do you think a business owner should be so frivolous. Is there anything about this case that has anything to do with the baker’s freedom of religion? Really.

                • Oregon Catholic

                  Morality and conscience aren’t frivolous things – unless you are a moral relativist that blows with whatever wind comes along. Sometimes people actually choose to die over them. Thomas More only had to sign a piece of paper to save his life and chose not to.

            • Oregon Catholic

              And since you want to compare this to racial bigotry, think on this: Would you see the same condemnation of a black baker who refused to provide a theme cake for a KKK party? Of course not. Because what this is REALLY about is antipathy toward religion, especially Christianity, which dares to state there is something wrong with homosexual BEHAVIOR. Religion belief is what you cannot tolerate.

              • abb3w

                If you want a racial discrimination example, a closer parallel would be condemnation of a (majority) white baker who refused to provide a theme cake for a black or interracial (minority) marriage — though that would be a federal civil rights violation rather than state.

                • Oregon Catholic

                  Actually, the point is that everyone understands why a black baker would refuse to bake the KKK cake and why the KKK might ask him to do so to provoke him. The bakery in this case was filled with Christian religious items – so who’s to say they weren’t intentionally provoked? In this case the role of who is the perceived victim (the customer) and who is the hated one (the owner) are simply reversed and therefore public opinion is reversed.
                  It’s just more of the same so-called ‘tolerant’ crowd’s hypocrisy whose tolerance only goes in one direction.

                  • pagansister

                    OC we have no idea if the couple was trying to provoke the owner. That isn’t anything we will ever know. However, if the baker had done the cake, then the customer(s) wouldn’t have succeeded in his/her attempt–if indeed that was the purpose—AND the baker wouldn’t be in the financial situation he/she is.

              • pagansister

                OC, I have a strong feeling that a black baker wouldn’t be asked to bake a “theme cake” for the KKK> If they did actually walk into a bakery that was owned by a black person, then I would hope they would bake the cake—-it’s a business—and to keep a business open one has to sell, or in this case—bake. It’s about staying in business—-

                • Bill S

                  I second that comment.

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    Oh pagansister, how myopic that is. It effects us all. The trivialization of marriage destroys society. Forcing people to believe that same sex intercourse is normal does no one any good, not even homosexuals, and therefore considering marriage between people who’s sex organs don’t correspond is absurd. As Chesterton says it’s a disorder. And disorder generates more disorder. Society is all one body. If you can prevent my three year old son from exposure to such cognitive disonance as he matures into an adult, maybe I might be more sympathetic. I will have to do all that is in my power to prevent him from such absurdities. But unfortunately millions of children will have to learn about it. And before you respond, yes, environmental factors do play a role in becoming homosexual. The more it’s considered normal, the more people will become gay.

    • pagansister

      Manny, I just want to say, people don’t “become gay”. You seem to like Chesterton and what he says. I’ll have to look him up someday. Yes, children will learn that not all people are heterosexual, that there have been same gender attractions since time began. I’ll stop there.

      • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

        I missed this earlier, and perhaps you’ll miss my reply. Oh well then, this blog is getting too long anyway.

        Homosexuality is a complex phenomena. We know that it is not all genetic. Only about half of identical twins both become gay. That’s a data fact. If homosexuality was purely genetic then 100% of identical twins become gay. There is a component to homosexuality that is environmental. We don’t know what those conditions are, but nonetheless environment plays a part.

        You can read about the study in the “Conservative” bastion (I’m kidding of course) of the NY Times.
        http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/17/science/gay-men-in-twin-study.html

  • Bill S

    “Forcing people to believe that same sex intercourse is normal does no one any good, not even homosexuals, and therefore considering marriage between people who’s sex organs don’t correspond is absurd.”

    Forcing people to believe it is a mortal sin and that they are going to hell does no one any good. There is a lot more to same sex marriage than sex. People have an unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. What you would do is deprive them of that right for fear of the loss of your quality of life. Too bad. It’s their right to equality.

    I hope you don’t brainwash your son and make him totally incapable of dealing with the world around him when he grows up. At some point he will learn the truth about life and he will have no choice but to reject and resent his indoctrination. Please try to prepare him for the secular world in which he will live unless he goes into a monastery.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Actually Bill, the “inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness” is not a legal right. I’m not sure how such a thing could be codified given that “happiness” is such a nebulous term.

      What you seem to be saying is that if someone claims that their happiness depends on them doing something, then they have a “right” to do it, no matter who it harms, or even if it harms all of society. I would re-think this line of reasoning, if I was you.

      Also, it’s downright rude for you — or anyone — to lecture people about their children. I usually delete comments that get that personal because they can be very hurtful. You are making sweeping judgements of someone else with very little information on which to base those assumptions.

    • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

      (1) I’m not stopping anyone from pursuing their happiness. What two people personally do is their business. Marriage forms the basis of society, and effects us all.

      (2) If hell is real, and I do believe it is, then telling them it is a mortal sin for which one is doomed to hell does them a “hell” of a lot of good. Pun intended.

      • pagansister

        Manny, #1 seems to contradict what you have said above—when you say that you’re not stopping anyone from pursuing their happiness. What two people personally do is their business. Then you say that being homosexual is abnormal. 2 same gender people who marry are, among other things, pursuing their happiness and what they do is—yes—their business.

        • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

          Pagansister, marriage is a social blessing. If homosexuals wish to live together in some sort of mutual agreement, then fine. That’s not marriage and it doesn’t require any legal status. That’s personal pursuit of happiness. You can’t see that distinction?

          • pagansister

            In some states, there is such a thing as “common law” marriage, if after a certain time frame (7 years?) the couple is considered married. Many homosexuals have lived together for many years—40 and 50 in some cases, happily, because the law said they couldn’t “marry”. IMO, and I know that you won’t agree, it is a political thing—-refusing 2 people of the same gender the right to do the same thing as different gender couples—–marriage. Also, I”m sure you won’t agree—–but not allowing the vote to Blacks or if they could vote, they had to pay a “poll tax” was discrimination plain and simple. Not allowing 2 same gender adults to marry is very similar if not the same. I’m not going to argue the “can’t make love properly due to physical layout” as an excuse for denial. That is a religious out look and has nothing to do with secular marriages. Not all marriages, obviously, are not done or need to be done with a religious blessing. Social blessing or not—-not permitting it is outright discrimination. We already discussed the “social” aspects and how the world will be worse off or not by all this, so I won’t go into again.

      • Bill S

        ” If hell is real, and I do believe it is”

        Manny. You really can’t see how that belief is influencing every stand you take?

        I can’t understand how people can’t see that hell is a scare tactic used by Jesus and others to bring people around to their way of thinking. It’s like: “those who are not for me are against me and are going to hell”. Really? (I hope this doesn’t get deleted but it probably will. Speed read.)

        • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

          “Manny. You really can’t see how that belief is influencing every stand you take?’

          How sophomoric Bill. Can’t you see that your belief is is influencing every stand YOU take?

          Sometimes it feels like third graders in here.

        • Oregon Catholic

          and Bill S, why is your certainty that hell doesn’t exist any more believable on it’s face than Manny’s belief that it does? Neither of you has objective proof, so why make it seem as if Manny’s belief is less worthy than yours?

          • Bill S

            “why is your certainty that hell doesn’t exist any more believable on it’s face than Manny’s belief that it does?”

            Because I know where the threat of hell came from. It came from people like Moses and Jesus and Mohammed all of which had that “if you are not with me you are against me, and if you are against me, you will be sorry” approach to getting people to follow them. Moses, of course, is just a fictional character, but I believe the other two were real.

  • Bill S

    Most people whose judgement is not tainted by religion can clearly see that gays have a right to marry and that right is being wrongfully denied mostly for religious reasons. The President knows this and it will likely be rectified soon.

    As far as lecturing Manny about indoctrinating his son, he is the one who was implying that he doesn’t want him to grow up thinking that homosexuality is normal, which it is.

    • Oregon Catholic

      “homosexuality is normal, which it is.”
      I suppose you could make that case if you were willing to throw away everything we know about biology and reproduction. But hey, why not, if it furthers your pet political agenda.

      • pagansister

        Lets put it this way—-OC, and I know you won’t agree, but IMO, being intimate with the person you love should be no ones business but the 2 people involved.

        • Bill S

          Yeah. We don’t need 70 comments to understand that simple fact.

        • SteveP

          “being intimate with the person you love should be no ones business but the 2 people involved.”

          While this position is laudable as a theoretical stance, it ignores the real consequence of conceiving and bearing children: the immediate community is effected by, at least, the pregnant woman’s nutritional needs and then the infant’s nutritional needs.

          On the other hand, it shows that the activity between homosexuals need no community support as there is no community impact.

        • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

          That’s right, and you don’t need marriage either. That’s what I’m saying.

          • pagansister

            Manny, and I’m not trying to be difficult—-but why don’t “you need marriage either?”

            • http://coalitionforclarity.blogspot.com/ Robert King

              Marriage is (among other things) a public recognition of a sexual relationship. Either sex is nobody’s business, or it’s a public matter. You can’t have the cake and eat it too.

        • Oregon Catholic

          “being intimate with the person you love should be no ones business but the 2 people involved.”

          That is a long way from the point I was responding to, that homosexuality is normal. One can declare all kinds of things to be true but it doesn’t make truth out of a lie. Bill S is confusing something that occurs in nature with normality. And putting forth a lie like that only serves to make the declarant look silly anyway.

          • pagansister

            OC, with all due respect, to a person who is homosexual, that is their “normal”. What is unfortunate, is the young boys and girls who are beginning to realize that they aren’t attracted to those of the opposite sex, and think there is something “wrong” with them—and some to the point that they commit suicide. If society continues to tell them that they are flawed, or not “normal” then it is very hard. If they make it to adulthood, and begin to realize they are indeed NOT abnormal, but just who they are, then why is it a problem to let them marry someday if they wish? How is it supposed to make things better if a religion (and not just the Catholic church) tells them—we love you, just as you are, BUT don’t have an intimate relationship with a person you love, because that makes you Bad? It makes no sense. If you ask a person who was born blind what it is like to be blind, they don’t know because that is their “normal”. (obviously being blind isn’t like same gender attraction—but just what is “normal?”)

            • Oregon Catholic

              sorry pagansister, I don’t agree with the notion that you lie to someone to make them feel good. What you do is explain that the feelings and behavior is not normal but that we are all more than our feelings and impulses and we don’t have to act on them. Is it easy – hell no! I’ve said it numerous times on patheos that I am an alcoholic, I was probably born that way, and I cannot ever again in my entire life enjoy a good glass of wine, a martini, or the conviviality of a couple of drinks with good friends over dinner. I can’t enjoy what others normally enjoy and believe me I miss it. Would you be doing me any favors if you assured me my condition was normal (it’s normal for me!) and I should just go ahead and drink because that’s what my feelings would tell me to do? Should the laws be changed to protect my status as a drunk because I want to engage in my behavior (drink too much) that is normal for me?

              And please don’t say it is not the same. It’s much more the same than most people realize because for an alcoholic the alcohol is their lover, the attraction is just as strong as any sexual attraction, and the desire to consumate the relationship is overpowering – ask any spouse married to a practicing alcoholic who the alcoholic’s lover is if you doubt me.

              • pagansister

                OC, first let me say that being an alcoholic is not easy—having a good friend who is also an alcoholic, and having seen what he has gone thru and still goes thru (but so far so good as to being sober for many years now). BTW, he was “saved”, “Found Jesus” and that has helped him with handling his addiction. Using your comparison, that alcohol is your “lover”, that the attraction is just as strong as a sexual attraction & the desire to complete that relationship is overpowering I will have to take your word for it. Here is where I see a difference—-drinking constantly will eventually kill you—either physically by pickling your insides or if you were driving and wreaked your car etc. Having a same gender attraction, shouldn’t kill you—won’t go into AIDS etc. Sexually transmitted diseases are not just in the homosexual community but in the heterosexual community too. Sex is a part of life—consuming alcohol isn’t necessary for life (I guess if you are addicted, it is). Also, this country (USA) tried to outlaw drinking and that turned out to be ridiculous and was repealed. So, no, I personally couldn’t tell someone with SSA that they are abnormal. However I couldn’t tell an alcoholic that what they were doing was “normal”. Too many young people have died because they were condemned for their attraction and perhaps acted on it, only to be condemned even more. Another note—I don’t drink just because I have never liked the taste of anything I have tried well enough to continue. If folks are drinking, I’m happy with tea, soda whatever. My daughter does, but not to excess. My son sees no point in it.. However—I can over dose on chocolate. I’m sure that is not what you wanted to hear. I’m not trivializing your daily struggle. But I still do not see a person with a SSA as “abnormal”.

  • Bill S

    I’m on my iPhone so I can’t put my responses under the applicable comments so they are all down here.

    OC ““homosexuality is normal, which it is.”
    I suppose you could make that case if you were willing to throw away everything we know about biology and reproduction. But hey, why not, if it furthers your pet political agenda.”

    If you told me you were gay, I would not reply that you are somehow abnormal. That’s all I mean by normal. Surely, you can’t have a problem.

    Ted, I don’t know where you got the impression that I read and quote tabloids or that I don’t like children. You don’t like my attitude. I get it.

    And I do think gay marriage is inevitable. That doesn’t mean we can’t discuss it but discussing it doesn’t mean that its not.

    “I consider both single parenthood and single-gender parenthood to be a form of child abuse”

    Really????

    Robert, ” it makes sense for same-sex couples to keep the government out of their bedrooms in a way that it doesn’t for opposite-sex couples.”

    I think it makes sense for everyone, gay or strait, to keep the government out of their bedroom.

    “Therefore, the public should not pretend they are the same kind of relationship, and should not treat them the same way under law. If same-sex marriage is normalized across the U.S., in the long run it will remove protections both for children (which admittedly are mostly gone already, thanks to no-fault divorce,) and for same-sex couples.”

    That’s what I keep hearing like the beating of a drum. It doesn’t matter. It’s going to happen, face it and move on with life. Protect the wife and kids any way you feel you need to.

    • http://coalitionforclarity.blogspot.com/ Robert King

      If you think the government should stay out of everyone’s bedroom, then why are you advocating that the government get into same-sex couples’ bedrooms by licensing and regulating their “marriages”?

      Why aren’t you advocating for the abolition of all laws recognizing marriage at all?

      • Bill S

        The artical is about overturning DOMA, which actually takes the government out of that aspect of marriage. To say that marriage is between a man and a woman, only is to deny many marriages that aren’t is the states that have that definition. DOMA makes that restriction a federal law which will eventually be determined to be unconstitutional. End of story.

  • Bill S

    “Marriage is (among other things) a public recognition of a sexual relationship. Either sex is nobody’s business, or it’s a public matter. You can’t have the cake and eat it too.”

    I’ll take “sex is nobody’s business”. Why would anyone choose the other option? C’mon man!

    • http://coalitionforclarity.blogspot.com/ Robert King

      Why would anyone choose the other option? C’mon man!

      Because of the children. As far as I can tell, that’s the only reason.

  • Bill S

    Steve P.

    I’ve already been a devout Catholic, I had the same advice for my atheist brother. You are fully indoctrinated into the Catholic faith. I don’t believe people who tell me that I will go to hell if I don’t believe. All you have to do is look at the history of that idea. More people are believers for that reason than for any kind of rational logic. Thank you for caring. But I am good.

    • SteveP

      Devoutness is self-identified and is not the question. Your statement, “. . . the people who [the Church] condemns to hell for enjoying sexual acts that don’t lead to procreation,” must be substantiated. We need a paragraph from the Catechism, a reference to a rite, something that indicates it is more than a belief of “the church of BillS.” Vincible ignorance is cured by education, is that not what you purport?

      • Bill S

        “We need a paragraph from the Catechism, a reference to a rite, something that indicates it is more than a belief of “the church of BillS.””

        Steve P. Why don’t you trust reason and logic instead of relying on the Catechism? Your head is going to get severely messed up if you don’t learn to think things out for yourself. By education, I mean consulting resources like psychology, history, biology, etc. not the Catechism. I hope you get this response. If you get it, that means it wasn’t deleted.

        • SteveP

          Your responses do not make “reason and logic” look very attractive. Recall I have been asking for reference to “The Rite of Condemnation to Hell of the Sexually Pleased” you purport the Church exercises. Further you have been asserting there is no difference between a female-female “marriage” and a female-male marriage yet seem to hold to a difference between two female “partners” challenging the tax code and two male businessmen challenging the tax code. Without explanation I can only assume the belief is based in incoherence.

  • Bill S

    “The bakery in this case was filled with Christian religious items – so who’s to say they weren’t intentionally provoked?”

    If there is one thing I will not tolerate, it is lesbians provoking bakers. Ah yes. The baker was the victim and the customer was the villain. How dare she try to have a cake made with two brides and no groom. They come in pairs. What is the baker going to do, wait for two homo guys to order a cake? Then they would have to go against their conscience again. What ever happened to religious freedom? At this rate, it won’t be long before bakers are forced to make porn cakes.

    • Oregon Catholic

      “At this rate, it won’t be long before bakers are forced to make porn cakes.”
      These bakers probably would refuse to put a pornographic decoration on a cake. Would you support their right to do so?

      • Bill S

        Yes. Of course I would support their right to do so. Whom would they be discriminating against if they refused? I honestly think that the customer should have moved on to another bakery, which she presumeably did, and that should have been the end of it. I’m just trying to poke a little fun at the idea that making a cake for a gay wedding should weigh so heavily on a baker’s conscience as if they were abetting the couple in a sinful behavior.

        • Oregon Catholic

          No one obviously. Technically he wasn’t discriminating against the lesbian either since she was asking him to bake a cake to celebrate a marriage-rite that is non-existent in Oregon. So she wasn’t being denied a cake for anything that actually existed and which actually discriminated against her or deprived her of anything real.

          But you validated my point. Most of the rationale people offer for why he should have baked the cake is because as a business man he should not have the right to make personal moral judgments about his customer’s requests and deny them service as a result.

          But there’s the where it gets hypocritical as it always does when it comes to ssm. Because the only moral judgement he’s really not allowed to make is one that concerns anything to do with gays. He can make a moral judgement to refuse to decorate a cake with genitals if he wants and no one will bother him about it. No one cares about the rights of the person who really wants a porn cake, even if they have to go to another bakery to get it. Under the law, if everything was truly equal, they should have the same rights as the lesbian to receive the cake of their choice. But in reality they don’t, because gay is a protected class that has more rights, assumed and actual, than the rest of us.

          • Oregon Catholic

            actually, I should have said porn wedding cake to make my argument stronger and keep both examples relative to the same service – wedding cakes.

          • Bill S

            I was only being facetious about the porn cake just to poke some fun at the antedotal reasons that the anti=gay wedding people come up with to defend the Church’s stand, which they feel obligated to do. What we have here is two people who can’t get out of their own way. The baker for not just providing the service he was being hired to provide and the lesbian for not just going to another baker and not making a big deal of it. I personally am on the baker’s side because I would hate to see him penalized and because this is not what gays’ rights are all about.

            • Oregon Catholic

              You should tell that to the gays in Oregon. One of the local TV station blogs had literally 1000s of comments posted and most of them were out for the baker’s blood. In fact some of them actually set out to ruin his business by flooding sites like Yelp with bad reviews. But that’s what the self-described tolerant folks do.

  • Bill S

    “Your responses do not make “reason and logic” look very attractive”

    Steve P. My reason and logic may seem flawed but that would be a problem with me and not with reason and logic.

    By making the Catechism your guidebook for living instead of your capacity to use reason and logic, you run the risk of being severely mislead. I appreciated your concerns about me and your recommendation that I consult a priest (been there, done that). I have the same concerns in reverse. There is a whole other world out there. How do you cope?

    • SteveP

      BillS: You’re off the hook, so to speak. I understand you cannot answer as you are just mimicking arguments you heard elsewhere. The answer is: the Church condemns no one to hell. I would suggest you unwind Freud from Augustine from Calvin in your head; jamming them all together is clearly a muddle for you.
      .
      Rebecca: Thank you for the patience and forbearance exhibited.

      • Bill S

        Ditto on the forebearance.

        “the Church condemns no one to hell”

        Tell that to all the people who believe that it does. That has to be one of the best kept secrets in the Catholic world. This whole thing about “whose sins you have forgiven are forgiven and whose sins you hold bound are bound” used to be the basis for me going to confession so often. I really believed that the Church held the key to my entering heaven and avoiding hell. Looking back, it all seems so silly. Having said that, frequent confession did change my life dramatically and I thank the priests at the Carmelite Chapel in Peabody, Massachusetts (located in the basement of a large mall) for their guidance and direction. But now I am onto the next phase of my life. Call it progress. Call it evolution. Call it whatever you want. There is no going back.

        • pagansister

          Continue to follow “your heart” Bill S. Life is ever changing. :-)

  • Sus

    “I consider both single parenthood and single-gender parenthood to be a form of child abuse”

    Oh please! So if I drop dead today and my husband raises our kids alone, it’s child abuse? That is a miserable thing to say when you don’t know everyone’s circumstances. I’ve had cancer. I’ve worried about leaving my kids because I died. It’s a huge concern but I don’t think it would be child abuse.

    Imagine a woman who “fornicated” and becomes pregnant. She reads that people will think it’s “child abuse” if she raised the child herself. She might think an abortion is better.

    UGH!

    • Bill S

      Sus,
      I think Ted likes to make outragous comments to try to get a rise out of people. (I know. Look at the pot calling the kettle black. Is that OK to say? It’s not racial, is it?) I’m sure he was thinking about single women who intentionally choose to have a child without a partner and same sex couples. I, of course, don’t agree with him, but I’m pretty sure he didn’t mean it for all cases.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X