U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: This Just In: Civilization Ends [Absurd "Gay" Marriage Argument Srhredded]t
Source:
Inside Catholic
URL Source: http://www.insidecatholic.com/featu ... just-in-civilization-ends.html
Published: Aug 10, 2010
Author: Robert R. Reilly
Post Date: 2010-08-10 14:22:36 by Liberator
Keywords: GayMarriage, is, BeyondAbsurd
Views: 12945
Comments: 23
When do you know it's over? When do you know that civilization has collapsed inwardly to such an irreparable extent that the next stop is barbarism? When is that Weimar moment? Certainly, the legalization of abortion was one such moment, as barbarism is defined as the inability or unwillingness to recognize another person as a human being. Abortion is the denial of procreative sex by nullifying its effects, which are seen as accidental. If you have an accident and conceive a baby, you can just clean up the mess by aborting it. Now we are experiencing another Weimar moment, which also denies procreative sex by accepting sodomy as a morally normative act. It regards the embrace of homosexual marriage in last week's ruling by a federal judge in San Francisco. As a result of the successful passage of Proposition 8, the California constitution states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." This provision was challenged by several gay couples, the plaintiffs in the case, as a denial of due process and their right to equal protection under the law. The original defendants in the case, Attorney General Jerry Brown and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, refused to defend their state constitution in court, even though Proposition 8 was passed by a majority of their citizens. For this, a Californian might think, they ought to be impeached for dereliction of duty. Brown and Schwarzenegger should not be able to choose which parts of California's constitution they will uphold and which they will not. Their absence left an apparently less than competent volunteer team to defend the provision. The outcome of the deliberations? On August 4, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled that marriage is not between a man and a woman. Where could he have gotten this idea? It turns out that the judge himself is a homosexual. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, another judge, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the trial, said, "He [Walker] has a private life and he doesn't conceal it, but doesn't think it is relevant to his decisions in any case, and he doesn't bring it to bear in any decisions." It is more than a stretch to believe that Walker's life as a homosexual did not affect his decision concerning homosexual rights. Would a person engaged in the very activity that is being questioned in law be the best one to judge on its legal character? One of the most elementary principles of justice is that one should not judge a case in which one has an interest. But Judge Walker apparently did not feel the need to recuse himself, though it would seem obvious that he, as a homosexual, would have a personal interest in the outcome. In fact, the judge is a beneficiary of his own ruling -- not only in the direct sense that he could now marry another homosexual person if he so wished, but in the larger rationalization of homosexual acts as being morally normative. His 136-page ruling can be seen as a bald act of self-justification, which he now enforces upon the broader public as legally mandatory. This, of course, is a major misuse of law, but it has its precedents, as already mentioned concerning the legalization of abortion. In The Ethics, Aristotle noted what impels this misuse: "Men start revolutionary changes for reasons connected with their private lives." People who live morally disordered lives -- and a life centered on homosexual acts is morally disordered -- must always search for rationalizations that permit them to continue their behavior. Otherwise, their conscience rebels (see The Culture of Vice). Judge Walker's revolutionary ruling is indubitably tied to his private life, the rationalization for which he now requires everyone to accept -- according the U.S. Constitution, no less. Let us examine the rationalizations in his decision. Judge Walker declares that "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license." This, he contends, is wrong because marriage is a basic right. However, one has a "right" or is "free" to marry only in so far as one is capable of being married. One does not have a right to a vocation in life that one cannot perform the duties of. Does one have the "right" to be a fireman if one cannot quickly climb a ladder and lift a heavy hose? Does one have a "right" to serve in the military if one cannot physically meet its demands? What, then, might be the minimal demands of marriage which one must be capable of performing? One of those martial duties, as in the two examples above, is actually physical, though its implications and true meaning extend far beyond the merely physical. Common law holds that a marriage is not valid until it is consummated. What does consummating a marriage mean? It means and has always meant by law an act of vaginal intercourse between the husband and wife. If this act does not take place, the marriage can be legally declared a nullity. Until consummation, it is subject to annulment. Therefore, becoming one flesh is not optional for a legally valid marriage. If one is incapable of consummating a marriage or simply unwilling to do so for any reason, there can be no marriage, and therefore the "right" to it is irrelevant. Similarly, if one cannot perform as a fireman, the right to be a fireman is also irrelevant. How does Judge Walker get around this? By ignoring it -- and with this bit of legerdemain: He [the gay ruling Judge] states that the ability to produce offspring has never been a prerequisite for granting heterosexual couples marriage licenses. This, of course, is true, but he segues from it to the clear implication that an act of sodomy can therefore replace vaginal intercourse to consummate a marriage. He implies this, though the word "sodomy," the elephant in the room, is never mentioned in his decision. He was wise, if not entirely honest, in not using the word, because it has never before been thought that sodomy could legally consummate a marriage, regardless of the fertility or infertility of the couple. Many state laws forbade sodomy. Since some even included prohibitions of it within marriage, it was inconceivable that marital consummation could have meant anything but vaginal intercourse. For homosexual couples, the marital act is physically impossible -- the pieces don't fit -- and the attempt to ape it through sodomy is hygienically compromised and incapable in any circumstances of generating new life. For these reasons, among many others, common law has held through the centuries that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. In light of this, it is astonishing that Judge Walker could state in his conclusion that "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license" (my emphasis). Is it not rational to state that those incapable of consummating a marriage cannot in fact be married? It seems quite irrational to say otherwise. Judge Walker's big issue is the denial of equality and the discriminatory nature of Proposition 8. However, everyone is equal before this law, because no man and woman can be denied marriage for reasons of race, creed, or color. No extraneous issues can be brought to bear outside of the qualification that it takes a man and a woman to marry. Homosexuals and lesbians are also equal before this law in so far as they are willing, respectively, to find a woman or a man with whom to marry. Proposition 8 does not single out anyone; it simply defines marriage as marriage has always been defined. Like any law, it distinguishes between those who qualify and those who do not. Similarly, because of the principle of equality, everyone has the right to consent in the manner in which they are governed. However, in order to exercise this right -- expressed as the right to vote -- one must meet the qualifications of voter registration as to age, residence, etc. If one is unwilling to register or has not reached the proper age, one cannot exercise the right. A child cannot; neither can an insane person. In some states, neither can felons. Relevant disqualifications for marriage include consanguinity -- brothers and sisters cannot marry no matter how much they love each other. Neither can children, the insane, or those who are already married. Could anyone reasonably argue that children, the insane, bothers and sisters, or the already married are not equal before the law regarding marriage? Because you cannot meet the stipulations of a law does not mean you are unequal before it. The law that forbids drunk driving, for instance, applies equally to everyone, including alcoholics. Because an alcoholic is more likely to break this law, or because it may be harder for him or perhaps even impossible to observe, does this mean the law is a violation of his due process and equality before the law? What would Judge Walker say? Judge Walker, however, takes greatest umbrage at the "belief that opposite-sex couples are morally superior to same-sex couples" or "the belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women." On what could such a "belief" be based? He suggests either "animus toward gays and lesbians," which of course is inadmissible, or "moral disapproval of homosexuality," which very well might be admissible, depending on its relationship to the common good. However, Walker dismisses morality altogether as an insufficient basis for legislation. This is in sync with his purported libertarian beliefs. He concludes that "Proposition 8 finds support only in such [moral] disapproval," and is therefore unconstitutional. However, law is by its nature moral, as it stakes its claim to make something better, rather than worse, which has to be ultimately judged against a standard of the "good." Without morality, law is reduced to the rule of the stronger. While dismissing the morality of his opponents as inadmissible, Judge Walker goes on to legislate his own stealth morality. He avers, in effect, that it is wrong -- in other words, immoral -- to deny homosexual and lesbians a "right" to marry, because this is a violation of the principle of equality. Now, equality is a moral principle. Therefore, Judge Walker completely contradicts himself in asserting that morality is an insufficient basis for the law, when morality is exactly what he uses to justify his decision in changing the law. Is this hypocritical or simply ignorant? On the other hand, Judge Walker never addresses what might be immoral in the acts of homosexuals that would lead others to the attitude that heterosexual marriage is "morally superior" to same-sex marriage. He puts it all down to changing attitudes. He called the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage "an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and marriage." Being a good historicist, he states, "That time has passed." In fact, he insists that same-sex partners can do anything in marriage (except consummating it?) as well as heterosexual couples, including child-rearing. As a parent, this makes me wonder. When my children were younger, they used to think that, if my wife and I removed our wedding rings, they would disappear. We never told them that. Yet they instinctively understood that their very existence depended upon the love between my wife and me. They sensed that they were incarnations of this love, and they therefore concluded that if it were broken they would disappear. For all of Judge Walker's fulminations about the absolute equivalency of heterosexual and homosexual parenting, the children raised by two males or two females would never have that instinctive sense about the beginnings of their existence in the love of their parents -- for the obvious reason that they could not originate in the relationship between two males or two females. This will leave these children with the lifelong quest for their real origins, or suffering from their being unable to discover them and wondering why at least one of their real parents did not want them. Even the laudable love of adoptive parents cannot overcome this instinctual problem. Another of Judge Walker's extraordinary rationalizations is that "the evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples" (emphasis added). This is a startling claim. How about a biologist? Can he tell the difference? Or a proctologist? How about a gynecologist? Might they not notice some slight difference between the two? Judge Walker's decision is not only irrational; it is a denial of reality. Socrates said that the worst thing a person could do was to lie in his soul about what is. This is such a lie. It denies what is between a man and a woman in marriage. As bad as this is for the poor souls who have organized their lives around a moral disorder, it is even worse for the political order that publically adopts it for its own -- since it is marriage properly understood that is essential for civilization's survival. Publically enforced lies about what is are evil. That is why this is a Weimar moment. These moments are flares in the night, distress signals, calls for moral rescue before a tsunami engulfs all memory of moral order. Signals have been sent. They still hang in the night sky, the last illumination before bearings are lost. In the darkness that descends, who will answer the cries for help? Will it be those who have been told to be less than men and women in marriage?
Poster Comment: This is longer read than some are used to, but a worthy essay to the intellectually honest.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: sneakypete, AKA Stone, jwpegler, war, lucysmom (#0)
For your perusal.
Nice bracelet.
Were you ever in the music or song writing business? ... e_type_jagoff to Mudboy lol
The article fails on several levels: A) Abortion was legal when this nation was founded and was legal in several states prior to Roe. B) To note that the case failed for several reasons including the fact that none of the plaintiffs could show how the repeal of the law, ex parte of any constitutional issue, would harm them. C) Allowing government to define interpersonal relationships is the slipperiest of slopes and is a direct attack on the lynchpin of freedom: The Right to privacy.
Thanks. This just proves what I have been stating all along,Christian cults are behind this effort to deny citizens their Constitutional rights,and you see nothing wrong with this.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
You should have been at the Salem witch trials. Boy it would have been hot.
Sorry to disappoint you , but no one was burned to death during the Salem Witch trials. Even though I'm sure you would have loved to have used them as burnt offerings to your god.
"See in my line of work, you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --- George W. Bush (Rochester NY, 5-24-2005)
In other words,I should be burned at the stake by superstitious religious fools for my belief that people should be free to make their own decisions? And you call yourself a conservative??????
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Morality and what is legal are not the same thing. Denying same sex couples the right to marry can be judged wrong because it violates Constitutional rights and protections. Whether or not it is moral is another question altogether. It is clear that not all Americans, or even all Californians share the same vision of morality as it applies to same sex marriage. The question then is, does one group have the legal right under the Constitution to impose their sense of morality on another group by denying what has already been determined to be a fundamental human right?
This is about redefining an institution that has been in place since the beginning of time. Because faggots long to be accepted they want to call themselves married. The definition of marriage doesn't include two people of the same sex. Society doesn't need to go George Orwell in order to appease perverts. People who throughtout history have been considered perverts from Godly countries like America to Godless countries like Russia and China. If the homosexuals want to live together and do whatever they want. Not many people really care. Let them do that. But don't force society to accept perversion of words by people who are basically mentally ill. Also morality is morality. There aren't different versions of it.
And you call yourself a conservative?????? Don't be silly.
The definition of marriage is not universal and has in the past included same sex unions. Who died and made you god?
I'm not opposed to same sex unions. Let them call it that. Your subconscious mind knows the truth.
This is about redefining an institution that has been in place since the beginning of time. Really? Neanderthals were married? Because faggots long to be accepted they want to call themselves married. Is that why you got married,so you would be accepted? Society doesn't need to go George Orwell in order to appease perverts. Define perversion. And not just the "two men having sex is perverted" line,either. Let's have a full list of sexual acts you want banned. BTW,you do know that many of your spiritual leaders have been busted in recent years for acts you would consider perverted,right? One of the most recent is the former Bush White House Spiritual Adviser,Ted Haggerty. He was busted for using church money to buy Chrystal Meth and to rent male prostitutes. People who throughtout history have been considered perverts from Godly countries like America Back the hell up,Buckwheat! America is NOT and never has been a "Godly country" except in the fevered imaginations of the deluded.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
And you call yourself a conservative?????? Don't be silly. Ok,then what was the point of your post?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
If you lived back then you would have seen that your view of the world is wrong.
No that is what the homosexuals want.
zero crazy boy.
You have been brainwashed. Poor petey.
You have been brainwashed. Poor petey. What do you mean? Are you saying Neanderthals didn't exist? Or are you saying that the Baby Jesus was a Neanderthal?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
I'm saying Pete. Give up your hate. Pray to God and ask him the way. Be sincere.
Of course they didn't exist. How could they have been here 150,000 years before God created the earth? And the same goes for those damn Cro-Magnon fakers, too.
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
Part of what made America strong was a synergy of working peoples meeting those of similar station. All thats goin down now, Children are being conditioned to recieve commands from the Uber State now.
Hah! The gall of some people! I bet they are voting Dim in the elections,too!
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
#2. To: Liberator (#0)
#3. To: Liberator (#0)
(Edited)
#4. To: Liberator (#1)
For your perusal.
#5. To: sneakypete (#4)
#6. To: A K A Stone (#5)
You should have been at the Salem witch trials. Boy it would have been hot.
#7. To: A K A Stone (#5)
You should have been at the Salem witch trials. Boy it would have been hot.
#8. To: Liberator (#0)
While dismissing the morality of his opponents as inadmissible, Judge Walker goes on to legislate his own stealth morality. He avers, in effect, that it is wrong -- in other words, immoral -- to deny homosexual and lesbians a "right" to marry, because this is a violation of the principle of equality. Now, equality is a moral principle. Therefore, Judge Walker completely contradicts himself in asserting that morality is an insufficient basis for the law, when morality is exactly what he uses to justify his decision in changing the law. Is this hypocritical or simply ignorant?
#9. To: lucysmom, sneakyfreak (#8)
#10. To: sneakypete (#7)
In other words,I should be burned at the stake by superstitious religious fools for my belief that people should be free to make their own decisions?
#11. To: A K A Stone (#9)
The definition of marriage doesn't include two people of the same sex. Society doesn't need to go George Orwell in order to appease perverts.
#12. To: lucysmom (#11)
The definition of marriage is not universal and has in the past included same sex unions.
#13. To: A K A Stone (#9)
#14. To: A K A Stone (#10)
In other words,I should be burned at the stake by superstitious religious fools for my belief that people should be free to make their own decisions?
#15. To: sneakypete (#14)
#16. To: sneakypete (#13)
Is that why you got married,so you would be accepted?
#17. To: sneakypete (#13)
BTW,you do know that many of your spiritual leaders
#18. To: sneakypete (#13)
Really? Neanderthals were married?
#19. To: A K A Stone (#18)
Really? Neanderthals were married?
#20. To: sneakypete (#19)
#21. To: sneakypete (#19)
What do you mean? Are you saying Neanderthals didn't exist?
#22. To: Liberator (#0)
These moments are flares in the night, distress signals, calls for moral rescue before a tsunami engulfs all memory of moral order. Signals have been sent. They still hang in the night sky, the last illumination before bearings are lost.
Bringing the bo home to meet Mom and Dad,
repeated visits/dinners,.....now your becoming Family.
Family endures thru all challenges.
Family is what makes up a nation.
Attack the family,....and you weaken the nation.
More defined by saying the middleclass,...if you wish to convey numeric success.
Banker/Elite's are the ones behind the curtain in Oz doing this.
If there is a family actually in the picture,...they are no doubt being tortured by young earther socialists who find a myriad of infractions occuring in the home to report back to at school.
I've wondered if they will blow the thing out totally and create the Corporate controlled city's like in Bladerunner,....with bastardized new mixed language and of course,....digitial identification and credits.
#23. To: Skip Intro (#21)
And the same goes for those damn Cro-Magnon fakers, too.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]