This morning, Representative Jerry Nadler (D-New York) announced he will introduce a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This law defines marriage for federal purposes and ensures that states are not forced to recognize alternate definitions. DOMA passed overwhelmingly in 1996 by 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate.All the staff, cast and crew here at Thoughts of a Regular Guy would like to welcome the gay marriage issue back to the national agenda for another election cycle.
Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), said, "The citizens of 39 states have worked hard to pass legislation and constitutional amendments to protect marriage as the union between one man and one woman. DOMA ensures the integrity of our constitutional system and the will of Americans. DOMA reflects the reality that marriage provides unique benefits to individuals, children, and society which cannot be replicated by any other living arrangement.
"The Defense of Marriage Act anticipated the assault that homosexual activists would inflict upon marriage. Through DOMA, the will of the people is honored, as evidenced in the 39 states that have passed laws protecting marriage."
Shari Rendall, CWA's Director of Legislation and Public Policy, said, "Homosexual activists and their congressional supporters are making the outrageous claim that protecting marriage is a form of discrimination. But the reverse is true -- failing to protect marriage and overturning marriage laws will result in reverse discrimination against people who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman."
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Nadler To Introduce Bill To Repal DOMA
I'd be interested to hear from every congressional candidate in the nation, for both the House and Senate, how they would vote on this bill:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
This does not surprise me, as the White House has already filed a brief with the Supreme Court (if I'm not mistaken, that was who) saying that they believe DOMA to be unfair and that Congress ought to overturn it.
The bishops were definitely timely with the Pro Life material discussing true marriage, and our parish will be purchasing the pamphlets and distributing them on Pro Life Sunday in October.
What was that bit about those who call good evil and evil good?
"the assault that homosexual activists would inflict upon marriage."
How mean-spirited are you to think that denying a basic right to people who are different from you takes something away from you? Or perhaps, this is clinical paranoia. I am undecided.
Elizabeth, you've spent enough time reading this blog to know that the indented italics are quotations, not what I wrote.
Besides, you and I have been round and round on this; you know where I stand, and I know where you stand.
You still want to pretend that homosexual relations are the same kind of thing as heterosexual, and they just aren't.
The only new observation I have, besides my pleasure at the Democrats raising this issue in time for the next election cycle, is to note that it wasn't so long ago that the Soviets also attributed their political opponents' opposition to psychiatric disorders. Is that what's coming as part of Obamacare? Adherents to traditional morality will be institutionalized?
Oh, yeth, Paul, how "mean thpirited" of you!!!!
How do you define homosexual relations, Paul? How do they differ from heterosexual relations?
When I use the term homosexual relations, Robert, I am refer to the activities of two people of the same sex acting for their sexual gratification.
When I use the term heterosexual relations, I am referring to sexual intercourse between two people of opposite sexes.
The important difference here, as I see it, is that in 100% of cases, homosexual relations are sterile, and cannot result in conception.
Whereas in the vast majority of cases, heterosexual relations includes the possibility of conception, which makes it a different kind of thing than the other.
There was a time when everyone knew and acknowledged these simple facts. Now, as with so many other things, many people pretend not to know them.
But when people get into a voting booth, it turns out that the majority still know the difference.
How do you define homosexual relations, Paul? How do they differ from heterosexual relations?
I'm obviously not our esteemed host, but: "homosexual relations", in this context, refers to romantic and/or sexual interactions between two people of the same sex (e.g. male with male, or female with female). The ways they differ from heterosexual relations are many, but here are a few:
1) the obvious difference is that heterosexual relations involve romantic and/or sexual interactions between people of the opposite sex (e.g. male with female).
2) sexual interactions between those of the same sex are biologically closed to new life (i.e. procreation of children).
3) sexual intercourse, per se, between those of the same sex is biologically impossible; and attempts to complete such an act either do bodily violence to one or both (e.g. penile penetration of an anus) or they regress to mere mutual masturbation.
4) though you're not likely to accept this one: human sexuality is "more than plumbing-deep", in that there exist profound differences in male and female *psyches* that are not attributable to environmental conditioning alone--differences to which homosexual relations do significant damage. The Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it well: "[homosexual relations] do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity." See The Theology of the Body for more details (and a far better explanation), if you're interested.
When I use the term homosexual relations, Robert, I am refer to the activities of two people of the same sex acting for their sexual gratification.
When I use the term heterosexual relations, I am referring to sexual intercourse between two people of opposite sexes.
The important difference here, as I see it, is that in 100% of cases, homosexual relations are sterile, and cannot result in conception.
Whereas in the vast majority of cases, heterosexual relations includes the possibility of conception, which makes it a different kind of thing than the other.
What about in those cases where heterosexual relations do not include the possibility of conception? How do those relations differ from homosexual ones?
What about in those cases where heterosexual relations do not include the possibility of conception? How do those relations differ from homosexual ones?
Oh, please.
I've addressed that many times. Do a little reading, that's what the tags at the bottom of the posts are for.
2) sexual interactions between those of the same sex are biologically closed to new life (i.e. procreation of children).
Same question for you, then: for these purposes, how do homosexual sexual interactions differ from heterosexual actions that are also biologically closed to new life (due to sterility, for example)?
3) sexual intercourse, per se, between those of the same sex is biologically impossible; and attempts to complete such an act either do bodily violence to one or both (e.g. penile penetration of an anus) or they regress to mere mutual masturbation.
How do sexual interactions without intercourse between heterosexual partners differ from those of homosexual partners?
4) though you're not likely to accept this one: human sexuality is "more than plumbing-deep", in that there exist profound differences in male and female *psyches* that are not attributable to environmental conditioning alone--differences to which homosexual relations do significant damage.
What sort of damage are you referring to here?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it well: "[homosexual relations] do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity." See The Theology of the Body for more details (and a far better explanation), if you're interested.
What evidence can be provided indicative of this principle?
Oh, please.
I've addressed that many times. Do a little reading, that's what the tags at the bottom of the posts are for.
Our interactions have been quite pleasant so far. This turn for the worse has taken me aback. If you're not interested in conversing with me, please simply say so, and I'll leave.
If you are still interested, then please answer my question. I'm not interested in following links to your previous conversations and posts. I'm interested in your opinion, here and now, in response to my inquiries.
There are, after all, other folks here, interested in following our conversations. They may not be posting, but they most assuredly are reading. If not for my sake, then perhaps for theirs, please reconsider.
Robert, here's my summary of Paul's perspective of sterile heterosexual relationships. Paul, please correct me if I misunderstood you.
There are two types of heterosexual sexual activities that don't usually cause conception: those that are naturally sterile, and those that are artificially sterile.
Natural sterility is the result of nature, being run by God who knows what's best for us. If a married couple can't conceive naturally, that's God's decision. Therefore, there is no moral fault.
For example, at a certain point God is probably going to give Karen, Paul's wife, menopause. Afterward, their marital act will not result in any more children. But that is not through their choice, and therefore unrelated to morality.
Artificial sterility can come about either through acts that give the pleasure of sex in a different fashion than the natural one (say, oral sex when taken all the way), or acts that are natural but performed with an artificial intervention that prevents conception (say, birth control pills). Paul(1) considers both sorts to be sinful.
If I understand Paul correctly, the only reason he would consider a marriage where the partners plan on artificial contraception to be valid is because there is still the chance they'll change their mind, or that God will bless them with a child anyway.
(1) Based on Catholic teaching, but let's not get into that please. We don't need a discussion on teaching authority on this thread.
Ori wrote:
If I understand Paul correctly, the only reason he would consider a marriage where the partners plan on artificial contraception to be valid is because there is still the chance they'll change their mind, or that God will bless them with a child anyway.
Correct, but with one caveat: those who ENTER marriage with such a contraceptive mentality might not be validly married at all, since they willfully reject a necessary openness to life which is part and parcel of valid marriage.
Thank you both for summarizing Paul's position. However, I am not interested in discussing Paul's position by proxy. Hopefully, Paul will change his mind and express an interest in discussing the topic with me. If not, so be it.
In the meanwhile, if either of you (or anyone else, for that matter) is interested in having such a discussion with me, I'm all ears.
I'm sure I will, Robert, when I have more time (it's not a slow week at my office) and more patience to make a civil reply.
Paladin, do you think there should be a difference between legal marriage, and religious marriage? If you were on a jury, would you consider a couple married for legal purposes if their marriage was not valid under canon law (for example, because they intended to use contraception)?
Ori wrote:
Paladin, do you think there should be a difference between legal marriage, and religious marriage?
That's a tough question, depending on how it's meant. On the one hand, I *don't* think that there should be a difference between a civil marriage and a religious marriage... in the sense that I wish *all* marriages were religious marriages! But given the fallen world (without ubiquitous and fulsome adherence to the Gospel of Christ), a distinction between the two is necessary (though the necessity is lamentable).
If you were on a jury, would you consider a couple married for legal purposes if their marriage was not valid under canon law (for example, because they intended to use contraception)?
Yes... because the state *does* have the right to be free to legislate how its resources (e.g. tax benefits, rights under civil law, etc.) are to be portioned out... so long as it doesn't violate the moral law (e.g. by penalizing that which should be allowed, or encouraging that which should not be allowed), in the process. The state has every right to allow married couples to file taxes jointly, or not to allow it (so long as there is no unjust penalty on the practice of marriage), for example. The Church sees civil marriage as (aside from any abuses which transgress the moral law) a matter that's almost entirely the state's business... and that's my mind on the matter, as well.
Yes... because the state *does* have the right to be free to legislate how its resources (e.g. tax benefits, rights under civil law, etc.) are to be portioned out... so long as it doesn't violate the moral law (e.g. by penalizing that which should be allowed, or encouraging that which should not be allowed), in the process.
Same-sex marriage does not penalize or discourage heterosexual marriages. Sure, it is a more inclusive definition than your convictions about religious marriage. However, that is why they are separate concepts. It allows us us to exist as neighbors, and be neighborly, without having to share the same faith.
My wife and I are sterile. I also believe our relationship is a gift from God. Our inability to have kids is how it is written, the same as a sterile heterosexual couple.
Stephanie wrote:
Same-sex marriage does not penalize or discourage heterosexual marriages.
This isn't a very good way to put even *that* part of the story. Most every sin in the world could say the same:
"The existence of state-sanctioned thievery does not penalize or discourage honesty and respect of property in those who choose to do those good things!" (It certainly discourages those who fall to its temptation, and removes a great deal of incentive to be honest and respectful of property--especially with those whose consciences have not yet been formed properly! Honestly: how is a 5-year-old supposed to construct the deep and abstract system of ethics by which stealing penny candy, or cheating on a test, can be seen as evil? Ditto with K-12 "homosexuality normalization programs" in schools...)
"The existence of state-sanctioned prostitution does not penalize or discourage chastity and fidelity to one's spouse!" (Ditto.)
"The existence of cold-blooded, state-sanctioned murder does nor penalize of discourage refusal to kill one's neighbour!" (Ditto... with the added anti-benefit of possibly being the victim, one of these days.)
Sure, it is a more inclusive definition than your convictions about religious marriage.
Do remember that, despite the secular nonsense rampant in our culture(s), "inclusive" is not automatically synonymous with "good".
However, that is why they are separate concepts.
Ditto, with "separate"; good is separate from evil, as well...
It allows us us to exist as neighbors, and be neighborly, without having to share the same faith.
No... charity and goodwill allow us to do those things; but charity and goodwill are not at all the same as "let others do as they like, no matter how foul or destructive". Even the most secular of governments understand the necessity of prohibiting at least some of the grave evils.
My wife and I are sterile. I also believe our relationship is a gift from God.
It might well be, if it takes the form of disinterested (i.e. not self-seeking) friendship... but not in the "wife/wife" incarnation that it holds, right now. That sort of "playing house" is, as you might say, a separate issue altogether, distinct from whatever friendship you have between you.
Our inability to have kids is how it is written, the same as a sterile heterosexual couple.
Yes, that's how it is written... but it is NOT "the same" as a sterile heterosexual couple; the language in which it was written is very different. Two identical outcomes can have very different causes (and very different moral gradients), you know; a dead body can arise from a heart attack as well as from a murder... but no sane person would assign the situations equal moral weight! If I recall correctly, you mentioned that you and the other lady are incapable of being artificially inseminated; this is but one of TWO reasons why you are "sterile" in your "marriage"--because the sexual activity of two women with each other cannot, in any case, yield a child.
Think of it this way (though the metaphor is poor and limited): my car might fail to start because I (unknowingly) poured old, spoiled petrol into the tank; it might also fail to start because I poured maple syrup into the tank. But one can be attributed to external sources, while the other is attributable to my own stupidity/ignorance.
Paladin, I was responding to your suggestion that same-sex marriage would be "penalizing that which should be allowed." I was disagreeing with that statement, not creating parameters for all things good.
But instead you took it as an opportunity to venture on a tangent comparing my marriage to thievery, prostitution, and capital punishment. As they say in Australia, you lost the plot there.
You think my marriage is "foul and destructive," but I disagree. In fact, I think it is beautiful and constructive. So does our family.
My point was not that a sterile heterosexual couple and my marriage are identical situations, but that I believe they are both part of God's plan. This is a point I am well aware you and I disagree.
By the way, neither my wife or I are infertile, so I'll skip your comparison of our fertility with gas tanks.
And for the brass tax, I believe the freedom in our laws is a reflection of charity and goodwill. There are no victims here. Just my wife and I. Let us live as neighbors and let's be neighborly. We don't have to share the same faith.
Sorry about the delay in replying; I'm not ignoring you, honest! Real life overwhelms... I'll try to write when I get a moment to breathe...
We all get busy. I hope everything is well. If I don't catch you on this thread, I know there will be others.
Seems the state marriage license is basically a way to tie the children to the father and his support. Now that there are paternity tests, that is less important. However, it is hard for me to see what interest the state has in conferring marital status on same sex couples because they don't procreate, rather they enter into parental relationships as single mothers and by adoption. Does the state have an interest in tying mom's girlfriend to the child? Seems a bit of a stretch. A father should be obligated because he created the child, but mom's partner?
I guess I see marriage as existing primarily to protect the interests of children not independent adults who choose their legal arrangements. If it weren't for the minor children the state wouldn't really have an interest in marriage. Just like they don't regulate other relationships. Family courts cost money. So if it is nobody's business, why get the state involved? I must be missing something because plenty of heterosexuals don't marry and have relationships without the consent of the state.
Does the state have an interest in tying mom's girlfriend to the child? Seems a bit of a stretch. A father should be obligated because he created the child, but mom's partner?
Absolutely! Parenting comes with responsibilities, by blood or marriage. If somebody is raising a child, they cannot decide to walk away from that role. It is not in the interest of the child to be abandoned by or kept from a parent they have known for most or all of their lives. Financially the consequences of a split can be devastating and unfair to the child. Imagine a parent being left to raise a child alone by the primary bread winner, and finding out their name is not on the property or financial accounts. Family court is there to look after the best interest of the child and sort out these issues if marriages dissolve.
If it weren't for the minor children the state wouldn't really have an interest in marriage.
Civil marriage involves declaring your partner as closer than kin for matters of the state. Most of the laws that regulate marriage are about honoring this relationship, and are not relevant to children. Many of these laws can't be replicated by contractual agreements, and it is quite expensive to try. I believe the state does have an interest in honoring these relationships whether or not children become a part of the family. And the marriage laws seem to reflect this interest.
Family courts cost money. So if it is nobody's business, why get the state involved?
At least with civil marriage there is a framework for dissolution. Imagine the legal work involved in sorting out relationships that have special contracts or a lack of contract all together.
For example, my wife and I make very similar salaries and pay the mortgage from our joint account, yet the house is in her name. The state has laws on how to recognize my contributions to the mortgage because we are married. It would take much more legal wrangling by a judge to figure that out if we were not married. The state isn't saving any money here by avoiding marriage contracts.
I must be missing something because plenty of heterosexuals don't marry and have relationships without the consent of the state.
Some of my straight friends are in such relationships. Most of them have not made life-long commitments, and they do not consider their partner's to be closer than kin. They still largely separate their finances. These aren't civil marriages.
However, there are many couples, gay and straight, that want to make life-long commitments, build lives together, and be treated as family for state matters. These couples want a civil marriage whether they decide to raise kids or not.
What counsel would you give to two gay people who were in love? Do you think they should just commit suicide?
Oh by the way, I do think bigotry represents a paranoid delusional disorder, and I am not alone in my field in believing this. However the Soviets did not so much believe their opponents were mentally ill; rather, they merely used this as a ruse to institutionalize them.
Post a Comment