California's Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

[Socrates]

[quote name='Winchester' date='06 August 2010 - 04:01 PM' timestamp='1281124862' post='2153356']
I've visited more than one completely unrelated person on his deathbed. I think the supposed stories are excrement.

You can designate anyone to power of attorney, and will your property to anyone.
[/quote]
Just asinine sob-stories to drum up emotional support for leftist judges spitting on natural law morality and trampling the Constitution and states' rights.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Socrates' date='06 August 2010 - 01:10 PM' timestamp='1281118214' post='2153329']
Legal recognition of marriage is not to the detriment of others. I was single for a long time, and other people's marriages being recognized by the state did not hurt me in the slightest.

The contractual benefits you mentioned can already be legally arranged by power of attorney. There's absolutely no necessity for homosexual "marriage" or "civil unions" for those reasons. The push for "gay marriage" in reality has nothing to do with being able to visit sick or dying friends (something which any non-married persons can arrange), but everything to do with publicly exalting homosexual sodomy to be the equal of marriage between man and woman.
It is the pushing of a false ideology at odds with both Christian religion and natural law.

Your talk about laws recognizing marriage between man and woman being "violence" is pure nonsensical drivel.
[/quote]

State recognition of marriage doesn't allow the married couple to get tax breaks, which forces singles to pay more taxes than they ordinarily would have, in order to make up for the shortfall? That is the violence of it. They are [i]forced[/i] to pay [i]more[/i], so the married people pay [i]less. [/i]

[quote](And why a self-proclaimed "anarchist" would come out in favor of the state giving recognition to homosexual "unions" is utterly beyond me, anyways.)[/quote]

Socrates, did I ever advocate State recognition of either marriage [i]or[/i] sodomite unions? Please point out where I indicated my support for any such measure. I said no one should be able to prevent others from engaging in mutually voluntary contracts. I don't think the State (not as defined by Fr. Fagothey or the Church) should [i]be[/i], so I don't think the State should [i]do [/i]anything, or [i]not[/i] do anything.

Are you going to be forced to call anyone "Mr. and Mrs. Smith," even if the State recognizes their shack-up situation?

If you really want the State, driven by a powerful few chosen by (but not controlled by) the majority of the populace, getting involved in the definition of the holy covenant of marriage, then get ready for a bumpy ride down a long, slippery, muddy slope.

~Sternhauser

Edited August 6, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='06 August 2010 - 06:41 PM' timestamp='1281134517' post='2153437']
State recognition of marriage doesn't allow the married couple to get tax breaks, which forces singles to pay more taxes than they ordinarily would have, in order to make up for the shortfall? That is the violence of it. They are [i]forced[/i] to pay [i]more[/i], so the married people pay [i]less. [/i][/quote]
"Help! Help! I'm being repressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system!" . . . Sigh

Sorry, call me a cold, hard-hearted bastage, but I really just can't bring myself to shed too many tears for all the "violence" being committed against non-married persons by married couples (who have to pay the extra burden of raising families anyway) getting a miniscule tax break. (There are plenty of other things people can get larger tax breaks for, but that's another discussion).



[quote]Socrates, did I ever advocate State recognition of either marriage [i]or[/i] sodomite unions? Please point out where I indicated my support for any such measure. I said no one should be able to prevent others from engaging in mutually voluntary contracts. I don't think the State (not as defined by Fr. Fagothey or the Church) should [i]be[/i], so I don't think the State should [i]do [/i]anything, or [i]not[/i] do anything.

Are you going to be forced to call anyone "Mr. and Mrs. Smith," even if the State recognizes their shack-up situation?

If you really want the State, driven by a powerful few chosen by (but not controlled by) the majority of the populace, getting involved in the definition of the holy covenant of marriage, then get ready for a bumpy ride down a long, slippery, muddy slope.

~Sternhauser[/quote]

To be totally honest with you, I can't make much sense of what you're trying to say half the time. But I thought your following statement implied that you thought there was nothing wrong with laws giving "marriage" benefits to homosexual couples (or at least that they would be an improvement over the current "violence" of marriage benefits):[quote]Does a law being passed to not use violence against you for telling a lie an act of "supporting lying?" No! Just because something is immoral does not necessarily mean one may use violence in order to put an end to it. Or, in your estimation, is there a right to use violence to prevent others from making mutually voluntary contracts?[/quote]But perhaps I was wrong.

You have made clear many, many times, however, that you think the state (and presumably taxes as well) should not exist at all, which is why it would seem the whole issue of whether married couples get tax breaks or not should be rather pointless to you.

And, at least to my reading, when the Church publicly calls on the state to defend and support the institution of marriage,and defend the common good, She's talking to real, existing states, not some hypothetical, non-existent perfect "state" as you want to define it. (I don't know who Fr. Fagothey is, but I don't think he possesses any magisterial authority.)

Current marriage benefit laws do nothing to redefine the holy covenant of marriage, but that is exactly what judicial rulings in favor of "gay marriage" seek to do. The Church calls on Catholics to oppose such laws (and rulings), of course.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Socrates

[CatherineM]

I have seen two instances where "life partners" were denied visitation at someone's death bed. Both were in the late '80s at the height of the AIDS mess. Neither had designated POA's or medical surrogates, and when they were no longer able to make their own decisions, their moms put in orders to keep their sons' gay lovers out of the hospital. The publicity around those cases, caused a run on POA paperwork. I did about a 100. It also changed what hospitals ask you when you check in.

Every new doctor I've gone to in the last 10+ years has asked me if I had a designated representative. It's not automatically assumed to be my husband either. I had a different representative when I was pregnant. It was so high risk, I didn't want him to be responsible for making decisions that might lead to my death or our child's death.

I also saw a few cases where the partner was excluded, and made a big fuss about being discriminated against to only find out later that it was the hospitalized person who asked them to be kept out. It was that at the end, they wanted to be alone with their family, and not their current lover.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Socrates' date='07 August 2010 - 03:17 PM' timestamp='1281212240' post='2153703']
"Help! Help! I'm being repressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system!" . . . Sigh

Sorry, call me a cold, hard-hearted bastage, but I really just can't bring myself to shed too many tears for all the "violence" being committed against non-married persons by married couples (who have to pay the extra burden of raising families anyway) getting a miniscule tax break. (There are plenty of other things people can get larger tax breaks for, but that's another discussion).[/quote]

They are forced ("forced" meaning "they have force or the threat of force used against them") to pay more, to subsidize other people's decisions. The same way you're forced to subsidize the children born of illegal immigrants because their parents chose to come here. What does the "Church" say about supporting [i]them[/i]? Particularly the USCCB?




[quote]
To be totally honest with you, I can't make much sense of what you're trying to say half the time. But I thought your following statement implied that you thought there was nothing wrong with laws giving "marriage" benefits to homosexual couples (or at least that they would be an improvement over the current "violence" of marriage benefits):But perhaps I was wrong.[/quote]

You were wrong to think that. Is there a right to use violence to stop people from making mutually voluntary contracts? What do you think the "gay marriage" bill will accomplish? Do you think it will change the nature of marriage in itself? Does a lie change the truth? I mean in and of itself, not in any change in public perception of the idea of marriage. (As you can see, 95% of the population or so, probably including the majority of claimed Catholics, already does not understand or appreciate the true nature of marriage as an indissoluble union between one man and one woman, for the purposes of mutual support and the procreation and education of children. What's the percentage of childbearing-age contracepting Catholic couples these days? 90%, if I remember correctly. 98% of women between 18 and 45 have used some form of contraception, according to the CDC. (See, children are even viewed as a disease.) You've got bigger fish to fry, Socrates. Get even 25% of the Bishops and priests to step up and [b][i]do their jobs[/i][/b] of preaching against the evils of contraception, and you'll find things will start to fall into line, concerning a public understanding of and respect for what marriage really is.

[quote]You have made clear many, many times, however, that you think the state (and presumably taxes as well) should not exist at all, which is why it would seem the whole issue of whether married couples get tax breaks or not should be rather pointless to you.[/quote]

It would not seem that way, if you realized that I oppose any measure that involves forcing certain people to pay [i]more[/i] money than others. Insofar as the State does act to the detriment of anyone (i.e., it acts) I oppose its doing so.

[quote]Current marriage benefit laws do nothing to redefine the holy covenant of marriage, but that is exactly what judicial rulings in favor of "gay marriage" seek to do. The Church calls on Catholics to oppose such laws (and rulings), of course.
[/quote]

How are the rulings going to redefine the holy covenant of marriage? Nothing can touch the nature of true marriage in itself, any more than my poor paint-by-number rendition of the Mona Lisa can degrade the beauty and reality of the real Mona Lisa.

[quote]And, at least to my reading, when the Church publicly calls on the state to defend and support the institution of marriage,and defend the common good, She's talking to real, existing states, not some hypothetical, non-existent perfect "state" as you want to define it. (I don't know who Fr. Fagothey is, but I don't think he possesses any magisterial authority.)[/quote]

Father Fagothey was a renowned and very orthodox Catholic ethicist, whose textbook, "Right and Reason" bearing the [i]Nihil Obstat[/i] and [i]Imprimatur[/i], was used in dozens of Catholic colleges and seminaries in the late '50s and throughout the '60s. Fagothey did not include, in his definition of the State, a monopoly of a certain few, or some right of the individuals in the State to aggress in order to attain the ends of the State. (You should see his begging-the-question justification of taxation, however. It's funny.)

The state, according to Fr. Fagothey, and the Church, does not require any particular governmental structure. What is required is only a system by which a basic order is maintained, and in which the common good is protected. Period. Vatican City, by that definition, is a state. It is my experience, in the bloody wake of 200,000,000 slaughtered in the 20th century, that the State (qua geographically-bound monopoly on certain types of violence, usually aggression) rather than being the [i]guardian[/i] of order and the common good, is [i]inimical[/i] to those ends. It has historically been the [i]destroyer[/i] of order and the common good.

The reign of Jesus Christ in the hearts of the vast majority of men is the only thing that will ever result in a true and lasting order and peace. I'm told I live in a dreamworld for suggesting that men should and could live according to the teachings of Christ, and that such a world is a "utopian place that doesn't exist and never will." Perhaps I do live in a dreamworld. However, it is the world I will continue to work toward and yearn for until the day I die. And through a glass darkly, I see the sparkle of my dreamworld "state" every time I see a moral, mutually-beneficial, and wholly free-will exchange between two people: behavior which, by its nature, does not rely upon offensive violence, as does the State. When you see the presence of order, you think you see evidence of the presence of the State. I see the absence of the State in the presence of order.

But those who oppose me live in their own dreamworld: a world which has a "just State." A "just State," (a "State" requiring offensive violence by its definition) is an inherent contradiction which has never existed, and never will. But yes, as you say, States do exist. They are the physical manifestation of the idea that some people have the right to initiate violence against others, and the idea that this initiation of violence (violence which is not directly defensive/not used to directly stop an aggressor) is somehow justified because it is intended to bring about order and the common good. That logic is undeniably the exact same logic used to justify torturing someone in order to "save a city." I urge you to prove me wrong.

I tell you that if Jesus won't rule their hearts, then powerful men will rule their entire beings, body and soul. They will either worship Jesus or earthly power. As St. Augustine pointed out, they will be either residents of the City of God, ruled by love of God, or residents of the City of Man, driven by [i]libido dominandi, [/i]the desire to rule.

"[url="http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/04/saint-augustine-on-pirates.html"]St. Augustine[/url] tells the story of a pirate captured by Alexander the Great. The Emperor angrily demanded of him, 'How dare you molest the seas?' To which the pirate replied, 'How dare you molest the whole world? Because I do it with a small boat, I am called a pirate and a thief. You, with a great navy, molest the world and are called an emperor.' St. Augustine thought the pirate's answer was "elegant and excellent."

The pirate, as St. Augustine recognized, was nothing more than mini-State. An initiator of violence on a small scale. His means was unjust aggression, though his end may have been different. As [url="http://www.sobran.com/reluctant.shtml"]Joe Sobran[/url] points out, "St. Augustine took a dim view of the state, as a punishment for sin. He said that a state without justice is nothing but a gang of robbers writ large, while leaving doubt that any state could ever be otherwise."

~Sternhauser

Edited August 8, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='08 August 2010 - 12:36 AM' timestamp='1281242170' post='2153924']
They are forced ("forced" meaning "they have force or the threat of force used against them") to pay more, to subsidize other people's decisions. The same way you're forced to subsidize the children born of illegal immigrants because their parents chose to come here. What does the "Church" say about supporting [i]them[/i]? Particularly the USCCB?[/quote]
Stealing a page from "IheartJP2"'s playbook? The opinions of the USCCB on illegal immigrants are completely irrelevant as to the the rightness of the state legally recognizing "gay marriages. I linked to Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, not the USCCB, so attacking the USCCB on a different matter is completely irrelevant. I'm not going to follow you on that wild goose chase.

Marriage cannot legitimately be compared to illegal immigration.
A small tax break for married couples does not do violence against anyone. It helps support the most basic unit of human society, as the Church has made clear.
I have yet to see a coherent refutation of CDF document's position.

[quote]You were wrong to think that. Is there a right to use violence to stop people from making mutually voluntary contracts? What do you think the "gay marriage" bill will accomplish? Do you think it will change the nature of marriage in itself? Does a lie change the truth? I mean in and of itself, not in any change in public perception of the idea of marriage. (As you can see, 95% of the population or so, probably including the majority of claimed Catholics, already does not understand or appreciate the true nature of marriage as an indissoluble union between one man and one woman, for the purposes of mutual support and the procreation and education of children. What's the percentage of childbearing-age contracepting Catholic couples these days? 90%, if I remember correctly. 98% of women between 18 and 45 have used some form of contraception, according to the CDC. (See, children are even viewed as a disease.) You've got bigger fish to fry, Socrates. Get even 25% of the Bishops and priests to step up and [b][i]do their jobs[/i][/b] of preaching against the evils of contraception, and you'll find things will start to fall into line, concerning a public understanding of and respect for what marriage really is.[/quote]
As has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, not giving recognition to "gay marriages" or "civil unions" does not do violence to anyone, and does not stop people from making any private contracts among themselves. The state, however, has no obligation to legally recognize homosexual "unions."

Yes, more of the bishops should speak out on sexual morality, but it in no way follows that we should not also take a stand against judges forcing the state to recognize homosexual "marriage."
Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the CDF thought it a big enough fish to fry to publish an entire document against that evil, but obviously he's just an old fool who doesn't know what he's talking about, whose arguments can safely be completely disregarded.


[quote]It would not seem that way, if you realized that I oppose any measure that involves forcing certain people to pay [i]more[/i] money than others. Insofar as the State does act to the detriment of anyone (i.e., it acts) I oppose its doing so. [/quote]
It would be a serious injustice to require everyone pay the exact same amount of money, without regard for their different circumstances. [i]Not[/i] giving a tax break to married couples would be an injustice to those couples.

Yes, you can oppose any taxes whatsover (and I myself think taxes and government spending should be greatly reduced all around), but to complain about slightly easing the tax burden on married couples is just asinine and petty.

[quote]How are the rulings going to redefine the holy covenant of marriage? Nothing can touch the nature of true marriage in itself, any more than my poor paint-by-number rendition of the Mona Lisa can degrade the beauty and reality of the real Mona Lisa.
[/quote]
Might want to read the CDF document I linked to. Sexual perversion should not be publicly recognized and rewarded by the state as the equal of marriage. Such laws are injust.

[quote]Father Fagothey was a renowned and very orthodox Catholic ethicist, whose textbook, "Right and Reason" bearing the [i]Nihil Obstat[/i] and [i]Imprimatur[/i], was used in dozens of Catholic colleges and seminaries in the late '50s and throughout the '60s. Fagothey did not include, in his definition of the State, a monopoly of a certain few, or some right of the individuals in the State to aggress in order to attain the ends of the State. (You should see his begging-the-question justification of taxation, however. It's funny.)

The state, according to Fr. Fagothey, and the Church, does not require any particular governmental structure. What is required is only a system by which a basic order is maintained, and in which the common good is protected. Period. Vatican City, by that definition, is a state. It is my experience, in the bloody wake of 200,000,000 slaughtered in the 20th century, that the State (qua geographically-bound monopoly on certain types of violence, usually aggression) rather than being the [i]guardian[/i] of order and the common good, is [i]inimical[/i] to those ends. It has historically been the [i]destroyer[/i] of order and the common good.

The reign of Jesus Christ in the hearts of the vast majority of men is the only thing that will ever result in a true and lasting order and peace. I'm told I live in a dreamworld for suggesting that men should and could live according to the teachings of Christ, and that such a world is a "utopian place that doesn't exist and never will." Perhaps I do live in a dreamworld. However, it is the world I will continue to work toward and yearn for until the day I die. And through a glass darkly, I see the sparkle of my dreamworld "state" every time I see a moral, mutually-beneficial, and wholly free-will exchange between two people: behavior which, by its nature, does not rely upon offensive violence, as does the State. When you see the presence of order, you think you see evidence of the presence of the State. I see the absence of the State in the presence of order.

But those who oppose me live in their own dreamworld: a world which has a "just State." A "just State," (a "State" requiring offensive violence by its definition) is an inherent contradiction which has never existed, and never will. But yes, as you say, States do exist. They are the physical manifestation of the idea that some people have the right to initiate violence against others, and the idea that this initiation of violence (violence which is not directly defensive/not used to directly stop an aggressor) is somehow justified because it is intended to bring about order and the common good. That logic is undeniably the exact same logic used to justify torturing someone in order to "save a city." I urge you to prove me wrong.

I tell you that if Jesus won't rule their hearts, then powerful men will rule their entire beings, body and soul. They will either worship Jesus or earthly power. As St. Augustine pointed out, they will be either residents of the City of God, ruled by love of God, or residents of the City of Man, driven by [i]libido dominandi, [/i]the desire to rule.

"[url="http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/04/saint-augustine-on-pirates.html"]St. Augustine[/url] tells the story of a pirate captured by Alexander the Great. The Emperor angrily demanded of him, 'How dare you molest the seas?' To which the pirate replied, 'How dare you molest the whole world? Because I do it with a small boat, I am called a pirate and a thief. You, with a great navy, molest the world and are called an emperor.' St. Augustine thought the pirate's answer was "elegant and excellent."

The pirate, as St. Augustine recognized, was nothing more than mini-State. An initiator of violence on a small scale. His means was unjust aggression, though his end may have been different. As [url="http://www.sobran.com/reluctant.shtml"]Joe Sobran[/url] points out, "St. Augustine took a dim view of the state, as a punishment for sin. He said that a state without justice is nothing but a gang of robbers writ large, while leaving doubt that any state could ever be otherwise."

~Sternhauser[/quote]
All very interesting, but there's absolutely nothing in there to refute the position that the state should not recognize homosexual "unions" as equal to marriage. And I'm sure the good Fr. Fagothey would agree with me.

[Jesus_lol]

[img]http://cagle.com/working/100807/plante.jpg[/img]

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='09 August 2010 - 08:05 PM' timestamp='1281402341' post='2154975']
[img]http://cagle.com/working/100807/plante.jpg[/img]
[/quote]
Politics smell of elderberries.

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='10 August 2010 - 01:04 AM' timestamp='1281413049' post='2155028']
Politics smell of elderberries.
[/quote]

I concur.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Socrates' date='09 August 2010 - 01:54 PM' timestamp='1281380056' post='2154755']
[quote]Stealing a page from "IheartJP2"'s playbook? The opinions of the USCCB on illegal immigrants are completely irrelevant as to the the rightness of the state legally recognizing "gay marriages. I linked to Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, not the USCCB, so attacking the USCCB on a different matter is completely irrelevant. I'm not going to follow you on that wild goose chase.[/quote]

The Church recognizing "rights" of immigrants denied by the State is not at all comparable to the State recognizing the "rights" of the sodomites denied by the Church?
[quote]
A small tax break for married couples does not do violence against anyone. It helps support the most basic unit of human society, as the Church has made clear.
I have yet to see a coherent refutation of CDF document's position.[/quote]

It makes single people pay more. Makes them. Forces them. Violence.

[quote]
As has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, not giving recognition to "gay marriages" or "civil unions" does not do violence to anyone, and does not stop people from making any private contracts among themselves. The state, however, has no obligation to legally recognize homosexual "unions."[/quote]

Where on earth have I supported the State giving recognition to "gay marriage?" And furthermore, where have I said that the State not recognizing "gay marriages" does violence to anyone?

[quote]
It would be a serious injustice to require everyone pay the exact same amount of money, without regard for their different circumstances. [i]Not[/i] giving a tax break to married couples would be an injustice to those couples. [/quote]

Nobody owes you anything because you get married.

[quote]
Might want to read the CDF document I linked to. Sexual perversion should not be publicly recognized and rewarded by the state as the equal of marriage. Such laws are injust.[/quote]

Never said it should. Again, where have I said the State should support sodomite unions? I recently said the State should NOT be recognized by the State.

[quote]
All very interesting, but there's absolutely nothing in there to refute the position that the state should not recognize homosexual "unions" as equal to marriage. And I'm sure the good Fr. Fagothey would agree with me.[/quote]

Strawman City, still. I've never advocated the State recognizing sodomite unions.

~Sternhauser

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='10 August 2010 - 07:21 PM' timestamp='1281482491' post='2155523']
The Church recognizing "rights" of immigrants denied by the State is not at all comparable to the State recognizing the "rights" of the sodomites denied by the Church?[/quote]
I was referring to married couples (heterosexual man and woman). And I think you know that.

[quote]It makes single people pay more. Makes them. Forces them. Violence.
[/quote]
As the Church teaches:
"The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society."

But, whatever . . .

"'Elp, 'elp! I'm being repressed!
Come see the violence inherent in the system!

Did you see that?
You saw 'im repressin' me!

"'Elp! elp! . . ."

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Socrates' date='11 August 2010 - 01:13 PM' timestamp='1281550384' post='2155870']
I was referring to married couples (heterosexual man and woman). And I think you know that.[/quote]

Doesn't matter what you were referring to.
[quote]

As the Church teaches:
"The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society." [/quote]

The [Catechism] does not teach anything about what the content of those laws must be.


[quote]But, whatever . . .

"'Elp, 'elp! I'm being repressed!
Come see the violence inherent in the system!

Did you see that?
You saw 'im repressin' me!

"'Elp! elp! . . ."
[/quote]


Have I made an ad-hominem attack against you? Ever?

~Sternhauser

[Winchester]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='11 August 2010 - 05:08 PM' timestamp='1281560885' post='2156103']
Doesn't matter what you were referring to.


The [Catechism] does not teach anything about what the content of those laws must be.





Have I made an ad-hominem attack against you? Ever?

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
Hominy is delicous.

[Didacus]

The poison will run its coarse. Hold steady as it passes, the end will belong to the Lord.

[add]

gay marriage distorts the very concept of parenting as well as marriage. Even if you overlook the fact that gay marriage is by definition sterile, every child of a gay marriage has to be adopted or artificially inseminated, and that in itself is a violation of the whole concept of family.