Catholicvote Endorses Rick Santorum

[XIX]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1332267375' post='2404512']
If you go to [url="http://www.marriageuniqueforareason.org/"]http://www.marriageu...forareason.org/[/url] the bishops outline their stance on marriage. It's true that they are defending traditional marriage against the new push for homosexual marriage, but part of the bishops' stance says that there is no such thing as homosexual marriage.

My argument has three main points, since the push for a national defense of traditional marriage has seen three different attacks:
1) Traditional marriage and the traditional understanding of family as a man and a woman coming together to raise a family is necessary for a good society and for society to thrive. This particular response is directed at those people who don't think that gay marriage is a big deal. First of all, I don't think that gay marriage exists. Secondly, I think that gay marriage is a perversion of marriage and its legalization has the ability to destroy society almost to the point of how the loss of freedom of religion would destroy society. Sure a society can survive in such a situation, but it is no longer a real society. This particular argument also includes the defense of a child's right to have a father and a mother (also harmed by divorce, etc.).



To sum up this particular argument: traditional marriage is at the core of society. Its demise (and we've seen some already) will irreparably harm society in so many ways (I'm willing to list all the possible ways if you're interested). This argument has been attacked by liberals who think that it's a private matter or discrimination, as well as conservatives/libertarians who don't think the government should be involved in such matters. My abortion example is a practical example of how society is protected by laws defending traditional marriage.

2) Marriage is a Natural Law issue. To say that the government shouldn't get involved in defending marriage is to deny implicitly the place of marriage in the natural law. Marriage has two forms: Natural and Sacramental. Natural Marriage is a gift of God to human nature itself and is offered in the sexual differences between men and women. THe government has the right (and now the responsibility) to defend marriage in its natural form. This is a matter of justice: changing the definition of marriage to fit whatever people want is unjust because it is a lie. This argument goes alone with the first argument that marriage is for the good of society as a whole. Natural Marriage falls directly within the question of Natural Law and so it is completely valid to legislate it correctly. (Sacramental Marriage is limited to baptized couples and as such does not fall under the law, except that a valid marriage must take place for the sacramental marriage to be valid.)

Now there are two arguments against this use of Natural Law. The first argument is that the government doesn't have the authority to create laws about marriage. This argument is true insofar as the government cannot legitimately create a law saying that marriage is something other than it is. However, if the government decides to create laws to ensure that traditional marriage is in place, then the government is perfectly within its rights. My argument about licensing with Wincester is that these licenses in fact are a good way to defend marriage. He disagrees but has not posed any viable alternatives within our society. A problem with denouncing our current setup is that you must come up with a valid and viable alternative. I think that licensing works fine in our present situation and I've never heard a priest denounce the practice at all. In fact, I can't think of any bishops off the top of my head who have not supported it.

The second argument against the use of Natural Law in this case revolved around the idea that not all aspects of Natural Law need to be legislated for the common good. Occasionally it is a bad practice for us to try to create laws that are too strict. This argument is proven completely false by the recognition that marriage is an intrinsic part of societal good.

3) The final argument against a national defense of marriage, mostly by libertarians and old conservatives, says that it is a states' rights issue and each state should be allowed to decide. This is as silly a claim as each state should decide whether slavery is permissible or what currency they will use. My recent post with the Maryland law claim shows that it is impossible for each state to decide on their own whether or not they will permit "gay marriage." This argument is tossed out by supporters of Ron Paul as a good thing because they are worried that the federal government will decide to enact "gay marriage." Well, look at Texas' recent Supreme Court case and see what happens when that whole question goes before the United States Supreme Court. It just isn't a practical solution to give it to the states. Again, go to my first response about the good of our society as a whole and you'll see why I think this is a federal issue and not a state issue.

These are really a summary of my position. I hope it helps. Unfortunately the defense of marriage as proposed by the USCCB is being attacked by Catholics on all sides because it either goes too far (and is discriminatory) or it supports a federal state. I think that any Catholic that makes either argument better be careful that they haven't put politics ahead of their religion. Furthermore, I think that neither argument is sustainable.
[/quote]
Point two kinda gets at the heart of my own confusion w.r.t. state-defined marriage vs. nothing.

So point two can be boiled down to: marriage is a part of natural law and is necessary for the overall well-being of society. Therefore, the federal government should be [i][b]actively [/b][/i]involved in defending marriage. amirite?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='XIX' timestamp='1332447328' post='2405507']
Point two kinda gets at the heart of my own confusion w.r.t. state-defined marriage vs. nothing.

So point two can be boiled down to: marriage is a part of natural law and is necessary for the overall well-being of society. Therefore, the federal government should be [i][b]actively [/b][/i]involved in defending marriage. amirite?
[/quote]Exactly.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1332424268' post='2405294']
anyway, what exactly are we arguing about here, btw? what federal policies are you supporting here that has you disagreeing with my call to leave it at a state level? what are you disagreeing with Ron Paul about and agreeing with Santorum about? I'm not quite sure, but I think I might have missed a page or two of this argument. DOMA is a good thing, but I don't want to start legislating something from the Federal Government that disallows states from recognizing contracts between same sex couples, because such legislation would invariably give power to the federal government to start disallowing states from not recognizing those contracts. the Federal government protecting states' rights to hold different laws and different recognitions on the matter is a good thing, IMO.
[/quote]My point is more a theological point or a practical point than a political point, but the first two influence how I see politics. I'm not quite sure how it came up in this thread, because I'm not sure what Santorum has to offer on the question (other than he'd be better than Obama on this issue, see NC for proof of this), but it's become a question of something that I don't think Paul has over Santorum.

While I generally agree with you about states' rights, my state went about gay marriage incorrectly and the Archdiocese of Washington will be paying for it for years (along with just about everyone else in this state). I can list a whole bunch of policies that unfortunately have come to harm both our state's policies, as well as those people/institutions who reside here. I also don't think that leaving it to the states will work in the long run because some will decide wrongly and it will inevitably end up in the federal government's hands. I also don't think it works because of the radical differences between states. This last point will come to haunt us in the end if we're not careful. You're right that the states' ability to issue contracts may be in danger from federal legislation, but I wonder if it isn't already.

As an aside, I brought up DOMA because it shows that the federal government has already taken up the charge on marriage. The question is really can we expect it to stay out, even after Paul's own legislation ideas?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1332421691' post='2405278']
A couple of thoughts.
qfnol31-kudos on the the well thought out posts that illustrate your arguments.

On the point of what is the authority of the Government and their control over religions. It seems one of their biggest complaints is loss of tax exempt status. Personally, I think this is a weak argument because it is not based on moral grounds, but financial only. This should be an argument secondary to the Government forcing the religion to act in a certain way. For example, forcing religions to perform a marriage for any sort 'civil union' the Government allows. qfnol (I think) has a link to an article that makes a good point about employment practices, forcing Religious organizations to hire openly gay or activist persons. I don't know labor laws well enough to know how that would be argued out.[/quote]I'm glad you're willing to read! I realized yesterday just how long these posts have become...You had a comment a few pages back about my statement being indefensible. It really was. I guess I should ask what we hope to gain by allowing gay marriage to exist in our country.

As for this post, the other problem has been on insurance too. I'll say a bit more under the adoption reason because that one haunts Catholic Charities in DC.

[quote]As far as adoption, my thoughts are that a couple have two duties that are important to the State and general welfare, as well as moral obligations in the eyes of the Church. Not only is procreation (being open to life) important, but the joining assumes the couple will look to the welfare of the partner as well as children. A same sex or single parent adopter is making a committemnt to look for the welfare of a child. Though not ideal, it appears that is better than an orphanage or the foster parent system.
[/quote]Obviously the Church will have a hard time arguing who is best fit in the public sphere, but I do have a bit of experience with these situations and unfortunately it may not necessarily be a good thing either. I'm not sure how much I can say here because of the amount of detail it involves, but I can say sadly that less ideal situations can (don't always, but certainly can) become worse than the foster care or orphanage would have been. To back this up would probably take an entire book (but I'm seriously looking at the possibility of writing it).

The real, practical issue that has arisen is whether or not institutions can deny couples the ability to adopt. Catholic Charities no longer provides adoption services in DC because they didn't want to provide adoptions to homosexual couples. DC law also prohibits discrimination of insurance services to same-sex couples, so the Archdiocese no longer offers spousal coverage. I used to work for a company that used the ADW insurance, which was excellent. They happen to be their own insurance company, so the same problems arising with HHS already occurred for ADW with the DC gay marriage law two years ago. I think the same will be true in MD soon too.

[Aloysius]

but DOMA is just federal legislation doing what most federal legislation is supposed to do: defending the rights of states to decide the issue. the DOMA says that one state doesn't have to recognize another state's contract law; that's not the federal government getting involved in marriage at all, it's protecting the states' rights to define marriage as each state sees fit.

[quote]So point two can be boiled down to: marriage is a part of natural law and is necessary for the overall well-being of society. Therefore, the federal government should be [i][b]actively [/b][/i]involved in defending marriage. amirite?
[/quote]

marriage is a part of natural law and is necessary for the overall well-being of society, therefore the United Nations should be actively involved in defining marriage, amirite? therefore the United Federation of Planets should be actively involved in defining marriage, amirite?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1332454530' post='2405573']
but DOMA is just federal legislation doing what most federal legislation is supposed to do: defending the rights of states to decide the issue. the DOMA says that one state doesn't have to recognize another state's contract law; that's not the federal government getting involved in marriage at all, it's protecting the states' rights to define marriage as each state sees fit.



marriage is a part of natural law and is necessary for the overall well-being of society, therefore the United Nations should be actively involved in defining marriage, amirite? therefore the United Federation of Planets should be actively involved in defining marriage, amirite?
[/quote]There's a difference between legitimate questions of subsidiarity and legitimate authority. The latter two don't have legitimate authority (a necessity for enforcing human law); therefore the question of subsidiarity doesn't apply.

[qfnol31]

While you are partially correct in your reading of DOMA, see this also (Source: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ199/html/PLAW-104publ199.htm):

[quote name='Section 3'][color=#000000]SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.[/color]

(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'

``In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any
ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative
bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means
only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife,
and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is
a husband or a wife.''.[/quote]

[kujo]

Rick Santorum is lame...

[the171]

VERMIN SUPREME FOR PRESIDENT!! Free ponies for all!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[Aloysius]

DOMA's definition specifically defines what is meant when a federal document uses the word "marriage", but the actual effective thing that DOMA does is to permit states to decide what marriage is for them; all states under the full faith and credit clause have to recognize marriage licenses of all other states as defined by this document, but they do not have to recognize same-sex marriage licenses. again, this act does nothing to increase federal power or control over marriage, it doesn't define what states mean by marriage, it only says what Congress means when it uses the term marriage, what DOMA actually does is give states the freedom to recognize or not recognize same sex marriages of other states without being compelled by a federal power.

anyway, I view the line you have drawn between the Federal Government, some theoretical North American Union or the European Union, and the United Nations as being totally arbitrary. the only governments within the United States that I view as having legitimate authority over marriage are the state governments.

[qfnol31]

The fact that DOMA has a definition at all is a step above what you want, even though it's not about the marriage contracts themselves. DOMA implies that the government doesn't in fact recognize what the states have accepted (Maryland, DC, Mass., etc.)

Why do you think that the states have the right and not the federal government. I thought you invoked subsidiarity, but I might have done so.

What if there were a Constitutional Amendment? Why wouldn't that be legitimate?

[kujo]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1332557341' post='2406858']
What if there were a Constitutional Amendment? Why wouldn't that be legitimate?
[/quote]

I would not support a constitutional a[color=#000000]mend[/color][color=#000000]ment because I do not believe this issue to be one that ought to be dealt with at the federal level. Of course, that's the answer that I al[/color][color=#000000]most always have--the law of large nu[/color][color=#000000]mbers and the like. While I have no proble[/color][color=#000000]m with the concept of "universal healthcare," I a[/color][color=#000000]m ada[/color][color=#000000]mantly opposed to the creation of an enor[/color][color=#000000]mous [/color][color=#000000]federal bureaucracy tasked with ad[/color][color=#000000]ministering such a progra[/color][color=#000000]m. States ought to be able to draw up their own plans to cover the unique healthcare needs of their inhabitants. Decrease the sa[/color][color=#000000]mple size and you can be [/color][color=#000000]more specific with your plan. On the other hand, the federal govern[/color][color=#000000]ment has NOTHING to do with "straight [/color][color=#000000]marriage" now, and should have si[/color][color=#000000]milarly ZERO involve[/color][color=#000000]ment with "gay [/color][color=#000000]marriage" in the future.[/color]

[qfnol31]

That sounds like a rationalization of a political point of view than a real response.

Why doesn't the federal government have that right if it's in the Constitution, which could be placed there by the states?

Edited March 24, 2012 by qfnol31

[kujo]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1332600932' post='2407020']
That sounds like a rationalization of a political point of view than a real response.

Why doesn't the federal government have that right if it's in the Constitution, which could be placed there by the states?
[/quote]

You're talking about a hypothetical-a[color=#282828]m[/color][color=#000000]end[/color][color=#282828]m[/color][color=#000000]ent that I would not support. That's what I was responding to. I would not support yet another federal incursion on what I believe to be an issue best handled on a state-to-state basis. [/color]

Edited March 24, 2012 by kujo

[Aloysius]

a constitutional ammendment would be legitimate, if one wished to do it. It's not something I think ought to be done, not something I would actively promote or get excited about. If it passed, I'd probably just say "meh." People still live in sin either way, I have no interest in trying to keep those people from signing a contract defining the terms under which they live together. I certainly have an interest in seeing religious adoption agencies have freedom to offer adoption only to heterosexual couples, that's something I would fight for; but to fight to exclude certain contracts from being possible, when I clearly see them as no threat to marriage as the only thing they would mimic would be the mockery of temporary marriage licenses that the state offers, no I don't think I'm very much interested in bothering with that.

in the same way it'd be legitimate, if one wished to do so, to have a Constitutional ammendment banning divorce. I wouldn't support it, but it'd be just as legitimate, and just as much of a protection of society good, but it's not at all something I could ever get behind.

and as a Catholic, thankfully, I'm not required to get behind either of those things. if i stand here and say that we should not grant power over marriage to the federal government, I'm well within my rights to say so as a Catholic.

the definition of what the Federal government means when it uses the word "marriage" is inconsequential to me. in defining it, the Federal Government is NOT saying "gay marriages are not marriages"; it is very clearly saying "any federal document that talks about 'marriage' is talking about a and not b" the DOMA sole purpose, and the purpose of that very definition, is to clearly delineate that the full fait and credit clause does not require any state to recognize a gay marriage from another state.