NORFOLK, Va. (AP) – In a federal court ruling echoing decisions reached elsewhere in the U.S., Virginia on Thursday became the first state in the South to overturn a voter-approved prohibition of same-sex marriage.
Thankfully, at least, the judge stayed her own ruling pending appeal. That’s more than has happened elsewhere.
Oh, and as a reminder (to all those who said “we just want to be left alone”):
14. The “sexual orientation” of a person is not comparable to race, sex, age, etc. also for another reason than that given above which warrants attention. An individual’s sexual orientation is generally not known to others unless he publicly identifies himself as having this orientation or unless some overt behavior manifests it. As a rule, the majority of homosexually oriented persons who seek to lead chaste lives do not publicize their sexual orientation. Hence the problem of discrimination in terms of employment, housing, etc., does not usually arise.
Homosexual persons who assert their homosexuality tend to be precisely those who judge homosexual behavior or lifestyle to be “either completely harmless, if not an entirely good thing” (cf. no. 3), and hence worthy of public approval. It is from this quarter that one is more likely to find those who seek to “manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil statutes and laws” (cf. no. 5), those who use the tactic of protesting that “any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people… are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination” (cf. no. 9).
In addition, there is a danger that legislation which would make homosexuality a basis for entitlements could actually encourage a person with a homosexual orientation to declare his homosexuality or even to seek a partner in order to exploit the provisions of the law.
[RIGHT]- Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1992
**Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. **Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.
- The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, its membership is by and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual behaviour. One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination.
There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups’ concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved.
The Church can never be so callous. It is true that her clear position cannot be revised by pressure from civil legislation or the trend of the moment. **But she is really concerned about the many who are not represented by the pro-homosexual movement and about those who may have been tempted to believe its deceitful propaganda. **She is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society’s understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy.
- It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.
But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.
[RIGHT]- Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1986
It’s almost as if the CDF was able to see 28 years in the future.
Interesting quote from the decision:
“**Our constitution declares that ‘all men’ are created equal,” **Wright Allen wrote in her 41-page opinion. “Surely this means all of us. While ever-vigilant for the wisdom that can come from the voices of our voting public, our courts have never tolerated the perpetuation of laws rooted in unlawful prejudice. One of the judiciary’s noblest endeavors is to scrutinize laws that emerge from such roots.”
Now I’m no constitutional lawyer, but I sure don’t recall that phrase “all men are created equal” in the US Constitution (since this is a Federal judge, I assume that’s what she’s talking about here).
Perhaps one of you Constitutional lawyers can fill me in on where those words are written in the Constitution.
By the way, don’t cite the 14th Amendment: that phrase doesn’t appear in that amendment.
You know what may be the most troubling about this? There’s a federal judge who doesn’t know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
The state should issue civil unions and the religious bodies marriages.
We wouldn’t have this problem if that strategy would have been pursued.
I almost agree.
I think the ideal situation would be if the State stayed out of it altogether and allow the arrangements between the parties to be handled by contract (in other words, a private arrangement and covenant between the parties concerned…the terms and conditions of that contract would handle all matters of inheritance, visitation, property distribution, terms of dissolution, etc.). If they were really concerned with inheritance and taxes, they could form a corporation (which would create a juridic person into which both parties could contribute their property and earnings).
And then religious bodies deal with the marriage issue.
I don’t care what the state calls it as long as the typical rights of marriage were included.
I do believe that my notion here is contrary to what many Bishops have said but I still believe it would have been a better avenue.
But, unfortunately, the gay marriage ship has sailed and that is what the US or most of the US is going to have.
Looked what legalising civil unions did to Catholic Charities in Illinois.
So what has our (or your) approach gotten us?
Do you mean the approach of trying to protect traditional marriage?
If that is the moniker you want to give it- as one could use that meaningless term for many approaches.
Yes, where has it gotten us?
Daily Mail noted in 2009, ‘such unions have now been refused in all 31 states where the issue has been put directly to the electorate.’ Since then, some states where it has been voted on have legalised it, but the majority of states where homosexual marriage has been legalised, it has been legalised through courts or legislatures.
Advocating for traditional marriage got over 30 constitutional amendments banning homosexual marriage passed.
Majority of Justices on the Supreme court allowed DOMA to be struck down. DOMA allowed states not to have to recognise homosexual marriage and it is likely that DOMA being struck down is largely responsible for the now frequent court rulings declaring state bans on homosexual marriage unconstitutional.
State Defense of Marriage Act was introduced in the senate:
Federal Marriage Amendment is another future possibility.
There needs to be something passed at the federal level that protects states rights to ban homosexual marriage.
As I said.
The gay marriage ship has sailed.
If denying that get’s folks through the day then fine.
Well, if “all men are created equal” then why don’t polygamists have full marriage “equality” under the law?? Either this judge doesn’t believe in marriage “equality”, or thinks that polygamists are not human.
Check out Carol Soelberg’s response regarding the inevitability of homosexual mrriage:
Soelberg responded: “I do not see our success in terms of political victories. I know that an increasing number of states are going to fall prey to activist judges who want to redesign society by legalizing same-gender marriage, but that doesn’t mean that we are losing the war. If I am able to convey a message that softens even one heart towards the benefits and blessings of family life, then I have helped make one home happier — and that is the battle I wish to win. When that individual battle is won, there is created one more voice to speak in defense of families.”
Virginia Bishops Decry Judge’s Decision in Marriage Case
Statement by Bishops Francis X. DiLorenzo and Paul S. Loverde on Decision in Bostic v. Rainey Marriage Case
Last night’s decision by U.S. District Judge Wright Allen in Bostic v. Rainey, a case that deals with the Commonwealth’s Constitutional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, strikes a severe blow to the citizens of our Commonwealth. It undermines our right, as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in its recent decision on the federal Defense of Marriage Act, to define marriage and, moreover, ignores the express will of the people of Virginia who overwhelmingly supported the 2006 Amendment to the Commonwealth’s Constitution. In striking down Virginia’s Constitutional Amendment affirming the institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, Judge Wright Allen has not only totally ignored our state’s rights under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, she has also redefined marriage to the peril and detriment of our society.
Judge Wright Allen’s decision also, more fundamentally, contradicts the wisdom and understanding of the ages. It strips marriage of its intrinsic meaning and converts it into nothing more than an arrangement that recognizes a voluntary relationship between any two consenting adults. While all people should have the freedom to form attachments and relationships as they wish, the union of a man and a woman, in marriage, makes a unique contribution to the creation, protection and well-being of children. It is more than a “consenting relationship.” It is a union that - alone and uniquely - unites the two complementary halves of humanity, a man and a woman, to cooperate with the Author of Life to create new life. It is a union that alone provides children the opportunity to be nurtured and to learn from both a mother and a father, each of whom brings unique gifts to the family, the fundamental building block of society.
The institution of marriage is rooted in natural law itself, a design written on our hearts by our Creator. No religion, government or individual has the right or legitimate authority to alter the fundamental meaning and structure of marriage that has existed from the beginning of humankind. And certainly, no court decision, either in Virginia or elsewhere, can change that meaning.
Despite last night’s fundamentally flawed decision, we Bishops will continue to teach the truth about marriage. We also take comfort in knowing that the debate over this critical issue, in both the courts and elsewhere, will continue unabated. As to this particular decision, we pledge to work with those who are defending our Commonwealth’s Constitution and its definition of marriage and assist in any way we can to advance a vigorous appeal.
Unless there is something in the legislative or judicial history of the 14th amendment to indicate that its authors intended to authorize same sex marriage, I have to conclude that the new interpretation of the amendment is a novelty. The amendment, and thus the Constitution, has been changed by judicial fiat, bypassing the amendment process.
Is the 14th amendment violated if men are not allowed to be mothers?
The 14th amendment has been the catchall for any perceived inequities. There doesn’t have to be actual inequities, just perceived ones. After all, remember that real bigotry can only be perpetrated by those in power, and only victims and the enlightened ones can detect it.