Obama Administration ceases defense of natural, true marriage

Under the cover of the chaos in Madison and the Middle-East, President Obama turns against natural marriage.

Didn’t they just – by fiat via pro-abortion Catholic Sec. Sebelius – eliminate some conscience protections for health-care workers?

Remember, the University of Notre Dame gave Pres. Obama an honorary doctorate in law.

Obama Administration Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law

Published February 23, 2011

FoxNews.com

The Obama administration announced Wednesday that it will no longer defend the federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The decision marks a significant about-face for the Obama Justice Department, which until now had defended the law in court despite President Obama’s misgivings with the policy. The administration’s attorneys as recently as last month had filed a court motion in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which effectively bans recognition of same-sex marriage.

But after two new lawsuits were filed in New York and Connecticut, Obama ordered Attorney General Eric Holder not to defend the statute.

“I fully concur with the president’s determination,” Holder said in a statement, declaring the provision to be “unconstitutional.”

Holder said members of Congress may step up to defend the statute, but the Justice Department “will cease defense.”

Jan. 11:Attorney General Eric Holder delivers remarks at the Martin Luther King Jr. commemorative program, at the Justice Department in Washington.

Jan. 11:Attorney General Eric Holder delivers remarks at the Martin Luther King Jr. commemorative program, at the Justice Department in Washington.

He noted that the congressional debate during passage of the Defense of Marriage Act “contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships — precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution’s) Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.”

Holder wrote to House Speaker John Boehner that Obama concluded the law fails to meet a rigorous standard under which courts view with suspicion any laws targeting minority groups who have suffered a history of discrimination.

Boehner’s office was taken aback by the move, suggesting it was a bit off-topic considering the high-profile battle lawmakers are waging on Capitol Hill over federal spending.  [Indeed.]

While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the president will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation,” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel told Fox News.

Maggie Gallagher, chairwoman of the National Organization for Marriage, said that if somebody from the House steps in to defend the law, it could actually be “good news” for Defense of Marriage Act supporters.

“This fight is not over yet. It’s really just begun,” she told Fox News.

Gay-rights groups applauded the administration. The Human Rights Campaign called the decision a “monumental” move against a law that “unfairly discriminates against Americans.”

“Congressional leaders must not waste another taxpayer dollar defending this patently unconstitutional law,” Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese said in a statement.

“The Obama administration’s decision is a victory for civil rights, fairness, and equality for the LGBT community and all Americans,” House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said.  [Remember what the CDF document said? Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons.]

The administration previously has defended laws with which the president disagrees, notably the “don’t ask, don’t tell” provision banning gays from serving openly in the military — though that law was later repealed. Holder acknowledged this in his statement, but said there are exceptions.

“The department has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense. At the same time, the department in the past has declined to defend statutes despite the availability of professionally responsible arguments, in part because — as here — the department does not consider every such argument to be a ‘reasonable’ one,” Holder said. “Moreover, the department has declined to defend a statute in cases, like this one, where the president has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional.”

Holder said the “legal landscape” has changed in the 15 years since the law was passed, citing the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and lower-court rulings against the law.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney explained that the U.S. government will remain a party to Defense of Marriage Act cases so they can proceed in court. Though the administration says the key provision in the law is not constitutional, Carney said the administration will help others who want to defend it.

Obama, who supports the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, has said his views are “evolving” on same-sex marriage. Currently, he is only on record in support of civil unions.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Technorati Tags: , ,

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in One Man & One Woman, The future and our choices and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

52 Responses to Obama Administration ceases defense of natural, true marriage

  1. Fr. Basil says:

    The best way to defend traditional marriage is to make civil divorce very difficult to get, and remarriage afterwards almost impossible.

    No-fault divorce laws do more to destroy traditional marriage than anything else.

  2. teomatteo says:

    What would the Reverend Martin Luther King think of Holder and Obama’s position…. I wonder?

  3. boko fittleworth says:

    Doug Kmiec has an article in Newsweek explaining why this is no big deal and completely compatible with Church teaching.

  4. EXCHIEF says:

    Determinations of the Constitutionality of laws passed by Congress and signed by a previous President are not the purview of the Executive Branch but of the Court System.

  5. xgenerationcatholic says:

    How is this constitutional? I never heard of such a thing. Doesn’t he know he isn’t King?

  6. jules1 says:

    Fr Basil,
    Perhaps another way to defend traditional marriage is to make it harder to get. That way we ensure the couple really do know what marriage is all about. According to some studies out of Europe gay marriages end in divorce just on par with heterosexual divorce.In some countries gay divorces are higher. Two reasons cited are ,”lower exposure to normative pressure about the necessity of life-long unions” as well as differing motivations for getting married.”~Andersson, Gunnar ( 2006) “The Demographics of Same-Sex “Marriages“ in Norway and Sweden. Those reasons are also true for heterosexual couples, wouldn’t you say?

  7. There’s a notable minority group that has been the systematic subject of discrimination since from Confederation, of course. They’re known as convicted criminals. Maybe criminal law should be disolved as indefensible, too?

  8. Marc says:

    I hope Our Lord gets back here soon and cleans up this mess!

  9. Obama, who supports the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, has said his views are “evolving” on same-sex marriage.

    Since one of the main themes of this blog is linguistics, I would like to suggest that Obama’s views on pretty much of anything are not evolving. Usually, evolution suggests a movement from a lower state to a higher or more sophisticated state. If anything, Obama’s views are regressing.

  10. HighMass says:

    Please Dear God the Father in Heaven, We ask that this “president” enter retirement in 2013….

  11. Titus says:

    “Congressional leaders must not waste another taxpayer dollar defending this patently unconstitutional law,”

    This is an absurd comment. The attorneys who defend laws on behalf of Congress or the Justice Department are salaried federal employees: they don’t “bill” the government for appearing in court, drafting motions, or doing research the way a private attorney would. And given that papers in federal court are filed electronically (thus saving money on printing costs), I fail to see how it costs the government an appreciably greater amount of money to have federal attorneys defend a law than to sit around and stare at the wall.

    Remember, the University of Notre Dame gave Pres. Obama an honorary doctorate in law.

    Given that they gave me a real doctorate in law, I’d prefer not to.

  12. TNCath says:

    “Obama, who supports the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, has said his views are ‘evolving’ on same-sex marriage.”

    This means he thought it was important to have one view on same-sex “marriage” in order to get elected, but now, in order to get re-elected, needs to have the opposing view.

  13. Well, I’m afraid this means that, before too long, “same sex marriage” will be recognized by the federal government and by all 50 states under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution.

    As an immigration lawyer, this will be a problem for me. There is no way that I will advise two men or two women on how one of them
    might acquire permanent residence based on the relationship. Fortunately, I have only been asked about it once. Unfortunately, that is going to change.

  14. JohnMa says:

    An interesting note: This is only the 2nd time in the past 50+ years that the government had decided to change its decision on whether to defend a law or regulation solely because of a change in the White House. The only other time that it happened this way was back in 1981 with President Reagan. Interestingly enough, that case also had to do with the institution of marriage. In that case the Supreme Court appointed counsel to argue against both sides. They then slapped the executive branch upside the head and decided the case in a way both sides disagreed with.

  15. Supertradmum says:

    In October of 2004, Obama stated he was against civil unions. He has shown his true, political nature by caring only about his re-election in 2012.

    Get ready for persecution of the Catholic Church. Anyone who thinks this president is a Christian, has a head in the sand.

  16. Supertradmum says:

    PS I think we shall see the martyrdom, as imprisonment of many priests, as this will lead to these couples demanding marriages in the church of their choice.

  17. ipadre says:

    I wonder what Noah would be doing if he were alive today?

    It’s about time we all respond to the call of Our Lady of Fatima! “Our life, our sweetness and our hope”

  18. iPadre: He would be trying to defend the symbol of the rainbow, for one thing.

    Also, in my PODCAzT on the CDF document, in one of the tunes I incorporate, there is a little reference to Noah and the rainbow.

    That wasn’t an accident.

  19. Stvsmith2009 says:

    Members of the Obama administration, and his advisers have often been quoted as saying “never let a crisis go to waste”. Say what you will, Obama is not stupid. While the nation is busy watching events in Madison, Indiana, and the Middle East unfold, he takes the opportunity to remove protections for healthcare workers, and declare a valid federal law “unconstitutional”. I find it strange that the federal government is suddenly willing to let the states and “concerned organizations” take the initiative to go to court for the Defense of Marriage Act, when this is the same administration that is suing the state of Arizona for daring to pass an immigration law that would enforce laws the federal government won’t. I expect more unpalatable actions from POTUS as the crises around the nation and the world intensify.

  20. Supertradmum says:

    We are seeing a huge paradigm shift in the events of this week, as in Madison, Ohio, and Indiana, as well as this statement on civil unions. Democracy is dead. The making of homosexuality into a civil rights issue was determined at least 40 years ago by such activists. The unions have not respected elected officials, and the LTGB groups also have not respected the elected officials. These groups planned on circumventing our normal, democratic process and have succeeded.

    Unless real Christians and real Catholics stand up against these things, we shall find ourselves in an American we do not recognize either as a democracy or a republic.

    Once a people set aside religion and natural law philosophy, this is what we get-the tyranny of liberalism. Those who elected this progressive, post-modern president are getting what they wanted-moral and economic chaos. I firmly believe what is happening is simply anarchy, and we know who the god of anarchy is-Satan.

  21. tonio5555 says:

    Would a private citizen have standing to sue the United States for not enforcing its own law?

  22. Caroline says:

    About 15 years ago, Robert Bork wrote a book called,’ Slouching Towards Gomorrah, Modern Liberalism and American Decline,’ . He covered just about everything, but I remember thinking at the time, ‘that’s probably a long way off.’ Sad, but here we are slouching farther every day.

    For the sake of His sorrowful Passion..
    Have mercy on us Lord.

  23. Supertradmum says:

    By the way, is anyone shocked that the President has just acted in the place of the Judicial Branch, instead of the Executive Branch? This is a move which reminds me of Hitler.

  24. unbrick by unbrick.

    It’s the Obama way.

  25. contrarian says:

    Millions of contracepting couples, many unmarried, many merely ‘married’ (contracepting couples aren’t really married) voted–hypocritically–for Proposition 8. When Proposition 8 passed, I was a bit embarrassed, as a Catholic.

    Correct me if I’m wrong–and I hope I am–but I have rarely seen high-profile conservative Catholics define marriage so as to call out the farce marriage that is the contracepting marriage. I think this is because they are afraid to alienate their protestant colleagues, and thereby turn away a cash cow, and/or relegate the Catholic to the proverbial ghetto. Is there anything in the Manhattan Declaration, for example, that defines marriage so as to rule out contracepting ‘marriage’? If not, then the Catholics who sign it are doing so with but a watered-down version of ‘marriage’, one palatable to our contracepting ‘conservative’ protestant friends, and one *barely* recognizable as marriage in the true sense.

    Simply put: the debate over gay marriage is not one that can be fought in the ecumenical trenches. Insofar as high-profile conservative Catholics have treated it like it is, they have had to accept arguments against gay marriage that any honest egalitarian with half a brain can hack away at with ease.

    There is nothing about gay marriage that is any different than the sort of ‘marriage’ currently being defended by the conservative coalition.

    Sad.

  26. Fr. Basil says:

    \\Remember, the University of Notre Dame gave Pres. Obama an honorary doctorate in law.

    Given that they gave me a real doctorate in law, I’d prefer not to.\\

    Whether honorary or earned through the academic system and paying tuition, a degree is a degree.

    May I point out that the DD after most bishops’ names is in fact an honorary one? Consecration to the Episcopacy has traditionally brought with it this degree automatically.

  27. Serviam1 says:

    Does anyone ever ask or call psychological/psychiatric profession (APA) on the carpet? Does anyone see how the delisting of the homosexual disorder from the DSM has allowed for a shift of public opinion, thereby ushering in a general acceptance of behavior incompatible with natural human physiology? Why is the theory that homosexuality is based on genetic predisposition treated as truth? Where is and who shoulders the burden of truth, if this is the premise for changing civil law? What is the line of logic here?
    I believe the genetic premise is the Achilles heal of the entire Homosexualist Movement, yet no one in the public square questions the premise. …and the therapeutic community continues to “evolve” a relativistic truth with no challenge sewing an utter confusion that reduces Nature into a state of mind.

  28. frjim4321 says:

    There are at least three degrees of valid marriage which can be distinguished: sacramental marriage, canonical marriage and natural marriage. These are all very – if not essentially – different. So, we already use the word “marriage” to apply to three very unique entities. So, the term itself is not univocal. There does not appear to be a better term than “marriage” to define equal protection under the law for same-sex couples who wish to enter into a civil union. As we’ve seen recently, there is no such thing as “separate but equal.” It is inevitable that sometime in the next generation or so there will be an application of the term “marriage” to same-sex civil unions. Surveys demonstrate wide-spread acceptance of same-sex marriage by those who are thirty and younger. Since the horse is already out of the corral, I think the bishops would be better off concentrating their efforts on marriage preparation and marriage maintenance programs than they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars supporting campaigns to defeat civil equal marriage rights proposals. We should be using those dollars to improve the quality of sacramental marriage in the church, rather than squander them on a lost cause.

  29. PostCatholic says:

    “Boehner’s office was taken aback by the move, suggesting it was a bit off-topic considering the high-profile battle lawmakers are waging on Capitol Hill over federal spending.”

    1. It would be very discourteous to take such a decision in secret. Kudos for informing the opposition forthrightly.

    2. It is entirely compatible with reduction in federal spending to not waste money on legal battles which a) have been repeatedly determined by lower courts to be unconstitutional, b) which are costly to defend, and c) which are repugnant anyway.

    I’m sure you disagree with me on point C. But the President and the Attorney General do not, and kudos to them for their integrity.

  30. Supertradmum says:

    I do not mean to sound like Cassandra, but I do think that discussions on the nature of marriage are not helpful at this time. We have just had our entire democratic process torpedoed. And, the fact that the president waited until now, when Chicago is under his thumb, is not an accident. If you have children, please home school; if you are in the seminary, pray and fast to be strong against the tests you will have; if you are a lawyer, buy a farm in a remote area and grow food. The rest of us must somehow find our niche in the coming tsunami.

    This is our Kristallnacht as Catholics.

  31. BenedictXVIFan says:

    Contrarian, FrJim4321, & PostCatholic: I couldn’t disagree with you more. You each miss the the most relevant point in a distinctly different way. Try this thought experiment. Will a man be allowed to marry his own brother if same sex marriage is legitimized? If No, why on earth not? If Yes, then how about a man who wishes to marry his own sister? If Yes, would it require restrictions, such as sterilization? Wouldn’t mandated sterilization make them second class citizens (much like homosexuals claim about civil unions)? Wouldn’t it also highlight the crux of the matter: there’s a difference between males and females that matters and changes everything? My absurd questions aside: The sexes are NOT interchangeable. Any argument of yours that does not take this into account falls on my deaf ears, whether you are for gay marriage or, like me, against. How can all three of you miss the central principle in this issue?

  32. frjim4321 says:

    Bene16Fan, I don’t know if that’s the central issue. I think the central issue is that same-sex couples are seeking equal protection under the law. I don’t think it’s about the semanitics of how marriage is defined. I have never heard of a group of siblings wishing to “marry” each other. It seems like another straw horse, like people claiming that next we will have people who want to marry animals.

    Believe me, I do NOT believe that the Church could ever sacramentalize or uphold the canonicla validity of a same-sex marriage. I don’t believe that or even want that. In the civil area, though, I don’t think people should be deprive of equal protection on the basis of sexual orientation.

    If there is some way to accomplish that without using the term “marriage,” that’s well and good. But I haven’t heard any convincing arguments for alternatives.

    I hope I’ve made it clear that I don’t favor forcing the church to “perform” same-sex marriages. (Not that I think that’s a foregone repurcussion of the enshrinement of equal marriage rights.)

    Meanwhile, I am happy to see some examples of improvements in pre-marriage preparation, including much better preparation instruments (Prepare/Enrich, for example).

  33. Singing Mum says:

    There is nothing about gay marriage that is any different than the sort of ‘marriage’ currently being defended by the conservative coalition.

    You’re missing one huge difference- the right of children to have a mother and a father, and not being denied one or the other by design.

    I understand your point about the sameness of separating life and love, and I do not support contraception in any way. We have let this happen by accepting contraception.
    Still, the degree of negative impact on the basic structure of family is substantially larger with SSM.

  34. Singing Mum says:

    There is nothing about gay marriage that is any different than the sort of ‘marriage’ currently being defended by the conservative coalition.

    You’re missing one huge difference- the right of children to have a mother and a father, and not being denied one or the other by design.

    I understand your point about the sameness of separating life and love, and I do not support contraception in any way. We have let this happen by accepting contraception.
    Still, the degree of negative impact on the basic structure of family is substantially larger with SSM. It means going from bad to worse.

  35. SonofMonica says:

    Frjim4321- There is nothing civil about practicing or celebrating sodomy in public life. You don’t get to choose to be Catholic only in private. This is open war on civilization. Pick a side.

  36. wmeyer says:

    Dog bites man, sun rises in East, Obama violates the Constitution.

    This is round 2. The first round was when his DoJ decided that voter discrimination would be pursued only when the victims are not white, and the victimizers are not black.

    And this man was a “constitutional scholar”? Please. The words that come to mind are betrayal, treason, impeachment… oh, but wait, those are only for conservatives, yeah, that’s the ticket.

    That whole apocalyptic 2012 thing no longer seems so far fetched, but it’s not about global warming. It’s global government stupidity, global Islamic overthrows of previously stable regimes. And of course, the continuing secularization of America.

    We don’t need a gradual return to traditional values; we need, to borrow a turn the spirit of Vatican II folks love so well, a radical return to traditional values.

  37. Rachel K says:

    Keep your eyes on the UK too- what happens here always comes to you… Remember, we had “legal” abortion ten years before the US. For the last few weeks we have had screaming headlines telling us that “gay marriage” will come soon. The most sinister point is that there is a clearly stated intention of the coalition government to ensure that these can be obtained in religious premises including churches. At present the Catholic Hierarchy have not spoken out clearly against this- from earlier statements it is not clear what line Archbishop Nicholls and others are taking. There are others more cynical than I who would say that from his earlier statements he is not objectively against these things.?
    The most important difference for us here is that our political system is such that any legislation that succeeds is country wide from the outset- we get no opportunity to fight state by state as you might do across the pond. This means that legislation can be rapidly progressed without too much discussion, or even on occasion without too many people knowing what is happening before it becomes statute.
    I think we are in big trouble here unless the Catholic hierarchy speak out clearly. So far only some excellent evangelical groups have done so. Please pray for us- what happens here will impact on us all.

  38. cwillia1 says:

    The battle was lost in the seventies with the advent of unilateral, no-fault divorce. This turns civil marriage into an optional legal framework for two people who want to live together. Most people see marriage this way, and if you do, there seems to be no reason to deny this framework to any couple who want it.

    The ultimate position of the Church on this should be that civil marriage and civil divorce are nullities. That is, that civil marriage is not entitled to the presumption of validity. Prior co-habitations would have to be reviewed prior to sacramental marriage. Maybe we are not there yet.

  39. robtbrown says:

    PostCatholic says:

    1. It would be very discourteous to take such a decision in secret. Kudos for informing the opposition forthrightly.

    The question is whether now is the appropriate time to take such a decision.

    2. It is entirely compatible with reduction in federal spending to not waste money on legal battles which a) have been repeatedly determined by lower courts to be unconstitutional, b) which are costly to defend, and c) which are repugnant anyway.

    1. The record of lower courts has not been “repeatedly determined by lower courts to be unconstitutional”. In fact, the record is mixed, with decisions on both sides.

    2. NB: Constitutionality is not determined by the Executive Branch. Nor does SCOTUS determine constitutionality by counting the number of decisions of lower courts for or against it.

  40. Shadow says:

    @Serviam1: Well, part of the problem with APA is that if you open your mouth where others can hear you on this subject, you are literally violating the ethics code. Then you get slammed with all the crap they can dish out at you, including hauling you in front of their disciplinary committees etc. There is NO SUCH THING as a genetic basis for homosexuality/lesbianism etc. Even APA admits this openly in their research papers. However they choose to very conveniently sweep it under the carpet when it comes to policy and ethics setting.

    On my end from what I am seeing now, I thank God for having pulled me out of working at a mainstream clinic – I’d end up being fired, now, because I too would not condone this and would not hesitate to say so to clients. I also think many of us are going to be setting up our own structures, systems, etc. in order to be able to keep on practising (whatever profession we’re in) but in keeping with our faith. And yes, we are going to fall foul eventually of federal laws and we will be punished for it.

    All I can say at this point it is (a) scary and getting scarier by the minute, but (b) if this is what is going to happen, then BRING IT ON!

  41. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:

    There are at least three degrees of valid marriage which can be distinguished: sacramental marriage, canonical marriage and natural marriage. These are all very – if not essentially – different. So, we already use the word “marriage” to apply to three very unique entities. So, the term itself is not univocal.

    Of course, they’re not univocal. They’re analogical.

    The application of the word to same sex “union”, however, is equivocal.

    There does not appear to be a better term than “marriage” to define equal protection under the law for same-sex couples who wish to enter into a civil union.

    The etymology of “matrimony” comes from the word “mother”. This leaves us with two possibilities re the word “marriage”:

    1. The word “matrimony” is irrelevant to the word “marriage”.

    OR:

    2. The two are all but synonyms, and so the consequent question is: In a “union” of two homosexuals who is the mother?

  42. irishgirl says:

    I’m with Marc @ 7:10 pm- I also hope that Our Lord comes back soon and cleans up this mess!
    Why were Americans so stupid as to elect this man as President?

  43. Brooklyn says:

    In the old movie, “Some Like It Hot”, Tony Curtis’s character says at one point: “Why would a man want to marry a man?” This produced a big laugh at that time and for the next 3 decades. But by the 1990′s and beyond, he would be called out by the PC police for being a bigot.

    This is what happens to a world that forgets God. Everything is turned completely upside down and is corrupted. Pope Paul VI had his problems, but he was never more led by the Holy Spirit than when he produced Humanae Vitae. contrarian was right. It all comes down to separating sex from being a life-producing action to one of self pleasure and basically a toy. When Humane Vitae was spurned and ignored, that opened Pandora’s box to sin on a scale that I don’t think this poor miserable world has ever seen before, including the deaths of untold millions and millions of unborn babies. This is exactly what Satan wanted. It seems our president is playing right into the hands of the devil. God have mercy on us all.

  44. Gail F says:

    Don’t just read articles and commentary. Read Attorney General Holder’s letter — it’s on the DOJ web page. It’s a little long and a little lawyer-y, but not that difficult to understand. In addition to saying that he and the President have decided that this law is unconstitutional — which is not their job — he is very clear that the reason it’s unconstitutional is that it discriminates against gay people and there is no legal reason to do so; the only reason to do so is “moral” and therefore wrong. Ergo, denying gay people anything (adoption. etc.) should be viewed as discrimination equal to racial discrimination. As someone else said, check England if you want to see where this is heading. There are two scary things here, folks. Don’t get caught up in the minutia: This is a salvo against religion AND a complete disregard of legal process because the “right people” know what’s best and don’t need pesky laws to do it! Yes, the definition of marriage has to be fought for. But that is secondary to the two bigger issues: Your right to make a moral decision and your right to a government that obeys its own laws.

  45. moon1234 says:

    So then, essentially, polygamy should also be allowed correct? The ONLY objection there is ALSO moral. Honor killing should ALSO be allowed as the only reason to prevent it is MORAL.

    This really is a WAR on society. I fail to understand how people can make this out to be a “civil rights” case. There is nothing CIVIL about it. It is a violent attack on the family and on the proper natural order.

    I predecit that Islamic countries will view the west as “uncivilized” (I think they already do.) for allowing a blatently satanic and un-natural society to exist. How does a good Catholic defend against this statement? Unless we are vocal trying to prevent the collapse of society aren’t we just part of the problem?

    The next few decades will be a very scary time to live through. The United States OF America (meaning 50 states united, not one entity) is heading towards another civil war I do believe. As much as history has drilled into our heads that the CIVIL War (funny oxymoron) was about slavery, it was really about states rights. The southern states wanted out of the “Union” and the North decided they would be forced. It seems to me that we have had a federalist (facist) type national government for much longer than most people would care to admit.

  46. ContraMundum says:

    An argument over whether marriage is defined by the legislature, the courts, or the people is about as sensible as an argument of whether the Roman Emperor could declare someone a god, or whether that power was reserved to the Roman Senate. The definition of marriage is something we receive, not something we create.

  47. Peggy R says:

    It’s not so much, “what is marriage” and “who can get married” under the law. The legal and cultural question is whether there is a need/benefit for civil authorities to recognize unions between a man and a woman as well as unions between 2 men or 2 women. I use economic thinking here.

    1. There is a negative externality of a man and a woman creating a child and not being bound in marriage. Social stability, within the family and in society at large, requires a man and a woman to be joined in a marriage before they produce children. There is a positive externality when a man and a woman marry and produce children who are well-adjusted and who make up the next generation of society to produce goods, govern and care for their parents and so forth.
    2. While gay activity creates a negative externality in the injection of immoral and unnatural relationships, the legal recognition of those relationships provides no positive benefit to society. There is no need for social stability that gay couples “marry.” Gay couples will never, ON THEIR OWN, deliberately or “accidentally”, produce the next generation. We don’t need to contain reproduction and provide social stability by legal recognition of gay unions.
    3. Spouses and children are legally and financially protected by civil governments recognizing natural marital unions. The government must “remain in the business of marriage” for those reasons. Otherwise, we must all sign contracts to file with civil authorities and that provide all the typical rights and responsibilities we are accustomed to in marriage. That sounds messy and could provide an opportunity for deceit by spouses (or lawyers).
    4. This is not about what gay people do on their own or if they find a faith that will “marry” them. Let them file legal contracts with the state to make the various financial protections they seek in their unions. States did not need to pass “civil unions” bills to do this. Any one can enter into contracts. [Oh, but with state endorsement, they get various tax benefits.]

  48. Many good comments – thanks.

    Only thing to add: the gay rights people don’t seem to realize that they are being used, in a similar way to how the pro-life people get used – those who want power will pander to them just exactly to the degree and for exactly as long as it furthers their own interests. When the time comes that gay rights is no longer helpful to the power hungry, gays will be marched to the guillotine without hesitation. The more a True Believer you are, the more likely you are to get axed when the real politic wheel turns.

    Another way to look at it: the opponents of civilization willingly, if you’ll pardon the expression, get in bed with Chinese Communists and Islamic Jihadists who feel no compunction about violating gay rights or women’s rights – as in, killing gays and upitty women. How can this be? How can the same bed hold NOW, gay rights activists, Islamic fundamentalists and Chinese totalitarianism? Only people diabolically ruthless and cynical could do this. Only useful idiots blinded by their hatred of our civilization could accept this arrangement and ignore the inevitability of their eventual sacrifice on the altar of the power hungry’s nihilistic egomania.

    I would think, if I were a gay man, that I’d want very much for Christian ethics to prevail, no matter how frowned upon my activities get, because then I can appeal to the beliefs of my *opponents* to protect my life and rights. Not so with our current President and his pals – it’s just a matter of time until their beliefs ‘evolve’ into wanting to throw you under the bus – and they will not be troubled, let alone inhibited, by old-fashioned moral absolutes.

  49. asophist says:

    Hmmm. . . I thought it was the duty of the president to uphold the laws of the land. . . So, is this impeachment material?

  50. Bornacatholic says:

    Remember, the University of Notre Dame gave Pres. Obama an honorary doctorate in law.

    April 23, 2009. Here is Bishop D’Arcy:

    I consider it now settled — that the USCCB document, “Catholics in Public Life,” does indeed apply in this matter. The failure to consult the local bishop who, whatever his unworthiness, is the teacher and lawgiver in the diocese, is a serious mistake. Proper consultation could have prevented an action, which has caused such painful division between Notre Dame and many bishops — and a large number of the faithful.

    That division must be addressed through prayer and action, and I pledge to work with Father Jenkins and all at Notre Dame to heal the terrible breach, which has taken place between Notre Dame and the church. It cannot be allowed to continue. I ask all to pray that this healing will take place in a way that is substantial and true, and not illusory. Notre Dame and Father Jenkins must do their part if this healing is to take place. I will do my part.

    So, how’d all that work and change work-out for Notre Dame?

    If there were nine Christian Catholics in America who thought Notre Dame would truly be horsed around over this malign act, then I’d be surprised.

    Talk is cheap,
    It pleases some sheep;
    But a Staff-wielder is not a Bo Peep;
    And when no action is taken truth itself weeps

  51. Supertradmum says:

    “The Church looks with concern at the growing attempts to eliminate the Christian concept of marriage and the family from the conscience of society. Marriage is the lasting union of love between a man and a woman, which is always open to the transmission of human life … the success of marriages depends upon us all and on the personal culture of each individual citizen. In this sense, the Church cannot approve legislative initiatives that involve a re-evaluation of alternative models of marriage and family life. They contribute to a weakening of the principles of natural law, and thus to the relativisation of all legislation and confusion about values in society”.

    We only need to add, “executive initiatives”.

    Pope Benedict XVI in September of 2010

  52. Sandra_in_Severn says:

    Repentance, confession and prayer, America needs us.