I find the obsession some have with what roughly 1% of the population does to be fascinating. We’re in 2 wars and the economy is a mess-but let’s rant and rave about the actions of a miniscule group of Americans whose actions are not harming us in any way. yeah, that makes sense…
It is a biological fact the only heterosexual couples can in and of themselves produce a human life, and based on this simple fact alone, something is had by such a couple that a homosexual couple DOES NOT and NEVER CAN HAVE. As such the two uinons can be compared, but will NEVER be equals or equivalent.
All this does, is makes moot the term ‘marraige’. In time, a new term will be forcably invented to differentitate between the two ‘marriage’ since they ARE disctintively different from one another. And then this whole story, mostly based on homosexual jealousy in my opinion, will start all over again.
It astounds me as well that so many are so concerned what two gay Quakers do in California…or two gay Catholics or two gay Methodists or two gay Episcopalians…they are a small minority that will in no way effect the larger religious majority…it is a secular contract between two people, not a religious one, except among those religious groups who celebrate the joinging of two people of the same sex. It in no way infringes on other peoples religious convictions…religious convictions do not dictate secular law.
If one’s religious convictions do not allow gay marriage, then do not have one…if one’s religious convictions has a ceremony in place to solomize such a union, that is their right too.
So should marriage then be limited to those heterosexual couples that are biologically capable of reproduction? I don’t think so.
Again, I do not like the result; but misunderstanding or misrepresenting with the California Court did or coming up with bad justifications against this issue isn’t the way to deal with this. If there is the popular support, amend the Constitution.
The definition of marriage contains “one man and one woman”. The court changed what the institution ontologically is. In doing this it also changed what marriage is sociologically which as this rolls out across the country will change the views of the next generation, just as no fault divorce.
It is analogous to the jump in unborn babies being killed when abortion was first legalized and then later institutionalized in the marketplace.
Marriage, traditionally, is promoted by the government as a vehicle for the creation of families. While it could allow for exceptions, e.g. fertility tests were not required, changing the definition which precludes procreation as an implied component coupled with no fault divorce leaves the institution bankrupt of its former value.
Practicing Catholics are impacted less since the Church guides and sanctifies Marriage as a sacrament, but their children still now must go out and be socialized in the world among children who may have but now may not receive the sociological and moral benefits within the family.
Following the dissolution of the family, the state then becomes the only remaining moral authority for the unchurched, which will compel obedience from the churched and unchurched alike, e.g. Catholic agencies forced to allow SSD couples to adopt innocent children, pharmacists perhaps forced to fill abortifacents prescriptions, the elderly pressured to forgo costly medical treatments by their family.
How much of this pattern is playing out in Norway already?
Power abhors a vacuum. The weakening of the family by this ruling will mean a strengthening of the state in the rearing of the young and the disposition of the elderly, particularly the unchurched.
Much as you hate this, the U. S. Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws. Anyone who gets gay “married” (note the quotes) will still be “married” under the law even if the amendment passes with the required majority.
Where is that definition and how was it incorporated into the rights that the courts for over 50 years have found in the California Constitution? Where in its decision did the Court change that? I understand the various arguments on effects of the decision. I am talking about the reasoning IN the decision.
You are probably right about this, depending on the text of the amendment, which I’m not familiar with. In any case, I believe Calder v. Bull (1798) established that the ex post facto provisions of the US Constitution only apply to criminal law.