Disappointing, though not really surprising, news out of California:
A federal judge on Wednesday struck down a California ban on same-sex marriages as unconstitutional, handing a key victory to gay rights advocates in a politically charged decision almost certain to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.The highly anticipated ruling by U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker marked a major turning point for a social debate that has sharply divided the American public and its political establishment.A federal judge on Wednesday struck down a California ban on same-sex marriages as unconstitutional, handing a key victory to gay rights advocates in a politically charged decision almost certain to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
The highly anticipated ruling by U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker marked a major turning point for a social debate that has sharply divided the American public and its political establishment.
Next comes a rubber-stamping by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (a court that never found a liberal decision they didn’t like) before heading to the Supreme Court.
August 4th, 2010 | 5:21 pm
The judge and his pro-gay marriage supporters reject the idea that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
Why should a “marriage” even be limited to two people? What’s so special and sacrosanct about the number two? Why not three or more? The only way pro-gay marriage people ever answer this argument is either through ridicule or accusing opponents of bigotry.
August 4th, 2010 | 5:25 pm
No, not surprising, but color me thoroughly disappointed, not only with the ruling, but the way in which the idea of maintaining the current definition of marriage was argued for by those defending prop 8.
August 4th, 2010 | 5:27 pm
Anne Rice must be pleased.
August 4th, 2010 | 5:36 pm
True, Dimitri. The problem, as I see it, is that the definition of marriage does not have anything to do with people at all. It simply means “a union of two or more things.” Certainly when this word is applied to people it would mean one man and one woman who are free to enter into the union, because only one man and one woman can unite bodily. Placing one’s member in another’s digestive tract – whether it is a man or a woman – surely should not qualify as a unitive act, unless of course we decide that bodies do not matter when we speak of persons… and if bodies do not matter than how can we sensibly deny ‘marriages’ of more than two people?
Dualism and paganism go hand in hand, as is evidenced by the way this debate is unfolding.
August 4th, 2010 | 5:58 pm
[...] them! Kathryn Jean Lopez: “Recreating fundamental institutions. Ace and Gabriel Joe Carter: Disappointed, not surprised Comments [...]
August 4th, 2010 | 6:41 pm
Gay marriage is back and hopefully here to stay in California
Right or wrong, it is a personal choice involving two people.
No one else.
Why do people care what others do with their private lives anyway?
This has nothing to do with marriage between a man and a woman.
A major problem with this issue is that society uses the Bible as the base for their anti-gay cause.
The reality is that we do not even know if the Bible is the true word of God or a novel written many centuries ago by others.
I believe in God, but if you believe in the Bible, then why do you judge gays when it tells you not to judge others?
While I am not gay, I do have gay friends.
I am proud to know them.
If they want to get married, then let them.
God will decide what is right or wrong.
His answers may not come from a book.
Stop using the Bible for life’s answers.
Its use has caused more harm than good.
George Vreeland Hill
August 4th, 2010 | 6:46 pm
Hardly a republic if federal courts are telling the states what amendments they can make to their own constitutions.
August 4th, 2010 | 7:00 pm
Bryan writes: “color me thoroughly disappointed, not only with the ruling, but the way in which the idea of maintaining the current definition of marriage was argued for by those defending prop 8.”
While I’m not sure what Bryan found disappointing, I’d like to point out that the debate is already rigged.
Under decisions like Romer v. Evans, it is necessary to avoid anything that would display an “irrational animus” against people on the basis of sexual orientation. As “irrational animus” is very broadly defined, traditionalists are basically gagged in both the legal and the political debate.
August 4th, 2010 | 7:18 pm
This will surely go to the Supreme Court, and their decision will be a landmark. I am disgusted at these judges who seem to think they can override what the citizens have legitimately voted for.
August 4th, 2010 | 7:19 pm
George,
First, marriage is not private. If it were merely private, then we wouldn’t be having this debate.
Second, this is a (largely) Catholic site, and us Catholics do not appeal to the Bible for all of “life’s answers.” I’m willing to wager that much of the visitors to this site hold a position that is mostly derived from the natural law.
August 4th, 2010 | 7:43 pm
I echo the sentiment that it’s disappointing while not very surprising. It feels that the area in which I can freely live according to God’s will is shrinking every which way I turn, especially here in California. And even worse, as Mr. Bottum has so artfully said, I am forced to acquiesce to positions that go against my conscience.
That, George, is just one of the reasons why I care “what others do with their private lives anyway.”
August 4th, 2010 | 7:46 pm
Per George’s:
“Gay marriage is back and hopefully here to stay in California Right or wrong, it is a personal choice involving two people. No one else.”
Wrong. This involved the voters of California. Who spoke loudly with their votes. But the gay lobby who are always the most oppressed people in any room they walk into, revolted. Held protests, behaved poorly in public and said really nasty things about their fellow Californians. Then, they went to court.
And today they won.
Now the gay lobby expects the voters of California to listen to the ruling of one judge. A judge who did not who did not listen to the voters of California. And if the voters of California decide to keep fighting this, they will be called hate-filled and worse.
Nice friends you keep George.
August 4th, 2010 | 8:28 pm
This is the first step. Next will be denial of tax exemptions for churches and people who give to churches that deny gay marriage. The Catholic Church in Massachusetts and California got out of the adoption business when they were forced to open up to gay adoptions — don’t expect that there won’t be pressure to hold gay weddings as well — or else.
August 4th, 2010 | 8:32 pm
It’s worth noting that:
Judge Walker was first appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, at the recommendation of Attorney General Edwin Meese III (now the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy and Chairman of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation). Democratic opposition led by Sen. Alan Cranston (D-CA) prevented the nomination from coming to a vote during Reagan’s term. Walker was renominated by President George H. W. Bush in February 1989. Again the Democratic Senate refused to act on the nomination. Finally Bush renominated Walker in August, and the Senate confirmed him in December.
- David Boaz, Cato, August 4, 2010
August 4th, 2010 | 8:48 pm
Pope Benedict has spoken of “the folly of the redefinition of the spouse”. Folly indeed. Folly indeed.
August 4th, 2010 | 9:21 pm
[...] Joe Carter says at First Things, “Disappointing, though not really surprising” decision by U.S. [...]
August 4th, 2010 | 9:53 pm
“This is the first step. Next will be denial of tax exemptions for churches and people who give to churches that deny gay marriage.”
That will undoubtedly come, but the next step will be forcing florist, bakers, tux renters and dress makers to provide their services to the “wedding” rehearsal, “wedding” itself, and post-”wedding” receptions against their religious convictions. They’ve already laid the groundwork for this by narrowing freedom of religion to freedom of worship. Once they’ve completed that task, then they’ll attack freedom of worship.
August 4th, 2010 | 9:53 pm
Breakdown of the facts. Quotation marks are from the judge’s decision. The overturning of Prop 8 is a victory for family values and human matrimonial fidelity and love. Real conservatives should be celebrating, as I (a hetero male) am.
1. Marriage is and has been a civil matter, subject to religious intervention only when requested by the intervenors.
2. California, like every other state, doesn’t require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate.
3. Marriage as an institution has changed overtime; women were given equal status; interracial marriage was formally legalized; no-fault divorce made it easier to dissolve marriages.
4. California has eliminated marital obligations based on gender.
5. Same-sex love and intimacy “are well-documented in human history.”
6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being.
7. Prop 8 proponents’ “assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence.”
8. There is no evidence that sexual orientation is chosen, nor than it can be changed.
9. California has no interest in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in its population.
10. “Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union.”
11. “Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals.”
12. “Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.
The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships.”
13. “Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the
stability of opposite-sex marriages.”
August 4th, 2010 | 9:54 pm
If it’s worth noting that the judge was appointed by Reagan then it’s also worth noting he’s gay:
The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.
Many gay politicians in San Francisco and lawyers who have had dealings with Walker say the 65-year-old jurist, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1989, has never taken pains to disguise – or advertise – his orientation.
They also don’t believe it will influence how he rules on the case he’s now hearing – whether Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure approved by state voters to ban same-sex marriage, unconstitutionally discriminates against gays and lesbians.
August 4th, 2010 | 11:17 pm
Alexander – here’s another quote from the ruling:
“Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage.”
No *real conservative – as you claim to self-identify would celebrate this as being a victory for family values. By the way, nice footwork with the use of “human matrimonial love” – what’s your agenda next? Animal matrimonial love?
August 4th, 2010 | 11:36 pm
That will undoubtedly come, but the next step will be forcing florist, bakers, tux renters and dress makers to provide their services
Anti-discrimination law is a complex area and I’m not necessarily opposed to providing for religious exceptions — provided that means that, for instance, a Muslim florist would also be able to deny service to a non-Muslim man marrying a Muslim woman, for instance.
But which religion actually declares that it is a sin to bake a cake for a gay couple? What is the relevant passage that establishes this as sin?
This strikes me as a bit Pharisaical — people putting priority on outward and ostentatious shows of orthodoxy rather than working harder to be honest and respectful in their own dealings with others.
August 5th, 2010 | 12:10 am
Mark, I don’t believe the point was that it is a sin to accommodate gay “marriage.” Rather that marriage throughout all of human history has been between a man and a woman, and it is not the government’s place to radically redefine it.
If anything, the court is acting the part of the Pharisee here by inventing an overly abstract and legalistic interpretation of the primordial institution of marriage. The real point of contention is the idea of having this artificiality imposed. There is already talk of forcing churches to perform homosexual “weddings,” in the name of “human rights.”
I personally am always suspicious of a small, self-appointed group of “elites” who claim to be the vanguard of a “brave new world” in which the old limitations of nature and tradition are finally overcome. More suspicious still when such a group seeks to impose their will by force against a clearly expressed democratic vote.
August 5th, 2010 | 1:05 am
If anything, the court is acting the part of the Pharisee here by inventing an overly abstract and legalistic interpretation of the primordial institution of marriage.
This is a secular court deciding a secular legal matter — whether civil marriage as defined by the statutes of the state of California should be expanded to include gay couples who wish to obtain marriage licenses with all the duties and obligations those entail. The federal court did not (as far as I know) touch on religious matters in this decision.
There is already talk of forcing churches to perform homosexual “weddings,” in the name of “human rights.”
Not from anyone important.
August 5th, 2010 | 2:13 am
God’s Wrath Against Mankind – Romans 1
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
August 5th, 2010 | 7:23 am
“This will surely go to the Supreme Court, and their decision will be a landmark. I am disgusted at these judges who seem to think they can override what the citizens have legitimately voted for.”
Like gun laws in Washington you mean?
August 5th, 2010 | 7:57 am
The heck with this . . . let’s hear more about Anne Rice.
August 5th, 2010 | 8:23 am
Who’s got the key to the catacombs? Maybe it’s time to get them swept and tidied up.
August 5th, 2010 | 8:45 am
This is disgusting on at least 4 levels that I can think of.
August 5th, 2010 | 8:48 am
Mrs. Jackson:
Since he’s gay, why can’t the ruling be appealed simply for his failure to recuse himself? I suppose a straight judge would have to recuse himself for the same reason, which makes this lawsuit’s mere existence a farce.
August 5th, 2010 | 9:11 am
Question for whoever cares to answer.
What is the christian position on praying to God to burn one’s own nation to the ground?
August 5th, 2010 | 9:54 am
This is a secular court deciding a secular legal matter — whether civil marriage as defined by the statutes of the state of California should be expanded to include gay couples who wish to obtain marriage licenses with all the duties and obligations those entail. The federal court did not (as far as I know) touch on religious matters in this decision.
I never said that it did. What I said was that the court is taking on itself authority it shouldn’t really have, to reorder society by fiat.
Not from anyone important.
Oh no? I’m American, but I think the EU Parliament is important. “It can never happen here,” though, right?
August 5th, 2010 | 10:03 am
Per:
“What is the christian position on praying to God to burn one’s own nation to the ground?”
We don’t have to ask God to do this. We’re doing an excellent job of it ourselves.
Like with abortion, just because this court ruling allows same-sex marriage, doesn’t mean God has changed His position.
August 5th, 2010 | 10:13 am
Patrick: Oh no? I’m American, but I think the EU Parliament is important. “It can never happen here,” though, right?
America has the First Amendment, Europe doesn’t. So much the worse for Europe on that score. Still, that article you linked to was pretty light on facts. It does not quote any EU official as saying the law will, in fact, require churches to officiate homosexual weddings. What it does quote is several people with a clear political agenda imputing that meaning to the law.
August 5th, 2010 | 11:09 am
George Vreeland Hill:
Suppose someone said this: “While I am not incestuous, I do have incestuous friends.
I am proud to know them.
If they want to get married, then let them.
God will decide what is right or wrong.”
Would that sound at all problematic to you? If so, why?
August 5th, 2010 | 11:40 am
Let us not forget that our Founding Fathers unanimously stated that those Truths that are self-evident are endowed to us from God, and that they had recognized, from from The Beginning, (Genesis) that God, not Caesar, was the Creator of Human Life and that the Dignity of the Human Person, inherent in our complementary nature as Male and Female, is endowed to us from God for we are made in His Image. Our Founding Fathers would have created a separate personhood with special unalienable rights based upon sexual orientation, if they had believed such a separate personhood existed.
August 5th, 2010 | 11:51 am
A separate personhood does not exist which is why we are husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles. Those who define themselves according to their sexual preferences or orientation, do so in order that it may appear that those who refuse to condone or affirm sexual acts that do not respect the dignity of the human person are discriminating against a person, when in fact, they are discriminating against demeaning sexual acts within demeaning sexual relationships.
August 5th, 2010 | 12:07 pm
A separate personhood does not exist which is why we are husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles. When we define someone according to sexual desire it is demeaning and makes it appear as though those of us who refuse to condone or affirm sexual acts that do not respect the dignity of the human person are discriminating against a person, when in fact, we are discriminating against demeaning sexual acts within demeaning sexual relationships.
August 5th, 2010 | 3:36 pm
“this “liberal San Francisco judge” was recommended by Ed Meese, appointed by Ronald Reagan, and opposed by Alan Cranston, Nancy Pelosi, Edward Kennedy, and the leading gay activist groups. It’s a good thing for advocates of marriage equality that those forces were only able to block Walker twice.”
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/08/04/reagan-appointed-judge-strikes-down-gay-marriage-ban/
August 5th, 2010 | 4:36 pm
Marriage is Like a Peanut Butter & Jelly Sandwich
The good old standby P.B. & J. is known by most as a childhood comfort food practically a food group in its own right. Two slices of bread one lathered in peanut butter and the other covered in jelly put together as two very different experiences to be shared as one moment while consumed the melody of both flavors combined create an attitude of joy for the eater.
Marriage is a lot like P. B. & J.
Two people, one the man person, who is lathered in masculinity as created by God in his own image and the other, the woman person, who is covered in femininity, also as created by God. When bound together in the union of marriage these two very different people share their life as one moment together through out their lifetime in an attitude of joy for their community.
This theory would bring us to realize how the gay society wishing to enter into a marriage is not possible. It’s an oxymoron. Gay folks, can however, should be able to enter into a union of another kind with all the rights that come with a marriage.
Two people, both the man person, who is lathered in masculinity as created by God uniting together, can also share their life as one moment together through out their lifetime in an attitude of joy for their community.
Two people, both the woman person, who is lathered in femininity as created by God uniting together, also have the right to share their life as one moment together through out their lifetime in an attitude of joy within their community.
Gay folks should have the same rights as heterosexuals where as being able to bond in a public manner with all the social graces and benefits that married people have.
Since peanut butter bonded to peanut butter is not a P. B. & J. nor shall they be called married. The same principals go for the jelly and jelly sandwich scenario. Therefore peanut butter & peanut butter as well as jelly & jelly are neither known as P. B. & J. nor can they ever be. They are however socially accepted sandwiches as they stand but, they are neither P. B. & J. nor can a ‘civil union’ be a ‘marriage’. Marriage after all was designed by God, to allow a man to be able to marry a woman, many ages ago and told to us through the art of story telling regarding its rights through out the generations as recorded in the Bible.
August 10th, 2010 | 2:18 am
I really have to believe that if gay marriage is made legal, marriages of 3 or more people won’t be far behind. No one has explained yet what’s so special or sacred about the number 2, once you throw out the traditional family/procreative model. If a woman can marry a man, and two women can marry, why can’t they all marry each other?
Most of the arguments used for gay marriage could also be used for polygamy/polyamory–they should be able to be with whomever they love, some people “weren’t made for monogamy,” it appears throughout history, they aren’t hurting anyone else, etc.
The main thing they seem to lack is a well-funded advocacy group to pay for the lawyers. Heck, maybe a maverick conservative could put up the money just to prove a point (sort of a counterpoint to the California “ban divorce” initiative).
On a different note, this is an honest question that I’ve had for a while–would Christians/Catholics approve of committed chaste (non-sexual) love relationships between people of the same sex? I’m thinking of a relationship that involved cohabitation and other features of a married relationship–more than what we usually think of as friendship–but without the sex. If not, on what grounds? The church is against same-sex sexual activity but affirms that merely being homosexual is not sinful. Surely loving someone chastely is not sinful just because they are the same gender?
BTW, if you believe the rumors of “lesbian bed death,” many such relationships actually exist. :-)
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact