As I predicted, gay "marriage" has come to California.
It seems an appropriate and gentlemanly thing to do, to congratulate the gays and liberals (I repeat myself) on our defeat. And make no mistake, this is a defeat, and it is a defeat of the Republican Party, at both the state and federal levels.
At the federal level, Republicans in Congress have failed for years, including when they had a majority, to pass a Constitutional amendment defending traditional marriage. Senator John McCain is among those who has opposed such an amendment.
At the state level, of course, this decision was reached by a Court in which six of the seven justices are Republican appointees.
Three short-term predictions:
First, this will not be a major issue in the presidential campaign, because Obama vocally supports gay "marriage", and McCain believes it should be decided on a state-by-state basis, which is what has happened in California. The only effect will be to undermine support for McCain among social conservatives, who will promise little or nothing in the way of action to oppose the spread of gay "marraige".
Second, within three months, religious freedom will essentially come to an end in California. Catholic adoption agencies will be forced to either abandon their missions, or abandon Catholic teaching. And the Church will be pressured to do the same with marriage itself; we will not get through the summer without a suit against the Archdiocese of San Francisco demanding that the Church perform gay marriages. And the Archdiocese, if it fights, will lose (personally, given the tendencies of Archbishop Niederauer, I expect that, rather than give up performing weddings altogether, he'll give in and allow gay "weddings" in Catholic Churches). Any and all dissent on the propriety and desirability of gay "marriage" will be quickly and fiercely repressed. This will be especially apparent in the public schools, as the now-dominant gay culture wields its intolerant power in ways that heterosexuals would never have dreamed of doing.
Third, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which holds that other states needn't recognize California or Massachusetts gay "marriages", will come under increasing pressure, and will soon -- within a year -- be repealed or overturned. This will have the instant effect of giving us nationwide gay "marriage".
Again, congratulations to the winners of this major battle in the culture war.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
I disagree with your prediction about the Catholic Church in California allowing gay marriages on their premises. This seems unthinkable, even if the Bishop was all for it. Its just too dramatic of a break from Church teaching and policy.
If Niederauer does attempt such a thing, it will result in HUGE backlash from American Catholics, and of course from Rome. The Pope can allow a certain level of liturgical abuse and doctrinal weakness, but this would be an act of aggressive disobedience. The fallout would be dramatic and public.
Kevin, I want you to be right about this. I really do.
Ah, yet another day when I'm glad I don't live in California anymore...
As far as how this plays out -- I'm not as pessimistic as you are. California is a weird place, that's for sure. But it's a weird place in a lot of different ways. 30% of the voters are very hard Right, and then there's the broad swath of centrists that are actually the Governator supporters. McCain, being a semi-centrist Western republican is a pretty good fit there, and has generally been popular in state -- though not with the hard Right end of the state Republican party.
Also, California has a history of putting through strongly conservative ballot initiatives -- and sure enough there's an ammendment ot the state constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman which is already on the ballot for November with over a million signatures.
This will also play into the large Hispanic voting bloc, which is socially conservative on issues like this, and might well go heavily for McCain over Obama. (There's some serious Hispanic/Black rivalry in California politics -- and McCain's position on immigration probably won't drive Hispanics away.)
All things considered, I think that McCain will do well in CA even if he doesn't win.
As for the fate of the Church in CA, I think you're right that suites will be filed. I pray that the shepherds of our diocese there will have the moral strength to do the right thing.
I am also not as pessimistic as you are on this.
While SF's bishop is rather weak, there is no way there will be gay marriages openly in the Catholic churches. Weak bishops are weak in areas that they can slide on. This is something totally different. Weak bishops are willing to undermine Church's teaching, just not openly.
Though adoption and the various Catholic Charites as far as same-sex adopton goes will probably continue ot get worse and cave as SF did, except perhaps in a diocese like San Diego.
As for DOMA, I don't see that happening either based on the current makeup of the court. Though if they did accept a case challenging it, then it could go either way.
My gosh Paul, You are a pessimist. Today seemed bad. Now after reading you I feel a lot worse.
This ballot initiative issue should be interesting.
I do agree that the adoption issue is only going to get worse. These are bad times.
I am not, by nature, a pessimist. (Perhaps pessimism is chosen, rather than inborn. Hmmm.....)
My predictions are merely the extensions of the trends which I observe, and which I see no evidence are likely to be interfered with. I expect events to continue on their present course, and to continue to increase their rate of acceleration.
I expect that the governmental officials who have stood by allowed the culture of death to march on to continue to do so.
I expect that the church leaders who have compromised themselves in order to accommodate the culture of death to do so again.
I see no reason to expect otherwise. Yes, I'm sure that if McCain were to go to California and campaign for traditional marriage it would go much better than I've predicted. But I see no likelihood of McCain doing that.
I don't see this as pessimism. In my view, it would be pessimistic to predict that a great fire would begin that would engulf the entire California coast and not be put out until an earthquake shakes the coast free and drops it into the Pacific. I don't expect that.
Instead, I simply expect more of the same.
It might mean a more dramatic break in the evolving schism between American Catholics and Roman Catholics in America.
Then again, the San Andreas Fault could rupture soon, making Fresno a new seaside resort! (or pick the city of your choice west of the fault line....
LarryD, what you call "the evolving schism between American Catholics and Roman Catholics in America" is only a project of aging liberals and a few bishops. It's long since past its zenith and now fast fading away.
If homosexuals had truly been content to receive the legal protections of marriage (tax filing status, protection from testifying against each other, etc.) they would have had a much stronger case. It's the demand to be recognized as married by private individuals and institutions (see http://regularthoughts.blogspot.com/2008/04/more-damage-from-gay-marriage.html , for example) that it so objectionable IMAO.
I'm an intermarried Jew. According to Jewish Orthodox Halacha, there can be no marriage between Jews and gentiles. I've just been living together with a gentile woman for the past eight years. So what? Why should I care if some people don't consider my marriage valid? Why should Jane and Jill Lesbian care if the Catholic Church doesn't consider them married? The Catholic Church doesn't recognize the marriage of Dave (who is divorced) and Dana either.
Paul - I partially agree with your statement - for instance, that bizarre CtA puppet liturgy looked like a bad pantomime at a retirement home. But there are still wide swaths of liberal cafeteria Catholics, and I would posit mostly on the left and East coasts, who will use this decision to drum up the "keep the Pope/Church out of my bedroom" line again - I'm thinking of the Dignity folks, Fortunate Families, et al. This decision, unfortunately, will give them inspiration to increase pushing their agenda. You only have to look at how Catholics vote, according to their "consciences", to see that the rotten fruit of their crooked tree is far from decomposed.
Hey, I hope I'm wrong - but Pope Benedict did say that the Church will be smaller in the future. One way that happens, and it's powerful, is whoever defines the language, defines the debate. If the media calls us "bigoted", "hard-line", "traditional" (that's soon becoming a dirty word to these people), it doesn't really matter if the project leaders are six feet under. Repeat a lie often enough, and a lot of people will believe it.
I'm not being pessimistic. I agree with your assessment - even if the bishops and Cardinal come down firmly and say "no gay marriages in any Church", there may be some that will do it anyway.
Maybe schism is too strong a word - but there is a fracture, and this decision will only serve to widen it.
I realize this might be the wrong place to ask, but why do Cafeteria Catholics stay Catholic? Why don't they pull a Martin Luther and say that since the Church is wrong (which is what they believe) they're going to find or found something that would be right?
There are several reasons for this. One is they want to change the Church from within and get the "power" they believe the hierarchy is unfairly keeping from them. Another is that a good number of them are employed by the Church, and to leave would mean no more income. A third is they feel betrayed that the "spirit of Vatican II" has not been correctly realized or implemented as it should have been, and they believe they have a moral responsibility to complete that mission.
Leaving the Church would mean defeat, in their eyes. The names of some of these groups, like Take Back Our Church, or FutureChurch, imply that the Church as it is now is broken, and they are the ones to fix it.
I'm sure there are other reasons that people wiser than me can offer - but I hope this sheds some light!
Without contradicting LarryD, I'd suggest that many, many, Americans believe that Catholicism is a cultural thing, part of their heritage. To me, Catholicism is my faith, to others, it is their culture, of which they feel free to choose what they think are the best parts.
Of course, this necessitates first throwing out the most important part, which is the belief that the Church is a reliable teacher of universal truth. They say inwardly, if not out loud, non serviam, "I will not serve," the words attributed to Lucifer when he became Satan. They declare that the Church is not reliable, that the Pope is not infallible, and that instead their own opinions are to be substituted.
This is an inherently Protestant viewpoint. "The Pope is not infallible, but I am."
Americans view freedom as freedom to be wrong, freedom to speak error, freedom to sin.
The Catholic view is that freedom means the freedom to believe and speak the Truth, the freedom to do right. It's these freedoms that are under attack today.
That doesn't really answer your question, but it's the comment that your question provoked.
Actually, Paul, that does answer my question. They are culturally Catholic, so they feel compelled to maintain the forms. Orthodox Jews would say that we Heterodox Jews (Reform and Conservative) do the same - except they'll say we are Jews, just fairly lousy at it.
Americans view freedom as freedom to be wrong, freedom to speak error, freedom to sin.
The Catholic view is that freedom means the freedom to believe and speak the Truth, the freedom to do right. It's these freedoms that are under attack today.
Freedom is the freedom to decide for oneself, without being coerced. This implies that some people will make the wrong choices. For example, either you're right and the Eucharist is a great gift from God, or Orthodox Jews are right and it's idolatry to refer to a communion wafer as divine. Yet it is better for both to hold their opinions than for one to force the other to stop speaking.
Your formulation of freedom scares me. If freedom is freedom to speak the Truth, that implies that there is nothing wrong with preventing somebody from speaking Falsehood. But that implies that there could be an organization to distinguish Truth from Falsehood and shut up speakers of the second. Any such organization, were it staffed by humans, would be a prime goal for corruption.
Your formulation of freedom scares me. If freedom is freedom to speak the Truth, that implies that there is nothing wrong with preventing somebody from speaking Falsehood.
Not at all. You may infer that, but not fairly. I do not imply that. My point is that, clinging as I do to moral values that date back thousands of years, which have been held by the vast majority of people -- almost all people -- throughout all of history in virtually all places, my right to speak those truths, truths which I hold in common with orthodox Jews, is about to be severely abridged.
People asserting their right to be wrong, even when they're in the majority, are going to claim that my right to be right infringes on their wrongness, and silence me.
It's already begun. Watch for it.
Here we go again. Good question Ori as to why cafeteria catholics just don't leave. I always ask it myself.
Paul, I apologize. I didn't mean to accuse you of anything beyond careless writing. For freedom to mean anything in this world, it has to be freedom to be right or wrong, freedom to speak Truth of Falsehood. Otherwise we give imperfect (you would say fallen) human beings a power they are not equipped to handle.
Homosexuals of good will should have this opinion about you:
1. You're intolerant and bigoted for not accepting their lifestyle. That's their term for saying what you do is a sin.
2. You have a right to be so, in your private capacity (I assume if you were a public official you would discharge your duties in accordance to the law, or resign if you cannot in good conscience do so).
3. They hope you'll repent and change your ways.
That would be the mirror image of what you have written, back in your viewfromdownhere.com days, about this subject from what I remember.
In this case, the fact that they don't accept point #2 is the problem in my book. I oppose that, for either side. I am probably hypersensitive on this issue, because of growing up in Israel.
I suspect your one of those closet Republican gays just like Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Bob Allen ..
If you were comfortable with your sexuality and weren't trying to hide something then you wouldn't give a DAMN if a guy wants to marry a guy. It's their affair NOT YOURS -
GROW THE HELL UP
Oh look at all these bigots using all the same "arguments" that bigots made against inter-racial marriages.
Wake up. The world didn't begin in the 1950's. Gay people have always been here and before Christians invented homophobia, there were gay marriages and homosexuality and bisexuality were considered normal. The Romans preferred bisexuality while the Greek believed that homosexual love was superior. The Roman emperors Hadrian, Trajan, Elagabalus, etc. all had male lovers and even married them.
So I suggest you people get an education and mind your damn business. If a man wants to marry another man it's none of your DAMN business.
Anonymous, I'm confused. Are you saying it's OK to be gay? If so, why are you trying to insult me by comparing me with gay heroes like Haggard, Foley, Craig, Allen, etc., who infiltrated and undermined the traditional side of the culture war?
In point of fact, you are mistaken, I am quite comfortable with my sexuality, as the Extraordinary Wife will readily attest.
If two guys want to sodomize each other, by all means, they may for all I care.
My complaint is that marriage is a specific thing, which I have written about here at some length. When a lazy drive-by moron like you comes by making insults without engaging what I've written, it does nothing to advance your cause, and only confirms me in my opinion that I am engaged against juvenile, selfish, libertine, sodomites who hate virtue and what to destroy what is left of western culture.
So fuck off and die.
And Mary, I suggest you try reading a non-gay historian once in a while; otherwise, same to you.
Post a Comment