Posts Tagged ‘Same-Sex “Marriage”’

Judge Humpty Dumpty Has Ruled

Wednesday, August 4th, 2010

In his classic novel, Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll describes a surreal argument between Alice and Humpty Dumpty over the meaning of words.  The dispute culminates in this exchange:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”

Mr. Dumpty, meet Judge Vaughn Walker of the federal district court in California.

Judge Walker has just issued his much-anticipated ruling in the legal challenge to California’s Proposition 8.  That ballot initiative, which was passed by a majority of California’s voters in 2008, overturned an earlier judicial decision requiring the recognition of same-sex “marriages”, and amended the state constitution to ensure that only a man-woman marriage would be recognized by law.

Earlier this year, Judge Walker held a circus-like trial that was widely condemned for his obvious bias, and for the failure of the State of California to defend it’s own constitution.  It hardly comes as a surprise that the judge has now used his Tom Mix Decoder Ring (or is it his Rose-Colored Glasses) to find a right to same-sex “marriage” hidden deeply within the penumbras, umbras, emanations, exhalations and miasmas of the United States Constitution.  Marriage has been re-defined and constitutionalized to mean nothing that it has ever meant before, nothing that it ever could mean.

To get a sense of the so-called “merits” of the judge’s ruling, only one quote is necessary to ponder:

“Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage.”

As George Orwell once said, “There are some ideas so preposterous that only an intellectual could believe them.” Or, it seems, a federal judge.

From such a premise, Judge Humpty Dumpty, our Black-Robed Platonic Guardian Ruler on the Court, has blithely repudiated democracy, the rule of law, history, tradition, and common sense.

By Order of the Court, All Defenders of Real Marriage are Irrational Bigots

Friday, July 9th, 2010

I’ve mentioned on several occasions that there is a movement in our nation to stigmatize anyone who opposes same-sex “marriage” as a bigot.  Yesterday, yet another of our Black-Robed Platonic Guardian Rulers in the Courts — I’m sorry, I mean a federal judge — has advanced that movement even further.

A federal district judge in Massachusetts yesterday struck down certain provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), claiming that it is unconstitutional.  You may recall that DOMA was passed  by Congress in 1996 by huge majorities (85-14 in the Senate, 342-67 in the House), and signed into law by President Clinton.  It guarantees two significant things — that for the purposes of federal law and benefits the word “marriage” means only a bond between a man and a woman, and that states cannot be required to grant legal recognition to same-sex “marriages” entered into in other states.  In fact, DOMA was considered to be so strong a law that it was used as the excuse by many legislators for declining to support the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have defined marriage in our Constitution as being between one man and one woman.

This is a simple, common-sense law, and it is supported by wide margins in every public opinion poll ever taken.  But of course, in our judge-ocracy, that is not good enough.  Enter the district court in Massachusetts, which found that parts of DOMA violated the principles of federalism, as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The court’s legal reasoning, such as it is, doesn’t require too much comment, beyond the observation of legal scholar Ed Whalen that “This ruling strikes me as just plain nuts.”  I couldn’t agree more.  How can it violate the Constitution for the federal government to define what a word means, for the purposes of enforcing federal laws?  And how can it violate “equal protection” to treat relationships that are fundamentally different in a disparate way?

Two things about this ruling are most significant to me.  First is the statement by the court that:

… where, as here, there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class [i.e., those in same-sex "marriages"] is different, in relevant respects from a similarly situated class [i.e., those in man-woman marriages], this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification.

Yes, a United States court couldn’t figure out any difference between a man-woman marriage and a same sex relationship, and then proceeded to call every person who is a believing member of virtually every major religious group — Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, whatever — an irrational bigot.  Talk about irrational.

The second significant thing was the approach taken by the Administration in this litigation.  Ordinarily, it’s the duty of the Justice Department to defend the constitutionality of federal statutes.  Unfortunately, the agenda of this Administration, which strongly favors “gay rights” in general and same-sex “marriage” in particular, trumped the duty of the Justice Department.  Instead of defending the reasons underlying DOMA, the Justice Department instead told the court that it “does not believe that DOMA is rationally related to any legitimate government interests in procreation and child-rearing.”   In other words, the Administration gave the judge a nod and a wink, implicitly telling him that they would like him to void the law.

There are many issues involved in these kinds of case:  the replacement of democracy by a judicial oligarchy, the inversion of values in our culture, the willingness of elites to impose their agendas on the people.  To me, the worst thing is the growing momentum behind the marginalization of religious persons, branding us as bigots.  That has frightening implications for the future.

A Bad Time for “Catholic” Public Officials

Tuesday, June 1st, 2010

This has been a bad time for people who were baptized as Catholics, and who are now either public officials or candidates for public office.

First, we had the sight of Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General of New York and now the Democratic candidate for Governor.  Mr. Cuomo, a baptized Catholic, has long been an ardent supporter of the legal regime that permits the slaughter of unborn children, and has also proclaimed his support of the redefinition of marriage into something that it is not, and never has been, and never could be — a union of any two persons, regardless of sex.  And, it is sad to say, the teachings of the Church — much less the natural law — seem to have little or no impact on Mr. Cuomo’s thinking.

Next, we had the selection by Mr. Cuomo of a running mate for Lieutenant Governor.  Now, it has to be admitted that nobody has ever been able to identify the purpose of that office (aside from waiting for the Governor either to leave the state or resign in disgrace).  But it’s a position that has to be filled, and Mr. Cuomo selected the Mayor of Rochester, Robert Duffy.  Like his mentor, Mr. Duffy was also baptized as a Catholic, yet he too has proclaimed that he favors the legal destruction of human beings in the womb, and the radical re-definition of marriage.

So the Democrats are 0 for 2 this week.

Then, we have the imminent possibility that the Republican and Conservative Parties will nominate Rick Lazio for Governor.  Also a baptized Catholic, and also in favor of permitting the killing of unborn children with impunity, and favors “civil unions” for same-sex couples, even though that is just a re-definition of marriage by stealth.

Yes, the Republican and Conservative Parties are the ostensibly pro-life parties, which gives a pretty clear idea of the dismal state of New York politics for pro-lifers.

And finally, last but not least, we have yet again the spectacle of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, demonstrating the old adage that sin darkens the mind and blunts the intellect.  Without any sense of self-awareness, the baptized Catholic yet ardently pro-abortion Ms. Pelosi spoke to a group of “Catholic” activists in May, in a speech that was just recently made public.  In her remarks, she said the following (I added the emphasis):

“They ask me all the time, ‘What is your favorite this? What is your favorite that? What is your favorite that?’ And one time, ‘What is your favorite word?’ And I said, ‘My favorite word? That is really easy. My favorite word is the Word, is the Word. And that is everything. It says it all for us. And you know the biblical reference, you know the Gospel reference of the Word.”

“And that Word is, we have to give voice to what that means in terms of public policy that would be in keeping with the values of the Word. The Word. Isn’t it a beautiful word when you think of it? It just covers everything. The Word.

“Fill it in with anything you want. But, of course, we know it means: ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us.’ And that’s the great mystery of our faith. He will come again. He will come again. So, we have to make sure we’re prepared to answer in this life, or otherwise, as to how we have measured up.”

There has been no response yet from the millions of unborn children who have been killed while the deplorable Ms. Pelosi has had a hand in shaping American public affairs, and while she has accumulated a virtually uniformly pro-abortion voting record in Congress.

This calls to mind my favorite quote from Cardinal Egan.  He was speaking about Ms. Pelosi, but he might as well have been speaking about Mr. Cuomo, Mr. Duffy, and Mr. Lazio as well.

We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb. In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons. They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name. (emphasis added)

If there’s one thing that’s clear from this, it’s that now, more than ever, we need to redouble our prayers for the conversion of heart of our public officials, especially those who are fellow members of the Church of Christ.

What Does the Word Mean?

Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010

The debate over same-sex “marriage” continues to roil our politics.  It regularly appears in legislatures, and there’s an important court case going on in California over it.

But a new study should make us ask a key question:  Just what do we mean by “marriage”?

Traditionally, marriage was defined as a life-long, sexually exclusive covenant between a man and a woman, directed to the procreation and education of children and to the personal good of the spouses.

When seen in that light, same-sex “marriage” just isn’t “marriage” – it’s something completely different.

Some same-sex “marriage” advocates have even rejected the idea of monogamy, and assume that their “married” relationships will not be sexually exclusive.  This has been confirmed by a new study of same-sex relationships, conducted in San Francisco.  The study found that the majority of the same-sex couples assume that they will not be sexually exclusive, they approve of such outside sexual relationships, and they have no intention of being faithful and monogamous.

So let’s take stock of how same-sex “marriage” fits into the definition of marriage.

  • “Life-long”?  Nope.
  • “Sexually exclusive”?  Nope.
  • “Man and woman”?  Nope.
  • “Procreation and education of children”? Not naturally.
  • “Good of the spouses”?  Well, maybe, but in what way is it different from any romantic relationship, or a “friends with benefits” relationship?
  • This has long been one of the unspoken truths behind the push for same-sex “marriage”.  The advocates want the legal rights that go along with marriage, they want the social acceptance of the term, and they want to force us to accept their relationships as “normal”.

    The only thing they don’t actually want is, well, marriage itself.

    It seems clear to me that the insight of the philosopher Inigo Montoya is relevant here:  “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”