Posts with the tag 'gay marriage'
Interesting development:
Attorneys general from ten states on Friday asked the California Supreme Court to delay until November its ruling implementing legal same-sex marriages.
The attorneys general, all Republicans, said if the ruling is implemented on schedule on June 17, the states would be subjected to lawsuits from homosexual couples married in California who seek to have their unions recognized in their home states, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.
“An inevitable result of such ‘marriage tourism’ will be a steep increase in litigation” over whether the couple’s home state must recognize their marriage, said Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, who authored the brief. Shurtleff said delaying the implementation of the ruling would save other states from “premature, unnecessary, unnecessarily difficult, and therefore unduly burdensome litigation in our courts.”
The attorneys general of Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina and South Dakota joined the brief.
Each of the ten states has legally banned the recognition of same-sex marriages contracted elsewhere. Unlike Massachusetts, where homosexual marriages have also been legalized, California allows residents of other states to marry even if the marriage would not be legal in their home state.
California voters could overturn the state Supreme Court’s decision in the November 3 election with a constitutional amendment that would declare only opposite-sex marriages to be valid. Sponsors of the amendment have submitted petitions bearing 1.1 million signatures, about 400,000 more signatures than required to qualify for the state ballot.
Is this part of a strategy? Colorado, Florida, Michigan and New Hampshire are all set to be battleground States in the fall, and the race will probably be close enough that one or two States can decide it…making California’s judicial usurpation on the issue of gay marriage is an excellent way to nationalise the issue for the electoin; a way of letting people know just how high the stakes are in 2008, because if you like what the CA Supreme Court did, then you’ll love what Obama’s US Supreme Court nominees will do.
Time will tell, but this campaign is going to be a very interesting race.
Tags: gay marriage, judicial tyranny
June 4th, 2008
Anna Quindlen demonstrates the rank arrogance of liberalism:
Scream, shout, jump up and down. No matter. The gay-marriage issue is over and done with. The upshot: love won.
Yep, we who feel otherwise might just as well pack it in - “love won”…and the kids, at any rate, are more in favor of gay marriage than adults, and their views not only won’t change to opposition, but will only become more pro-gay marriage as time goes on…so, might as well send that letter off to the Pope and get him to decree that 2,000 years of Judeo-Christian history are worthless…a tiny minority wants to do something strange, and not only do we have to allow it, we have to call it good. Just as in matters of abortion and global warming, the liberals have got the answer they want, and the answer is not even up for debate any more.
Pardon us for not rolling over and playing dead…I think we’ll have a vote in November in California which might come out a little different from the liberal’s preferred answer…and as the State of New York is being forced illegally by the governor of New York to recognise gay marriage, all we’re really doing is setting the stage for the one thing liberals really don’t want, a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. If that is the only way we can protect marriage and say, “thus far, and no further” to an arrogant liberalism which seeks to ride roughshod over us, then that is what we will do. We are a nation of laws, not men; we are a constitutional republic, not a parlaimentary democracy…we will be America, not Europe, thanks very much.
Tags: gay marriage, liberal lies
June 1st, 2008
Then you will be pleased with the result regardless of how it is achieved. Gay Patriot seems very pleased with the recent California Supreme Court ruling overturning California law regarding what makes a marriage - and seems doubly pleased by this article noting that, ultimately, it has been Republicans who appointed the Justice who made it all possible. But there is this part of the article which is very disturbing for anyone who claims any sort of conservative world view, as Gay Patriot does - and so I hope I’ve misinterpreted Gay Patriot’s views, but here goes:
Schwarzenegger probably understood well the political culture of the judicial appointments when he vetoed gay-marriage bills in 2005 and 2007. “Schwarzenegger obviously sat down and thought it through,” says Darry Sragow, a Democratic political strategist. “[The vetoes] may have been a clever way to get around his party.”
Schwarzenegger has consistently stuck to one political line: He would never sign a gay-marriage bill that would overturn the voters’ will on Proposition 22, which defines marriage as a formal union between one man and one woman, and he would abide by the courts’ rulings if that ballot measure were found unconstitutional. State Democrats still attempted to force his hand, but Schwarzenegger refused to be outmaneuvered.
“I was certainly disappointed [in 2007],” says Assemblyman Mark Leno, who twice introduced the same-sex-marriage bill. “Here was a historic chance to embrace equality, and the governor failed us a second time.”
By 2007, though, it was becoming clear that gay-marriage lawsuits would almost certainly be headed for the California State Supreme Court. Schwarzenegger, who could not be reached for comment, may have waited for things to play out in the state’s highest court, as Darry Sragow suggests, knowing that at least a majority of the judges were social moderates with an old-fashioned Republican/libertarian streak — the kind of mindset that believes government should stay out of people’s pocketbooks and bedrooms.
According to Republican strategist Arnold Steinberg, this scenario isn’t all that hard to believe. “Schwarzenegger was always a closet (no pun intended) supporter of gay marriage,” writes Steinberg in an e-mail to the Weekly. “So he was probably happy to have an excuse to at least stay neutral, or, now, to actually oppose the November ballot measure.”
On the day of the Supreme Court’s ruling, Schwarzenegger released this statement: “I respect the court’s decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”
What respect I had for Schwarzenegger is completely gone, if this is the actual scenario (and it does ring true). If you think that gay marriage should be legal, you should just come right out and say that - to do a political dance about it with a mind towards allowing un-elected judges to get you off the political hook is cowardice…and, also, destructive of our form of government. And that is what is so disturbing about someone as smart as Gay Patriot being pleased here…I can understand a person being happy his side won, but it should be kept in mind that what the Courth hath given, the Court may taketh away…meaning that if one Justice is later replaced by someone of a different view, then a new case on this issue could result in an exactly opposite ruling. No, the only sure way to enshrine something in American law is to go through the proper, constitutional procedures for modifying the law…to have four judges decide for everyone else is to trust tyranny to give you what you can’t get from the people. I’d rather trust the people, thanks very much.
This now will go before the people, and the gay marriage advocates are quite certain of defeating the ballot initiative to overturn this judicial usurpation - and they may be right. California is a pretty liberal State…on the other hand, I also know plenty of otherwise liberal people who are opposed to gay marriage. Call it what you will, but there seems to be an inherent distrust amongst the people for the very concept of two people of the same sex getting married. If, as I expect, the ballot initiative wins, then where will the advocates of gay marriage in California be? Behind the 8 ball - having to not just argue their case, but also go through the very long and difficult process of first repealing this initiative before they can get anything else done. The ‘hip hip hooray’ of May is foolhardy - and I do believe that the underlying conservative impulse of the American majority - even in California - is going to smack this down quite hard.
In the end, one either believes in America and its way of life, or one doesn’t - if one believes, then one has to accept the whole kit and kaboodle, including especially those parts least liked. To me, gay marriage is an absurdity - a pure negation of what marriage is for (it isn’t for love, dear people; neither is it for tax breaks…love and tax breaks are benefits of marriage, not the reasons for having it). I’ll fight against it - but I’ll also lay down a marker: just as soon as gay marriage advocates start advocating a ban on no-fault divorce, then I’ll start considering a modification of my position towards theirs. My brief, you see, is to strengthen marriage and family…and if I can get a bit of that by graciously giving in to an odd request or two, I’ll do it. On the other hand, I know I’m quite safe here…because gay rights people, for the most part, are of the left and thus will never, ever contemplate any action which actually makes people live up to their promise.
Meanwhile, those advocates of gay marriage who care at all about America should be outraged by this judicial usurpation - they can, of course, in good conscience fight against the November initiative to overturn, but they should also be demanding that the Court reverse itself, and leave it to the people to decide when the current California laws regarding marriage should be modified, and how.
UPDATE: Apology is due - Gay Patriot let me know that his view is in opposition to the judicial usurpation:
Mark — you actually did misrepresent my view of the California decision. Both myself and my co-blogger (CA resident, Dan) oppose judicial fiat against the will of the people.
I only posted the article you referenced as a way to piss off the liberal gays who constantly trash Republicans and label them as “bigots” because they oppose marriage.
I am delighted that I’m an idiot vis a vis Gay Patriot’s position - I’ve long respected him as a fellow American, blogger, thinker and conservative. I offer my heartfelt and complete apology, and my promise in future to get off the lazy duff and actually ask for clarification before I jump to conclusions.
Tags: gay marriage, judicial tyranny
May 24th, 2008
The news story:
In a pastoral letter responding to the California Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage, Bishop of Oakland Allen Vingeron said that Catholics must respond to this “profoundly significant” issue by bringing a proper understanding of marriage into public life. The failure to do so, he said, would result in a difficult situation where Christianity becomes a counter-cultural way of life.
Writing in a May 16 letter, Bishop Vingeron said the “most fundamental point” is that “marriage is a reality authored by God in his very act of creating the human race.” A marital relationship is only possible between one man and one woman for the purposes of “mutual loving support” between them and for their “loving service of life” by bringing children into the world.
All Catholics implicitly affirm this conviction when they profess to share the Church‘s faith in their baptismal promises, the bishop said.
However, he said, this conviction about marriage can be known from reason. Therefore, its position in society is not an ideological imposition but an aspect of the common good.
“This wisdom about the nature of marriage is not a form of discrimination, but undergirds our freedom to live according to God’s plan for us,” Bishop Vigneron said. “No government has the power to change the order which God has inscribed in our nature.”
Bishop Vigneron said future challenges related to same-sex unions can be divided into short term and long term categories.
In the short term, Catholics are called to bring marriage laws into conformity with their knowledge about the nature of marriage.
In Catholic teaching, a marriage is until death do they part - while modern realities have forced the Church to make some practical adjustments, it is still Church teaching that divorce is not allowed. An annullment of a marriage is something which states, in effect, that the marriage never took place - there are varied grounds for such a thing (as a for-instance: if a man pressures his intended into signing a pre-nuptial agreement, it means that he is marrying her under false pretences - a marriage must be a 100% giving of the self to the spouse, nothing held back - and thus the marriage never existed), but divorce - the breaking of a valid marriage - is against Catholic teaching. What the bishop is stating is that the first step - or, at least, one of the first steps - is to bring marriage, as an institution, back into accord with Christian teaching. And, yes, this means we must work for an end to divorce.
When the concept of divorce was first brought into the public square, it was asserted that such a thing was only for the extreme cases - the hard exceptions to the rule. After all, who could say that a woman mercilessly beaten by her husband should not be able to divorce him? The trouble was - and the Church pointed this out right at the start, and was called foolish and old fashioned for so doing - that the exception becomes the rule. Back in the day, the rare bad marriage had to stay together because nothing happening in it invalidated the marriage, itself…in the modern world, all sorts of marriages are terminated for the most trivial of reasons, even for something as meaningless as “irreconcilable differences”, which really means “we don’t want to reconcile our differences becase that might be hard and we’re moderns, and don’t like hard things”. It it way past time that we recognise divorce as a complete failure, and get rid of it.
If we were to do so, we’d probably end the entire gay marriage debate right there - and that is why the bishop brings it up now. You see, as long as society is just playing make-believe about marriage, then everyone wants a piece of it…but if marriage becomes the very real thing it used to be - a shared, life long sacrifice one to the other, and to any resultant children - then I’ll bet that most homosexuals, most of the time, will eschew the very idea. It is in the full restoration of marriage that we’ll make the institution not only strong again, but make it impervious to those who wish to use it merely as a means of advancing a particular political agenda.
Tags: Catholic Church, gay marriage, liberal lies
May 23rd, 2008
What possible harm can there be to marriage if same-sex couples are permitted to participate? So goes the question we hear very often in this debate - meaning, of course, that if one of my gay friends were to get married, would it have any affect on my marriage to my wife? The answer, of course, is none at all - we’re not going to get divorced, or even have a lover’s quarrel, if gay person gets married. It would seem, then, that the problem is solved - since it won’t harm me, by all means, go ahead and get married gay people. The problem, though, is that while I am married, marriage doesn’t belong to me - it is not something for me to dispose of. When I got married, it wasn’t me taking charge of marriage, but me voluntarily submitting myself to the institution of marriage, and all that it entails.
In our modern society, we are very I orientated - I want this, I want that, I won’t do that, I will do the other. Such attitudes suffuse our popular culture - you can hardly go an hour on a popular music station without coming across some song which will proclaim that no one has a right to tell me what to do and I’ll do what I darn well please. Institutions fare poorly in debates with individuals - it always seems more reasonable for the institution to bow before the odd request of the individual than for the individual to bow before the dictates of the institution. In our I-centered culture, this fact has just become more pronounced. I want to get married, says the gay man - and the expectation is that the institution of marriage will conform to the demand of the individual; and, why not? It has already bowed to the individual in that every day there is a person saying I want a divorce and, poof, there is a divorce. So, why not, poof, is there is gay marriage? Because wisdom dictates that if you’ve made one horrendous error, you don’t fix it by making a second such error.
There has been noted in recent surveys of public attitudes that the younger generation is far less patient with the easy divorce we’ve become accustomed to in the modern west. There is a feeling that people should make it work - a bit more elbow grease, as it were, rather than a swift retreat to “irreconcilable differences”. This unsurprising given that the rising generation is made up of a very large number of people who were victims of parental divorce. After dealing, themselves, with the idiocy of joint custody and endless battles over child support and visitation, the feeling is growing that if the folks had just been a bit more adult about things, a whole lot of trouble could have been avoided. We’re finding that the corrective to a bad marriage isn’t found in bending the institution to the individual, but in bending the individual to the institution.
When I got married, I promised my wife and God that I would stick with this through sickness and health, for richer or poorer, for better or worse, all the days of my life. This was me entering the institution of marriage - a full-fledged adult in complete command of his mental faculties, there is no question that I knew what I was getting in to. For me to even contemplate no longer being married to my wife, there would have to be something which would render me no longer bound by the promise I made to my wife and my God. Such a thing would have to be a very grave matter - not some light and transient thing; and the thing rendering the promise null would have to be something done to me, not something I did. I’m bound by my promise until released from it by those to whom I made the promise - and this is even the case during those times, which come in all marriages, where things aren’t all sweetness and light.
When we said once upon a time that marriage isn’t a promise but, instead, just a temporary agreement to live together, we did what we had not the competance to do - we changed the institution of marriage. Those who wrote the laws and rendered the court judgements which allowed for “no fault” divorce were akin to a county commission writing a law supposedly binding upon the whole of the United States. As I said, I don’t own marriage - and neither does anyone else. It isn’t our property: its something we do per its rules, or don’t do at all. Think of marriage as a national park - it is owned by those who came before, those alive now, and those who will live in the future. It is something to be passed down from generation to generation and a precious gift, not like some bauble to be used or sold as the mood strikes.
Marriage, as an institution, is a thing designed for the propagation of both our species and our civilization. It regularises the relations between the sexes and clearly defines who is responsible for the upbringing of which children. It is central to our existence - but it is also a purely voluntary thing. We don’t have to participate if we don’t want to. But if we do choose to join in, then there are ground rules we must adhere to (ie, no sexual straying; responsible use of resources for the good of the whole family, etc, etc, etc.). The problem with gay marriage isn’t that two people of the same sex are getting together - they are doing that, already, with no ill effects on marriage - but that gay sex doesn’t conform to the needs of marriage.
Marriage, as I’ve said, isn’t a personal possession but, instead, is something which exists for a societal purpose and which has certain rules which are designed to support the reason for its existence. Adding same-sex couples to marriage would be an unsupportable alteration to marriage - it would be to make marriage something other than what it is supposed to be. It isn’t about a fancy wedding ceremony; it isn’t about tax benefits - heck, it isn’t even about love! Its about forming the building block of our society - a man and a woman coming together with at least the potential of having children in keeping with the purpose of the institution of marriage. Easy divorce cripples this fundamental role of marriage, and gay marriage would, too.
There are various purposes assigned to gay marriage - to get same-sex couple certain tax and inheritence benefits associeated with marriage; to make homosexuality more acceptable in the larger society; to affirm homosexuals in their lifestyle. Even if we were to suppose all of these to be admirable purposes, the plain fact of the matter will remain that none of them are part of the purpose of marriage. We don’t have marriage for tax purposes, we don’t have marriages to become socially acceptable and we don’t have marriages because they make us more accepted - we have marriages in order to serve the vital purpose of continuing our species while at the same time continuing our civilization. Go into marriage and you must do what marriage commands, not what you might prefer (though a wise man always works on getting his desires to match the needs of his marriage) - just as if you went into the institution of the Army you would have to do what the Army wants, not what you want.
Rather than adding gay marriage to the mix and further deinstitutionalising marriage, it is time for us to actually start attacking the easy divorce we have these days. We tore down a lot of the building blocks of our society over the past 60 years and it is time to turn the tide, not go with the (destructive) flow.
HAT TIP: First Things for getting me thinking on this.
Tags: gay marriage
January 5th, 2008
