Abortion and gay marriage are realities in America in no small measure because of Catholic politicians who have sponsored them and fiercely defended them.
~ Dr. Gerard Nadal, Coming Home, June 27
[Pictured right: New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan with Gov. Andrew Cuomo]
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Unfortunately, very true!
It’s true. And Catholics will be held to greater account for it, because we should know better. To whom much is given, much more will be required. There is absolutely no excuse for any Catholic politician to support these object evils.
And I thank god for them!!
Let me ask you all this: if you claim to be SO in support of civil rights- for fetuses, women, female fetuses, black fetuses, etc….your true colors show when you choose to deny rights to born human beings because they are gay.
Jane,
Your argument is question begging in the sense that it assumes that people have the right to marry people of the same sex, which is the very “right” that some of us claim does not exist. So to say that we are not for rights because we deny people the right to marry those of the same sex is to assume that that right exists, the very question under consideration. I’m curious how you can say that those who wish to marry someone of the same sex have a “right” to do so. Where does this right come from? In what sense does this right exist? Because it certainly does not exist in the US government since gay marriage is illegal. Are you claiming that the right to marry a person of the same sex is based on something that transcends the US government and which the US government’s law should subordinate itself to? I’m not trying to pick a fight here, especially given that we have so many wonderful pro-lifers on here who also support gay marriage, but I am curious what this whole language of “rights” means when no such rights are recognized by the government.
Bobby, in general free people have the “right” to do whatever they want, with the notable exception that they can’t infringe on the rights of others. So, if the Government said “it shall be illegal to sleep past 7:00 a.m. on Saturdays, you and I would agree the Government doesn’t have that power, and we have the “right” to sleep as late as we please (tell that to the little ones….)
If your state refused to give drivers licenses to gay people, would you think that violated their rights? There is no “right” to a drivers license. It’s a “privilege.” You’d probably agree that the state shouldn’t deny drivers licenses to gay people, that such a law would be unfair. Change “drivers license” to “Marriage license” and you’ll understand.
I’m still holding out hope that within five years from now, you will come around on the “gay issue.” You’ve got so much goodness and decency in you. Don’t be afraid to open your mind and your heart to change.
Bobby- I encourage you to take a look at the case of Loving vs Virginia in which it was declared unconstitutional to deny marriage rights based on race
So to clarify: we start from the position that everyone can do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t infringe on others. The ability to do so is called a “right.” Since marrying someone of the same sex is a specific example of an action which does not infringe on others, it falls under the category of a “right.”
I think where we would disagree with the license example, Hal, is that a driver’s license is a man-made construct designed for the individual good, while marriage is a an objective feature of the natural order for the good of both the spouses and society. In that sense, we can define what we mean by a driver’s license and who gets it and why it would be unfair for certain people not to, but marriage as an objective reality in nature cannot be changed anymore than we can define a square to have 5 sides. In other words, our claim is that even if we WANTED to make gay marriage a reality, we couldn’t make it real any more than we could make a square round. That at least is the claim.
Jane,
What does that have to do with the grounding of marriage as an objective right outside the whims of the US government?
And I have to say, the “you’re against gay marriage so you’re against interracial marriage” is about as convincing to those who are against gay marriage as “you’re for gay marriage- what’s next, animal marriage, computer marriage, etc.?” is to those who support gay marriage. The “no gay marriage implies no interracial marriage” argument fails to even begin to show any hint of understanding why we are opposed to gay marriage. It is important to know why teh other side believes what they believe when not only discussing things with them, but formulating your own opinion on the subject, and the interracial argument shows that almost no effort has been made to try and understand the other side.
Jane, I am staunchly pro-life, and also pro-gay-rights. I do not believe that gay rights are in any way linked to abortion. I can understand how some of my fellow pro-lifers believe they are nearly one and the same……But I cannot see the connection. I love the unborn, and the born. I love all people, gay and straight and black and white and big and little. I love the gay community–they have been persecuted and devalued and judged and seen as “abnormal.” I do not view them this way; I do not see how homosexuality is a “sin.” It is a difference, not a sin. Homosexuality can make people uncomfortable if they don’t understand it, but it is not related to abortion. It is not the same issue. If gay people want to get legally married, then they should be able to do so–they should be able to live freely and in committed relationships, because they have a right to that. Being gay is not the same thing as killing our babies.
Abortion is a procedure that kills a baby person. It is far worse than anything this world has ever seen. It is a gross injustice, it is a crime, it should be unthinkable.
Wow, Bobby, I had no idea that “marriage is a an objective feature of the natural order for the good of both the spouses and society.” I thought it was a man-made construct as well. Marriage has an “objective reality” in nature? You really want to say that? That’s your basis for denying gay people the “right” to marry?
The concept of marriage has changed over time. Government can get things wrong when defining marriage. Defining it as the marriage of one man and one woman of the same race was wrong, I’m sure you’d agree. Some people thought interracial marriage was “unnatural.” They were wrong. Some countries currently allow polygamy. Some places have arranged marriages. Not too long ago, a married woman couldn’t own property in her own name. Our concept of marriage evolves. Even if there is an “objective reality” for what marriage is, what makes you sure you, and not I, have correctly identified it?
And, most fundamentally, who granted you (and those who agree with you) the power to impose your opinions about the “objective realities” of what a marriage is on everyone else? You are free to view a gay marriage as a sham, but you are not free (in a just society) to make that view the law of the land.
Yep. Picture spot on.
“Wow, Bobby, I had no idea that “marriage is a an objective feature of the natural order for the good of both the spouses and society.””
What did you think we thought it was? And Hal, this gets back to my point to Jane. If this is coming as news to you, how much time have you really spent hearing what the other side has to say?
“Marriage has an “objective reality” in nature? You really want to say that? That’s your basis for denying gay people the “right” to marry?”
Yes, why would that be so objectionable if marriage really is objective in nature? I wish to grant all human beings the right to life because they objectovley all have teh right to life. If all human beings have a right to life, wishing to grant them teh right to life should not at all be objectionable. Similarily, if marriage is objectiovley defined as a man and a woman, what is problematic about saying that it can objectovley occur only between a man and a woman? The contraversial premise here is that it is objective, not given that it is objective I would not “allow” gay people to marry.
“The concept of marriage has changed over time. Government can get things wrong when defining marriage. Defining it as the marriage of one man and one woman of the same race was wrong, I’m sure you’d agree. Some people thought interracial marriage was “unnatural.” They were wrong. Some countries currently allow polygamy. Some places have arranged marriages. Not too long ago, a married woman couldn’t own property in her own name. Our concept of marriage evolves.”
None of this does anything to undermine the claim that teh nature of marriage is objective. People and governments get things wrong all teh time. That’s fine, but it doesn’t somehow imply that there can’t be any objectove nature to something or taht we can’t know something.
“Even if there is an “objective reality” for what marriage is, what makes you sure you, and not I, have correctly identified it?”
I could ask you the same thing and we could play that “but how do YOU know you’re right?” game all day. But I would say that it logically follows from metaphysical principles; that is, given metaphysical first principles, it can be logically demonstrated that the institution of marriage is objective and reserved for one man and one woman.
“And, most fundamentally, who granted you (and those who agree with you) the power to impose your opinions about the “objective realities” of what a marriage is on everyone else?”
I never know what this objection means. I am a human being with rational and I use that rational to try and formulate truths. Given your quoted statement, you seem to believe it is an objective reality that one should not impose their opinions about “objective realities” on other people. But aren’t you imposing your opinion that it is wrong to impose opinions on others on me when you claim that I cannot impose my opinion on others? So this is what we do as human; we attempt to reveal truth and argue for that truth to each other using intellect. To then claim that we are imposing views on each other is simply to give up discussing things rationally in an attempt to shunt the other side down.
Jane and Hal can end the faux outrage and insinuations of bigotry. Heterosexuals stood by and were largely silent as rights to gay adoptions, civil unions, shared employment benefits, etc were given to gays and lesbians. Most heterosexuals didn’t, and do not have a problem with these things. But for a very vocal minority, gays have been systematically awarded all of the goods and privileges of marriage with the silent approval of the majority of Americans.
However, marriage is a human institution that predates every state on the planet. As such, it is not the invention of any state, and therefore not the property of the state to define as the state pleases. Marriage isn’t whatever we want to call it. It is a universal institution entered into by one man and one woman. No state has the legitimate authority to redefine something that is a universal human institution and norm.
I agree what Andrew Sullivan (gay Catholic) wrote today, and he says what I was trying to convey:
To say simply “I believe civil marriage is between a man and a woman” is not an argument. It’s also irrelevant in six states and the nation’s capital. You can believe what you want, but my marriage license is identical to any straight person’s in both my residences. What you have to do is explain why you believe two gay people cannot and should not be married in terms beyond mere sectarian dogma. We live in a republic, not a church. And those arguments, when tested, have failed logical inspection.
Dr. Nadal, societies have been redefining marriage for thousands of years. Maybe no state has the “legitimate authority” to do that, but does that mean the US Government was illegitimate when they told Mormons they couldn’t have two wives? Polygamy goes back to the Bible, right? They redefined marriage when they did that. Marriage is not a “universal institution entered into by one man and one woman.” As I stated earlier, plural marriages are still legal in many countries. I know you understand what “Universal” means. Marriage is indeed “whatever we want to call it.” Saying it ain’t so doesn’t advance your argument.
PS: My outrage isn’t Faux. Like your outrage about abortion, this is real and honest. Would you be offended if I called your opposition to abortion “faux outrage?” I think you would.
Hal,
By Sullivan’s standard (i.e. no standard other than the desires of the id unchecked), marriage may be defined in polygamous and polyandrous terms as well. Why not? It too passes logical inspection in the Sullivan model, as the logic is reducible to nothing more than codifying into law the desires of any two (or more) individuals wishing to enter into a secular contractual agreement.
Is this the same Andrew Sullivan who thinks Trig Palin is Bristol’s son and not Sarah’s? Yeah, super logical that guy is.
I’ve always wondered why people compare the issue of gay marriage to interracial marriage or even polygamy.
In polygamy, a man with several wives is married to each wife – but the wives are not married to each other.
In interracial marriage, you have a man and a woman married to each other, which is no different from a marriage between a man and a woman of like race.
The glaring difference I see is that there are no males marrying males or females marrying females.
The problem is that people have no accurate understanding of marriage. They think marriage is something people do, like drive a car, and therefore, it should be open to anyone who wants to.
Marriage IS only when a man and woman unite together for life for the good of rearing children and creating the foundational unity of society. It’s not something men and women DO as much as it IS something that only exists because a man and woman have chosen to become one flesh. You cannot separate marriage from its intended result, which is children and family.
(No, that doesn’t mean that infertile couples aren’t really married, so don’t even try that lame argument. Physical illness that prevents children is not the fault of the couple.) Men and women by nature are made for each other and their complementarity is how the human race continues. Men are not made for men and women are not made for women.
The idea of male/male or female/female marriage is just absurd because it is as much a fairytale as unicorns and the tooth fairy. It simply can never exist because marriage only IS because of a man and a woman.
I’m still holding out hope that within five years from now, you will come around on the “gay issue.” You’ve got so much goodness and decency in you. Don’t be afraid to open your mind and your heart to change.
Back at you, Hal.
I’ve known gay couples who were healthier and far more devoted to each other than some of my heterosexual friends. Two of my best friends are women who live in my building, a lesbian couple, who are amazing, loving, strong, brilliant, and they have a strong and wonderful relationship. Who am I to say that my heterosexual marriage is more “valid” than theirs? That is nonsense. Why do religious pro-lifers feel they need to lump gay rights in with abortion rights? They are NOT THE SAME THING. Homosexuality may make you feel uncomfortable, and you can disagree with it all you want. It doesn’t kill a little baby. Even if you DO believe homosexuality is a sin, it cannot possibly be worse than dismembering and incinerating a baby human being. I’m so tired of this debate. It’s just ridiculous.
Jen, your “understanding” of marriage is just that, your understanding. it’s not more accurate than my understanding of marriage, which allows for same sex couples to be part of the institution.
You cannot separate marriage from its intended result, which is children and family.
Sure you can. (assuming you are right about its “intended result”)
Hal, I am right about its intended result. It goes back to the very beginning in a Garden, when GOD created MALE AND FEMALE for each other and Adam said, “This at last is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone.” Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh.”
That’s what marriage IS and the only thing it can be. Men do not, cannot cleave to one another, nor women to women. That’s not “my understanding.” That’s reality.
Jen, if you want to rely on Christian beliefs for your argument, we have nothing to discuss. But, please do not call it “reality.” “Reality” is a word that has a meaning, just like “marriage.” The difference is the meaning of marriage can change over time as our views of the institution evolve, the meaning of “reality” is fixed.
Hal, how exactly would the human race continue in your “reality” where men can marry men? The fact that men and women were made for each other is not merely my Christian belief, it is reality. There is nothing more real than that. Marriage exists for men and women. It’s more than a social construct or a contract or a “right.” Marriage has fundamental meaning that, like it or not, cannot be changed. It IS what it IS.
I realize I’m in the minority here among pro-lifers here, but I honestly can’t get worked up about gay marriage. Really, it’s not that big of a deal.
Since I saw it mentioned, I don’t really understand the whole “marriage is between one man and one woman” thing. In the Bible, it wasn’t uncommon for men to have multiple wives. Doesn’t that prove the following line as false?
I was wondering if the pro-gay marriage folks could give a definition of the word “marriage” as they understand it? Thanks to anyone who does.
So, if I understand correctly, we can use the phrase ‘gay marriage’ to confuse and deflect the abortion fans? If so, let’s just keep them busy with that for a while, as we continue the de-funding-PP trend across the country, and then the world! Bwahahaha!
Watch the birdie, watch it!
Meanwhile, the only way to de-fang these not-really-Catholics is to stop voting for them! No votes, no power, and then they can get real jobs like the rest of us.
Jen, your “understanding” of marriage is just that, your understanding. it’s not more accurate than my understanding of marriage, which allows for same sex couples to be part of the institution.
And what is your understanding Hal? There is no understanding of ‘marriage’ that rationally includes gay couples but excludes polygamists or for that matter, platonic love (what interest does the state have in privileging only sexual relationships?). Under this understanding ‘marriage’ means nothing except that you have made a declaration of your transitory mutual affection to the state in return for a package of contractual obligations and privileges. It’s meaningless.
Two people in a monogamous, committed relationship–taking vows of fidelity, honesty, devoting their lives to helping each other and the world…..That is marriage. It can be a man and a woman, it can be two men, or two women. I don’t know any gay people who believe we should marry animals, and there isn’t a “slippery slope.” Two of my cousins are gay, and one of them is married. As I’ve stated, I have several close friends who are gay married couples. They are as devoted to each other and to the community and to helping those in need as much (if not more) than my heterosexual friends who are married. I don’t understand why this is such a big deal, either. I’m not even saying you all should agree with me—but this is a separate issue entirely, no matter what color you want to paint it.
Dr. Nadal, societies have been redefining marriage for thousands of years.
But I can’t think of any ancient civilizations that allowed same sex couples to marry.
Two people in a monogamous, committed relationship–taking vows of fidelity, honesty, devoting their lives to helping each other and the world
It can be a man and a woman, it can be two men, or two women.
Should two gay cousins of the opposite gender be allowed to marry? Gay cousins of the same gender? What about two siblings (gay or not, same gender or not)? What about a mother and daughter? father and son? grandparent and grandchild?
Should two gay cousins of the opposite gender be allowed to marry
In some states they already can.
Well, no. Because incest is wrong, and again, NOT THE SAME THING. Incest is wrong to the gay community, too. And my gay friends think NAMBLA is abhorrent. Two adult non-related persons in a committed relationship, I should have said.
The main point, Mary Lee, seems to be that we can’t decide what’s “right” simply on the basis of what a mass of people happens to find abhorrent… since that changes over time, sometimes spectacularly and on the merest whim. If all of your “gay” friends change their minds about incest in, say, 20 years, will you change your mind, as well?
On what premise is incest wrong?
“Your argument is question begging in the sense that it assumes that people have the right to marry people of the same sex, which is the very “right” that some of us claim does not exist.”
In a strictly legal sense, which to me is the only sense worth discussing the issue in, marriage, without consideration for the characteristics of the parties entering into it (apart from the a priori fact that they can enter into a legally binding contract in the first place) is a constitutional right, because the Supreme Court, which has plenary authority over interpretation of the United States Constitution, has ruled (and repeatedly affirmed) that it is (this is also why abortion is a constitutional right). This is the underlying rationale of Loving. The ruling isn’t so much that interracial marriage is a right, as it is that marriage is a right and the government, absent any compelling justification, cannot reject that right for interracial couples. Of course, the government can and does deny rights under certain specific conditions (felons, for example, cannot vote or purchase guns), but there’s an extensive legal apparatus in place to assure that when it does so, it is doing so properly. Proponents of gay marriage who understand the legal complexities of the issue, therefore, are actually arguing that the government simply has no compelling reason for denying marriage to same-sex couples.
“I think where we would disagree with the license example, Hal, is that a driver’s license is a man-made construct designed for the individual good, while marriage is a an objective feature of the natural order for the good of both the spouses and society. ”
This doesn’t really speak to the concept of marriage as a legal contract so much as it does to the concept of marriage as a proxy for the natural sexual coupling of male and female. They aren’t necessarily synonymous. You might argue that it’s a good idea, from a public policy standpoint, for them to be so, but that’s a different discussion. It would be impossible, of course, to redefine the coupling of male and female, as an abstract idea, to include male and male or female and female, because then it would no longer be the coupling of male and female, but again, that’s not what marriage, in a strictly legal sense, is. The legal definition of marriage is infinitely malleable, just like the definition of any other contract is, because in order to have the authority to enforce a contract, the government must be able to define the terms upon which it is set.
So the right exists already in the constitution, but we just don’t know it yet? Is that a correct understanding?
If so, suppose that it was abundantly clear gay marriage was strictly and explicitly forbidden by teh constitution (I”m sure that is the case in some places). Would you still claim that it is a right?
Or I should possibly say, we aren’t “recognizing” it, but it is there nonetheless and has been since the first day?
“If so, suppose that it was abundantly clear gay marriage was strictly and explicitly forbidden by teh constitution (I”m sure that is the case in some places). Would you still claim that it is a right?”
I would think that something explicitly forbidden by the Constitution cannot be a constitutional right.
“Or I should possibly say, we aren’t “recognizing” it, but it is there nonetheless and has been since the first day?”
Well, since the first day of the Fourteenth Amendment, anyway, at least. Obviously an interracial configuration of marriage was not considered a constitutional right at that time, but we would think of that as being a right denied, in light of later Supreme Court jurisprudence.
“I would think that something explicitly forbidden by the Constitution cannot be a constitutional right.”
Now you didn’t use this language of “rights” as my post was originally to Jane (which is fine), but in that case, if it was explicitly condemned in teh constitution, would you no longer say that gay marriage is a right? What would it be then? How would you fight for it? Or would you accept the constitution and leave it at that?
In other words, it seems Joan that the only reaosn you call gay marriage a right is because you believe it is implicit in teh constitution (or something like that). But what if it wasn’t? It seems like then you would no longer be able to call it a right or have any basis for an argument in favor of it.
No one said anything about animals, so lets leave out the straw men. My question is on what logical basis is marriage limited to 2? In fact – why monogamous? The NYT wrote a piece about how “open” gay marriages were likely to breathe life in the the stale institution of marriage. Why only sexual? Why should the state have any more interest in privileging two men who have sex as opposed to two men who are best friends? What does the sex provide to the state that it wants to privilege?
Bobby, as you would be the first to admit, whether the Supreme Court recognizes a right in the Constitution is not the end of the inquiry. Slavery and abortion both passed constitutional scrutiny. So did a prohibition on consensual adult sodomy. The Supreme Court is sometimes “right” and sometimes “wrong.” Although, being the Supreme Court, I guess you could argue they’re never actually wrong, because they law is what they say it is.
When someone says “a ban a gay marriage violates their rights,” what they are saying is that the courts or legislature should recognize that the government has no legitimate basis to deny gay people the right to marry. They are not necessarily saying that there is a right to gay marriage that has been recognized by the courts. (although, of course, some state Supreme Courts, like Iowa, have done that).
“Now you didn’t use this language of “rights” as my post was originally to Jane (which is fine), but in that case, if it was explicitly condemned in teh constitution, would you no longer say that gay marriage is a right? What would it be then? How would you fight for it? Or would you accept the constitution and leave it at that?”
As I said before, something explicitly forbidden in the Constitution could not be a constitutional right. That wouldn’t necessarily preclude fighting for same-sex marriage, because the Constitution does include a provision for amending it. Attempting to change the Constitution, through the legally prescribed channels, is itself a constitutional right.
“In other words, it seems Joan that the only reaosn you call gay marriage a right is because you believe it is implicit in teh constitution (or something like that).”
I’m calling marriage, without any additional qualifier whatsoever (apart from the obvious fact that the parties to the marriage must be able to enter into a contract to begin with) a (constitutional) right because the final authority on constitutional interpretation has concluded that it is implicit in the Constitution (prior to Loving, in fact, and before the specific example of interracial marriage was ever brought before the Court). In this sense, any conceivable form of marriage that isn’t currently allowed is a right being prohibited because the government has the necessary justification for doing so (i.e. incestual marriage would promote the creation of genetically unfit offspring).
“But what if it wasn’t? It seems like then you would no longer be able to call it a right or have any basis for an argument in favor of it.”
Not necessarily. Obviously the terms of the argument would be shifted in a different direction to what I indicated above; amending the Constitution through the appropriate means so that it is a right.
In the interest of accuracy, SCOTUS has never acknowledged a right to marry. Loving v. Virginia was decided solely on the basis that laws anti-miscegenation laws failed to pass the strict scrutiny test.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Even before Loving, the Supreme Court affirmed that marriage is a fundamental right in cases including Meyer v. Nebraska, Griswold v. Connecticut, and Skinner v. Oklahoma.
(I know I’m going to regret this, but…)
Joan wrote:
In this sense, any conceivable form of marriage that isn’t currently allowed is a right being prohibited because the government has the necessary justification for doing so (i.e. incestual marriage would promote the creation of genetically unfit offspring).
I’ll leave others to reply to your other points (many of which are transparently question-begging), but this comment puzzled me: since you are a “legal-abortion” advocate, why would this “problem” (idea of genetically unfit offspring) be any hindrance, since you’d be quite all right with pre-natal testing and selective, eugenics-based abortion? Since that “problem” would be moot in a pro-legal-abortion world (such as you embrace), does this mean that you (personally) see no problem with “fighting for the ‘right’ to marry incestuously”… or, to take it a step further (and make it more parallel to the ‘gay marriage’ issue), “redefine” incest so as not to include marriage between siblings, parents-children, and any two [or more] other humans?
Joan, you don’t know what you’re talking about. If, at any point, SCOTUS would have acknowledged a right to marry, gays (along with many other groups currently disallowed from marrying) would have been allowed to be wed decades ago, for they could not be denied such a right under the 14th Amendment. However, SCOTUS has done no such. There have only been two court cases to reach SCOTUS that dealt with marriage specifically; Loving v. Virginia and Baker v. Nelson. The first was decided not on the basis of there being a right to marry, but rather that anti-miscegenation laws failed to pass the test of strict scrutiny. The latter case, which dealt with gay marriage, was summarily dismissed on the basis that the constitution does not address the question of marriage. You might want to pick up a history book or something.
And that’s coming from someone who has no problem with gays being wed.
Okay, my only point was that I was trying to figure out on what basis Jane claims that gay marriage is a “right.” Hal, you believe something different than Jane would, apparently, that the right to gay marriage somehow transcends human law and is based in something objective outside ourselves. And indeed, I am the first to admit that the Supreme court has erred. I”m just trying to figure out how it is consistent with those who support gay marriage’s worldview.
“Obviously the terms of the argument would be shifted in a different direction to what I indicated above; amending the Constitution through the appropriate means so that it is a right. ”
So in general, you would not say that it is a right, only that it SHOULD be recognized as a right. That is all I was trying to get at, and more specifically, was trying to scrutinize Jane’s worldview. The two of you seem to have a different understanding of how you defend gay marriage, so my original post doesn’t really apply to y’all then (which of course is fine).
CT,
I sincerely (and I mean that) disagree with animals being straw man arguments. The issue before us is radicalized autonomy. Principle and the constant witness of over 5,000 years of human civilization have been jettisoned for the id-centered discernment of Mary Lee’s gay and lesbian friends.
Why stop with gays and lesbians? Why not formalizing polygamous and polyandrous relationships into marriage? Why not incest? Why not bestiality? We eat the animals and wear their skin, so I should think a little sex is less harmful to the animal than all of that.
Seriously, why not? Based on what system of ethics and moral norms? Who are gays and lesbians to say no to others, now that they’ve gotten what they want? A bit hypocritical, no?
(i.e. incestual marriage would promote the creation of genetically unfit offspring).
joan, Sex between grandpa and adult grandson, mother and adult daughter, daddy and adult son, adult brothers, adult sisters will NEVER create offspring of any type!
How dare you discriminate against relatives who want to legally marry each other. Why do you get to define what marriage is?
You support marriage between the same gender, support all marriage between the same gender. Don’t be a hater.
“I’ll leave others to reply to your other points (many of which are transparently question-begging), but this comment puzzled me: since you are a “legal-abortion” advocate, why would this “problem” (idea of genetically unfit offspring) be any hindrance, since you’d be quite all right with pre-natal testing and selective, eugenics-based abortion? Since that “problem” would be moot in a pro-legal-abortion world (such as you embrace), does this mean that you (personally) see no problem with “fighting for the ‘right’ to marry incestuously”… or, to take it a step further (and make it more parallel to the ‘gay marriage’ issue), “redefine” incest so as not to include marriage between siblings, parents-children, and any two [or more] other humans?”
The state can’t compel abortion, and even if it could, it would be impossible to determine the provenance of every single pregnancy that happens in order to assure that it isn’t the product of incest. Therefore, the state has a rational basis (the only standard it would have to meet in this case, for legal reasons I won’t bother to get into) for not allowing marriage between, at a minimum, first relatives. As for fighting for recognition of incestual marriage, no, I see no problem with that, or any right; every group, no matter how marginalized or outside of the mainstream, should be able to advocate for what it perceives as its interests. That doesn’t mean I think incestual marriage is a great idea.
“Joan, you don’t know what you’re talking about. If, at any point, SCOTUS would have acknowledged a right to marry, gays (along with many other groups currently disallowed from marrying) would have been allowed to be wed decades ago, for they could not be denied such a right under the 14th Amendment.”
Okay, how about this: I’m going to show you an exact quote from Loving, where it explicitly states that marriage is a right, and then you can tell me why that quote doesn’t actually mean what it obviously means: “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” We can go on if that’s not good enough for you. Otherwise, I’m content to leave it at this: you are simply wrong here.
As for fighting for recognition of incestual marriage, no, I see no problem with that
You don’t believe incestual marriage is a great idea but you don’t oppose it (why is it not a great idea?).
You believe it is okay for a parent/grandparent to have sex and “marry” his/her adult offspring of the same gender (one minute over age 18 is considered a legal adult btw).
Thanks for owning it, joan.
Praxedes, on what basis would you justify making it illegal. I accept that their might be a good reason, but the burden should always be on those wishing to outlaw something to justify the interference with human freedom.
If anyone who supports gay marriage dares to pipe up and complain if I want polygamy, then HYPOCRITE! If anyone who supports gay marriage complains if I want to marry my aunt Mildred: HYPOCRITE!! If anyone who supports gay marriage complains if I want to marry my bicycle, HYPOCRITE!
If marriage can be re-defined by anyone anytime especially if it’s popular, then I get to marry two men, and one of them can be my brother, plus one woman if I want, and she can be any woman in the world. Saying anything against any of my options is hypocrisy and oppression.
on what basis would you justify making it illegal.
Hal, maybe I am missing something but is incestual marriage currently legal somewhere?
oh, I missed this.
Hal, how exactly would the human race continue in your “reality” where men can marry men?
Newsflash. Human race continues because not everyone is gay. True before gay marriage and true now that we’re beginning to have gay marriage. Men can marry men, right now in many places. The non-gays are continuing to breed at acceptable levels.
So, to take this one step further: I’m female. Next month, I’m going to get married to my boyfriend, my brother, and my girlfriend on the same day during the same ceremony. My question for Joan is: What are you buying me for a wedding gift???
My answer to YOUR question (what’s on the menu?): I’ll be serving mixed green salad, Happy Family stir fry and to drink: Long Island Ice Tea, of course. RSVP by Thursday.
Joan says:
“The state can’t compel abortion, and even if it could,…”
Look, Joan, you don’t need to be a pro-lifer to master basic reading skills. Perhaps you have read about your fellow travelers in the Chinese government who compel abortion as a matter of frightening daily routine for those who violate their reproductive law.
I call you fellow travelers because you both operate outside of human dignity, tradition, ethics, or morality. It is the raw, unchecked exercise of political will that you both rely on.
The state can’t compel abortion? Really??? The state can compel whatever it damned well pleases at the point of a gun. Don’t believe me? Stop filing your tax returns and see who comes armed and knocking at your door. You’ll do as you’re told, or you’ll do hard time.
In China, you do as you’re told or they murder your baby and sterilize you.
What rock have you been living under?
“The non-gays are continuing to breed at acceptable levels.”
Perhaps you “Breed,” Hal. The rest of us procreate, which is something gays and lesbians cannot do. They can only “breed,” as you say. Perhaps now that they have gay marriage, we will commence with redefining “procreate”?
The non-gays are continuing to breed at acceptable levels.
Speak for yourself Hal. Your behavior may constitute breeding. My husband and I do not breed. We make love and renew our marriage vows. Marriage – One man, one woman.
Hal, maybe I am missing something but is incestual marriage currently legal somewhere?
I have no idea. I know first cousins can marry in some states, but not others. I don’t know if a brother/sister marriage is allowed anywhere. I suspect not, but I’ m not sure what the rationale is. As I said, I’m willing to accept that their could be valid reasons, none immediately spring to mind. According to Wikipedia:
Rhode Island allows uncles to marry their nieces if they are part of a community, such as orthodox Jews, for whom such marriages are permitted.
ninek, I’ll be there. Where are y’all registered? Formal or casual?
What is with all the gay marriage arguments on this blog? It seems like it’s every other thread!
Boy, it’s easy to push your buttons today. Breed, ha. Procreate. That’s a nice word.
I think its just the recent NY thing, Jack. The talk of gay marriage usually isn’ this frequent :)
Bobby, if one of your children grows up and wants to marry someone of the same sex, I bet you’d support them.
Absolutely not. I love my children, and given what I know (not others mind you, but only given what I know), supporting them in such an endeavor would be an act of hatred. Please note I am not saying that those who support their children with same sex attraction hate them; I believe that they simply are misguided or do not understand fully. But for ME, given what I know, it would be an act of hate.
Praxedes, thanks so much! We’re all registered at Costco, naturally! I’m peeved, though, because my boyfriend’s choice of dress totally clashes with mine: I’m wearing a sleeveless Vera Wang, and he insists on a frothy, ribboned, pink number with huge puffy sleeves and a double crinoline! Can you say “fashion don’t”!?
Oh well. Dr. Nadal, Joan knows very well about Chinese forced abortions. She even thinks that women who “break the law” when becoming pregnant “get what they deserve” when their children are forcibly removed from the womb. Remember that Joan? I’ll never forget. And Joan, do tell: what are you buying me for my wedding??
Jill, calling these politicians “catholic” is completely irrelevant and obviously contributes to a lot of misunderstanding. They do not represent the Church, nor do they comply with Church teaching, which has been consistently pro-life…Posting that quote without the appropriate quotation marks around the word Catholic, looks more like an attempt to demonize people of that faith, by suggesting that somehow, its religious teachings influence the voting patterns of so-called Catholic politicians. Nothing could be further from the truth….Speaking as a Catholic, I can tell you that being pro-abortion is grounds for automatic ex-communication, and does not require any clerical approval. Posting that picture of Archbishop Dolan and Governor Cuomo within the context of the above quote, represents an insult to Catholics, especially given the Church’s strong opposition to abortion…..
“The state can’t compel abortion? Really??? The state can compel whatever it pleases at the point of a gun. Don’t believe me? Stop filing your tax returns and see who comes armed and knocking at your door. You’ll do as you’re told, or you’ll do hard time.”
The collection of taxes is an enumerated constitutional power of both the federal and state governments through Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment, respectively. There is no constitutional provision or case law allowing for the government to compel abortions. But don’t let facts or reality or anything stupid like that get in the way of your hysterical ranting about how the United States government is just a hair’s breadth away from practicing Chinese-style totalitarianism.
Well, Bobby, we may never know. I do wish you and your children all the happiness and success in the world.
I wonder, however. If your child came to you and said “Mom and Dad, I love you both, I appreciate all you have done for me, how you so lovingly raised me and helped me become the young adult I am today. After much soul searching and prayers, I have decided I must tell you what I have known all my life. I am gay. I have found the person I want to spend the rest of my life with. The person who completes me, who honors me, and returns my love and respect. I am convinced that God himself has brought us together and nothing you can say will change my mind. I hope I have your support. I hope you will walk me down the aisle.”
“Walk me down the aisle Daddy, it’s just about time
Does my wedding gown look pretty Daddy? Daddy don’t cry”
well, thank you for the kind words, Hal. I obviously wish the best for yours too.
Bobby, you and Carla have changed the way I view “pro lifers.” I’m grateful. Who knows, maybe some day you’ll even change my mind. In the meantime, you’re my pet project on the gay issue. Carla was too, but she bowed out of the conversation several months ago. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Joan,
You miss the point. The government can compel whatever it wishes. Slavery was once protected both Constitutionally and by Supreme Court fiat . Forcible sterilizations are still the protected law of the land under the Supreme Court’s Buck v. Bell, which has never been overturned. Were you aware of that?
Coming from a woman who defends killing her own child, I guess anything goes with you.
Okay, how about this: I’m going to show you an exact quote from Loving, where it explicitly states that marriage is a right, and then you can tell me why that quote doesn’t actually mean what it obviously means: “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” We can go on if that’s not good enough for you. Otherwise, I’m content to leave it at this: you are simply wrong here.
Why don’t you provide the full quote, Joan? It’s easy to post part of a quote out of context. The full quote was as follows:
—
“These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.”
—
Understand? As I’ve pointed out three times now, Loving v. Virginia was not decided because marriage is a right afforded to everyone, but because anti-miscegenation laws could not pass the test of strict scrutiny. When a state creates a law on the basis of race, that law much meet certain standards. It was deemed that the Virginia law failed to meet this standard, so it was deemed unconstitutional. Simply claiming that I’m wrong isn’t much of a way to argue. Just because I happen to agree with you on gay marriage doesn’t mean you get the proverbial “free pass”, so to speak.
“You miss the point. The government can compel whatever it wishes. Slavery was once protected both Constitutionally and by Supreme Court fiat . Forcible sterilizations are still the protected law of the land under the Supreme Court’s Buck v. Bell, which has never been overturned. Were you aware of that?”
The government cannot compel whatever it wishes. The Bill of Rights, specifically, and the Constitution, generally, place explicit limits on the exercise of government power. But please, go on comparing the United States, with its well-defined balance of powers and its absolute guarantees of personal liberty, with China. Don’t let me stop you.
“Understand? As I’ve pointed out three times now, Loving v. Virginia was not decided because marriage is a right afforded to everyone, but because anti-miscegenation laws could not pass the test of strict scrutiny.”
You’ve just cited a paragraph which contains explicit statements that marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man and a fundamental freedom, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and you’re trying to argue that marriage isn’t a right? The fact that unconstitutional racial classification schemes happened to present the opportunity for the Court to affirm that marriage is a right is completely irrelevant to this discussion. The Supreme Court regularly takes up cases to decide one issue and presents a ruling with case law that is relevant to other areas.
Hi Hal. Thank you for your comment. I appreciate that.
And I shall bow out of this conversation yet again. :)
Hi! Praxedes, I’m just coming back home from a little dinner.
Well, incest is wrong because our moral code tells us it is—and murder is wrong, and stealing is wrong…….Incest and murder and lying and stealing are thought to be abhorrent in most cultures. Cannibalism is wrong to most people. Why is that? Abortion is wrong, because it kills. Homosexuality is a human condition that we don’t even quite understand. It certainly does not result in a dead baby. I think we need to focus less on the gay community and more on helping women not abort their babies.
Hal, you and joan are my pet projects on the abortion issue. Cranium used to be my pet project but he doesn’t come around anymore so I don’t know if my project was a success or not. He can’t stop my prayers, though.
@Mary Lee, exactly. There are much more pressing issues than who consenting adults sleep with, in my opinion. I would like to stop innocent children from dying, not adults from making choices that I may or may not agree with. I really don’t think it is anyone’s business.
And I really have to say, the comparisons of homosexuality with bestiality are highly offensive. An animal doesn’t have the capacity to consent, an adult human of whatever gender can.
I believe Jill shared this yesterday, but check it out! (is Jane still reading these?)
http://speroforum.com/a/56169/Chicago-priest-decries-gay-agenda
“In every condition of life, and in forming your opinions on every subject, let it be an established principle in regulating your conduct, that nothing can be honorable which is morally wrong. Men who disregard or disbelieve revelation often err from the true standard of honor, by substituting public opinion or false maxims for the divine laws. The character of God, his holy attributes, and perfect law, constitute the only models and rules of excellence and true honor. Whatever deviates from these models and rules must be wrong, and dishonorable.” Noah Webster, 1834
http://townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/2011/06/28/wrong_marriage_debate_again
I wish these priests and others would just read their Bibles. It is VERY clear what marriage is and for whom. It also is very clear as to God’s view on homosexuality.
NOT BORN with sexual preferances. Yes, we are all born with tendencies to desire ungodly things. Our human drives are to be restrained within boundaries. Hello, ever hear of the 10 Commandment? We, as a society were founded on the same basis.
DENY SELF, govern ourselves. Uphold values and morals and be blessed.
The bible also says we shouldn’t eat shrimp or pork either. I eat shrimp all the time. Though I am not religious, I have respect for it; I am not mocking it. I still maintain the issues are not related.
HI Mary Lee,
I am not religious either. I LOVE shrimp. The bible has Old Testament Levitical ceremonial laws that are now obsolete. The ten commandments are moral laws and they still hold true. We are UNDER grace in the New Covenant by the finished work of Jesus the Son, Who died in our place. (atoned for our sins.) We are now obeying out of gratitude and love, and His mercy is available when we mess up. (Often, but not a life style of continual sin.
“We have staked the future of American civilization, not upon the power of government. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” — James Madison, architect of the U.S. Constitution, co-author of the Federalist Papers.
Dr. Nadal’s quote–which began all of this–is spot on. Tangential and irrelevant meanderings and obfuscations from our pro-abort friends notwithstanding, the point Gerard makes is germane to the cultural crisis in which we find ourselves mired.
As Catholics, (and as Christians) are we or are we not members of this republic? Of course the answer is yes. So why should we be expected to set aside our morals as somehow insufficent to address the questions of the day? We notice that the promoters of homosexuality, such as Hal, have no qualms about attempting to impose his belief system upon the rest of us.
Why do we have to take a back seat, indeed why have so many so called “Catholic” politicians fallen prey to the corrrupting influence of secularization? It is not complicated. We surrender our better nature for a seat at the table. James Madison put his finger on it:
“The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honorable or venal love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.”
And Gilbert Keith Chesterton:
“These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own.”
“ We notice that the promoters of homosexuality, such as Hal, have no qualms about attempting to impose his belief system upon the rest of us.”
Most people who defend gay rights (not promote homosexuality, I am not sure what you mean by that), myself included, do not wish for anyone to be discriminated against or treated badly because of their personal lifestyle choices. I have no desire to force people to accept gay people or think they are living morally, but I do wish for gay people to be free from discrimination and harm just like anyone else. That is just basic human decency, which I think we can all agree on (hopefully) even if you don’t believe disallowing gay marriage is discrimination.
You’ve just cited a paragraph which contains explicit statements that marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man and a fundamental freedom, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and you’re trying to argue that marriage isn’t a right? The fact that unconstitutional racial classification schemes happened to present the opportunity for the Court to affirm that marriage is a right is completely irrelevant to this discussion. The Supreme Court regularly takes up cases to decide one issue and presents a ruling with case law that is relevant to other areas.
Perhaps I’ve been giving you too much credit. Maybe I should try this from a different angle, as you are content to assert that marriage is a right and misconstrue why SCOTUS ruled as it did in Loving v. Virginia. I mentioned this once before and you ignored it, so I’ll ask you again. What about Baker v. Nelson, which was brought to SCOTUS under the basis that, as per Loving v. Virginia, under the 14th Amendment gays had a right to be wed? Why was it dismissed? Assuming the rationale behind Loving v. Virginia is that marriage was a right, then shouldn’t SCOTUS have ruled contrary to what it ruled? Assuming what you assert as true, it should have. However, it did not because SCOTUS did not, and has not, declared marriage a right. Loving v. Virginia dealt with a very specific issue, none of which was defining marriage as a right. It simply looked at the Constitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws. Anything beyond that is simply you trying to redefine the case to be something it wasn’t. I really don’t know how relevant Loving v. Virginia is to other areas, since SCOTUS has yet to treat it as precedent in affirming gays right to wed.
It’s odd how I find myself roped into such an argument, all this considered. But I suppose that is how it is.
‘There are much more pressing issues than who consenting adults sleep with, in my opinion. I would like to stop innocent children from dying, not adults from making choices that I may or may not agree with. I really don’t think it is anyone’s business.’
I agree to a degree. I don’t care who people sleep with. I certainly think a lot of sexual behavior is destructive, but that’s their business. The definition of marriage and family is society’s business, though. Abortion is much more pressing to me, but I think we’re capable of being concerned about more than one issue at a time.
Hi CT,
I don’t stand for gay marriage, actually. I think marriage should be defined by churches as they see fit, and the state can handle non-discriminatory civil unions. I also think gay people can have just as healthy families as anyone else, but I know a lot of you won’t agree with me there. My sister raises her daughter about a bazillion times better than my married parents raised us. If a church wants to define marriage and family a certain way that is great, but the state needs to be neutral on that.
I really see it like I see animal rights. I care about animals, and I don’t eat meat, and I think it’s just awfully sad that people do. However, I am not going to impose that on everyone else. Humans come first, just as stopping unborn children from dying comes before arguing about whether gays can get married. This is just my take on it, though.
What are you hoping to prove by bringing up Baker? That a one-sentence dismissal which is only precedent because it was technically brought by appeal instead of cert somehow overrules the literally dozens of explicit, unambiguous assertions in landmark cases that marriage is a right? What’s more, of the three claims made by the petitioners in Baker, two of them have nothing directly to do with marriage at all, but rather gender discrimination and a Ninth Amendment claim. Using your logic, the Equal Protection Clause doesn’t really protect against gender discrimination because Baker was dismissed on the grounds that it lacks a question of “substantial” federal importance. Finally, I will once again point out to you that marriage was already defined as a right prior to Loving.
Jerry,
Thanks for seeing the point! I agree wholeheartedly with you.
God Bless
We notice that the promoters of homosexuality, such as Hal, have no qualms about attempting to impose his belief system upon the rest of us.
You’re missing the point. No one is asking you to be gay, you can live anyway you want. We just would like gay people to have that “opportunity” as well. (see how I avoided saying “right?”)
Wait, it would have been okay for you to say “you would like them to have the right”, right? It makes sense to me for those who support gave marriage to say that “we want them to have that right” but not so much “they have the right.” I don’t know if at this point I’m just being difficult, but there it is. I am difficult.
Joan wrote:
The state can’t compel abortion, and even if it could, it would be impossible to determine the provenance of every single pregnancy that happens in order to assure that it isn’t the product of incest.
That wasn’t my point at all. You’d claimed that the state had a “necessary justification” (to the point of imposing its will on those who’d wish to marry incestuously) for avoiding incest, and for enacting laws to forbid it. In addition to this being (apparently) your raw opinion (i.e. I’d be very interested to know how you’d decide the “fit” from the “unfit”, genetically or otherwise), I’m curious as to how you’d justify the prohibition of marriage between those who might produce a child who was “unfit” by your standards, but produced through other means; do you not realize that this very argument was used [by muddle-headed people] to forbid interracial marriage, marriage among the poor and ignorant [think “Margaret Sanger”], and the like?
And again: if you support legal abortion (and eugenics which uses abortion to achieve its ends), and various prenatal tests were available (by which the majority of the “unfit” offspring could be identified before birth), and abortion (in your ideal world) remains a working “relief valve” against any unacceptably high number of “unfit” children “contaminating the gene pool”, then do you not see that this weakens any case you might have made against making incestuous marriage illegal? Your one stated reason for forbidding such marriage can be handled/contained by other means (albeit murderous ones… but I digress); surely you see the elimination of your core reason as important?
Therefore, the state has a rational basis (the only standard it would have to meet in this case, for legal reasons I won’t bother to get into) for not allowing marriage between, at a minimum, first relatives.
Hm. Why? (See above: unless you’re going down the road of enacting a minimum I.Q. requirement for marriage, forbidding those with dwarfism to marry, prohibiting marriage between those who are at risk of passing on some physical deformity, etc., I really don’t see how your argument is at all coherent… or how it boils down to anything other than your raw opinion, cloaked in pseudo-legalese.)
As for fighting for recognition of incestual marriage, no, I see no problem with that, or any right; every group, no matter how marginalized or outside of the mainstream, should be able to advocate for what it perceives as its interests.
In all seriousness: how firmly do you mean that? Do you think any cause, whatsoever (e.g. an organization devoted to “rape without consequences”, educational movements devoted to “sexually stimulating all children of ages 3-10 yrs. who are under our care”, and the like) should have that legal freedom to agitate for itself? I’m seriously curious about your answer… because it seems to indicate either a lack of thought in your past answer, or a depth of amorality that I’ve seldom encountered elsewhere. Perhaps you could clarify.
That doesn’t mean I think incestual marriage is a great idea.
Ah. And that’s a matter of personal taste, for you… akin to your taste (or distaste) for olives, for example, with no moral gradient in particular attached to the idea?
“That wasn’t my point at all. You’d claimed that the state had a “necessary justification” (to the point of imposing its will on those who’d wish to marry incestuously) for avoiding incest, and for enacting laws to forbid it. In addition to this being (apparently) your raw opinion (i.e. I’d be very interested to know how you’d decide the “fit” from the “unfit”, genetically or otherwise), I’m curious as to how you’d justify the prohibition of marriage between those who might produce a child who was “unfit” by your standards, but produced through other means; do you not realize that this very argument was used [by muddle-headed people] to forbid interracial marriage, marriage among the poor and ignorant [think “Margaret Sanger”], and the like?”
My reason was simply an example of a rational basis the government could successfully claim as justification for forbidding incestual marriage, were such a challenge brought before a court. This claim (the sexual coupling embodied within the particular configuration of marriage could produce genetically unfit offspring) could not justify forbidding interracial marriage because (A) the standard of judicial review would be higher than a simple rational basis test because it implicates a racial classification scheme and (B) no court would accept that the product of an interracial sexual coupling is in any way inferior or undesirable.
“And again: if you support legal abortion (and eugenics which uses abortion to achieve its ends), and various prenatal tests were available (by which the majority of the “unfit” offspring could be identified before birth), and abortion (in your ideal world) remains a working “relief valve” against any unacceptably high number of “unfit” children “contaminating the gene pool”, then do you not see that this weakens any case you might have made against making incestuous marriage illegal?”
Not from a legal standpoint, which is what I’m arguing. For a law to satisfy rational basis review, it must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. It doesn’t matter if there are other factors that already reduce the chances of genetically damaged offspring being born; the government still has a legitimate interest in doing everything possible to suppress that possibility above and beyond that, and forbidding incestuous marriage would be rationally suited to pursuing that end.
“In all seriousness: how firmly do you mean that? Do you think any cause, whatsoever (e.g. an organization devoted to “rape without consequences”, educational movements devoted to “sexually stimulating all children of ages 3-10 yrs. who are under our care”, and the like) should have that legal freedom to agitate for itself?”
Let me answer a question with a question and ask you if you believe proponents of these things should not be able to peacefully promote their beliefs? Should the government crack down on NAMBLA, for example, seize the servers they use to run their website, and arrest any known members simply for their membership, regardless of whether or not there is any evidence that they have personally violated the law? Is that really a road you want to go down, and if so, where do you think it ends?
“Ah. And that’s a matter of personal taste, for you… akin to your taste (or distaste) for olives, for example, with no moral gradient in particular attached to the idea?”
Maybe you can help me out here and tell me what moral gradient I should attach to it?
“Ah. And that’s a matter of personal taste, for you… akin to your taste (or distaste) for olives, for example, with no moral gradient in particular attached to the idea?”
Maybe you can help me out here and tell me what moral gradient I should attach to it?
Since you’re against it, maybe you could help yourself out by examining why you are against it instead of waiting for someone to spoon feed you.
Should the government crack down on NAMBLA, for example, seize the servers they use to run their website
IMO, yes.
and arrest any known members simply for their membership, regardless of whether or not there is any evidence that they have personally violated the law?
IMO, no.
Giving tax breaks, benefits, and other perks to gay couples and using my tax money to do it is the very definition of imposing your views on me.
So, if I enter into a polygamous marriage, and I get goverment tax breaks, benefits, and perks, then I better not hear peep one from the gay marriage advocates. Fair is fair. If “marriage” is a word made of rubber (like choice) and you can redefine it anyway you see fit, then I get to be polygamous. Which is great, because I can pick one husband for his looks and another for his excellent ability to maintain the landscaping in my front yard, and a wife to go shopping with on Saturdays.
You won’t hear a peep out of me, ninek. Knock yourself out.
This just in:
“The governor’s championing of gay marriage did not hurt his standing with fellow white Catholics, who approve of him 62-22 percent.”
Hal wrote:
“The governor’s championing of gay marriage did not hurt his standing with fellow white
Catholicsdissidents/rebels from the Catholic Faith who still co-opt the title “Catholic” for themselves, who approve of him 62-22 percent.”There… fixed it for you, Hal!
By the way: was this supposed to demonstrate anything of note?
Well, for one thing, it demonstrates a wide gulf between what the Pope says and what most American Catholics think.
It also demonstrates that when you complain about “Catholic politicians like these,” you’re tilting at windmills. I suspect that there are a great many members of all faiths who are members simply because they were born into a Catholic family, or a Jewish family, and consider their religion part of their identity without actually believing some, most, or even all of the doctrine. I would guess there are a great many more closet atheists around than people suspect.